I got back a couple hours ago from this and started reading at the beginning of this thread before posting. I must admit I only got a couple pages into the thread (as it takes so long to read so many well thought-out reviews and opinions - you guys are the best Disney critics - forget about the the movie critics reviews). Anyway, I find myself in almost 95% agreement with gardener in terms of his reaction to the film so I'll compare and contrast my reaction to gardener's:
gardener14 wrote: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.... 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...... 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 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.
I saw this in 3D and part of the problem, being a 3D camera enthusiast, was being preoccupied with the 3D aspect and finding myself missing parts of the plot. To digress for a moment, I shoot 3D pics with a 1960s vintage camera, mount my own 3D images and even project them on a screen for audiences (I have a box of about 30 3-D glasses, like the ones they give out for this movie and have given presentations at historic societies in 3D), so I know the "rules" of 3D. Of course the 3D Disney technology is far advanced and totally different process than what I learned as a DIY hobbyist, but they are still supposed to follow the rules of 3D in order to have a consistent presentation. Partly too, it can depend on where you are seated as to how the presentation looked. Since I was the only person in the theater, I had my pick of seats and I sat high up, eye level, with the screen. Also, I would assume that since the technology is being shown for a full theater, the presentation/technology would work in about 90% of the theater seats. What I would find was that in many instances, Disney was not consistent with following the rules, with characters, rain, etc breaking out of the window/box, as we call it.
Think of the screen as a picture window. So if the screen is a picture window, and you stick your hand out the window, that is within the rules of physics. You can lean out a window with the upper half of your body coming through, but your legs remaining behind, correct? But what you can't have is an object partly coming through the window, with half the object remaining behind the window, like if it was cut in half - either the whole thing comes out or it stays behind the window. Anyway, their 3-D process respects the rules, I'd say, about 75% of the time.
As for the plot, because I got so preoccupied with the 3-D aspects, I thought I had missed what bowler hat's purpose was, but I see gardener has indicated it was not clear at the beginning anyway. I too, really enjoyed CL and don't see why so many here in the forum found the film so flawed. But that is personal opinion, I guess. I also found the middle of the film, where he gets to the future and all the Robinson family members are being presented - very confusing and it did seem like just a series of gags to possibly cover up a plot weakness (?)... but later, as the film progresses, you find out, "oh, this is the kid's family" and you start to see their purpose.
So looking back retrospectively at this, could the introduction to his future family been handled any differently or was the randomness aspect and the chaotic nature really key to quickly communicating what the family was really about (that they were quirky - like the kid himself - and delivering "the celebration of individualism" message that the film is trying to convey) after all the movie has a 1.5-hour time frame and maybe they felt they couldn't spare more time on developing this section of the film, or they just felt it wasn't necessary since it gets explained later. But of the negative reviews, almost all are honing in on that part of the film as what they see as chaotic and "a mess." With CL, I didn't really see any section of the film that was out of step or broke/departed drastically from any other section, as you do with the middle of this film.
As Luke said in his review, the end of the film really tied everything together and the way the film does this really "saves" the film from how it degenerated to chaos in the middle. So I will say, I do not like this nearly as much as I did CL. But I do like MTR and I agree with gardener and others who've said this is something I'd like to see again, because I think the middle section would be more tolerable (now that I know what's going to happen). It would give me a chance to examine the various family characters, which go by in a blur. I plan to purchase the DVD. I LOVED the Rat Pack Frogs - I think these were my favorite secondary characters in the film.
Topping off a great presentation was the 3-D chip and dale gem that they dug out of the vaults - just perfect! And I did enjoy the quote at the end of the film from Walt - basically indicating the film's theme having come from Walt.
For critics to say this is a "kids-only" film is ridiculous. I am doubtful that many young kids would even be able to process most of the plot of this film - the time travel, the whole role-reversal between the kid turning out to really be his son, them showing that the kid's mom was really his wife, etc. Later, you find out that the old guy who lost his teeth adopted him. etc. This plot really strikes me as geared towards a young teen to adult audience.
I was the ONLY person in the entire theater, which is not great, but it was a Thursday and at 11:20am. Hopefully the film is getting bigger #s in the afternoons or on weekends.
cant wait for the dvd. 
The film ended screenings in Malta in just 12 days, as I already said. However, it may surface up again in a theatre in my town. It's called "Tal-Lira Cinemas", which means you pay just one Maltese Lira to view a film. The catch is that the films are not new releases, and may be from a couple of months, to even over a year old. For example, the theatre is currently showing Night at the Museum, and a couple of weeks ago it was screening Chicken Little. 
Now, a week ago, I thought I saw a poster for Meet the Robinsons outside the complex, reading "Coming Soon". My fingers are crossed.