well, i meant more about violence or scary parts.

I agree 100% with this comment. Its so true of animation today. The company just goes, "Oh who's big right now....ok we'll hire him". By doing that your cutting out alot of people who's main job is to do voice overs. If Mel Blanc were living today if probably wouldn't even get hired....it makes me wonder....there is probably some talented voice actors out there that are not getting their "just desserts"and as a result alot of talented people are having a tough time finding jobs.LEAVE THE STARS AT HOME and hir people who's job it is to do voiceovers...PERIOD!!!!

Ebert's 3 1/2-star review here

JoBlo - 5/10

REVIEW

Filmjerk.com - D+

REVIEW

Well, I think voice actors should be picked by the creators of the film, and I don't think they should be limited to just people who are only voice actors... they shouldn't "leave the stars at home."

Oh, and I knew this was a Fox picture, it just reminded me of what Dreamworks was doing, and I wasn't very clear. Sorry.

Three year olds love that also. That's why they are always trying to kill me.

I'd be more concerned taking them to see a film with a fart joke in it...

But no, the film isn't violent or scary.

i just got back from seeing this and i gave it no higher than a C. the star wars trailer was much better. the audience i was with seemed to enjoy most of it but i was just bored most of the way through.

I caught this tonight and enjoyed it. I suppose you can put it in the "Well it wasn't a Pixar film" category, but it had its moments. I enjoyed the story and thought it was entertaining, with a few funny bits. Many of the Robin Williams jokes were a bit over the top and seemed to miss the beat, but there were just a lot of little things that made me smirk or smile, whether it be Rodney's little invention guy or the predictable butt jokes. On a letter scale, i'd give it a B.

This film is full of subtle bits of humor, and it never gives the audience time to catch up before moving to another bit, plus the humor is more intended for those up on pop culture and that isn't always going to be the kids watching the film, so the laughs aren't bust-your-gut funny, but for me, it was chuckle-worthy for daring to "go there" in certain scenes. The 3rd act was a lot of fun, visually, though.

Plus, how can you not like a film that incorporates a dash of ?

I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.

or an homage to



kms

I saw this on Friday. It was alright. Not great; definatley not up to Pixar standards. It's probably the worst CGI movie i've ever seen. The thing that suprised me most about this movie was how absolutley terrible the characters were. I know this is basically a kids flick but the characters were so dull and flat it was painful.

I thought this was an odd pairing but still amusing:

http://www.napoleonvsfender.com/

I was surprised Fender had so many votes.

I thought the IMAX presentation of this was pretty amazing, although there was no trailer for Episode III

As for the movie, I thought nearly every character was drab and lacked any depth. The story went on auto-pilot and was just so-so.

As eye candy - the movie was incredible, other than that it was flawed.

We saw it at IMAX Sat night as well.
The IMAX presentation was indeed amazing. Ice Age 2 trailer was funny, but didn't tell me much about the movie. Would have liked to see EpIII trailer in IMAX.
The movie itself was 'light.' Not bad, not great, definitely had some predictability and 'gimme' jokes, including some rather juvenile ones. I liked the concept, and there are a lot of freeze-frame gags which I always like.
Robin Williams was definitely Robin Williams, but most of the other voices I thought of as character-first, voice second.
Probably a B- or B from me.
Question: What's the AR of an IMAX theater? It didn't look as 'widescreen' as I expect a movie theater to be; I guess for their IMAX-only films they film for that AR, but what about theatrical movies? Is that why they focus on digital films, so they can reframe to fit the projected AR [like Bugs Life or whatever it was.]

I was thinking the same thing - cause it didn't quite fit the entire screen - just a sliver of a black bar was on the top. What is the OAR of the 35mm print for "Robots"?

Please don't pretend he's a worthy critic to quote. Thanks.

I don't. But he's DIFFERENT, which is why I include him. A man can only take so many worthless "Metacritic" line-ups...

Eh, I liked it. Some part were gut-wrenching. But overall if you looked to enjoy it you did, if you looked to compare it to something you already thought was gold you didn't. Not everything can be as good as you want it, but this was still good.

Saw it. Found it entertaining and light hearted. Nothing special, but way better than most of the films seeing the light of day right now.

I saw this movie this weekend. I liked it alot! More importantly my son loved it! Great animation in it.

I'm so sick of animated movies doing all kinds of pop culture parodies that are dated before the movie is even in theaters. The last 15 minutes of it were especially bad in this regard. That's one of the reasons why Pixar is so successful - they have enough of their own story and jokes that they don't need to resort to parodies of other things.

Also, I love Robin Williams, but didn't think he had a decent joke in the whole movie.

I agree with that. Overall I enjoyed Robots, and liked a lot of the 'robot twists' on human things, but Robin Williams' two big scenes [Singing in the Oil and during the battle scene] were either not real funny, dragged on too long, or too dated.
I don't mind parody, but it can serve to limit the longevity of a film.

Me and my brother kept saying they should have had some robots doing "The Human" instead of doing the robot. Would have been impressive.

Disliked it. There was always way too much being thrown up on the screen. Super cluttered and frantic to no effect. Robin Williams (whom I usually like more in dramatic parts) was nothing but annoying. McGregor was bland. The little trailer for Ice Age 2 was the highlight.

*½ / ****