Originally Posted By oc_dean Couldn't wait to see this ... beings it takes place in the future. While there's a few things I'd like to say ... I'll wait till I'm not typing on laptop (too many errors) ... but I just have to say .... Overall ... it was mildly entertaining. I felt the editing was just too wiz-bang fast ... It's really ridiculous the speed it goes in many points in the film. I'm anxious to get some feedback. Later with more discussion
Originally Posted By mawnck Hummmmmm . . . Messy, disjointed, hyper, irritating, and worst of all, emotionally false. I felt like I was being pandered to with all the poor misunderstood orphan stuff, so I never got even slightly emotionally invested in the rest of the movie. The "heart" we've heard so much about felt like it was stuffed in there by a committee of focus group analysts. ("We'll make him a poor misunderstood orphan, yeah, that always works. And lots of hugging! Put in lots of hugging at the end!") And I had 98% of the "surprise" ending figured out about 15 seconds after they started introducing the family--which had about 47 too many members for the scant amount of screen time they got. When you have to bring the movie to a screeching halt to verbally go over your supporting cast again, you've messed up somewhere. On the plus side, Bowler Hat guy was very interesting (congrats to the animator for that) until the movie kind of overwhelmed him, and there were other sections that probably could have worked if it weren't for the spastic, hyper pace and the (here we go again) predictable sitcom-style writing. Just barely better than Chicken Little. Not nearly as good as the Mickey Mouse cartoon that ran before it.
Originally Posted By DianaSparrow Haven't seen Meet the Robinsons yet, but was the POTC AWE trailer shown with this movie? I thought I heard it would be?
Originally Posted By Doobie Saw it with 3 other people. They all liked it a lot. I didn't. I gave it a 5 out of 10. I liked the ending but the first half was a little too frenetic for me and I didn't find the jokes too funny. I thought it was about a 3 until the last half hour or so. Doobie.
Originally Posted By oc_dean Okay ... of the many points I want to make ...... Fact Number One: The biggest aspect of this movie .. that should resonate for adults ... Is investing any feelings for the boy ... growing up in an orphanage. There's not much time to even care!
Originally Posted By oc_dean Aspect Number Two .... Meeting the nutty family members. I think it was a bit "frenetic" enough meeting each member .... since they were ALL nuts! At least the mom was a bit sane ..... but the moment the boy comes through the tube .. to the front lawn ... the editing was JUST TOO MUCH! There wasn't even a narative to follow throughout meeting the entire WHAKED-OUT family members! Some slightly slower reaction shots from the boy ... would have helped to make this sequence come off like a NORMAL movie!! For the sake of a film with an operating time of less than an hour and a half .... they introduced WAY TOO MANY characters who had a total running time of what? 33 seconds each!!
Originally Posted By oc_dean Another big disappointing aspect was the whole "Todayland" reference to Tomorrowland. In trailors .... they show them wizzing by it ........ And as it turns out .... THAT'S ALL THEY DO for the entire length of the film .... just _wiz_ right through it ... just like in the trailor - nothing more! Why even bother! For what .... a 4 second shot "teaser" shot?!
Originally Posted By oc_dean Then the city ......... Okay ... so they take MAJOR license from today ... to some 25-30 years into the future ... No city can transform THAT MUCH in 30 years .. maybe 100-200 years. But ..eh ... it's a cartoon. I'll buy into it. But I was sad ... no time was spent in the city. It served as one giant "backdrop". While the Robinson's home was "front and center" throughout the entire film .. which was okay, I guess. But the city was so cool in it's 1930s/40s rounded "futuristic" styling. I wish they had spent more than just the minute or two they did at beginning opening sequence into the future. I BARELY noticed a purple/blue-sh 4-pod Peoplemover that I thought could serve as an inspiration to the DL Peoplemover track conundrum. But just like so much of the film ... it was FLASH .. FLASH .. ONE SECOND-TWO SECOND ... FLASH .. FLASH ..... try to deliver a film in a series of edits that were TOO DAMN FAST! SOOOOOOO IRRATATING! Seriously ........ Disney producers REALLY think in their posh Studio offices .. this is "the normal" way to shoot animated features?! No wonder they delivered this film at this time ..... As Jan/Feb/March are always the months to push out their mediocre/less films out .. and try to get back ANY money!
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Not nearly as good as the Mickey Mouse cartoon that ran before it.<< That was Donald Duck and Chip 'n Dale.
Originally Posted By oc_dean hmmmm In our theater ... We got a Mickey Mouse short with Donald and Goofy .. about building a boat.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Ah. The Donald Duck short ("Working for Peanuts") is shown with the 3-D version. My bad.
Originally Posted By Jim I probably enjoyed it more than all of you, though Doobie sums up my thoughts . . . the last 30 minutes made it. I already posted my ideas on the other MTR thread below, so I won't restate them here, but some additionl thoughts . . . I think the character development was overall too bland. I don't think the entire family needed to be developed to a great extent, but a few of the members should have been. The Wilbur and Lewis, as far as personalities go, are not too memorable. Lewis should not have been a whiz bang character, but Wilbur should have had the spark of a Cody or Artful Dodger or something. Compare him Mowgli, who is not an exciting character but is needed and is supported by an exciting supporting cast. You can definitely see the after effects of Thomas Schumacher's "let's get rid of those annoying story people and visual development people" edit all over the movie. That said, I did walk out having enjoyed the movie. I thought it was basically a good kids' movie. If the Black Cauldron is to Home on the Range and Chicken Little, then The Great Mouse Detective is to Meet the Robinsons. The big difference is that Black Cauldron is leaps and bounds better than either HOTR or CL, and likewise, Great Mouse Detective is far superior ot MTR. But the good news is that there's hope for the future!
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>Ah. The Donald Duck short ("Working for Peanuts") is shown with the 3-D version. My bad.<< Oh .. I see .... they ran one short for the Digital projection ... and another for 35mm showings. (I went to a 35mm showing).
Originally Posted By Moderation And that's why you're disapointed OC. I've read 4 professional reviews on it, and all 4 have made the point that the movie is'ok' in 2-D and WOW in 3-D. I'm going to see it tonight in 3D and will post my impressions
Originally Posted By oc_dean I went to a 35mm showing out of convenience. Sometimes the difference between digital and film isn't so spectacularly different .. unless it's in 3D .. which would have been fun, actually.
Originally Posted By oc_dean On the other hand.... while I like "theme park" gimmicks to make it 'more fun' ..... It's not going to help a film's direction, plot, script, character development, etc. And I consider myself more someone who wants to see films that can stand on their own .. and not depend on "theme park" gimmicks.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: My sisters and I conjured up this movie last night at home in our crystal ball. Right off the 'bat' we should admit that we've never been able to relate very well to the futuristic type genre. We're simply too old fashioned for that. ORGOCH: Course it didn't help none ta have silly ol' Orwen sittin' 'round askin' too many dang questions 'bout the story-line 'n such. Gave me a headache that made it hard ta pay much attention ta the movie. ORWEN: Well, you're nasty chomping on frog legs the whole time didn't help ME to pay attention, either, you old biddy! Anyway, I can't say this movie did much for me either. It had some interesting moments, though. I liked the colorful scenery at least. ORDDU: Wilbur reminded me more of Ed Begley Jr. as a child. Then--after Wilbur's futuristic self was revealed--I understood why. He WAS Ed Begley Jr.! ORWEN: We'll be much more excited with Ratatouille when it comes out than we were with this particular movie.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad I'll give it a 7.5 out of 10 only because I WANTED to like it before I went. Having said that... let me say this: It was "Okay", had it been a Pixar film, I would claim that it's Pixar's first failure, but being that it's not, in spite of Lasseter getting the Executive Producer credit (I wonder who got bumped and screwed on that deal) alas it isn't a Pixar film. Thus, 7.5 out of 10. One thing that Eisner did so well during the 90's was he always made sure the plots had a strong beginning, a strong middle, and a strong finish. The movie was too short. Time was sacrificed and character development went with it. I WAS ADOPTED MYSELF AS A CHILD, AND EVEN I COULDN'T BUY INTO THE MAIN CHARACTER. It reminded me of Stuart Little meets Back to the Future with the Adam's Family resulting. VERY WEIRD, the future family simply DID NOT work at all. I say all of this keeping in mind that I WANTED to like this film, but alas, it was just ... "okay." I am loathe to say this but Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is a FAR FAR better movie. Oh if not for the Disney Digital 3D, I'd have to lower my 7.5 to 5.0 I will say that the nostalgic Nod to Walk on the end was done tastefully and I liked that very much. The film was so week that there will be NO sequal, no characters for the theme parks, and nothing more of the Robinsons. Hummm...even Emperor's new Groove did better than that.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I am loathe to say this but Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is a FAR FAR better movie.<< Seconded.
