Rugrats Go Wild! 2003

Critics score:
41 / 100

Reviews provided by RottenTomatoes

John Monaghan, Detroit Free Press: Where the earlier Rugrats movies had a unique and quirky point of view, this one strictly follows formula. Read more

Richard Roeper, Ebert & Roeper: [T]his is harmless entertainment for very young children. Everyone else though, will be wriggling in their seats like 2-year-olds with wet diapers. Read more

Allison Benedikt, Chicago Tribune: Even with Nickelodeon's cross-pollination efforts and the dazzling Oderama concept, the 12-year-old babies just aren't funny this time. Read more

Dave Kehr, New York Times: Even with the filmmakers winking references to movies as diverse as Tea and Sympathy and Duck Soup, there is little here to hold the attention of anyone older than 9. Read more

Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Read more

Louise Kennedy, Boston Globe: The real question is not whether it's a great movie for adults -- you already know the answer to that one -- but whether it's bearable, and whether the kids will love it. It is, and they will. Read more

Kevin Thomas, Los Angeles Times: Directors Norton Virgien's and John Eng's pacing is brisk, and voice director Charlie Adler elicits highly expressive performances, crucial in voicing animated characters, from his large cast. Read more

Houston Chronicle: Read more

Michael Booth, Denver Post: Even the children in the audience will complain about the excessive potty humor by the movie's close. Read more

Bruce Fretts, Entertainment Weekly: Mildly amusing, but compared to Pixar's splashy fish story, the rudimentary drawings and childish gags of Nickelodeon's latest feature look, in a word, cartoonish. Read more

Jennie Punter, Globe and Mail: Perhaps too wildly ambitious in its goal to unite two powerful TV tribes to serve a common goal, but its unsentimental music (hip songs by Devo's Mark Mothersbaugh) and visual delights will capture the imagination of young and old. Read more

Nancy Churnin, Dallas Morning News: Stick a fork in the Rugrats movie franchise. It's done. Read more

Ella Taylor, L.A. Weekly: Too mild, too crude by far. Read more

Gene Seymour, Newsday: Like a play date that gets so totally out of hand, you just throw up your hands and just wait for everyone to go home. Read more

Stephen Whitty, Newark Star-Ledger: Not much more than a TV episode writ large -- and probably best strictly as a something-to-do stopgap before the Sinbad cartoon opens next month. Read more

Elizabeth Weitzman, New York Daily News: Though the energy occasionally flags, the movie does a nice job of exploiting the crossover potential. Read more

Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times: The filmmakers apparently believe their audience suffers from ADD, and so they supply breakneck action and screaming sound volumes at all times. Read more

C.W. Nevius, San Francisco Chronicle: Who would have thought those bright minds at Nickelodeon would come up with a stinker? Read more

Randy A. Salas, Minneapolis Star Tribune: For those already familiar with these oddly lovable characters, this one comes out smelling like a rose. Read more

St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Read more

Daphne Gordon, Toronto Star: The end product is surprisingly engaging, thanks at least in part to a pair of very stinky feet. Read more

Geoff Andrew, Time Out: Read more

Claudia Puig, USA Today: The result is rather lackluster. Read more

Michael Atkinson, Village Voice: As matinee probations go, the movie's tainted by too many bad songs and too much of Bruce Willis. Read more