Loved it. The voice characterizations were a lot of fun…and if you or anyone you know is or has ever been fat (I don’t mean "I have to lose 5 pounds to fit into this year’s bikini fat - I mean morbidly obese), this movie will definitely strike a chord. I know it did for me.
VCNJ~
But did the build team finish every project on the list this week? Did Steve give them all a set of tools at the reveal? Did the owners say anything but “Oh my God” as they saw each room?
Did you catch a glimpse of Jesse and Sandra in the garage?
The writers of this film are famous in some circles as the writers of an unsold pilot, Heat Vision and Jack. I’m looking forward to seeing this film- it looks pretty good, and the reviews are good.
And I see I’m not the only one who realizes this film shares its name with a television program. Although watching Steve Watson attempt to renovate a house that was trying to kill him would be very enjoyable.
“Are you now, or have you ever been, the one who eats all the canapés at a party?”
It was an enjoyable enough film; one wonders why it wasn’t released around Halloween, since this is such a prominent feature in the story. I remain unconvinced that the shortcomings of CG animation are best addressed by depciting humans in an exaggeratedly caricatured bobble-head style. Granted, the realistic approach in **The Polar Express ** didn’t quite seem to click either, but I feel like a happy medium between the two styles ought to be achievable. If you’re going to design your CG characters with such cartoonish anatomy, don’t turn around and also give them hyperrealistic details like skin pores and gingivitis, because the end result is disconcertingly creepy. It’s hard to keep my attention on the story when a part of my brain keeps going, “Dear god, what is wrong with the shape of that poor kid’s head? His mother must have been run over by a snowmobile when he was in utero!”
And here I thought I was the only person who ever used the phrase: “I love you, vacuum-cleaner dummy.”
I too cannot figure out why it wasn’t released at Halloween, except probably they’re going to release the DVD at Halloween and make a billion dollars. Walking out of the film into 100-degree heat after sunset was a little weird, since I was almost expecting crisp weather and dead leaves.
We enjoyed it a lot, very funny. I thought it was too scary for little kids though–I was scared! It was fun, and I enjoyed the little twist in the plot.
We went yesterday. My son thought it was a little scary. He is only six. My daughter enjoyed it, she is nine. My wife and I liked it but we both had to turn avoid analyzing the film to enjoy it.
I was not fond of the animation style and I thought the story had a lot of holes in it.
Minor note: Is Kevin James ever funny? He managed to be not funny even as an overweight cartoon cop.
I would only give the movie a 6 tops, probably a 5.
I noticed a lot of little kids were scared, I would keep that in mind if going. I would not recommend this movie for adults to go see without kids. (As opposed to Curse of the Were-Rabbit or The Incredibles)
Jim
My son manages a movie theater and there have been a some complaints, primarily from parents who found the movie too scary for younger children. In fact one child, whose parents run a restaurant in the same strip mall, and who comes down to watch movies all the time, left the movie twice, because he found it too scary.
He said the movie wasn’t one of those like Shrek, that took place on two levels, with the PG stuff over the kids heads. This was just flat out scary.
I saw it, and thought it was OK but nothing special. I think the premise is great, but the execution didn’t wow me. The ending in particular had the potential to do something interesting, but went straight for the cliche instead. It’s very much a muggle Harry/Ron/Hermione pitted against an actively aggressive suburban Hogwarts.
I, too, wonder why the movie wasn’t released at Halloween.
Hey, parents! That’s what the difference between the ratings G and PG means! Monster House is rated PG, and it says right there on the posters and in the print ads and in the movie trailers: “PG: Parents strongly cautioned. Some material may not be suitable for children.”
Interesting concept Walloon, but most PG movies are not too scary for 4-6 year olds. My son thought this was scary, but he happily made it through last year’s Harry Potter movie which I would have expected to be scarier. I do not think you are leveling a fair complaint against parents who took small kids to this movie. I kept my son from seeing King Kong as the reviews indicated it was too scary for small kids and it was marketed towards an older audience.
Monster House was marketed to young kids. So I would say your complaint is largely unfounded.
Jim
Parents take the children to the movie and pay for the tickets. What part of “Parents strongly cautioned. Some material may not be suitable for children” do they not understand? Yes, the movie is marketed to children: children of a certain age. Not those under 7.
I have to disagree with you. The ads I saw for the movie and the coming attractions did not hint at the movie being as scary as it was.
There was a group of young kids behind us, around my son’s age and one little girl was very frightened by the scenes in the house and when it was chasing the kids.
None of the ads I saw looked that dark and scary. My son is below 7 and he was scared by it, but not too scared. Other six year old might react differently.
PG is fairly generic and rarely equals too scary for a child below 7.
Are you perhaps suggesting that parents should not bring any small children to any film rated PG?
Jim
OK, what do YOU think is the difference between G and PG movies? What do YOU think the words “Some material may not be suitable for children” mean?
PG means Parental Guidance, it means I as an adult, need to decide if a movie is suitable for my kids. That is exactly what it was suppose to mean.
My kids see plenty of PG films without problems. Many kids see plenty of PG films. I am defending parents that took there kids to see this film based on ads and a PG rating and then were surprised it was scarier than the average PG animated movie advertised to kids. Of course some material might not be suitible for kids. I understand that perfectly. I also did not personnaly have a problem with this movie but if you see my post earlier I did provide my own warning.
Jim
Speilberg strikes again! Clearly the MPAA needs a new PG-7 rating.
That’s what PG basically is. G is all ages. PG is 7 and up. PG-13 is 13 and up.
Would you care to cite that, I have never seen your interpretation of the rating system. It sounds more like the ratings according to Walloon. 
Jim
You agree that G is for all ages? Ok. You agree that PG-13 means 13 and up? Ok. What’s the midpoint, then? About age 7. PG occupies the midpoint between G and PG-13.
PG is not G!
Well, it was kind of a joke based on the origin of the PG-13 rating-- Y’know, Gremlins and all that.
Damn you Joe Dante! You owe me a movie ticket. Well technically I guess you owe my dad a movie ticket, since I didn’t pay… but still. Jerk.