Caroline’s Review of “Monsters vs. Aliens”

Posted By: Peter DavidPosted On:

So I’m reading all these reviews of “Monsters vs. Aliens” written by people who are not remotely the target audience.  In the interest of even-handedness, I present the following review written by my daughter, Caroline, aged six.  Spoilers abound, but I didn’t want to restrict her creativity.  This is, word for word, her description and opinions.  Believe it or not, they are 100% accurate.

CAROLINE’S REVIEW OF “MONSTERS VS. ALIENS”

It was about a girl who got turned into a giant by a meteor.  Then everybody captured her.  They put her in a suit.  Then she saw monsters.  A gooey guy and a bug guy.  And a swimming guy and a humongous guy!  She wasn’t scared of them except for the big guy.  Then they all got lunch, but not the girl. 

Then an alien robot showed up.  A guy went up and played on a piano.  Then the robot got really mad.  Then he played the piano again.  Then there was a big humongous foot and the man ran away.  He ran into a helicopter with the security guy.  He shot at the robot but it didn’t work.  The robot’s armor protected him.  There were little tiny cracks in the ground when the robot walked, and little tiny rocks.  The monsters got out with their man to destroy the robot.  They destroyed the robot on the Golden bridge.   Part of the Golden bridge got chomped.

 Then the alien got really mad.  He captured Susan.  She went into a different suit.  She was in his ship.  He had all his buddies.  (They were all like him.)  Then the monsters got into an idea and got into clothes of him.  Then the bug guy said, “This is not a great idea.”  Then his buddies recognized the monsters because the gooey guy puffed out of the clothing.  He was too big.  Then the swimming guy got sad because the big guy is not alive anymore.  The big guy was in a cocoon.  But the big guy turned into a big butterfly.  I wish he could turn back into normal.   Then the swimming guy got happy.   Then Susan punched the alien in the face.  That’s when he said, “What the Flagnarg!”  because that’s one of my new favorite words.  Then he said to Susan, “You almost killed me!”  Then the bug guy danced so he could get the colors of the brain.  Then he got the color and it was a bomb.  Then the monster guys jumped out.  The big monster had turned into a butterfly so he was able to save them.  The alien exploded his ship along with all his buddies.  Then everybody liked the monsters. 

I liked when the alien said, “What the flagnarg!”  That was one of my favorites.  My favorite character was “Suuuusan” and I liked how BOB said “Suuuusan!”  That was one of my favorite parts. 

I want to see this movie again. 

 

 

45 comments on “Caroline’s Review of “Monsters vs. Aliens””

  1. Pingback: DiscWorld Day 6: Slowly but Surely | No Strings Attached

  2. I’d like to think (but would probably be wrong) that at age 6 my taste was as well developed as Caroline’s, but there is no doubt that she expresses herself far more eloquently than I could have.

    PAD’s posting of this review raises the obvious controversy over the reviewing of films (and other media, but primarily films by professional reviewers who are not in the films’ intended demographics. I become frustrated, of course, when reviewers are ignorant of source material and other relevant information. Years ago I read a scholarly (i.e., written by a person with scholarly degrees, but hardly well-informed) text on the subject of the fetishization of the gun in the Dirty Harry film series. The author completely lost me when she misunderstood what gun was being so displayed: As she kept citing the .357 Magnum when a .44 Magnum was being eulogized, perhaps she didn’t actually know what the hëll she was talking about. When one happens to have any specialized knowledge which is contradicted by a reviewer the review loses most of its persuasive power. One can’t help feeling that way when a reviewer can’t get past the idea of Superman as a flying alien, or when he can’t properly identify the publisher of the Hulk: Of course many reviews seem to be written by fools who have no understanding of the subject. Although that is true, reviews are very seldom written or meant for the core fans of any genre or medium. They are responses to the unvoiced question “Would the average viewer want to see this, understand it or respond positively to it?” No, they have nothing valuable to tell PAD about a subject he knows well. Reviews which seemed perceptive and valuable to him would be likely to seem just as clueless to people which a different skillset.

    2. It’s worse when people in the target demographic who write reviews have an ax to grind – some years back on rec.arts.sf.fandom, there was a guy who reviewd films for a paper (in, as i recall, a major market).
      .
      He hated the first “Lord of the Rings” film (and i have no reason to think he liked the later ones, either).
      .
      On RASSF, he said that he had disliked the books, with the implication (or perhaps it was only an inference on my part) that he so disliked the books that he didn’t believe, going in, that it would be possible to make a good film from them.
      .
      I inquired if, perhaps, he had seen fir to mention in his published review that he didn’t like the original meterial … he repilied that he didn’t see as how that was partly important, since he was reviewing the film.
      .
      A valid point, at least in principle, but when some of the things you mention not likimg in the film seem to accord with things you didn’t like in the book, well…

      1. The woman who reviewed my Pete Pan pastiche “Tigerheart” for Library Journal absolutely hated it. She dissed it and dismissed it. She didn’t bother to mention in the review a little tidbit that she DID specifically state over on a site called “Reads,” which is that she hated the original “Peter Pan.” (“I have issues with the way Wendy was portrayed,” she declared.) You’d think she MIGHT have mentioned that in her LJ review, because it would have given the review readers context. If you hate the source material, there’s simply no way you’re going to like a pastiche sequel. But no, she didn’t see that as relevant.

        PAD

    3. Nothing ticks me off more than someone who does not have their facts straight.If you do not know that Dirty Harry uses a .44 Magnum, then you have no business even bringing up the movie in conversation, much less writing a paper about it.

  4. Then they all got lunch, but not the girl.

    I can’t stop laughing at this. I haven’t seen the movie, but I’m guessing there’s some subtext in this scene about Susan not being part of the group yet. If so, Caroline just summed it up perfectly, much better than movie reviews usually do.

    I hope we get more Caroline reviews in the future.

    Flagnarg!

    1. She’s six years old. She doesn’t do subtext. Neither does the film for that matter. In the sequence she’s referring to, the various monsters are given lunch. The Missing Link has a huge pile of dead fish plunked in front of him, Doctor Cockroach is given a pile of garbage, etc. The dietary preferences of Susan’s new cellmates are so off-putting to her that she loses whatever appetite she might have had.

      PAD

      1. Ah, but she WAS given lunch before any of the other monsters showed up…but it was a weird mush with a fork stuck in the top and she didn’t know it was for her. Or was even food.

        Very fun review. We all tend to get so wrapped up in giving reviews of movie now, we forget that sometimes a kid’s movie is just made for kids. And a cigar is just a cigar.

  5. Caroline nailed it. I really enjoyed the movie. It does worry me, though, that my tastes are the same as a six year-old. I have t-shirts older than her. A *lot* older… 🙂

    1. I have t-shirts older than PAD’s *older* daughter.
      .
      I think i may still have one older than his *wife*.
      .
      God i’m old.

  6. I’m happy to see people giving the film a warm reception. It’s hard for me not to be biased as I work for the company, but I think it’s a really fun flick and boasts a strong female lead.

    Did everyone see it in 3-D? What did you think of the effects?

      1. I saw it in 3-D today. The 3-D was great. Either the 3-D was better here than in Coraline, or I am getting better at watching it. (I have very poor vision in my left eye, which makes my depth perception very weak.)

        As for the movie, it was fun, too, but it really suffered from making too many references to past movies, both science fiction and non-sf. And if you examine scenes for logic, the movie falls apart. But I’d still see it again for the fun. And if it wasn’t so expensive in 3-D, I’d see it in 3-D again. Regular price for Tuesday showings is $6, Coraline was $11, and this was $11.75. I will be hesitant to go to more 3-D pictures at that price.

    2. I actually gave Caroline the choice of 3-D or not 3-D, since both were playing in our theater. She opted for not 3-D, since she’s not a big fan of wearing the glasses. Also when you’re six years old and dealing with monsters and invading aliens, there’s a certain comfort level in not having to contend with them coming right off the screen at you. Now that she’s seen it, though, she’s interested in going back to see it in 3-D.

      PAD

  8. I think Caroline should review every movie she sees from now on. I must see the movie just for the humongous foot, if nothing else.

  9. We loved the film – pure entertainment with no lessons or preaching. And the 3-D was quite impressive. I loved that they hung a lampshade on it by having the first thing in the film be a guy playing paddleball.

    Axel F (albeit the Crazy Frog version) is one of my daughter’s favorite songs right now, so she was quite pleased to hear it in the film.

    I found it hilarious that the trailer for “Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs” got as big a reaction as much of the film.

    Caroline needs to hang out with the three year old who explains Star Wars.

    http://www.fistofblog.com/2008/02/22/z-wars/

    The Shiny Guy always worries.

    1. I suspect the paddleball bit is homage to “House of Wax”. (I’m prety sure it was “House of Wax” that had a talker doing a bally and using a couple of paddleballs to attract attention…)

      3. My favorite homage moment was when the character of B.O.B. is passing time in his room/cell by bouncing a rubber ball off the wall. He chucks the ball, it lands not in his hand but instead in his gelatinous mass of a body, he cycles it through his body back out into his hand and throws it again. It’s an obvious nod to Steve McQueen’s time-killing activity in “The Great Escape” which has been riffed in countless films (most amusingly in “Chicken Run”). But the further gag is that B.O.B. himself is an homage to “The Blob,” the 1950s horror film that was one of the earliest vehicles for a young actor named Steve McQueen.

        PAD

  10. My six year old, Alex, and I saw it (in 3-D!) this past weekend about both enjoyed ourselves immensely. The filmmakers really hit the nail on the head in their attempt to nail down (snicker) both the six year old demographic and the those-in-touch-with-their-inner six year old demographic.

  11. I just watched it last night. I was a bit surprised when I was working yesterday that it seems the evening show of the movie had more patrons (and almost entirely adults) than either of the earlier shows. I loved the movie, my friends and I all laughed quite a bit (I love the bit where the computer is pinpointing the quantonium and Glaxar says “Omega quadrant… lame.”) We don’t get a lot of kids films at the movie theatre I work at, so I’m hoping the people who complain about such jump on this opportunity, especially since the movie is awesome. I’m going to attempt to get more of my friends to see it, wouldn’t mind watching it again myself if I find the time.

  12. She’s six years old. She doesn’t do subtext.

    Yeah, but she’s YOUR kid. Before she’s ten, she’ll be doing subtext-based puns. Between nature and nurture, it’s inevitable.

    J.

      1. Kath grew up in a household where bad puns were a regular part of dinner table conversation. She probably reached her saturation point well before she met you. Sorry about that.

  13. My wife and I are going to try to see this, but our 7 year old doesn’t want to go. He says that monsters and/or aliens would scare him if they’re that big on the screen.

    Poor kid spends waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much time with me.

  14. I saw it in 3-D and really enjoyed it. So did my wife. My kids are in their 20s now and haven’t seen it yet. Go figure…

  15. I saw it and enjoyed it so much, I’m thinking of traveling to Indianapolis (a two-hour drive for me) to see it on the IMAX film. I wasn’t that impressed with the 3-D, but I’m willing to give it a try on a super-big screen.

    And it’s nice to see Reed Richards is apparently making some bucks selling wedding dresses made of unstable molecules.

    (Oh … my … God. I just had the wildest thought. Think Marvel studios could try doing a 3-D CGI movie using some of their old monster stories? Wouldn’t it be fun to see a Fin Fang Foom movie?)

    I think there’s enough for adults to enjoy the movie as well as kids. I heard a father behind me explaining some stuff to his little boy, like what the tune was the President played before “Axel F.”

    On the other hand, we had a trailer for a 3-D CGI “Astro Boy” movie, and the boy behind me asked “Who’s that?” and his dad said “I don’t know.”

    Who was saying what about feeling old?

    1. And it’s nice to see Reed Richards is apparently making some bucks selling wedding dresses made of unstable molecules.

      If she’d burst out of her wedding dress and spent the first few minutes of the film running around naked, they’d probably have set opening day records at the box office.

      PAD

      1. My first thought was that the radiation affected organic matter (the dress was cotton?) and that’s why it grew with her but the garter did not.

        Well, that’s how I rationalized it anyway.

    2. I saw this today in IMAX 3-D. I was floored! This was the best visual experience I have ever…experienced. Definitely worth the drive.

  16. This is why, whenever I write a movie review, whether I post it at Nitcentral.com or wherever, I often try to make the point of mentioning that my reaction to the film may be distinct from its target demographic, or the moviegoing public in general.

  17. Caroline is awesome. I love when you write about her and I think you should definitely do so more often. It would seem she has a now a favorite word to supply next time you’re both in the car and you leave expressions such as “son of a-” unfinished.
    Great job in WFC#13, by the way.

  18. I just can’t concede that children are the target demographic. While, I’m sure kids will enjoy a lot of the sight gags and physical humor. I think that a lot of the jokes will go over their heads. I think the people who enjoy this film the most will be the fans of the B-movies it so lovingly spoofs.

    My favorite funny line: (not verbatim: “I don’t want to go down in history as the guy who was President when the world came to an end.” Not laugh-out-loud funny, but a nice bit of Bush-esque absurdity from Colbert.

  19. Peter, now that Shana and Gwen, who have both written BIDs, are grown, do they have any literary aspirations?

  20. Very good review, Caroline!

    Alas, I thought that the movie was weaker than this review. My full review is at http://thearmchaircritic.blogspot.com/2009/03/monsters-vs-aliens.html and I gave the movie a C+. While there were some noce bits — Stephen Colbert finally gets to be president! — it felt very predictable and like a movie not with the sort of sophistication that makes so many “kids” movies as good for adults as for kids. I also felt they has the coolest action scene in the middle (the giant robot) instead of at the end (with the spaceship). They also changed Gallaxhar’s motivation halfway through the movie. (“I’m after the Quantonium. Wait, I want to conquer the planet.”) Also, did anyone else notice that the giant clone army was heavily armed, yet not one of the clones ever fired their blaster? Susan used their ray gun more!

    As for Susan growing out of her dress, I’m sure macrophiliacs had enough enjoyment of her on-screen time.

  21. By the way, if you haven’t seen the movie yet, be aware there’s a final scene during the credits. You may find it depressing, though it can easily be dealt with for a sequel.

  22. Finally, a review written by someone from the right demographic.

    Personally, I like kids’ entertainment, I like ’50s monster movies and I like seeing movies in 3-D. It looks like a good chance I’ll like this one.

    I plan on seeing Monsters vs Aliens: the Imax 3-D Experience later today. I’ve been waiting for the chance to try out the new Imax theater that just got put in around here.

  23. I just got back from seeing “MvA” a second time, this time in 2-D. And, I noticed how well some things are being done now in CGI, such as skin. It used to be even the best CGI humans looked like they had Barbie skin. Now, up close, it looks fairly realistic. I was in a theater of mostly parents and kids, and noticed the adults laughing more than the kids.

    I’ve also noticed quite a few depiction of Ginormica at deviantart.com, helping to fuel my crush on the character. (Yes, I’m something of a macrophile, though that’s part of something that’s, no pun intended, bigger.) If anyone cares to see what I’m talking about, go here:

    http://browse.deviantart.com/?qh=&section=&q=jonny+quest+jade#order=9&q=ginormica

    But, caution, there is one piece of art of a naughty nature.

Comments are closed.