Animation Source Forums

Critics hold the only profession I can think of at the moment where each occupant actually sucks at their job.

Opinion aside. These people really have nothing better to do with their lives than to watch movies all day and cry about it. When a family movie like Balto comes along, they'll bash it as if it was supposed to be on par with today's box office hits; completely avoiding the aesthetic value of the film.

Also, some critics actually downrate movies with anthropomorphism just because there are few to no humans in the film.

Critics seriously have no taste. If I want an honest review on a movie, I look at the user ratings.

I agree with Lennox. User reviews, in my opinion, are a lot more understandable.

But anyway, most of the reviews just compare Balto to Disney films (remember, it was released when Disney was at its peak). I think that it shows unbelievable short-sightedness. It seems that if it's not Disney, then it must be bad - it's not allowed to be good.

Them critics can say what they like - I find Balto to be a lot more enjoyable than some so-called 'Disney Classics.'

There's a psychological thing going on here. Remember, it came out the same time as Toy Story. That is, IMO, the sole reason for these sub-par reviews. They compared it to Toy Story and gave it an irrational criteria. That's the entire reason for its ratings if you ask me.

Think about it in a gaming term. An FPS comes out the same time as Halo, and the developers intend for it to compete with Halo, the critics will downplay it if it's not as good as Halo; whereas if it came out on its own, and the developers didn't try and compete with any high calibur game, it might actually get a decent score.

Universal intentionally pits it against Toy Story, so they most likely intended for it to compete. They put it up against Toy Story in every region it was released in. If they had any sense, they would've waited a few months, and it would be its own movie instead of a contender.

Betawolf, you are right in that sense, but the oldest reviews here on Rotten Tomatoes only date back to 2000.

I'm also not sure if Balto was ever intended to compete with Toy Story either. Critics could have seen it this way though.

But when did the reviewers see the movie? And do they have the same mindset as they did if they saw it back in '95?

You have to admit, on some points they're right, the voice acting was a bit bleh, but you don't have to be a "professional" critic to say that. Also Balto is a bit of a love story and it was pitted up against Toy Story when it was released. Nothing would of beaten Toy Story except for another completely 3D animated movie.

I wanna see what they gave Wolf Quest and Wings of Change XDD.

I can also understand if they thought that the parts with Muk and Luk were too cartoony, but other than that, I don't see how it could've gotten lower than 60%.

BTW, they don't have a rating for the two sequels. TV Guide, however, says that Wolf Quest is "superior to the original".

I'm really sorry.

I never liked movie critics either.

Critics of anything really... You often have to hear things by word of mouth to know what's good.

Voice acting in Balto was ace. Anything more would've detracted from the movie.

Also, some critics downplayed Balto because the love scenes between Balto and Jenna aren't that great. Well, Balto isn't a love story.

I agree completely. The voice acting wasn't amazing, but it was still pretty good. Although he came out flat, Kevin Bacon still used the right tone for everything. The final result was great voice acting which simply lacked enthusiasm.


That's about the only valid point there is.

Oh dear.
What were they thinking?

Remember that no opinion is ever "universal" (mmm...)
But I would say that the main reason it got some bad ratings was that they compared it to Toy Story, and that it wasn't Disney. Just look at the text reviews...

ahahahaahahaha people actually think those are reviews??

I read the 2nd one on the list with Stve Rhodes who keeps refrencing Lady and the Tramp non- stop, it wasn't even good writing, his 'job' was "internet reviews"! Now thats shocking, maybe if some of them actually put some thought into the movie and made a half- arsed attempt with their own writing I would take em more seriously