DVDizzy Forum

If you read the Orlando Sentinel in today's paper (Friday, March 30, 2007) they give THE ROBINSON'S a very scathing review and only give it one and a half stars. They say it is totally boring, and anyone above the age of 10 will sleep through it.

If you see it in 3-D, they say that adds to the experience, but not much. They say the jokes are all lame, and that John Lassiter came on board to help Disney animaters with this film a little too late. According to the reviewer, you can tell that Disney has a long way to go to match Pixar for animation qualities, and humor. Also the characters, according to this reviewer, are very lame, and have no depth.

I don't know about others, but I will go see this film for myself, and make my own judgments. I want this to be at least a little better than "Chicken Little" and "The Wild", but all the reviews I am reading don't offer much hope. I am taking my three oldest grandkids to a showing later tonight.

i think the critics just cant wait to see disney wiped off from the face of the earth, then they can equate this to the fall of rome.

im not being biased, if a movie is good its good if its bad its bad. to me chicken little was bad for a 'disney standard' but this improved alot. dont trust the critics, if they can give the boring monster house and the so-so happy feet, and cars ( based on pixar's reputation) good reviews, i can't see why not for this charming movie.

It was a really cute movie, I must say. It might have suffered a bit at the introduction of so many characters right away, many who get little screen time, and possibly kids might not get the time continuum bits, but it was a really enjoyable experience overall. The art direction and backgrounds were great, they looked just like a William Joyce book come to life. Also, I must give a special shout-out to Danny Elfman, who can basically do no wrong scoring a movie. Not that anyone on this board probably needs a reccommendation to see this, but I reccommend it anyhow. We're not back at "Beauty and the Beast" yet, but it's a step in the right direction.

P.S. To whomever said the T. Rex was random...it was also in the book. Not in the same way, but the Robinsons did have pet dinosaurs there.

SpringHeelJack wrote:P.S. To whomever said the T. Rex was random...it was also in the book. Not in the same way, but the Robinsons did have pet dinosaurs there.

Ah thanks. I've not read the book, but an article New York Times posted implied Lasseter influenced the dinosaur. I guess that's how seriously we take things like New York Times.

Man, I really want to see this soon.

I just saw an early screening this morning in 3D and I really enjoyed the movie. If divided into 3 parts, I'd say the 1st and 3rd parts are really good while the middle is ok. It's not bad it's just too much going on but the movie finishes extremely well. It's a definite must see for a Disney fan, and I'd give it a B+ overall.

The one thing that upset me was the theater I was at showed the intro to the 1953 cartoon that was supposed to play before the movie, and then after the intro it skipped the cartoon and went straight to Meet the Robinsons.

I saw the film today with my 3 and a half year old daughter Kirsty. Here is my honest appraisal:

After Chicken Little and The Wild (not strictly a Disney film I know) my expectations for this film were not high although, as always, my hopes were. My general feeling whilst watching Chicken Little at the cinema was one of disappointment. Maybe it was due to overinflated expectations or maybe it was just down to a poor cinema experience I'm not sure which. I must say though that after subsequent viewings of Chicken Little (of which there have been many in our house!) that film has got better in my opinion and gone up in my estimation considerably.

Anway I went into Meet the Robinsons with an open mind. My only pre-conceptions of what I was about to see were based on a fairly uninspiring trailer and having read various synopsis' of the film. After half an hour I was feeling serious deja vu. I just couldn't dig the movie. It felt like my Chicken Little experience all over again. And then all of a sudden out of nowhere my mood seemed to swing 180 degrees. It really knocked me out of the ball park so to speak. I think at the beginning I felt that the attempt to be something original came across as too contrived but then as if by magic the film just seemed to sparkle.

I don't like to use analogies but it was like a great football legend at the back end of his career who had struggled to recapture former glories in the early stages of a game, misplaced passes, good ideas but not quite coming off etc etc and it left this commentator wondering if it was a game too far for this true great. And then in the second half, like all genuine champions do, all the questions were answered. We were shown just what made this player so great in the first place. All the right notes were hit and finally the movie flourished. By the end I was buoyant and I confess quite emotional. When the final text hits the screen I defy any true Disney fan to try and keep a dry eye.

Meet the Robinsons is not a classic Disney film and nor does it try to be but with a little patience it is immensely enjoyable. True it does lack certain things but it does have plenty to offer that you just can't get elsewhere. It's strengths are that it is highly original and different and it's off-the-wall feel reminded me a little of Lilo and Stitch in that respect. I certainly hope it does as well at the box office because it deserves to but alas I'm not sure it will as I'm not sure it is mainstream enough.

For what it's worth my daughter was fixated for the whole duration of the film. Quite a feat in itself as she has been going through a "difficult" phase since beginning pre-school. This was only her second trip to the cinema, her first was for Chicken Little, and I think she enjoyed this even more judging by her behaviour - she was as good as gold.

Incidentally I am finally happy with my user name. When I first came to the forum a year or so ago I was a bit envious of some of the cool user names people have (Ichabod being a prime example!). The best I could come up with was to pay homage to my favourite chimpanzee from the classic Planet of the Apes! Now I have a connection not just with a Disney character but with Tom Selleck! How cool is that?!!!

I absolutely loved this movie ... Funny ... and very heartwarming ...

LOVED IT IN 3D ... and loved the Donald Duck cartoon they had in the beginning ...

Oh ... and yay that NIGHTMARE comes back this fall!

MadonnasManOne wrote:You are blaming John Lasseter for the film being called messy? That's quite hilarious! Read the book!

Disney's version of Chicken Little was very messy, as well, and John Lasseter had nothing to do with that film. In fact, Chicken Little made me feel as though the creative crew on the film took acid, before going to work.

I love how people want to blame John Lasseter and Pixar, for Disney's shortcomings. You need to wake up. John Lasseter and Pixar are hitting them out of the park, consistently. Disney, not so much.

It's not me who's blaming John Lasseter ... it's one of the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes!

BTW, I've just come from the screening of the film and I must say, what a FLIPPING WONDERFUL FILM!! I loved every second of it! What a treat! How enchanting! Disney are back, and better than ever!

Also ... my admiration for the utterly beautiful animation that makes this film what it is. Alone, it already makes the movie a must see. I saw the standard 2D version (no 3D available in my country) and I must say, this is some of the most glorious CG animation I've ever seen, if not the most glorious CG animation I've ever seen!

And ... I love the new "Walt Disney Animation Studios" logo! BTW, is this a renaming of WDFA? WDFA no longer exists? Now it's WDAS?

dvd junkie wrote:If you read the Orlando Sentinel in today's paper (Friday, March 30, 2007) they give THE ROBINSON'S a very scathing review and only give it one and a half stars. They say it is totally boring, and anyone above the age of 10 will sleep through it.

If you see it in 3-D, they say that adds to the experience, but not much. They say the jokes are all lame, and that John Lassiter came on board to help Disney animaters with this film a little too late. According to the reviewer, you can tell that Disney has a long way to go to match Pixar for animation qualities, and humor. Also the characters, according to this reviewer, are very lame, and have no depth.

I don't know about others, but I will go see this film for myself, and make my own judgments. I want this to be at least a little better than "Chicken Little" and "The Wild", but all the reviews I am reading don't offer much hope. I am taking my three oldest grandkids to a showing later tonight.

dvdjunkie, I am ORDERING you to grab that review, stuff it, along with all this week's garbage, down that critic's throat, and hold his head inside the toilet, until he swallows it! Boring indeed! Why doesn't he go chop his toes off? I bet he'll think that's more fun!

To the critic:

HOW THE HELL CAN MEET THE ROBINSONS BE BORING YOU MORON!! GO AND BURY YOURSELF WITH BARBIE IN THE NUTCRACKER!

- - - - - - - - -

I'm sorry for using all caps there. I know it goes against netiquette, but I just couldn't help it.

Yet again my local monopoly chain is not only the only theater chain in town, but behind the times. And, the AMC an hour from here doesn't have 3D either.

dvd junkie wrote:According to the reviewer, you can tell that Disney has a long way to go to match Pixar for animation qualities.

Oh, Mr. Critic! Do you have eyes in your head? If so, then please go to the optician because you seriously need to watch Meet the Robinsons better, or simply rephrase your statement. If Meet the Robinsons has subpar animation, that would make nearly all CG toons crappy. It would even make Pixar's flicks primitive (despite what you say, which is a contradiction), since MTR equals anything I've ever seen from Pixar, in terms of animation quality, albeit in a different style.

Timon/Pumbaa fan wrote: Pixar aren't "hitting them out of the park consistently" though. Read the negative reviews for Cars.

I don't care about the reviews. Even with the negative reviews that were posted, Cars still scored well. It did well at the Box Office, which means that the public enjoyed it. The mechandise for the film was, and still is, red hot, and I know a great deal of people who absolutely love Cars. Pixar IS consistently hitting them out of the ball park. There is no denying that, no matter what anyone says.

I could care less about what critics say. It is my opinion that matters most to me. So, I will be seeing Meet the Robinson's, to judge it for myself. I'm hoping it's a lot better than Chicken Little.

I have not seen the movie, but the local paper's movie reviewer gave it 2 1/2 stars. He says adults won't find it funny, but kids will. I'm glad its Rated "G". For once, there's a movie w/o shrek type potty humor. I can't wait to see it - I might see it either tomorrow or Sunday.

I just came back from seeing the film in 3D, and I'll offer my own short and sweet review for those interested. The movie itself was a good one. Yes, it did jump around a lot...BUT it was a solid story that flowed well with characters you could relate to. That alone is enough of an improvement of the past few Disney-created CGI films that I welcomed it with open arms. The most amazing part, and probably part of what made me like it so much, was the graphics. Genuinely amazing. The 3D was very impressively done, and I marveled at it the entire time. It may be that the standard version is not as impressive, and logically so, but I have no doubt it is still good.

Moral of the story: please give this movie a chance, despite the negative reviews critics may be dishing out. It was a fun movie with a good story that was well-made, and is certainly worth your time, especially in 3D.

I just got back from seeing the movie in Digital 3D. I went with my two parents (both 50) and my younger brother (14). I am 21. We all thought the movie was FANTASTIC! So to reviewers who say adults won't enjoy it, I beg to differ.

I agree with a lot of the reviewers on the fact that the second act is far weaker than the first and third. It greatly suffers from introducing too many characters too fast and not devoting very much time to any of them. I really wanted to see more of the dinosaur, Tiny, and the genetically enhanced frogs. I'm a fan of the Rat Pack, so I really liked the mafia reference. However, the second act was by no means boring and it was fast paced enough to entertain. It just diverted a little too far from the main story. But the first and third act were so well done that it doesn't seem to be a big deal to me.

As people have said, the world created here is stunning! The clean bright vision of the future is refreshing in a time where most futuristic movies deal with how horrible it will be. I especially love the theme park references with Space Mountian, the Astro Orbiter, and Todayland instead of Tomorrowland. The animation was much better than "Chicken Little."

Character development was excellent. Louis draws sympathy from the audience and is very likeable, but the main strength lies in the supporting cast. Louis' roomate, nicknamed Goob, was a very cute and funny boy with permanant black eyes due to getting hit in the face with baseballs (he wants to be a baseball player). Bowler Hat Guy, while oddly named, was a very comical villian, which are always my favorite type of villians. Whoever was the lead animator did an exceptional job on his body movement. It kind of reminded me of Jack Skellington at times, but it was really well done. And Tiny had great movements too, which were probably hard to do given the weird shape of a T-Rex.

The music was wonderful. As usual, Danny Elfman has written an Oscar worthy score and the actual songs employed were very fitting. The song used in the trailor was not included, nor was the Jonas Brothers song that is being plugged from the soundtrack, "Kids of the Future." Instead, you get very good soft rock songs. The only voice I recognized was Rob Thomas, but I really liked the music. I am deffinatley going to pick up the soundtrack next time I'm at the store.

Being a huge Disney geek, I was delighted to see the classic Disney short in front of the film, and in 3D like it was originally intended to be seen. "Working For Peanuts" seemed to get a favorable response from the packed theater.

Walt Disney is my hero, so the quote at the end of the film by him made me extremely overwhelmed with joy.

Overall, I would give the film somewhere between an A- and a B+. I am deffinatley going to see it again and I can't wait for the DVD to come out. I hope it's 2 disc.

Hidden Gems
I was only able to spot one hidden item in the film. It's typically a hidden Mickey or something like that, but this one was quite unique. For those who don't want to know prior to seeing it, I have made it white so you can't see. If you would like to read it, highlight below:

In the scene where Bowler Hat Guy is at Deloris' pink house, pay close attention to the pattern on the booth seats. They are unicorns and castles, but not just any castle. It's Cinderella's castle from Walt Disney World, Tokyo Disneyland, and the new Walt Disney Pictures logo. A very clever hidden gem.

I saw it this afternoon in 3-D. It was a great film and I enjoyed every minute of it. I especially enjoyed how the entire theme of the film was based on a certain quote by a certain someone, which you'll find out more about in the end. The Donald Duck cartoon at the beginning was so cute. I enjoyed that as well.

That's funny that your newspaper didn't like it, dvdjunkie, because my local newspaper gave it 3/4 stars. I'm sure you'll enjoy it when you take your grandkids to see it tonight.

Anywho, I hope that the DVD gets a 3-D release, but I find it doubtful. It would make me extremely happy if it did, though.

Meet the Robinsons
I have not been reviewing so many movies lately as I had in the past but I must review Disney's "46th Animated Classic". Disney had been at a low for years, after the practical demise of the company's ingenuity with the release of Chicken Little. Chicken Little was one of the worst animated films of all time, and if it had not picked up some profits, Disney would have been permanently wiped off the animation scene. Disney had enough sense to buy Pixar Studios, which I give most credit to fixing the film Meet the Robinsons. Meet the Robinsons tries its best to be a good movie and to bring Disney back from the hearth that a stupid goose, chicken, and pig were roasted on. It worked. Meet the Robinsons not only has saved Disney's animation studio, but it has given it new meaning. The film itself had great animation, not overdone (i.e. Happy Feet), and had voice actors that actually did well. However, there are some downfalls of the film. The plot itself worked very well, but it didn't seem so original, besides being based off of a book, or whatnot. The film seemed like a mix of the films Robots, Treasure Planet, and Back to the Future. The plot itself had some wholes, minor ones, which are easy to forget. The only terrible part of the plot was the easiness to forsee events. I easily forsaw certain characters who were those characters in the future and vice versa. A lot of people say its good because it's a comedy, or says it is bad because as a comedy it didn't make them laugh. Remember a movie does not have to make you laugh. To be a comedy, a comedy only needs a "happy" or positive ending. With this film Disney has the chance to bring itself back from death, but Disney still hasn't found the formula of the 90s. Meet the Robinsons will be remembered for some time, but will ultimately be forgotten, similar to Brother Bear, or Oliver and Company. If a new Golden Age for Disney does occur, it won't even be included, remember this. Oliver and Company was forgotten, so was Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Meet the Robinsons may very well play that part in the puzzle of WDA's return to genius.

Grade: Temporarily B-/C+, I need to let the film rest on my mind.

By the way, my newspaper gave the film a B+. Critics on a whole are very smart, while there are some very stupid idiots.

I just got back from seeing it, and I loved it. It's true that there were a few weak portions of the film, regarding the amount of characters and how much story seemed to be stuffed into the film. Overall it was funny, heartwarming, and (IMO) the best film Disney has made in a very long while. I cannot wait for the future films because they will only get better from here!

P.S. Are we all getting the same animated short before the film. The one I saw was the boat one where Mickey, Donald, and Goofy try to build their own ship. I really hope that Disney starts animating new shorts that appeal to younger audiences today because there didn't seem to be much of a response from the children in the theater. It was a uneasy feeling.

singerguy04 wrote: P.S. Are we all getting the same animated short before the film. The one I saw was the boat one where Mickey, Donald, and Goofy try to build their own ship. I really hope that Disney starts animating new shorts that appeal to younger audiences today because there didn't seem to be much of a response from the children in the theater. It was a uneasy feeling.

Apparently we aren't. My theatre was showing a short that involved Donald Duck, Chip & Dale, an elephant, and some peanuts. Perhaps the shorts are different for the 3-D presentation than it is for the standard presentation.

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. Anyways, I loved the movie! I thought it was so clever, funny, moving and an all around great film. I think this is a sign of great things to come!

Awesome news! Two classic Disney shorts in theaters at the same time? My head is spinning. I will deffinatley see MTR at least once more in 2D, and possibly a second time in 3D if I feel like driving 45 minutes again. The more I think about this movie, the more I love it. I went out and bought the soundtrack. I plan on getting the "Art of Meet The Robinsons" book tomorrow.