Studios are realizing that the gimmick movie goes a long way, as has been proved by the comeback of 3-D last year, with releases such as "My Bloody Valentine 3D" (2009) and "Coraline" (2009). Animated films are especially good at working this particular gimmick into their story line, and "Monsters vs Aliens" is no exception.
The film begins with a planet in another galaxy exploding, sending shards of rock hurtling through space. One piece is on a trajectory toward Earth, aiming right at, of all places, Modesto, Calif. The audience is then introduced to Susan (voiced by Reese Witherspoon), who is about to get married to her local weatherman fiancé, Derek (Paul Rudd). Unfortunately for Susan, she is hit by the meteor, which contains a certain chemical that causes her to grow into a giant right before she is to take her wedding vows.
After waking up and finding herself locked up with other monsters, including Dr. Cockroach (Hugh Laurie), the Missing Link (Will Arnett) and B.O.B. (Seth Rogen), she learns that an evil alien named Gallaxhar (Rainn Wilson) is set on retrieving all of the chemical Susan absorbed in order to take over the world. A struggle develops, complications arise, and the movie inevitably reaches a happy conclusion. (That would be a spoiler only if the plot weren't so predictable.)
The film's 3-D aspect is enjoyable but somewhat superfluous as the film can easily be watched in 2-D without missing out on any major plot points or quality. This quality is different from that of "Valentine," in which the only great part is its special effects.
One downside of seeing "Monsters" in 2-D format, however, is the film's blatant attempt to show off special effects throughout the film (e.g. a researcher playing with a paddle ball before satellite radar picks up the rock hurtling toward Modesto). Without 3-D glasses, these scenarios quickly get repetitive.
The movie's biggest problem is that it doesn't attempt to be anything more than what one could predict from its title. There is no higher purpose, no social commentary and nothing really pulling at the audience's heartstrings. This is not what viewers may have come to expect after films such as "WALL-E" (2008). "Monsters" did learn a thing or two about humor from films like "Shrek"(2001), and it does a good job of making wise cracks and pop culture references that will surely go over the heads of younger audience members. For example, the film references "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" (1977), "Beverly Hills Cop" (1984), "E.T." (1982), "An Inconvenient Truth" (2006) and "Spaceballs" (1987) without flinching or deviating from dialogue. The target audience will not understand most of these references, and it is safe to assume that they were included only to amuse adults who got coerced or forced into watching this silly flick. Other convoluted and contrived references have to do with nuclear war, the incompetency of certain presidents and the irony of a character with the name W. R. Monger, voiced by Keifer Sutherland.
One thing that the film does right is cast a great group of actors to voice the characters. Arnett and Rogen's dialogue is hilarious, and it's funny to picture G.O.B. Bluth (Arnett's character in the TV series "Arrested Development") or Dale Denton (Rogen's character in "Pineapple Express" (2008)) repeating some of these lines. Even Ed Helms and Stephen Colbert have roles in the film.
Overall, "Monsters" has some redeeming qualities though it lacks a certain something to set it apart from the other tons of animated movies that have been released in the last five years. "Monsters vs Aliens" misses the boat when it comes to deeper meaning, and the audience may feel like they have seen it all before.
Dear WHDH-TV, Boston's NBC Affiliate,
We recently heard that you're not going to air Jay Leno's new show at 10 p.m. so that you can run your own news program. We've spoken with some professors, that kid in our dorm who seems to know everything and the OneSource people, and we all agree that you're being logical. You don't want to lose your late-night news viewers to Leno's really bad observational humor. That said, no one -- not even the lady who scans IDs at Dewick -- thinks that your plan is the answer.
If you didn't get the memo, John Eck, the president of NBC, has threatened to pull your affiliation with the network if you do not air Leno at the correct time. Is a newscast one hour earlier really worth it? We're sure your anchors can drink some coffee and stay up one hour later to deliver the news; plenty of other networks have the time situation down and don't care whether or not Leno precedes them.
Think of the larger ramifications here: no more Conan, no more Fallon and certainly no more "To Catch a Predator." What are viewers going to do? Settle for FOX with their "smash hit" show "Hole in the Wall?" While NBC may not be at the forefront of the ratings war these days, most of your programming is pretty awesome in comparison to some of the other crap that's on the air. Think of those with basic cable. If you move forward with your decision to air the news instead of Leno, their only choices will be "Private Practice," "Numb3ers" and "American Idol." Be the hero these people deserve, and give them another choice by airing NBC's programming. Plus, we want to be able to watch Conan in his new cushy job, so don't screw this up for us, or else. Love, The Daily Arts Department
