Meet the Robinsons

[SpringHeelJack]

We had the ship building short as well, and saw the movie in 2-d, so I bet the 2-d and 3-d are just different shorts. I wonder why they did that.

The Chip and Dale short was made for 3D in the 50's, and so it is presented as such in the 3D showings. Apparently, the 2D ones show a different cartoon, the boat building one, since they are (duh) not 3D.

I don't know if I mentioned this, but if you get a chance to see the 3D version, you MUST go. It was so cool.

[Paka]

Hmm... let's see. A Mickey short beforehand, a new studio logo paying homage to ol' Steamboat Willie, a closing Walt Disney quote... and the official termination of cheapquels?

Methinks the future has arrived, indeed.

[MickeyMousePal]

I loved the Chip 'n' Dale peanut short it was really great.
Planning on seeing The Nightmare before Christmas in 3-D if my area has it.
I saw Meet the Robinsons two times in 3-D today real 3-D and I have to say that the movie was really well made. But it seems that Disney might not make a sequel since it will confuse the movie just like Back to the Future series. I thought the Tom Selleck part of the movie was really funny. Overall grade for this movie would be an average B.
It could have been funnier and have some more humor.
TMNT seem to be a better and more action pack movie and did have some funny parts. Seem to like TMNT more because I grew up with the original series. I really enjoyed the song from Rob Thomas called Little Wonders.

[ichabod]

Today 31st March ITV1 at 11:30

Just thought I'd inform ya

[castleinthesky]

My theater called Meet the Robinsons a so-called "kids" film, and decided not to show the short in front of it.

[jrboy]

Friday's Box Office
1 BLADES OF GLORY
$12,065,000

2 MEET THE ROBINSONS
$7,630,000

^ a lot lower than i expected, oh well

[cornelius]

How annoying, I'd been looking around Sky's movie channels and Disney's channels for something like this and didn't see it. Was it any good?

[goofystitch]

Dissapointing numbers. Maybe it will pick up today? I think the bulk of the money will come next weekend over Easter weekend. Maybe that will put it at number 1, since it is a family film.

[Anthony]

Dissapointing numbers. Maybe it will pick up today? I think the bulk of the money will come next weekend over Easter weekend. Maybe that will put it at number 1, since it is a family film.

I doubt it. There's already 2 new family films opening this Wednesday that will crowd the box office, Are We Done Yet? and Firehouse Dog.

[Jules]

Well ... as for me, I wasn't expecting this to be an absolute blockbuster. I just hope it covers its production costs.

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

I saw Meet the Robinsons two times in 3-D today real 3-D and I have to say that the movie was really well made.

At first, I was going to say "Wow, you saw it twice in one day?" But then realized, Pals doesn't hold on to the title "UD's #1 Pranksta" for nothing!




I saw the first showing this morning and 5 words kept hitting my mind during the whole film...

PIXAR, THOU HAS BEEN SURPASED!!!

Before I critique it, I want to say Lasseter had very little, next to nothing with this film so you can't really claim him responsible for MTR being good. If you do, then you probably also agree Disney was 100% responsible for Toy Story and that Pixar had nothing to do with the characters or plot, they just animated it

Seriously, the film was terrific! I think it's official those critics are on some type of drug.

While I loved Chicken Little think it's absolutely wonderful, this was certainly a much better made movie than CL. In fact, I think I'd go as far and say it's my 3rd favorite animated classic, just behind The Lion King and Pinocchio as of this minute on this day.

The animation simply ROCKED!!! It was certainly just as good as any Pixar film, critics just don't know good animation when they see it I guess.

The characters were all wonderfully developed and very creative. I disagree that the characters weren't given enough depth, or that the film was messy. I think those critics saw "Alice in Wonderland" or "Finding Nemo" instead and confused it with this film instead.

I loved the whole space-time continuum plot, it's like Doc Brown's description of it(but with less plot-holes). In fact, the whole plot was wonderful. I agree with goofystitch, with so many pessimistic views of the future recently, it's nice to see a film that puts the future in a positive light.

The music was great too. The songs, while maybe a little forgettable, are great when you listen to them. SpringHeelJack is dead-on when he says Danny Elfman doesn't know how to do a bad score. If this man gets robbed of an Oscar nomination again, well, the Academy may never redeem itself. Unless Ratatouille is that great(which I doubt will be better than MTR), Disney has finally earned their first "Best Animated Film" Oscar FINALLY!

I did see it in 3-D, and I have to say after having seen both Nightmare and MTR in 3-D, this is one of the greatest inventions Disney has created in their 84 year history. It just brings such an awesome depth to the movie that you can't explain. You have to see it for yourself. I think 3-D is certainly a way of the future, just like having wider aspect ratios were in the 50s.

Showing "Working for Peanuts" was a nice touch. The Mickey Mouse logo I also felt was a pretty cool logo, and gives it a nice breath a fresh air from the castle. And the end quote of Walt made the film. This was no "company philosophy" Luke. It almost feels you saw some cheap Pixar film instead where they "so-cleverly" make fun of themselves.

Oh, and Tom Selleck's appearnace was pure genius! I think a man by the name of Richard Gray will agree with me there.

It's flawed, I can see it's small faultings, and can see why some people say it's not perfect and could be better, but I loved it, and think most critics only dislike it because their biased hate against Disney. I personally think it's as close to perfection as most films hope to achieve. Because of that, I'll go ahead and give it 10/10, despite flaws (most notable, it's space-time continuum plot-hole, but still very minor, and BTTF Part II holds that same flaw, but MUCH worse) Yup, my 3rd favorite Animated Classic as of today.


And to close this long review...


DORIS IS THE BEST DISNEY CHARACTER EVER CREATED!

[Disneykid]

Vague spoilers:

I just got back from seeing this, and oh...my...gosh. I haven't checked out what others have said in the thread because I was avoiding spoilers, but this has already become one of my favorite Disney movies, period. I loved every bit of it: the bright, retro-style, the random insanity, the jazzy music...It all clicked together better than I could've expected. The middle of the film is pretty choppy and seems like a series of gags and nothing more, but I'll be danged if those gags weren't hilarious. Bowler Hat Guy was amazing, and it was great to see another Disney villain that was hilarious because of his quirks (ala Yzma) rather than because he's the butt of the joke (ala Hook). Although one of the few butt-of-the-jokes regarding him (I'll just say this: unicorn) was too precious for words. I already figured out one of the plot twists as soon as the hint was dropped, but the other completely took me by surprise. My head is reeling right now trying to sort everything out. This is certainly a movie that benefits from repeat viewings. I consider this to be the third best Disney animated film of the decade after Lilo & Stitch and The Emperor's New Groove, and I can't wait to see this again.

Oh, and how awesome was it to see a classic Disney short on the big screen, and in a beautifully restored print, no less? The new WDFA logo is nice and classy, though I have to admit I would've liked to have seen various characters featured (especially, you know, feature animation ones). Still, I guess it was good to keep it simple and short. A bunch of kids in the audience were audibly complaining about when the movie was going to start. I personally like having my movie experience long and drawn out. It makes it more of an event and gives me more bang for my buck.

[castleinthesky]

Before I critique it, I want to say Lasseter had very little, next to nothing with this film so you can't really claim him responsible for MTR being good. If you do, then you probably also agree Disney was 100% responsible for Toy Story and that Pixar had nothing to do with the characters or plot, they just animated it

Again you are mistaken. Lassater did a lot to the film. He didn't work on the film himself, but he directed the correct changes the film needed to succeed. Without him and the Pixar staff's creativity, this film would have sucked worse than Chicken Little, and that's hard to do.

Also one good cgi film and one bad cgi film dosn't make a studio better than another studio with 6 good or great cgi films.

[Disneykid]

castleinsthesky's right. You may be anti-Lasseter, Timon, but he did help shape the film up to what it's become (though don't take that to mean that he deserves all the credit). From what I've read, it was Lasseter's idea to make Lewis' search for his mother and/or a family to be a prevalent plot thread. The rough version was filled with comedy, but had very little emotion or character development. I also heard the choppy nature of the middle act spilled into the last act, with the first act remaining largely unchanged. The Bowler Hat Guy also had a lot less screentime than he does now, and I think the character of Doris didn't even exist. Someone on this board (I forgot who) had seen the rough version and liked it very much even in that state, so perhaps he can pop in again and give us a comparison of both versions.

I disagree that the characters weren't given enough depth, or that the film was messy. I think those critics saw "Alice in Wonderland" or "Finding Nemo" instead and confused it with this film instead.

Hmmph. That's all I have to say to that.

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

Well, okay, I'm sorry if I were a bit harsh Pixar fans. However, Lasseter really only gave feedback and suggestions, which may have helped made it better than what it was, but I doubt it would've been a totally different movie without him, just minorly different. It still could've been great.

I unfortunately have to admit, I really don't know much of what Lasseter added to the film. I think I read he suggested to add more emotional depth into it, but does anyone know the EXACT details? I mean, I heard the middle act was a mess, and according to critics, that still hasn't been changed much. Maybe the ever-so-reliable Jim Hill can enlighten us.

And CITS, okay maybe I was over-reacting, I just such a big fan of Disney, and really want them to get more credit for MTR and a lot of what they've done in the past. Don't you agree they've a gotten a bit too much criticism recently. If your answer is "no", we'll just agree to disagree.

I disagree that the characters weren't given enough depth, or that the film was messy. I think those critics saw "Alice in Wonderland" or "Finding Nemo" instead and confused it with this film instead.

Hmmph. That's all I have to say to that.

Sorry, had to put that in there. I know you love Alice. I actually do like it(as opposed to the other film I mentioned ), I just added it because I really don't think Robinsons is all that different a style during the middle. Critics hated Alice too back in the day, but it's become a classic, so I think Robinsons has a really high chance of it becomming one as well.

[Disneykid]

Sorry, had to put that in there. I know you love Alice. I actually do like it(as opposed to the other film I mentioned ), I just added it because I really don't think Robinsons is all that different a style during the middle. Critics hated Alice too back in the day, but it's become a classic, so I think Robinsons has a really high chance of it becomming one as well.

That's what I figured you meant since I didn't remember you ever mentioning a dislike for Alice, but I hmmphed to be safe, anyway. It's funny, though, that that thought never occured to me. Meet the Robinsons is easily the zaniest thing Disney's done since Alice. Hercules and Emperor's New Groove come close, but they're not quite as manic and random as Alice and Robinsons are.

[castleinthesky]

And CITS, okay maybe I was over-reacting, I just such a big fan of Disney, and really want them to get more credit for MTR and a lot of what they've done in the past. Don't you agree they've a gotten a bit too much criticism recently. If your answer is "no", we'll just agree to disagree.

I can tell you, I am just as happy as you that this film is as good as it is. With the film that preceded it being so terrible (I know you don't think so), this needed to pull off a magic trick. The film did just that. I'm not too sure to say if they've gotten too much criticism or not, because sometimes they deserve it, especially with their cheapquels and not releasing some films (Song of the South and Only Yesterday). Most critics of this film however have no basis, as they say the film is not fun enough for adults. These critics however will like Shrek the Third which tells me they shouldn't be critics.

[blackcauldron85]

I saw "Meet the Robinsons" this afternoon (in 3D!) and it was amazing! I loved it! I can't wait for it to come on DVD so I can see all the hidden things that I missed. What a great story- wow. I am very impressed! I just wish that the Jonas Brothers' "Kids of the Future" was in it.

[Gurgi30]

I took my wife and kids to this today. Me, my wife, and my eldest child loved this movie. I don't think the infant appreciated it but she's only 7 months. Anyways, while their is some suspension of disbelief I thought it was well written and wonderfully animated. The theatre in Owatonna for the 2:45 show was full which is great news. On a different note, we got the animated short Ship Builders instead of the Chip 'n Dale short. It was a nice treat and I hope they do this for all of their animated and non-animated films. Thank you Disney for a wonderful family film.

[gardener14]

I just returned from seeing Meet the Robinsons, and I was not as impressed as I had hoped. I loved Chicken Little, but MTR was a letdown for me. CL felt like a warm, affectionate, and funny movie in two acts. MTR felt like a three act movie with the first and last acts having all the warm and affectionate story elements I enjoyed while the middle act, which contained much of the humor, was a chaotic jumble of confusion that left me wanting to tune out. There was actually a point during all this chaos that I wanted to leave, but I stuck it out, and fortunately the film returned to the comforting way it began. The pacing of the plot was amazingly inconsistent, and there were far too many characters thrown into the mix.

I did enjoy the music very much, and the stylized view of the future was beautiful. Lewis' desire to find his mother and later his desire to keep on the path toward his future family was the most attractive part of the movie. However, the attempt at comedy and randomness did not wear well for me. Also, the Bowler Hat Guy was frustrating in the beginning because I did not understand his motivation. It was explained later, but for too long he seemed purposeless. And what is it with Disney and insect-like robots with many legs? First The Incredibles, then Chicken Little, and now Meet the Robinsons...is there an art school somewhere pushing out multi-legged arthropod-like robot animators by the dozens?

My reaction to MTR's chaotic midsection surprises even myself because one of my favorite Disney movies is Alice In Wonderland, a film which is infamous for being random. I also don't understand why many people disliked Chicken Little. I found CL to have heart, a consistent pace, likeable and funny characters, and great music.

I loved that Disney included the short "Boat Builders." It was great to see it on the big screen, and the audience seemed to really enjoy it.

Despite my disappointment, I intend to see MTR again. I think it's a movie that I might enjoy better the second time around unlike CL which I wanted to see again because I loved it the first time.