Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Meet The Robinsons

This is topic Meet The Robinsons 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=001255

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 04-03-2007, 09:24 AM:

The Movie --

This film isn't funny, cute, charming, memorable, lovable or really much of anything. It just is there, and it's not very good.

The plot is convoluted and silly. Time Travel movies really have to be very careful, and this one isn't careful at all. They didn't even try to keep this part of the story straight. If you think about it (and I hope you don't), it makes no sense at all.

The characters are strange. The main character and the "bad guy" look like they were designed by two different companies. There also seem to be a limited mouth movement...the mouth didn't move as well as I've seen in other computer animated films. There are a lot of characters in the picture, but we don't get to learn much about many of them. Some of their stories might have been more interesting than the story told here.

And can anyone explain that section where the sound goes quasi-mono and we go to "kung-fu" mode?

I was surprised to see a 3-D cartoon on the front of the picture. This is a 1953 Donald Duck short subject called "Working for Peanuts". This is a typical cartoon from the era, with very layered animation. Some of the images didn't coverge completely, but that is not surprising for the time. Image was properly framed. The action seemed to take place about 3-5 feet behind the frame window, also common for the time. A nice surprise, but I would have liked to seen "MELODY" as the cartoon instead of this.

THE 3-D ---

Nothing exceptional here. Not much pops out or goes back. Robot head is the most effective, especially on the Disney 3-D "Put On Your Glasses" piece. Depth is typically pretty shallow.

As I've noted before about the Real-D process, I see a gauze-like stationary "veil" on the image. It sits right at the screen line and is always there. I'm guessing this is an artifact of the Real-D process, as I've seen it on different films at different locations. The effect is very subtle, but it is very apparent to me.

Certainly not the best 3-D film I've ever seen. More in line with CHICKEN LITTLE then MONSTER HOUSE. 3-D is totally forgettable after the first few minutes.

Best 3-D of current crop is still POLAR EXPRESS. ROBINSONS is nowhere near that quality.

Glasses were very disappointing. They were black, generic 3-D Real-D glasses with a very uncomfortable ridge that hit my nose in front of my glasses. Very very uncomfortable.

THE PRESENTATION --

This is the local AMC theatre's first venture with Digital Projection. They used theatre 23, which is a medium sized room after the four large rooms off the lobby. It appeared that the 35mm projector had been removed. Projector was a Christie. Screen is approximately 36'. This room has a Torus screen.

Image was very bright and very clear on the 2-D trailers. I was especially impressed with the sound quality on the MARTIAN CHILD trailer...extremely clear and sweet.

Pixelization is only noticeable from about the 5th row forward, and even that was slight. Certainly much less than the pre-show!

The Pre-Show was excellent, as it was aimed at children with much content from the Animal Planet and howstuffworks.com. Very few commercials. Nice to see they weren't just hawking Coke or cell phones. Nice work here, AMC.

My special thanks to the ticket seller who sold me a ticket for the wrong film, saving me the 3-D service charge. Sorry, Disney, my money went to BLADES OF GLORY instead of you.

[ 04-05-2007, 07:01 AM: Message edited by: Mark Lensenmayer ]

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 04-03-2007, 12:08 PM:

The movie is ok (not great but not a POS). The 3D was excellent. Wore the Real D glasses over my regular glasses and it didn't bother me at all. No noticeable hotspotting or blotches on the silver screen like the one other place I've seen Real D. Bright image. The preshow was a kid-friendly version of FirstLook. Saw it at the new Regal Valley River Center Stadium 15 in Eugene. Looks like they have both film and D-Cinema set up for this house.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 04-03-2007, 12:59 PM:

quote: Mark Lensenmayer
As I've noted before about the Real-D process, I see a gauze-like stationary "veil" on the image. It sits right at the screen line and is always there. I'm guessing this is an artifact of the Real-D process, as I've seen it on different films at different locations. The effect is very subtle, but it is very apparent to me.

I'd say it is probably more an effect of the silver screen than the RealD polerizer.

quote: Mark Lensenmayer
The Pre-Show was excellent, as it was aimed at children with much content from the Animal Planet and howstuffworks.com. Very few commercials. Nice to see they weren't just hawking Coke or cell phones. Nice work here, AMC.

That's because Disney does not allow ads to play so NCM sets it up that way. Only the coke ads have the OK from Disney to play.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-03-2007, 01:09 PM:

I still cannot get over the name/term "RealD" because it insinuates that there is some kind of Fake D.

Posted by Joseph L. Kleiman (Member # 3097) on 04-03-2007, 01:41 PM:

and there's also Tenacious D!

The image problem is with the combination matte white/silver screen.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 04-03-2007, 01:47 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
I still cannot get over the name/term "RealD" because it insinuates that there is some kind of Fake D.

There are fake D's. I see them here in Southern California on a daily basis. In fact, I had my mitts on a pair of 'em not too long ago. [Big Grin]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-03-2007, 06:44 PM:

Yeah, there's lots of mannequins in Los Angeles area stores!
[Razz]

Anyway, I checked out the RealD version of Meet the Robinsons at the Carmike 8 here in town this past weekend.

The movie itself was decent, but not great. It's certainly not on the same level in terms of story and animation quality as the typical Pixar release, but I think it's worth a look. Young kids will probably like the movie quite a bit.

"The Bowler Hat Guy," voiced by Steven J. Anderson, was the most interesting character in the movie. His combination of being both a flamboyantly nasty villain and a doofus saved the movie from being as dull as preschool toys. The long teeth from advanced periodontal disease gave him enough of a creepy factor. The only thing I felt was a bit contrived was the revelation of his true identity near the movie's end. It just didn't seem to fit quite right. Doris, the Bowler Hat Guy's robotic enhanced hat works as the comedic "straight man" for the villain-idiot's antics.

The movie's fairly dark turn late in the storyline was also interesting. In fact, I really wish the movie had jumped to that point earlier and worked with that more dramatic situation further. But I'm willing to concede that, along with some really funky treatment of time travel rules, since this is essentially a kid's movie.

The loose play with the time travel rules reminded me of something from a South Park episode that dealt with time traveling illegal immigrants from the future. "They follow Terminator rules of time travel where they go one way, as opposed to Back to the Future rules where 2-way travel is possible. Timecop rules don't apply because they're just stupid." They took yer jawb! I want a burger and fries you Goddamn Gooback!

I digress.

About the 3D, I thought it worked really well. It looked great on the screen at the Carmike 8. Bright picture with no hot spots. You could see just a tiny bit of light fall off at the corners, but hardly enough to make it objectionable at all. House #4 isn't huge (around 200 seats). Not sure about the screen size, but it's big enough in relation to the auditorium size.

Meet the Robinsons didn't pound the viewer with a lot of in-you-face 3D sight gags during the movie. The snipe with the robot character telling you to put on your 3D glasses has the most forward extending 3D effects. Everything else is fairly subtle.

The audio on Meet the Robinsons also felt a little restrained. Or maybe it just stood in stark contrast to the very loud "Disney Digital 3D" trailer. That little snipe could blow some sub-bass drivers.

The Working for Peanuts short, featuring Donald Duck and the Chipmunks (Chip & Dale), was interesting, but also not great. The 3D was interesting from the historical perspective for what Disney was able to accomplish with hand drawn animation in the 1950's. But I've laughed a lot harder at many Looney Tunes cartoons.

I really enjoyed the U23D trailer. But, man, was that a loud trailer or what!? At first I was a bit thrown with the beginning of the trailer being in 2D and then jumping to 3D. Can't wait to see the actual concert movie. Perhaps some parents might be put off by a concert movie like this being promoted during a G-rated movie for kids. But where else are you going to see it in 3D before the show hits theaters? As it stands, we may go through the entire summer without seeing anything else released in RealD.

I think RealD will gain more popularity as more movies are made to utilize the format. And it can't all be just animated CGI movies for kids either. The U23D movie could be effective at promoting the technology to adults. As I said in another thread, RealD would seem to be a very obvious natural for horror movies.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 04-03-2007, 09:25 PM:

For the record, at the AMC I visited, they ran the NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS trailer shown last summer with MONSTER HOUSE. The U2 trailer was not shown.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-03-2007, 10:22 PM:

The Carmike theater I visited also ran The Nightmare Before Christmas trailer as well. Given that the trailer was included in the trailer pack on disc, I assume Touchtone Pictures intends to release it again in 3D this fall.

Wasn't the 3D on The Nightmare Before Christmas done fully in post-production with the 3D effect created entirely with computer-based tools? If so, the 3D on it looked a damned sight better than the digitally manufactured 3D I saw with Superman Returns.

U23D looks like it's gonna kick ass.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 04-03-2007, 11:30 PM:

The NIGHTMARE trailer we received was actually different from last year's, and they are releasing it again this fall. They also just announced that Tim Burton's short, VINCENT, is being converted to 3D, and will run prior to NIGHTMARE.

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 04-04-2007, 09:44 AM:

I didn't play the U2 concert for the regular shows, but contemplated showing it for that last show. I did run it for the midnight show. I, too, thought it was incredibly loud and looks very interesting in 3D.

As stated above, Nightmare is being release again this year, because of the increase in 3D sites and, from what I heard, the studio would like to make it a tradition.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-21-2007, 08:30 PM:

We are playiing this now and it's doing very well, so I like it.

The pre-feature cartoon is apparently different on the 2D version - it's a Mickey Mouse short, "Boat Builders."

So far not one person has said, "Is this in 3-D?" so on that basis I'm glad we didn't play it when all the advertising was going on.

Based on the little bit I've seen, it looks like a distant pale cousin to the Pixar movies. I did like the Disney quote at the end.