training program and some of the top Monsters in the scaring business.There's a colorful Metropolis, filled with houses, buildings, businesses, cars and everything that makes a city run smoothly along with a population of colorful creatures. One of the colorful groups of creatures is the yellow swat team. Their job is to protect the Metropolis of Monsters, Inc. from human contamination.But what happens when a human child mysteriously gets through the bedroom door and terrorizes the city with screams and boo's. It's wondrous and funny. In the mist of all this is industrial crime, brought on by greed. But, the story ends on a very happy note.John Goodman is the voice of `Sulley' a colorful large blue-green ape like monster who's the star Monsters, Inc. employee. He's some type of monster, cut, cuddly, and he has a conscience that leads him to feelings of regret about scarring children. He becomes attached to Boo voice of Mary Gibbs a cute, little big-eyed girl who is mysteriously brought to Monsters, Inc. and in his quest to return her home becomes very attached to her.Sulley's best friend is Mike voice of Billy Crystal who's a funny looking green ball with stick legs and one huge eye. His comedy is seen through out the movie. Mike is Sulley's driving force, acting as his agent. Mike's job is to make sure Sulley remains the top Monsters, Inc. employee. But when it comes to laughter Mike proves he's on top.Mike's girl friend Celia voice of Jennifer Tilley is the stylish employee who has Mike's best interest at heart. Her job is to keep him out of trouble.I give Monsters, Inc. a ten. It is an animated movie that can be enjoyed by the whole family. It makes for great family fun.

a watermelon. Billy Crystal is Mike Wazowski, his wisecracking, one-eyed best friend. Both of these monsters live in Monstropolis, a world where monsters roam freely. Their city is powered by a rare source of power - children's screams. That is where Monsters, Incorporated comes in. At Monsters, Inc., monsters like Sulley and Mike open portals into children's rooms - through closet doors - and scare the children, capturing their scream in a little yellow bottle. Sulley is the top-scarer, bringing in the most scares. But Randall the always enjoyable - even when animated - Steve Buscemi , a wormy, multiple-armed lizard-monster with the ability to change appearances to its surroundings, is jealous of Sulley, and will attempt anything to get more scares...even if it means taking a child from the real world and bringing it into Monstropolis. But after the child escapes, Sulley and Mike reluctantly look after it, all the while trying to get it back to the real world before Mr. Waternoose the late James Coburn and others find out about the incident..."Monsters, Inc." does for monsters what "Toy Story" did for toys. Pixar once again not only expands our mind, but our very worlds. I respect their company and commitment values very much, as you can read in my "Toy Story" review. They stick to the values that made Disney films so family-friendly back in the fifties and sixties: Respect for the audience, respect for quality, and respect for the audience's INTELLIGENCE, something Disney, who has recently coughed up a bunch of lousy, thoughtless sequels, has forgotten. Now, I know that LEGALLY Disney is co-creator of "Toy Story" and "Monsters, Inc.," but they really are not. They just give Pixar the money and get their name branded on the front box of the film. And even then, I have heard multiple claims that Disney is very mean-spirited towards Pixar read into sequel trouble for "Toy Story 3" and gives them the bare minimum.But that is straying off the subject. "Monsters, Inc." is one of the most enjoyable animated films I have ever had the pleasure of viewing. I didn't enjoy it as much the first time, but I then bought it, and have since watched it many times. It is an instant classic. I will be watching it years from now, when I am old and frail and in a rocking chair. It ranks right up there with "Toy Story" 1 & 2, and all the OLDER Disney films from the 50's-70's. It has all the elements of a sweet, charming, emotional and pleasurably good-natured animated film. And, more coudos to Pixar: Thank you for not packing it full of the language and inappropriate content that Disney shoves into the dark recesses of their films nowadays.Not only has Pixar brought back the "Family Film" genre to what it should be, but it also redefines it. Pixar's animated films are some of the most thoughtful, imaginative and enjoyable animated films ever - not to mention 100 % family safe. Thank you, Pixar, for getting back on track.5/5 stars

"Tarzan" released the same year, although I could have chosen almost any other Disney cartoon to make my point ; effective art direction, but nothing to match "Fantasia" or "The Nightmare Before Christmas". And I thought that "Toy Story 2" was as good as the art was ever going to get.I was wrong. This is far better. And what's more, there's no sense whatever that the script an unusually rich and uninhibited script is bumping up against the limits of what the medium will allow. It's now been proven that computer animation CAN be just as good as any other kind. Whether it will be allowed to be in future is another question, but for now, I'm hopeful. What we have here is computer animation's first ENTIRELY unalloyed artistic delight, with every character gracefully and characteristically animated, every virtual set just right and pleasing to look at, and an eye-tickling mastery of colour, light and shade that I thought would forever elude CGI artists.It's not fair to judge anything good as "Monsters, Inc." as though it were a children's movie, but I can't resist comparing it with "Shrek" - which emphatically IS a children's movie. "Monsters, inc." is admittedly ABOUT children, in a sort of a way. The inhabitants of Monstropolis rely on children's screams for their energy, and the central story is kicked off when one of the monsters accidentally brings a small child which he calls "Boo" into the city. But we never see things from her point of view. We see things from the point of view of the monsters, who are all adults - and who, like most adults, see children as frightening, almost incomprehensible members of another species. And they ARE. To be sure, Wazowski comes to feel strong affection for Boo, but she never becomes more than a humanoid pet which is not to demean the relationship . This is a story about adults looking at childhood from the outside."Shrek", of course, is a children's movie through and through. Its attention span is short, it has an unthinking mean streak, and children will have a whale of a time watching the central characters the bigger they are, the more fun it is act childishly and make poo-poo jokes. "Monsters, Inc." has too much genuine wit, characters too rich, a world with too much depth, and a story at once too coherent and too complicated, to be PRIMARILY a film for children. This is not to say children won't like it. Maybe they will. Who can say? Here's the bonus: if they DO like it, it will unlike "Shrek" actually have a beneficial effect. It will make them less frightened of the dark.

to it, even overdone a bit at the end, but that's okay. There is absolutely nothing offensive in here, either. The colors look spectacular, too.

the third dimension. The first is obvious, that everything has depth and reflection and shadow more or less like reality.The second is that once these objects and scenes are defined in the computer, it is no extra work to move the camera anywhere. it can loop and swoop in ways that we never could have before. Pixar decided to exploit this in their storytelling here and later in "Nemo."Nemo was set in an environment where there was no horizon so the camera could flow and the watery feel of the place could make the unfamiliar fluidity of the camera seem more natural. Here, is where they tested some of those perspectives in the three dimensional door warehouse and the extra dimensions of going in and out. Those scenes make this for me.The second interesting thing is some competitive background. In those days, there was a shooting war between Bill Gates, financier of Dreamworks Animation and leader of Microsoft and Steve Jobs of Pixar and leader of Apple . This was in the heyday of Gates' dirty tricks and he was intent on burying Jobs forever. Pixar depended on the success of "A Bug's Life" their followon to "Toy Story," so Dreamworks rushed "Antz" -- a cheapy -- to open a week or so before to steal the market."Bugs" prevailed, sufficiently at least, and Pixar ramped up for their usual three year development of "Monsters." Dreamworks, getting wind of this, went all out with "Shrek," their "monster" movie that could be released six months earlier. It only took a year because the animation is less perfect. But they were overt in their attack this time: "Shrek" made literal fun of Disney, the Pixar partner. The head guy at Disney was the model for the blowhard King who reigned over a fairytale kingdom populated with -- can you guess? -- all the old Disney characters.Pixar/Jobs would never do something so spiteful. But perhaps they did subtly appreciate the use of windows and gates to the future that always seemed to go wrong. And now you can too.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

funny as any other film from 2001 . First, the animation is even better than TS2. What? What did you say? Shrek? Ugh, don't even mention that waste of hard-drive space. Monsters Inc. is simply gorgeous in its color schemes. And the movement of the characters is so smooth it looks almost as if it were just the best stop-motion animation ever created. In the film, there is a Japanese restaurant that the monsters go to that's named after the great stop-motion master Roy Harryhausen. I'm sure he'd be stunned at the accomplishment. Second, it has a couple of the most exciting sequences in animation history, especially the climactic sequence in the door room. That's a scene that'll go down in the books. And, third, it's perhaps the first Disney film since Dumbo to be touching, but not cloying. Although some people have told me that the one song in TS2 made them cry, I personally was cringing through that number. There's a scene in Monsters Inc. that honestly made me cry. Generally, that's not much. I'm easily moved. However, I don't fail to notice if a film is emotionally manipulative. That's not the case here. The only other Disney moment that really touched me that deeply is the "Baby Mine" song from Dumbo. I think that the only people who don't cry during that song are convicts on death row. I really loved the characters in Monsters Inc. The relationship that develops between Sully and Boo is truly touching. It's developed in a very natural way. And it certainly helps that Boo is easily the cutest kid in the universe, even if she's not real. There were a lot of "aww"s in the theater, but they were coming from college students, not maddening parents trying to get their kids to pay attention. Oh! And did I mention that the film's villain is one of Disney's best? He's a chameleon-like monster named Raymond, voiced by Steve Buscemi. Sure, his motives aren't all that interesting, but I love the way he moves. It's amazing. And his face is so expressive, but not too expressive like the characters in, say, ahem, Shrek.As much as I would love to, I can't say that Monsters Inc. is a perfect film. There are a couple of flaws. The first fifteen minutes or so, basically until Boo wanders out into the monsters' world, are pretty boring. By this point, though, I was so amazed at the beauty of the artwork that I hardly cared. Also, most of the monsters aren't very interesting looking, that is, besides the colors. Raymond and the big boss of Monsters Inc., who is a spider-like creature, are the most interesting. Also, Billy Crystal's girlfriend in the film, a Medusa-like creature, with snakes for hair that copy her emotions, is very cool. Most of the other monsters are so cute that it's a wonder that they can scare children at all! That's how they get fuel, by the way; children's screams power the monsters' world . Sully, for instance, who is the main character, more or less the commercials concentrate on Billy Crystal's character more, for some reason; the logic must be that Billy Crystal is a bigger box office draw than big, fat John Goodman, a pretty insulting thought . Anyhow, Boo comes into the monsters' world because she thinks he is a giant kitty! We can't blame them too much for this, though. You know Disney would never produce a film that didn't have an ability to push their line of plush toys. Some of the monsters, though, are kind of boring. This is especially true with Mike, the little green cyclops ball played by Crystal. Sully could become a classic hero, and Raymond a classic villain, but it's doubtful Mike will stick in your head for as long. Crystal is, however, very funny in the film and that might be the only time I'll ever say that! . He'll never be as boring as Shrek, nor as painful to listen to as Eddie Murphy as the donkey in Shrek. The story of Monsters Inc. is full of cliches, which is unfortunate. As I've been trying to point out, most everything else about the film is so inventive that it's not too noticeable, but it will never be unnoticeable. You'll see the revelation that the monsters have at the end two hours before the movie starts. Your youngest child might not figure it out, but anyone over eight will know as soon as it's humanly possible. There's also the kind of betrayal that's popping up so often now in animation, well, in all movies, really, that you can almost take it for granted anymore. And, heck, I would've predicted it myself if I weren't being so enormously entertained! If it weren't for these cliches, Monsters Inc. might have ended up earning the title as one of the best movies I had ever seen. Still, I'll never forget it! Now, what can Pixar possibly do to surpass this? 9/10.

makes it almost feel like they are real. Second, the story. How inventive! The only thing separating the monster world from the real world are the doors. The company, Monsters Inc, must have millions of them in inventory, computerized for quick call-up to send in a monster to get screams and charge up their energy cells.The main characters are voiced by John Goodman big, blue, hairy "kitty" with purple spots and Billy Crystal short, green, one-eyed monster and their acting add so much. Plus the great music provided by Randy Newman. Overall an hour and a half of pure edge of your seat entertainment. And that doesn't even include the 3+ hours of extras on the second disk. You can select either standard or widescreen format, and I watched mine widescreen on a 16:9 HDTV with 5-channel surround system with powered subwoofer. Almost like being in a theater!!

Delight for the whole family8/10

Mouse's work with him at length , story and characters plagiarized directly and unchanged from Stanley Mouse's notebooks and script, and new Intellectual Property laws which require clear delineations between "fair use" and "misappropriation", Pixar was placed at an extreme disadvantage in any ensuing arbitration. Recognizing that they would lose a large portion of their $500 million box-office profits if the case ever went to trial, Disney and Pixar settled out-of-court, with Mr. Mouse winning a large, if undisclosed, sum of money and royalties.