iceagescrat3 iceagescrat3
Feature Film

Ice Age 3 talkback

We haven’t seen it yet… Did you? Give us your feedback in the comments below.

  • Sean Cassidy

    It was a lot of fun! Especially for a threequel. Good pacing and a lot of fun animation I cant wait to scrub through it on dvd, especially the bit where the squirrels fight while doing the tango.

  • TsimoneTseTse

    There is a Pterosaurs scene that needs to be viewed in 3-D.

    Good fluff, much better than Shrek 3, even though at times I thought I was watching Land Before Time XXVIII.

    I’m still giddy about seeing animation in 3-D.

  • Watched it yesterday here in India with a friend. We really enjoyed it. It’s not a film you’ll remember for a long time, like Up. But I don’t think the comparisons (and there will be many) are fair.

    The Ice Age series is its own franchise and here Blue Sky does what it does best – endearing characters without sacrificing the humorous situations.

    All the old characters do their bit very well. But Scrat and Scratee are especially good. Their Looney Tunes like sequences provide good breathers from the main plot.

    That’s not to say that the main story is no good. It’s really great to see these characters in a different setting, namely an almost Burroughs-like land of dinosaurs. And boy, the dinosaurs are really beautiful to look at.

    I think Horton Hears a Who! really proved that the studio knows how to do fantastic creatures really well. The use of textures and color really makes this the least plastic looking animated feature to come out since Kung Fu Panda.

    But it’s Simon Pegg’s one-eyed weasel, Buck that steals the show as a deranged Captain Ahab-like adventurer. He has all the best lines and he pretty much makes the movie.

    Also look out for two great action sequences: one with Sid trying to take care of the three dinosaur eggs and one involving flying Pterodactyls through steep canyons. I didn’t catch this in 3D, but I do think these sequences were designed with 3D in mind.

    All in all I think Blue Sky deserves some recognition for making it’s own kind of movie. One that isn’t either a Dreamworks or Pixar knock-off and is a lot better than the second Ice Age.

  • joe

    Plain and simple, it was horrible.
    Do yourself a favor and watch the original Don Bluth classic The Land Before Time instead.

  • It was terrific ! It’s better than the Ice age 1+2 united. Full of gags, impressive backgrounds, duper dynamic rythms. You simply never get bored. Pure comedy and funny actions. Very entertaining and subtle levels of humor for both kids and adults. Scratina is astonishing and Buck is a tremendous new character who put the movie on top with his crazy attitude.(Incontrovertible Peter de Sève did it again !) There are plenty of memorables sequences and getting 3D glasses is really justified. Bluesky is, for me , at the same level as Dreamworks or Pixar. Artistic direction by Mike Knapp and his crew is awesome !

  • Clay

    I loved it. It was adventurous and very humorous.

    The Pterodactyl flight scene was AMAZING in 3d, as was the rest of the movie.

    Ellie (Queen Latifa) wasn’t as annoying as in the second.

    This one, in my opinion was much better than the second, and MUCH better than Shrek 3. and dont get me started on that subject!

    I suggest seeing it. In 3d of course!

  • Paul K.

    I agree with Rohit Iyer, although I can admire the detail and craftsmanship of the textures, lighting, and character design variety, there really isn’t any memorable content from the story department. It’s perhaps best viewed as a collection of familiar comedy bits and sight gags loosely tied together by an uninteresting story– it’s not a bad story, just unimportant.

    Tremendously better than Ice Age 2 in all regards.

  • I also liked it. I found it to be much better than the second of the franchise, for example.

    The thew character is great, and the whole film is animated flawlessly.

    One thing I didn’t like was that the trailer with Scrat and Scratee fighting for a nut is actually a spoiler of one of their scenes. It will be funnier if it was the first time I saw that.

    And I also think 3-D was used with wisdom, and not pointing everything to the camera to get the “wow” effect every second.

  • Anthony D.

    It was better than the last 2, I gotta say! :) I really enjoyed the realtionship between Scrat and Scratte.

  • I enjoyed every minute of it. Like many others here, I feel it’s the best Ice Age movie. The most heartfelt, adventurous and funny to me. Blue Sky evolves so much with each feature. I feel the stories become more solid and appealing. They have their own style and I can’t wait for their next film.

  • Mike

    i didn’t particularly like it, but i didn’t hate it.. it was nice having lush, new scenery. It definitely makes the first two seem bland, colorwise.. and really the only reason i wanted to see it was for the dinosaurs. i don’t really care for any of the main characters. they’re just annoying. but i’m a sucker for dinosaurs. and i guess i got what i was expecting.. an average movie, with fairly nice dino designs

  • MattSullivan

    The way the reviews are portraying Ice Age 3, you’d think the makers were nazi flag burning single mothers.

    I found it very entertaining.

  • I like the work of Blue Sky, it generally has style and class on a par only with Pixar. However, this film is a big miss. There’s class in the design, but the script, direction and voice work is sub par.
    Shouldn’t there be some points taken away from any script that mixes ages that are millions of years apart from each other? It’s like a character going to the zoo and dinosaurs are there. Say what! At least add some reasoning to the script, never mind the ferociously unfunny gags.
    I know, if I had a couple of hundred balloons, I could fly.

  • Sylvain

    I Loved it, and I didn’t like the other two. I loved the way they didn’t take themselves too seriously this time, it made some gags reminiscent of the best of Chuck Jones. I can understand some may be offended by the crude humour, but I laughed to tears. The CG and the animation are absolutely amazing. The new character Buckminster steals the show, and has great voice acting by Simon Pegg. Great action scenes with the pterodactyls, must be seen in 3d.

    There are a few rough edges. There were some terribly corny scenes in the first act, and anywhere the scene is about Diego. I guess we can’t blame Blue Sky for that, I heard that Blue Sky are usually imposed a script from Fox (can someone correct me if I’m wrong?)

    It’s a comedy, not a drama, the story is a support for gags. The presence of the dinosaurs is well explained as a funny spoof of the Lost World ( 1912). I don’t understand why so many reviewers missed that. I mean I thought that book was a classic, there have been many spoof of it in many other films.

    rant : Difficult to take a review as unbiased when they keep mentioning the “other” studio. Let’s talk about the film for what it is, not for what another studio is doing.

  • Mike

    Michael Sporn: “It’s like a character going to the zoo and dinosaurs are there.”

    Unfortunately, from what I’ve heard, that’s exactly where the series is headed. I read somewhere that Ice Age 4 is already planned and they have the plot: the characters finally get frozen and then eventually thaw.. in a modern day museum.


  • Sylvain

    Mike, I don’t know what your “source” is, but that synopsis is completely made up. Their next film is Rio.

  • I found it to be completely boring. There is no plot of which to speak and none of the characters are well-defined (with some exception made for the Buck cat/mongoose/weasel thing). Pretty much a narrative misfire.

    That being said, Blue Sky continues to improve in terms of animation and lighting/rendering (Horton was also a step in the right direction). Maybe– just maybe– they will one day pen a tale to match their growing capacity for visual pleasing imagery.

  • i saw it, let me just say that this series is headed to certain doom, seriously, the cliched plotline and story. it makes me sad for a good film to get an acceptable sequel and a mediocore newcomer to the series,i found alienated from the characters when the were engaging in unusal actions in an unfamlilar , well ctually, a too familiar enviroment in film
    im dissapointed, bluesky could have done so much better things with this film

  • Sylvain

    Certain doom ?
    The 5 days opening weekend estimate is over 200 millions, it will potentially end up with 700 millions worldwide for a movie that cost 90 millions including marketing, from a studio that is VERY small. Congratulations to Blue Sky indeed.

  • mike birt

    @sylvain: mike isn’t making that up. “rio” is indeed their next movie, but last month they announced they are already in pre-production of a fourth “ice age” movie, and that is the announced plot.

  • I enjoyed what I could of that movie. Sadly, I was surrounded by a big family with loud whiney kids who didn’t know how to behave in a theatre. Every few minutes I heard “get back here”, “mom I want smarties”, “that’s it, I’m taking you back to the car”……. and so on. Yeesh!

    I agree with all the people here who said they liked it. It was a well told story with likeable characters. Plus, Skrit’s little bits with his grilfriend and the acorn were funny too. I suggest that everyone go see it (but not on Family Night).

  • Sylvain

    @mike: I’m in complete denial right now. Do you have a link to the announced plot ? someone throw me a bucket of water !!!

  • Sylvain

    Guys, I checked and Blue Sky NEVER announced that. The most official source of that thing is an anonymous tipster who contacted Aint-It-Cool-News. Come on.

  • John Derario

    BlueSky has never announced a 4th Ice Age. Rio has been announced as the next film on the roster. I loved every bit of IA3. Highly recommended!!

  • It was fairly entertaining, better than the 2nd film. Lots of action and gags kept the story going.
    I never really fell in love with the original main characters except Scrat (Sid is very annoying) and I’m glad the female Scrat added some more competition this time around. Buck is now one of my fave characters created by Blue Sky. Maybe we’ll see more of him in the future?

  • Jonathan

    Several years ago, Blue Sky optioned the rights to this book.

    The “Wainscot Weasel” never made it to film. But the eye patched, swashbuckling lead character did, as “Buck” in Ice Age. Knowing this really ruined the movie for me. It was a rip off and completely out of place.

    I was bored anyway. Scrat was the best part.

  • Mike

    Sylvain: yeah ain’t it cool is where i read that. and even if that’s a made up plot by some random kid (which i doubt), i’m sure blue sky has some other asinine concept to keep milking the franchise.. they’ve already bent the fabric of time to create a boring movie. i don’t see why they won’t do it again.

  • OtherDan

    My three year old loved it! This the first movie she wanted to see twice in the theatre. Kids love dinosaurs! I thought it was as good as the other two. This one was my favorite though-more polished. There’s a zippy acting tempo that seems to be their hallmark which I like, but it gets old too. Overall, it was a fun movie to enjoy along with the little one. And there will always be a market for that. As a side-note my daughter was also intrigued with the Chipmunks “squeakual”. And, I thought the look of the characters and the fur in that trailer looker really good-makes me wonder what the future of 2D holds.

  • Captain

    I didn’t like it. Aside from an ecologically unsound plot, there were some really inappropriate lines that I would NOT have put in a kids movie. “Next I’ll tell you about the time I used a sharpened clam shell to turn a T Rex into a T Rachel” being the case in point.

    After that, how can there be a subterranean TROPICAL world under a layer of ice that’s thick enough to support mountains, glaciers, and dancing mammoths? How can woolly mammoths, animals designed to live in sub-zero temperatures all their lives, be running around in a hot, muggy tropical environment? Why are today’s reptiles so small? Because today’s climates are so much cooler than those of prehistoric times. When there WERE giant exothermic (cold blooded) animals, the climate was very very hot, and had thick, hydrogen rich air- a factor in why insects were behemoth. According to the previous films, its an ice age, which means that the age of muggy, humid climates had been over for well over a thousand years-there is no way there could be even a ‘small’ pocket under the ice where this kind of ecosystem could have popped up. Furthermore, how can this underground world have LAVA FALLS? UNDER ICE? Ever heard the term ‘heat rises’? Someone skipped natural science class.

    Ok, so, back to the mammals. Mammoths are essentially Elephants. Elephants are the only land mammals that can’t jump. They also have breathing problems if they lay down because they are so heavy its difficult for their lungs to expand. Why? That much mass just IS NOT supposed to be be displaced. And Mammoths were bigger than A bull African Elephant. So in reality if a full grown, healthy mammoth went flying through the air, landing would cause catastrophic damage. Its not rocket science. Its called physics. So what the HELL were they smoking when they decided to throw in a full term pregnant mammoth, sliding down dinosaur spines, flying through the air, tumbling, jumping cliffs and taking rib cage elevators across helium mines?

    Does anyone else see anything bizarre with anything I just said? Does this movie actually make ANY sense? I can understand entertainment for entertainments’ sake, but this was over board. The whole premise of the movie is ass-backwards. Its like Vista-its a step BACKWARDS. Animation takes so much research, and so much reference- so how did they miss these things? I’m not a scientist, I’m just some kid that knows what physics are and I’ve had a lesson in natural history. It’s pretty simple and straight forward.

    The whole movie for me was a string of me looking at the screen thinking “What the Expletive were they THINKING?” and feeling bad for the parents that had to explain what ‘Yabba Dabba Doo” was to their kids.

  • Chris J.

    I’d love to see a discussion here on Cartoon Brew analyzing/comparing the rendering engines of Dreamworks, Pixar, and Blue Sky. Personally, I always feel that Blue Sky’s movies, while not being the best in the story department, actually consistently look superior to either Dreamworks or Pixar. Am I insane? There were moments in Horton Hears a Who when I was blown away by how photoreal some of it looked – particularly the feathers on the vulture character.

  • Jimbo2K7

    Hey Cap…

    It is a cartoon.

    Ya know? Not meant to be taken literally.

    Scrat has fallen how many miles and keeps bouncing back. Gee how is that possible? Well it’s not and so friggen what.

    It is a cartoon.

    Methinks you do not get it.

  • tgentry

    Not as bad as I thought it would be. The second one I remember as being dull and not particularly funny. This one actually made me laugh quite a bit. The story is really simple, which in this case works as it just lets them focus on getting the jokes out more quickly. Had my wife, kid, and me all laughing and generally enjoying ourselves. The character Buck was well written and had a lot of great lines.

  • tgentry

    Captain – whoa, I have to agree with Jimbo. If they were GOING for realism in any way then yeah, that’d be a big failure on their part. Nothing about this series suggests it’s anything but a cartoon. Flintstones had dinos and cavemen living together with much less explanation as to why. It was enough for me to suspend my disbelief and just watch silly cartoon characters for an hour and a half. The line about turning a T. Rex into a T. Rachel is the one I enjoyed the most. If a kid could really get that and appreciate it, then they deserve to because it was hilarious.

  • Jimbo2K7

    I also absolutely enjoyed the brilliant set pieces that took advantage of 3D without being blatantly obvious about it. Blue Sky is right behind Pixar in my book.

    I bet the captain didn’t appreciate the other gag – “I thought you were a female!”

    Yes it was silly. Yes it was entertaining. I had as much fun as my kids did.

    I guess silly and fun ain’t everybody’s cup of tea.

  • Is the Captain actually a tongue-in-cheek rabble rouser trying to get folks here riled up? Because that’s the most outlandish list of reasons for not enjoying an animated film I’ve ever heard.

  • The Vice Captain

    I’m with the captain! Animals can’t speak and if they could they wouldn’t all speak the same language. It’s absurd! And while we’re at it, human beings aren’t yellow, coyotes would die if a rock landed on them and mice can’t keep dogs as pets too.

  • Bobby D.

    My kids LOVED it and I did as well. Keep the franchise going, they just keep getting better and better. Congrats Blue Sky!

  • akira

    loved it.. for me it was the kung fu panda of this year (i preferred kung fu panda to wall-e and prefer ice age 3 to UP). tons of great animation and storytelling done with acting! the story kept moving right up til the end. the blue sky work is the closest to the good looney tunes that is being done today IMHO.
    the 3d was much better done than in Coraline, too.
    beautiful character design, and background.
    and don’t just wait for the blu-ray, it really deserves to be seen on the big screen!
    if i had to say something negative, i guess i’d say the saber tooth tiger story was so-so and the scrat story slowed down a little in the middle.. but LOTS of beautiful scenes!

  • Inkan1969

    So how come no one’s labelling the scenes with Scratte’ as “furry porn”? :-)

  • I enjoyed the film. The story was entertaining, and the characters were all interesting. It was funny, very well animated, and the scenery was beautiful. Anyone who says the 3D didn’t add anything to the film didn’t see the same film I saw.

  • Mittsy

    I went into the theatre looking for entertainment and I certainly found it! Very fun, I left the theatre smiling!! I suppose I can see the Cap’s point, but for a cartoony threequel about an ice age, what did you expect? It would be nice if today’s educational media for children were that much fun to watch, but I think Ice Age is meant to be purely entertainment and not to be taken so literally. Blue Sky, you have done it again, keep up the good work! :)

  • I liked it, and thought the 3D added to it. Inasmuch as I don’t like most modern animated films or modern 3D films, consider this a rave. I really like how with each of the Ice Age films, they keep adding more characters who are interesting. Gettin’ crowded, though.

  • I enjoyed it. Like all BlueSky movies it was mixed. BlueSky and Dreamworks are really uneven cause all their movies lack direction, they seem to be created by a committee of people suggesting gags and nobody writing a real story behind them.

    I don’t mind if there’s not an emotional core. Actually there was sort of an emotional core in Ice Age 3, Manny’s story, and it was the worst part. I can like a movie based on gags like…Tiny Toons: How I Spent My Vacation.

    But the plot in Ice Age 3 lacks sense and focus. That’s the flaw of the movie, the plot was very awkward and forced, even compared to the other Ice Age movies.

    However it was the best one so far in the other aspects. Sid has never been my cup of tea but he was actually funny in Ice Age 3. Crash and Eddie were also funny in this one, I didn’t like them in Ice Age 2. Buck was brilliant.

    Manny, Ellie and Diego were boring and Scrat was pretty good as usual, he’s the only one character that’s really charismatic. Even though he’s pretty inspired in Wile E. Coyote I appreciate this character and the fact that he’s one of the few mute animated characters in recent movies, that forces them to create visual gags. Today there are too many “funny” dialogues recited by “funny” celebrity voices. Of course Scrat has only one gag and it’s also getting a little old but he does have a personality too and I think he’s a lot more charismatic than Sid, Manny or Diego. The acorn gag won’t work the 25th time if he weren’t likeable. Since he doesn’t talk I think the animators put an extra effort in his designs and expressions that are a lot more appealing than the other characters’.

    Buck is actually pretty well designed and he moves in a funny way, but Sid and Manny are ugly designs and his personalities are very stereotypical.

  • Gabe F

    I hated it. I walked out of the theater after 1 hr in. The story was just not working for me. I guess I’m setting the bar too high, after loving Up, but Pixar really does it better.

  • Jayster 8

    “I enjoyed what I could of that movie. Sadly, I was surrounded by a big family with loud whiney kids who didn’t know how to behave in a theatre. Every few minutes I heard “get back here”, “mom I want smarties”, “that’s it, I’m taking you back to the car”……. and so on. Yeesh!”

    The movie’s designed for children. Who else is going to watch it besides animation obsessed man-child’s? Present company included.

    I saw it with children and went to sleep. As much as I love what these movies do for technology and often feature very well executed animation they downgrade a lot for characters and genre’s. I don’t know if that sentence makes sense but all these movies have very simular characters (and plots) and the genre’s always the same.

    They make millions of dollars and cheapen the artform. But technology looks great. Animation artform is well trained too.

    For me the movie just feels like an experiment in making a movie, it does the job but is not interesting what so ever. UP wasn’t so great either. I like Pete Doctor but the movie was lame and limp wristed. Again it’s all for children. I shouldn’t like it and I don’t.

  • To Captain’s claim of research, it is essential and necessary to have it for an animation project. I can agree with that. However, what I will oppose is that whatsoever the direction likes to do with the research (whether to stay true to the facts or go far from it) is up to them. And Ice Age, from the beginning, never really stayed true to facts. Seriously, would a mammoth, a sloth, AND a saber tooth tiger travel together naturally?! No! It wouldn’t be possible. So with that said, the whole bend back on having reality and facts for the Ice Age series is a bit weak for why the movie failed.

    Anyways, I enjoyed Ice Age 3 a lot! It was way better than the second film. I am not convinced it’s better than the first one, but the this film was definitely better than the second. And it was nice to see it in 3D.

  • mrl2500k

    Do you think scratte wil be in the fourth Ice age. I think she should the scenes with her and scrat were funny.

  • Sylvain

    Jerry, Amid, have you guys seen it yet ?

  • I thought the film was great.

    The animation was fantastic. The emotions you get from Manie are amazing considering almost all of it is done with the eyes.

    I thought that Ellie was much more likable in this film and the introduction of Buck was brilliant. its especially hard to introduce a new character and make him work and I think they did this.
    Loved the imaginative cinematography and editing.

    After number 2 I wasn’t expecting much at all. But I was pleasantly and completely surprised. can’t wait for the DVD to take a closer look at those key frames!