Monsters, Inc. (2001) - Another Jewel in the Crown of Pixar

 

You know what just hit me? I really haven't been talking about Pixar on this blog. Outside of the Toy Story marathon I did in preparation for Toy Story 4, and the occasional First Impressions, I haven't talked Pixar that much, and that is a darn shame because Pixar is easily one of my favourite animation studios ever. Pixar literally revolutionized animation with their Computer Graphics and stories that spoke to both the children and adults in the audience. These were the movies that carried Disney through their post-renaissance era and eventually the kind of movies Disney would end up making. Pixar is a really important part of animation history, so I thought it would be a good idea to review one of their movies this time, and since I'm still celebrating getting three-quarters closer to the big one-double zero reviews, let's look at another one of my favourites, Monsters, Inc.

The story focuses on two monsters, Mike Wazowski and James Sullivan, otherwise known as Sulley. They work at, what is essentially a power production facility in the monster world, which is a clever piece of worldbuilding as their world is powered by the screams of children... that sounds really horrible when I say it like that. The two are the top of their workforce, but then Sulley finds a door on the scare floor while working late and accidentally lets a child in the monster world, which is really bad considering this world is afraid of children and sees them as dangerous, deadly and toxic. Sulley and Mike now need to return the child without raising suspicion, but they soon find that there is something much more sinister at work than them. The overall story flows really nicely, you can see how the events lead into each other, and it's pretty genius how they set up the laughter plot point, I will say the reveal is okay, maybe a bit too subtle, but after a couple viewings you do get to notice things like the careful wording of Waternoose when Mike is explaining the situation to him. I don't think it's the best reveal in a Disney or Pixar movie, but it is not the worst.

While I'm on the subject, one thing I want to mention is the ending. I think the ending to Monsters, Inc. is one of the best endings to not just any animated movie, but any movie period. It's a really touching ending, especially when you consider the characters. The characters are really well written for this movie, they don't talk like cartoon characters, they talk like real people, with real quips and backtalk, almost to the point where, even though I hear John Goodman and Billy Crystal, I don't see them, I see their characters. This is a contrast to performances like Jeff Bridges in The Last Unicorn or Orson Welles in The Transformers movie, where I could only picture the actors in the recording booth. You have Sulley, a humble and hardworking guy, and Mike, a narcissistic but generally good person. They're both likeable, but not perfect. I don't think I really appreciated Mike as a character until I watched TheRealJims' YouTube video about the movie. It really made me appreciate the movie in a new way. On top of that, the rest of the main cast is also entertaining, Randall is perfectly sinister and slimey, Mr. Waternoose is authoritative and seemingly friendly, and Roz is just... a perfect character. On top of that each monster has a very unique design, many of which I don't think I've seen in other monster media.

I think animation wise, this is easily one of the best looking animated movies of the 2000s. The character design alone, you can see almost every hair on Sulley, and you can almost feel the scaly texture of Randall's skin. To be fair, most of the environments this movie takes place in are pretty bland, when you think of a monster world you might think of something much more stylized like Nightmare Before Christmas, or Aah! Real Monsters, but I don't really mind the more mundane environments, the interesting and unique monster deigns more than make up for the more mundane world. On top of that, when this movie wants to get visually interesting, it gets visually interesting. The climax of this movie is easily one of the best and most exciting animated climaxes in cinema, and the reveal of the massive door storage area still amazes me to this day. Major credit to the animation team behind this movie.

Ultimately, I don't even know what else to add without stealing lines from other reviews. I mean, Monsters, Inc. is fantastic, and easily one of my favourite Pixar movies, definitely on the same level as Up and Toy Story 3. The story is well written, the characters are likeable, the voice acting is excellent, and the animation is superb, it really is incredible that Pixar was capable of hitting peaks like this early in their history. Really, this is another movie, I really doubt that you needed me, or really anyone, to tell you how good it was, it's one of Disney-Pixar's most popular movies, getting a prequel movie, and a spin-off series on Disney+ which... not really something I'm into, but that's not important. At the end of the day, Pixar really is one of the best animation studios around, and Monsters, Inc. is just one of their many amazing movies that any animation fan must see, if they haven't already. Really, do I even need to say I give it a High Recommendation?

Editorial: Netflix... yep, this again...

The irony is sickening, last year I was almost nothing but positive about Netflix. Their animated film output last year was phenomenal, to the point where I actually said, or at least implied, that I was happy Nimona was being put on Netflix. Well, guess what everyone is saying now, that Netflix is a bad service with bad business practices and doesn't deserve Nimona. Okay, fair is fair, I don't think anyone actually said the first part and I've seen only one person say that last bit, but you get my point, right? The year was 2022, I had little bad to say about Netflix and finally decided that they may be turning over a new leaf, and not even in the next year, literally during the same year, everyone began turning on Netflix. Why is that?

Admittedly, my disdain for Netflix has always been from a movie-goer perspective. Netflix seemed to have the strategy to place their name on any pile of garbage and hope that enough people watched it to earn a profit. Pets United, The Larva Island Movie, Duck Duck Goose, and lest we forget about the poorly marketed dumpster fire that is Cuties. Even when Netflix released a good movie, like Arlo the Alligator Boy or Klaus, I mean I liked those movies, but I wouldn't say they're some of the greatest animated movies of all time. Klaus was good, but it wasn't as good as Treasure Planet or even something like Felidae. Maybe it's because 2022 was so devoid of anything spectacular, that I was giving heaps of praise to Netflix for producing so many unique kinds of movies. Apollo 10½, Wendell & Wild, Guillermo del Toro's Pinocchio, very unique movies that were different from most of the rest of the 2022 line up. This however, completely ignores the other aspect of Netflix, the shows.

Netflix played host to a variety of different types of shows, and being in the animation community, lots of people gravitated towards shows like Dead End: Paranormal Park and Inside Job, which a lot of people really liked. Inside Job stands with a 91% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes and a 7.7 Rating on IMDb, meanwhile Dead End: Paranormal Park stands with an 86% audience score, a 100% on the "Average Tomatometer" (BTW, that looks like it should be pronounced Tomay-TOM-itter), and a 6.9 on IMDb. Granted, none of that is a measure of quality, but it is a measure of popularity, and these shows were clearly popular. You don't get a 91% if you're not popular on some level. So clearly, Netflix would see these ratings and think to give both shows more seasons right?

Oh my goodness, if they actually thought that, one; I wouldn't be writing this, and two; you wouldn't be here. Netflix decided to cancel both shows because... actually I don't know, but I'm sure it's a stupid reason, because of course it would have to be, it's Netflix. This is the streaming platform that thought that Vanguard's movies were good investments, I don't think there is a single brain cell working at the executive table at Netflix. Cancelling these two shows, despite their popularity, is like Disney cancelling DuckTales... oh wait... Disney did that too... and that's why we're stuck with the divisive finale. Oh ho.

All of that however, is just the moist pork and asparagus cake compared to the salt and vinegar frosting that is Netflix's password sharing policies. According to DiscussingFilms, Netflix has introduced a new method to keep people from being happy, forcing users every 31 days to log in on a home Wi-Fi network, or else have the account blocked. Now, does Netflix have the right to implement this? That's not the question, the question is "how is this a good idea in the first place"? All it's going to do is make even less people use Netflix. There are plenty of users who use a shared Netflix account because they can't afford their own, or are spending their money on another service, or they're, you know, trying to buy basic necessities because they get paid so very little. Netflix seems to be under the impression that when it comes to decided whether someone wants to have food or Netflix, they'd choose Netflix. The reality is, if someone had to choose between food, rent, utilities and Netflix, Netflix would literally be the first thing to go, because who the actual Hell would choose getting to watch Duck Duck Goose when you have no food, no shelter and no electricity to watch it with?

The irony of it all makes me sick, but I guess at the end of the day, a string of quality does not support the heavy weight of awfulness. Netflix's disrespect to animation, complete buffoonery of password sharing deterrents, and selection of awful, awful "Netflix Original" movies, really does mean that at the end of the day, the joke was on me. Giving Netflix any amount of slack was a joke at my expense, and I should not have been at all surprised when people began saying things like "Netflix doesn't deserve Nimona". because at the end of the day... they're right. Nobody deserves Nimona really.

Alice in Wonderland (1951) - A Fun and Bizarre Disney Classic

 

I think everyone knows Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. The classic Victorian era children's novel, not unlike A Christmas Carol, has been a popular story for adaptations, parodies and reimaginings since the birth of cinema. It's hard to think of someone who has not heard of this story, in any form, be it the original book and its sequel Through the Looking Glass, or from the American McGee games, or even the Jefferson Airplane song "White Rabbit", one of my personal favourite songs of all time. Arguably the most popular version of the story is the 1951 Walt Disney animated feature. This movie followed the success of Cinderella, and has become one of Disney's most beloved properties. I don't think I really need to ask why.

Alice is a young girl who is being taught a history lesson, but she loses interest and wanders off, finding a peculiar White Rabbit with a waistcoat and a pocket watch. Following this rabbit leads her to Wonderland, where she keeps trying to follow the White Rabbit, but ends up coming across many strange, kooky and curious characters. Of course, this movie does have some differences from the original Lewis Carroll book, many of the scenarios that Alice finds herself in end in completely different ways in the book, but I don't think the changes are that egregious for this movie. The changes they made fit the tone of the story they're telling, which is still undeniably the story of Alice in Wonderland. It kind of fits in with other adaptations from Disney, like Winnie the Pooh or Pinocchio, where the books and movies are two distinctly different from each other, but the themes and tones and enough of the story beats are still in tact that the changes in the movie are not all that upsetting, unless you're a book purist, in which case, learn to have fun.

On top of that, it's not like Alice just randomly stumbles into all the scenarios, she has a set goal in mind. She comes across the Tweedles after following the White Rabbit, she notices the Caterpillar's hookah smoke after being kicked out of the flower garden, the Cheshire Cat directs her to the Mad Hatter and March Hare. This does give the movie some sense of structure and cohesion rather than a movie like Raggedy Ann and Andy: A Musical Adventure, which I also liked, but the story was not that movie's strongest aspect. Overall, I can say the story of this movie is straightforward and not very rocky, a solid A grade effort.

Of course the characters are what makes this story iconic. We all know these characters and the voices associated with them, Ed Wynn as the Mad Hatter, Jerry Colonna as the March Hare, Pat O'Malley as Tweedledee and Tweedledum, Bill Thompson as the White Rabbit, Verna Felton as the Queen of Hearts, and may we never forget the great Sterling Holloway as the Cheshire Cat. The voice talent is superb, everyone's voice matches the characters perfectly, and topping them off is Kathryn Beaumont as Alice, and she does an equally amazing performance, so much so she actually reprised her role as Alice in the Kingdom Hearts video game and House of Mouse in 2002, there are very few characters that symbiotic with their actor.

As characters, everyone is pretty good. Alice in Wonderland is a weird story where everything is an antagonist, but not really a villain. I know the Queen of Hearts is grouped in with the Disney villains, and she is probably the most evil character in the story, but not everyone is all that helpful. Even the characters that are helpful have a nastier side to them, the Door Knob almost taking joy in Alice's predicament, the Caterpillar losing his temper with Alice, and the Cheshire Cat, clearly a trickster archetype. All of the craziness and antagonistic behaviors are all balanced out by Alice, who is curious and playful, but also has her limits. While I don't know if this movie has Disney's best characters, I can definitely see why they've remained iconic, and why whenever someone imagines Alice, Queen of Hearts, Mad Hatter or Cheshire Cat, it's usually these versions of the characters people think of.

Now, let's talk about the animation. First off, it is amazing, but not the actual animation itself, it is fantastic, but pretty standard for Disney. What wasn't standard for Disney at the time, was the effects, the lighting and the colour palette. The lighting in this movie is fantastic, environments darken to highlight certain parts of the location, or to emphasize a mood. Plus, seeing the Cheshire Cat fade away is always a cool treat. The colour palette is a perfect blend of visually interesting colours, but not anything that is eye bleeding or too unappealing. You'll never forget that this is a bizarre fantasy world, but it's not too out of the ordinary. This is one of the movies that the entire group of Disney's Nine Old Men worked on, and it shows, these were THE animators at Disney and are some of the most respected names in animation. Les Clark, Marc Davis, Milt Kahl, Ward Kimball, Eric Larson, John Lounsbery, Woollie Reitherman, Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnston were masters of animation and having them all work together for this movie is just phenomenal.

Alice in Wonderland is easily one of those movies that every animation fan needs to see at least once. It's easy to think that it's only worth seeing because it's a Disney movie, but given the movie's fantastic visuals, excellent vocal performances and settings and characters that we still associate with original stories today, it's hard to think of a reason to pass this movie up. Truly an excellent movie and one of the highlights from the Silver Age of Disney. What more needs to be said?