The critics on ‘Monsters vs. Aliens’ 3-D: Thumbs down

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.

Let’s forget about Jeffrey Katzenberg’s alleged resemblance to the arch-villain in ‘Monsters vs. Aliens,’ the much-touted new DreamWorks Animation film that is clearly geared not only to make tons of moolah but generate even broader commercial acceptance for 3-D movies.

The box-office story is yet to be written. But the critical reception has been lukewarm at best, with most of the country’s top critics giving a thumbs-down to the film. The Wall Street Journal’s Joe Morgenstern best summed up the critical reaction, saying in his review: ‘The biggest battle in ‘Monsters vs. Aliens’ is between banality and originality, and banality carries the day.’

The really bad news is that most critics were hugely underwhelmed by the film’s supposedly revolutionary 3-D effects, which were intended to be dazzling enough to persuade parents to pay a hefty premium to buy tickets for their broods at 3-D-equipped theaters. As Entertainment Weekly’s Lisa Schwarzbaum wrote: ‘Is the [3-D] plastic-glasses experience really any more engrossing or serious now than it was in the 1950s with novelties like ‘It Came From Outer Space?’ The eyes say no.’

The most damning attack came from perhaps the most influential of all American critics, Roger Ebert, who is normally a reliable enthusiast for artful or visionary filmmaking. In fact, most of his review today dissected ‘Monsters vs. Aliens’ ’ 3-D effects, which he pronounced ‘a distraction and an annoyance.’ As he plainly put it: ‘If this is the future of movies for grown-ups and not just the kiddies, saints preserve us.... For anyone who would just like to be left alone to see the damned thing, like me, it’s a constant nudge in the ribs saying ‘Never mind the story, just see how neat I look.’ ‘

Ebert also echoes a point that I’ve been making for some time. For all of the tub-thumping about its potential artistry, 3-D is designed to be a cash machine, not a cinematic marvel. The real reason Hollywood studios, with Katzenberg at the helm, are promoting 3-D is because it offers them a bigger chunk of revenue in an era when movie attendance has been flat. As Ebert says, it’s a ‘gimmick, which, let’s face it, is intended primarily to raise ticket prices and make piracy more difficult. If its only purpose was artistic, do you think Hollywood would spend a dime on it?’

I’ve been trying to convince my 10-year-old son to see the movie with me, since his opinion of the film -- being at the core of the next generation of filmgoers -- is far more important than mine or Ebert’s. (So far he’s on the fence.) But since we’ve hosted some articulate debates here about 3-D in the past, if anyone has a strong opinion about the movie’s 3-D effects and their impact on the film’s storytelling, I’d like to hear about it.

I’ll let Ebert have the last word. He says parents ‘may ask themselves how much it was worth for the kids to wear the glasses. Is there a child who would see this movie in 2-D (which has brighter colors than 3-D) and complain?’ Ebert doesn’t think so. What about you?

Previously: Jeffrey Katzenberg: The Jerry Falwell of 3D?