R3view: Wall-E
Director: Andrew Stanton (Finding Nemo, A Bug’s Life)
Writers: Andrew Stanton
Producers: Jim Morris
Starring: Ben Burtt (voice), Elissa Knight (voice), Jeff Garlin (voice), Fred Willard, Sigourney Weaver (voice)
MPAA Rating: G
Running time: 103 min
Synopsis:
We all love the Pixar studio around here, so none of us could decide who should get to write the review for their newest, Wall·E. So we decided we’d all pitch in (or a few of us anyway). Check out our quick thoughts below along with an overall score and then feel free to share your thoughts as well.
Synopsis: 700 years in the future, Earth is completely devoid of any hint of human life. All that remains is a young trash cleaning robot named Wall·E. Wall·E goes about his daily duties as though nothing is wrong; and while he seems to enjoy his “life”, he feels lonely without a companion. One day a recon droid shows up from outer space and turns Wall·E’s life upside down for the better. He finally has a friend… or does he?
Read all of our reviews below…
Jonathan:
Other than maybe Buzz Lightyear, I’m thinking WALL·E is quickly going to be considered Pixar’s most iconic character yet - not too mention their most aww-incuding. The movie itself is a wonder, oozing with heart, and certainly an instant classic.
This movie works on every level all while taking plenty of risks. To create a 103-minute children’s movie almost completely devoid of dialogue would have most studios tucking their tales between their legs at the idea. Pixar pulls it off wonderfully, having WALL·E express himself through mechanical bleeps and robotic expressions and as viewers we’re never having a problem understanding him. It probably helps that this is undoubtedly the most gorgeous animated movie I’ve ever seen.
Some are blasting WALL·E for being preachy and hypocritical. To those accusations, all I can do is laugh and shrug. Sure, it has a message (don’t most movies?), but it’s not blatantly smacking the viewer over the head with it nor does it get too specific beyond that consumerism and pollution are bad (something almost universally agreed upon by everyone that isn’t a Nazi), and both of these are there for a purpose, to further the story and the produce some laughs.
To me, that was simply a subplot and the least interesting part of the movie anyway. The memorable and focal part of the story lies with the relationship between WALL·E and Eve. It’s the most unconventional of love stories written to absolute perfection. I can’t even explain how perfect the interaction between these two characters was, but by the end, it had the lady friend I saw this with in tears.
Pixar truly is in a class of its own. What more can be said?
Marina:
There’s something exceptional about Pixar. Every year they release a new film and every year, they get better at what they do. Going into Wall·E, it was clear that they had surpassed their previous work so the question was: by how much? By leaps and bounds.
A romance between robots in a post apocalyptic world, Wall·E manages to be sweet while harboring a warning of what the future that may be if something doesn’t change. Thankfully, director Andrew Stanton and his crew avoid being preachy and choose instead to incorporate their message into the over arching story, that of a little robot who falls in love. Just when I thought inanimate objects couldn’t make me warm and fuzzy, along comes Wall·E to prove me wrong. It’s difficult to look at him and not feel some pulling of the heart strings; add in music and actions, Wall·E dancing, and it’s impossible to not feel something.
The first 40 minutes of the film are perfect in their silence and quiet way of building character and while the arrival of Eve changes the dynamics slightly, it beautifully helps the story move along, not to mention it gives us something to cheer for. I would have been happy to simply watch the cute little robot clean up the planet, but I was even happier to follow little Wall·E on his search for love. The trip into outer space and the introduction of the humans only seemed a mild distraction, a side story of little interest. I was sucked into Wall·E’s world, his hardships and his love.
Wall·E isn’t a near perfect film, it is perfection. From the opening scene of little Wall·E boxing up garbage to the closing moments of glee, the film had me entranced and almost forgetting that these were cartoon characters and robots at that. An instant classic and a film that is sure to capture the imagination of millions, Wall·E is, hands down, the best film I’ve seen this year and likely one of the best I’ll see all year. I look forward to a many a consequent visit to Wall·E’s world.
Kurt:
I don’t know if a science-fiction movie should be judged by the casting of its fictional president , because well that would make Deep Impact (Morgan Freeman) or Independence Day (Bill Pullman) seem like half-way decent entertainment. But I have to admire the chutzpah of placing Fred Willard as the President/CEO of Earth in Pixar’s Wall·E. Rare that an actors face shows up in one of Pixar’s CGI films, even if it is ‘archival footage.’ Nevertheless, Willard’s all-smiles, no brains (but really there is a brain) vintage comedy fits perfectly into the science fiction tale where big box stores, privatization and consumer detritus have made life on earth forfeit. That all is left is a single garbage handling unit (well and his cockroach companion, natch) who is all the lonelier for having as his only emotional anchor the innocent and saccharine HELLO DOLLY! If holding hands while staring into your partners eyes is the ultimate physical expression of true love, then Wall·E, with his large grips and larger puppy-dog eyes seems born to do so.
There are just mountains of garbage and dust-clouds for an extended (and sublime) wordless introduction the world of Wall·E, until two curious things happen. A) Wall·E finds a plant, for which the possibilities and significance are lost on him, and B) a companion robot comes to town on a surveying mission, which, judging by the yearning in his eyes (and body language), the possibilities and significance are not. The fact that the film starts with a mountain of garbage a world-spanning super-corporation which owns everything and a population dumbed down to ‘drink-from-a-straw’ food and flashy, empty video monitors (oh yea, and advertising, advertising, advertising) makes this look like Pixar’s stab at Mike Judge’s Idiocracy (the casting of Kathy “Peggy Hill” Najimy in a tiny speaking part seems to also lend credence). I adore how Brad Bird’s Ratatouille aimed to stretch its audience, and the same is true for Wall·E. Let me postulate that Wall·E is the film that Enchanted should have been. Instead of Disney taking the facile and over-done target of princess/fairytale gender politics (and still falling on its face in its aim to please), Pixar throws a loaded cannon ball across the bow of the mother corporation for making the hermetically sealed Disneyland (happy ignorance) and the endless merchandising of instantaneously disposable plastic toys (happy meal) be the destruction of the planet, and (over the process of 700 years) turning people into immobile slugs. Underscored triply by the last vestige of civilization blissfully ignorant on a pandering paradise of a cruise ship, every whim indulged with zero (negative) progress as the result. And get this, the ship is called Axiom (as Wikipedia tells me, ‘is a proposition considered to be self evident’)!
But really the film plays out like an inverted E.T. with Wall·E (who in hindsight looks and acts a lot more like Spielberg’s creation than Johnny #5) bringing folks home via a plant specimen, rather than gathering them for study on his own world. There are elements of many science fiction films wonderfully woven into the fabric of the film, 2001: A Space Odyssey being the big point (Zarathustra, The Blue Danube and HAL all make an appearance), but also elements from Close Encounters of the Third Kind, I Am Legend, Star Wars (the droid aspects and sound designer Ben Burtt whose signature is palpable) and curiously Peter Jackson’s King Kong (the added, but not extraneous, New York ice skate here is re-purposed to a whimsical robot mating-dance in the vacuum of space). Sigourney Weaver makes a vocal cameo as the voice of the computer, perhaps a gag on her communications officer in Galaxy Quest, but more likely a sly reference to Mother on board the Nostromo (another great ship name) in Alien. Ultimately the film wants to be (and succeeds in being} vintage populist cinema, a fusion of the energetic and clever WB cartoons from the 40s, the classy silent cinema of Buster Keaton, Charlie Chaplin and Jacques Tati and above all, a drippy ode-to-love musical one can get breezily lost in. Curious that Disney has been cutting out the musical numbers out of their films for some time, their 2D animated films have always been the ersatz musicals after MGM and the other big studios stopped making them. Wall·E captures the most important thing that Pixar strives for: Wonder (and heart). It cannot be rushed and it has to grow organically; even if that is out of the mountain of garbage (judging by the trailers in front of Wall·E) that is becoming the CGI kids film strata.
John:
It is now about 30 hours since I left the theatre and I’m still torn on how to write up this review. Therefore I’m going to use this mini review as a sounding board for my thoughts. When I walked out of the theatre I felt somewhat unsatisfied with what I had just seen. The first half of Wall·E is pure beauty on so many levels. I along with the audience fell in love with the small trash compacting robot whose only friend is an indestructible cockroach. The story continued to be wonderfully told once Eve appeared on the scene and I still loved every minute of the fact that hardly a single word had been spoken. The message of the movie was being handled perfectly and did not feel over done. I even loved the scenes between Eve and Wall·E when they were in space by themselves. The artists and storytellers at Pixar are simply amazing when it comes to creating a simple love story we can care about. For some reason though, the movie just fell flat with me during the second half. This is where I run into a problem with the movie. When they introduce the other robots and the humans I lost interest. I’ll give it that it was fun to watch some of the antics but the story for me just lost the magic that it had in the first half. There is no way that the movie could really continue with just Wall·E and Eve on Earth. Everything in the story makes perfect sense to me but it just didn’t sit well. I wish I could describe it better but I can’t. It is just a gut feeling that I have.
I guess what it comes down to is that I loved the characters of Wall·E and Eve and even though I’ll admit that a full movie with just them would not have worked, that it was still what I wanted. All the secondary characters were good enough and the story was fine but it just did not have the magic of the love story between Wall·E and Eve. Wall·E is still a movie that I’d highly recommend but I do feel that the second half is sub-par when compared to the high standard that was set during the beginning.
One final note, I know I do not have to say this to most of the readers here but I’ll say it anyways just in case someone wanders upon this review. Please stick around during the credits. The story continues on during the credits with some beautiful artwork that explains what happens to all the humans and robots. In the theatre I was at more than half the audience got up and left even though it was obvious that the story was still being told.
Andrew:
I seem to be in a very small minority (or maybe the only one) on this planet who doesn’t think Wall·E is quite the Oscar worthy film that has critics pissing in their pants with glee. Sure, it looks gorgeous and yes, it’s probably the darn cutest movie you’re ever likely to see in the next twelve months, but that’s about where the praise ends for me.
I was having quite the time exploring the apocalyptic world with Wall·E as he finds his knick-knacks and his curiosity always gets the better of him. I enjoyed his chance encounter and subsequent adventures with Eve, his pseudo “girl-friend” for lack of a better word. And even when we leave Earth and travel with Wall·E onto a massive space ship I was having a good time wondering where the adventure would take us next. Then it happened. Wall·E rounds a corner in the space ship and there are humans everywhere. I remember my smile literally turning to a frown as soon as I saw that, knowing the storyline had just changed - likely for the worst.
The next 50 minutes or so turns into a giant, hit you over the head, environmental message movie with a wee-bit of Mike Judge’s Idiocracy thrown in for good measure. While I can appreciate the message, I didn’t find it particularly interesting or provocative. Then when it becomes a standard Pixar movie with the chase scenes and “action” sequences, I really started to get antsy.
Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed Wall·E for the most part, the sound design and visuals alone were enough to make it worth it; but that’s probably not enough to get me to sit through it again. There must be something obviously wrong with me, but I’d say this is my least favorite Pixar movie to date (next to A Bug’s Life).
Consensus:
Average score:
What did YOU think of Wall-E?
Relevant Links:
IMDb profile
Official Site
Flixster Profile
Comment by Raul — July 1, 2008
Comment by Eaglewing — July 1, 2008
Comment by Dave — July 1, 2008
Comment by Cinexcellence — July 1, 2008
Comment by Cinexcellence — July 1, 2008
When we recorded the Cinecast last night (lots of WallE, Wanted) we forgot (dang!) to mention the fabulous closing credits of WallE which goes from cave paintings all the way up to the impressionist art period, then into the age of ‘digital art’ where WallE stands as one of the crowning achievements (of digital artistry). It is a glorious celebration of how art, storytelling and creation connects human beings (rather than simple consumption). And for once a sumptuous credit sequence belongs at the end of the film as it makes a lot more sense to do that there. Wow.
Comment by Kurt — July 1, 2008
and it’s not those stupid blooper reels. Those things are a menace. People who laugh at them are idiots.
Comment by Rusty James — July 1, 2008
WallE uses the end credits in a way to keep telling the story but with other things going on. Very nice.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — July 1, 2008
Yes, it was hilarious on Home Improvement.
Comment by Rusty James — July 1, 2008
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — July 1, 2008
As for the credits in “Wall-E,” not only was the visual storytelling awesome, but I liked the sounds too. There was a more poppy song, and then sort of a digital, electronica tune that was really pretty.
Comment by Andrew James — July 1, 2008
Comment by Rusty James — July 1, 2008
Comment by Rusty James — July 1, 2008
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — July 1, 2008
Comment by Rusty James — July 1, 2008
Comment by Rusty James — July 1, 2008
I’m afraid I don’t follow you Kurt.
Comment by Rusty James — July 1, 2008
Comment by Colleen — July 1, 2008
However:
“The next 50 minutes or so turns into a giant, hit you over the head, environmental message movie with a wee-bit of Mike Judge’s Idiocracy thrown in for good measure.”
Andrew. Come on. I mean, I know in general while you come across as somewhat liberal with reservations about messages too far in either direction, I have to scoff a bit at you here. I mean, you realize (and hit the imdb boards for proof) that theres also this fat people pushback at the movie. Some ultra conservative sites are saying “blah blah Al Gore blah blah Wall-E brainwashing.” - They also bring up some stuff about anti-corporations and Disney and hypocrisy bladabladabla. It was annoying and stupid with Happy Feet and its annoying now. On the other hand I know a couple people who were mad at Bee Movie (which I’ve never seen) because apparently its anti-union? And I have another friend who thinks Brave Little Toaster is anti-semitic. Seriously.
Now in all these movies, I’m not saying there isn’t some messaging. But lets be clear - Wall-E is a love story about future robots, with an action movie part to it, and most of this stuff is a means to an end. If you didn’t know months ago that a movie about a future robot in a world that has been destroyed by garbage, would NOT have anything environmental about, I don’t know what the hell you were thinking. And whats with the American resistance to ANY environmental message? lets be honest, at some point the Republicans gave up on that base and now its a “partisan issue”, which makes me want to puke. The worlds going to fall to pieces over political strategy, that’s the real garbage. As for the corporate part, if we really want to play this analytical game, what we have is a company that got so large they took over the world, and created this society that is both ultra capitalist and ultra socialist or communist at the same time. Regardless of what I think of the second half, that’s pretty brilliant and transcends any comment on current politics. If conservatives want to analyse whats on Tinky Winky’s head, how close Spongebob and Patrick are, and the deistic beliefs of penguins, they also have to recognize at the end of this movie the fat people give up their sedentary lifestyles, return to earth and pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Isnt that the conservative message to a tee? or is that all nullified and doesn’t count because they’re cleaning and tending to the earth, and they’re not even Mexican?
Comment by Goon — July 1, 2008
I actually really didn’t like the credits. The panning shot over more hills with more plants was hopeful enough - I didn’t like seeing things get so spelled out for us. To me it would be like if at the end of “4 Months…” instead of cutting out during that shot, they got up, left the restaurant and went to see “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure” - maybe not an apt comparison, but that would give me the same ‘what the fuck, no please stop’ face I had at the end of Wall-E.
Comment by Goon — July 1, 2008
Andrew, another reason the “Idiocracy” thing is way off - well for one the fact Wall-E was in production long before Idiocracy was written, if you’re insinuating anything.
In Idiocracy, the people are the future are complacent and don’t want to save the planet if it means any work, or costing them their money or entertainment. The people of Wall-E regain their childlike sense of wonder the second they are diverted from their entertainment, and are eager to as the captain states, “live”. They’re not stupid, they’re simply stuck in a materialistic world they can’t escape.
Both movies have a world trapped in trash with corporate ownership of government. That’s about where it ends with me.
Comment by Goon — July 1, 2008
I mean c’mon, believable is not necessarily what I’m looking for, but that is just too ridiculous for the message they’re trying to convey. Does Disney/Pixar/Stanton really envision something even remotely like that in our future? It’s a semi-serious love story and then they hit us over the head with this bologna. I saw it in Idiocracy and thought it was great because it fit within the theme of the movie. With Wall-E, it nearly derails the beauty and simplicity that was going on for the first half of the film.
Podcast exploring this should be posted late tonight.
Comment by Andrew James — July 1, 2008
I will agree its not as subtle as say, the energy crisis underpinnings in “Monsters Inc”. I think its not so much messaging as a result of the challenge of making these characters look trapped and needing to get back to earth. Like there’s stakes. Its hard to do in 45 minutes, they did it better than bad, they just didn’t do it as well as it would have been if the movie had been over 2 hours. Part of this is devil’s advocate, because I do agree that the obviousness made it less engrossing. I’ll continue:
“Does Disney/Pixar/Stanton really envision something even remotely like that in our future? It’s a semi-serious love story and then they hit us over the head with this bologna.”
I could simply say “well it is a childrens film” but that doesnt fly as an excuse. I think that since the love story of the first half was in this bleak quiet world that has these massive storms, people were under the impression, at least i was, going into the second half that we were gonna get a more serious film with only subtle laughs and sight gags and ‘awww’ moments. When you don’t get what you want, we all know we can tend to nitpick more than we would otherwise. It’s possible that on rewatch we’re going to see more in common between the first and second halves.
Again, all that is playing devil’s advocate, but yeah its true, as I nitpick and criticize now on rewatch I may turn out to be an apologist and love it more. I have to acknowledge even in the scenes I was less fond of, or as Colleen says, “Sucked”, there’s very very clever stuff going on. I loved for example, the captain’s portraits. People mostly only noticed that the captains got fatter, but at the same time Auto gets closer, and the lifespans of the captains get shorter and shorter, to the point where they were only like 20 years old. There’s a part in the future saying something like “we care about your debt” - as if these familiies who went on this exodus are 700 years later still being charged for it. again, that’s one message that is right there, but done more subtly than i realized until a little later from the theater - when one capitalist conglomorate takes ultimate control, even if everyone’s still being a consumer, it almost becomes the opposite system. not exactly a paradox, but i love when people can point out situations where someone becomes “so left wing that they’re right wing” and vice versa.
Comment by Goon — July 1, 2008
WallE uses the music to imply humans ‘re-evolving’ to upright bipedal and active humans rather than shake-sipping Instant Messaging Slugs. Sure it has a bit of a sense of humour, but it not just there for a sight-gag
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — July 1, 2008
America’s celebration of Mediocrity = Incredibles had a few good things to say
America’s celebration of loss of valuation of artistic creativity = Ratatouille
Consumer culture and disposable quick-fix junk/entertainment over concern and the long view = WALL-E
Of course each of the films is telling a story on top, the Love Story is absolutely central in WallE, but it is nice to see a science fiction film with something to chew on. And a kids film a that. I think this is progress, and I hope Pixar can keep the bar at this level.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — July 1, 2008
Comment by Dale — July 1, 2008
Comment by Andrew James — July 1, 2008
sacre bleu. Jour heureux tout du Canada vous nord des weirdos de frontière !
Comment by Rusty James — July 1, 2008
ditto.
Throwaway sums up 2008 thus far.
Comment by rot — July 1, 2008
I guess every website needs an Eeyore.
Comment by Goon — July 1, 2008
Soderbergh, Coens and Fincher should be coming to my rescue later in the year though.
Comment by Andrew James — July 1, 2008
Looking Forward to:
Boarding Gate
Burn After Reading
The Road
Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Splice
Blindness
The Good The Bad and the Weird
Three Monkeys
The Pineapple Express
Sparrow
and
Transsiberian
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — July 1, 2008
And also a bit of Dr. Cormac McCarthy is good for the soul.
Comment by Andrew James — July 1, 2008
Comment by rot — July 1, 2008
Comment by Good — July 1, 2008
Funny Games? ok, but it is riding on the coattails of its predecessor.
Cloverfield? meh.
Wall-E? a fine film and all, but lasting quality?
I genuinely think Maddin’s My Winnipeg is a masterpiece but because it has shown in 2007 it feels something like a leftover from that great crop.
I have liked some films so far, and some have been purely entertaining (The Happening) but it does all feel so throwaway.
Comment by rot — July 1, 2008
Speed Racer. Seriously.
Comment by Good — July 1, 2008
Comment by rot — July 1, 2008
Things halfway entertaining now cause such fervor you would think any breech from formula was cause for praise… its not merely that you try something new, it has to also be interesting and engaging. This is the era of stylization, infatuated with how things look without the care to use the style towards any narrative end. CGI affords such great potential but mostly we suffice with empty dazzles.
Comment by rot — July 1, 2008
Comment by rot — July 1, 2008
@rot - Some more E.T. talk in the cinecast in regards to WallE. I certainly like WallE a heckuvalot better than ET. But WallE is definitely cut from the Spielbergian cloth, the only thing missing is the ‘father issues’ present in a lot of S’s films.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — July 1, 2008
My impression of you as an Eeyore goes far beyond whether you like a comic book movie. It’s a total package thing. If that impression changes, it changes, but from the very beginning I think of you as a condescending snob with no sense of humor about himself or his own opinions.
Comment by Good — July 2, 2008
Comment by Good — July 2, 2008
Hah, in regard to Rot, I’ve known him for a while, and that couldn’t be further from the truth. Text and context are funny things on the interwebs.
Comment by Kurt — July 2, 2008
Comment by rot — July 2, 2008
Comment by rot — July 2, 2008
Pingback by A E » Blog Archive » Comment on R3 Review: Wall·E by Andrew James — July 2, 2008
Pingback by A E » Blog Archive » Comment on R3 Review: Wall·E by Kurt Halfyard — July 2, 2008
http://cinemablend.com/new/Are-We-Giving-Pixar-Too-Much-Credit-9383.html
Comment by Andrew James — July 3, 2008
It’s always difficult to compare the best films of the year because films can be so different. How do you compare Wall-E to something like The Road? Do you even bother with the comparison or do you simply judge it on its own merit? I think I do my best to measure films on their own and for me, regardless of how good/bad a studio has performed in the past doesn’t necessarily have an effect on what I expect. I go into every movie hoping to love it and sometimes, that doesn’t pay off but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that and I think the same is true for Pixar’s films. I go in expecting more than a mediocre movie and sometimes it delivers and sometimes it doesn’t.
Comment by Marina Antunes — July 3, 2008
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — July 3, 2008
We’ll probably be fighting about this through our year end top ten list in January. The movie is good, but it’s not THAT good. All this Oscar nomination crap is ridiculous.
For me personally, I didn’t find it moving or deep in the slightest and the message is heavy-handed, been done before and what dialogue there is (from the humans - the robot “speech” is fabulous), is childish - though I’m a big fan of Jeff Garlin. And that’s cool. That’s cool. It is a kid’s film after all. But again, best picture of the year? Perfect? Puh-leeaze.
Comment by Andrew James — July 3, 2008
Comment by Marina Antunes — July 3, 2008
Comment by Goon — July 3, 2008
Little late to the poo poo party but my answer is The Fall without even thinking twice. It would have easily made my top 10 last year, and will probably be top 3 this year.
Comment by Matt Gamble — July 4, 2008
And that would be sad if that’s the best picture of the year. This is why I don’t think the academy should just choose 5. It should be either 2 or up to 10. Why does the voting HAVE to be limited at five?
Comment by Andrew James — July 4, 2008
POSTAL
DOOMSDAY
both highly rewatchable for me.
Comment by Colleen — July 4, 2008
Comment by Marina Antunes — July 4, 2008
What?
“WallE was also the first film that my 3.5 year old daughter had an emotional reaction to…which was interesting.”
How is this interesting? This is about as interesting as somebody telling me their kid laughed when they put the square block in the square.
I had heard that the film used Also Sprach Zarathustra. Sounds like another mindblowing creative move from Pixar. If anybody has seen Frasier, you may remember an episode where he reacts to the suggestion of using this music in an astronomy radio show. I think I would react the same way, had I watched Wall-E, which isn’t out here untill the end of August.
Comment by Henrik — July 12, 2008
on Also Sprach Zarathustra, it is actually used in a compelling way, not a gag. It underscores a point. Of course it isn’t as awe-inspiring as 2001, but one of the fascinating things about WallE is how a lot of pop-cultural detritus can achieve sublimity when stripped out of the noise and focused on with the intensity of someone who is all alone and longing for connection. Who would have thought that the film would milk so much emotion out of Hello Dolly.
My point with Zarathustra is that unlike many animated films (*cough* Dreamworks) the music is not used as a joke, it is used to a purpose as well as a bit of self-deprecation on the part of the filmmakers).
Comment by Kurt — July 12, 2008
Sounds to me like the music is being used to cater to the nerds who watched 2001 and didn’t really understand it and thought it was kind of boring and weird, but still namedrop it any chance they get to try and convince people their brains are occupied with intelligent thoughts. They come in their nerd pants when it’s injected into a dumb, beautiful, simple film that they understand, because like any child they enjoy being told a story, because it cheaply lends the film artistic credibility.
Had the director been interesting in anything other than validating his film arbitrarily, he would not have used that music. What kind of uncreative person would?? I can’t imagine making a sci-fi movie and putting that music in it.
Comment by Henrik — July 12, 2008
Well, once again Pixar rides the free-pass of being animated to glory.
Comment by Henrik — July 12, 2008
Obviously you know nothing of the sort, as you’ve not actually seen the film. And you didn’t read my comments above. Pixar does not get a free pass for anything. If they make a great movie, then it is a great movie. (If they make Cars, then they are held accountable (by me anyway) for it).)
If you can’t see the interest in a the awakening of empathy in a child then there ain’t much help for you. It was a sidebar comment that lent a further piece of evidence at the quality of job Pixar did in injecting emotions into the proceedings.
Comment by Kurt — July 13, 2008
I want consistency, but I want to hear the personal associations people have with the film, that to me is the most important. Just please don’t universalize those associations which are entirely subjective.
Comment by rot — July 13, 2008
And Pixar gets a free pass because you consistently compare it only to other animated films, yet rate it on the same scale as you do live-action films. None of the Pixar films I have seen (excluding Wall-E and A Bugs life) could have worked had they not been animated, and that to me, is a major flaw. People are still blinded by the ‘WOW, I can’t believe there is a 20-second discussion about raising a child, this is a KIDS FILM! 5/5″ mentality, which to me, is giving the stuff a free pass. It’s still shallow as hell, even if your offspring enjoys it.
Comment by Henrik — July 13, 2008
Comment by Kurt — July 13, 2008
Comment by Henrik — July 13, 2008
No, Animated films can achieve their end (and this is as much at adults as children) in a different manner than live action films, but they are capable of greatness. And I’d put most of the Pixar fare (especially Stanton & Bird) up there with Hayao Miyazaki, Isao Takahata (watch Grave of the Fireflies and tell me that it’s only 12% of a ‘normal film’) and Satoshi Kon.
Are they playing in the same territory as Bergman, Antonioni or Kubrick? Not really, the Pixar company is aiming at more mainstream entertainment rather than high art. But they achieve this remarkably well and the often cross the line into art.
I think you are the one with the Pixar bias, Mr. Ninja Turtles and are projecting it on the rest of us who can spot a pretty good film…
Comment by Kurt — July 13, 2008
I don’t understand how you can rate Pixar and people like Bergman or Kubrick on the same scale. If The Incredibles gets 5/5, what does 2001 get?
I wouldn’t mind watching Grave of the Fireflies I think. But I had a horrible experience with Spirited Away so that has scared me off the anime stuff.
Comment by Henrik — July 13, 2008
Comment by Kurt — July 14, 2008