Monsters, Inc. (2001)

Directors:

Pete Docter
David Silverman (co-director)

Drehbuchautoren:

Pete Docter (story) &
Jill Culton (story) ...

Premierendatum:

2. November 2001 (USA)

Genre:

Trickfilm | Komödie | Familienfilm | Fantasy

Werbezeile:

Monsters, Inc. : We Scare Because We Care

Plot:

Monsters generate their city's power by scaring children, but they are terribly afraid themselves of being contaminated by children, so when one enters Monstropolis, top scarer Sulley find his world disrupted.

Plot Keywords:

Chameleon | Panic | Corporate | Portal | Little Girl

Filmpreise:

Won Oscar. Another 11 wins & 31 nominations

Nutzerkommentare:

The best computer animated film of them all, and the most adult

Besetzung

John Goodman	...	James P. "Sulley" Sullivan (voice)
Billy Crystal	...	Mike Wazowski (voice)
Mary Gibbs	...	Boo / Mary (voice)
Steve Buscemi	...	Randall Boggs (voice)
James Coburn	...	Henry J. Waternoose (voice)
Jennifer Tilly	...	Celia (voice)
Bob Peterson	...	Roz (voice)
John Ratzenberger	...	The Abominable Snowman (voice)
Frank Oz	...	Fungus (voice)
Daniel Gerson	...	Needleman / Smitty (voice)
Steve Susskind	...	Floor Manager (voice)
Bonnie Hunt	...	Flint (voice)
Jeff Pidgeon	...	Bile (voice)
Samuel Lord Black	...	George Sanderson (voice) (as Sam Black)
Jack Angel	...	Additional Voice (voice)

Alternativ:

Hidden City (USA) (working title)
Monsters, Incorporated (USA) (alternative spelling)
Monster AG - (Monsters, Inc.), Die (Deutschland) [de]
Monster AG, Die (Deutschland) (promotional title) [de]

Länge:

92 Min

Produktionsland:

USA

Sprache:

Englisch

Farbe:

Farbe

Seitenverhältnis:

1.85 : 1

Tonverfahren:

DTS | Dolby Digital | SDDS

Altersfreigabe:

Iceland:L | USA:TV-PG (ABC) | USA:TV-G (Disney Channel) | Malaysia:U | Argentina:Atp | Australia:G | Brazil:Livre | Canada:G | Chile:TE | Finland:K-7 | France:U | Germany:6 | Hong Kong:I | Ireland:G | Japan:U | Netherlands:AL | New Zealand:G | Norway:7 | Peru:PT | Portugal:M/6 | Singapore:G | South Korea:All | Spain:T | Sweden:7 | Switzerland:7 (canton of Geneva) | Switzerland:7 (canton of Vaud) | Taiwan:GP | UK:U | USA:G | Greece:K

Firma:

Pixar Animation Studios

Dies und das:

News leaked in early fall of 2001 that this movie would feature the first teaser for Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002). Hundreds of Star Wars fans paid admission for the movie just to see the teaser and reportedly some left after seeing it.

Pannen:

Verschiedenes: On the Scare Floor scoreboard, all of the characters except for Randall (Boggs) are listed by last name.

Dialogzitate:

[first lines]
Flint: All right, Mr. Bile, is it?
Bile: Uh, my friends call me Phlem.
Flint: Uh-huh, Mr. Bile, can you tell me what you did wrong?
Bile: I fell down?

Bezüge zu anderen Titeln:

Bezug enthalten in Finding Nemo (2003)

Soundtrack:

If I Didn't Have You

The best computer animated film of them all, and the most adult

Until now I couldn't bring myself to believe that computer animation was the equal of either stop motion animation or hand-drawn animation. All computer animated films looked a little (usually more than a little) too sterile, many were animated poorly ("Antz", "Shrek", "Final Fantasy"), and even the single unqualified success ("Toy Story 2") provided little evidence that a computer animated film COULD reach the heights other kinds of animation could. "Toy Story 2" had flawless character animation, but nothing as inspired as the best in "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.