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

Buy posters from this movie

The slim plot concerns the adventures of Rodney Copperbottom (Ewan McGregor), an ambitious young robot from the wrong side of town who leaves his poor-but-honest folks (Dad is a dishwasher–literally) to seek his fortune in the vast metropolis of Robot City. His dream is to work for Mr. Bigweld (Mel Brooks), the venerable head of a vast monopoly that creates products and spare parts to better the lives of all robots. (In theory, this would appear to make him God, but it is probably best not to consider such things–especially since the movie doesn’t.) When Rodney arrives, however, he discovers that Bigweld has disappeared and his empire has been usurped by the monstrous Ratchet (Greg Kinnear), who plans on eliminating the low-cost spare parts and replace them with expensive upgrades; since most robots can’t afford these upgrades (and no, the film doesn’t explain the robot monetary system either), they will soon fall apart and be reduced to scrap metal. Those diabolical plans have a wrench thrown into them when it turns out that Rodney is a whiz who can repair anything. Before long, Rodney and his band of misfit bots–Piper (Amanda Bynes), Crank (Drew Carey), and Fender (Robin Williams)and sexy corporate drone Cappy (Halle Berry) set out to find Bigweld and restore him to power before the greedy, genocidal Ratchet can destroy everything that his company once stood for.<

It may seem a bit odd for an animated film that is theoretically being pitched at families to contain a story where the happy ending depends on a hateful young monopolistic tycoon being defeated and replaced by the benevolent old monopolistic tycoon that he usurped (unless you recall that the film was produced under the auspices of Rupert Murdoch) and that is a key to one of the fundamental flaws of “Robots”. Films like “Finding Nemo” and the “Toy Story” series worked in part because they didn’t require such convoluted plots to succeed; they were more along the lines of character studies and when there were bad guys (such as Sid in “Toy Story” or the little girl in “Finding Nemo”), they acted that way because it was part of their nature and not because the storyline required it. Instead of trying something along those lines, the makers of “Robots” are content to simply take a bunch of one-note types and stick them in the middle of a rote story where lots of stuff happens, but none of it of any real consequence. In those other films, the excitement came because we genuinely cared about the characters and what would happen to him; by comparison, whatever excitement that is generated by the endless robot bashings and burnings in the climax here comes from the knowledge that the film is just about over.<
The jokes are equally uninspiring. Too often, the film goes for the kind of dumb puns that are so obvious that you don’t even give them credit for having the audaciousness to attempt them. Other times, the film is content to offer scenes that copy elements from earlier, better films; one character starts singing “Singin’ in the Oil” and another robot, while beginning to breakdown, starts to recite “Daisy, Daisy . . .” a la HAL in “2001”. Since it is unlikely that most members of the target audience have seen those films, such bits have clearly been inserted in an effort to give older viewers a laugh or two. However, if a person is smart enough to appreciate the beauty of “2001", it is equally unlikely that they are going to find such nonsense at all amusing. Then again, these jokes are pearls when compared to the inexplicable moment when a bunch of robots, despite being mechanical, somehow manage to engage in a farting contest for no other reason than to get giggles from little kids for whom flatulence is the easiest path to laughter.<

The voice casting is another problem. All of the actors heard here are strong performers but, with the exception of the instantly recognizable gravelly cadences of Mel Brooks, none of them have the kind of distinct voices that lend themselves particularly well for an animated film. Instead of being cast for their talents, they seem to have been recruited for the specific demographics they could presumably lure in; McGregor could bring in the hipsters (and provide a subliminal promo for “Revenge of the Sith”), Berry the urban audience, Bynes the teeners and Williams the people who fondly remember his similar work in “Aladdin” While I am loathe to beat this film over the head with the works of Pixar, it is instructive to note that most of their films have not required star voices as much as proper casting. People like Craig T. Nelson and Albert Brooks are not box-office names; they were cast because they were the perfect choices for their roles in “The Incredibles” and “Finding Nemo” (and if you doubt me, please send me the names of anyone who could have played those roles better). The actors here, by comparison, contribute nothing but well-known warm bodies to hype the film on talk shows; if you think that is just a bit of paranoia, consider the fact that “Robots” also finds room for brief appearances from the likes of Jay Leno and Al Roker as well.<

The film was made by the same people who created “Ice Age”, which you may remember chiefly for the opening scene in which a squirrel goes through an incredible series of Rube Goldberg-like adventures while trying to get a hold of a loose acorn. Hoping to score the same kind of response here, this one contains numerous extended sequences in which characters are knocked around and fly through the air in an effort to recapture the magic. Unfortunately, the examples on display here don’t work because they try so hard to dazzle that they never quite get around to entertaining us. If you have an unslakable thirst for watching soulless chunks of metal bouncing around wildly, you will get far more value for your entertainment dollar by playing the pinball game of your choice.

“Robots” is the kind of expensive cheap movie that will no doubt score a big opening weekend (thanks to families looking for something to do) only to disappear from memory the minute that something better comes along (and since “The Incredibles” hits DVD in a few days, that time may come sooner than later). Frankly, the most entertaining aspect regarding the film was the hilariously inaccurate press kit that Fox sent out to journalists; on the first page alone, it refers to Jay Leno as an Oscar nominee and claims that “for the first time ever, an animated feature presents a totally imagined world”–apparently forgetting Fox’s own “Titan A.E.” for starters. Apparently, the publicity people wrote things up without even taking a cursory look at the subject at hand; considering the quality of the end product, I suppose I can hardly blame them.

 del.icio.us    
link directly to this review at http://efilmcritic.com/review.php?movie=11795&reviewer=389
originally posted: 03/11/05 15:25:01
 printer-friendly format