GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Wordiezett So much average

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Animated Antic When a video game is turned into a movie, it's usually done very poorly. Movies like Super Mario Bros., Resident Evil, Need for Speed, and others have been panned by critics for not being well translated to the silver screen. I don't know why that is, maybe it's because it doesn't have the same passion that the game has, or maybe it's because the makers of the film haven't even touched the game in their lives. I bring this up because the move I'm reviewing today, "Ratchet and Clank", is based on a very successful PlayStation platform-shooter. Critics have panned this movie for not being translated well to the big screen. Now having finally seen it, I'll say this. It's not as bad as what many critics have been saying, but it's certainly not a good movie and I mean by any means.The story focuses on a Lombax named Ratchet (James Arnold Taylor). He's a spaceship mechanic and dreams of wanting to become a member of the Galactic Rangers led by the egotistical Captain Qwark (Jim Ward). One day, he bumps into a defect robot that he calls Clank (David Kaye) who warns of an impending invasion of robots into a populated city led by a robot lieutenant played by Sylvester Stallone. How was Clank created you ask? By a cliché lightning strike that happened when the villain's accomplice, a mad scientist, does his evil laugh. Yeah, just go with it. After defeating the army and earning praise from the city, Ratchet becomes a Galactic Ranger while poor Clank is pushed into a broom closet with the tactical supporter (Rosario Dawson). So it's up to Ratchet and the others to stop a planet destroyer built by a villain who I only remember because he was played by Paul Giamatti.I knew I was in for trouble when I saw the movie had eight production companies. Yes, you read that right. Eight companies who obviously didn't review the film and just sent it into theaters. But let;'s not talk about the companies, let's talk about the film itself. The biggest problem with "Ratchet and Clank" is the editing and it's really, really bad. The movie is so rushed and just wants to get itself over with. It also would just randomly cut to the next scene not very properly and it just left me very confused.  Some scenes made me think that they were cut scenes just taken from the new game itself, particularly a scene where Ratchet demonstrates some weapons. The story is also not very good. It's not awful, but it's just standard. We've seen some elements before and it does nothing really new with them. With that said though, there are a couple funny jokes in this film. Not a lot, but some where funny enough to get a chuckle out of me. For example, a character that falls does the famous Wilhelm Scream and one of his buddies shouts "Wilhelm!" to him. I'll admit that was pretty clever. I just wish the rest of the film was like that. The characters, with the exception of the leads which I'll get to later, are pretty forgettable. I really don't remember their names or what personalities they had particularly the villains who I only remember based on what they look like. One character that I partially hated throughout the movie was Captain Quark. I can't stand egotistical characters and this character was so unlikable and just absorbed of himself that I really just wanted to punch him. The animation I'm pretty split about. Some times the characters models look like there ready for a theatrical release while others looked like they were made for a direct-to-DVD movie. But by far, the best element of the movie are actually the main characters themselves, Ratchet and Clank. They both have likable personalities and have a friendship which is actually relatable. Now had the film focused more on the friendship focusing on the two of them, we probably would have a good movie. However, that was not the case."Ratchet and Clank" is a pretty unbalanced movie. It had promise, but in my opinion it failed to deliver at parts. It's certainly not a bad video game movie as trust me there have been far worse movies, but it's definitely not a good one. To be honest, I think it's pretty forgettable. It's not a bad time waster for kids as it's pretty harmless, but to be honest I would just get them that new Ratchet and Clank game instead.

TheFredobar I love Ratchet and Clank. I grew up with them! I think this is a great entry into film, for fans. It lives up to the characters insomniac created and makes some great references to the games. The animation is slick with good detail, it is a good looking film and stays close to the art style of the games. The story is a rehash of the first game and as a result they had to cut it down to fit film length, this meant the character development was impacted pretty heavily, particularly for Ratchet.I enjoyed the film a lot, however if you are new to the series I imagine you'll feel like there's just something missing.

kosmasp Although even non fans can enjoy this I reckon. But you will get more out of it, if you played the games of course. It's apparent that this was made by people who are in love with the game and its characters. That love translates onto the screen, whether that is something that translates into your viewing experience is something that cannot be answered for everybody.But that is true for every movie and the person watching it. Just the fact that this is animated will have people either finding this intriguing or bad. The story is pretty classical too and there is nothing too surprising, but as mentioned everything is pouring with excitement and joy. If this sounds like (family) fun to you, than go ahead and watch

S. Soma Simply put, within the intrinsic limitations of its scope, "Ratchet and Clank" is a very good movie.Reviewing and rating animated movies, as opposed to the more typical live-action movies, is a bit problematic for two reasons.Firstly, live-action movies have the advantage that they break down into a collection of individual genres and, as somewhat of a general rule, movies are usually evaluated from within the context of their own genre. So "Das Boot", "Operation Petticoat", and "The Hunt for Red October", while they may all be movies about submarines, they're such different movies from different genres that they don't lend themselves to being compared with each other or rated relative to each other. And so they aren't. Imagine if you had to compare and contrast "Alien" and "Schindler's List". You might be able to make a reasonable comparison on some individual aspects of these movies, such as Best Actor or some other technical facet, but I can't imagine how you'd successfully review these movies side-by-side.Animated movies, on the other hand, even at this late date, are all simply lumped together in one giant basket, "animated feature". My best guess is that this is an artefact of the history of animated movies: early on in the evolution of movies, the only kinds of animated movies that were in common circulation were, for example, Disney animated features. By definition therefore, anything animated was a "cartoon" and, as everybody knew, cartoons were exclusively aimed at kids. Obviously all animated features were part of a single genre.As animated features grew and expanded to encompass more sophisticated themes and story lines, the larger worldview of them has not evolved to keep up. The devoted fans of animation see the distinctions, but serious "cinema professionals" still see animation, for all the billions of dollars it rakes in, as the redheaded, freckled little brother of "serious cinema" that isn't taken seriously.Secondly, and as a sort of second wallop of a one-two punch of disadvantages, some of Pixar's movies (the pair of Nemo movies, "Up") have set the bar of audience expectation so impossibly high that other animated movies, artificially forced to compete within a single, "animated feature" global genre, suffer at the hands of reviewers promulgating the single-genre colloquial perspective."Ratchet and Clank" simply doesn't fall into the same category of animated film as, for example, "Up". It's an animated film adaptation of a popular series of video games, and is largely targeted at the same audience as that of the games and perhaps adults nostalgic for those games. It doesn't pretend to explore sophisticated themes of death, loneliness, coping with mental challenges and so on. As such, it should be reviewed and rated relative to its own class and the type of movie it tries to be.As mentioned previously, "Ratchet and Clank" is a very good movie. The nature of its video game origins does naturally limit the characters and plot lines available for the movie to explore. Character definitions were established years ago by the video games. The movie cannot depart significantly from those definitions or the knowledgeable fans of the games will balk and object. At the same time, the movie has to subtly establish the character's personalities within the movie or people unfamiliar with the games will be confused. It's a difficult balancing act when you think about it, and the movie pulls it off pretty well.The animation is a very high quality, facial animation is expressive and very accurately synchronized with the dialogue, and the music is satisfactorily interesting and varied.The characters are somewhat shallow and play close to their stereotypes, which you sort of have to expect from a fan-oriented kid's movie, but the adults that have to accompany the kids to the movie will get more than a few chuckles from the dialogue that is as witty as allowable.In short, the movie is exactly what you would expect it to be and a bit more because it's an exceptionally well done version of what it is.