zzzorf I went into this movie not expecting much, the reviews I had read where not very promising but I thought well it is still worth a try. It is not as bad as reports say. The story was fine, I like when movies take another point of view of a well known story, makes you look at things in different ways. The characters were entertaining and the graphics were good so I don't see much of a problem with it.I will say the two of my kids that I watched it with (ages 10 and 3) did walk away from the movie to do other things but I don't think that was due to the movie but interest in doing other things at the time but take it as you will.

bdmimdb3d Hi, I was both happy (theater to myself) and sad/struck (nobody else (wants to?) came to watch it)) when I went to see this movie to realize there was absolutely no one in the room, but me. 1 person for a whole theater. I truly love full CGI movies, they are my favorites. And, I am not just talking about 'cartoons'/aimed-for-kids content CG movies, but more adult ones (there should be more of those but they don't fair well with audiences because of the uncanny valley problem and because the closer you get to reality, the less the 'it's CGI' it becomes; thus, it replicates reality so well, we can't detect it's CG; thus, it becomes a 'regular' filmed movie 'in reality' like every one else, with one major difference - the uncanny valley, humans' brain detects micro imperceptible things that just seem 'off' and immediately, then, know that it's CG and are 'put off' 'thrown off' 'taken aback' from the movie experience; it them becomes a jarring non-smooth/non-transparent viewing, because your brain reminds you each 5 seconds you are watching a CG movie - who truly wants to 'look real' but you know it isn't because you 'spotted the impostor' (you detected micro-things that are 'off' (made by computer) and it 'shows', it might be micro-stuff, thus not very big or that important since it's so small; but it's jarring for that reason, you can detect them - even if they are SO small, that's how powerful our eyes and brain is with this (our brain has been accustomed to viewing human faces, if one is slightly 'off' in realistic adult CG movie, game over - people smell the uncanny valley a 1000 miles ahead.). For this movie here, it's not important because it is in the vain of Pixar cartoon/for kids movies. They are not realistic 'adult' depiction of reality but a caricature 'cartoons' depiction of it. And that's OK. The farther you go away from the 'realistic look' combined with 'adult' content, the more you extinguish the uncanny valley effect. In this movie, they Want you to know it's CG; so it's both a good thing and a bad one. Good because it's a CG Animation movie (looks like a categorization effect), and a beautiful one at that; bad, because the same reason, it is categorization (pigeon holing/etiquette). I saw this movie and was dazzled...I don't understand the poor review and such low score; it definitely does not deserve such low score. It's true the jokes and the animation quality were not of the Pixar caliber; but we have to remember this is a smaller production, with a lower budget, by a mostly unknown company (n-Pictures from Belgium), with a Much smaller production crew (in fact for the Very Small size of the crew and manpower, this movie is an Utter Excellence Achievement). The thing that struck me immediately was the image quality was breath ta-kingly well rendered, with - tons - of detail everywhere. This is the Best of the best you can get for asset building and creation - Pixar movies with x100 times the budget and crew number can't even come close to that. For animation, though, of course having a bigger budget Pixar movies are obviously delivering more in the expressive 'realistically-styled' animation and funny, rich story/writing department that capture audience, that are the hallmarks of their movies. Their jokes are honed to perfection, they are masters are making jokes in their movies, with powerful expressive animation, timing (for the jokes delivery) and storytelling. The Wild Life can't deliver on these point, to the same degree. But it does a fair job. The sets are so beautiful to look at, I want to watch the movie again just for the sheer detail this small team was capable of pulling. One of the best sets, is the pirate ship and wrecked ships, they are so well made. The pirates themselves, Robinson Crusoe and the cats/animals on the island, are very cute and well made; they have a style of their own. I really liked that they made a quite realistic look to them, with very hi-resolution detailed textures. Like those two little rodents on the pirate ship's window talking to the parrot. A mouse and a rat, was funny, it was almost a nod to Ratatouille of Pixar, and they looked just as beautiful and nicely animated. I would the look in this movie, is a bit like Dreamworks CG movies look, it has some cartoons proportions - but is Very realistically 'shaded and lighting' (just like Pixar movies with realistic rendered look but cartoons caricature proportions). This makes for a cute movie but with quite impressive visuals. This movie is like an underdog, it should be higher but for everybody it falls flat because it goes up against huge CG movies like Pixar ones recent Finding Dory. Releasing The Wild Life at the same time as Finding Dory was going to be 'suicide', Finding Dory would crush it with impunity. I mean you just can't compare them in term of production value/budget, so it's unfair towards The Wild Life. If if had - been made by Pixar - with its same production values and the exact same story/not changing much anything besides adding more value/quality to animation/story/jokes.. - it would have had the success Of Finding Dory. That goes to show that - proportionally - for a small team of creative artists at n-Pictures - Pound for Pound, this movie destroys Findind Dory or any recent Disney-Pixar movie, including those Dreamworks ones (like Zootopia, Kungfu Panda-3, Life of Pets, etc, they have very fun subjects...are they better in general? nope, funnier/better/original story? yes.) For me, I give this a solid 9.25 out of 10, it's a very positioned-underdog with everything against it (money/time/production value) and (like a cult 'gem' movie that is 'un-understood' by the mass) that is worth a whole lot more than the crappy 5.2 score.

Horst in Translation ([email protected]) "Robinson Crusoe" is a co-production between France and Belgium between experienced animation filmmakers Vincent Kesteloot and Ben Stassen and the outcome is this really new take on the character of Robinson Crusoe. Being from Germany, I watched the version with the German voice actors of course. This list includes quite a few famous names and Ilka Bessin (Cindy aus Marzahn) and Didi Hallervorden were immediately recognizable. Kaya Yanar voices a pirate and I did not realize it was him right away. Also took me a bit longer with Matthias Schweighöfer, but that's actually a positive note as I think he did a pretty decent job with Crusoe and I don't think much of him as an actor at all. But if you don't see him (playing the same character again and again) and only hear his voice, it is pretty solid I have to admit. I must say I have seen better work from the filmmakers in the past, for example Stassen, but this 90-minute movie here was nonetheless worth seeing. It's tough what the best thing about it really is, but I am tempted to go with Hallervorden if only his character did not have so few lines. Oh wait, like I write in the title, the best thing is easily the animation and it elevates the material a lot. The characters look really nice, which sparkled my interest on several occasions. The story sadly is not on par. The cat characters as main antagonists are as bland and uninteresting as the pirates near the beginning and end. Crusoe's final decision to stick with animals instead of humans may have been meaningful, but the execution did not really feel convincing and the dog's death 8as usual) really only felt as if it was in there to get Crusoe closer to the island animals and did not make half the emotional impact it should have. And the worst scene is possibly Crusoe shooting at the cats who are in a brawl with his beloved dog that he easily could have shot in that scene. No idea what they were thinking. Like I said, the story (including the last half hour and grand final scenes) was nothing too great or memorable at all, but the familiar voices and stunning animation make this one worth seeing nonetheless. I give it a thumbs-up.

The Honest guy I admit that when I first saw the trailer to this movie, I immediately thought that it was going to be a terrible movie. However, I cannot judge a movie until I have watched it. After taking my niece to watch it, I was surprised to how well done this movie was. I will break down this review into each sections.The cast: the voice actors for this movie were a good choice. Each one of them fits their character well and while I admit a couple of the voice actors do have room for improvement, they were definitely not terrible by a long shot. Out of them all, Marieve Herington was the best. She is definitely an underrated actor who deserves more shots at other movies and TV shows.The animation: the animation to this movie was superb and very well detailed.The CGI works well, it flows smoothly and it didn't appear to skip any frames or cuts. You can see the amount of detail they put into each character and all of the surroundings. The people who worked on this definitely put a lot of work into this and deserve praise for that.The story: The Robinson Crusoe (AKA Wild Life) is based of Robinson Crusoe, a novel written in 1719 by Daniel Defoe. The movie follows a similar plot as the book but instead, the movie decides to take a more kid friendly route. The story to this movie is simple, it doesn't try to copy any other movie plots and it's original as movies get. Overall, the story is quite decent and it is something kids can enjoy. Certain adults may enjoy this as well.Overall, this was a good movie. My only complaint really is that it didn't really need to be based off Robinson Crusoe book and could have been it's own stand-alone that wasn't based off any material. I give this a strong 7 out of 10.