List Price:   $14.98 Price:   $12.49 find out more information

Buy posters from this movie

This is a problem that has been facing the computer animation genre over the past couple of years. John Lassiter birthed “Toy Story” to audiences in 1995 placing computer animation on the map, and it was a major success, so various studios also wanted in on the action. The next couple of years have birthed some truly outstanding films in the medium, from “A Bug’s Life” to Lassiter’s own sequel to “Toy Story”, which many even felt was better. Many were connecting with these stories that had a delicate balance of humour that appealed to adults and children.

But somewhere, something went wrong. A formula in the computer animated film birthed in the form of whatever setting or world was being created. Its inhabitants, no matter what species, had to act in human ways but the punch-line is that they’re entities like fish (“Shark Tale”), fractured fairy tale characters (the “Shrek” films) or arctic creatures (“Ice Age”) as we see life from their perspective, with cultural references abound. Gee, isn’t it funny that they’re acting like We Humans?

The reference-filled genre of computer animated films has simply got to go. I am tired of this new-wave of filmmakers picking a subject and then throwing human jokes into it in the form of cultural references that will only appear useless and dated in a few years. Yes, it was amusing in “Finding Nemo” where we visited the underwater seascape, but that was because its material wasn’t at the level of the repugnant “Shark Tale”, where the Hot New Soundtrack blasted as fish did human-y things like a Shark Wash set to the tune of the theme from “Car Wash.” Really, is that the best they can do?

“Robots” is not only guilty of this, but in its simplistic story as well. A young robot named Rodney Copperbottom (voiced by Ewan McGregor) is born – or assembled, if you will -- in Rivet Town to two loving parents. He grows up fascinated with the world around him while his father remains a dishwasher at a greasy spoon (get it?) diner while never really going anywhere. (A dishwashing machine that looks like it could only hold a few plates is attached right to his body. Imagine fitting a pot in there.) As Rodney grows up, he discovers that he loves to invent and decides to move to Robot City to find work. As he arrives there, he quickly learns that an evil dictator has taken over a major robot manufacturer from the hands of an old-fashioned entrepreneur, and he wants to rid the world of old and dated robots. “Why be old when you can be new?” reads the slogan of the new plan.

At this point I should mention that I’ve really forgotten all of the names of the characters. That entrepreneur has a name, and so does the dictator, but I’d be damned to remember them. I could consult IMDB Pro and tell you the character that Halle Berry voices, a character who is an assistant at the robot plant who becomes somewhat of a love interest to Rodney, and also the assorted parts of a family led by Robin Williams’ voice who decide to become allies in Rodney’s journey; but they are mostly window dressing to the Rodney character, who has become a small hero to the old-and-dated robot crowd, where he can do a quick fix on any broken robot. What tools and spare parts will do!

And so on. The heavily promoted voice acting is awful, but what’s worse is that Fox has placated the advertising with shots of the actors reading their lines on one side of the screen while their character speaks on the other side. A few years ago, I was down in LA touring the DVD studio at 20th Century Fox and I spoke with Peter Staddon, who was one of the main people involved with producing DVD’s. I asked him if future box sets of “The Simpons” would feature a “behind-the-voice” documentary where we would see the likes of Dan Castellana and Julie Kavner as they read their characters. “Of course not,” Staddon remarked, “We would never want to break the illusion.”

We would never want to break the illusion. It’s simple, but I agree with this statement. The vocal acting is only a minor part of bringing out the story, and I would also add to this statement that it takes attention away from the thousands of computer artists, sound designers and editors that do a lot more work than Ewan McGregor, Halle Berry, Amanda Bynes and Robin Williams did in a few hours. And, besides the hyper-active Williams, we never really get an identity with any of the characters through the voice acting. It reminds me of when I interviewed Bill Plympton in February, and he remarked about this sudden trend: “[It’s unfortunate], because the films are really created by the animators, and they get no credit at all. The voice actors come in for an hour or two, and certainly they are big stars, but they do the quick work and get all the credit for it. That’s backwards, I think.”

“Robots” also falters slightly in the visual department. It is an eye-sore, the kind of visual film where the animators have spared no expense to make nearly every last shot brimming with visual activity. We quickly get that computer animation looks outstanding and much money and late nights of drinking coffee out of styrofoam cups were disposed in the name of making extra pillars of a building in a wide shot. By around the thirty-minute mark we’re already tired of the world and just want them to move on, but then we’re hit with one set piece after another, many of which tirelessly reference to other films from previous years (one does work however, with a faltering robot singing “Daisy”, an homage to “2001: A Space Odyssey”.) Which is not to say the entire film is awful to look at; there is an amazing sequence involving a complex transport through Robot City that is nearly impossible to describe, and a sequence involving a domino effect that makes little sense when you think about it, but this movie doesn’t ask you to go that far.

“The Incredibles” is being released onto DVD this week, and is a result of years of hard work by director Brad Bird, Pixar Studios and an endless team of creative and visual artists. It is not drowned in excessive reference humour, dated jokes and overbearing visual tricks. It looks great and it sounds great, but it also has a heart, a funny story and its laughs come out of the characters. Check that movie out (and no, I’m not a shill for Disney; trust me, it’s just a good movie), if for no other reason that a Britney Spears reference is nowhere to be found.

And if you can’t find a copy, I have two words for you: Hayao Miyazaki.

 del.icio.us    
link directly to this review at http://efilmcritic.com/review.php?movie=11795&reviewer=350
originally posted: 03/16/05 17:11:20
 printer-friendly format