Studio monitors, well they are expensive ones, used in of course the "studio", but that's just a term normally we might think of as the final finishing room or suite that the "colorist" is in. If you are not familiar with who the colorist is in the movie product chain, it's worth looking into. Now regarded as a highly important and well paid position, and in more and more cases has more to do with the final "look" of the film itself, as well as DVD and Blue Ray's that we as consumers buy or rent. In the not too distant past, most big time Directors Of Photography, would have it in their contract, to "grade" the film, now we can say film/digital, along side the colorist, a collaborative effort to finalize what the finished visual product will end up looking like. Like many industries, cost cutting has meant that many colorists no longer have more then DP notes to go by, and DP's have a tough time getting it in their contracts that they are involved after principle photography ends, at all. Remember the weeks involved with final color correction, these DP's were being paid. That includes top DP's, like Roger Deakins (last Bond movie shot on Digital) (this is contract to contract, movie budget etc). Therefore, a great deal of final responsibility is now on the colorist himself, hence their emergence as a major contributor to the final look of the movie.
I'm only offering this as an explanation of the importance of the "monitors" these colorist are using to grade the movie files. That being their main visual tool to do their job. At a certain point, you can't just be looking at "scopes" and other devices, you have to use your EYES, and the top colorists, are in high demand and make a very good living. That of course means the monitors they use have to be finely calibrated to exacting standards, and while I don't know the exact costs of those current monitors, I do know that the ones used in the DIT tent on location and in the shooting stages cost approx. 10,000 to 20,000, and are no where as large as our home HDTV's, often referred to as "critical monitors". These on set monitors are just as important in terms of being calibrated to the same standards the colorist is going to see a few months down the road in the editing/finishing suites, otherwise there would be no baseline or quality control at all, you have to have "standards" to begin with and end with. There is no way our $2,000 - $5,000 home HDTV's will compare in overall quality, but as most of you know, they are still awesome in the amount of fine grain controls included in the current Plasma products, including the VT series. The major electronic companies pack a lot of adjustability and overall quality into a very affordable product, with slim profit margins. So indeed, if your own goal is to get as close to the "look" of the colorist's eyes, when he was grading the film/digital images on the expensive suite monitors, then a home calibration by a quality calibrator with the right tools and experience is the best way to achieve that, you will then be about as close as you are ever going to get to that goal at home.
You can debate if that is truly a worthwhile goal or not, forever, and if it's not, then don't fret it. Your eyes, like the colorists, will be the final judge, who's to say he was right in his/her choices? Now that's a subject for a really fun debate. As well as you might have noticed I left the movies "director" out of the whole conversation. In my experience, most of them are color blind!