Do I think this was the best film of 2001? No. Neither though can I muster too much outrage at its victory. If the film were venerated today more than I think it is, my objections might be louder and more persistent. Absent inflated claims that I don't really hear coming from any quarter, I am content to let it stand as a well done commercially polished biopic with some top notch acting and an earnestness that while not winning me over does not really grate.
I did not ultimately select Dominca Sena's film as my least favorite viewing experience of the year--more on the film that got that designation later in this series--but both in revisiting the film and my review of it, I wonder that I did not.
You know the biggest shock about revisiting Monsters, Inc. ten years later? It was the "Coming Soon" preview for Disney's Treasure Planet.
I tried hard to view the film afresh, to convince myself that my negative (and, hence, admittedly minority) view of the franchise had more to do with a knee-jerk reaction against its spectacular popularity than it did to any great failure on the film's part.
I have long held that film writing reveals as much about the author as the subject. How have my tastes changed? How much can changing the context change the experience of the film? Do some films hold up better to second (or in some cases third, fourth, or twentieth) viewings, and, if so, is that an important descriptor of quality? Where was I right? Were there places where I was wrong? And if I now think I was wrong, do I understand what caused me to be wrong?
