Robots

this is my favorite since i was a kid and finally i watch it again🥹

Robots_360P

Robots-720P

Robots-480P

I'll admit that I did not want to see this. I thought the trailers were utter crap. I mean I saw too many robot movies when this first came out. I thought I would only stick with I, Robot, but I was forced to see this. I was pleasantly surprised how good this was, so I bought the DVD. This is about a robot named Rodney Coperbottom. He decides to go to the city to show off this invention to the famous Mr. Bigwald. Unfortunately, Bigwald is out of business and in order to get to him, he must face some evil corporate execs. This film featured a magnificent voice cast noticeably Robin Williams. I could recognize his voice in about anything, even in Happy Feet. The animation is good, nothing special. This is a good film to have the kids watch. I rate this film 8/10.

By now you probably know all the ordinary things about this movie: the story is trite, the characters are ordinary and except for Robin ordinarily acted, and the jokes are extraordinarily clever. This comment is about an important trend in animation that most commentors miss, the role of dimensionality and how well it is exploited in this movie. Pixar discovered this. After they made their character's bodies render visually with dimension, and after they gave the identity of the characters "dimension" (still unique to Pixar, it seems), they realized the power of moving them and us around in three-dimensional space. "Nemo" was set in an ocean purely because they wanted to be able to move in all three dimensions without having to make heavy explanations. The idea gained extra credibility when the "door warehouse" scenes in "Monsters, Inc" tested much better than expected. Its not like this is a great secret in the industry. Everyone is talking about it now, and the notion goes as far back as "Citizen Kane"'s camera. Others have tried: "Treasure Island" was conceived to maximize the movement of the camera in three—space. So were parts of "Van Helsing" and the latest Potter. Oddly, some big investments that should have known better didn't, like the Spiderman splats. This movie does exceedingly well in moving us in three-space. As soon as we enter the city, we have that elaborate transit system. You notice the depth and are intended to. But after that, you take it for granted that you are disembodied and moving freely in threespace. It is a very clever construction, and unusual enough that it makes us accept the world we see. We would merely think of it merely as the Flintstones (or Jetsons) if we saw it with a "normal" eye. That movement of the eye allows us to shift realities quickly, so when Robin Williams does a Brittany Spears routine as combat, we accept it. Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

My five year old son and I had been waiting to see this movie for weeks. The trailers looked promising. We went today, and I was so disappointed. Even worse, my five year old, who loves movies and recites lines endlessly, didn't really like it. "It was just okay", he said afterward. The film starts out alright, and it's visually beautiful, but it declines into one gag after another. It was kind of like a kiddie/robot SNL show with a very slim story line holding the skits together. And Robin Williams, who can be so brilliant in this type of role, was just annoying. It was sad really. The movie held such promise. When will Hollywood learn that the story matters?

Robots is a pretty good film that will probably keep your kids occupied and entertained, at least the first time they watch it. It's a fairly entertaining light family film with some good moments and just enough comedy to hold your attention, even if much of that comedy involves Robin Williams doing jokes that seem like hold-over material from the TV show "Mork & Mindy". But then your kids aren't old enough to know what that show is, so they won't be aware of the recycling. What this film really did for me was make me appreciate Pixar more. Unlike the maker of Robots and other high-tech CGI films, Pixar starts out with a solid story idea and then develops the CGI and the gags to support that idea. Technology has gotten to the point where dazzling effects are easier to do and cheaper than ever and filmmakers are forgetting that audiences ultimately want to see an interesting story, not a dog-and-pony show of the latest in graphics effects with a storyline that has the complexity of a 1930's serial thrown in to hold it all together. So, if you have small children, it might be worthwhile. If you are an adult, however, I think you'll be somewhat bored.

'Robots' is an entertaining animated film that is both funny and delightful. The animation is wonderful and has its own style. Even though it's not exactly of the Pixar quality, that actually works for the film especially with the motions. Colour has also been impressively used. The robot world is spectacular to watch. The designing is brilliant e.g. the train station and robot city. It includes a huge impressive ensemble of voice actors (sadly most of the cast is wasted) but not all the actors were efficiently used and many suffer due to poor character development. Ewan McGregor and Robin Williams have most of the lines and they do reasonably well. The film has a soul but the screenplay doesn't stick to the main plot. There are several plot holes and perhaps (as fun as they are) too many characters that lack development. In spite of its flaws, it's very much watchable, especially with the family. It is visually stunning and there are many funny moments, but there's surely something missing. You don't take anything away with you after the film's finished.

Sorry, I may be one dissenting voice -- but this movie just did nothing for me and my family. Nary a funny line or bit, and not a single character to root for. Stale plot, script was totally unimaginative. Kids were fidgeting all around us. The opening sequence on the "crosstown express" held our interest, but it was downhill from there. Please explain why they needed Ewan McGregor and Halle Berry for these roles -- two actors with non-distinctive voices--those characters could've been voiced by ANYBODY. Robin Williams added not a thing to the cast. The crew of Robots were a confusing mess of voices that were hard to keep straight. Our rating: 2/10