Review: ‘Monsters vs. Aliens’
Review: ‘Monsters vs. Aliens’
Monsters vs. Aliens
2.5 stars out of 5
Let’s get the big question out of the way first. Yes, 3D is awesome and, yeah, Monsters vs. Aliens looks great in this format.
Moving on.
In DreamWorks’ latest cinematic endeavor for all ages, Monsters vs. Aliens works as a retro piece of bubble-gummy goodness of movies past. Complete with Godzilla-esque characters, a blob named B.O.B. and a scaly mutant, the story revolves around 20-something Susan (voiced by Reese Witherspoon) who is about to get hitched to self-absorbed local weatherman Derek (Paul Rudd). Directly after being notified on their wedding day that their highly anticipated honeymoon to Paris is on hold thanks to Derek’s interview in scenic Fresno, a strange glow is growing larger in the sky. After having a meteorite land on her, Susan grows a hefty 50 feet which lands her a quick skirmish with the army. After being tranqued, Susan wakes up to find herself in a huge window-less metal prison. With freaks.
Enter B.O.B.(Seth Rogen) the gelatinous being with no brain, Dr. Cockroach Ph.D. (Hugh Laurie), Link (Will Arnett) a.k.a. The Missing Link and the lovable, but snotty, Insectosaurus. Locked away because they are a hazard to society, our team of monsters spend their time playing Go Fish, tossing a ball against the wall and sharpening shivs. That’s until the alien scourge arrives. Evil squid-like alien Gallaxhar (Rainn Wilson) sends down a huge robot probe to collect Susan to extract a rare substance from her body. As the military and president’s plans to deal with the threat are fruitless, General/Warden W.R. Monger (Kiefer Sutherland) has an idea. Let their prisoners, the monsters, fight the aliens. Win? They gain their freedom. Lose and Earth will be destroyed. No pressure.
Unfunny even by DreamWorks standards, Monsters vs. Aliens makes no attempt to engage the over-5 crowd with its uninspired dialogue and uninteresting characters. The single most intriguing part of the story was that these monsters were trapped in solitary confinement for simply looking hideous and scaring people simply by just standing around. Then, when trouble starts a poppin’, the government needs their help and they jump at the chance. No apologies and no regrets from a system that captured them, without just cause, simply because they look funny. It doesn’t ring true for prisoners to defend their captors by simply asking them. Also, lifting characters from other, better movies is tiresome and unimaginative. It doesn’t help that even the film’s slapstick is corny and the audience, aside from the younglings, I was sitting with didn’t laugh until 70 minutes into the movie.
Despite this latest entry, I’m really enjoying this growing trend (some have even called it a movement) of 3D films. They look great, they force audiences to see a movie in an actual theater instead of waiting for the DVD release, and it is a communal, immersing environment for moviegoers. It also doesn’t hurt studios that they’re able to charge a bit more to help offset large costs. But with all the 3D hype and its legions of proponents, here’s the one crucial aspect that’s missing from these films: they’re not great. The novelty of 3D is already wearing thin with releases that, in order to cover up very two dimensional stories, have to use a technology to draw in fans. Exhibit A and B: My Bloody Valentine and Coraline.
As most of us are probably used to saying by now when it comes to animated flicks: wait for the Pixar movie to come out. It’s also in 3D.
