"Mars Needs Moms stands as the potentially final Zemeckis-produced motion-capture effort, and, like The Polar Express, Beowulf, and A Christmas Carol before it, its characters boast the waxy complexions, unreal movements, and dead eyes of mannequins..."
What the...? I'm confused here. What standard is this reviewer holding computer animated features to? I don't recall any waxy complexions or unreal movements or dead eyes of mannequins in any of these movies, or at least nothing that distracted me from the otherwise near photo-realistic computer animation that has only been around a few years. While they fall short of the realism of characters inserted into live action movies such as Peter Jackson's King Kong and Gollum, or George Lucas's Yoda in Star Wars episodes II & III and other characters, it didn't strike me as being a requirement in an animated feature to be THAT photorealistic. Nobody complained about Shrek's movements being unrealistic or his eyes being dead as a mannequins, but clearly Shrek isn't being held to the same animation standard. What gives?
While I'm not going to defend Mars Needs Moms on every point, I don't understand the beating its taking from a few reviewers and their followers. It's a fairly average film from a director who isn't very good to begin with (Simon Wells, whose adaptation of The Time Machine was embarrassingly crippled). As for MNM plotting, I've seen worse, and I've seen better. I am not getting the racism accusations either. I would relegate that to a ridiculous level of over-sensitivity about...what, hair that looks a little like dreadlocks? Really? Get over it people. Grow some skin!