Ice Age: Collision Course (2016)

Gleiberman calls the film an infectious return to form, despite its slightness and conventional plot. He especially praises Scrat’s manic energy and the film’s richly detailed, visually witty animation.

The accessible page does not reveal the critic’s verdict. It also provides no details about what the review praises or criticizes.

The article appears to be a review, but its verdict is unavailable. The blocked page does not reveal what the critic praised or criticized.

Jenkins condemns the film as lazy, tired and forgettable. He particularly faults its fixation on toilet humour and recycled jokes.

Aldridge finds the sequel very disappointing and a step too far for the franchise. He criticizes its scattered, overly complex plot and the loss of the earlier films’ simple charm.

Henderson finds the film’s characters and franchise formula thin, but sees a more energetic, less self-serious approach. He singles out the slapstick chaos as an amusing recess from reality, despite its failure as a history lesson.

O’Hara finds the film dull, wearisome, and lacking charm or focus. She singles out Scrat’s slapstick as the funniest element, though it occupies only a small part of the film.

The critic finds this fifth installment chaotic and disappointing, with little substance beneath its frantic antics. The film’s polished visuals earn praise, but the overstuffed cast and emaciated plot are major complaints.

Huddleston pans the sequel as lazy, forgettable and pointless. He complains that it feels hastily scripted and carelessly animated.

Bradshaw thinks the franchise has run out of steam and should end. He singles out Scrat as the least insufferable part, while finding the rest of the film tired and unappealing.

Walsh finds the film a disappointing, unnecessary installment that feels suited to home video. She particularly faults its scattered character stories and wedding-focused stakes for distracting from the asteroid threat.

O'Sullivan gives the film a scathing verdict, calling it the worst children’s film she has seen in a long time. She praises Scrat’s cosmic sequences, saying they would work far better as a short film.

The critic finds this fifth outing appealing to both longtime fans and younger viewers. They particularly praise Scrat’s slapstick interludes, which they say are funny across age groups and cleverly complement the main story.

Brew finds the film reliably entertaining, though weaker than its predecessor and prone to outstaying its welcome. He singles out Scrat’s brief sequences as its standout source of laughs and brilliance.

Goble finds the film an amusing but worn-down entry in a franchise that could use fresh life. He praises its colorful animation and occasional absurd gags, while criticizing its frantic humor and weak storytelling.

Salveggi finds the film disappointing despite its energetic, hard-working approach. He praises Scrat’s slapstick and suggests the newer characters are more interesting than the familiar cast.

The critic finds the fifth installment tired and awkward, with the series nearing extinction. They single out its weak jokes and overcrowded cast as reasons to root for the meteor.

The critic pans the film as a bland, laugh-less and forgettable sequel. They single out its colorful visuals and striking character designs as a bright spot amid weak dialogue and stale jokes.