Monster can be perceived in a number of different ways.
Plot - 10/10
It is carefully told, episodes are often ended in a strategic manner. The last 3 minutes of the episode leads into the next one, prompting a desire to watch the next episode. Monster is an ideological struggle at it's core. Do we have the right to determine whether others live or die? What if the person in question is evil? Are human lives equal? There is a lot of symbolism present through the introduction of picture books which tell short stories that deal with topics like the value of names. The dialogue is good, there are action scenes, love scenes, hospital scenes, and criminal investigations, it's very well done and you are led on with a carrot on the stick then hit with a pie in the face when you least expect it.
Art- 9/10
It's not kawaii big tits waifu. It fits the theme and personalities are reflected in Urasawa's sketches. I felt that while the color palette matched, it still lacked color at times when it attempted to be vibrant but overall great for an 2004 production
Sound - 9/10
There isn't much sound as it is dialogue-heavy. There are songs played when characters are talking like in a bar, or restaurant for example in the background which was pretty cool. Opening is brilliant and the second ending is really good as well. The endings change content-wise so you might want to watch those, I didn't personally. In the moments they did use music, it fit well and supplemented the scene without overpowering it. 8/10 but 9/10 if we include the opening and ending.
Characters - 10/10
Oh man, I don't even know where to begin with the characters. I say the best term that can be used to describe them is "nuanced." As you may expect, the characters change a lot over 74 episodes. You can really empathize with them on an emotional level as well. Some characters may arise a sense of doubt within you. Were they right or were they wrong? Would I have gone about it in that way? Many characters are introduced, some I hated, most I liked, all were well-written, if not brilliantly written. I very much enjoyed one little stand-alone episode early on about a soldier and an Myanmar orphan, that episode was great.
Animation - 8/10
Yes I know, it's from 2004. The animation was laggy and not smooth. It was still good I would say, it did enough to convey the message with small details, like shaking eyes in a moment of fear. It does what it needs to though and I wouldn't say the animation hindered the quality of the show by any means likely because the nature of the show didn't need outstanding animation. It just could have been better in my eyes.

Conclusion- I would like to go back and think about some things to gain a slightly better grasp of what happened, not that it was confusing by any means. Rather, I want to examine some of the conflicts and implied ideological tensions and formulate my perspective regarding them. Monster does a good job of being objective, the plot develops through the lens of the characters. A conflict is presented, but it is ideological. Don't want to spoil anything but obviously, some of the philosophical questions the series that provide the foundation of the plot can't just be resolved then and there. It is in this that I very much appreciate Urasawa's impartiality and objectivity. He creates characters and sees it [the story] through to the end through what they would do, assuming the plot through their lens and gradually building through their perspective. Hence why monster is subjective. It's not edgy or complicated, it doesn't try to do that. It doesn't try to make some overarching philosophical claim about what things are and why that is. It presents to you simple questions that we, the people overcomplicate. It's a masterful story, well executed, and thoroughly enjoyable which leads to a score of 9.2/10. Thanks for reading