edmundwells

At the time of this review, "Monsters vs Aliens" carried a mere 6.4 rating, which is a ginormous injustice. I am a huge fan of sci-fi/comedies, and this little gem had me grinning and laughing out loud from start to finish. It's really more of a sci-fi/super hero movie, except that the "heroes" are a rag-tag team of likeable monsters from classic horror films like "The Blob" and "The Creature From The Black Lagoon". It's both a parody and homage to classic and modern sci-fi films, and is really quite clever.

The main protagonist, a reluctant 50-foot monster with the terrifying name of "Susan", has a satisfying characer arc, ultimately proving to be smart and tough without being preachy about it. The story is uncomplicated but engaging; the characters are silly and often hilarious, and the voice acting is terrific. And it's worth noting that the animation is great - Pixar has nothing on this one.

I can only speculate that the lower votes are coming from viewers who are either not fans of sci-fi or did not "get" the cultural references to classic sci-fi and horror movies. Even without these insights, however, the story should appeal to any fan of light-hearted science fiction, and is also safe for kids. I found the alien villian particularly hilarious.

The 6.4 rating also does not reflect that the movie was nominated for many awards, winning the Saturn Award for Best Animated Film.

So if you like sci-fi/comedy and super hero movies (such as The Incredibles or Guardians of the Galaxy), don't be dissuaded by the "average" rating for "Monsters vs Aliens", which is a galaxy from being accurate.

The great cast gathered for this unoriginal, disease-ridden story is wasted on what is more accurately described as a documentary, carrying a thin plot, no story arc, no character development, and no actual climax. Not even Matt Damon could save this sleeper.

If you want a more entertaining, action-driven movie of this genre - with lots of helicopters - I would recommend "Outbreak" with Dustin Hoffman, Morgan Freeman and Donald Sutherland, among other fine actors.

I loved this movie when it first came out and found it just as enjoyable upon a recent re-watching. Afterwards, I noticed that it carried the same IMDB rating of 6.6 as a more recent disease-disaster movie, "Contagion", which I find perplexing.

While "Outbreak" was fast-paced and carried an engaging plot with an exciting climax, "Contagion" played out like a BBC documentary, with no real plot, no character development, and no climactic finish. Both movies had great casts, but I felt that they were largely wasted in "Contagion" since the characters were incidental to the virus and you never become invested in anyone's welfare. Neither is wholly realistic, but at least one is entertaining.

I challenge fans of the genre to watch both movies and vote to correct what seems to be a great injustice to "Outbreak", which is clearly a more entertaining movie.