Monsters, Inc. (2001)
Grade: A-
Voice Cast: John Goodman, Billy Crystal, Mary Gibbs, Steve Buscemi, James Coburn, and Jennifer Tilly
Directors: Pete Docter and David Silverman
Rated G

“Monsters, Inc.” certainly has passed the test of quality, because I liked it. Why, you ask, is that a test of quality? Because lately I have found that “Monsters, Inc.” is not my kind of movie. Anything that anyone could even remotely describe as cute (and yes, “Monsters, Inc.” most definitely can, whether I like that or not) doesn’t seem to be my cup of tea, and that I can offer such passionate praise in its favor is a pretty strong indication that it ain’t your average brainless chunk of kiddie diversion. As someone who laughed very loudly (and if I refuse to apologize for it, I can at least admit a little shame) at such things as the Bungie Wedgie in “Jackass The Movie”, it ought to be a pretty significant sign of quality when I’m enjoying stuff like this.

“Monsters, Inc.” is funny, very funny. We meet Mike (voice of Billy Crystal), who is basically an eye with green arms, legs, and eyelids. He’s best friends with Sully (voice of John Goodman). Sully is the leading scarer at the titular corporation which scares children to obtain energy from their reactive screams, the town’s energy source. Sully has to be his scariest to stay at the top, and the opening scenes have Mike delivering a wake-up call and prepping Sully by having him practice his scary facial reactions and stances. The monsters are told to never come in contact with a human child because they are toxic (an enormously detailed detoxification takes place because of a sock stuck to the back of one monster).

“Monsters, Inc.” is touching, very touching. Randall (voice of Steve Buscemi), Sully’s central competition, cheats on his scares and accidentally lets a little girl into Monsters, Inc. Sully finds her and is forced to take care of her, despite his initial fear and extreme reluctance (I mean, after all, these things are toxic!). He eventually develops an unmistakable bond with the child, who he has named Boo, and we feel something is at stake because of the fear Sully has when she is in danger. The final scene is as happy as can be, but there is a wise and extremely effective anti-ending where we know things are good, but there is an ambiguity in the way it presents the conclusion so that we have no idea how the characters’ lives will unfold from here on. Despite the mystery, it is as warm and beautiful as anything else in the film.

“Monsters, Inc.” is beautiful, very visually beautiful. Whereas “Shrek” (the hip, more comedy-driven computer-animated fairy tale that beat this film out for the Best Animated Picture Oscar) was all neon greens and browns, “Monsters, Inc.” has an ingeniously assorted color palette, making for something the human eye never finds predictable. “Monsters, Inc.” would still have fantastic animation, though, if it were in black and white. The attention to detail renders it almost as background-driven as, say, “The Royal Tenenbaums” (which is, of course, not animated); the hairs on Sully’s back glisten with a distinct realism.

This all makes for an entertaining film. But what takes “Monsters, Inc.” ahead of the class (hint: the class = “Shrek”, even if the difference in quality is sparse) is its cleverness. “Monsters, Inc.” aspires to be something different, and as a result has an amazing surplus of invention. The design of the monsters alone is brilliant, but entire scenes carry more brilliance than most films altogether. My favorite? The door sequence. If you’ve seen the movie you know what I’m talking about, and if you haven’t I won’t ruin it for you. “Monster, Inc.” is as layered as I’m making it sound—the coating is the eye-popping animation; underneath the wondrous visual façade is the unsurprising but nevertheless pleasing wit; the second layer is the emotional side of the film, which is never quite as corny as these kinds of films sometimes promise to be; and finally, the filling in the middle is all the thought that has been put into making “Monsters, Inc.”, frame by frame, come off as satisfying as it could possibly be.

Are there exceptions to the spell of “Monsters, Inc.”? Sure there are. For some reason, the pacing seems a little off, and there is a sequence (before—and this is a mild spoiler—Mike and Sully get stranded in the snow) with Randall that seems obligatory; if ever a villain needed to be a supporting character it was here, because Randall is simply not scary enough to warrant more than a little screen time.

But forget about all that. “Monsters, Inc.” is one of last year’s most entertaining family movies. See it and experience one of the most relentlessly clever, amusing, and emotional cinematic experiences in a long while.


-Alex, November 2002