Reviews: Monstersvs Aliens

Nearly Note Perfect

This movie is a homage to classic science-fiction movies of the past, and it shows. The work is riddled with clever nods and references to old science fiction movies.

The few minor complaints I have is that, aside from Ginormica, the other monsters aren't really used as much. Which makes sense, as Ginormica has pretty much won the Super Power Lottery. In comparison, we've got Dr. Cochroach, who's a Mad Scientist, B.O.B who's stretchy and pretty much indestructible, and then there's Link, who's strong, and can swim, which isn't really that impressive compared to Ginormica, a fact that the movie continually lampshades. Until the end, Link doesn't really get any chance to shine, but it's not much.

Apart from that, the characters are witty and the story is engaging, though I did roll my eyes a little at the DDR security system and Dr. C having a 'PHD in dance' to beat it. I enjoyed this movie immensely, have watched it multiple times and will probably watch it again in the future.

What a disappointment

This is arguably one of the most disappointing films I've ever laid witness to.

Monsters Vs. Aliens. A Sci-Fi comedy that pays homage to the monster movies of the 1950s. That alone on paper sounds like such an awesome idea. Think of the untapped potential in that concept alone.

I was psyched. Think of the possibilities!

Then the cheesy trailers and concept/promotional art came out.

Oh my god humanity you did it again, you screwed up the 'un-screw-up-able'. Forget the story and half-arsed comedy routine/lame puns for now. I honestly don't care about that. Let's just focus our attention on the look and feel of the character designs... its like DreamWorks didn't even care. The humans, the monsters, the aliens, they all look aesthetically-speaking, goofy at best, and hideously ugly at worse.

I cannot comprehend how you could fudge this up. You have an entire world of Kaiju and giant monsters to draw inspiration from guys. Toho of Japan has practically done your research and homework for you! Yet you go out of your way to be "original" and come up with some pretty ludicrous designs. This astounds me...

Insectosaurus is your idea of... your fictional-universe equivalent/expy of... Godzilla? You people ARE HIGH if you sincerely think that abomination of 'derpiness' is an intimidating, awe-inspiring, marketable monster creature. And its not even cute! I can understand if you were going for the 'ugly-cute appeal'. But look at your own work - your efforts clearly fall flat of that expectation.

How can I get invested or immersed in your work if you clearly weren't?

You know what's really sad? Look up "Superman: The Arctic Giant". Go on. Look it up. That was created back in 1942. Superman's adventures defeating a Godzilla-like monster that terrorizes the city. That ancient cartoon has more dignity, is far more faithful to the title of this film "Monsters (Artic Giant) Vs. Aliens." (Superman), than Dream Work's entire $175 million production made in 2009.

One can only hope that "Godzilla: All Monsters Attack!" will someday get the green light. If there's any semblance of justice in this world, of course:

Derivative and Bland

This is a DreamWorks picture clearly made by people who don't care. Every element is dull, uninspired, and lifeless. The plot is obvious and dull; it's like reading though the TV Tropes article. Every plot point is telegraphed in the most ham-fisted manor. The humor is flat and predictable; if you've ever seen a DreamWorks picture before, you've already seen these jokes. On occasion, the jokes work, but not nearly often enough.

The characterization is the biggest misstep; they are made from the flimsiest cardboard. In the early going, the film enjoys forgetting about the main character, instead treating us to the titular Aliens invading. For a good 10 minutes. That's fine and all, but we barely got any character establishment before cutting away; you can't just dump the main character 15 minutes into the film.

Indeed, we never really learn much about Susan. All we know is that she has parents and that she was about to be married to some jerk. That's all.

Here's an example. In her intro scene, she goes on and on about seeing Paris. Why? We never find out why it's so important to her that she go to Paris. It just is. You would think, given how much they harp on it (not to mention the ending) that there would be a scene where she explains why it mattered. But nope; the film just doesn't care.

The supporting cast is nothing more than a set of caricatures. The supporting creatures get exactly one characteristic, and that's it. The insect guy is smart, the blob is dumb, and the Missing Link has an inferiority complex.

Here is the film's idea of "character development." After a hard-fought battle where Susan basically won single-handedly, the others are depressed. So she gives them a pep talk. There: characters developed.

The villain is probably the worst. He spouts cliche dialog ad nausium. Almost every line of dialog he has is a copy-and-paste job from a dozen other movies.

The sentiment of the story is appreciated; I get what they're trying to say. It's just that this film says it in such a boring, obvious, lumbering, overbearing, and tedious way that the message itself is irrelevant. It's just not worth the cost of having to sit through it.

Overall, it's watchable, but you can do much better for 90 minutes of your life.
  • son
  • 3rd Mar 13
  • 2

Did I miss something? part one

Among the surprisingly common dreamworks critics that exist on the internet, there are two post-shrek films that are lauded by the would be haters of the production company. Monsters vs. Aliens and How To Train Your Dragon (the latter will be reviewed on a later date).

The story focuses on a new "Monster" named Susan (codename: Ginormica), after being exposed to a strange energy (on her wedding day no less) her hair turns white and (as her name suggest) she grows in size. She's captured by the government where she meets other monster characters who are parodies of B-movie creatures (an insect man, the missing link, a blob-monster, and a giant catepillar... thing). The government wants to use the monsters as a team to fight these aliens who plan to invade the Earth. Susan must come to grips with her new fate and help her friends fight off the alien invaders.

I never really understood the appeal of this film. I've heard that its supposed to be an affectionate parody of B-movie monster flicks but.... so? Why does that automatically make the movie good? I think this film could have been more enjoyable to watch had I seen it in 3D. Because the plot is otherwise non-existant, the 3D experience and visuals could have added to what was otherwise a mediocre experience. Don't get me wrong, there are a few good jokes (usually from Bob the blob monster) and the film isn't necessarily bad. Granted there aren't any dreamworks movies that I absolutely loathe (shrek 3 is on the bottom but its still watchable IMO). I just don't think it deserve the pedestal many have given it. this?!?

When I bought Monsters vs Aliens, I honestly didn't think I'd be impressed beyond any comedy value that Mv A brought. I thought it was something the younger ones could enjoy and I could use it as brownie points to earn extra time on the Wii while they were watching the movie (Metroid Prime takes a while to beat on %100).

I was wrong. I was very dead wrong.

I actually paid more attention to the movie than any my younger siblings. I was engaged in it's extremely interesting plot and character development of the monsters, mostly Susan (or 'Ginormica'). The gags were funny, don't get me wrong, but the action scenes, animation, voice acting and the DRAMA (of all things) were done very, very well. I was amazed. I was stunned.

The characters, as I said before, are very well done. Susan's problems are handled very believably, shown that her new size comes with some very unfortunant side-effects (she could accidentally squish any of her family members on accident and nearly kisses her boyfriends head off). She's my favorite character. She's a female protagonist...that was actually done very, very well. She's not a Jerk Sue and she is not slutty (unlike most hollywood female protagonists that I could name) and her personality is, shall I say it, Three-Dimensional.

That isn't to say the rest of the characters arn't. Dr. Cockroach? Brilliant. Believable. FUNNY. You can easily tell he has a lot of intelligence behind him, and it's believable (even if making a supercomputer from several pizza boxes, a can of hairspray and a paperclip isn't) The Missing Link and B.O.B are great too, and I love General Monger. Even the Villain seems three dimensional. The whole reason behind his schemes is implied to be, wait. That would really be spoiling. The only character I would accuse of being two-dimensional is The President, but he's funny.

The only flaw that I can see in this film is that they try a little too hard on some of the jokes, thus making it too over the top to be funny for This Troper.

It is, really, an excellent film with almost no flaws except for a couple of over done gags. Buy it, and display it PROMINENTLY.

The only question is...How are they going to stop the nukes that were launched during the credits?