Monsters vs. Aliens: The Twitter Reviews

Monster vs Aliens

I’m still on the fence about whether I’ll subject myself to Monsters vs. Aliens, but I’ve been getting a kick from reading other people’s thoughts about the film on Twitter. The usefulness of a service like Twitter is in its aggregation of opinions, while its 140-character limit forces users to boil down their thoughts into a clear opinion. You can keep up with a steady stream of average moviegoer’s thoughts by looking at the following search results: “Monsters vs Aliens” and “MVA”.

Here is a random selection of Twitters about MvA:

gobzero Saw Monsters vs Aliens tonight. It was pretty damn funny!

jttiki MvA was better than I thought it would be, but it ain’t Pixar.

mattholley Went and saw Monsters vs Aliens…hilarious! I love a good animated flick

michaelkwan Just got back from Monsters vs. Aliens. The 3D made for a fun movie experience.

hownottowrite MvA: The real sad thing is that the jokes in the trailers are funnier than they are in the movie. Dang, and I thought I was a bad writer…

kmvassey Back from MvA. It was great, and the 3D was really good. Definitely the best 3D I’ve seen from any film or ride yet. Good stuff. :)

FyodorFish Glad I saw MvA at a advance screening then. Don’t know if I’d pay that much to see MvA.

linuxrebel MvA was so funny at so many levels kid and adult. You gotta go.

Ske7ch MvA was cute. Superb animation but character development was lacking. Oh well, it’s just a kids’ movie.

shdowchsr Monsters vs. Aliens was fun. I suspect that most people had no idea why what they were laughing at was funny.

KuraFire Monsters vs. Aliens is fun, but not very polished. Lip sync was mediocre; lot of missed opportunities for jokes; too high a Disney factor.

crossstreet monsters vs aliens. good movie. lots of geek reference, esp liked part with a missile saying “ET go Home” soundtrack at the time was from ET

dylanthunter MvA gets my seal of approval, very entertaining… the last 5 mins were sorta wtf but sshh… that’s just b/w me and the internet

jesusnerd4ever really enjoyed Monsters vs Aliens. I totally think everyone should see it!

fynesy Dreamworks latest movie (MvA): good fun. Seeing it on IMAX in 3D.. Amazing…

And, of course, our very own jerrybeck: Saw MvA. Here’s my first impression. The good news: The art direction is superb. The bad news: There are no laughs. A major disappointment.


  • Nick

    Just got back from MvA, and hate to say it but where’s the beef? By beef I mean story. It is official I’m no longer going to the movies this year, with the exception of Up. I think the theatre might be a good substitute. An interesting musical called Assassins is performing at La Habra Depot Theatre, sounds really good.

  • tekena

    Hep Hep, The giant woman looked cute to me for the longest but the shot up there, showing all the detail, reminds me of this girl at my school with a gross spitting stutter.

  • http://www.michaelspornanimation.com/splog/ Michael Sporn

    Nick, Assassins is really good in any version anywhere. It’s all in the writing. That’s also why MvA stinks.

  • Jason

    I really have no desire to see MvA. The trailers don’t look appealing at all. Now of course I’m not a 6-year-old kid; otherwise I’m sure I’d be salivating over this film. But this looks like a giant step backward for Dreamworks. (Although it’ll still make money, of course. And that’s what Dreamworks is all about. Katzenberg has made it pretty clear that Dreamworks isn’t in the business of making art.)

  • http://trnorton.com Tennessee

    I saw the free ASIFA screening. Perhaps my expectations were lower than most but I actually liked the movie. Granted I didn’t pay a thing AND I got free popcorn and a drink along with toys of Mothasaurus and Bob. (YOU SHOULD JOIN ASIFA FOLKS !!)

    Gotta say the kids in the audience were far more into it than anyone and in the end maybe thats all that matters. The movie did seem pretty faithful to the old Saturday afternoon Creature Features I grew up with.

    The stereoscopic was fine but more of an afterthought.
    Coraline is still the greatest Stereoscopic presentation I have ever seen.

  • http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=052C631F61EE2838 Iain

    I can understand Jerry’s brief comments, there really wasn’t much laugh-out-loud jokes in it, but I thought it was more of a spoofy action-adventure show rather than just comedy.

    I was expecting that Dreamworks would go back to their usual pop-culture taste with “Madagascar 2″ and this, but it is a bit hard to adjust back to that after the spetacular “Panda” from last year, which had little to no pop-cult jokes.

  • Cyber Fox

    Let me state this clear, Unlinke Kung Fu Panda which is a parody of a popular genre of film namely Kung Fu Films, Monsters vs Aliens is a parody of campy 1950s science fiction films, we all expect negative comments to happen but that happened to another omage to campy sci-fi namely “Mars Attacks!”. even though the film won’t please anyone with the goal in mind as in spoofing campy 1950s sci fi as not everyone likes that kind of film, I find it interesting that this film is not heavily marketed like Madagacar 2, Kung Fu Panda and Dreamworks’ last stinker namely “Bee Movie” but be that as it may, often times it can be a good or bad thing as films that are crap to both the public and critics are heavily marketed like Disaster Movie for example. I am looking forward to this film as it has the intention to be a fun movie and after seeing a fair share of campy sci fi (courtesy of MST3k), it will be quite enjoyable.

  • Lucy

    “Assassins” is rarefied Sondheim indeed and Dreamworks should put it into development right away for 2011. Of course, it would have to be reworked into a tale of historical killers uniting to build a huge weapon that farts, but just imagine the cool merch.

  • http://wardomatic.blogspot.com Ward

    Cyber Fox, you obviously haven’t been watching kid-centered networks because they’ve been promoting this thing for months.

    Regarding story/writing for this film: umm, it’s title “Monsters vs. Aliens”, people. You think there’s going to be much of a story in it? It’s a popcorn movie! Watch it with not much expectations and you might actually enjoy it. I did. It was entertaining. The kids enjoyed it, too.

  • Mark K.

    “Nick, Assassins is really good in any version anywhere. It’s all in the writing”

    It’s a flawed, and an incredibly fascinating work. And I’ve seen a BAD production (Broadway), and a great one (regional, in Los Angeles). Not Sondheim’s best, and let’s hope dw doesn’t do it, because they might give it to Tim Burton and let him ruin it, too!

  • Pedro Nakama

    Let me add to the twits who twittered…
    It’s a very funny movie. After seeing Kung Fu Panda, Madagascar 2 and this film, I’d have to admit I think DreamWorks actually hired writers.

    It does have a strong female lead. Some people in the animation industry may not like that thinking women should only be in the ink and paint department. ; )

  • http://saturdaymorningcentral.com Tommy Day

    Saw MvA in 3D last night, and was pretty disappointed. There were lots of innuendo and suggestive jokes, which I always see as desparate when done in an animated film. Some of the slapstick was occasionally funny, but most of the time I was just laughing at Seth Rogen. There were lots of moments my wife looked at me and we just cringed.

  • Paul

    I liked most of the animation and the imaginative set pieces
    like the robot chasing susan through a deserted SF
    and onto the famous bridge .
    Blob was best , very creative animation and writing.
    Villain squid dude was also excellent .
    Susan poses could do with more assymetry and less eye
    white showing . Her animation in general was not quite
    as accomplished as the rest of the film.
    I do wish the empathic side of the characters was
    as well polished as the off topic jokes . The scenes
    between Susan And BF needed to be stronger
    and felt contrived , I missed a real connection
    with the hero . Making me not really involved with her plight .

    But Hey ! lest we forget , M vs A is not intended as an emotional
    journey and is really a summer Popcorn movie . And at being the latter
    it delivers handsomely .

    3-D added a nice depth to everything .

    It was fun and light . Overall i enjoyed it .

  • A Reader

    “Let me add to the twits who twittered…
    It’s a very funny movie. After seeing Kung Fu Panda, Madagascar 2 and this film, I’d have to admit I think DreamWorks actually hired writers.”

    One of the two directors was also one of the screenwriters and on this. But a good deal of the “writing”-not dialogue only but what happens on screen-for all 3 of the films you listed was done by the people whose names appear in the credits under “story artists”.

    The Twitter feed is interesting. It’s running roughly 30-1 positive on Monsters. Looks like a big hit based on the anecdotal evidence twitter provides.

  • http://oddernod.blogspot.com WillRyan

    I view KFP as a huge success and more a love letter to kung-fu movies rather than a spoof or parody. MvA just wasn’t that funny, as it recycled a ton of jokes, characters, and scenarios from previous animated movies. And I really didn’t care for the design of the humans, which reminded of nearly grotesque, Bratz inspired designs. Quite a contrast to the inspired alien and monster designs from Craig Kellman & the rest of the team.

    This movie, Over The Hedge, & the Shrek films all felt like they had a TV show’s worth of plot stretched across countless gags & pop culture references to fill up 90 minutes. How forced/old did the Al Gore joke feel? Does anyone else get the vibe that DW boards up a whole heaping of “funny” gags and scenarios and then hangs a plot around that, rather than the other way around?

  • http://vincemusacchia.blogspot.com Vince Musacchia

    I really liked it. It’s a fun movie. Lots of satire. It had a MAD comic book quality to it.

  • Bill Field

    Huh? Where did the Ebert review go? He backed up all you said about it!

  • RODAN

    Ehhhhh! I think I’ll pass….

  • greg m.

    out of curiosity, does anyone know how much of this film was animated in India??

  • http://www.coffeeroll.com JPDJ

    Dude, this movie was weak. The comedy wasn’t great. The filmmakers’ decision to play up Ginormica’s fear and loneliness at the beginning hurt the quick pacing this movie needed and didn’t fit the irreverent tone of the title. Some of the character animation (particular the constant head bobbing of the human characters) was overdone. Kind of like the excesses in Don Bluth character animation. And the characters were just stock personality types. Not a one was memorable.

    Dreamworks just lost the goodwill it built up with Kung Fu Panda. Let’s go Pixar!

  • Another Reader

    Here’s the compliment sandwich. Beautiful film visually, great animation, and Bob was just a wonderful example of fantastic talent and technology used in the best way possible. The story and writing was better than I expected, so I enjoyed it far more than the last few Dreamworks movies, but it’s still not an excuse for overused pop-culture references and lack of character development, especially for the villain alien. The amount of slapstick gags and pratfalls was suffocating, and the acting was waaayyyyy over the top. It needed more time developing the situation, less time with gags. Humor comes out of the character interaction with the environment and situation, not with joke after joke after joke after joke……..

    But, in closing, Dreamworks really showcases the extraordinary artistic talent at their fingertips and I give a big hats off to those concept people, technical directors, and animators. The stories and character development just need to catch up.

  • http://www.bishopanimation.com Floyd Bishop

    Early estimates for the weekend have the film listed as having a $58,200,000 opening weekend, which is also the best opening of any 3D release.

    Say what you will about the film, but Jeff Katzenberg and crew hit the mark they were aiming for.

  • http://ryuuseipro.deviantart.com John Paul Cassidy

    Just came back from MONSTERS VS. ALIENS (on a beautiful afternoon, no less)!

    I’ll do a more thorough review soon, save that I really enjoyed this film! Especially since I’m a big monster fan (especially of Godzilla), and I enjoyed the references to the classic monster films (I especially laughed at the DESTROY ALL MONSTERS reference)! If people didn’t find it funny enough, as Jerry Beck said, then I’m just so used to the genre this film parodied that I didn’t care whether it was funny or not. It was just awesome to see an animated giant monster film! So it really succeeded on that level.

    Plus, the 3D was really effective!

  • Mike Caracappa

    I really liked it!

    It was a little hard to get into at first, until I saw it from the point of view of Galaxar. When that happened, I loved it.

    Great job Dreamworks!

  • badbadjoojoo

    I don’t know about the human character designs in this. Most of them had that “eyeballs that are too big for their eyesockets” look to it. The pupils dart around but never foreshorten in the eye. That always seems to make the characters seem kinda creepy and zombie-like. As for the jokes…well …they TRIED to be funny. Maybe a little too hard. Kinda like the kid jumping up and down in the classroom overly desperate for attention. And I wanted to laugh, too. I really did.

  • Mike Kozlowski

    …Went to see MvA this afternoon and loved it! Admittedly they missed a lot of potential gags, but the ones they got in there worked every time. I remember at least one age-inappropriate joke that really shouldn’t have been in there (about whether or not the Missing Link was a boy or a girl) but the rest of it was dead solid perfect satire of just about every 50s giant monster movie ever made – not to mention that there was a LOT of ‘Independence Day’ send-up in there as well. The voice casting was good, although Reese Witherspoon just has a hard time sounding angry. I felt they did a very good job of introducing the characters and helping us understand them, which is why the focus on Susan in the first part of the movie seemed to make sense to me: we won’t identify with the fish, the blob, or the roach, so we need to know why we should identify with the girl. The 3D was some of the best and most realistic I’ve seen yet. I’ll agree that the human characters could have stood a bit of work, but again – this wasn’t supposed to be Pixar/Disney, things were supposed to be a little exaggerated. But on the whole, worth it.

  • uncle wayne

    i have just gotten back….and can NOT stop laffing!!! I found it verrrry (“lol”) funny! And i was so glad (for once) that i WAS 55 yrs. old!! I love getting allllll the references to things that were 40 & 50 years old. (THere’s even a Wizard of Oz joke in there….did anyone else get that??) Too TOO funny! Grreat stuff! Truly!

  • Matt Sullivan

    58 million bucks kinda negates the criticism. doesn’t it.

  • Tristan

    The audience that I saw it with loved it and really, that’s all that matters.

  • A Reader

    Dreamworks just lost the goodwill it built up with Kung Fu Panda. Let’s go Pixar!

    …because the success or failure of one studio has everything to do with the releases of another studio? What?

    This is as nonsensical as saying “Duplicity really blew my goodwill for Universal. Let’s go Fox!”

  • http://www.hunteachother.com Max W.

    “58 million bucks kinda negates the criticism. doesn’t it.”

    Doesn’t mean it’s a good movie, sorry!

  • http://www.bishopanimation.com Floyd Bishop

    CGSociety has a great article on the film: http://features.cgsociety.org/story_custom.php?story_id=4985

    From the article:

    “All stereo settings boil down to two things. One, how far you separate the two cameras from each other- the distance between the two axes of the lenses, called the interaxial or interoccular distance. As that gets wider, we are adding more stereo volume into the space. The second parameter is how much volume, depth, you put in and where in that depth are you going to place the screen position, what DreamWorks calls the ZPS, (Zero Parallax Setting).

    This is so much more than a passing fad. The technology has come quite a long way since the red/blue lenses of the 50′s and 60′s.

  • Chris Webb

    Matt writes:

    “58 million bucks kinda negates the criticism. doesn’t it.”

    No Matt, it doesn’t. Criticism is valuable, especially when it examines a popular hit.

  • Cyber Fox

    I would like to note that MvA has recently went to no.1 in the box office, even though kid aimed channels are over-promoting the film, it’s lighty-promoted elsewhere

  • Matt Sullivan

    Not really. All people do is complain on this board, myself among them. But when it comes to Dreamworks all everyone does is grip gripe gripe about Jeffrey this and Jeffrey that. Now that the film is out and it’s a big hit I think all the hardworking artists at Dreamworks oughta have the right to stick their tongues out at the art snobs on this board and say “Nyah” :}

  • Sabrina

    “It does have a strong female lead. Some people in the animation industry may not like that thinking women should only be in the ink and paint department. ; )”

    Susan’s character was actually my biggest DISAPPOINTMENT. :\ Even in the godawful “code brown” trailer, she looked like a compelling female character–a rarity for a Dreamworks film. Unfortunately, the writing got in the way. It sounded like her character arc was handled by ten different writers who had no communication between them.

    Her supposed character arc takes her from a naive soon-to-be-bride to an independent woman who defines herself by her own accomplishments, not those of her husband. But the weird pacing at the beginning of the film actually made me question the time period of the film–is it the 1950s, when it was not horribly awkward for a woman to put so much blind faith in a marriage, or is she just really stupid? From then she makes the wonderful jump from naive to perpetually scared/skeptical–which, considering her situation, is normal, but this makes her the only “normal” character in the entire story. Considering how the movie continually totes its cast of “quirky” characters doing “quirky” things, Susan’s character is not so much strong as out of place and rather boring.

    Thus: she becomes yet another “straight woman” amongst a cast of male comedians who get all the funny (well, intended to be funny) lines. Yep, that’s a really great message for one of the biggest studios in the industry to send: Girls are allowed–just don’t do anything interesting or funny!
    “…because the success or failure of one studio has everything to do with the releases of another studio? What? This is as nonsensical as saying “Duplicity really blew my goodwill for Universal. Let’s go Fox!””

    Except that Universal and Fox, unlike Pixar and Dreamworks, are not the only live-action studios that produce movies every year. Live action films get hundreds of releases a year, compared to our . . . what, three or four (not counting gems like Delgo)? Every animated movie that comes out affects the entire industry.

  • http://brazilianmonkey.blogspot.com andre

    I haven’t watched it yet. It seems to be fun, however whenever I look at the AWFUL characters it makes me lose the will to see it.

  • Cameron

    A Reader, it isn’t like we have numerous studios pumping out dozens of films a year when it comes to animation. Pixar is bringing CGI animation forward, and Dreamworks is keeping it stagnant. Unfortunately, Blue Sky and Disney eventually switched to imitating Dreamworks (it’s easier to drop bathroom humor and pop-culture references than to develop compelling characters and experiment with the medium).

    Kung Fu Panda was a step in the right direction, but even that had a bit of the “Shrek curse” to keep it from the absolute brilliance of WALL-E. I really would like to see them doing something as good as Pixar, but Up looks so much more interesting than Monsters vs. Aliens. Maybe one day, they’ll kick Katzenberg out like he kicked out those seniors from that Hollywood retirement home out onto the streets. He deserves it more than those industry workers who gave so much to the industry, considering he has money.

  • http://www.spiteyourface.com Tony Mines

    If the art direction is ‘superb’ then why in the hell are my eyes still recoiling from the shock of just looking at that post image? Jeez Amid, some of your readers use their eyes professionally here. You should put up a warning before doing that kind of thing.
    Is that really an image from the movie? Because its super-sharp and weird in a way that looks like a quickie photoshop job. The sort of thing where you paste your friends head, stretched awkwardly over some image for lulz purposes.
    I’m gonna have to go look at some trees for a couple hours now, just to undo any permanent damage…

  • Peter F

    This particular movie product made a lot of money because there were no other kids’ movie products available this past weekend, and because it’s Spring Break for a lot of US schools. Its “success” was due completely to the selection of its release date, and had zero to do with its artistry or word of mouth.

  • http://www.joelfletcher.com Joel Fletcher

    Being an avid stereo photographer, I am annoyed by the false statements Mr. Katzenberg is making about the “new” 3-D technology. The principals of 3-D stereo technique have remained the same since it was first invented. Numerous magazine promotions for Monsters v Aliens are quoting statements like “The technology has come quite a long way since the red/blue lenses of the 50’s and 60’s.” This is total B.S., 3-D features of the past NEVER used red/blue glasses, they used polarized glasses just like the current films. There were great technicolor movies in 3-D from the 50′s like HOUSE OF WAX and KISS ME KATE with incredible stereo! The red/blue glasses were only used in magazines, comics, and occasionally aftermarket 16 mm versions of feature films. The only thing that is new in todays 3-D system is the digital projection, which admittedly is a big improvement as far as keeping the left and right images lined up correctly. These far-reaching statements about the new 3-D technology are showmanship bravado.

  • http://www.arizonacharlies.org Arizona Charlies

    I will see it and comment alter, but really after this I have a lower expectation.

  • A Reader

    “This particular movie product made a lot of money because there were no other kids’ movie products available this past weekend, and because it’s Spring Break for a lot of US schools. Its “success” was due completely to the selection of its release date, and had zero to do with its artistry or word of mouth. ”

    So now a 58.2m success* has “quotes” around it? Meaning what-that it’s a phony boxoffice report? That’s nonsense.

    Peter F., what do you base your absolutist statement on? Have you looked at the Twitter feed? Anyone can-you don’t need a Blackberry or a membership, and it’s a great measuring stick. Judging from that Joe Average truly enjoyed the movie-all ages and types of Joe Averages. That holds more water than flat statements of “there was nothing to see”. What matters the next day is what people have to say, and the word seems to be overwhelmingly positive, sorry.
    Did you even see it yourself?

    And the fact is: a success in animation is good for all animated features. It in no way or shape can negatively impact anything from Disney, Pixar, Aardman or anyone else. Perhaps those who think it’s a portent of doom can explain how it will poison the well for Pixar?

    It’s a fact that any animated hit is good, even for independent features getting releases and attention. How could it be otherwise? It’s also an excellent thing that “Monsters” isn’t a sequel yet it made big bucks. No one’s mentioned that but it counts. That’s good news whether you liked the film or not, because before any kind or style of film gets made, there needs to be proof of an audience out there.
    As for 3D, Pixar and Disney are making them that way, too, so some might rein in the clueless kvetching.

    *I didn’t work on it, btw.

  • Klyph

    I’m still on the fence about whether I’ll subject myself to Monsters vs. Aliens

    Are you afraid Pixar won’t hang out with you anymore or let you into their cool secret club?

    I mean, I know your hatred of Dreamworks is equal to the hatred Frankenstein has for fire but elitist comments like that and all your other damning comments the past week for a film you haven’t even SEEN yet really destroy your credibility for me personally Amid. You run an animation blog and this is a major animation release coming from the second largest animation studio in North America and you are totally dismissing it based on your preconceived dislike of Dreamworks. I don’t want to belong to a community that acts like this. Just my thoughts.

  • http://saturdaymorningcentral.com/ Tommy Day

    The difference in quality between MvA and Kung Fu Panda was shocking.

    I think Panda is going to be rather timeless, while the pop culture references in MvA will weaken it’s sustainability. Axel F? Was that necessary?

  • Anthony

    I enjoyed MvA – it was worth the price of the ticket. I don’t think it’s a particularly deep film, nor an all-time classic, but it was fun, and funny, and I was entertained. As a comedy/action/monster film/chick flick, I think they were able to bring the separate elements together resonably well, but it’s not an outstanding success.

    While their was a fair amount of slapstick humor, I thought most of the humor was a bit too topical for the kids to get, and I was concerned partway through that they would start getting bored. I went to a matinee showing of MvA, and in a mixed audience that was at least half sub-12 year olds, many in the 5-8 age range, I must say that the kids were more absorbed than I thought they’d be.

    Overall – go see with a group that you can laugh with!

  • Bobby D.

    Just thinking out loud, here. Not just on this website, but literally all sites that review or talk about animation, the tendency is to pit one studio against the another. It’s an odd dynamic…something you don’t find in the live-action world. You don’t typicaly see people dragging Paramount into a reveiew of an action film produced by Twentieth Century Fox. Films are films, and the artistic endevor is treated with much more respect than the “eating their own” mentality of animation fans/artists.

    I’m not sure how healthy it is, nor am I passing judgement, I’m simply baffled by the “if it’s not produced by this studio, I’ll wait for the DVD” mentality.

    BTW – Saw Monsters VS. Aliens…lots of fun…my kids enjoyed it and so did I….but it’s not as good as anything Pixar does…ZING! (JK)

  • Calarts grad

    Bobby D, the “SpyVs.Spy” dynamic you see expressed comes almost totally from fans, students(who are fans), and sadly, critics and memdia people who should absolutely know better. What it reflects is ignorance of how real animation feature studios work.
    Of course people can love or hate films as they do, but the wild assumptions that are so blithely tossed around about BOTH the “good” and “bad” studios’ workings are pretty much divorced from reality. Few to none of the people who work in the business hold those kinds of beliefs.

  • KarmaRocketX

    Matt Sullivan: 58 million bucks kinda negates the criticism. doesn’t it.

    Nope.

    Not in the least.

    It always irritates me when people try to stick up for something that just isn’t very good by saying “Well, it made a lot of money, therefore the critics are all wrong.”

    There’s a substantial hole in logic there. Large enough to drive a truck through.

    Not only is financial success in no way, related to critical success, but if your logic of “made money, therefore, good film” was to be belived, then how do you explain the box office success of a terrible film like “Beverly Hills Chiuhauha”?

    Answer? You can’t.

    The only reason that children’s movies, even if they suck, earn money is due to one thing. Hype. And secondarily, the contributing factor is the ignorance of small children that will go to see ANY movie if you throw a gimmick on it, and show the trailer over and over on television.

    So, to answer your question definitively once again… does the money made, negate the critisism?

    Not on your life, bub.

    As far as I’m concerned, I saw the movie when my brother went, and I seriously thought it was actually quite terrible, and that criticism against it certainly is warranted as the film has more than enough faults to point at.

  • Adam

    I enjoyed it very much, though I honestly wished I had seen it in 2d. “Wow, a paddle ball! THAT sure was worth the extra money!”

    Ginormica was a good character, who develops nicely over the course of the film, and has what could only be called a Crowning Moment of Awesome when she breaks free of what’s-his-name’s cage and goes on a /rampage/ in his ship. Female characters in animation rarely get to do anything so cool and have the villain running, screaming, for his life.

    Really wonderful character design, great art direction altogether.

    But were those the real ending credits? They seemed tacked on – especially when you compare them to the really fantastic credits sequence from KFP, which really invited you to stay to the end. MvA practically kicked you out.

  • Peter F

    “A Reader”, I based my observation on being a parent of school age kids. My kids were all about seeing the movie the weekend it debuted, like every other kid their age, because they had been bombarded with nonstop ads and hype leading up to its release. We had other things going on that weekend — soccer games, ski lessons, and they’ve already forgotten all about Monsters Versus Whatever. My kids don’t Twitter and I could care less what “people” on Twitter are supposedly saying about anything, myself.

    I don’t think it’s a fact that any animated hit is good; I’m not an animator and don’t feel a blind need to go spend money on just any piece of crap. I was just commenting on commercial success being confused with artistic or critical success.

  • http://elblogderg.blogspot.com Roberto

    Late review, I hope somebody reads it (I’d like to read an extended Jerry review).

    I wouldn’t say there was no laughs. There were a lot of action scenes, even more than laughs, but the movie was funny enough. I didn’t miss the comedy cause it was highly irregular. B.O.B. character was hilarious but other jokes were mediocre. The President had some really corny gags, like the “Code Brown” and Axel F. gags, but the scene in the credits was pretty funny. Personally I prefer less jokes than a lot of jokes that miss (Madagascar 2 was full of attempts of jokes, but the only characters that made me laugh were the penguins). Of course I’d have liked to have more gags if all of them were fantastic.

    I did enjoy the 3-D though I have the feeling the movie is going to be less enjoyable without the glasses.

    Most of the characters were well designed and had a funny personality, even though some of them have very short roles (Missing Link) and some others would have worked better in a more adult satire (The President and the General). Maybe that’s what some of their jokes were a little half-baked, cause it wanted to please adult and children and it didn’t try to be risky or especially satiric.

    I really enjoyed the scenes with the monsters disguised as Galaxar’s clones, that was the funniest part of the movie.

    Susan Murphy was a pretty likeable protagonist.

    Overall it was an entertaining movie and a great spectacle but it’s probably not a classic and as a comedy is worse than Kung Fu Panda.

  • http://community.livejournal.com/carole_and_co/ Vincent

    With the money this film has made, I fully expect some sort of sequel (one would hope all the voice talent would return). Perhaps then, with the characters already introduced, a stronger storyline can be developed.