Per ottenere l'energia che serve per illuminare la loro città, i mostri devono spaventare i bambini e catturare le loro grida di terrore. Ma le cose si complicano quando una bambina riesce a... Leggi tuttoPer ottenere l'energia che serve per illuminare la loro città, i mostri devono spaventare i bambini e catturare le loro grida di terrore. Ma le cose si complicano quando una bambina riesce a trovare il modo di visitare il mondo dei mostri.Per ottenere l'energia che serve per illuminare la loro città, i mostri devono spaventare i bambini e catturare le loro grida di terrore. Ma le cose si complicano quando una bambina riesce a trovare il modo di visitare il mondo dei mostri.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Vincitore di 1 Oscar
- 15 vittorie e 38 candidature totali
Billy Crystal
- Mike
- (voce)
John Goodman
- Sullivan
- (voce)
Mary Gibbs
- Boo
- (voce)
Steve Buscemi
- Randall
- (voce)
James Coburn
- Waternoose
- (voce)
Jennifer Tilly
- Celia
- (voce)
Bob Peterson
- Roz
- (voce)
John Ratzenberger
- Yeti
- (voce)
Daniel Gerson
- Needleman
- (voce)
- …
Bonnie Hunt
- Flint
- (voce)
Jeff Pidgeon
- Bile
- (voce)
Samuel Lord Black
- George Sanderson
- (voce)
- (as Sam Black)
Bob Bergen
- Schmidt
- (voce)
Riepilogo
Reviewers say 'Monsters, Inc.' impresses with its imaginative premise and strong voice acting by John Goodman and Billy Crystal. The animation is praised for its realistic depiction of monster fur and movement. The story, exploring themes of friendship, acceptance, and laughter, resonates deeply. Characters Sulley and Mike are charming and well-developed. The film's humor and emotional moments enhance its lasting appeal, though some find the plot slightly predictable. Overall, it's a beloved classic with memorable moments and a heartwarming message.
Recensioni in evidenza
The best way to describe this movie in one word is; fun! "Monsters, Inc." is a movie you can easily fall in love with. It has some great fun character, some awesome moments and some well placed comical moments. "Monsters, Inc." is entertainment at its bests.
The voice cast is amazing. John Goodman and Billy Crystal form a great leading duo. Steve Buscemi is a great villain and James Coburn has a great voice that fits his character perfectly. John Ratzenberger as always is very entertaining this time in a role as banished Yeti.
The story itself is pretty simple but thats what makes it easy to follow and so much fun to watch. The movie not only knows how to entertaining but also knows how and when to emote. The combination of fun and emotional things is perfectly balanced and placed within the movie.
There is some great dialog but the true power of "Monsters, Inc." are the wonderful characters. Not is there only a wild variety of strange and weird characters but also some characters that are good for some serious laughs and Boo is simply adorable and a pretty fair representation of a kid in real life. Well done Pixar!
Pure entertainment for the entire family!
10/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
The voice cast is amazing. John Goodman and Billy Crystal form a great leading duo. Steve Buscemi is a great villain and James Coburn has a great voice that fits his character perfectly. John Ratzenberger as always is very entertaining this time in a role as banished Yeti.
The story itself is pretty simple but thats what makes it easy to follow and so much fun to watch. The movie not only knows how to entertaining but also knows how and when to emote. The combination of fun and emotional things is perfectly balanced and placed within the movie.
There is some great dialog but the true power of "Monsters, Inc." are the wonderful characters. Not is there only a wild variety of strange and weird characters but also some characters that are good for some serious laughs and Boo is simply adorable and a pretty fair representation of a kid in real life. Well done Pixar!
Pure entertainment for the entire family!
10/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
You may admire the hair detail on Sully the Yeti's arm, but you will be amazed at the warmth of characterization in `Monsters, Inc.,' surpassing even the great `Shrek' earlier this year. Goodman and Crystal are a comedic team reminiscent of the zaniest Martin and Lewis days. Crystal's Borscht-belt routines brought smiles even to this jaded and admittedly tough-on-comedy critic. I thought Eddie Murphy's donkey in `Shrek' was smart and funny; Crystal's one-eyed monster is even better with its wry and annoying wit.
Cleaning the environment of child contamination is a hilarious conceit that turns around the usual fears children have of monsters in closets. It is also a chilling parallel to the challenge of removing anthrax from today's letters. Generally, the allegorical underpinnings of animation are natural for the medium, powerful like the images of the novel `Animal Farm' for political and sociological levels of meaning. For example, the endless-door motif in this film is an ingenious metaphor for the scary and glorious possibilities the present and future hold for kids.
Even before you see this feature, Pixar offers the short feature `For the Birds' -- a brilliant takeoff on Hitchcock's memorable film besides being a great commentary on diversity. The expressions around the animated eyes, as the little birds deal with the big bird interloper, are more expressive than those of most contemporary film actors, with the exception of Brando, Pacino, Depp, and Streep.
The short trailer for `Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones' may precede the showing as it did ours for an added delight.
`Monsters, Inc.' is the best animated feature this year and one of the greatest of all time.
Cleaning the environment of child contamination is a hilarious conceit that turns around the usual fears children have of monsters in closets. It is also a chilling parallel to the challenge of removing anthrax from today's letters. Generally, the allegorical underpinnings of animation are natural for the medium, powerful like the images of the novel `Animal Farm' for political and sociological levels of meaning. For example, the endless-door motif in this film is an ingenious metaphor for the scary and glorious possibilities the present and future hold for kids.
Even before you see this feature, Pixar offers the short feature `For the Birds' -- a brilliant takeoff on Hitchcock's memorable film besides being a great commentary on diversity. The expressions around the animated eyes, as the little birds deal with the big bird interloper, are more expressive than those of most contemporary film actors, with the exception of Brando, Pacino, Depp, and Streep.
The short trailer for `Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones' may precede the showing as it did ours for an added delight.
`Monsters, Inc.' is the best animated feature this year and one of the greatest of all time.
I thought Billy Crystal and John Goodman were great. I like them anyway, but I can't imagine anyone else in their roles. John Goodman comes across as a warm, fuzzy teddy bear type in so many of his roles, and this time he was actually drawn that way. Crystal and Goodman were great together, even when their characters showed signs of not getting along. And Boo sounded so natural, so childlike. There's no way an adult could have done her lines the way they were executed.
And the writing was so intelligent, this movie was not just for kids. There were a lot of clever jokes that kids might not get. Still, the warm and fuzzy qualities of so many of the monsters make this a perfect choice for kids as well as adults, and I really don't get why ABC couldn't give this a TV-G rating. It may have been a little violent or scary at times, but never all that intense. Kids see worse on Saturday morning.
And the writing was so intelligent, this movie was not just for kids. There were a lot of clever jokes that kids might not get. Still, the warm and fuzzy qualities of so many of the monsters make this a perfect choice for kids as well as adults, and I really don't get why ABC couldn't give this a TV-G rating. It may have been a little violent or scary at times, but never all that intense. Kids see worse on Saturday morning.
This is a very entertaining animated film. I've seen it twice and enjoyed even more the second time. Billy Crystal said he enjoyed making this film as much as any film he's ever done, so that's a good testimony that you'll get some laughs and enjoy this movie as an adult, too.
Kids will love it, I am sure. The "monsters" in here are funny-looking and almost lovable, nothing that would scare your kids (or you). Crystal has a bunch of funny lines but overall I found this to be as much if not more of a human interest story than a comedy.
There is a lot of sentimentality 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.
Kids will love it, I am sure. The "monsters" in here are funny-looking and almost lovable, nothing that would scare your kids (or you). Crystal has a bunch of funny lines but overall I found this to be as much if not more of a human interest story than a comedy.
There is a lot of sentimentality 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.
This is a resubmitted comment, the original was removed by a complaint from some anonymous aggrieved party. Let's hope the edits are sufficient this time.
You already know that this is the usual Pixar fare, which is to say that it is excellent, better than any non-Pixar animated film. Sure, you also know that and you probably know the usual reason given: that Pixar spends more time on basic storytelling values than anyone else.
Here are two elements of this that may deepen your appreciation. The first is that Pixar recognized early that 3D animation software allowed two types of advance in 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.
You already know that this is the usual Pixar fare, which is to say that it is excellent, better than any non-Pixar animated film. Sure, you also know that and you probably know the usual reason given: that Pixar spends more time on basic storytelling values than anyone else.
Here are two elements of this that may deepen your appreciation. The first is that Pixar recognized early that 3D animation software allowed two types of advance in 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.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizMary Gibbs was so young that it proved difficult to get her to stand in the recording studio and act her lines. Instead, they simply followed her around with a microphone and cut Boo's lines together from the things she said while she played.
- BlooperWhen Sulley runs into the locker room to shove the toys from Boo's room into a locker, he is seen putting them into locker #193 then slamming the door with both hands. When the camera angle changes, he removes his hands from locker #190 even though his hands never moved from the locker between shots.
- Curiosità sui creditiNo monsters were harmed in the making of this motion picture.
- Versioni alternativeIn the International version, the slogan 'We Scare Because We Care' doesn't appear on the TV set. However, Waternoose still says the slogan. Also, many other picture inscriptions (like the title of Waternoose as chairman of Monsters, Inc.) are omitted from the TV advertising and from other ad posters seen later during the film.
- Colonne sonoreIf I Didn't Have You
Music and Lyrics by Randy Newman
Performed by Billy Crystal and John Goodman
Produced by Randy Newman, Chris Montan, and Frank Wolf
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Siti ufficiali
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- Monsters, Inc.
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Budget
- 115.000.000 USD (previsto)
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 290.642.256 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 62.577.067 USD
- 4 nov 2001
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 579.771.043 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione
- 1h 32min(92 min)
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti