Well, I think if I saw this movie when I was ten years old, I would have been totally scared and could not sleep for weeks. Now it seems time has changed: ten-year-old children are playing horror-video games so probably what was too scary for them in the eighties is just right and fun now. Actually this is just what you could expect from a movie about a monster house: funny, spectacular, sometimes frightening. Quite a well-developed story - even if it is full of clichés, or should I say homage? - with the usual "two boys, one girl" trio as seen in Star Wars or Harry Potter. The animation is strange at first: they seem like rubber dummies, but thanks to the motion capture, their movement and expressions are first rate. While they look like having plastic hair, there is a great development since Polar Express in one field: their eyes are constantly moving - full of life. And the whole movie is just a typical and fun Spielberg-Zemeckis production with elements of Hitchcock. Besides the extraordinarily dark scenes it just feels like those very entertaining Spielberg productions of the eighties.
249 Reviews
Quite the enjoyable movie!
cokerbl16 June 2006
I just saw this movie at the Seattle International Film Festival. I didn't know what to expect, but I must say I found it quite enjoyable. There was a lot of talk before the movie. People were saying that it will be too scary for the little kids, but not adult enough to capture older kids attention.
I can see it being quite frightening at times for the little ones, but of the kids in the theater its not like I heard any of them screaming mommy. I don't know how well the movie will do with kids, but from an adult's perspective, its definitely worth a viewing.
The best part of the movie definitely has to be the characters. Each were extremely well thought out and put together. They did a fantastic job of matching right voices with the right characters. Characters facial expressions were amazing. You'll find yourself laughing at things they say and do quite a lot.
The animation looks great. They certainly aren't ground breaking. But they fit the movie well. However, I will say that some scenes looked quite amazing.
If you are looking for a fun, clean movie with plenty of laughs and chuckles, this is definitely one you don't want to miss!
I can see it being quite frightening at times for the little ones, but of the kids in the theater its not like I heard any of them screaming mommy. I don't know how well the movie will do with kids, but from an adult's perspective, its definitely worth a viewing.
The best part of the movie definitely has to be the characters. Each were extremely well thought out and put together. They did a fantastic job of matching right voices with the right characters. Characters facial expressions were amazing. You'll find yourself laughing at things they say and do quite a lot.
The animation looks great. They certainly aren't ground breaking. But they fit the movie well. However, I will say that some scenes looked quite amazing.
If you are looking for a fun, clean movie with plenty of laughs and chuckles, this is definitely one you don't want to miss!
Entertaining, But Not For The Real Little Ones
ccthemovieman-16 December 2006
I guess you could label this an "edgy animated film." It's certainly wasn't made with little kids in mind. If it was, that was a mistake because this a pretty scary film in parts - much to much for the little ones.
The "edginess" isn't just the violence (a Halloween-type scary house and the comes alive and attacks people), it's most of the characters. They are typical Hollywood-young people meaning they have "attitudes." They aren't exactly sweet, lovable people, except for the one young boy "D.J." (voiced by Mitchel Musso). The dialog on the kids - two boys, the babysitter and her boyfriend - make this more of a film for teens and younger adults. The "attitude" means wise-remarks and general obnoxiousness and rebellious attitudes. The worst in that attitude category is D.J.'s friend "Chowder," the kind of guy who talks you into doing things that wind up getting YOU in trouble.
The best part of the film, besides the animation, is the unpredictability of the story. You kept wondering what was going to happen next. That made the 91 minutes go by pretty fast. It's a simple story but very entertaining despite the not-so-great-role models and, as most pictures do, has a good message and a few heartwarming scenes at the end.
The "edginess" isn't just the violence (a Halloween-type scary house and the comes alive and attacks people), it's most of the characters. They are typical Hollywood-young people meaning they have "attitudes." They aren't exactly sweet, lovable people, except for the one young boy "D.J." (voiced by Mitchel Musso). The dialog on the kids - two boys, the babysitter and her boyfriend - make this more of a film for teens and younger adults. The "attitude" means wise-remarks and general obnoxiousness and rebellious attitudes. The worst in that attitude category is D.J.'s friend "Chowder," the kind of guy who talks you into doing things that wind up getting YOU in trouble.
The best part of the film, besides the animation, is the unpredictability of the story. You kept wondering what was going to happen next. That made the 91 minutes go by pretty fast. It's a simple story but very entertaining despite the not-so-great-role models and, as most pictures do, has a good message and a few heartwarming scenes at the end.
A solid fun horror ride
RCWjr21 July 2006
I saw the 3D version of Monster House, which I recommend as THE format to see the film in.
The story is pretty simple and not entirely original. But the zest for which the characters jump into your lap (figuratively and literally) makes this a fun ride through a house of horrors.
The overall animation is pretty decent, but the facial expressions are absolutely fantastic. They are so lifelike. The lack of photo realism in other features is quickly ignored as you feel at times like you are watching a real life childhood drama unfold right in front of you.
Who hasn't had a spooky house in their neighborhood that was legend? This film taps into that legend and brings to life through gleeful fun the horror that unfolds.
This continues a great bunch of surprises I have experienced this summer at the local multiplex.
The story is pretty simple and not entirely original. But the zest for which the characters jump into your lap (figuratively and literally) makes this a fun ride through a house of horrors.
The overall animation is pretty decent, but the facial expressions are absolutely fantastic. They are so lifelike. The lack of photo realism in other features is quickly ignored as you feel at times like you are watching a real life childhood drama unfold right in front of you.
Who hasn't had a spooky house in their neighborhood that was legend? This film taps into that legend and brings to life through gleeful fun the horror that unfolds.
This continues a great bunch of surprises I have experienced this summer at the local multiplex.
Help the Neighbor's House Ate My Babysitter's Punk Boyfriend
BabelAlexandria30 November 2020
The animation is a bit clunky and grainy, but this somehow adds to the dark atmosphere, which is fairly unique for mainstream American animation. Although it is not explicitly stated, the main protagonist seems to be suffering from depression. The story itself is different from a typical haunted house story, in that the house itself is anthropomorphized, and at its heart lies the cemented-over body of Nevercracker's dead wife, her soul now possessing it. As the movie itself notes, this is the literal (monstrous) definition of "house wife."
Watched in Princeton and in Iowa City 2020, on Halloween night!
Watched in Princeton and in Iowa City 2020, on Halloween night!
Stay Away From Nebbercracker's Lawn
claudio_carvalho3 March 2007
The teenage DJ is observing his neighbor Nebbercracker on the other side of their street in the suburb that destroys tricycles of children that trespass his lawn. When DJ's parents travel on the eve of Halloween and the abusive nanny Zee stays with him, he calls his clumsy best friend Chowder to play basketball. But when the ball falls in Nebbercracker's lawn, the old man has a siege, and sooner they find that the house is a monster. Later the boys rescue the smart Jenny from the house and the trio unsuccessfully tries to convince the babysitter, her boyfriend Bones and two police officers that the haunted house is a monster, but nobody believes on them. The teenagers ask their video-game addicted acquaintance Skull how to destroy the house, and they disclose its secret on the Halloween night.
"House Monster" begins like "Fright Night", i.e., a teenager sees a weird situation with his neighbor and nobody gives credit to his words. The story is flawed, since nobody sees the attacks and movements of the house in the whole neighborhood, only the three teens. But the movie is very funny, with great animation and hilarious voices, and an excellent and worthwhile family entertainment. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "A Casa Monstro" ("The Monster House")
"House Monster" begins like "Fright Night", i.e., a teenager sees a weird situation with his neighbor and nobody gives credit to his words. The story is flawed, since nobody sees the attacks and movements of the house in the whole neighborhood, only the three teens. But the movie is very funny, with great animation and hilarious voices, and an excellent and worthwhile family entertainment. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "A Casa Monstro" ("The Monster House")
This movie caught me by surprise
ryandouglassw2 August 2006
Monster House was a perfect combination of kid-friendliness, horror, action and adventure. When I first walked into the theater I thought it would be "kiddy" because I went to see it with my younger cousin. You know how most animated movies are somewhat funny and about teamwork and working together or teaches life lessons or morals but I actually came to find that this movie was more scary than comical or ethical. I actually got into it. I actually ended up liking it more than my cousin. Some of the content is for older kids but it's non-stop action and the momentum of the story line never stops. And the characters seem so real. 2 thumbs up. I definitely recommend it.
Not for little kids
jacksdad860323 July 2006
The animation was incredible - best rendering yet, and the character movements so mimic how real people move it's very easy to forget you're watching an animated movie. It's for kids, but not for the littlest ones. My six year old got too scared to continue about 1/4th of the way in and she had to take him home. It lightened up later, but the scary set up was too much for him to get through. Steve Bucemi's Nebbercracker was great. I'll go back and see it again when it comes out in digital 3D later. You can see that it was set up to be a good 3D flick from the beginning. All in all very well done film; but my kid will have to be seven or eight to handle the scary set-up.
Lots of fun
tieman644 August 2008
Pros:
1. Some genuinely scary moments. There are a couple really clever spooky scenes in this film, one involving a moving shadow and another involving a demented old man.
2. Some nice nods to Hitchcock's "Psycho" and "Rear Window", as the three children spy on a sinister house through a telescope.
3. Some pretty clever camera work. Director Gil Kenan's orchestrates several neat flourishes worthy of Welles. Watching this film in 3D, I was also impressed with the use of shadows. It's a pretty creepy looking film.
4. Captures the whole "suburban fantasy" feel of Zemeckis' and Spielberg's early work (ie ET, Poltergeist, Back to the Future etc).
5. One of the first animated films to use motion capture technology. "The Polar Express" did this a year earlier, but married the captured performances to "realistic" looking characters. Here the technology is used to apply realistic motion to more overtly cartoonish models.
7. Two or three funny nods to "Forrest Gump".
Cons:
1. Forgettable characters. Our 3 heroes are pretty bland.
2. Like most CGI flicks, the last half hour degenerates into loud and annoying action spectacle. I had this same problem with "Surf's Up". What starts off as an unconventional and charming flick, eventually ends up in mindless Hollywood territory.
3. Inside the house is pretty unimaginative. All the horror and mystery is lost once the kids go indoors.
7.5/10 - Outside of PIXAR, this is one of the most imaginative and entertaining animated films of recent years.
Worth one viewing.
1. Some genuinely scary moments. There are a couple really clever spooky scenes in this film, one involving a moving shadow and another involving a demented old man.
2. Some nice nods to Hitchcock's "Psycho" and "Rear Window", as the three children spy on a sinister house through a telescope.
3. Some pretty clever camera work. Director Gil Kenan's orchestrates several neat flourishes worthy of Welles. Watching this film in 3D, I was also impressed with the use of shadows. It's a pretty creepy looking film.
4. Captures the whole "suburban fantasy" feel of Zemeckis' and Spielberg's early work (ie ET, Poltergeist, Back to the Future etc).
5. One of the first animated films to use motion capture technology. "The Polar Express" did this a year earlier, but married the captured performances to "realistic" looking characters. Here the technology is used to apply realistic motion to more overtly cartoonish models.
7. Two or three funny nods to "Forrest Gump".
Cons:
1. Forgettable characters. Our 3 heroes are pretty bland.
2. Like most CGI flicks, the last half hour degenerates into loud and annoying action spectacle. I had this same problem with "Surf's Up". What starts off as an unconventional and charming flick, eventually ends up in mindless Hollywood territory.
3. Inside the house is pretty unimaginative. All the horror and mystery is lost once the kids go indoors.
7.5/10 - Outside of PIXAR, this is one of the most imaginative and entertaining animated films of recent years.
Worth one viewing.
Not convinced
Soysoy1 March 2007
THE GOOD
The cinematics (camera movements and virtual lenses), which are almost better than Pixar's, the virtual lightning (marvelous). Great cinematic experience.
The ending song, "Halloween". Stunning to hear how this 30 years old song by Siouxsie and the Banshees still sounds fresh and edgy in 2007. What a great band, ahead of its time.
THE BAD
Shallow and formulaic character development, hollow one-dimensional characters, lack of face expression (they relied too much on the actors).
Also looks kinda outdated. When you have such a "realistic" CGI environment for the characters to live in, having static hair and soft movements for human characters is a major letdown, it doesn't fit in.
Extremely poor screenplay and lazy storytelling, mainly the flashback part about the circus woman, which could have been a terrific and very moving sub-story, but is sadly just sloppily executed.
Unfunny gags. Far too clean. Lacks grit. Lacks spirit, lacks real juice. Questionable editing decisions.
Overall, pretty tame, and slightly boring compared to the "big" projects in modern animation (Over the Hedge, Madagascar, Nemo...), with the exception of the cinematics, which are among the very best I've seen.
The cinematics (camera movements and virtual lenses), which are almost better than Pixar's, the virtual lightning (marvelous). Great cinematic experience.
The ending song, "Halloween". Stunning to hear how this 30 years old song by Siouxsie and the Banshees still sounds fresh and edgy in 2007. What a great band, ahead of its time.
THE BAD
Shallow and formulaic character development, hollow one-dimensional characters, lack of face expression (they relied too much on the actors).
Also looks kinda outdated. When you have such a "realistic" CGI environment for the characters to live in, having static hair and soft movements for human characters is a major letdown, it doesn't fit in.
Extremely poor screenplay and lazy storytelling, mainly the flashback part about the circus woman, which could have been a terrific and very moving sub-story, but is sadly just sloppily executed.
Unfunny gags. Far too clean. Lacks grit. Lacks spirit, lacks real juice. Questionable editing decisions.
Overall, pretty tame, and slightly boring compared to the "big" projects in modern animation (Over the Hedge, Madagascar, Nemo...), with the exception of the cinematics, which are among the very best I've seen.
A trio of preteens must work together to conquer the frightening house across the street when they discover that it is alive.
badkitty176928 July 2006
Let's be clear - Monster House is not your typical 'feel-good' children's movie. That isn't to say, however, that there are never any points where the viewer is allowed to feel good. In fact, I discovered, despite my initial resistance to a movie that I thought would simply impress me graphically, copious moments of warmth and humor within the unembellished and utterly human actions of the characters. This is the movie's paramount success. Not the plot, the myriad celebrity voices, or even the decisively unique and dazzling computer animation. Where Monster House really shines is within the dialogue and behavior of its perfectly believable personalities. From the girl-musings and growing pains of the pubescent DJ and Chowder to the cantankerous rantings of their crotchety old neighbor Nebbercracker, the cast is so natural that one would expect to run across such people within day-to-day life. It is this element that helps Monster House transcend an entirely surreal plot to make an idea so bizarre and twisted seem entirely real.
It is true that Monster House does contain a predominantly dark theme, with a considerable amount of eerie scenes to support it. I don't believe, however, that this should keep it from being shared with children, especially those preadolescences that will soon enough be able to relate to the emotions and actions of its protagonists. As long as younger children have the guidance of a parent or other compassionate adult, this film has the potential be viewed and adored by all ages.
It is true that Monster House does contain a predominantly dark theme, with a considerable amount of eerie scenes to support it. I don't believe, however, that this should keep it from being shared with children, especially those preadolescences that will soon enough be able to relate to the emotions and actions of its protagonists. As long as younger children have the guidance of a parent or other compassionate adult, this film has the potential be viewed and adored by all ages.
Some Laughs, Few Scares Here
slokes14 August 2013
Scare comedies are never easy. You have to do two very different things, get the audience scared and make them laugh. Each is hard enough on its own; finding the right balance is the real trick.
"Monster House" falls, but falls on the right side of the fence, for a kid's movie anyway. Director Gil Kenan and his writing team overwork the laughs, leaving you with a shaggy-dog "Goosebumps" story about a carnivorous old house and a trio of unlikely pre-teen friends who team up to take it down.
DJ is a boy on the cusp of puberty, beginning to feel too old for trick- or-treating when Halloween comes along. But trick-or-treating is very much on his mind, as he discovers a dark secret about an old house across the street: It's alive, and it's hungry!
Since it's designed for a younger demographic, it's hard to complain about a mildly funny comedy that leaves me flat in the story-and-thrills department. It amuses, in part because of some sharp moments in the script and in part because it captures a sense of suburban preteen life, when one begins to think like an adult without being required to act like one. I think the film is set in the early 1980s, with old coin-operated video games and Olivia Newton-John on the car radio, so I felt more at home watching this than expected.
I liked the banter between DJ and his pal, Chowder, likable dorks who find their friendship tested both by the house and by the appearance of the pretty-but-snobby Jenny. "Normally I don't spend time with guys like you, but a house just tried to eat me so you've got one hour," she tells them.
Despite funny lines like this, I found it hard sitting still during the big finale, when we learn the secret of the house's ornery owner, Nebbercracker (Steve Buscemi). Though it's an animated film, Buscemi and the other actors doesn't just voice their roles but act them out using the same "motion-capture" process pioneered on "The Polar Express." It's an interesting technology, though the animation isn't quite there yet here. All the characters seem to have influenza and severe dental issues, and move stiffly and unnaturally at times.
The big problem is the story; it's basically the title premise and some build-up with patchy logic. Adults don't believe anything is wrong until they find themselves on the wrong side of the welcome mat, yet their disappearances seem to pass without notice. Much of the action occurs either on a quiet street and in a vacant lot, where no one seems to notice the screaming, explosions and other activity. Normally I'd be concerned about a homicidal house on the rampage, but it seems this Mayville place may have bigger problems not discussed in the script.
I don't think pre-teens will enjoy "Monster House" that much; I don't expect they'll identify with the characters. Smaller children will probably enjoy the wild visuals, and adults will find some humor in lines that fly over the heads of the small fry.
"Monster House" falls, but falls on the right side of the fence, for a kid's movie anyway. Director Gil Kenan and his writing team overwork the laughs, leaving you with a shaggy-dog "Goosebumps" story about a carnivorous old house and a trio of unlikely pre-teen friends who team up to take it down.
DJ is a boy on the cusp of puberty, beginning to feel too old for trick- or-treating when Halloween comes along. But trick-or-treating is very much on his mind, as he discovers a dark secret about an old house across the street: It's alive, and it's hungry!
Since it's designed for a younger demographic, it's hard to complain about a mildly funny comedy that leaves me flat in the story-and-thrills department. It amuses, in part because of some sharp moments in the script and in part because it captures a sense of suburban preteen life, when one begins to think like an adult without being required to act like one. I think the film is set in the early 1980s, with old coin-operated video games and Olivia Newton-John on the car radio, so I felt more at home watching this than expected.
I liked the banter between DJ and his pal, Chowder, likable dorks who find their friendship tested both by the house and by the appearance of the pretty-but-snobby Jenny. "Normally I don't spend time with guys like you, but a house just tried to eat me so you've got one hour," she tells them.
Despite funny lines like this, I found it hard sitting still during the big finale, when we learn the secret of the house's ornery owner, Nebbercracker (Steve Buscemi). Though it's an animated film, Buscemi and the other actors doesn't just voice their roles but act them out using the same "motion-capture" process pioneered on "The Polar Express." It's an interesting technology, though the animation isn't quite there yet here. All the characters seem to have influenza and severe dental issues, and move stiffly and unnaturally at times.
The big problem is the story; it's basically the title premise and some build-up with patchy logic. Adults don't believe anything is wrong until they find themselves on the wrong side of the welcome mat, yet their disappearances seem to pass without notice. Much of the action occurs either on a quiet street and in a vacant lot, where no one seems to notice the screaming, explosions and other activity. Normally I'd be concerned about a homicidal house on the rampage, but it seems this Mayville place may have bigger problems not discussed in the script.
I don't think pre-teens will enjoy "Monster House" that much; I don't expect they'll identify with the characters. Smaller children will probably enjoy the wild visuals, and adults will find some humor in lines that fly over the heads of the small fry.
Solid fun
Calicodreamin3 December 2020
Monster House has now become a traditional watch among casual viewers.
TheMovieDiorama25 February 2018
Interestingly this received a mixed reception upon release, but as time has gone on it slowly garnered a following. I can see why, especially for younger audiences. Halloween films designed for the whole family are rare these days and I do think this was released way ahead of its time. A couple of kids believe their neighbour's house is actually alive after the owner is rushed to hospital. Conducting their own little investigation, the kids are involved in a story that is slightly more personal and evokes sympathy. This is an unusual film, considering it's produced by Zemeckis and Spielberg. It's got the 80's adventure vibe that Spielberg is famous for and a similar style animation that Zemeckis used for "The Polar Express". This is one of those rare films where my score flips constantly, this time between a six and seven. There are many great elements. The inclusion of subtle horror and terror blends well with the witty script. Not enough to scare everyone but an adequate amount to frighten children. The characters were memorable and full of life, each hosting a differing personality so that the dialogue bounces back and forth consistently between them. The narrative moves along at a rapid pace, in fact rather impeccably well. The most important thing, and the major thing I'm sure you all took away from this, is that it teaches you what a uvula is. Literally. Whenever I think about this film, instantly the uvula pops into my mind. The biggest problem however is the third act. It's completely preposterous to a point where I'm thinking "...surely someone is going to see the giant house walking down the street attacking children?". The animation is slightly polygonal occasionally which does take you out of the film. However, it's a good Halloween film that captures the magic of older similar films. It only gets better with age, just prepare yourself for a stupid ending.
Subpar, with a loss of focus too awkward to amend
DonFishies6 February 2007
Despite its obvious Halloween themed overtones, Monster House was released this past summer to modest box office receipts. Being a "scary" animated film in the middle of July, it did fairly well for itself. I had wanted to see it, but something felt off about the trailers and reviews I read about it. It was recently nominated for a Best Animated Film Academy Award, and just by chance, I finally had the opportunity to see it. And there indeed was something off.
Something is not right at Mr. Nebbercracker's (Steve Buscemi) house. Anytime an object lands on his property or anywhere near the house, it automatically becomes his, and he is never nice to anyone in the neighbourhood. D.J. (Mitchel Musso) is intrigued by the whole thing, and continually spies and watches Nebbercracker's movements. Shortly after his parents leave for a two day trip, his friend Chowder (Sam Lerner) arrives with a new basketball. A missed shot lands the ball on Nebbercracker's lawn. D.J. attempts to retrieve it, and ends up in an argument with the old man, resulting in his apparent "death". After the ambulance takes him away though, strange things begin happening with his house, and begins to come alive.
Yes, the plot is extremely silly, but in a nostalgic 1980's sort of way. It may be animated, but it feels much in the same realm as live action fare like The Goonies, Gremlins and all the other mildly scary and terrifically silly films of that time period. It just has that distinct feel and mold to it, that just seems out of place in 2006, but would be right at home in 1986. It is not that the film is not good, but it just feels a bit too over-the-top, even for a kid's film. When the house really starts getting to the point of being beyond haunted, it just loses its focus and becomes a bad monster movie. Giving the whole thing an emotional backgrounder that little to no kids would be able to understand really does not help the film all that much either. It just contributes to its ridiculousness.
The story is imaginative and most definitely entertains, but only to a certain point. When things start getting explained, the film's narrative stops at a halt, and just barely picks up afterwards. It drags itself out to its eventual finale, and it just does not need all of this extra exposition. Why do we need gross pee jokes? Or a tokin' bumbling black rookie cop? Do the filmmakers honestly believe that little children are going to be taking these in as the funny moments they are meant to be? Or are they going to be too afraid to open their eyes with all of the horrific mayhem going on on-screen? It is not like the film holds back on the cheap child-like scares, it only keeps up. And especially being a kids movie, it just felt awkward to do so. The in-jokes were amusing however, but again, will go sailing past a young child more so than similar things in other animated films.
Another thing that threw me off was the animation itself. Now I may be more accustomed to the work of Pixar and Dreamworks, but some of the work done here just feels very aged and withered. No character has any real distinguishing features between each other (beyond their obvious personality differences), and virtually none of them have any real detail in their looks. Now, this may be attributed to the motion-capture style animation being done to bring this film to life, but then why were Gollum and King Kong so frigging detailed? It screams of lazy film-making, and again, makes it feel more at home in 1986. Even after looking at the fascinatingly short making-of featurettes on the DVD, I still cannot fathom why so much work went into creating the animation to be just right, but not enough was put in to make it intricately detailed like other CGI-animated films.
The voice talent all deliver their lines and actions very well. Buscemi is a hoot as the crazy old man Nebbercracker. He gives the right amount of intensity and emotion needed at all times, even when the focus of the film really begins to slip. Mercer, Lerner and Spencer Locke (the female of the group, Jenny) are not too bad at all as the kids trying to get to the bottom of the disturbances. Their naivety and adventuresome nature make for some greatly imaginative moments in the film (albeit, the film could have cut most of their wasteful scenes from their material). Supporting turns from Maggie Gyllenhaal, Jason Lee, Kevin James and Jon Heder are all amusing in their own right, and were definitely interesting choices for these actors.
All around, Monster House is a disappointing film culled from a very interesting idea. Its sheer ridiculousness just cannot be offset by the fact that its a children's film. That never gave anyone else a free pass to make subpar work, and unfortunately that is exactly what this film is. It is watchable though, but I doubt I will ever see why the Academy gave this film the nomination and passed on the astonishing satire of the far superior Over the Hedge.
6.5/10.
Something is not right at Mr. Nebbercracker's (Steve Buscemi) house. Anytime an object lands on his property or anywhere near the house, it automatically becomes his, and he is never nice to anyone in the neighbourhood. D.J. (Mitchel Musso) is intrigued by the whole thing, and continually spies and watches Nebbercracker's movements. Shortly after his parents leave for a two day trip, his friend Chowder (Sam Lerner) arrives with a new basketball. A missed shot lands the ball on Nebbercracker's lawn. D.J. attempts to retrieve it, and ends up in an argument with the old man, resulting in his apparent "death". After the ambulance takes him away though, strange things begin happening with his house, and begins to come alive.
Yes, the plot is extremely silly, but in a nostalgic 1980's sort of way. It may be animated, but it feels much in the same realm as live action fare like The Goonies, Gremlins and all the other mildly scary and terrifically silly films of that time period. It just has that distinct feel and mold to it, that just seems out of place in 2006, but would be right at home in 1986. It is not that the film is not good, but it just feels a bit too over-the-top, even for a kid's film. When the house really starts getting to the point of being beyond haunted, it just loses its focus and becomes a bad monster movie. Giving the whole thing an emotional backgrounder that little to no kids would be able to understand really does not help the film all that much either. It just contributes to its ridiculousness.
The story is imaginative and most definitely entertains, but only to a certain point. When things start getting explained, the film's narrative stops at a halt, and just barely picks up afterwards. It drags itself out to its eventual finale, and it just does not need all of this extra exposition. Why do we need gross pee jokes? Or a tokin' bumbling black rookie cop? Do the filmmakers honestly believe that little children are going to be taking these in as the funny moments they are meant to be? Or are they going to be too afraid to open their eyes with all of the horrific mayhem going on on-screen? It is not like the film holds back on the cheap child-like scares, it only keeps up. And especially being a kids movie, it just felt awkward to do so. The in-jokes were amusing however, but again, will go sailing past a young child more so than similar things in other animated films.
Another thing that threw me off was the animation itself. Now I may be more accustomed to the work of Pixar and Dreamworks, but some of the work done here just feels very aged and withered. No character has any real distinguishing features between each other (beyond their obvious personality differences), and virtually none of them have any real detail in their looks. Now, this may be attributed to the motion-capture style animation being done to bring this film to life, but then why were Gollum and King Kong so frigging detailed? It screams of lazy film-making, and again, makes it feel more at home in 1986. Even after looking at the fascinatingly short making-of featurettes on the DVD, I still cannot fathom why so much work went into creating the animation to be just right, but not enough was put in to make it intricately detailed like other CGI-animated films.
The voice talent all deliver their lines and actions very well. Buscemi is a hoot as the crazy old man Nebbercracker. He gives the right amount of intensity and emotion needed at all times, even when the focus of the film really begins to slip. Mercer, Lerner and Spencer Locke (the female of the group, Jenny) are not too bad at all as the kids trying to get to the bottom of the disturbances. Their naivety and adventuresome nature make for some greatly imaginative moments in the film (albeit, the film could have cut most of their wasteful scenes from their material). Supporting turns from Maggie Gyllenhaal, Jason Lee, Kevin James and Jon Heder are all amusing in their own right, and were definitely interesting choices for these actors.
All around, Monster House is a disappointing film culled from a very interesting idea. Its sheer ridiculousness just cannot be offset by the fact that its a children's film. That never gave anyone else a free pass to make subpar work, and unfortunately that is exactly what this film is. It is watchable though, but I doubt I will ever see why the Academy gave this film the nomination and passed on the astonishing satire of the far superior Over the Hedge.
6.5/10.
Its unique, slightly unrefined aesthetic adds to its overall off-kilter vibe.
Pjtaylor-96-13804415 July 2018
If you look at almost any still-frame of 'Monster House (2006)', it would be easy to mistake for it a stop-motion affair. This is both a blessing and a curse, granting a unique and uniquely unsettling aesthetic to a picture that is, for all intents and purposes, kind of awkwardly animated and designed, as it falls victim to (relatively) early CGI capabilities - of both technology and artist - and a mixed-message approach to its overall look and feel. Though this causes some head-scratching contrast when it comes to its realist versus absurdist presentation, thankfully it usually tends to add to the movie's overall off-killer vibe. The balance between its comedy and kid-friendly horror is struck fairly well, while the more 'adult' themes and motifs play nicely into its scrappy '80s adventure' style plot to create something that feels suitably old-school and even sort of emotionally resonant. By mixing stylish 'architecture-horror' and occasionally more fantastical stuff with slightly more 'realistic' ghostly elements that tie directly into a fairly nuanced backstory, the picture manages to pull all the right, if predictable, strings. 7/10
Awesome Movie!
happykid27924 July 2006
Spectacular visuals, unforgettable characters, and a fairy tale story with a twist! Highly recommend the Real D 3-D version if available in your area.
Movie was scary, funny, dramatic and entertaining all at once. However, some parts of the movie may be a little too scary for kids 8 and under. For grown ups that still try to catch every episode of SpongeBob, this is it!
The Real D 3-D version added to the movie going experience. I didn't experience fatigue or dizziness for the entirety of the movie -- which was more common in previous 3-D movie technology. When I saw the beginning of the end credits, the experience just leaves you begging for more -- but for now, I know that desire can be satisfied by watching this movie again in the near future.
Movie was scary, funny, dramatic and entertaining all at once. However, some parts of the movie may be a little too scary for kids 8 and under. For grown ups that still try to catch every episode of SpongeBob, this is it!
The Real D 3-D version added to the movie going experience. I didn't experience fatigue or dizziness for the entirety of the movie -- which was more common in previous 3-D movie technology. When I saw the beginning of the end credits, the experience just leaves you begging for more -- but for now, I know that desire can be satisfied by watching this movie again in the near future.
Silly Fun, But...
lightworks123-123 July 2006
While watching "Monster House" I found myself trying to ignore inconsistencies in the story, but they kept cropping up. For example, I kept wondering why only children ever noticed anything wrong with the house. Even if no one else saw anything, the house was terrifically noisy throughout. Especially when the house began dragging itself through the neighborhood in pursuit of the children, it seemed impossible for others not to notice.
Also, though I was willing to suspend disbelief, there seemed to be no reason for any attraction between the old man and his wife, unless he simply had a fetish. Nothing about the wife's circumstances made sense, anyway. At least her history only came out near the end.
The best thing about the movie was the main characters' well-developed personalities. Though the animation was somewhat strange, the children were especially fully and realistically developed and their facial expressions were marvelous. At times, I felt like I was watching real people.
The one thing that spoiled the movie for me was this: Though both the policemen were stereotypical cop buffoons, the rookie cop--the only black character in the film-- was offensive. His round rolling eyes, "humorous" mental slowness and mannerisms were too much like the racially stereotypical comedy popular in 1920's-1930's. I am a white person, and this sort of characterization was out of place. It left me wondering how it would be received by my African-American friends and their children. As I exited the theater, I felt bemused that this type of "humor" had been done, especially since I thought Spielberg or someone ought to have been more aware. All I can hope is that those negative racial stereotypes are far enough in the past that most of today's audiences do not associate them with "Amos and Andy", et. al., though they're still around in old movies.
Over all, I think I would have preferred to have rented the movie, instead of paying theater prices to see it.
Also, though I was willing to suspend disbelief, there seemed to be no reason for any attraction between the old man and his wife, unless he simply had a fetish. Nothing about the wife's circumstances made sense, anyway. At least her history only came out near the end.
The best thing about the movie was the main characters' well-developed personalities. Though the animation was somewhat strange, the children were especially fully and realistically developed and their facial expressions were marvelous. At times, I felt like I was watching real people.
The one thing that spoiled the movie for me was this: Though both the policemen were stereotypical cop buffoons, the rookie cop--the only black character in the film-- was offensive. His round rolling eyes, "humorous" mental slowness and mannerisms were too much like the racially stereotypical comedy popular in 1920's-1930's. I am a white person, and this sort of characterization was out of place. It left me wondering how it would be received by my African-American friends and their children. As I exited the theater, I felt bemused that this type of "humor" had been done, especially since I thought Spielberg or someone ought to have been more aware. All I can hope is that those negative racial stereotypes are far enough in the past that most of today's audiences do not associate them with "Amos and Andy", et. al., though they're still around in old movies.
Over all, I think I would have preferred to have rented the movie, instead of paying theater prices to see it.
Much too Sinister and Disturbing to be a kids' movie!
tombonds30 July 2006
I have read a lot of the reviews on this movie, and contrary to what it seems most of the other people thought, we hated it. We almost walked out of the theater. Seven of us, of all ages, went to see this movie together, and the highest rating it got from our group was an "okay" from my nine year old son. For the younger kids it was terrifying and we had to leave the theater. From the previews it looked like something we'd really like and we made a point on vacation to see it at a theater in 3D. The animation was well done, but I didn't like most of the characters and it was more like an episode of "Supernatural" than a kids movie. The plot seems like a rehash of the popular horror genre TV shows. The poor attempts at humor are really sad. A couple of short giggles a couple of time is all we heard in our theater. The beer drinking and sexual suggestions DO NOT belong in a kids' movie! I hated the way the all parents were portrayed as stupid, immoral, and uncaring! All the threatening and abuse of the kids was disturbing. What can I say, this is one of the worst movies I have seen in a long time! It turned out to be nothing like any of the commercials we had seen marketed it and it was a horrible way to end a wonderful vacation. There is so much that is disturbing and inappropriate about this movie and it should NEVER, NEVER have been marketed for kids and families, or ever even made as far as I'm concerned! I will be telling every parent I know to avoid this one like the plague!
A Cartoon for the Young and Old
rumgunner-0907914 October 2018
badly executed sequence of tired clichés
tone-3831 July 2006
Typical of the level of this movie is the "uvula" gag (literally). The visuals make you think this is going to be something cool and important, but what develops is one dumb joke and the weak/gross basis for an escape. The whole plot feels strained an unbalanced. There's just not a lot of fun in watching it. To anyone posting a good rating...who's paying you? How many lines does it take to say that I didn't like the movie? Before seeing it, I'd read one review that claimed there was an interesting story behind the "horror". After seeing the movie, I have to disagree. The back story thin. The flashback animations are not up to the same standard as the rest of the movie, which makes you think they were slapped in after the fact. I'm giving it a two out of ten just to save the one rating for a movie that actually does damage when you see it.
This film is okay and has scary moments. Not a great film but good. 7/10
abalpn-9947220 October 2021
Chowder is the annoying character and he screams around and around. The animation is good. There are dark and scary moments. Those are the only parts I wrote in this review. The animation and scary moments. The characters in this film I don't find very interesting and the kids keep screaming from any direction. I didn't like the babysitter voiced by Maggie Gyllenhaal. She was there for a while and throughout the middle of the film she wasn't there.
I found out that RottenTomatoes gave the film a 75% approval rating. The film made over $22 million but it was almost a success. Again, not a great film but a good one.
7/10=70% "C" grading.
I found out that RottenTomatoes gave the film a 75% approval rating. The film made over $22 million but it was almost a success. Again, not a great film but a good one.
7/10=70% "C" grading.
Excellent family entertainment !!!
loyolite23 July 2006
This is the kind of movie which really makes up for watching movies like "Lady in the Water". I really liked the 3D version of the movie.
The movie had good humor, and the amount of cuteness for the characters, that you can only generate with cartoons. The story is of this kid and his 2 other friends, who investigate the house opposite as it is haunted. The house only seems to make its move when the adults are not there. So these kids try their best to convince the adults, and try to get help from the police. 2 cops come to check the house, and one of them is a rookie ( very funny ).
The movie will hold your attention all the time.
Enough said . I recommend you to see the 3D version of this, and you will definitely be entertained.
The movie had good humor, and the amount of cuteness for the characters, that you can only generate with cartoons. The story is of this kid and his 2 other friends, who investigate the house opposite as it is haunted. The house only seems to make its move when the adults are not there. So these kids try their best to convince the adults, and try to get help from the police. 2 cops come to check the house, and one of them is a rookie ( very funny ).
The movie will hold your attention all the time.
Enough said . I recommend you to see the 3D version of this, and you will definitely be entertained.
Funny and frightful family animation
oneloveall22 October 2006
Enjoyable CGI Halloween tale is most likely not for young children as it's marketing may have suggested, but would sit well with boys over twelve as one of the more entertaining animated films of the year. Coming to DVD one week before pumpkin night, Monster House is the ideal family Halloween movie at the moment. Taking place on that very night, the spectacular physical animation, creepy underlying themes, and haunted atmosphere make for that rare family cgi film that will sit nicely with young teens as well as many parents that join in. While the film might even go a little too far into it's serious tone late in the third act, the mostly light-hearted affair will carry plenty of laughs provided by the perceptive and witty interactions between characters.
interesting...
monz12022 July 2006
Wow...I saw this movie last night, and I was shocked with all of the special effects and graphics! I also was very surprised about how they made the characters emotions and looks very realistic. At some points I became somewhat scared, as my dad fell asleep during it. The first part is when a little girl is riding her tricycle and a leaf follows her. She then comes to befriend this very older looking, haunted looking home. Not trying to let all of the story out, but then an old man comes out of his monster looking house tells the young girl to stay of his property and lawn, and breaks her tricycle, as she runs home in fear...THere are many events that lead up to the main climax with two or three main characters conquering above. This movie is a great choice, and i recommend it for children over maybe seven or eight years of age
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
