comment #1

D.Z. says ...

Meet the Robinsons is actually a disappointment, considering the expectations for it.

comment #2

Scott Mendelson says ...

A couple things...

A) I did see Blades Of Glory on Friday and, much to my surprise, it was NOT 90 minutes of gay-panic jokes or a long-running bit about 'oh my, its men in tights, touching each other!'. There's a token amount of that during one sequence, but even then it's also rooted in how much these characters personally detest each other at that point. It wasn't a masterpiece, but it wasn't the movie I feared it was going to be. I will say that my fiancee and I were quite sad when the music for the final skating sequence was revealed, and she and I were the only ones old enough and 'cultured' enough to find it funny.

B) I hope Meet The Robinsons holds up. I saw it for the second time Saturday morning (saw the critics screening at the El Capitan on Wednesday) and it's one of my very favorite cartoons in the last several years. The visuals are stunning (best 3D work since Polar Express), the writing is dead-pan hysterical, and the characters are all vivid enough to make you genuinely like and care about them. No pop-culture references, no stunt-casting, just a terrific cartoon written and acted by animation and voiceover professionals.

It's actually funnier than The Emperor's New Groove and it's incredibly touching too when it counts (in a weird way, the mustache twirling villain is one of the most sympathetic characters in the film). I don't know what kind of behind the scene chaos went on between Lassiter and director Stephen J. Anderson (and considering how lousy Cars turned out, I'm glad Anderson stuck to his guns), but they pulled together something truly special.

C) As far as Reign Over Me's underperformance, the blame should go to your fellow critics, who didn't fall over it in any way like you did. Whether you're right or wrong, I sympathize as I've been there (Akeelah And The Bee IS the best movie of 2006, dammit!), but its somewhat strong opening indicates that word of mouth was about in line with the mixed reviews. I'm curious, but that's in the catagory of see it when I can.

D) I wish Shooter was doing better. It was merely ok, but I wish we'd have more violent R-rated action films filled with character actors and B-level stars chewing scenery or otherwise entertaining us (loved Danny Glover's inexplicable slurring). It's been an almost non-existant genre since Columbine and I miss it.

Scott Mendelson

comment #3

vansmith says ...

its so disappointing that the lookout did so bad and that action pieces like shooter don't bring them in, all of these kiddy movies, its so depressing. good dialogue and cinematography mean nothing, i feel bad for scott frank. will is funny but he's like carol burnett funny, give him a variety show on sunday night.he can do all of those zany characters but paying 14 bucks to see that shit.. oy....

comment #4

Chris Willman says ...

Cars turned out lousy? Really?

I'm pretty sure the battles between Lassiter and Anderson on Meet the Robinsons were resolved in Lassiter's favor. What did Anderson stick to his guns on?

comment #5

Scott Mendelson says ...

Not sure, but one of the few accounts I read merely stated that Anderson stood his ground and compromises were reached (basically Lassiter allegedly wanted to trash the whole project and start from scratch). I liked most of Pixar's product, but I detested Cars. It was everything that every other studio's bad cartoons were filled with (celebrity stunt casting, pop-culture references that aren't even funny, pointlessly frantic action, countless 'jokes' about nothing more than non-humans engaging in recognizably human behavior). As I wrote on Poland's board, if anyone has links to any articles about what went down behind the scenes, I'd love to know.

Scott Mendelson

comment #6

cjKennedy says ...

Scott: seriously, was Danny Glover breaking in a new set of dentures or something?

comment #7

Mike Schaefer says ...

Robinsons has gotten decidedly mixed notices... AO Scott in the Times called it the worst theatrically-released animated film in Disney history (!). So it got the family audience but not the childless urban hipsters. I haven't seen it, but from the trailer I got the following: singing frogs stolen from Warner Bros.; kid from the future with Jimmy Neutron's hairdo; guy in a bowler hat who looks like Snidely Whiplash on loan from Jay Ward. Maybe the 3-D is great but the trailer made it look (to me) worse than Chicken Little, and that's saying something.

comment #8

Scott Mendelson says ...

Trust me (or least risk finding out yourself), Robinsons is every bit as good as Chicken Little is bad.

I can't account for AO Scott's brutal ripping, but many many of the negative reviews seem mainly to harp about the similarities to this genre or that movie while ignoring that the film itself is very funny, very well acted, and just plain works as a mish-mash that in many ways surpasses the movies it's borrowing from. It's better than Jimmy Newtron, better than Back To The Future II, and Bowler Hat Guy is a sharply written and three-dimensional version of Snidley Whiplash. It borrows and improves on its predecessors.

Besides, Pixar wrips off whole movies for its stuff and no one complains (Cars = Doc Hollywood... Monsters Inc = Little Monsters... Finding Nemo = An American Tale... Bug's Life = Seven Samurai or Three Amigoes or Galaxy Quest). I like Pixar as much as the next guy, but the only true originals (and their best movies, far and away) were Toy Story 1 and 2 and The Incredibles (which borrowed from the superhero genre but told a completely original story).

Scott Mendelson

comment #9

jeffmcm says ...

There's a little too much sad cranky ranting for a box-office article up above. If Wells doesn't like it he should move back to Russia.

comment #10

D.Z. says ...

Scott: "I liked most of Pixar's product, but I detested Cars."

That's what happens when you sell out, I guess.

comment #11

tholl-yung says ...

Scott Mendelson, the critic from TheCinemaSource, where do you keep the reviews?

comment #12

jeffmcm says ...

Cars is my least favorite Pixar movie too. I'm curious (in an eye-rolling way) how not liking it as opposed to the other Pixars is 'selling out'.

comment #13

Pelham123 says ...

I knew "The Lookout" was doomed when I saw they were opening it wide. No way today's mainstream multi-plex audience would flock to that one. "The Lookout" is a real throwback to the '70's style of moviemaking that upended genre conventions. Sort of like Arthur Penn's "Night Moves", which you could say is a private eye movie except it really is a character piece masquerading as a P.I. movie. Same with "The Lookout", which is well written and cast. But, it never gives in to convention. Not to mention, no big (or even medium-sized) stars to fool an audience into showing up. Still, I'll bet it finds an audience over time(Joseph Gordon-Levitt is gonna be a real actor to watch). Extra points to Scott Frank for using the all that is holy My Morning Jacket over the opening credits.
I'm a little surprised "Shooter" hasn't busted out as it is an above average, well done action movie. Man, please don't tell me it's too smart for its audience or we are doomed.

comment #14

breadlymoore says ...

"Trust me (or least risk finding out yourself), Robinsons is every bit as good as Chicken Little is bad."

Ug. They both show a decided lack of humor and basic storytelling.

ROBINSONS is a strobe light of bad ideas and clunker jokes. Stay far away.

comment #15

Scott Mendelson says ...

I haven't written for The Cinema Source in 3 years. Even then, it was one review (Meet The Fockers). I do write for Valley Scene Magazine (www.valleyscenemagazine.com). But they don't have an archive, so I keep a MySpace profile to archive my work. It's not quite up to date, but it'll do till I load up the last three pieces (Best of 2006 mega-article, The Host, and Meet The Robinsons). It's under Scott Mendelson if you care. Don't worry, I don't have any obnoxiously loud music that plays when you load the page up.

Scott Mendelson

comment #16

D.Z. says ...

jeff: "I'm curious (in an eye-rolling way) how not liking it as opposed to the other Pixars is 'selling out'."

I was referring to Pixar selling out, not Scott.

comment #17

Chris Willman says ...

Cars was bad because Pixar sold out? How did they sell out? If you mean to Disney, the movie was made before any of that. The mystery to me is how anyone could consider Happy Feet the superior movie. I know, I should find something new to be bitter about.

comment #18

jeffmcm says ...

DZ: Okay, how does Cars represent Pixar selling out, and to whom? The American automotive industry? The small-town realtors of America?

comment #19

D.Z. says ...

How did the company sell out? Simple. Jobs started believing his own hype, and thought anything with the Pixar name on it would be a hit.