---Ever since 1995 the film world hasn’t been the same; that was the year that Disney released their international blockbuster “Toy Story.” Once that hurdle was jumped, this sub-genre of animation went to the spotlight. Disney is pretty much the leader in computer generated kids films, but DreamWorks makes a decent attempt to snatch the silver screen from its counterpart. Their big hits are “Ice Age”, “Shrek”, and “Kung Fu Panda”; on March 27, they released “Monsters vs. Aliens.” Expecting a film to compete with the likes of “Monster’s, Inc.”, Disney’s monster film, and to at least hold a candle to their own film “Kung Fu Panda”, critics seem to be disappointed.
---Michael Phillips of the “Chicago Tribune” claims that the film forgot two main things: good jokes and a purpose to the 3D portions. He even goes as far to say “… (it) is pure marketing without anything to market.” Regardless of the all star voice crew, including Seth Rogen, Stephen Colbert, and Reese Witherspoon, the writing is too poor to even showcase their talents. There is some spectacle involved in the movie that makes it somewhat desirable, such as the scene where a monster destroys the Golden Gate Bridge. Phillips didn’t like it, however, and says it was just “loud.”
---“The Baltimore Sun’s” Michael Sragow inadvertently agrees with everything that Phillips says. They say the same thing about how the script is a lame attempt at trying to create a surefire epic film. He wants to know where some of the creativity went when writing this film. Even the 3D parts wear out their welcome, according to Sragow, due to the lack of imagination.
---Bob Mondello from National Public Radio notices how most DreamWorks movies focus on and try to sell some sort of gimmick, and this particular film tries to sell 3D animation. There are some moments of wit, and the movie should technically appeal to every age level, but the film’s repeated attempts at 3D spectacle lead to predictability, thereby ruining the movie.
---Continuing this somewhat dismal and repetitious string of reviews, Ann Hornaday from “The Washington Post” echoes the sentiments of the other reviewers. There is a worn out idea of the 3D animation aspect that the movie so forcefully hits on. She also feels the writing lacks a story, which could have propelled the movie to at least something worth remembering. Instead it will fade to the back of the audience’s mind.
---“The Philly Inquirer” has one of the few reviewers with something even remotely decent to say. Steven Rea actually liked the film, even though he didn’t see it in 3D (or perhaps because he didn’t see it as such.) He enjoyed the plot of how a glowing bride becomes a literal glowing bride due to a meteor and gets shipped to a government holding facility for monsters and mutants. Rea also enjoys the characters’ wisecracks and all around weirdness.
---Earning an average of 56 out of 100 on metacritic.com, this film is pitted for being another average animation film. A little more writing probably would have gone a long way. Fortunately or unfortunately for the audience: Disney still comes out on top because of DreamWorks’ lack of success.
---Michael Phillips of the “Chicago Tribune” claims that the film forgot two main things: good jokes and a purpose to the 3D portions. He even goes as far to say “… (it) is pure marketing without anything to market.” Regardless of the all star voice crew, including Seth Rogen, Stephen Colbert, and Reese Witherspoon, the writing is too poor to even showcase their talents. There is some spectacle involved in the movie that makes it somewhat desirable, such as the scene where a monster destroys the Golden Gate Bridge. Phillips didn’t like it, however, and says it was just “loud.”
---“The Baltimore Sun’s” Michael Sragow inadvertently agrees with everything that Phillips says. They say the same thing about how the script is a lame attempt at trying to create a surefire epic film. He wants to know where some of the creativity went when writing this film. Even the 3D parts wear out their welcome, according to Sragow, due to the lack of imagination.
---Bob Mondello from National Public Radio notices how most DreamWorks movies focus on and try to sell some sort of gimmick, and this particular film tries to sell 3D animation. There are some moments of wit, and the movie should technically appeal to every age level, but the film’s repeated attempts at 3D spectacle lead to predictability, thereby ruining the movie.
---Continuing this somewhat dismal and repetitious string of reviews, Ann Hornaday from “The Washington Post” echoes the sentiments of the other reviewers. There is a worn out idea of the 3D animation aspect that the movie so forcefully hits on. She also feels the writing lacks a story, which could have propelled the movie to at least something worth remembering. Instead it will fade to the back of the audience’s mind.
---“The Philly Inquirer” has one of the few reviewers with something even remotely decent to say. Steven Rea actually liked the film, even though he didn’t see it in 3D (or perhaps because he didn’t see it as such.) He enjoyed the plot of how a glowing bride becomes a literal glowing bride due to a meteor and gets shipped to a government holding facility for monsters and mutants. Rea also enjoys the characters’ wisecracks and all around weirdness.
---Earning an average of 56 out of 100 on metacritic.com, this film is pitted for being another average animation film. A little more writing probably would have gone a long way. Fortunately or unfortunately for the audience: Disney still comes out on top because of DreamWorks’ lack of success.
No comments:
Post a Comment