Wall-e

[Zarathustra]

Wall-e is not a bad little movie. It’s pretty. It’s definitely different from a lot of children’s movies. Ordinarily, I wouldn’t be motivated to go to such lengths to trash a film. But when I clicked on Ain’t It Cool News and learned that this movie is apparently the next Citizen Kane, I retched for about 10 minutes and decided I had to post a scathing review of the reviews. Warning: massive spoilers. I'll try to spoiler tag the worst.

Quint thinks WALL-E is a masterpiece!

A masterpiece? 30 minutes into this movie I wanted to go to sleep. No joke. But read on. It gets even blander.

I knew going in Wall-E was going to be a magnificent character, but what I didn’t expect was the glut of absolutely great side characters we meet when we get back to the

Spoiler

Axiom, the luxury ship holding all of humanity.

No, no, no. Wall-E is barely a character at all. He’s cute. He’s lonely. And for some inexplicable reason he cares about

Spoiler

recolonizing the earth

. Why a trash compactor would have such grandiose ideals is never explained. (And how could it be? He can only say one word.) It’s clear that he really digs Eve (nothing subtle about that name, is there?), but we have no idea why a trash compactor would have human emotions like loneliness and love, either. But it’s a children’s tale, I suppose, so this doesn’t have to make sense. Yet, all the people pouring praise on this movie insist that we view it as an adult-themed film rivaling Kubrick's work. I suppose that doesn't apply to the most important aspect of the film: the main character. No, for that, we're supposed to treat it as a kids movie. Okay, double standard.

But we’ve seen this character before, in much greater detail with Data on Star Trek (and to a lesser extent in I Robot, and other stories). Data’s quest to be more human was done over a period of years to believably develop a “human” personality for a robot with a positronic brain. Yet, I guess we’re just supposed to collapse all that familiar cultural heritage and bequeath to Wall-e the rich history already set down by other, greater robots in literature. We're supposed to assume the same exact robot-to-humanity journey from page one. Did I mention he’s a trash compactor? Good. Positronic brain? No. Emotion chip? No. Deep, on-going, intimate experience with other humans through which to develop these behaviors? No. He takes out the trash and watches movies. But apparently that’s enough to develop a craving for dancing and hand-holding and

Spoiler

saving humanity.

As for the “glut of absolutely great side characters,” they’re just a handful of malfunctioning robots. They come out of nowhere and rescue Wall-e at a crucial moment, but besides that, how can a mechanical umbrella (for instance) who never says and word and who’s only on-screen action is to unfold and block a laser … how can that be an “absolutely great side character???” The rest of these side characters, I can’t even remember. There’s one that smashes things (for about 2 seconds on screen). That’s about it.

Spoiler

The humans of the future are… . . .[e]verybody’s fat, dependent on technology and so caught up in their world that there is no individuality anymore.

Wow, that’s a totally new observation! Want to get preached at about how fat you are while you're eating your popcorn in your comfy movie seat? Who doesn't?!?

Spoiler

The humans spend their entire time in comfy, moving seats with a holographic computer screen in their face.

It's totally subtle and you probably won't even notice that the movie-makers are making fun of you while they simultaneously expect you to sit there just like the

Spoiler

fat human characters

and enjoy their movie! There's even big movie screens for the human characters, which tells them to go get a beverage. I'm not kidding. Does Pixar not see the hypocrisy here? If we all did what they implicitly suggest we do: get out of our chairs, stop guzzling Big Gulps, and stop watching our screens, there would be no one in the audience to see their damn movie.

The future told here is a dark one, the implications of HAL-9000-like twisted programming machinery and an almost totalitarian robot regime on the space ship are all much darker than I imagined we’d see in a family film.

Don't worry, that's a complete exaggeration. The movie isn't "dark" at all. It's dripping with syrupy sweet goodness.

Totalitarian robots that turn on their human creators? Isn’t this done with just about every movie that has robots? And if it weren’t for one cheesy, stupid short-sighted mistake of cross-programming, this element of tension wouldn’t have happened at all. In fact, this is the only tension in the movie. And the reason for its existence is so stupid it will either leave you swearing at the screen, or simply ignoring it for fear that the entire movie will collapse before your eyes.

Spoiler

The humans of the past knew the planet was fucked, which is why they got everyone off in the first place, and they knew it would take a long time for the planet to become habitable again, so they set up a probe system to periodically check for the return of a life-sustaining environment. They’ve developed a whole protocol for this event which they surely knew would take a long time to be fruitful (heh), otherwise they wouldn’t have gone to all this trouble to set up the cruise ship life boats, the technology to keep it running indefinitely, the probe system, and the recolonization protocol. But then at the last minute, the CEO decides, “aww fuck it. The earth is in too bad shape. That recolonization plan will never work. Just screw it and forget we ever said it. And most importantly, don’t ever tell the humans, just in case someone wants to make a movie based on this concept but can’t think of any other way to inject conflict into the story. Carry on!

It’s retarded. Why can’t movie makers learn that the single most important aspect of the protagonist’s journey is the legitimacy of what he’s fighting for? Thus, the legitimacy of the conflict must be rock solid in order for his struggle to be meaningful instead of contrived.

There's absolutely no reason for the conflict of this movie.

Spoiler

1. They knew the earth was fucked. 2. They knew it would take a long time to get better. So put those two together, and the reasons for the CEO telling the autopilot to abandon a recolonization program (which curiously, the robots never abandoned, otherwise there would have been no movie) makes no sense. He says that the environment is too bad, but that's the whole reason they were leaving in the first place!

www.aintitcool.com/node/37270

This robot courtship is one of the most romantic and humorous things you will ever see.

No, it’s not. Romantic? What is this guy smoking? We’re given about 20 scenes of this robot working up the courage to hold hands, complete with him holding his own hands about 10 times. And then we’re shown the footage of the movie (Hello Dolly, apparently) where the actors do this, over and over and over. If you think Pahni’s hand on Liand’s shoulder gets annoying and obvious, just wait until you see the robot hands. How any adult can call this romantic is beyond my ability to understand. Imagine an iMac and a garbage disposal holding hands, and then try to imagine this being the most romantic thing you've ever seen. I think someone needs a real date.

I don't want to discuss what WALL-E finds in space beyond a big-ass spaceship, but again credit to the filmmakers for pushing science fiction in a direction I've never seen it go before, especially not in a film that many young children will want to see. Even as a non-child, I was a little stunned at the direction the film takes.

Seriously? The "Macguffin" in this movie is a

Spoiler

plant

. Waterworld did this same idea:

Spoiler

humans destroyed their environment, and now plants are rare and almost sacred symbol of a vanished (not quite!) earth to the survivors who are living on ships.

We’ve never seen this before? When you're main "shocking" concept has already been done by Waterworld, you know you're in for a blandfest.

But it’s a testament to Wall-E as a personality that he keeps the movie from being depressing. His neverending kindness, optimism and seemingly unlimited cuteness infects not just the audience, but all the characters he interacts with.

It's not a testament to Wall-e's "personality" that this movie isn't depressing. It's a testament to the flood of syrupy-sweet goodness they drizzle upon every single scene. Remember Peter Jackson's King Kong ice dancing on the frozen pond? Yeah, that kind of sweetness. Add a fire extinguisher and a couple lard-asses holding hands, and you get the picture. If you thought King Kong was romantic, then maybe you'll think a trash compactor is romantic, too.

There’s also a bit of a Christ parallel thrown in for good measure.

Christ parallel?? Do we have to have comparisons to Christ every time a hero

Spoiler

sacrifices himself for the “greater good?”

Christ is just one of many in a long line of the hero’s journey mythology. Helping others and

Spoiler

sacrificing oneself

is a motif that is integral to the hero’s tale, NOT to Christianity. Every culture has a version of this. You basically can’t tell a hero story without it. To elevate it to something as “important” as Christ himself is just stupid. Especially when we’re given no explanation why a trash compactor wants to

Spoiler

save humanity

. Other than perhaps he needs them to make some more movies, because he’s been watching the same old crappy VHS tape for centuries. 

Other random quotes from AICN forum:

How strange that one of the most damning post-apocalyptic visions in cinema history comes in a family film.

No, not strange at all in Hollywood’s obsession with making every kids movie about environmental disaster.

Beautiful, thrilling, emotional, and just a great story that keeps topping itself. You know when you're watching a movie and you're riveted trying to keep up with it because it's so rich and dense [blah, blah, blah--edited to keep you all from retching] This is by far the most intelligent "kids" movie I've ever seen. It's absolutely an instant classic. And you know this may seem a strange thing to say but it makes me proud of American cinema again - how long since you could say that? - because Pixar is representing us better than any other filmmakers out there and the fact that the film criticizes what could be seen as distinctly American laziness and overindulgence makes it even better. We may have major problems as a country but we can still entertain like a motherfucker. USA! PS> This will not only be the highest grossing film of the year, but it will be nominated for Best Picture. And it may even be the first animated film to win.

That's the closest emoticon I could get to barfing out of pure, sickly outrage. According to this viewer, Americans are all fat, lazy, over-consuming, but at least we can make a form of entertainment that we can watch in our comfy movie chairs and eat buckets of popcorn! Yeah, that kind of contradiction makes me proud to be an American, too! Go USA! You made a bland, hypocritical kids movie. Yeah!

The stunning thing is the challenge they set themselves by designing a character who, by his very nature is limited in movement and expression - and giving him life that you absolutely believe and fall in love with.

Have these people never seen R2D2? What is so stunning about making robots with limited motion and expression into something the kids love? We’ve seen this 30 years ago. R2D2 has 6 movies to his resume. People are still stunned by this??

Wall-E is a film that will push the CG animated film industry forward proving that you don't have to settle for big names and obvious concepts.

What can be more obvious than man-made environmental collapse and a “fat lazy over-consuming Americans," a pinocchio/Data robot who wants to have human-like relationships, and another set of authoritarian robots out of control. That’s not obvious? If we hadn't seen it 100 times already, it wouldn't even be watchable because the movie is so devoid of explanation and character development, you have to carry with you this huge load of cultural baggage just to make it meaningful. And just to make sure we all get it, they throw in the "Thus Spake Zarathustra" music from 2001 at the proper moment to explain the "depth" of the onscreen victory. Just in case you missed the abundance of references so far.

On the Aint It Cool message board, I found myself agreeing with WhinyNegativeBitch:

...I should add, although I know its not really going to do much for me, I appreciate it not being another fucking crude, depressing corporate pile of mind junk food like Shrek 3 or Alvin and the chipmunks.

Agreed.

Wall E is here to tell us we are heading towards stagnation and the destruction of the human race? No offence, but we've been hearing that same old tune for the last hundred years. Its just not something new to me, nor particuarly moving.

Yes.

I wonder if Pixar will...
...Address how the manufacture of their cheaply produced, unnecessary, overpriced junk/toys that harm the environment from manufacturing through distribution through packaging to turn a quick buck will help the children of the future become anti consumerist advocates for the environment.

Ha! Take that Pixar!

I suspect this movie will freak obese people out

Honestly, I think someone is going to see the future, and suddenly be all, "shit, that could be me!" and go down to the nearest Crunch Fitness after the showing lets out.

If fat people don’t already know they are fat, going to a theater to see Wall-e isn’t going to be the epiphany that this person expects. No, if they don't already know it before squeezing into the movie chairs, they are suffering from mental block that a kid's movie isn't going to remove. People really expect this film to change people's lives to this degree? Come on.

This is the most important film of this decade so far, in terms of content, and in terms of pushing cinema forward as an art form.

Barf.

[Worm of Despite]

I've had this feeling since Finding Nemo that Pixar has been running out of ideas (I thought Nemo played it safe, and The Incredibles is more a Brad Bird film than Pixar's. But damn, every time I see one of their trailers like Wall-E or Cars, I wonder how the hell they'll make an entire movie out of that.

Pixar is the master of having ideas that actively murder plots, and yet sometimes they get lucky and are able to paste a decent story on the framework. Ratatouille, for instance, surprised me: the first trailer showed a mouse running around a kitchen. I thought, OKAY...is this a technology demo; how can you make a plot of this? Sure enough, they did well.

[DukkhaWaynhim]

Wow. Somebody needs a hug. You know who you are.
Two thoughts:
1) Monochromatic Christians are going see Christ in everything that they have decided is good. For better or worse, that is their nature. Just because something has a Christian analogy in it doesn't make it a Christian work, however, whether it is incidental or intentional - just saying it does not make it so. And consequently, simply observing a Christian analogy, valid or not, should not automatically cheapen the experience for non-Christians, even if they have a valid reason for mistrusting Christians. Seeing Christ in everything is just as extreme as seeing the bogeyman in all Christians.

2) I'm backhandedly agreeing with you - It's just a movie. These hypergushing reviewers are drawing unnecessary and possibly undeserved attention to a movie event that relies on (positive) buzz to sell tickets and thus make as much money as possible. Your scathing review of their reviews adds a contemptuous counter-ripple in the pool of attention - but aren't you further stirring up the pot and potentially causing the sale of even more tickets - could you be placing a completely unintentional straw-man amidst their sycophantic frenzy? i.e., does your negativity do anything other than appease your own personal sense of review karma for an overly-praised kiddie-flick?

dw

[jelerak]

I took my boys to see it yesterday afternoon, ages 7 & 3. They enjoyed it, of course...but for all of the hype, it just wasn't that good. There are many other Pixar movies that I would put ahead of this one. It was just a kind of mindless eye candy for the big screen.

But like I stated, the boys liked it...and after all, that was why I brought them there to see it...for them, not for me & the wife.

[Zarathustra]

Wow. Somebody needs a hug. You know who you are.
Two thoughts:
1) Monochromatic Christians are going see Christ in everything that they have decided is good. For better or worse, that is their nature. Just because something has a Christian analogy in it doesn't make it a Christian work, however, whether it is incidental or intentional - just saying it does not make it so. And consequently, simply observing a Christian analogy, valid or not, should not automatically cheapen the experience for non-Christians, even if they have a valid reason for mistrusting Christians. Seeing Christ in everything is just as extreme as seeing the bogeyman in all Christians.

2) I'm backhandedly agreeing with you - It's just a movie. These hypergushing reviewers are drawing unnecessary and possibly undeserved attention to a movie event that relies on (positive) buzz to sell tickets and thus make as much money as possible. Your scathing review of their reviews adds a contemptuous counter-ripple in the pool of attention - but aren't you further stirring up the pot and potentially causing the sale of even more tickets - could you be placing a completely unintentional straw-man amidst their sycophantic frenzy? i.e., does your negativity do anything other than appease your own personal sense of review karma for an overly-praised kiddie-flick?

dw

Great post! No, I don't need a hug. But some hand-holding . . . that might do the trick.
Yeah, I went waaay overboard with my post. I can't believe I had that much to say about it. Like I said, the movie was cute. But it certainly wasn't the "most romantic and humorous thing you'll ever see" nor was it the "most important film of the decade." Those kinds of statements just stunned me.

I doubt my post will have any affect on ticket sales. And frankly, I hope this movie does well. I have nothing against it. Maybe I should just stop reading Aint It Cool News.
. . .
could you be placing a completely unintentional straw-man amidst their sycophantic frenzy? i.e., does your negativity do anything other than appease your own personal sense of review karma for an overly-praised kiddie-flick?

Damn, nice! Yeah, my post was completely self-indulgent. I had to purge my feelings of disgust at the ridiculous praise.

BTW, my Christ comments were not an attempt to bash anyone's religious beliefs, nor did I feel threatened this interpretation. It just annoys me because it's so overused. I've been hearing this ever since I had to read Old Man and the Sea back in high school, and now I can't watch Spiderman 2 or freakin' Wall-e without someone trying to wring more meaning out of a popcorn flick than is actually in it. There's nothing holy about Wall-e or Spiderman. (The fact that I think there's nothing holy about Christ has nothing to do with my disdain for this mother-of-all-overused literary analysis.)

[aTOMiC]

I don't often trust critics and I've not seen WALL-E (outside of the trailers) but when Rotten Tomatoes tallies up all the reviews (of which there were a total of 145 and only 5 were deemed negative) and comes up with a 95% positive rating, I am forced to notice. It's very likely I'll see the film at the theater and I'll have more to say after that. Presumably I'd have to have bought into quite a lot of the hype in order to walk away annoyed that the film was less than my expectations. I've seen every Pixar film and I think I have some small idea of what I will see but I never expect perfection no matter who created a movie.

[Cagliostro]

Maybe I should just stop reading Aint It Cool News.

Couldn't hurt. I haven't spent a lot of time there, mainly because it is both the best and the worst of the fan community. When you are excited about something, it's fun to go to the site and share in the excitement. But no matter how much fun there is going on, there is always someone there to crap all over it. I almost never read the talkback section, and pretty much never go to the site anyway. There seems a point where people stop enjoying the escapism and magic and become too much of a critic. Owen Gleiberman in Entertainment Weakly has become that way, though I still like the magazine. But I'd much rather pay for the experience and enjoy it than enjoy crapping all over the movie later.

[Zarathustra]

But I'd much rather pay for the experience and enjoy it than enjoy crapping all over the movie later.

I enjoy a good crap.

[wayfriend]

My girls liked Kung-Fu Panda more.

[Zarathustra]

Kung-fu Panda looks awesome. I wished we'd gone to see that instead. But I'm biased--after The Pick of Destiny, Jack Black can do no wrong in my eyes. Seriously, it's his best movie.

Anyway, I'm a still little embarrassed at how much effort I put into the first post above. I thought a couple times about trimming it to make it look like I didn't waste most of a Sunday morning on this. But then I couldn't maintain my "be true" line.

Anyway, I hope my rant against the reviews doesn't discourage people from praising a generally good kids' movie. If you treat it as a kids' movie, it's right up there among the top 20 or so. But when I'm asked to view it as a kids'-movie-that-holds-up-with-adult-movies of similar themes, that's where I start going nuts in a reactionary rant.

[wayfriend]

BTW, WALL-E has a 96% on the tomatometer. I am seeing comments like "2008's first perfect film", "It's a sci-fi masterpiece". "Wall-E is a masterpiece", "one for the ages, a masterpiece to be savored".

At least for sure, whatever it is, it's not limited to AintItCool. (A site which has in the past gotten grief for placing ads for the movies its reviewing, and which I think has learned a lesson.)

Maybe Wall-E, he thought, doesn't come from a store. Maybe Wall-E ... perhaps ... means a little bit more.

[Zarathustra]

BTW, WALL-E has a 96% on the tomatometer. I am seeing comments like "2008's first perfect film", "It's a sci-fi masterpiece". "Wall-E is a masterpiece", "one for the ages, a masterpiece to be savored".

Arrgg!! Now you've set off my reactionary rant function again!

A sci-fi masterpiece? This movie can't even decide what its "sci-fi" message is. Robots are either A. totalitarian monsters that turn against humanity . . . B. or faithful servants that make us so damn comfortable that we grow fat and complacent . . . C. or cute, lovable Christ-bots that save humanity.

[DukkhaWaynhim]

WF, it's not nice to provoke Malik like that.

dw

[Zarathustra]

I had no idea that a collection robot cliches we've seen in every movie, TV show, or book which features robots can become a "masterpiece" simply by tossing these cliches together in a contradictory manner and sealing it with a cute kid character.

[Cagliostro]

You didn't? You need to read more reviews then...

[balon!]

Whenever I watch a kids movie, I try to dust of my old set of Eyes, and watch it like I would when I was a kid. It tends to make it easier to ignore the smaller details, and pick up the underlying messages, which is what I think movies are all about. After all, very few kids will pick up bible references to Eve, the comparison to Wall Mart, or Bush quotes. Kids (at least I did) pick up ideas in much broader colors and scopes. That's why they fingerpaint.

Some themes I picked up:


perseverance in the face of opposition and impossible odds
love
protecting things that are precious
helping your friends
recognizing that change is necessary and improving yourself as a person
fighting for what is important to you


I loved the flick. Some adult-goggles things that jumped out at me:

--uhMAYzing camera work for the first half hour. I'm a sucker for lengthy, detailed landscape artwork, and Wall-e had plenty.

--the music score was also fantastic. The lack of spoken lines forced the artists to convey emotions with more subtle means, and I thought they succeed quite well. I followed right along the entire time.

--the level of technology: let's face it. As comps get better and better, the quality of the Pixar movies also jump in leaps and bounds. It was almost unbelievable that such detail could be created artificially.

[Cagliostro]

Okay, I saw it last night, and, not to sound like the overgushing reviews, this may be this generation's E.T.

With that said, I saw E.T. as a kid and I wasn't overly wowed by it. Sure, I enjoyed it, but I didn't go nuts over E.T. like I did Star Wars or even Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

This movie has a lot of the elements that made E.T. such a hit: cute, but not too cute, danger, magic, social commentary, etc. There really is something for everyone, except for the incurably cynical (which I'm not including you in, Malik, or anyone else on this thread, as I think everyone on here has said that it was enjoyable). It is a very sweet movie, and definitely makes all but those that the hate/love wires crossed all smiley at the end.

Does it deserve all this praise it is getting? Probably not. I felt the same way about E.T.
Does it rob from many other sources, some of which are better? Sure it does. So does the majority of things. Why we want our machines to have a soul, I will never quite understand, but I certainly can relate to having strong emotional ties to unliving objects.
Did I think it was the greatest movie I've seen all year? Surprisingly, yes. And maybe for last year as well. There were so many emotional notes it hit for me personally that I found my aesthetic meter particularly high at the end.
Does the events in this movie make sense? Not really, and I don't think they are really supposed to. I don't think the writers of Wall-E actually expect this future to happen. It is an exaggeration of trends in our society, just like Orwell's 1984 was as well. And I don't think anyone believes a "Five is Alive" moment will truly happen until we design it. Robots becoming human is a storytelling technique, especially in a story where the humans have become robots (which I see more and more in society).

Now, to criticize Malik's criticism of the reviews:

I didn't see Pixar being hypocritical about many of the points you made. I felt they were showing a sense of irony. And where that was really driven home was that the girlfriend and I sat all the way through the credits, which I don't typically do. One of the last images was the B&L logo and theme before or maybe after the Disney logo, which really drove home for me the irony - that they recognized themselves as a bit of the problem they are poking at, but by poking at it hoping to change the trend. Just my opinion.

As for the romantic subplot - I got it. I found it very touching, and even though there wasn't a heap of it in there, I was moved. I would totally bring a date to this movie. I wouldn't say that it was the "most romantic...thing you will ever see," but it hit some emotional notes. It's strange how the act of reaching out and touching is so important to emotional creatures, but I really think it is. At least it is to me, and am thankful I was raised in a family that appreciates that. And actually, my favorite part of the recent King King was the bit on the ice. It was the rest that left me mostly bored.
As for Wall-E

Spoiler

wanting to save humanity, I didn't get that. What I thought was that Eve's directive was to do this thing, and what she wanted, Wall-E wanted. I don't think it was this amazing noble purpose.

Where I agree:
I don't get the Christ parallel AT ALL. The only religious symbolism I got was linked in with Noah and the olive branch.
What makes people like Pixar and even Blizzard in the videogame world so great is that they take familiar things and tend to make them fit together well, for the most part. R2D2 is a good example of how this was done before, and made all the more interesting as Wall-E's "voice" was done by Ben Burtt who also did R2D2's "voice."
I concede the point you made about the President or CEO or whatever making the plot not make as much sense. He did look pretty harried when he delivered it though, and if there is anything we have learned for movies in the last decade, humans are dumb creatures.
I also don't see how this is a "dark" movie. Sure, the future is grim, but I wouldn't exactly call it dark.

I do think this is a very sweet and nice movie, which is increasingly becoming out of fashion. So it is good to see one done well and moving people, which might be why there are people heaping too much praise on it. I don't think it is a masterpiece, but I think it strikes a good balance with social commentary and hitting emotional notes. I haven't been connecting with movies much lately, so I found it to be the best I've seen all year, and even last year. I'm guessing it will get Oscar attention, and probably net Best Animated Film easily unless it does try to go for Best Picture, thus making it ineligible for animation. Which I think will be a mistake. I do also feel there were a lot of arty bits in there (such as the landscape shots Balon is referring to and the dancing bits), and why I think this is probably my favorite Pixar film to date.

[Zarathustra]

Balon and Cag, I feel like I've got to keep this going since I'm the one who started it. So, please don't feel like I'm being argumentative for the hell of it. There's part of me that feels like I should defend my points simply because I stated them so strongly from the beginning, but there's another part of me that recognizes the worth of your opinions, and I value the opinions of Donaldson fans more than . . . well just about anyone else I've never met.

I actually agree with a lot of what you both said. It IS a beautiful movie, visually. And it IS a cute story, with a lovable character, and a decent romantic relationship (for a kid's movie). I'm not too cynical to miss it's wonder. In fact, as a kid's movie, I think it's great. I love kids movies (my favorite this year was Horton Hears a Who). I love cartoons. Spongebob is on everyday in my home, and god bless that little sponge.

It's when I'm "forced" to treat this as an adult's film that I get peeved. "Sci-fi masterpiece," in particular, still makes me want to scream. But then, I've read a ton of Asimov, where the whole robot theme was virtually invented. I also rewatched I Robot last night, and even with its flaws and deviations from Asimov, it's a hell of a robot story.

However . . .

Some themes I picked up:
perseverance in the face of opposition and impossible odds
love
protecting things that are precious
helping your friends
recognizing that change is necessary and improving yourself as a person
fighting for what is important to you

Can't this be said of virtually every kid's movie ever made? Well, maybe not Alvin and the Chipmunks. (I don't know, I didn't see it.)

But then again, perhaps that's an unfair complaint for me to make, since stories (especially the Hero's Journey) keep repeating the same themes over and over. So the question is: does Wall-e do it better than most? Personally, I don't think so. I'm just underwhelmed by this character and his motivation. Therefore, everything after that (like the themes you mentioned) falls apart for me, including his inexplicable struggle. They did a GREAT job making him sympathetic for a robot who can't speak. But basically, this character was no more developed than R2D2 . . . and I couldn't imagine being moved by a film where R2D2 was the main character.

Cag: this generation's E.T.? Sure, maybe. I never got into that movie, either. Probably for very similar reasons. However, it's portrayal of humans was better. I simply hate the caricatures of humans in this film. The "preaching at me" is so explicit, that even as a slim, fit, exercising human, I took offense at their portrayal of us. Sure, I get the point. People get fat when life is too easy. I even like points about how technology makes us disconnected and alienated from those around us. But I thought it was such an exaggeration, such a, well, caricature, that I couldn't take this "social commentary" seriously. It was simplified and exaggerated for the benefit of children, not thinking adults. Even if I can agree with its points, it treated me like I was stupid. Or . . . a kid.

Best movie I've seen this year? Hell no. That would be Rambo 4. Best kids movie I've seen this year? Like I said: Horton Hears a Who. THAT movie had great characters and intricate themes that were treated in a way that kids could enjoy, but adults didn't have to have it s.p.e.l.l.e.d. out for them. It was also *much* more emotionally powerful. The last scene when they are all shouting: I AM HERE! I AM HERE! My god! That scene nearly started the water works for me. The fact that sentient beings had to struggle with their last breath to assert their bare existence, to be recognized as living, thinking, loving creatures--to be taken seriously for who they are, their own personal reality . . . Wow. That existential metaphor had my soul soaring. [And if you think about it, that theme was very similar to the plight of the Burmese people in Rambo 4--they weren't treated as people worth recognizing as sentient beings.]

And I think it was more visually stunning that Wall-e. And funnier. And it had Jim Carey and Steve Carrel playing the main characters. That's a damn good kids movie that adults can enjoy, too.

Hypocrisy vs irony? I'm tempted to give you that point. Maybe they were being clever, rather than contradictory. But they still made a butt-load of money inducing the exact same behavior in humans which they were "criticizing." That kind of irony pays well. And when irony pays millions, it's hard for me to ignore the hypocrisy.

[Cagliostro]

Well...with any discussion of aesthetics, nobody can fully agree. And it's silly to debate what moves you.

Cag: this generation's E.T.? Sure, maybe. I never got into that movie, either. Probably for very similar reasons.

I'd say it's just a prediction based on how excited people are getting about this movie. But I'm really just talking out of my ass like the reviewers.

I simply hate the caricatures of humans in this film. The "preaching at me" is so explicit, that even as a slim, fit, exercising human, I took offense at their portrayal of us. Sure, I get the point. People get fat when life is too easy. I even like points about how technology makes us disconnected and alienated from those around us. But I thought it was such an exaggeration, such a, well, caricature, that I couldn't take this "social commentary" seriously. It was simplified and exaggerated for the benefit of children, not thinking adults. Even if I can agree with its points, it treated me like I was stupid. Or . . . a kid.

Yeah, I can see how you'd say that. I didn't take so much offense, maybe because I'm dull witted, but also because I saw it more of...I hesitate to say, but more like a parable. Is that the right term? I dunno. But yeah, exaggerated to make the point, and make it clear. Yeah, it wasn't subtle.

Best movie I've seen this year? Hell no. That would be Rambo 4.

Really? Rambo, huh?


Really?
I haven't seen any Rambo flicks since part 2, but...it would have to get a HELL of a lot better for me to have ever considered it best movie of the year. I guess this points out how divergent our tastes are, but again - I've not seen it so I might be surprised.

Best kids movie I've seen this year? Like I said: Horton Hears a Who.

I'd like to see it, but haven't yet. Still, I suspect since I know the story so well, I'd have a hard time getting into it.

But honestly, I'm judging the movie probably from how it made me feel, and I felt it paid off. I might be more of the critic in a couple days, but...I dunno...some of the emotional bits hit some private soft spots (not soft spots in my privates, but rather "soft spots" for private reasons). But I also think some were the human condition, which is why so many are responding to it so well.

I definitely don't think it is the best kid's movie ever made, or anywhere near the best movie ever made. Hell, it probably wouldn't make my decade list for kid's movies (probably Spirited Away would be at the top of that list).

Hypocrisy vs irony? I'm tempted to give you that point. Maybe they were being clever, rather than contradictory. But they still made a butt-load of money inducing the exact same behavior in humans which they were "criticizing." That kind of irony pays well. And when irony pays millions, it's hard for me to ignore the hypocrisy.

I don't see why a movie making money has anything to do with its message. I don't work at Pixar, but I understand they have pretty nice work environment and people love what they do and they get treated right. I don't think they have any desire to turn into B&L. Marketing is a bit of the beast. And if you have a message you want to get across, what better way that in a movie that a lot of people will go see? I don't see how that equals hypocrisy.

It's kinda along the lines of a Chumbawumba interview that I have from this Loveline episode I audio taped over a decade ago. I'm not a Chumbawumba fan, but I did like Loveline (used to tape it every night, but generally taped over it the next night), and I thought the interview was one of those rare great moments. The band were being criticized for having a hit song and supporting anarchy and all that, and the lady said that they wanted success and to be in "people's eyeses" because it would help get their message along better. I dunno...maybe it's a way of justifying "selling out," but I saw this as a bit of a noble and honest response.

[Holsety]

The best Pixar movie is still Monsters Inc. Just saying. Fact.

is a motif that is integral to the hero’s tale, NOT to Christianity. Every culture has a version of this. You basically can’t tell a hero story without it. To elevate it to something as “important” as Christ himself is just stupid.

I kinda disagree here. I don't think you see "sacrifice for the greater good" as an integral part of any hero's story. Take greek heroes, often it's more of a personal gain thing - Achilles goes out and rejoins the war, but he doesn't choose it because he's interested in ending the war - he chooses it because he wants glory and revenge, rather than a long, peaceful life. Perseus actually goes against the grain in the "sacrifice" thing, saving Medea, who's offered up as a sacrifice. Also, I think that sacrifice for a loved one sometimes trumps/conflicts with the "christ parallel" stuff; if you're following the final chronicles of Thomas Covenant right now,

Spoiler

TC chose one girl over the land, and Linden is prioritizing Jeremiah over the land, and I don't think even in TC's case it's mostly a case of choosing reality over fiction.

This isn't really a defense of the people who are tossing "christ parallel" stuff around, and I've gotten kinda off topic, which is embarrassing because that's about all I have to say. But I just wanted to add my 2 cents worth.

Anyway, I'm a still little embarrassed at how much effort I put into the first post above. I thought a couple times about trimming it to make it look like I didn't waste most of a Sunday morning on this. But then I couldn't maintain my "be true" line.

Eh, don't worry about it, thinking about stuff is fun even if it isn't particularly important.