Pixar Fails Its Own Legacy

Rating: 7/10 (24 November 2001)

Disney and Pixar are at it again. Inspired by their own sales figures of Toy Story action figures and lunchboxes, the two companies have collaborated once more for Monsters Inc., a film that would be flat-out charming if it wasn't so disappointing and lacking in the qualities that made Toy Story a good film AND marketing device.
The best thing about Toy Story was that the story didn't just focus on Woody and Buzz. There were all those supporting characters, and every one, from Rex and Hamm to the aliens in the vending machine, had just as much personality and were just as funny as the main characters. In Monsters Inc., with the exception of all-too-short scenes involving the Abominable Snowman and Mike's girlfriend Cecilia, there are no supporting monster characters at all; we're stuck with Mike and Sully the whole time. No offense intended to Billy Crystal or John Goodman, as both are perfect matches for their characters, and put in a valiant effort, but neither of the leading monsters has any good lines (even Mike's "Sure, blame the little guy with his ONE EYE!" line from the trailer has been cut). There really doesn't seem to be much humor at all, not even any toilet humor for the immature kiddies.
The other major problem with this film is that it reeks of unoriginality. The concept is brilliant, and the explanation of Monsters Inc.'s premise and why monsters scare is innovative and suggests what could have been; unfortunately, like many recent Disney films, the film is totally formulaic and predictable, all the way up to the obligatory "heroes in peril chase scene" that is thrilling, but will also no doubt inspire Disneyland's next attraction. There wasn't even a trademark Pixar "bloopers reel" during the credits (although I will admit the film's opening credits were very classy, and reminiscent of the Pink Panther).
So what are Monsters Inc.'s saving graces? Well, it has the Pixar name, and a bad Pixar film is still better than the average bad family film (and really, since Pixar currently has no competition in the computer animated feature film market except Shrek, they can set their own standards for quality). If nothing else, it's amazing to see the hypnotic realism of each individual strand of Sully's fur blowing in the wind. There are also some slick inside references to Ray Harryhausen, California's recent power crisis and Toy Story, and a great bonus short included before the film that I actually enjoyed more than the feature film (just like in Bug's Life... am I noticing a trend here?). On the whole, however, I guess I just expected too much from Pixar and took for granted the unique creative and critical success they had with the Toy Story films.