Pixar Pint #4: Monsters, Inc.
Pixar figured out how to simulate fur. You won't believe what happened next!
Welcome back to Pixar Pints, our summer-long journey through all 25 Pixar films in release order.
In 1995, when Pixar released Toy Story, no one else was doing what they were doing. By 2001, they had enough competitors that the Academy felt the need to create an award for Best Animated Feature. It’s an award that wouldn’t exist without Pixar’s groundbreaking achievements in computer-generated animation. It’s an award for which Pixar put their best foot forward by submitting Monsters, Inc., another classic in this studio’s long line of them. And it’s an award that Pixar didn’t win because DreamWorks released Shrek the same year.
This decision has only become more correct with hindsight – Monsters, Inc. is definitely no Shrek – but Pixar’s efforts here shouldn’t go ignored.
Let’s get into it.
Monsters, Inc. quick facts
Release date: November 2, 2001 | Director: Pete Docter | Music: Randy Newman
Starring: John Goodman (Sully), Billy Crystal (Mike), Steve Buscemi (Randall), James Coburn (Waternoose), Jennifer Tilly (Celia), Mary Gibbs (Boo), Bob Peterson (Roz)
John Ratzenberger as: Yeti (commonly known as “Abominable Snowman”)
Budget: $115 million | Box office: $577.4 million
Academy Awards: Nominated for Best Animated Feature but lost to DreamWorks’ Shrek; won Best Original Song (“If I Didn’t Have You”); also nominated for Best Original Score and Best Sound Editing
Eli
Aesthetic: 7/10 | The monsters are all designed incredibly, in ways that pique the imagination and immerse you in the universe from the jump. Monstropolis is full of fun design choices and visual gags in ways that Pixar hasn't really done to this point. Unfortunately, most of the film takes place in the Monsters, Inc. factory, which is largely a dark, lifeless setting built to simulate a standard workplace environment.
Animation: 7/10 | Not notably good or bad to me aside from some of the monsters' fur, notably Sully; outstanding work for 2001. The rest of it just doesn't do much for me. The 2D opening and credits kinda threw me off, not necessarily because it was 2D, but because it didn't really seem to match the vibe of the rest of the film (off the top of my head, The Incredibles also uses 2D animation in the credit sequence, and it fits way better).
Story: 7/10 | Whereas Toy Story 2 has two separate plots entirely, this film feels like it has multiple stories baked into the same plot: there's the main story of Sully and Mike trying to foil Randall and Waternoose's evil plan, and aside from that, there's also the semi-side story of Sully realizing he's caused a ton of damage to a lot of children over the years and working to fix that both internally and externally. Overall, it's a super fun watch and it brings up just the right amount of emotion. Unfortunately, a lot of stuff is kinda just left unresolved. It's not entirely clear how much Waternoose or even the CDA knew about children not actually being toxic, and I'm also not sure whether Waternoose knew that laughter was significantly more effective than screams (how did nobody discover this, even on accident, in at least three generations of scaring kids?). Those two question marks make some of the characters' actions less sensical to me while also making a lot of the third act kinda fall in on itself. Overall, though, I understood where it was going and what it was going for.
Characters: 8/10 | Sully and especially Mike are iconic and almost go without introduction. As I mentioned earlier, pretty much all of the background characters are unique and fun in their own ways, even if they are pretty one-note. Randall is a dumb villain who could've stopped the plot in its tracks multiple times if he'd only been paying attention to what he was doing, but his design is thoughtful in its versatility. Waternoose becoming a villain is a twist you can kinda see coming from the opening scene. Pixar continues the trend of not having substantive human characters to animate, as Boo spends most of the runtime in a monster costume. Yeti is good comic relief and a nice way to shoehorn John Ratzenberger into the cast. My least favorite character is Celia (Mike's love interest), who gets unnecessarily mad at Mike to grind the plot to a halt in the second act and then snaps out of it in a literal instant near the climax to suddenly be all lovey-dovey with him again. She's obviously just a plot device and not a fully fleshed out character. The movie doesn't pass the Bechdel test.
Acting: 9/10 | Billy Crystal as Mike is immaculate and Bob Peterson as Roz (the nasally voiced slug clerk who always pesters him about paperwork) is probably the voice people mentally associate with this film; I didn't know Roz was voiced by a man before I looked it up. Everyone else is just kinda there—even John Goodman as Sully and Steve Buscemi as Randall. I want to never hear Daniel Gerson's Needleman/Smitty again, but I think that was annoying on purpose, so I don't really fault his acting.
Music: 8/10 | Another score by Randy Newman with no vocals until the credits, but the orchestral cues hit a lot harder than they did in A Bug's Life.
Final score: 8/10 | It's a lot funnier than I remembered, which makes up for most of the story's pitfalls in my eyes. Maybe if I give it the rewatch it deserves, it'll all fall into place.
Leah
Aesthetic: 8/10 | Pixar did a good job making kid-friendly monster characters; it struck the right balance between silly and intimidating. The monster designs weren't always to my taste, but the movie succeeded in creating a distinct style. I have to commend them for making Boo cute; humans have come a long way at Pixar. The background shots of the city and the room with all the doors are gorgeous, and I liked the use of 2D segments.
Animation: 8/10 | Sully's fur!!! Furry characters will eventually become a staple of CGI feature films, so it's cool to see how Pixar animates Sully in their early days. Overall, I think the animation of the monsters was creative, with a few parts looking dated.
Story: 8/10 | The concept of a society powered by the screams of children hits different as an adult. The energy crisis in this world parallels concepts like corporate greed, climate change, reluctance to adapt to change... Metaphors aside, I think this story is super fun. The humor is excellent, and Sully and Boo's arc was sweet. The idea that these monsters are actually terrified of kids was pretty funny. I do wish they'd explained that more, since by the end of the movie it was clear that Boo wasn't a threat, even though they still wanted to keep her visit to their world a secret.
Characters: 8/10 | The main cast filled their archetypes well. Mike and Sully are a fun duo and Boo is adorable. I enjoyed the humor of the background characters. Randall could stand to be a more observant villain though (how did he not notice he'd grabbed Mike instead of Boo?).
Acting: 9/10 | Mike Wazowski steals the show here. Roz is iconic too. I think the rest of the cast does a good job, but those two were the standouts.
Music: 8/10 | I enjoyed the score for this one! “If I Didn't Have You” is another memorable Pixar closer. Randy Newman gives these movies a unique musical identity.
Overall: 8/10 | Fun movie with heart and humor! (And a metaphor for the way suffering powers society.)
Maddy
Aesthetic: 8/10 | Character design masterclass. So many unique and interesting designs throughout this entire movie that still get me all giggly watching it again and seeing new details. I’m with Eli here in thinking the film taking place mostly inside Monsters, Inc. factory kinda hurts it.
Animation: 8/10 | This is carried by Sully’s fur. It is genuinely stunning to see it even today; it’s amazing. The rest of the movie looks fine to me. I honestly think Toy Story 2 is a more interesting film animation-wise than Monsters, Inc., but I accept my mild take.
Story: 7.5/10 | I’m just gonna put a "fun movie" note here. I can’t work up the energy to truly find and poke the holes in the plot, but it’s a very "mhm yep, fun movie". Tearjerker moment is real here.
Characters: 8/10 | Its headline characters do the heavy lifting here, which isn't a bad thing. Waternoose is a more sinister twist villain and one of the better ones in the Pixar canon, even if now it’s kinda easy to see, and Randall just kinda exists and doesn’t hold that big of a threat in my opinion. Mike and Sully are Mike and Sully, what else do I need to say? Everyone else in this movie, include Boo, are nothing more than supplementary to me.
Acting: 9/10 | I get it, Mr. Pixar, you have good acting performances in your movies. Please let other studios have some of the magic. Shoutout to Billy Crystal.
Music: 9/10 | Randy Newman could do the music for my funeral and I wouldn’t be surprised.
Final score: 8/10 | It’s fun! That’s basically where I sit now with it. Monsters, Inc., was another movie I had on VHS as a kid and a nostalgia-influenced rating would definitely be 9 or 10, but as a 21-year-old college student who watched this movie to cope with emotions, I just had fun. Pixar continues to ride a steady wave of good, successful movies.
Fun Maddy fact: "Put that thing back where it came from, or so help me!"
David
A veritable slapper.
Aesthetic: I mention this later on, but the variety in character design is awesome here and gives the world a ton of flavor right off the bat. Being stuck in the factory/workplace environment limits things somewhat, but by and large, when we do get those flashes of color and wilder action, they really shine.
Animation: Sully's fur gets highlighted here a lot, and deservedly so. It's quality stuff for 2001. I don't really have a lot else to say? It wasn't notable enough to... well, to be noted.
Story: Okay, so this is one of the movies that, even now, I find myself thinking "you know what would be sick, more exposition detailing how exactly the monsters work noise into energy", but maybe that's just me. I feel like, for as nice of a message as the story has, too many loose ends get left untied, and instead, you're kind of held to wondering. They do a good job of wrapping the A-plot, and the individual journeys of many of the characters have their proper endings, but there's a significant part of me that wanted and still wants to see the lasting ramifications of what they've discovered. It just seems like a big thing that gets a bow slapped on it and shoved aside.
Characters: Sully's great, Mike's phenomenal, and the play between the two of them is as delightful as it was all those years ago when I watched this for the first time. I had forgotten how goddamn funny the characters are, especially with some of those quippy one-liners that, man, you don't exactly remember from 20 years ago, but they work! Again, points for great variety in design here—you get a lot of uniquely visualized characters, and it's a nice touch in a world where they could have easily taken the shortcut of adding sameness to flesh out backgrounds.
Acting: I'm both impressed and whelmed here. You’ve got some really standout performances, including Bob Peterson as Roz, but the rest of the cast doesn't exactly float to the front of mind when it comes to iconic Pixar roles, you know? Even Mike and Sully, for as enjoyable of characters as they are, I don't think the highlight was ever their voices.
Music: Randy Newman, score my life please. No bangers like the Toy Story series has, but the music still goes.
Final score: It's another 9/10 from me. I've always had a really soft spot for this movie for some reason, I think because I was a kid that struggled pretty bad with night terrors and the idea that maybe it was one of those monsters under my bed somehow made it easier to cope with? Psychology is strange.
Nik
This movie was another Pixar film that was a big part of my childhood. Unrelatedly, my dad’s nickname for my younger sister was "Boo" when she was a toddler. She was three when the movie came out, about the same age as Boo's character in the movie, and they even look similar. Needless to say, this movie was and still is a big part of my family.
Aesthetic: This movie is colorful. The characters and the environments make it visually pleasing to watch.
Animation: There are so many textures the animators had to work on for the different types of monsters. The fur on Sully looks natural as he moves. Most impressive however is Randall, whose quick and sudden slithering moves are done to perfection.
Story: I'll agree with what everyone else has said. This isn't the most fleshed out Pixar movie by a longshot. It is a lot of fun to watch, but in my opinion, there is not a big overarching lesson like there is with the Toy Story movies. Sometimes, a life lesson isn't needed though, and this movie still has enough emotional moments to get the watcher feeling a little bit.
Characters: My only problem with the characters is, other than Mike and Sully, no one else has a lot of depth. Randall is just a bad guy, Celia is a fed-up girlfriend, and Boo is just a cute kid. That being said, Mike and Sully do grow noticeably over the course of the movie. Sully shows that he is much more loving than a scary monster, and Mike learns to not be so on edge all the time, as seen by his comedic act at the end of the movie.
Acting: John Goodman and Billy Crystal play off each other phenomenally. Their chemistry is unmatched. The way they banter back and forth feels natural. Steve Buscemi does a fantastic job portraying the sliminess of Randall in his voice alone. In addition, Bob Peterson as Roz has one of the most iconic lines of any Pixar movie: "Mike Wazowski, you forgot your paperwork."
Music: There is nothing on the soundtrack that really sticks, but Randy Newman is once again excellent in matching the tone of the movie.
Final score: 7/10 | On rewatch, this movie definitely fell a little bit for me considering the expectations I had going in. This may be because this movie was beloved by my family. I guess what I am looking for is that realness a lot of other Pixar films bring me in terms of the emotions the characters are going through. That is just not super present in Monsters, Inc.
Final notes
For the first time, not all of us agree on the correct ranking of the films! Here’s where we’re at.
Next up: Finding Nemo