Rodger Ebert is an idiot...
We know I'm not a fan of Ebert, but there is something we normally have in common, and that is a love for animated film. Now I say normally because unlike ebert I seem to be the only one of the two of us who will think poorly of a film and not blindly wave my "gosh, it's genius" cane at whatever animated film that comes along. I say this because the man actually liked the Movie "Robots", and even wrote a sparkling review in favor of people paying to see this utter piece of crap of a film. In his review he reveals the entire plot of the movie; which, is typical of him, and probably the eaziest way to fill up space without actually having to say anything insightful. As if that weren't enough he somehow manages to equate the visual style of the film to fiestaware (god, I wish I were joking about that) and brushes off the complete lack of depth of a character in favor of making a "witty" remark about her that goes a little something like, "She looks great, but of course in a robot society everybody has had some work done." har. har. har. The man raves and raves about the stunning visuals that the movie has, and I agree, they're nice, but if I wanted to look at something pretty and vapid I'd turn on MTV.
Frankly, you can have all the great looking, or hell, stunning stuff you can build in your little cgi world, but if you don't have a story to float it ain't gonna hold water. The plot was so formulaic it could've come from my eight grade algebra text book, and the characters so over-done that if they were stakes they'd be charcol. And if that's not enough metaphor for you, let me just say, there are enough holes in the plot to put swiss cheese to shame. The hero was squeeky-clean and a flawless do gooder who's "faults" never even became in issue, the heroine is in the movie for about, oh, a fifth of a second where she somehow manages to formulate a romatic relationship with our hero instaniously, which saves on time but made me wonder if I maybe drifted off for a moment and completely missed the part of the movie where the relationship was suppose to be. The side kicks are a dulled down version of your typical, cookie-cutter ensemble and the villian is about as evil as my goldfish and half as convincing.
Fox and Sony-Dreamworks, let me say one thing to you, fart jokes are funny but after a point it's all just smelly gas. The sophmoric humor that the Shrek brand relies so heavily on only works after a point. You don't have to grow-up, but I think it's time to find a new bodily function to poke fun at. (To be fair, Pixar has made fart-jokes too (see: Finding Nemo, the scene where all of the mines blow up by the shark sub) hilarious fart jokes, but they also have wit, sarcasm, puns, one liners, slapstick, and all those other great devices in their movies that add variation and keep the laughs coming.)
Long story short, sure, I'm looking at something new and interesting, but I'm hearing the same old stuff. Get with it kids. Just because it's computer animated doesn't give you an excuse to cop-out on story. So, if you want a fantastic looking movie with heart and vintage robot goodness, go rent Iron Giant and save yourself the trip to the movie theater. If you want to waste your money, check out Robots, in theaters now.
In conclusion, Ebert is a moron. Good night.
I have to get up and work in four hours... damn...
Frankly, you can have all the great looking, or hell, stunning stuff you can build in your little cgi world, but if you don't have a story to float it ain't gonna hold water. The plot was so formulaic it could've come from my eight grade algebra text book, and the characters so over-done that if they were stakes they'd be charcol. And if that's not enough metaphor for you, let me just say, there are enough holes in the plot to put swiss cheese to shame. The hero was squeeky-clean and a flawless do gooder who's "faults" never even became in issue, the heroine is in the movie for about, oh, a fifth of a second where she somehow manages to formulate a romatic relationship with our hero instaniously, which saves on time but made me wonder if I maybe drifted off for a moment and completely missed the part of the movie where the relationship was suppose to be. The side kicks are a dulled down version of your typical, cookie-cutter ensemble and the villian is about as evil as my goldfish and half as convincing.
Fox and Sony-Dreamworks, let me say one thing to you, fart jokes are funny but after a point it's all just smelly gas. The sophmoric humor that the Shrek brand relies so heavily on only works after a point. You don't have to grow-up, but I think it's time to find a new bodily function to poke fun at. (To be fair, Pixar has made fart-jokes too (see: Finding Nemo, the scene where all of the mines blow up by the shark sub) hilarious fart jokes, but they also have wit, sarcasm, puns, one liners, slapstick, and all those other great devices in their movies that add variation and keep the laughs coming.)
Long story short, sure, I'm looking at something new and interesting, but I'm hearing the same old stuff. Get with it kids. Just because it's computer animated doesn't give you an excuse to cop-out on story. So, if you want a fantastic looking movie with heart and vintage robot goodness, go rent Iron Giant and save yourself the trip to the movie theater. If you want to waste your money, check out Robots, in theaters now.
In conclusion, Ebert is a moron. Good night.
I have to get up and work in four hours... damn...