Monster House

Name: Monster House
Genre: Mystery, Fantasy, Comedy, Animation, Family
Released: July 21, 2006
Duration: 91 min
Rating: 68
Cast: Mitchel Musso, Sam Lerner, Spencer Locke

2006

METASCORE

Generally favorable reviews based on 32 Critics

See All

USER SCORE

Universal acclaim based on 280 Ratings

See All

8.4

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

8.4	Your Score
8.4	User Score Universal acclaim based on 280 Ratings

Would you like to write a review?

There is a 75 character minimum for reviews. If your review contains spoilers, please check the Spoiler box. Please do not use ALL CAPS. There is no linking or other HTML allowed. Your review may be edited for content. 0/5000

Check box if your review contains spoilers

Please enter your birth date to watch this video:

You are not allowed to view this material at this time.

MONSTER HOUSE

Movie Details & Credits

Sony Pictures Entertainment (SPE) | Release Date: July 21, 2006

Starring: Mitchel Musso, Sam Lerner, Spencer Locke

Summary: 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)

Director: Gil Kenan

Genre(s): Mystery, Fantasy, Comedy, Animation, Family

Rating: PG

Runtime: 91 min

See All Details and Credits

Awards & Rankings

81	#81 Most Discussed Movie of 2006
67	#67 Most Shared Movie of 2006

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy On

Stream On

Metascore

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Critic Reviews

Christian Science Monitor - Peter Rainer

Kenan never loses sight of the wonderment that children (and adults) experience when the inanimate becomes animate. Anthropomorphism is basic to the art of animation. So is a good story, and Kenan has that, too. Read full review

Film Threat - Pete Vonder Haar

One of the best movies of the year, and a great accomplishment for Messrs. Harmon and Schrab. Maybe now we’ll get a feature length "Robot Bastard" movie. Read full review

Los Angeles Times - Kevin Crust

Has a return-to-innocence sweetness that recalls some of the work of another of its executive producers - Steven Spielberg. Kids may grow up too fast today to embrace the film's familiar message of the virtues of an unhurried adolescence, but it's nice to be reminded of the possibility. Read full review

The A.V. Club - Keith Phipps

Director Gil Kenan has a feel for dizzying "camera" work, and the screenplay combines witty gags with a sweet, albeit familiar, suggestion that kids shouldn't be in any great hurry to be anything but kids. Read full review

San Francisco Chronicle - Mick LaSalle

Monster House was designed as a family movie and a scary movie. It may scare children, but it won't terrify them. So it's no scarier than it should be. Read full review

TV Guide Magazine - Maitland McDonagh

Surprisingly enough, puberty-stricken J.D. and Chowder actually sound like real teenagers, but the cartoony look will probably alienate real-life kids that age, and the man-eating house might be downright terrifying to younger kids. Read full review

Washington Post - Ann Hornaday

A grisly, often cynical piece of work whose joyless, aggressive spirit is made even less appealing by its soulless visual style. Read full review

SEE ALL 32 REVIEWS

Write a Review

User Reviews

AllistairP

Oct 24, 2006

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.

3 of 3 users found this helpful

[Anonymous]

Jul 31, 2006

This movie was surreal - this awesome animation was impressive. The animation was detailed enough to capture the characters as if it were live action. It was edgy enough for the older audiences without losing the kids' interest. Loved it!

0 of 0 users found this helpful

RyanP.

Jul 27, 2006

Extreamly well done, with a fun and exctiting story line. If you have a chance to see it in 3D as I did, do so. It's worth the extra dollar for the glasses.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

MediaCritic

Oct 18, 2011

The movie is an average animation with a tiny bit of fright for the children. It has a basic but good story to it, and has some funny moments, along with some creepy ones. This is not a horror movie, it is a comedy animation, yet there are some scary scenes for the children. Not reallyThe movie is an average animation with a tiny bit of fright for the children. It has a basic but good story to it, and has some funny moments, along with some creepy ones. This is not a horror movie, it is a comedy animation, yet there are some scary scenes for the children. Not really scary, just a bit. It's a good movie, but it isn't anything better than an average animation. Great fun to watch however, as it is a good movie overall.… Expand

0 of 4 users found this helpful04

MovieLonely94

Nov 7, 2010

its scary, but perfect

1 of 5 users found this helpful14

skiercjd

Dec 8, 2006

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 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.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

Patrick

Aug 18, 2006

Yet another dull, samey CGI to add to the ever growing list. The script was terrible, and the characters were souless.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

SEE ALL 53 REVIEWS