This is topic Robots in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000903

---

Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 03-10-2005, 08:25 PM:
 
I'll have to give it to Fox on this one.. at least I got my rewards points for the banner, static clings, etc..

The film leaves a little to be desired. The animation was preety good.. and I did notice all sorts of little "hidden" things that reminded me of my youth gone by. Certain parts of robots, etx...

I found it a little slow and, of course, it held all the typical 'family fare' cliches.. Work hard and success will be yours. Actually, this is a good message to pass along to kids today, as the vast majority of them can't fathom the concept of hard work, nor the rewards of a job well done.

At any rate, I think the kids will like it, but I don't see any real repeat business.. One wknd wonder in my eyes...

3/5
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 03-10-2005, 10:31 PM:
 
The best part of this movie was the Star Wars trailer, otherwise, it sucks. Robin Williams wasn't even funny. I couldn't finish watching it.

In fact, we all left and left the projector running.

Just kidding about that last part.
 

---

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 03-11-2005, 01:01 AM:
 
Obligatory sight gags and other puns: Check.
Robin Williams in a schizo-caricature ad-lib marathon: Check.
Clear cut "bad guys" and a safe moral message: Check.
Big-name stars in leading roles and lesser-name-but-still-known-but-not-top-billed stars in a barrage of supporting roles: Check. (Jennifer Coolidge, Harlan Williams, Jay Leno, Stanley Tucci ... they were just some of the names I caught in the credits)

Given the fact that it was everything I expected it to be, I actually enjoyed it. It didn't bug me or slap me across the face with the "You've seen this many times before and you'll gosh-darn-it see it again!" I can't say it was fresh and original, but I liked it a whole slew of a lot better than Shark Tale, which just reaked of trying to make the CGI feature formula work, at all costs, and failing miserably.

The opening segments of the movie were kind of clever and gave me a good attitude toward giving the whole movie a fair shot. Yeah, I'll say I liked it.

Regarding, in particular, the IMAX DMR version: the transfer was pretty good, although I would have much preferred if they just re-rendered the whole thing to the new resolution (like Polar Express was) instead of, as it appeared, re-mastering it from a print like they do with the live-action movies. There was just a little bit of the film-grain "noise" artifacts throughout, and plenty of aliasing. Still, it's bright and colorful and beautiful. It fills more of the screen, due to its Flat aspect, than all the other Scope aspect DMR's. And the sound seemed crisp and well-mixed ... but I've yet to hear it all from inside the auditorium.

I'll say it's worth another couple viewings (and that's not just wishful thinking, considering I'll be seeing it three times a day for two months).
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-11-2005, 01:40 AM:
 
I thought it was good, not up to Ice Age but very imaginative.

There's plenty to see in every frame and a lot of the sound efx are pretty funny. Very clever overall. I agree the story was a bit padded out.

7.5/10
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-11-2005, 02:18 AM:
 
L A M E !

It's the same ol' slop like we had with Shark Tale. It will do big business by the easily entertained, but the movie is crap. Yet again I was flat out bored by this wasted effort. I did not chuckle or grin even one time, as NOTHING was funny at all, but you could tell they were trying EXTREMELY HARD to be funny.

Pathetic. 1/2 out of 5 stars
 

---

Posted by Emma Tomiak (Member # 1862) on 03-11-2005, 05:46 AM:
 
I liked the little "Ice Age" short, and, um...that's about it.
 

---

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 03-11-2005, 03:47 PM:
 
Brad, did you or anyone catch the TV ad blitz for this crap fest.... they have been blasting all over the airwaves the follwing

CRITICS EVERYWHERE ARE SAYING "ROBOTS IS MORE INCREDIBLE THAN THE INCREDIBLES"

well first thing, if it was, you wouldnt need to say it, and second of all it cant be, because the reviewer is some lame reviewer from some never heard of before thing, and he MUST be the only reviewer that thinks so....

I knew a month ago when I saw the blitz it was going to be bad.

ciao
 

---

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 03-12-2005, 02:42 AM:
 
I forgot ... Requisite Dance Sequence to preface end credits: CHECK!!! Is this the only way to end these movies?

After four viewings, yes, the movie is now dull and dragging.
 

---

Posted by Jason Gazaille (Member # 2846) on 03-12-2005, 11:06 AM:
 
I thought it was ok, but nothing special. It was pretty slow in some parts. The animation was pretty good and the story formulatic. 2.5/5
 

---

Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 03-13-2005, 05:04 PM:
 
Some rumours must be running up front. I've had sneak previews this weekend, with 5 kids down there saturday, 8 sunday. The didn't even care to pick up the brochure with possibility of winning lots and lots of merchandise. -Looks bad !

p
 

---

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 03-14-2005, 02:24 AM:
 
I thought it was cute. I saw it at Channelside IMAX and MAN...What an amazing show presentation wise. Absolutely NO scrathes or nicks, the sound was awesome and filling the screen was GREAT. I like the whole story of the film and it had it cliched moments, but overall pretty good

2.8/5

I saw a poster that Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is going to be IMAXED...Can't wait till July!!
 

---

Posted by Rusty Wasco (Member # 3055) on 03-23-2005, 12:08 AM:
 
The short? I didn't understand why they did not finish the short. It might of been when I walked out. But when I watched the credits I didn't see the end of the short. Any ideas
Newb Charlotte
 

---

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 03-23-2005, 12:36 AM:
 
What, specifically, about this movie made it a 2.8 as opposed to a 2.7?
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-23-2005, 01:42 AM:
 

quote: Rusty Wasco

---

I didn't understand why they did not finish the short. It might of been when I walked out. But when I watched the credits I didn't see the end of the short. Any ideas

---