Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA I stand by my review. See it here <a href="http://www.2adults1child.com/what_we_think/Robinsons/Robinsons_1.htm" target="_blank">http://www.2adults1child.com/w hat_we_think/Robinsons/Robinsons_1.htm</a> Buy a T-shirt!
Originally Posted By danyoung >Entertainment Weekly (Lisa Schwarzbaum? Please! She can't review yesterday)...< I don't always agree with her, but she can write circles around any of us!
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror >>>>Entertainment Weekly (Lisa Schwarzbaum? Please! She can't review yesterday)...< I don't always agree with her, but she can write circles around any of us!<<< I don't want to make this a referendum on her, but pshaw! We've got any number of people that can write circles around her. I have already (in other venues) and our own Rhett Wickham does that with regularity. In my opinion, she's a lucky hack in a pop culture rag, whose reviews ain't all that. Many of us knew people like her in film school... the ones who realized they couldn't tell a story, and would probably never get a job telling stories... but they could tell us why everyone else's stories were or weren't working. Meh.
Originally Posted By jdub Wow, I am surprised by all of the negative reviews here. I wonder if things would be different if the film had carried a "Pixar" label. In MY opinion, "Meet the Robinsons" is far superior to "Cars," or to any of the nominated films from last year (YES, that includes the overly-exalted "Happy Feet"). It's bright, & joyful, and--wow--doesn't rely on celebrity voices to carry the product. The biggest celebrity here, in my mind, is William Joyce, the author of the original book. The entire film pops out at the viewer just like a Joyce book, and that is a great thing. And (spoiler part),I do not think the viewer was SUPPOSED to be surprised that Wilbur's new best friend was his son. The audience was included in on that early on. This is my 2-D reaction. Looking forward to 3-D, with the Donald cartoon!
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <the ones who realized they couldn't tell a story, and would probably never get a job telling stories... but they could tell us why everyone else's stories were or weren't working. Meh.> Sort of like, if you can't sing, don't criticize the contestants on 'American Idol?' Or, if you can't design a theme park attraction, don't complain about 'The Adventures of Winnie the Pooh' ride at Disneyland? Or if you're not an athlete, don't kvetch about the Cubs performance at a Wrigley home game. Like that?
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror >>><the ones who realized they couldn't tell a story, and would probably never get a job telling stories... but they could tell us why everyone else's stories were or weren't working. Meh.> Sort of like, if you can't sing, don't criticize the contestants on 'American Idol?' Or, if you can't design a theme park attraction, don't complain about 'The Adventures of Winnie the Pooh' ride at Disneyland? Or if you're not an athlete, don't kvetch about the Cubs performance at a Wrigley home game. Like that?<<< The application doesn't work, for a very singular reason: I used the comparison with a very specific environment: People who went to film school, REALIZED they didn't have the skills to tell stories, but for some reason were still somehow capable of EVALUATING them from some professional point of regard. So they switch to a major, usually called "Film Criticism" or something like that, where basically, they watch a lot of movies and write term papers and study filmmakers and try to find the "why" behind filmmakers, rather than the "What" behind a story. That's very specific. Never mind that for two of your three examples, you have individuals playing armchair critic on things that are pretty plainly developed as a product of ONE: A singer has a skillset to that individual, and that's it - what you see is what you get, aside from the contributions of his/her singing coach or beautician. Each baseball player has his or her skillset, and they contribute to a team totally nine. A theme park ride is more apt a comparison to filmed entertainment as a product, given the diverse number of craftspeople that contribute to that end product. But again, I wasn't talking about the average joe weighing in on a ride or team or wannabe-manufactured icon. I was talking about people who, figuring out a little late they didn't have the skills to be storytellers, still crave attention, and instead want to get their opinions in print. Trust me, they get their emotional baggage out in those reviews. If you'd gone to school with these types, you'd know that a lot of them haven't grown up much since then. If you've got a comparison to THAT, I'll buy it. By the way, I read your opinion on your website, and certainly, you're entitled to it... but the fact that your daughter's attention wasn't kept really shouldn't come to bear on YOUR opinion or evaluation, as we know nothing about her personality, attention span, or interests, other than what you reassure us of. But in reading your review THERE, and your review HERE, which seemed more positive, I come away a little bewildered as to what you actually thought of the film.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <I was talking about people who --- you'd know that a lot of them haven't grown up much since then.> Sounds like you've got a bit of an axe to grind with these specific types of people in this particular field. So, no, nothing can compare, I guess. It is a completely unique piece of the planet, and you're a part of it. <By the way, I read your opinion on your website, and certainly, you're entitled to it...> Hey thanks, man. <but the fact that your daughter's attention wasn't kept really shouldn't come to bear on YOUR opinion or evaluation, as we know nothing about her personality, attention span, or interests, other than what you reassure us of.> Eh. You know what you know. About my daughter, and about me, frankly. My daughter's opinion is her own opinion. That's why we print the opinions of my daughter, my wife and me. You'll notice that my wife's review was plenty positive, so she obvoisly 'gets' the Robinsons movie and, lucky for me, is a smart, well-adjusted person. I've been going to see Disney animated features since the original release of 'Jungle Book' -- I can handle my opinions about Disney animated features without looking to my 12-year old for how I should feel. <But in reading your review THERE, and your review HERE, which seemed more positive, I come away a little bewildered as to what you actually thought of the film.> When I wrote HERE, I had just come back from the movie -- I had explained before that I had very low expectations for 'Robinsons' and was giving some quick impression. The review THERE -- I had a bit longer to ponder the movie, which perhaps lead to a more 'negative' review. But, if you're still 'baffled,' I'm happy to clarify where I stand on the movie. What are some specific questions you have?
Originally Posted By mrichmondj I saw MTR in 3D this afternoon. Overall, I thought it was a fun film and had a lot of great visuals. The humor was smart, there was emotion, and it was a fairly original story. I wasn't overly blown away by the 3D aspect -- it was nice, but not something that I think made the movie any more enjoyable than if I had seen it in 2D. I give it about 3 stars out of 4.
Originally Posted By sun-n-fun I wasn't that interested in seeing The Robinsons, but I was pleasently surprised. Much better than I thought. A nice afternoon was had by all!
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror >>>But, if you're still 'baffled,' I'm happy to clarify where I stand on the movie. What are some specific questions you have?<<< None... you've pretty much explained the discrepancy in the two opinions expressed. In any event, the majority of reviews on this thread have been positive, and the film is showing some great legs. Looks like word of mouth is going strong.
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror >>>Sounds like you've got a bit of an axe to grind with these specific types of people in this particular field. So, no, nothing can compare, I guess. It is a completely unique piece of the planet, and you're a part of it.<<< No axe to grind. But you're right in that I have a unique perspective on them. Film Critics are one of the tiniest professional niches on the planet, and only a small number of people actually go to school for that. I went to school with dozens of them, and they pretty much fit the stereotype. The others, who just fall into film criticism via internet fame or whatever, I have a little more respect for them and their opinion, as it's not coming from a place of criticizing something they can't do. It's just criticizing what they don't like/enjoy, expressing it as well as they can, and at least that's more honest and populist.
