Monster House - Review

Comment on “Monster House”

Note: This website is not intended for use by minors. The views expressed in this comments section are not necessarily our own. Comments that we deem to be poorly worded, off topic, or threatening will not be published. For free, uncensored discussion visit our forum.

1. Sam Says:
   June 21st, 2006 at 10:40

   I hate it when people say an animated movie didn't need to be done in animation bacause it could have been done in live action. Animation is an artform, not a means to an end. There are so many levels you can enjoy animation on, and to flippantly disregard it just because you think it could be done with live action is just ignorant. I have seen Monster House, and it is a beautifully crafted film. Yes, the story is fun, but the look and feel of it all draws you in just as much as the story.

1. Josh Says:
   June 21st, 2006 at 10:42

   There was nothing flippant about my remarks. I listed some pretty clear reasons why this would have been better as a live action movie... and it wasn't just because it COULD be done as live action. Reread some of what I said Sam.
   
   Of course you're welcome to disagree. Everyone is going to have their own opinion.
   
   One thing we both agree on is that this is a good film. I just think it could have been even better.

1. Sam Says:
   June 21st, 2006 at 14:00

   You're missing the point Josh. Why do people make comic strips when they could just take pictures and add captions to them? Or for that matter, why would anybody want their portrait painted when you could just take a picture? Taking a picture makes you feel like you're really looking at the person, making it more relatable, not to mention saves you a lot of time and money. You know, our technology today makes it possible to make most animated movies in a live action format. Do you think we should go back and redo Snow White or Pinocchio or Sleeping Beauty now because they would be better in live action? Animation, just like portrait painting or cartooning, is an art form. It can be appreciated for its style, technique, and craftsmanship. It can exaggerate features or traits that the artist wants you to focus on more, and diminish the ones that don't matter as much. You say it kept you at arms length and didn't allow you to feel like it could be real. For me, the animation pulled me in. It was an alternate reality that I could still relate to and appreciate for being different. Like I said before, there are many levels you can appreciate this and all animation on. If all of those levels were lost on you I am sorry for you. This movie was not made for people like you.

1. Josh Says:
   June 21st, 2006 at 14:06

   Sam, everything you're saying CAN be true.
   
   Animation can be done just for art's sake.
   
   But that's not the case with this, this isn't that style of animation. Aside from the fantastic design of the house, this isn't artistic work.
   
   It's fairly sub par animation and the script would have worked better as live action for the reasons I outlined.
   
   I'm not missing your point, I just don't think your point is applicable to this particular film, though it's certainly nice that you're so passionate about it.

1. Sam Says:
   June 21st, 2006 at 16:56

   Yes, you are missing the point, and it's clear that you're just not going to get it. Monster House IS artistic work; live action work is too. How can you call any kind of animation not artistic? With an education like that it is clear that I can trust your judgment on the quality of the animation too.

1. Josh Says:
   June 21st, 2006 at 17:00

   Sam, that's a silly, unreasonable, and rather unfair stance to take.
   
   All animation is not artistic and worthy of merit.
   
   If I draw a flipbook of stick figures, is that then valuable art?
   
   Art is a subjective thing. The act of simply drawing something does not instantly make it art.
   
   In this case, in my opinion, some of the artwork in Monster House is of low quality. Thus to me, it has little artistic merit.
   
   If you can't accept that fine, but there's no reason to behave in such a condescending fashion. You're going to have to accept that different people have different opinions on things... particular on things as subjective as art.

1. Sam Says:
   June 21st, 2006 at 20:48

   I'm sorry for getting too personal. We are indeed entitled to our opinions, and I agree with much of your review. If I had taken more time to think through my words I could have said my opinion in a way that wouldn't have offended. I will try to be more careful in the future.

1. Christoph Says:
   June 27th, 2006 at 10:09

   This film was like in the works since the 90's or something but since the budget requirements would had been too massive, this was the reason why they decided to go with CGI seeing that it was still a great script. I think I remember reading about Monster House in Variety when I was in high school like 7 years ago.

1. David Says:
   July 3rd, 2006 at 21:49

   That is the worst movie ive ever seen.I went to a special previewing of it and it was the worst movie ever.In the begining of the movie, the theater was full.By the end of the movie, the theater was half emty. ..
   - Thanks,
   David

1. Josh Says:
   July 3rd, 2006 at 21:51

   People are always claiming when they see something they don't like that the audience leaves. Or conversely, when people see something they like they get it through their heads that there was some sort of positive audience reaction.
   
   This is almost never true, and frankly I have a hard time believing you. I've sat through some of the worst movies ever made, and if it's a free screening nobody leaves. People will watch just about anything if it's free, no matter how bad it is.

1. Sheri Says:
   July 4th, 2006 at 10:55

   Is this movie appropriate to take twenty 7 & 8 year old Girl Scouts to see? Or are some of the sequences too scary? I'm talking 2nd and 3rd graders.

1. Josh Says:
   July 4th, 2006 at 11:37

   First, you're a very brave person.
   
   But yeah, this would probably be fine for girls that age.

1. ME Says:
   July 6th, 2006 at 06:38

   WOW, I find it interesting to read the comments of the author. He/she states:
   
   (Though much of the computer animation in Monster House is by today’s standards somewhat sub par, the look of the house itself is stunning; a beautiful, nightmarish dream that looks like it might have fallen right out of the head of Tim Burton.)
   
   I find it intersting that the animation is "sub-par" considering the method used for this film is "state of the art" and the absolute front end of technology today. Perfomance Animation combines traditional 3D animation techniques with Motion Capture of actual actors as a base underneath.
   
   
   (But it might be nice if someone involved with the film would simply answer this question: Why is this movie animated?)
   
   It is absolutely cheaper to do this than Live Action. Go find a "Film School and Animation Business for Dummies" book and do the numbers yourself.
   
   
   (Were they simply to lazy to bother with child actors?)
   
   As I stated, unlike other animated films where an actor reads a script and only audio with video reference is given to an animator, this film actually captured the movements and facial expressions of the real actors performing theatre style. Then that becomes the performance on the character that you see on screen. What you capture is what you get. How more do you involve real actors? Basically, at this point it is "Live Action" transposed to a 3D character.
   
   
   Just my 2 cents. I may happen to have a little professional insite into this process. Was I involved, hummm that's up to you to decide. If I was, I would be under contract not to say, so I don't say.
   
   Oh and another piece of insite, NO ONE and I MEAN NO ONE that does Animation/Visual Effects refers to it as "CGI". That is a dead give-away that you DON'T. If you are looking for a quick reference just say "CG". Just thought I was share that info. We always read these blog's and easily figure out who does not have a clue of what they are talking about. Make it more complicated by using the correct terms....
   
   Sincerely,
   ME

1. Rafe Says:
   July 6th, 2006 at 06:45

   ME -
   
   You can disagree with us all you want. You can drop your professional insight and tell us you were completely involved and are, in fact, Robert Zemeckis if you want to. But DON'T refer to us as a blog. We have some standards man!

1. matt Says:
   July 11th, 2006 at 22:08

   hey, i thought the movie was pretty good. I don't why people are arguing why it is or isn't better that they performed this movie in animation. It's seemingless, but I guess it gives you guys something to argue about. Overall it was a good movie but itwas a little bit childish in most ways.
   Thats all.
   -Matt

1. DJ Says:
   July 25th, 2006 at 20:08

   This is the second best animated film in the world. Sam was right,no offense Josh. The animating took out the worst qualities,and enhanced the best. I'd say that if they'd done this live-action,it would've attracted little to no attention. It's especially fun to watch Jenny and Z bargain each other,and Chowder run like crazy and when he looks back.
   What scared /me/ the most is when the House re-established itself and became a big square-ish ball of wood and evil-ness. I literally screamed in the theater,and that attracted the attention of the usher. I can't believe they still have those here.
   Anyways.. I say second best,because there is one movie reigning first that will remain first for many years to come: Cars The Movie. Sorry folks,but that's the end of my debate. Bye bye now,take care then.

1. JRJP Says:
   August 24th, 2006 at 13:29

   I agree with your comparison to the Goonies with the way the film paves out and the children adventure where it is all about the children. I dont know whether it would work as a live action film but it would certainly be intresting. And also -going back to the Goonies- younger Sean Astin as Chouder??
   
   The reason this comment is ages after all the others is that i am in the UK were the film has just come out.

1. tom lee Says:
   September 1st, 2006 at 09:55

   hi i m from malaysia, and this movie only recently released here, and although i'm reluctant and seldom watch animated movies, i must say that i was pleasantly surprised by the AMAZING QUALITY of the animations (especially the begiining where the girl rode her tricycle? and the effect of the "autumn leaves" IS JUST INCREDIBLE there're beautiful!!
   
   the storyline is ok too
   
   the expressions on the main actors face was again so life-like and amazing
   
   
   
   

1. Marya Khan Says:
   March 22nd, 2007 at 00:13

   I LOVE THIS MOVIE..I HAVE NO PROBS WITH WATCHING IT 100 TIMES...I SAW THIS MOVIE IN THEATRE..IT ROCKS!!!!!!!

1. emon Says:
   October 26th, 2007 at 12:42

   monster house was awsome the first time i saw it i was scared and i kept on shrieking it was of da hook

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Security Code (required)