User Reviews (92)

Add a Review

  • Wirxaw5 April 2014
    A very positive movie, which, while borrowing heavily on Over the Hedge, is still a worthy standalone sight. Perhaps some characters are a bit naive or predictable... or outright annoying, but the whole composition is alright. The is movie is about crime, friendship and consequences... of both. It's beautifully animated, quality-voiced, has sufficient humor... and doesn't have revolting moments. Well, except for PSY, hehe.

    Overall it doesn't have the qualities of an outstanding animated picture. It doesn't have unique plot, or music or some spark... But it does it's best to entertain, and that is already a step up from an average animation. Perhaps a critic less obsessed with animals or cuteness would judge it for less, but compared to many other movies, it at least doesn't have that much bad in it to go below the rating of 5. Six, perhaps seven out of ten - is the reward for entertainment without anything groundbreaking.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I do have to agree with one reviewer about the animation being what saves the movie, because it really does look good.

    As far as everything else goes, chances are this one won't veer too far from your expectations. Plenty of tired jokes abound, also some fart jokes which I found to be funny, but that's just because I'm really childish. Since this is a PG movie there really aren't that many nut puns, which was quite disappointing.

    As for the plot line, it's pretty much the usual clichéd family movie setup: Main character is really self-centered, main character goes out on his own to prove he doesn't need anybody (actually this time he gets kicked out but you get the idea), main villain plots evil scheme against main character's former friends, main character has a change of heart, main character reconciles with friends and saves the day.

    Despite these shortcomings, I actually kind of enjoyed this one, the animation was good, and some parts were kind of funny. What can I say? I have a soft spot for this stuff! I'm sure the younger children will love it, there were two kids in the theater I was in laughing their heads off.
  • Aside from a few gags here and there, The Nut Job is an empty movie that serves mainly as children's entertainment. The plot centers around an independent squirrel who, after being banished form his park, looks to earn back the trust of the animals by organizing an heist, hence securing the food supply (nuts) for the winter. Usually I like humor in an animated movie, yet I still crave a good story and interesting characters. In this film we mainly see straight forward roles for everyone, and some characters work only as comic relief. I don't mean to complain too much about a movie like this, since it is directed at kids, but like I said, one can only take so much of a lack of substance in a feature film. In a nutshell (no pun intended), The Nut Job succeeds in its premise, as it allows kids to have their fun at the movies. For a more mature viewer, the content is well voiced, but in the long run the result is quite forgettable.

    Rating: 6/10
  • The Nut Job looks fantastic. Try to ignore the trailer, and if possible, the inconsistent soundtrack, too. Pay attention to the subtle nod to the 50's, present in all the background details: The rooms, the cars, the human characters. It looks great. The attention to visual detail is spot on. So kudos to the people in charge of making this look the way it does.

    The story itself has promise: A nut heist that runs concurrently with a bank heist, the squirrel storyline paralleling the human one. As you can imagine, there are cheap jokes and nut puns a plenty, but at least the younger children in the theatre will be entertained. Any flaws present in the Nut Job have nothing to do with the way it looks. And if anything, that's what saves it.
  • The animation was nice and very colorful, and the actors voicing there characters is well done, this movie was trying to be satire of heist films but from a squirrels point of view. It's not laugh out loud funny, but it is funny in spots. And the characters really are a joy to watch also. It's not quite Over The Hedge(2006), but all in all not terrible.

    Now the problem I had is that I feel that the movie could not decide if it wanted to be for kids or adults, unlike the Toy Story films which it was for both. But I felt The Nut Job could not make up it's mind. Some jokes are hit and miss for the kids. The filmmakers should have improved a little better with that, not a terrible animated film, but a great one either.
  • Yes, as most of the professional (and a few of the amateur) reviews pointed out, the political satire in THE NUT JOB is extremely heavy handed if you go in looking for it, and the "cuddly/comfort level" one initially expects when seeing furry creatures this well animated is lower than what we have come to expect from the Disney films which are usually the only ones which approach this level of polish - but when one looks at the actual PLOT these film makers have chosen to tell, a kid-friendly riff on the kind of film noir caper films where different gangs are fighting over access to the same crime scene and ultimately (contrary to a couple earlier reviewers who clearly didn't want a Korean helmed film to succeed) arrived at exactly the "aww," and "we CAN fix any problems" moment any film like this must build toward.

    No child over 10 will have any problems distinguishing between the various squirrel characters of varying hew, although an insistent naturalist might be pulling out their hair at the various species populating and co-operating in this "never-never-land" unidentified city park in a city living below a non-threatening dam which may or may not be destroyed by the end of the film (the illogic here - betraying the producers' lack of experience for all their technological finesse) is ultimately the film's greatest weakness - but will bother few of those the film is actually aimed at).

    The flaws ultimately fade while the adventure and the over-all successes linger in the memory - which is one reason I'm glad I waited a day to review this film. Probably best of all for parents who actually want to INVOLVE themselves in their children's viewing, the number of sophisticated "teachable moments" in this film are remarkable. Most family groups today will probably not be screening the semi-classic animated version of Orwell's ANIMAL FARM, but its essential points are made much more approachably with possibly greater sophistication (and better animation) here - and the opportunities to see and understand facing complicated issues and even having to change sides and seek forgiveness for errors has seldom been better presented.

    I suspect that this film - with initial notices focusing on the flaws (what COULD the releasing company have been thinking with the disco dancing Korean producer - who doesn't appear anywhere else in the film - joining the rest of the animated cast ALL through the final credit crawl testing the bias level of critics!? - It was APPARENTLY an attempted riff on a current pistachio...get it? NUT? commercial) will end its initial U.S. release rather deeply in the red, but when the DVD comes out, and in foreign release, this NUT JOB should do very nicely indeed. There's far more to like here than to "dis." If you watch TV *with* your kids rather than simply using it as a baby sitter, I think it's even highly recommended.

    .
  • phubbs18 October 2014
    Warning: Spoilers
    The most expensive movie co-produced in South Korea...apparently, and Canada had their fingers involved too! So would this explain why the movie is so poor? This whole fiasco is based on an animated short which revolved around the main character Surly Squirrel (sounds like a crap Disney character).

    Park creatures are the focus of this animal based adventure, well park creatures and some woodland creatures it seems. So its kinda like 'Over the Hedge' but just nowhere near as good or funny. For some unknown reason the movie is set in 1959 although I had no clue to this whilst watching, I just thought it was the artistic style for quirkiness. All these little mammals live in or near a big tree within a park, winter is coming and they gotta collect nuts to survive. I kinda always thought that was a squirrel thing but in this movie raccoon's moles birds etc...All seem to want nuts too.

    Believe it or not that's pretty much the entire premise, creatures after nuts. The gimmick being after accidentally burning down the big tree whilst trying to nab nuts, Surly Squirrel is outcast into the city to survive as punishment. There he discovers a basement full of nuts but the basement is also the HQ for some bank robbers who are attempting their own heist. Hence the movie being called the Nut Job because it deals with a bank job and a similar job for the creatures trying to nab these nuts...such a clever play on the 'Italian Job' movie...oh geez...face in palms cringe time. Oh and I guess Surly Squirrel is caused this down to the fact he's miserable mean and selfish right? (*groan*).

    OK the movie looks good of course, I can't fault that but its hardly a surprise is it. Everything is animated beautifully and looks glossy. All the characters are well designed, they all look as they should (cartoony versions of animals) and the voice acting work is solid. The nameless raccoon character looks to have been designed around Liam Neeson's face as they both have similar facial expressions and a big conk which work well. Various other characters are as you'd expect with the stereotypical dumb clumsy characters, fat ugly characters, tough large characters and the one main attractive female character (attractive on an animal level).

    Most of these characters are all reasonable enough accept for Grayson Squirrel who is the park hero...but is actually very incompetent and cowardly (you're suppose to laugh now...this is the funny character). This guy is annoying and pretty pointless really, he serves no real purpose and could be easily hacked out of the movie. Naturally Brendan Fraser voices this highly annoying and pointless squirrel and we've seen this act before from Fraser.

    One problem with this movie is there are too many character I think, you're never really sure if you actually like any of them because most of them are so fundamentally unlikable and boring. Well that and incredibly cliched predictable and stereotypical of every animal animated movie ever! The plot is so utterly drab and it goes nowhere! they wanna steal nuts, OK so steal them, what's the big deal. The stupid thing is they're animals...they could probably grab nuts and all sorts from anywhere in a city and in the end they don't actually manage to get them anyway! Half of them got flushed away in the river and can you count wet soggy nuts a score? The actual bank heist sub-plot going on with the humans just seemed so redundant, who cares? I didn't. It didn't really bare any influence or relevance on the animal plot going on around their feet.

    Christ this movie was dull! I mean seriously I was getting up and doing other things. The plot is so slow, so dull, so unadventurous. The characters are so basic, so flat, so completely lifeless and cliched its painful, the fact the movie tries to be funny also sticks out like a sore thumb and bombs hard. Grayson Squirrel is clearly meant to be the pant-wettingly funny aspect of the movie and he sucks ass! whilst the main hero squirrel Surly is just depressing. Oh and Hollywood people...its kinda creepy animating these cutesy creatures with human expressions and body movements.

    What was that soundtrack about?! I'm guessing the use of horrendous 'Gangnam Style' track is down to the fact the movie was co-produced in South Korea. Was that really necessary? Oh and was it remotely necessary to have an animated PSY in the end credits doing that stupid dance with all the animals!! Good God that was terrible, switched that sh*t off quicker than you can say that song will date this movie badly in years to come.

    3/10
  • I was worried when I noticed that the bird on the shoulder of the animal leader is a Northern Cardinal, visually and internally styled to resemble the Cardinal from the game Angry Birds. My worries were confirmed when I heard the hit song Gangnam Style play almost out of nowhere, as the movie's main characters suddenly started to dance to the said tune. Technically, the story did give characters a reason to do the said short dance when they did it, though in a palpably heavy-handed way. Also technically, all rats animated using modern computer graphics are going to show similarities, but the rat character by the name of Buddy sure does look a lot like the main character of the animated movie Ratatouille. For that matter, all the animal characters resemble the various animals of Dreamworks and Disney films from recent times. This, ladies and gentlemen, sure does feel like a cash-in. Nut Job is a joint venture between South Korean, US and Canadian production companies that shows symptoms of trying hard to capitalise on the western animation market and the pop culture.

    This is all particularly unfortunate when you consider that actual work was put into this production. Although the movie certainly has other problems, to be discussed shortly, the film does have a plot, it has a number of highly acclaimed actors that do a relatively good job at portraying their characters (however poorly those characters may have been written), and the animation is not terrible, even if rather bland. There are a few funny moments to experience, even though some jokes fall flat. There are certainly worse things to watch out there, but ultimately this Nut Job is botched (Pa-dum tss?).

    In addition to its irritating exploitative nature, Nut Job suffers from poor writing. The general outlines of the story are simple and clear, but the individual scenes become less and less coherent as time goes by, less and less natural. There are many lines of dialogue that seem like were meant to be funny, or at least there is no other discernible purpose for them, like comments on smelly farts, but they aren't in fact funny.

    This is a movie that is mildly entertaining and would probably go over well with young kids alive in the year in which the movie was produced, the year in which the musician PSY was still relevant, but it is unfortunate that a movie with so many good actors and such a budget is so average. The cash-in was successful, however. The movie more than made back its investment. I will not however be watching Nut Job 2. I'd have to be nutty to do that....Eh? Eh? Shut this down.
  • Surly, an adjective and a name apparently, embarks on an adventure to obtain food for the approaching winter. He runs across some wacky characters and antics ensue. The Good: Art- The time spent on the animal and human designs was readily apparent throughout the film. I could pick out individual hairs in the animals' coats. I also liked that the artists paid attention to the animals' mouths. They were not just mere flaps of skin covering teeth, but it looked like the mouth region actually had some depth, that the lips were also 3D along with the rest of the animal. The humans had a distinct look and style about them that made me think of 2D cartoons. Big and imposing, shady and dangerous, cute and cuddly, the artwork certainly helped draw a person in. Ambition- The Nut Job tried to draw on several genres of film. It attempts to reshape these stories and form into a family friendly movie. I could spot a crime drama, a voyage of self discovery, a tale of redemption and rejoining society, just to name a few. The film also provided some rudimentary information about the animal species through dialogue, so it did have some educational moments. Whether or not the film succeeded in its ambitions will be covered in the not-so-good section. The Not-So-Good: Pacing- What a colossal mess. The Nut Job is a short 86 minutes and the film tried to show at least three different story arcs. The audience is not shown how the characters will respond to any event because the next event is following hot on the heels of its predecessor. Because of this, any connection or concern for the characters is lost in the fray of action and fart jokes...yes, I'll get there too. Characters- Unfortunately the pacing of the film allows the survival of only the most basic character types. Might as well forget about character development too. And learning. And change for the better. Comedy- I had hoped that the family film genre had grown past this, I really did. Situational and character-based comedy has made significant headway into the family films. Granted it may be a little silly to laugh at Mr. Potato-Head's parts stuck in a flour tortilla, but I found it to be incredibly funny. Or how about when a mermaid becomes a human and, as a result of misguiding information told to her in a previous scene, she puts a fork and a pipe to hilarious use at the dinner table. Fart jokes. Maybe with the compressed story arcs, the only form of comic relief could come from this. The Nut Job tried to meld several different genres and in so doing, did not execute any of them well. You've seen better representatives of the genres attempted here and I'd suggest seeing them instead. 4/10
  • arethazkxo13 February 2014
    The Nut Job comes the takes a chance of forest animals in a big metropolis park who are desperate to make it the winter. After the total winter render of food is destroyed, the animal community blames and banishes a covetous egoistical squirrel named Surly (voiced by Will Arnett) from the park.

    Exclusively, bored, and frightened in the big city, Surly bumbles upon a ambition come true: a nut shop. While he's designing to rob the nut shop, we rapidly instruct the shop proprietors were hardened criminals seeking to rob the bank throughout the street.

    Meantime, concerned about famishing over winter, the park animals make a daring effort to find nuts in the big city. Andy (Katherine Heigl), the fur selected to go look for food, assembles Surly while he is designing to rob the nut shop, and Surly builds a carry on with Andy.

    Though they are suspicious of one another, Surly must work with his old park community to slip food for the winter while the human being employment to slip the money from the bank. During the remain of the history, The Nut Job shows how several trials bring out the true moral force of the park's animals, with surprising solutions.

    However, we disliked the violent, primitive mood. Smacking, complaining, farting, and burping were used to get gags during most of the movie. The parts were complain. There was one friendly quality we adored, and he was covered rudely. Unfortunately, most of the qualities were intend.

    Some parts of the story were not holding because we could tell what was going to encounter, while other items about the human being criminals w

    https://www.facebook.com/events/1415148258729128/
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Most of the three stars are devoted to the impressive animation found in the only redeeming quality of this children's film. The kids will overlook much of what is not going on but parents will notice that older kids will fidget around and become restless mid way through this mediocre film.

    All in all most children will accept it on it's own simple storyline terms. Much of the time I was wondering when the story was going to draw me in at least a bit to where I cared about the characters. One quality element in this movie was the relationship of two animals that bond and show kids that friendships are a "work in progress" in life and to not give up on a friend in spite of that friend's flaws. Well, parents, there's always Disney to appreciate. Go rent Bambi, Lady & the Tramp or (my favorite) Peter Pan.
  • 7.8 of 10. This has a lot of the 50s-70s style cartoon animal characters along with their seeming invincibility to any sort of explosion or accident. It comes, however, with excellent modern drawing, natural 3D art and animation to add to a distinct story of friends & sharing.

    At the base of this is a great, very simple to understand story for kids. Treasure your friends and share with them. It's more complex than that, involving theft both direct and indirect, and some devious political-like characters for adults to enjoy.

    The humor in the film alternates from kiddy and tween to puns and some more amusing adult idiosyncrasies and allusions. The soundtrack is extremely limited but works in the few places it's used.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The movie itself is well done and enjoyable, with smooth animation, cute characters, and a visually appealing set. The all-star cast doesn't disappoint, with only a few areas where the lines are obviously being read from a page. However, having just watched the conclusion, this movie heavily promotes the socialist agenda, where everything is for the good of the community, and sharing is significantly more valuable than personal ambition. In this movie, any character who is trying to do for himself is cast as the villain, and only when they "come around" to thinking that it is much better when what they do is "for the park." In the end, even accepting gratitude for risking one's life to save the lives of others is rejected, in favor of sharing credit with "the team." Indoctrinating these principles to the very young is certainly the intent of this film. So as stated in my summary, this is an entertaining movie, but it has a strong political message that is about as subtle as a brick to the face.
  • smvorndran20 January 2014
    The animation was good, but otherwise, the movie was chaotic at best.

    The story line was horrible.

    There are two main squirrels, and they are animated so similar, you get confused what's happening between them.

    You can't even figure out the purpose of one squirrel.

    Kids movies usually have at least a few "Awww" moments.

    This didn't have anything.

    Should have jumped theaters and watched Frozen again.

    This is my first review I've left on here.

    I had to log on just to let people know how bad it was.
  • I saw this movie tonight with my two daughters. We were looking forward to seeing it as the trailers looked fairly entertaining. About 10 minutes in, my 4 year old say to me: "Daddy, why isn't this movie making us laugh?" Perfectly put! The movie makes a terrible attempt at humor (unless you think beavers farting is hilarious). There is no original humor in this movie. Every time a joke was made, my wife and I looked at each other and shook our head in utter disgust. The characters are lame and the plot is dumb. Save your money. This movie is not even worth a $1.29 redbox DVD rental, which I'm sure redbox will have in its inventory very soon. STAY AWAY! It was so terrible, we walked out in the middle when both of my daughters kept asking to go home. I wanted to ask the theater to provide a refund for being such a terrible movie, but felt too stupid to admit that I bought 4 tickets.
  • This nut job is not about some crazy dude but literally is a job that involves nuts, plenty of them.

    For an animal community in a park it is vital they get enough supply of nuts to get through. When a squirrel is deemed too selfish to share he is ousted and has to survive alone. Being alone however is tough and he has to defend himself against other animals, humans, cars etc.

    In the meantime, the rest of the gang need to find a source of nuts and in the process it will become clear who they can trust and who they cannot.

    Shot, for the most part, from a bird's eye view we see the world through a small animal's eyes and oh boy what a perspective.

    On that add lots of chase scenes and a fierce battle for survival this will not disappoint.
  • seankana7 September 2014
    This movie is not as bad as I thought it would be. It's well-done design-wise in terms of the quality level of the animation. It doesn't start out that well story-wise--seems kind of predictable, but as time goes on, it gets better with a thrilling, clever chase at the end. I do wonder whether about the authenticity of Surly's fur colour. Then again, rats the color they get in the film would be a surprise as well. One of the things, though, that got me the most was the effectiveness of one of the rats--the one who is a friend of our main character, Surly, the squirrel who gets the idea of knocking over a nut shop. Also, the flowing together of two very similar story lines, one between humans and one with the animals, didn't get in the way, surprisingly. It seemed like it was going to be a quaint, "yeah, isn't that clever" thing, but, again, when the movie pans out, it turns out to be quite effective. Having seen "The Nut Job" through, I'm rather glad I did.
  • Before I begin berating this film, I would just like to preface that I would have considered it warranting of a 1 had it not been for the sufficing animation quality. This film is everything amiss about the cinema consolidated into one grotesque, insufferable mess. The pacing shows a stark lack of energy essential to this kind of film, which leaves the audience constantly expecting some kind of climax that the film never really manages to deliver, it's encumbered with purposeless characters and unexplained plot events (most notably a certain elderly character's antipathy for a dog whistle). In addition (as if everything previously mentioned weren't enough) the film has a completely incongruous scene in which the characters begin euphorically dancing to Gangnam Style, as well as a gimmicky, overdone dancing credits sequence involving the presence of a computer animated Psy for no explicable reason. Usually films tend to show a vestige of concern for subtlety when resorting to demographic pandering, though, this film just suffocates you with it.

    So, in short, unless you're searching for some ludovico technique material, avoid this film like the plague.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    When I first heard about The Nut Job, I stayed away from the cinema and waited for TV. Now that I found it playing on Movie Central, I decided to give it a watch. I thought this movie was going to be really bad. Somewhere along the lines of Free Birds. But I was wrong. Even though the jokes can be lame, there are like 15 nut puns and the main character is unlikable at first, the movie really is decent. I would even watch it again.

    So Surly is this Squirrel. He is a narcissist who works with his partner buddy. After an accident that blows up the whole Oak Tree he is banished from the park. Now with nowhere to go, he finds a nut store in which at first he has to himself but then works with Andie and the others to bring back the nuts to the park. But they are oblivious to another Story line where burglars are attempting to rob a bank from the underground.

    A bit of history first. The Nut Job is based on animator Peter Lepeniotis' debut short film Surly Squirrel and was an animator for Disney and Pixar at one point. This is also the most expensive animated film co produced in South Korea which I found to be very surprising.

    Now to my thoughts. The animation is brilliantly done and the detail of the characters are amazing and it is a pretty fast paced movie also which helps the animation do much zany things that work unlike other animated films.

    The Character of Surly (Will Arnett) starts out unlikable and I was like really? This is who we are routing for? But after watching more of the movie, I felt sympathy for him which is odd but daring for a movie to do when we start with such a hack. Brendan Fraser's Grayson is possibly the funniest thing in the movie. He is this flamboyant Grey squirrel who gets all the best lines even if it only has him screaming in fear of rats. Jeff Dunham is a mole named... Mole and does a great job at hiding his actual voice and having the character have a different voice.

    But the jokes. If you didn't think the fart and burp jokes and nut puns weren't funny the first time. Don't worry, they slam them in your face 15 times more. You can't just have fart and burping without context. Seriously there has got to be a reason for it or we don't get it! Either way the jokes suck or should I say are a kick to the......... Nuts?

    So that's really all I have to say. It made 98 million dollars worldwide, it was a sleeper hit, the animation is wonderful and it kind of gets better. Its nothing that's really harmful for kids cause it has some good morals about sharing and being a team and what not. So the kids will enjoy it, but adults might have a hard time watching this because of humor. I would actually see the next one.

    64/100 C+
  • Despite the trailer looking absolutely dreadful, being an animation buff and seeing that it had some good actors in the vocal cast I still saw it anyway. It wasn't a complete disaster and there are worse animated films around, but The Nut Job was lacking in a lot of ways and from my point of view the weakest of the handful of animations seen so far. Which have been actually a solid handful with How to Train Your Dragon 2 and The Lego Movie being the best. The Nut Job does have some good things, the best thing being the animation which was great, very colourful and vibrant with a lot of admirable detail and the characters look cute(even if Buddy looks eerily looks like Remy from Ratatouille). The soundtrack is also bright and breezy, there were a few moments where I did chuckle and there are a few of the voice actors that acquitted themselves well. Maya Rudolph was a standout, she is very bubbly and really comes alive, Stephen Lang plays gruff really well and Liam Neeson while deserving far better is adequately menacing and shady. Jeff Dunham tries his best too, despite being saddled with some of the worst of the humour with that of the two groundhogs managing to be worst. Will Arnett however takes Surly's purposefully surly personality to extremes and is far too snarky and smug, despite his cute appearance Surly is a very unlikeable character. Katherine Heigl sounds to me too romantic-comedy-ish, not that she does it badly but it doesn't fit the character, too humdrum and cutesy. Brendan Fraser is a likable actor but he and his supposedly heroic character Grayson really grate, not like Fraser at all usually. The characters(forgetting the very uninspired names for a second) are too underdeveloped and shallow in personality to be likable(with Buddy and Maya being slight exceptions), a lot of them with character arcs that don't go anywhere. Despite Neeson's voice work Racoon is too underwritten to be believable as a villain and Surly is very difficult to root for. But it's the lazy writing that hurts The Nut Job, filled with conflicts that come across as hackneyed and things resolve too tediously at times. Despite the odd amusing moments, the jokes border on dumb rather than witty and are not funny, and the bathroom humour also borders on juvenile and distasteful. The story in terms of subplotting is busy but a lot of those subplots lack development and most like the romance are contrived, a case of too many ideas and themes not explored enough. It was already a flimsy premise and with the interminably stretched out pacing(the human mobsters scenes bring the film to a halt) and very derivative story-telling- you are constantly reminding yourself "where have I seen that before"- it feels even flimsier in execution. And to add further insult to injury, The Nut Job ends with a Gangnam Style sequence, which is one of the most annoying, repetitive and overplayed songs ever and definitely belongs on a list of "songs that you are already sick of after 5 hearings", in fact calling it a song is somewhat insulting. All in all, a mediocre animated film that has great animation but (very) lazy writing. 4/10 Bethany Cox
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The Nut Job boasts an elaborate cast with Will Arnett, Brandon Fraser, Gabriel Iglesias, Liam Neeson, and even a guest appearance from Psy. (the song score is kind of award in the film). The animation for the film is actually not bad. The animation I feel is what helped this film. The colors are bright and crisp such as the park scenes and other nature scenes. The 1950s attire and theme was kind of awkward, because the viewer cannot really tell if the film is supposed to be a time period film or not. This is why I feel the musical score of pop/electronica music seems to be unfit for the film. The music is good, just does not fit for this film. The story line is interesting because it has two parallel stories both having a heist theme. However they seem to overlap in a confusing way and seem to clash. Yes the symbolism of the humans robbing a bank being a reference to the animals heisting the nuts is nice, but just seems to clash. The jokes in the film are over redundant and stereotypical. Fart jokes once sort of funny, twice eh… OK. But too many times does get old after a while. Character change is what I thought would come in the end. Yes Surly (main character) starts off as a selfish character then learns to share, but he grows very slow throughout the film and you don't feel too involved on his change of character. Overall the film has a good moral ending (basically sharing is good) but the film just doesn't feel too involving with the characters. The animation is wonderful and the casting is great, but the coupling of a storyline that feels rushed and tries to intertwine two stories in a short time feels crowded along with mediocre jokes just seems too "eh it's not bad, but not good" and that's how you feel after you finish watching The Nut Job.

    Overall, I give the film a 6/10

    • The_Kansan
  • I took my son because he wanted to see it- he liked it, probably because it was primary colored images moving on the screen. I was waiting for a re-hash of 'Over the Hedge', but it was not up to that standard. Surly the squirrel is banished from the park by raccoon-we never know why and that may have helped give me some feeling for his character. Also, right from the start, you can tell Raccoon is up to something. Catherine Heigl as Andie(?) the female squirrel sounded like she was phoning it in. Where I kind of expected a little romance, there wasn't even friendship. The bad guy humans weren't even very engaging, either. I am not making a bad joke if I say they were two dimensional characters. Absolutely no surprises here, and nothing to engage you either. Go back and see Frozen instead. Wait, gotta give some credit to the level of CGI animation-textures were incredible. And that Lana,WOW, some dish.
  • This movie is pretty cool. It is funny and has a good amount of action. It is really good and I think you would like it too.

    This movie is all about a squirrel named Surly who, at the beginning, fends for himself and only himself (with his friend Buddy) until his actions contribute to the burning of the large tree where all the squirrels live, along with what little food they have left. He is banished to the city and soon finds a shop full of nuts. He makes a deal with another squirrel named Andie that he would get half and they would get half. They run into a lot of obstacles such as mouse traps, rats, guns and people.

    The main characters in the movie are Surly (Will Arnett), King (Stephen Lang), Grayson (Brendan Fraser), Raccoon (Liam Neeson), Andie (Katherine Heigl) and Precious (Maya Rudolph). My favorite character in this movie is Precious because she is such a funny dog and helps Surly and loves him after a while. She is also really funny.

    My favorite part in the movie is when Surly and Buddy meets Precious because, as I said she is my favorite character, and she is so funny. She thinks she has to hate the squirrels because her owners don't want animals in their shop but she soon realizes she loves them. She starts showing them tricks likes fetching, playing dead, sitting and she thinks that her tail is amazing because it wiggles a lot. She says it has a mind of its own!

    I give this movie 5 out of 5 stars and recommend this movie for ages 4 to 10 because it is really suitable for a younger audience. I think younger kids will really love it.

    Reviewed by Anthony A, KIDS FIRST! Film Critic. For more reviews go to kidsfirst dot org.
  • This is a fun movie and kids will enjoy it but it's not great like some other animated movies and it does not have as much as those great cartoons have going for them as far as entertainment value and jokes for the adults.

    The two main squirrels should have looked less similar as the kids sometimes seemed confused so far as which squirrel was doing what or when they were talking together.

    Will Arnett is very funny and we loved his voice, such a unique and throaty voiced guy.

    I would recommend it but no need to rush to see it at the movies, wait for it on DVD, cheaper and you won't be missing anything not seeing it on the big screen.

    Frozen is better for sure!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    After watching "The Nut Job," I couldn't help but wonder if, even though it is a kid's film, could kids really enjoy this movie? I acknowledge this wasn't meant to be a family film where adults and kids could laugh together like Disney, Pixar, Sony and DreamWorks makes but this film really feels like it is dragging at the bottom of the barrel to make something that is barely worth watching. First off, the humor in this film just feels like they hired people who have no concept of what comedy is and have never been around children in their lives and said, "Hey, write something a ten year old will laugh at," and all they could think of was fart jokes…and when that well was run dry, they just decided to not even bother with jokes anymore—or at least that is what I'm assuming because the end result was jokes that just weren't plain funny. Granted, they weren't groan inducing despite the fact they hired two awfully generic comics (Jeff Dunham and Gabriel Iglesias) to do voices but they just weren't humorous in the slightest. I would like to think kids are a little smarter than what this film throws at you and mislabels as jokes. Then there is the voice acting…while not bad, most of the casting just didn't fit the character. Katherine Heigl sounds bored as Andie and Liam Neeson just feels thrown in (his character doesn't even get a proper name, he's a raccoon and they call him Raccoon—such creativity!). While Will Arnett is a funny guy, his gruff voice just didn't fit with the little purple squirrel he was playing. Finally, it was clear Brendan Fraser was having a blast as his character but his enthusiasm just ends up amplifying the other members of the cast who are around to do nothing else but collect a paycheck. Finally, the story just doesn't have enough working for it to justify being a film that has a running time of over an hour. The story feels like it would have worked better as an animated short that airs before something far better produced, so the end product just feels like the producers are constantly padding out the running length and stretching every scene for every single second of footage they can get. It makes the entire film feel like you are being dragged through a story that should have been resolved easily at the start but the film went sentient and is now refusing to allow the conflict in the story to resolve. Overall, "The Nut Job" was fairly unimpressive and entirely forgettable. It really didn't even have anything working in its favor (and I won't even mention how the animation, by today's standards, just looks cheap). After watching it on DVD, the only thing that came to my mind was, "Do kids actually find this amusing?" and, "Why exactly is a sequel being made? It really made THAT much money?"
An error has occured. Please try again.