Weak and Predictable

Rating: Null/10 (3 April 2002)

***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** How can anyone with half a brain really think this was a great film?!

Yes the scenes with the squirrel are very funny, but what does it say about a film when the star is a non-talking character who has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with the story. The squirrel is basically just comic relief, which this film is certainly in dire need of. It reminds me of that Simpsons episode - one of the few under par episodes - that they salvaged by having characters pop up every so often blurting out, "worst episode ever". Realising that the episode was seriously lacking on the story front, they inserted this comic relief gag to help people make it through to the end. At least in the Simpsons case they brought attention to the fact that they knew the episode was weak, but in Ice Age they try and distract you from the film's serious shortcomings - and apparently they succeeded with many a viewer.
There were a few mildly amusing gags in Ice Age, but these by no means make up for the horrifically weak story, which is full of holes and convenient solutions that seem tacked on. A film should not simply be a collection of gags. Even those who have commented on the weakness of the story seem to be ready to excuse it because it's a film for kids. But what is clear from the success of all of Pixar's films, as well as Shrek, and even a lot of old Disney classics for that matter, is that children not only can handle complex plots with a bit of depth - come on give them some credit as thinking human beings - but they like them. That's also why the heartfelt scenes in Ice Age involving the characters interacting with the baby are both superficial and nauseatingly mawkish, while in Monsters Inc. you can get into the cuteness of the little girl Boo interacting with Mike and Sullivan (because they're invested and layered), and still find the scene hilarious.
Things that annoyed me most:
-The whole reason why the leader of the saber-tooth tigers wants the baby alive, which is the foundation for the entire story, is not very believable as it is set up in the film,and is not strong enough to drive things convincingly to the final showdown.
-The mammoth's reasons for wanting to defend and ultimately save the human child from the tigers. You see very early on that despite his gruffness, he has a soft spot for anyone in trouble. Then through a maudlin scene later on you understand that he once had a mate and child, who were hunted and killed by humans - boo hoo - and since then he instinctively helps children in trouble?! Including a child of the creatures that perpetrated the horrible deed and deprived him of his love and joy. He, if anyone, had reason to want to kill the darn thing. Compare this to Shirkahn in Jungle Book, who wants to kill the man-cub before he grows up to be a man and kills him - much more believable, don't you think? If they do a sequel to Ice Age that's what should happen - the child grows up, roasts the sloth and leads a hunting party that stones the mammoth to death.
-The plan to outwit the tigers at the end is not well founded - I mean, the sloth suddenly saving the day on a snowboard, where did that come from?! It might be kind of fun, but it comes out of nowhere and has the feel of a last minute brainstorm trying to decide how to finish a badly thought-out story.
-So much of it felt borrowed directly from other films, almost like a blueprint for success: Dinosaurs, Tarzan, Shrek, Monsters Inc. etc - only all these did it better.
-As for the CG: felt far more flat and dead than Pixar's work and the textures felt no better even than Shrek's, though Shrek had an excellent script so it didn't matter. Also, the movement, especially the tigers running through the snow at the end of the film, sometimes felt a bit like Playstation 2 characters.
I could go on, but I'll leave it here. Hope there are a few sane people out there who didn't let FOX pull the wool over their eyes.