GameSpot | GameFAQs | SportsGamer | Metacritic | MP3.com | TV.com
 |
|
||||
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Upcoming Release Calendar
34
10,000 B.C. Stars indicate the most critically-acclaimed movies.
97
4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days Stars indicate the most critically-acclaimed movies.
|
Monster House
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
||||||||||||
MPAA RATING: PG for scary images and sequences, thematic elements, some crude humor and brief language
Starring Steve Buscemi, Nick Cannon, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Jon Heder, Kevin James, Jason Lee, Sam Lerner, and Spencer Locke
Columbia Pictures and executive producers Robert Zemeckis and Steven Speilberg present Monster House, an exciting and hilarious thrill-ride tale about three kids who must do battle with a mysterious house that threatens anyone who crosses its path. (Columbia Pictures)
| GENRE(S): | Adventure | Animation | Comedy | Drama | Family/Kids | Fantasy | Mystery |
| WRITTEN BY: |
Dan Harmon (also story)
Rob Schrab (also story) Pamela Pettler |
| DIRECTED BY: | Gil Kenan |
| RELEASE DATE: |
DVD: October 24, 2006 Theatrical: July 21, 2006 |
| RUNNING TIME: | 91 minutes, Color |
| ORIGIN: | USA |
All critic scores are converted to a 100-point scale. If a critic does not indicate a score, we assign a score based on the general impression given by the text of the review. Learn more...
The average user rating for this movie is 7.6 (out of 10) based on 41 User Votes
Note: User votes are NOT included in the Metascore calculation.
EconomistBR gave it a4:
I didn't enjoy this movie, the plot was nasty, unlike Shrek for example Monster House is not a family movie it's a small kids and babies movie.
skier cjd gave it a6:
This was a very good movie - except for the one and only fatal flaw I'll mention later. It strikes a nice balance between faux-realism (Sky Captain) and talking whatever (every other CG movie). The visual styling achieved through performance capture is a very creative, unique, if not over-the-top approach - and actually done well. It certainly adds a layer of organic quality to the acting that of most other CGI films miss. Nevertheless, it doesn't skimp on top-tier animation. Like most, it does a nice job retaining the believable faux-filmed shot effect, but differentiates again by doing so with zero motion blur. A rare but cool effect. The only problem is that it reveals the limitations of standard 24-30FPS frame rates. That'll probably be coincidentally addressed as soon as HD replaces most DVD players. The characters were expectedly a bit stereotypical, but seemed offset by the convincing dialogue exchanges. They actually made the idea of PG-rated horror targeting kids work without feeling too sappy and calculated for adults, for the most part. While capturing the aspects of live action horror better than expected, it certainly wasn't too scary, crude, or gruesome for children. That wouldn't be true had the same scenes been shot with a real-life quality. Its not as family oriented as anything done by Disney/Pixar, but that's all they do albiet well - why should EVERY CG movie be THE SAME sappy family adventure with these calculated infallible performances that avoid ever sounding like a conversation any real person over 8 could ever relate to? I'm not saying Disney's are bad, on the contrary, but enough critcism that others don't immitate them. I'm still waiting for more PG-13 and (oh my) an R-rated CG movie that follows more along the lines of the anti-family-appeal types such as Antz or Shark Tale. The only thing that made this a 6 out of 10 vs. a 9 out of 10 - warning: [***SPOILERS***]: the ending. At the point where I knew the credits were about to roll, I was sure that nobody that was shown getting killed had any chance of coming back. They were all throwaway characters that deserved it. It was clear the ending would have no stupid epilogue or open ending, so it had NO reason to give any explanation as to what happened to the deceased and how that would affect their community - let people think a little bit. The ending, of course, was cheery in regard to main and uninvolved characters surviving. If any that didn't deserve it in context had died, it would've been quite inappropriate for children. Actually the ending I almost got made far more sense than most live action films that go the other way and overemphasize this unnecessarily grim or unbelievably stupid ending as if trying to pull one over people. I was so glad it didn't do the cheesy, predictable thing that only a true bubble-gum-pop kid-flick that barely cost a few million bucks to make would have any right to do... until it did! Until this, I'd though this movie was above and beyond that worthless tripe. All the characters that died in the movies time frame was resurrected without having learned a single thing. The first was a VERY convincingly portrayed stereotypical drunk stoner drop-out, that has to exist and get killed in every real horror film unless developed any further than that (in which case they still tend to get slashed). So what kind of message is this conveying? I'm confused. They took as much liberty as PG-rating could've possibly allowed by having the clearly underaged "bones" hammered while making abusive sexual passes. Add an F-word to that scene and the MPAA would've been questioning if that scene deserved an R-rating. This complete inconsistency really undermined the entire premise that the house was ever something to fear, and that the movie wasn't a total waste of time. If you can pretend this wasn't part of the movie, its still good. Take my advice and hit the stop button as soon as you hear the credit roll coming. Your kids will thank you.
Matt A gave it a9:
I enjoyed this movie. It reminded me of a flashback to when I used to watch "youth" intended movies as a kid. The focus on kids on an Adventure, without the help of adults and being the underdogs. Some potty humor, but a lot of stuff that just went back to basic actions or thinking patterns of ordinary kids. The story was great, and not hard to follow, although it did get a little far-fetched at the end, but who doesn't like a good over-the-top ghost story. I do. Thumbs up.
Sean M gave it a9:
A fantastic animated feature that unfortunately went underrated or over the heads of most who saw it. This is one of the few films that really seems to understand what pre-pubescent boys are like, and captures it perfectly in a very imaginative setting, with a true visual style. The kids are likeable and unprecocious, and their comedic timing is perfect. The performance capture also makes for some incredibly expressive animation, not to be missed. Also, I have to laugh at the reviewer who figures this is all a marketing scheme for a Disney ride - which is pretty funny considering it was made by Sony.
cb by gave it a5:
Great graphics. Not the best or funniest animated movie. The last part was a bit exaggerative but the rest was fairly good.
skier cjd gave it a6:
This was a very good movie - except for the one and only fatal flaw I'll mention later. It strikes a nice balance between faux-realism (Sky Captain) and talking whatevers (every other CG movie). The visual styling acheived through performance capture is a very creative, unique, if not over-the-top approach - and actually done well. It certainly adds a layer of organic quality to the acting that most other CGI films miss. Nevertheless, it doesn't skimp on top-tier animation. Like most, it does a nice job retaining the beleivable faux-filmed shot effect, but differentiates again by doing so with zero motion blur. A rare but cool effect. The only problem is that it reveals the limitations of standard 24-30FPS frame rates. That'll probably be coincidentally addressed as soon as HD replaces most DVD players. The characters were expectedly a bit stereotypical, but seemed offset by the convincing dialogue exchanges. They actually made the idea of PG-rated horror targeting kids work without feeling too sappy and calculated for adults, for the most part. While capturing the aspects of live action horror better than expected, it certainly wasn't too scary, crude, or gruesome for children. That wouldn't be true had the same scenes been shot with a real-life quality. Its not as family oriented as anything done by Disney/Pixar, but that's all they do albiet well - why should EVERY CG movie be THE SAME sappy family adventure with these calculated infallible performances that avoid ever sounding like a conversation any real person over 8 could ever relate to? I'm not saying Disney's are bad, on the contrary, but enough critcism that others don't immitate them. I'm still waiting for more PG-13 and (oh my) an R-rated CG movie that follows more along the lines of the anti-family-appeal types such as Antz or Shark Tale. The only thing that made this a 6 out of 10 vs. a 9 out of 10 - warning: [***SPOILERS***]: the ending. At the point where I knew the credits were about to roll, I was sure that nobody that was shown getting killed had any chance of coming back. They were all throwaway characters that deserved it. It was clear the ending would have no stupid epilogue or open ending, so it had NO reason to give any explanation as to what happened to the deceased and how that would affect their community - let people think a little bit. The ending, of course, was cheery in regard to main and uninvolved characters surviving. If any that didn't deserve it in context had died, it would've been quite innappropiate for children. Actually the ending I almost got made far more sense than most live action films that go the other way and overemphasize this unnecessarily grim or unbelievably stupid ending as if trying to pull one over people. I was so glad it didn't do the cheesy, predictable thing that only a true bubble-gum-pop kid-flick that barely cost a few million bucks to make would have any right to do... until it did! Until this, I'd though this movie was above and beyond that worthless tripe. All the characters that died in the movies time frame was resurrected without having learned a single thing. The first was a VERY convincingly portrayed stereotypical drunk stoner drop-out, that has to exist and get killed in every real horror film unless developed any further than that (in which case they still tend to get slashed). So what kind of message is this conveying? I'm confused. They took as much liberty as PG-rating could've possibly allowed by having the clearly underaged "bones" hammered while making abusive sexual passes. Add an F-word to that scene and the MPAA would've been questioning if that scene deserved an R-rating. This complete inconsistency really undermined the entire premise that the house was ever something to fear, and that the movie wasn't a total waste of time. If you can pretend this wasn't part of the movie, its still good. Take my advice and hit the stop button as soon as you hear the credit roll coming. Your kids will thank you.
Allistair P gave it a10:
The perfect animated film and my favorite film of 2006. So much fun and so many levels of artistic genius behind the great story and dialogue.
 |
Return to top of page |  |
