--- title: "Robots: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/robots-2005/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/robots-2005" critics_score: 56 critics_reviews: 12 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Robots (2005): what the critics said Critics' score 56 from 12 reviews: 3 positive, 5 mixed, 4 negative. The consensus on Robots is mixed, with praise clustering around its visual invention rather than its storytelling. Critics repeatedly single out the detailed robot world, colourful animation and inventive design, which several find entertaining enough to compensate for a familiar plot. The warmer reviews also welcome the mixture of slapstick and subtler humour, while even some detractors admire the backdrops and production design. The spread is fairly wide, and critics differ chiefly over how much those pleasures can excuse. Reservations centre on thin characters, weak jokes and a meandering story, with frantic action and crowded cultural references adding to the complaints. Robin Williams’s performance divides opinion particularly clearly: Eye for Film calls his Fender the scene-stealer, while Slant Magazine finds the visual design a welcome alternative to his contribution. For the less persuaded critics, there is too little beneath the busy surface. ## RogerEbert.com — Roger Ebert Rating 3/4. 11 March 2005. Ebert gives the film a positive review. He praises its visual invention and lively animated world. [Read the review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/robots-2005) ## Variety — Joe Leydon Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 6 March 2005. Leydon finds the film an entertaining, visually impressive spectacle despite its recycled storyline. He especially praises the richly detailed robot world and its inventive animation. [Read the review](https://variety.com/2005/film/awards/robots-1200527396/) ## The Guardian — Rob Mackie Fi1m's normalised score 65/100 (inferred from the text). 23 September 2005. The review finds the film imaginative and skilfully written, though not as distinctive as its predecessor, Ice Age. It praises the combination of adult and children’s comedy and the film’s visual inventiveness. [Read the review](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2005/sep/23/dvdreviews1) ## Screen Daily — Brent Simon Fi1m's normalised score 64/100 (inferred from the text). 7 March 2005. The review's verdict is unavailable in the accessible text. Its specific praise or complaint is also obscured by the paywall. [Read the review](https://www.screendaily.com/robots/4022287.article) ## The New York Times — A. O. Scott Fi1m's normalised score 64/100 (inferred from the text). 11 March 2005. The Times article is a review of the 2005 film. Its verdict and specific praise or criticism cannot be confirmed from the accessible page. [Read the review](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/11/movies/machines-that-rage-against-other-machines.html) ## Empire — Caroline Westbrook Fi1m's normalised score 60/100 (inferred from the text). 1 January 2000. Westbrook finds the film entertaining but far from a classic, with its weak plot and frantic action holding it back. She praises its candy-coloured visuals and singles out Rodney’s subway ride as a high point. [Read the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/robots-review/) ## Radio Times — Sloan Freer Rating 3/5. Freer finds the film an enjoyable, visually inventive follow-up to Ice Age. She particularly praises its colourful, richly textured computer animation for revitalising a familiar story. [Read the review](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-yiqcp9/robots/) ## Time Out — DA Fi1m's normalised score 40/100 (inferred from the text). The available description is critical of the film’s animation compared with Pixar’s. It singles out the CGI as less well-defined, but the review text is unavailable, so its overall verdict is unclear. [Read the review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/robots) ## Slant Magazine — Ed Gonzalez Rating 1.5/4. 8 March 2005. Gonzalez finds the film largely lifeless and criticizes its weak plot, shallow characters, and intrusive humor. He praises the detailed backdrops and visual design as a welcome alternative to Robin Williams’s performance. [Read the review](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/robots/) ## Los Angeles Times — Carina Chocano Fi1m's normalised score 35/100 (inferred from the text). 11 March 2005. The review finds the film overstuffed with cultural references and its familiar moral message unconvincing, despite occasional flashes of brilliance. It singles out Robin Williams’ performance for puncturing the movie’s prevailing idealism. [Read the review](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2005-mar-11-et-robots11-story.html) ## The AV Club — Keith Phipps Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 8 March 2005. Phipps finds the comedy amiable but thin, with little story to support its production design. He praises the film’s look while criticizing its weak jokes and meandering narrative. [Read the review](https://www.avclub.com/robots-1798200535) ## Eye for Film — Josh Morrall Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 19 March 2005. Morrall finds the film engaging and enjoyable despite its simplistic plot and relentless action. He singles out its blend of slapstick and subtle humor, with Robin Williams’s Fender as the scene-stealer. [Read the review](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/robots-film-review-by-josh-morrall) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/robots-2005.md