The best I could come up with for this was 'quite nice', although Charlotte disagreed insisting that it was awesome.
Although, she also said it was easily as good as Cats And Dogs 2, which greatly confused me and left me with severe doubts about her abilities to judge cinema.
Hmm, yeah. I was bored rigid by this film.
ReplyDeleteI can just see you sitting there watching it Ed fighting to stay awake ;-)
ReplyDeleteHey, one of the kids I was watching it with was fighting to stay awake - and losing.
ReplyDeleteAfter an opening perfectly pitched on the right side of scary everything became a bit too kid friendly. Monsters under your bed getting their energy from laughs instead of scares may be brilliant to help your kids get over the fear of what lurks under the bed (or in "The Hole") it also dilutes the idea too much. Therefore Monsters Inc ends up being too kiddie. It's no longer a family film, but one aimed squarely at 10 year olds.
ReplyDeleteStill, Goodman, Crystal and Buscemi are great fun (as is Boo) and it has some wonderful ideas (the final set piece travelling through doors is particularly magnificent). It's a shame because had it played it a little older than 10 it could have been one of Pixar's greatest. As it is it ranks above the derivative Cars, but below the rest. That's harsh criticism though as the rest of Pixar's output has been truly top drawer. But compare it to the majority of CG fodder like Over The Hedge and A Shark's Tale and it comes across really well.
Charlotte is fairly right, although I doubt Cats and Dogs 2 is anywhere near as good.
I'm with Charlotte and James on this one. I even liked Cars, but then I always had a strange fondness for Doc Hollywood.
ReplyDelete