Review of Monster House (2006) by Skiercjd — 08 Dec 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 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.