Monsters vs. Aliens

Post by **Dacey** » March 29th, 2009, 11:27 am

$27M? That number almost sounds too good to be true. If it really did make that much, "Monsters" has a *slight* chance of surpassing "300's" opening weekend.

Post by **PatrickvD** » March 29th, 2009, 11:55 am

Wendy's Jane wrote:$27M? That number almost sounds too good to be true. If it really did make that much, "Monsters" has a *slight* chance of surpassing "300's" opening weekend.

well, I just read the number was revised down a bit to 25 million. Wich is still amazing.

It'll make anywhere between 58 and 62 million now I think. Wich is amazing, because I'm sure no one was expecting this to open in the same league as WALL-E, Kung Fu Panda and Madagascar 2.

Post by **Locall** » March 29th, 2009, 12:40 pm

Let's see how much it'll end up with, the drop could be quite big next week with the mediocre reviews it's getting...
Madagascar 2 openend MASSIVE, but ended up millions and millions behind Kung Fu Panda and even more millions behind Wall-E, so...

Edit: Boxofficemojo posted the weekend ESTIMATES
MvA
Fri: 16,805,000
Sat: 24,380,000
Sun: 17,015,000

Overall: 58,200,000

Post by **Dacey** » March 29th, 2009, 3:40 pm

"Mad 2" actually showed pretty strong legs. At least until "Bolt" came out.

I don't really see anything stopping "Monsters" from reaching $185M. At least.

Post by **eddievalient** » March 29th, 2009, 8:12 pm

Just saw this. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to see it in 3D (my local theater isn't equipped to show 3D movies apparently), but it ended up not mattering cause the movie is fun enough on its own. Not the best thing Dreamworks has done (I still think they peaked with Shrek 2), but it's certainly better than Madagascar and at least as good as Kung Fu Panda. I wouldn't mind seeing a sequel, personally, since they've gotten the exposition out of the way already. The only question is what they would call it (Monsters vs Other Monsters wouldn't really work).

Post by **Sunday** » March 29th, 2009, 9:40 pm

Monsters vs. Illicit File Sharing

*snicker*

Post by **Ben** » March 30th, 2009, 8:05 am

Well this one should really have been Monsters Vs Giant Killer Robots, and the next one could have been Vs Aliens. Maybe they'll switch them around?

Or maybe they'll just go totally imaginative and call it Monsters Vs Aliens 2.

Of course, we should learn any day now that "this was always going to be a 20 film arc, with each film having the team fend off a pastiche villain from sci-fi's long and varied past".

Post by **James** » March 30th, 2009, 10:06 am

Dang you Ben -- I was looking forward to logging in today to make that same joke!

<SMALL>mine would've been better</small>

Post by **Ben** » March 30th, 2009, 10:51 am

I...I wasn't joking.

See this? This is my serious face.

Stop laughing.

Post by **Vernadyn** » March 30th, 2009, 2:20 pm

I found character development to be the biggest weakness in the movie. Yeah, it's not meant to be an in-depth character study, but I didn't care for or feel any connection to any of the characters (except for Susan) like I did for the main characters in the first Shrek and Kung Fu Panda.

The humans were okay, the animation was fine, but what really disturbed me was the blotchy detail on their skin. I just found it clashing, distancing, and unnecessary--although maybe that's the joke. The thing I liked most about the Close Encounters joke was him misplaying the last note. The climax also paled in comparison to the kinetic action set piece against the robot.

On a positive note, I did really enjoy what Reese Whitherspoon did with her character--she'll probably do a fine job in Brenda Chapman's Pixar movie. The score was okay, if somewhat unremarkable compared to the efforts of Michael Giacchino, John Powell, and Harry Gregson-Williams.

Post by **EricJ** » March 30th, 2009, 3:51 pm

And not to be the grumpy-wumpy, but call me the old-movie-geek stickler who grumbled "Why am I NOT SURPRISED that Dreamworks has apparently never seen a real 50's monster movie in their lives?

"

(Not that I blame public unfamiliarity with the Gill Man, Steve McQueen's Blob, or even Mothra...
But I'm sure there are a lot of wishful-thinking feminists who are convinced without having seen it that the original 50-Ft. Woman must've been a much more interesting film than the piddling lil' Alison Hayes anticlimax we got way back when.)

Post by **Tyler_Legrand** » March 31st, 2009, 4:42 am

Monsters vs. Internet Memes

e.g. Longcat

Post by **droosan** » March 31st, 2009, 6:22 am

I saw Monsters versus Aliens on Friday night .. sans 3D. There was an opening-night audience of exactly five people in that theater, which was less than two miles from the Dreamworks Animation Studio facility in Glendale. Not a good sign.

For lack of a better term, I found the movie 'flat'.

None of the characters seemed very compelling, many of the compositions felt boring, and I constantly felt as though I were three steps ahead of the plot. Worse still, much of the humor in the movie seemed to miss the mark .. random gags (such as the 'Axel F' performance) came across as merely random, rather than funny. The tiny audience was stone-silent throughout the film.

I found myself scratching my head when it was over, wondering how a Dreamworks animated feature could sport so many shortcomings so soon after the 'high-water-marks' of last year's Oscar-contending Kung-Fu Panda and audience-pleasing Madagascar 2.

Then, I began reading MvA reviews on Saturday morning (here, and elsewhere on the web) .. and started scratching my head all over again. It seemed that a solid majority of reviewers enjoyed the movie .. and that its opening weekend box-office was likely to be respectable (if not record-breaking).

So, on Sunday night, I decided to give MvA another viewing .. but, this time, in 3-D. And (as it happened) in a packed theater .. with about half the audience being kids.

3-D makes all the difference for this film.

The compositions which had seemed boring and detached in the 'flat' screening are exciting and lively in 3-D, extending both 'deep into' and 'out from' the screen to a much greater extent than any other recent 3-D feature. Most particularly impressive are the interiors of Galaxar's ship, which really do have a cavernous feel that didn't come across nearly the same way in two dimensions.

Even the early wedding scene -- which had me thoroughly bored a mere three minutes into the 'flat' screening -- had a bit of 'wow' factor, thanks to the 3-D.

I still don't think much of the film's gags or character arcs .. but, the audience did laugh a lot .. which does make a film more enjoyable, even if you're not the one laughing.

I have to wonder, though, if MvA will 'play' as well on DVD or Blu-Ray .. where 3-D will be unable to assist it. :idea:

Post by **eddievalient** » March 31st, 2009, 10:48 am

They could include the 3D version on the dvd like "Journey to the Center of the Earth" did, but the drawback is that you'd have to wear the red/blue glasses since no one has invented a better way yet.

Post by **Ben** » March 31st, 2009, 2:06 pm

A gimmick shouldn't make a film better (or worse for that matter).

That's just lazy storytelling, just as I don't understand how people can be watching the craziest rubbish on Blu-ray and come away thinking it was a really great experience because it looked good.