There is no denying Wall-E is an event. This, for so many reasons both large and small. I was trying to figure out what irritating me most about Stephanie Zacharek’s review of the film (since Ryan is on vacation and all), and I think it’s that she commits an unpardonable sin for any film critic: she has misplaced expectations. Her review of Wall-E mostly says that the film is great in the first half but begins its march towards the mediocre and predictable in the second half. I couldn’t disagree with her more and here’s why: that last part is where the film packs its most powerful punch. Why? Because it’s the moment where it all begins to make sense in a glorious big picture way. Was I the only person who walked out of the theater looking differently at the world and my own life? I doubt it.
Also, Zacharek forgets that this is a summer movie, an animated feature designed to entertain children primarily. She is holding it to impossible standards by expecting it to be an art house movie through and through. What would it be then? A daring box office bomb. It would quietly be packed away, having satisfied five critics and would occasionally be brought back out on top ten lists. It may ultimately rise to the top of that list. But to me, that means that the film hit only those whose ideas it already corresponded with; how remarkable that the film will reach millions. Kids will see this movie and that is probably the most important thing. What Stanton and Pixar have done here is turn their success around and used it responsibly.
So, is it a message movie? In so many ways, yes. Because underneath all of its heartbreaking romance and its clever Mac references and gadgetry, and its odd depiction of our future it is saying, essentially, that Earth needs humans as much as humans need Earth.
It is far too easy to slip into the belief that our blue planet is better off without us. Perhaps it is, but if we go so does appreciation of music, toys, films, humor, human contact – this is a film that doesn’t condemn us but celebrates us. Wall-E is a representation of all of the good human beings left behind, underneath the defecation and waste, the trash and consumerism. He has lived among it for 700 years and in that time he has picked up that great human trait of compassion. He introduces himself to braindead people and robots; he falls in love and convinces a hard-shelled creature to fall back in love with him. He makes art where there is none. He turns trash into treasure.
Without the end, or the last part of this movie, none of these ideas would come to fruition. It would be a sad and lonely tale, perhaps a cautionary one – but it would not carry the heft of a message that is becoming increasingly difficult to get across, especially to our kids who are plugged into the nipple of Capitalism younger and younger, just as in the film. The kids are being programmed to buy happiness through useless things.
Wall-E, to me, is more than just a good movie. It’s a subtle, grand wake-up call.
Beautiful Post, Sasha!!
I FINALLY saw this last night, & I’m still digesting it.
I really wanted it to end when Wall-E & Eve were ‘dancing’ out in space – a kind of ‘screw all these crazy people’ anarchic ending, but I totally agree with you about why I’m glad it didn’t end there. It takes that chaos and turns it to a responsible ending that’s actually pretty darn profound on a bigger level. Its a gorgeous and, for the most-part, thoroughly unpredictable movie. It spelt out the message a bit more than would have been to my liking, but luckily they didn’t make it for ME, but for kids as well. So its understandable. There was still an amazing poetry to the screenplay in the way the story & the bigger picture unfolded. It lost it for me a bit in the end, but the moment where the captain is talking to the plant, but the globe is there in the shot and he says “All it needs is someone to take care of it” hit it me like a ton of masterful bricks. Gorgeous.
My comment is a little late. Its not my fault.. 🙁
I think you’ve taken your original intent (humor through hyperbole) way too far in this comment, Ryan. Way too far. You know, the “Ph.D. thesis” jab, the dig at me for the hyphen post, etc. Again, it’s all a bit facile but I recognize and respect the desire to lighten it back up. Fine, fair enough.
I recognize the intention behind your original post, but it seemed to me one of many, many times on this site that a contrary opinion to the authors’ is met with snide cynicism and unfair “dismantling.” I’m certainly guilty of this, but rarely when I’ve seen the film in question (so please, no linking to my Anne Thompson/Dark Knight item in the way of demonstration).
I do, however, think it’s fair to consider what occurred here a “cry baby fest.” When your met with comments like “no one likes you” or some such garbage, how can it be considered anything else? The majority of the comments were as underhanded in their defense of you, I felt, as the post I was criticizing.
And naturally, I should hope any discussion I bring to this table ought to be considered “upfront” and “honorable.” I don’t have time to grind axes, despite what others here might (apparently) think. I’m much too busy being in London and reminding people of it constantly, it seems.
Which I’m back now, by the way. Viva LA.
Is it safe? Eez eet szafe? Can I slip in near the end and finally take part in this turmoil stirred up like a tantrum in a teapot? I was (luckily) away for several days and unable to defend my position when things heated up. Coming back online, I felt like it might already be old news and was fine with letting it slide. But somebody wanted to bring it up again so, “Just when I though I was out…”
Maybe my absence (and uncharacteristic silence) was part of the reason other readers stepped in to speak out. If so, I really appreciate it guys. But whoa, how did this little difference of opinion turn into such a big deal? Can we go back to see what seemed to light the fuse, and try to determine how it got out of hand?
Innocuous enough. I can shrug that off. Easy to pick apart all the multiple rebuttals that followed, line by line, but then someone might have further excuse to accuse me of the “worst kind” of dissection. (The “specific” kind that’s so abhorrent. The sort of deconstruction based on, you know, people’s actual words they write.)
Instead, I’ll just say that maybe my brand of dissection looked “easy” but I can’t take credit for that. In fact it’s actually the shoddy logic and sketchy justifications in the original Salon piece that made the dismantling so easy.
In the Shadow of the Mood
I’ll admit, I use a looser style when I make a comment on page 2. If I’ve learned anything from the Joker the past few months, it’s to avoid being so deadly serious. First of all, what I wrote was not an “analysis,” Kris. It was an off-the-cuff impression, deliberately arch and mischievous (yeah, I try to have some fun playing the role of rascal).
But since you targeted this remark to jump on with such vehemence it now provides me with the perfect platform to try out some deeper analysis: The nature of articles and comments in blogs, and the shifting tones and attitudes all of us use on different occasions — and depending our changing moods.
When I focus more intently on something and put more care into how to phrase a thought, I don’t waste all that effort in the comments. (ha) You can bet I publish that baby on the main page. Take for example the piece posted just a few hours before Sasha’s item two weeks ago. The EVE/egg parallels so clearly evident and richly symbolic in in WALL·E.
So yeah, it did bother me a little that Kris wanted to overlook my more serious attempt at analysis as if it didn’t exist, and chose instead to come after me in a casual comment — a typically flip remark that I’ll be the first to admit was meant to be nothing more than wry observation.
I did hope the comparison with Kubrick’s film had some relevance, so it’s gratifying that some people got the connection. But for all we know, Stephanie Zacahrek thinks 2001: A Space Odyssey is “weirdly disjointed” too — and she has every right to that opinion. I don’t share that view, however, so I teasingly laid the plots side by side. If Kris is not among those willing to grant the validity of the parallel, that’s perfectly cool with me. (Like I really care, right? But let’s pretend I do.)
Mystic Waver
Speaking of teasing, would it be entirely unfair to point out a similar frivolous item? Two weeks ago, the extent of Kris’s “cogent counterpoint” about WALL·E consisted of this incisive 39-word exploration of his own analytical crisis, fretting about whether to use a hyphen or an asterisk in the WALL·E title.
My god! Not since the Danish prince cried out from depths of castle Elsinore has there been a more agonizing soliloquy! I can sure see why you felt this worthy of a main page headline post on your site, Kris. (and, for the record, I’ve been going with the “dot” — respecting the filmmakers artistic intentions — instead of throwing my hands up in dismay and declaring, “I’m certainly not going to cut and paste the dot every time.” … Take the “easy way” much, Kris? (ha)
See, I never would’ve otherwise mentioned something so silly because I can tell when Kris is feeling relaxed and just having some fun. Also, because I understand that Kris hasn’t even seen WALL·E yet. He’s in London (as he never tires of reminding us.) (ha)
But by ignoring anything else I’ve written about WALL·E, and zeroing in on something easy to snark about, I think it opens up an opportunity to show how it feels to receive equally cavalier treatment. So there you have it.
We get it, Kris. You hadn’t seen the movie, and you had nothing first-hand to say about WALL·E on your own site, so you come here to share the same amount of nothing at AD. What exactly was the “cogent counterpoint” you brought to this discussion? Worse than what I did with Zacharek, you take my words apart, but offer no substitute view of your own. Not even an “easy” analogy.
Anatomy of a Worder
I’m not saying my hapazard EVE/egg ruminations were any kind of Sight & Sound cover story, but I’ve tried to treat this film with some serious attention bordering on meditative reverence. However, I realize those kind of twisty analyses are their own sort of bravado self-pleasuring and not everybody cares to watch me wank off. (ha)
But please know that in a brief comment like the one I made here 2 weeks ago I’m not interested in doing a high-flown PhD. thesis. I only wanted to stop by AD briefly to make a quick pithy point. If I see a loose thread in a writer’s assertions, I guess I’m guilty of tugging on that loose thread to see how easily the whole argument unravels. But I intentionally try to do it with a light tone, to alleviate whatever sting it might bring.
Maybe that’s the easy way; and maybe it’s not, Kris. (You should try a little humor once in a while and find out for yourself. (ha)
But whether I try to go deep, or simply joke around superficially, everything I write here is for the sheer unadulterated fun of it, and hopefully in the process of entertaining myself a few other people might have some fun too. Other bloggers can appear to take their writing way too seriously, treating it like diligent work — and consequently those writers can be a real chore to read.
À la recherche du points perdu
But back to the original point of this entire discussion (if it’s possible to steer the topic back on track after being hijacked and derailed). As Sam rightly says, I’ve mentioned many many times that Stephanie Zacharek is my very favorite film critic. In my opinion she’s the heiress to Pauline Kael’s legacy of cinematic perception and dazzling use of language. She’s a terrific prose stylist, and pure pleasure to read.
In simplest terms (sans sarcasm), it seemed to me that Stephanie Zacharek’s main complaint is that the movie started out bleak and somehow found a way to work toward the light at the end of the tunnel. All I’m asking: isn’t it a little much to expect of an animated movie to give up any hope of a happy ending for the sake of relentless despair? For that kind of kick, the kids can go home and Netflix Tystnaden, or Stalingrad. Or hang tight and wait for the Haggis remake: Million Dollar WALL·E. (oops, did I say “sans sarcasm”? d’oh!)
But hey, here’s the thing: I don’t have to agree with every word Zacharek writes to admire the way she uses those words. If my own comments sometimes sound too casual or rowdy, that’s just me trying to find a voice that comes across with the same conversational enthusiasm employed by fine writers like Zacharek (and our fearless leader, Sasha Stone).
I know not every barb I aim will hit its intended target, but I’m not gonna stop practicing just because a couple of quips might fall flat. If even a half dozen people like what I’m doing, then I’m vain enough to focus on those few supporters instead of being discouraged by others who might have a gripe.
Besides — and maybe most significantly — even though Zacharek’s appraisal of WALL·E is all alone at the bottom of the metacritic rankings, her review still got a score of 70. That’s far from being a vitriolic pan, isnt’ it? Another movie (whose title I try to avoid typing) won the Oscar for Best Picture three years ago — with an average metacritic score of 69.
Finding Emo
I have huge respect for what you’ve accomplished, Kris. I enjoy your site — and should visit more often to shake things up like you’ve done here. A topic with 70 comments is sweet to see, whatever generates the discussion, right? I trust your being upfront with honorable intentions for friendly debate.
But there were some grenades packed inside your phrasing (“facile,” “underhanded”) that you must’ve known were sure to draw fire. And “cry-baby fest”? Really, Kris? Is that how you make friends on your tour of other sites? So it’s ok for you to repeatedly defend yourself, but if anybody else does the same, they’re “cry-babies”?
See, Kris, tone matters and carries a meaning beyond the words on the surface. Some words are meant to be fun to read, and others seem intended only to discredit and disparage. Whether an actual attack or merely perceived to be, AD readers are a sharp literate crowd, and they quickly pick up on the difference.
[And if this doesn’t end the slap-fight, I don’t know what will.]
😎
“And I can only assume that you bother, Sam, because you have an issue with me.”
Why would you assume that, Kris? I know little about you other than that I have agreed (and disagreed) with some of your published opinions on films. I have even complimented you a few times for embracing esoteric cinema on your year-end listings. My issue was never with you, but with your posting. I can’t speak for others, but I have restricted what I have said (no matter how forceful) to the content and essence of your post. I had strong reason to suspect that your problems with the post may well have been exacerbated by some past row. (you have now denied this)
The only summary judgement I have reached concerning you is that you have evinced little humor in your commentaries, reviews and postings. This may help to explain why you found little in Ryan’s submission and reacted the way you did, when a number of others saw that comic vein and wit from the get-go.
I am all for love, peace and understanding (with a little jocularity thrown in) in the wonderful world of Awards Daily.
Just because I call someone’s comments facile and underhanded doesn’t mean I bear some ill will toward them. It’s childish on its face to think otherwise.
Yes, I know Ryan is a popular guy around these parts. Hell, he’s a popular guy with ME. I enjoy his creativity…always have. But I took umbrage with his comments in this post and I offered my criticisms. I respect the disagreement of others but should I respect the disrespect? Silly little asides such as the one Rob brings to light? I should think not.
If you want Awards Daily to be a commenters’ dictatorship (which you clearly do — how dare I take Ryan to task!), that’s between you and yours. Personally, I prefer discourse.
Also, the day I abandon an opinion because it isn’t shared by others who wish to comment is the day I die inside. I should think, as someone with a free-thinking mind, you would understand that.
And I can only assume that you bother, Sam, because you have an issue with ME. If that is the case, I truly hope you get over it. But I don’t want to sit here and put you on a couch when I’ve already called you out on the same thing, so I’ll just leave it at that.
Here’s to peace, love and understanding in the wonderful world of Awards Daily.
“It’s a shame, Sam, that you and a few others have to make this about me, or worse about me and Ryan.”
Kris, YOU were the one who make the initial protestation, and hence instigated all the retortions. It makes perfect sense that the posters would make you an issue. As far as “you and Ryan” goes, you are now refuting any suppositions that you may have had an ongoing feud with him. Yet you are the only person on these threads who found his original comments “facile” and “underhanded,” while a number of others praised his creativity, humor and wit.
There surely is no time limit on defending yourself, but when a thread has lain dormant for the better part of two weeks, it’s bite has diminished and its premise is redundant.
Ryan Adams is a very popular guy in these parts, and he is by and large a perceptive, tasteful and creative guy. You must have surely known beforehand that such a confrontational posting would incur the wrath of a number of people who have been enriched by his humor, insight and contributions on AD. These people must continue to ponder why he was called out by lampooning ONE, SINGLE, SOLITARY writing by a critic he professes to like and favor above all others.
I must wonder, why even bother?
Sam, my comment has nothing to do with anything in the past. And Ryan and I have had plenty of exchanges burying hatchets, so please, don’t try to put someone on the couch, and don’t be so petty.
The issue was “resurrected after two weeks” because I only today read the unnecessarily inflammatory and offensive rebuttals. Is there a time limit on defending oneself?
This was, again, not an attack (though it was admittedly confrontational — I didn’t realize that was such a crime). And the fact that Steph is one of Ryan’s favorite reads (a point I more than picked up, thank you very much), is beside my point.
I thought his comments were underhanded, the tone, facile. And I didn’t think they served the point he was attempting to make in the slightest.
It’s a shame, Sam, that you and a few others have to make this about me, or worse, about me and Ryan. If you’d like to talk about what I said, so be it, but if it has to be a conversation of motive and intent…grow up.
Rob: Understood, but the issue was resurrected after two weeks by Kris himself.
Guys, guys… yeah Kris’ reply was critical but it wasn’t a personal attack. debate is healthy on sites like this.
and the comment about “everyone hating his guts” is beyond stupid. we dont even know him (most of us anyway, i know i dont).
All I know is that i enjoy his site. I enjoy this one too. vive la difference.
Yeah, of course…..it’s the whole “the world is wrong” and “I’m right perspective” eh, Kris Tapley. You come to a popular site, attack it’s second-in-command, one who has lent the site creativity, imagination and passion, and you expect everyone to lie down.
As far as “what the fuck does this even mean?” I thought I was fairly clear enough—I have strong reason to suspect that you have clashed with Ryan Adams in the past, and you have not yet buried the hachet, opting instead to sustain hostilities. Is that clear enough? It’s interesting that you cull one paragraph of the five I’ve written, of course ignoring the larger point of that submission, which was to point out that Ryan Adams enjoys reading Stephanie Z. above all other critics which is in effect the highest of compliments.
Whether or not your response was “mean-spirited” seems beside the point, although I don’t blame the others here for thinking so. Your posting was highly-critical and confrontational—I wouldn’t quite say you were making inquiries about how well Ryan was doing.
“It appears to me that Kris’ curt (and rather smug) response is some kind of overflow/overlap of a previous skirmish or disagreement, as the essence and context of Ryan Adams’ ‘dissection’ clearly took on the tenor of a friend busting another.”
What the fuck does this even mean?
I think the commenters took my rebuttal far too personally here (obviously), going so far as to call it an “attack.” Rubbish.
“But when everyone you’ve ever encountered on the internet hates your guts, then I think you have a problem. ”
More pointless commentary, and unfounded at that.
I defy anyone to find something mean-spirited in my words, which did nothing other than to offer perspective on a piece of writing woefully lacking perspective.
Sorry to respond to this mish-mash of unnecessary negativity a week after the fact, but someone alerted me to the cry-baby fest today, so I had to respond.
Personal attacks are common around here. You just have to develop thick skin.
Well, I just saw the movie again, and I wanted to report that my opinion on Wall-E has changed. Possibly because things have had some time to settle with me, I now really like the film. I still don’t love it, and I still have a few issues with it, but it is a very good film indeed. It’s funny how that can happen! As I mentioned above, I didn’t hate the film the first time I saw it, but I was fairly disappointed with it. I was sitting next to a kid who clearly had something wrong with him (maybe extreme ADD or something?) the first time, and he really distracted me, so maybe that’s why I wasn’t so fond of it at first?
And on the Kris Tapley thing: You know, Kris, when one person says you’re a rude, egotistical bastard, it doesn’t necessarily mean anything. And even if two or three people say it, it doesn’t really matter. But when everyone you’ve ever encountered on the internet hates your guts, then I think you have a problem.
To Ryan: I very much appreciate your smart analysis and your amazing wit. I wish I were as funny as you.
I thought is was obvious that Ryan’s deliberate lampooning of Stephanie Zacharek’s WALL-E review was in the spirit of playful disagreement. Kris forgets that Ryan stated at the very outset of his submission that “Stephanie Zacharek is the critic I enjoy reading more than any other……but once in a while her opinions veer so far from how I feel, I just have to shrug it off…
If Ryan Adams goes as far as to say that Ms. Zacharek gives him more movie-review-reading-enjoyment than any other critic out there, could anyone possibly believe that he is now deliberately trying to paint her as some kind of a critical charletan?
It appears to me that Kris’ curt (and rather smug) response is some kind of overflow/overlap of a previous skirmish or disagreement, as the essence and context of Ryan Adams’ ‘dissection’ clearly took on the tenor of a friend busting another.
I dare say I would bet that Ms. Zacharek, is far more honored by Ryan’s spectacular compliment about her being his favorite critic, than about his rare disagreement for one of her reviews.
It’s too bad that (apparent) past disagreements or perhaps differences of opinion have brought others out of the woodwork to fight feigned battles that have nothing to do with them.
Jeez Tapley, did Ryan piss on your cornflakes this morning or something?
That was a stunningly mean spirited and dismissive attack on Ryan, Kris. It’s fine to express disagreement and criticism, but to do so in such a manner reminds me why you’re often so hard to warm to as an online journalist and personality. I thought Ryan’s analogy was funny and smart, and helped me better relate to the point he was making. It’s not like he is writing a detailed and formal critique of her review for a writing course. Ryan makes it known that the film worked for him, and he takes a couple of key comments from the review and offers us a personal reaction to them – one I could empathize with even though I’ve not seen the film myself. Ryan’s considerable talent and readability as a writer is enhanced by the very personal voice he uses – whether playful or passionate.
Mario: I issued the proper disclaimer by stating that MC offers up the stronger critics. That is why (personally) I prefer that site, even if in the end, both have their share of issues.
“Ryan’s analysis of this review is indeed a dissection, but of the worst kind, dependent on snarky come backs and irrelevant comparisons. I think, just maybe, it would be worth it to present cogent counter points rather than dismantle the words and thoughts of others by way of exhibition.”
That is pretty much all he can do. What is he supposed to do if he can’t write like that?
I would agree with Daniel that “there is nothing wrong with that” if there were actually something more to the review.
“WALL-E now has a 96% on Rotten Tomatoes, which is a far more comprehensive site than MC, even if MC concentrates on the best critics.”
Sam, a comprehensive database of opinions is a valuable tool only if numbers AND quality are taken into account. Since MC’s standards are based on quality rather than popularity it is a better indicator of a film’s quality/reception. The reviews have to be more perceptive, objective, and overall better written than those of RT to even be considered for inclusion.
It’s a non-issue since a 3 percent difference is still negligible, but people have been using RT as an indicator of a film’s quality/reception for quite a while now and it is not exactly the best source due to its loose standards for inclusion. That can lead to reviews swayed by hype and excitement more than objectivity. There are many part time reviewers on RT.
Kristopher Tapley, I think what you’re mistaking for “snarky come backs” are actually just Ryan using a dose of humor, which there is nothing wrong with.
Also, unfortunately, I think there have been quite a few animated movies over the years since Beauty and the Beast that have been very deserving of recognition but have received very little because of the stinking best animated feature category. The foreign film category also does the same thing for many movies. Some films like the groundbreaking “Les Triplettes de Belleville (The Triplets of Belleville)” and “Sen to Chihiro no kamikakushi (Spirited Away)” would seem to fit all three of these categories, but are looked upon as animated movies and nothing else, not even as foreign (yet another bridge that would have to be crossed before they could reach the BP category).
Another example would be last year’s “Persepolis” which, at first, seemed a lock for a nomination in the foreign film category. In year with fewer quality movies, “Ratatouille” could also have deserved a best picture nomination and probably wouldn’t have received it. Maybe this year the academy will break out of the mold they’ve created. Unfortunately, even if Wall-E does get the BP nomination, it could easily just be a fluke-year.
I love Wall-E! I have seen it three times in the theaters and can’t wait to see it again, although probably now when it’s released on DVD. I would not be surprised that it doesn’t get a Best Picture nomination only because the Oscars have certain old fashioned attitudes that apparently prevent them from thinking an animated film would be deserving of the top prize, especially now that they have given animation its own category…it becomes a case of why bother…but I WOULD LOVE and would admire the Oscars if they do make the bold choice to support the film and give a very DESERVING nod on the Best Pic category (even if it doesn’t win)…
How about Best Director? I think it has a definite shot, without a doubt, in Animated Feature, Score (should definitely win!!), Song, Sound, Sound Effects Editing. I think it would be great if it sneaked in an Art Direction nom…even though I don’t think it would win it.
“A film can absolutely begin with a bleak worldview and move to a place of hope and happiness without being disjointed or betraying itself…”
No disagreement. But that has nothing to do with Ryan’s comments regarding his hypothetical day, which were pointless and aimed to do nothing more than tear down a critique the easy way.
I agree with Ryan’s analysis, and would add that the comparisons are far from irrelevant. A film can absolutely begin with a bleak worldview and move to a place of hope and happiness without being disjointed or betraying itself, just look at the Apartment or the Shawshank Redemption, both of which put idealistic characters in (vastly different) settings of loneliness and/or despair and we revel in their ability to transcend that and find happiness in the end.
On another note, given the success financially and the amount of discussion I would love to see Pixar push hard for Wall-E to pick up a Best Picture nod. There shouldn’t even be a best animation category, frankly. If the work is groundbreaking, that’s why they used to give out a special achievement oscar, to recognize an accomplishment we haven’t seen before in film. If it’s not it should be treated the same as any other film.
Ryan’s analysis of this review is indeed a dissection, but of the worst kind, dependent on snarky come backs and irrelevant comparisons. I think, just maybe, it would be worth it to present cogent counter points rather than dismantle the words and thoughts of others by way of exhibition.
That said, I haven’t seen the film and won’t be able to do so until I come back to the states in two weeks. But I very much look forward to it.
ellesar: WALL-E now has a 96% on Rotten Tomatoes, which is a far more comprehensive site than MC, even if MC concentrates on the best critics.
I look forward to seeing the film, but Stephanie Zacharek should be the last person anyone takes seriously when it comes to film commentary. Her critique of Day-Lewis’ performance last year shows that she sees film (and film acting) through a very “unique” lens. She seems to form much of her opinion prior to entering the theater.
Definitely a safe bet for Best Song.
Not completely on topic, but WALL-E is a shoo-in for both Sound categories and Best Song (Down to Earth by Peter Gabriel).
Art Direction and Editing are possibilities.
You make a valid point there, elessar! But WALL-E’s first composite on the first day of release was 98%; as more and more reviews were posted, the average, inevitably went down, as it would be nearly impossible to hold at that high number. The same thing happened last year with PAN’S LABYRINTH. When I asserted that WALL-E had higher numbers than the rat, I was going by that first composite.
But you’re right about WALL-E having generally more ecstatic individual responses. I applaud your own assessment!
Sam: actually, RATATOUILLE received slightly better reviews (a 96% on MetaCritic versus 93% for WALL-E–with 3 fewer reviews), but the rat wasn’t as completely embraced as this little guy has.
Having seen WALL-E on Sunday (in my Sunday best, no less), I can safely say that this animated masterwork has a hard-and-fast place as one of 2008’s top 3 films (have to allow a little wiggle room) and the best film of the past 4 years, thus far. The animation was first-rate, the characters excellent, a top-notch score, and a very catchy credit song by Peter Gabriel.
my nomination picks:
Best Director, Best Animated Feature, Best Original Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Original Song, Best Sound Mixing, Best Sound Editing
Wow, Ryan, now THAT was a true disection! Superb stuff!
Stephanie Zacharek is the critic I enjoy reading more than any other, but once in a while her opinions veer so far from how I feel, I just have to shrug it off. I feel bad for her that she can’t enjoy “No Country for Old Men” and “WALL-E” with the rest of us. In such cases as these, I have no idea where she’s coming from, and the reasons she gives don’t help to clarify as much as they seem to obscure something more internalized going on. As Sasha points out, these flimsy complaints seem more indicative of a critic’s personal expectations than to any flaw in the film itself.
Zacharek says, “…by the end, “WALL-E” has turned into something else again, a picture that’s so adamant about ending on a feel-good note (or at least a feel-OK note) that it betrays the sad, subtle beauty of those early scenes…”
By the same token, I guess there’s a bleak poetry to the way I feel some days, waking up to gloomy nostalgic memories, a wrecked kitchen, and no money. (“WALL-ET, look at me!”, I want to cry out to my empty billfold.) But then I clean up, phone a friend, figure out a way to earn a few bucks, and before long I’m managing to feel pretty good about the future. To Stephanie Zacharek, ending my day on this “feel-OK note” would betray the sad, subtle beauty of my early morning sullenness.
But I’m glad I’m able to pull out of my funk. That’s what humans are supposed to try to do, right? Or should we just wallow in despair, for Art’s sake?
“…the picture feels weirdly, and disappointingly, disjointed…”
If only there were some classic precedent for a movie that begins on a barren Earth devoid of humans, abruptly jumps to a suspenseful tale of betrayal and survival in the sterile confines of deep space, and then ends with another leap of the imagination with a return to the home planet on the cusp of the next evolutionary step in mankind’s consciousness. If only somebody had made a movie like that exactly 40 years ago, then perhaps we would know how to navigate the tricky narrative complexities of such a “disjointed” story…
yeah, the movie ends on a wonderfully hopeful note. I can see where a movie that climaxes with mass diabetes seizures on the Axiom and WALL-E rotting in a rust-heap when he finally runs out of spare parts for self-repair would be some kind of fascinating macabre masterwork of suicide-chic animation (call it “EVE of the Fireflies”).
(Mommy, Can we please stay home and watch “Requiem for a Dream” instead?)
The millions of grade-schoolers who left the theater needing a stiff drink of whiskey and an upward adjustment of their Zoloft dosage would probably run counter to Andrew Stanton’s ultimate aim: tell kids it’s not hopeless; encourage them to believe they can do something to make a difference.
The naysayers may be in for a shock this year. It may make the cut.
I just find it difficult to fathom why we’ve become so adverse to the idea of an animated film snagging a best picture nomination. It’s likely that the academy will revert to their decrepit ways, but give it a chance. In so far as it is incredibly unlikely to win, with the amount of praise this film is getting, it’d be just a bit unfair to this beautiful piece of art by not putting it up on the BP list.
I think the Best Picture nomination is out of the question. While the film isn’t undeserving, I just don’t see it happening this time.
However, I think it will end up winning the most oscars of any animated movie to date.
Haroldsmaude: You are an intelligent, tasteful guy and a good sport to boot.
While I hope you will eventually be fully won over by the adorable trash collector, I respect your reasoning and position.
I am a cautionary dissenting voice on the Wall-E for best picture crowd. At the end of the year, I may change my tune, but I thought it was good but not THAT good. Someday I’d love to see an animated film nominated again for best picture and eventually win (harder now that there is a category just for animated films, as there wasn’t in 1991 for Beauty and the Beast). But for now, I’d vote not to include it on the BP list, Sasha (happy camping).
Have a great trip Sasha—you deserve a break!
Dave: I’m with you on that WALLE-E Best Picture Nomination hope. If it can happen, this would the time. But there has to be a concerted effort, the same way as there was in 1991 with BEAUTY AND THE BEAST.
Guys, I’m off on a brief camping trip and will try to update sporatically – yes, I WILL put it in the appropriate categories….promise!
I loved loved loved Wall-E
With all the build up over the years for a Pixar movie to be nominated for Best Picture, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that this is the movie that will do it.
Wall-E will be nominated for Best Picture.
It was brilliant and moving and everyone is talking about it.
The WALL-E and EVE love story seemed to me like an Ode to Titanic.
First class, well-bred, well-educated, sophisticated girl meets third class boy from steerage. Third class boy charms and woos first class girl, then helps her out. Tough, cool first class girl then goes and helps out third class boy.
There were even a few scenes in the film that reminded me of Titanic. WALL-E takes EVE to his place and shows off his dancing moves, just like Jack did in Titanic.
When the Axiom, the luxury cruise liner in space tilts, all the people go tumbling to one side just like in Titanic.
The scene where WALL-E and EVE are standing if front of a railing holding hands and looking over a sea of garbage reminded me of the famous scene in Titanic where Jack and Rose are standing at the railing of the ship overlooking the ocean.
Erik Childress from eFilmCritic.com says in his review of WALL-E, “Not since Titanic will you have heard two prospective partners cry out each other’s names with as much longing (and frequency) and if there’s any karma, fate, or pure love out there to believe in than WALL-E will equal its attendance and then some.”
Great movies (Best Pictures) that lost some magic from the first half in the second act:
Gone With the Wind
Lawrence of Arabia
Ben-Hur
Sound of Music
Patton
My Fair Lady
Titanic started weak but ended strong.
Comparing the second half to the first is not misplaced expectations. Maybe if the comparison was made to the trailer or to previous Pixar films but if you say that the film simply couldn’t live up to its own set up and execution then you are still just analyzing that film and perfectly right to.
loved the article, Sasha, and I couldn’t agree more.
how nice it is to see that other people love this film as passionately as I do!
WALL*E: The Best Picture of the decade
I agree with putting WALL-E up for consideration in the Best pic category. I don’t think it’s going to be nominated (for all the usual reasons animated films aren’t nominated), but I think it might actually be a good thing that it isn’t. When Ratatouille wasn’t nominated for best picture, a lot of people groaned about how animated films couldn’t get out of the animated-film prize ghetto. While I liked Ratatouille, even if it wasn’t animated (or about adorable talking rats, for that matter), I don’t think it would have made the cut. WALL-E, in my opinion, is good enough for consideration, and is probably the most affecting of any Pixar movie to date (save, perhaps, The Incredibles). If it manages to become a film that can make year-end top 10 lists, take some critics awards, make a legitimate case for itself, and NOT be nominated, I think it would cause a huge outcry that would reverberate for years to come and would hopefully pave the way for other animated films to finally grab that recognition.
Of course, it could also do that by just being nominated. We’ll see.
Hello Dolly!
Question: What’s the movie that WALL-E was watching, with the holding hands?
Movies are made to be dissected. It may be a film, but in the end it is a product of film studio trying to make a profit. If studios desire to make profits, while at the same time create art, criticism for all its worth is needed. I appreciate all the opinions here and they are ALL VALID!!
I personally liked the first half and was disappointed with latter half especially with the “generic” plot line and what some may say “social commentary.” Nevertheless, this movie is lightyears better than some of the crap that has come out this year and probably the following months. I just wish I had a creative imagination like Pixar.
Dan, I agree with you about the King Kong great scene.
The scene between Wall-E and Eve flying in space was a dance, not in a literal sense, but a joy of connection. Eve had just witnessed what she thought was Wall-E’s demise.
It was a romantic scene, a beautiful expression of affection between . . . two robots . . . floating in space.
I thought this movie had a lot in common with Mary Poppins – “practically perfect in every way”
I definitely understand the problem people have with the artsy first half vs. the more conventional second half. This is how I saw it: I thought the first half was amazing, no doubt about it. But when it comes to the second half, I think it was the way it was for a reason. The lazy, technology-independant humans are introduced, and everything becomes more fast-paced and crowded with action. I saw it to represent what life had become for the human race, full of all this stuff that really gets you nowhere. Problems abound and there is no time to stop and take a break, to step back and see what we’re missing, because everything is always “go, go, go.” When the loving Wall-E was on earth by himself, it was beautiful because he had what these humans lacked: a whole lot of heart. The humans were the opposite.
Then, we get to the ending. The humans are re-united with earth and see the error of their ways…and its even more beautiful than the beginning (I thought) because it combines both aspects. If that makes sense.
Umm.. How about having Wall-E in contention for Best Picture, Best Sound Mixing, Best Sound Editing, Best Song as well..
Oh and, where’s Speed Racer for Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, Visual Effects, Art Direction and Original Score too?
🙂
(Wall-E is currently at #9 of All-Time on IMDb’s top 250 list! Let’s hope it stays that high!)
Sasha, how about putting it in the Best Picture Category? WALL E FOR THE WIN!!!
I just thought I would contribute one little factoid.
Even though we all know that the IMDB ratings don’t really mean A LOT or even ANYTHING sometimes… I thought it was of some note that Wall-E is sitting at a 9.3 out of 10…. which makes it the #9 movies of their top 250 based on about 6000 votes.
I think that is some sign that the overwhelming feeling is that Wall-E kicks some major ass.
I have read reviews saying this was “the best movie in twenty years” or “the movie of the decade”.
With reviews like that people are bound to feel the need to state their opposing opinions… I just hope people don’t get carried away and begin bashing it when in truth most people, it seems, that have some “nitpicky” issues with the movie, still enjoyed it.
Can we, for once, just love a movie and not analyze it so far that we begin to tell ourselves that, in fact, our initial emotional, visceral, responses were all lies all somehow fake or manufactured or predetermined? Can we, for once, just love a movie for all it’s life affirming beauty? Can we, for once, just love a movie?
I know I can. This movie was brilliant in every way. I laughed, I cried, I clapped and even cheered. And so did a large portion of the audience I had the pleasure of seeing it with.
I loved this film.
Clearly.
The Earth does not need us – we need it. According to the film, left on its own, the earth found its way back to life, WITHOUT our help. Humans living on the Axiom were content with their boring, pre-determined life until Wall*E came along and knocked them out of their comfort zone. Only then did they realize what they were in and what they could possibly be missing. They realized that if they wanted all these beautiful things Earth could offer, they’d have to take care of Earth AND their way of life.
But Earth? Earth was going to go on without us.
Stephanie was a bit harsh in her assessment. This will end up being another product for Disney, but it does not really go against the (many) messages of the film. The film’s first 40 minutes were very different, very beautiful and the rest of the film did not quite have the same magic. Nevertheless, its message was well executed and the ending was more poignant than perhaps Stephanie gave credits for.
beautiful piece, sasha. thank you.
funny thing: just saw it today with one of my best friends. left the movie theater only to be greeted by a flock of birds in the middle of the parking lot, feeding on all the litter left behind by cinema-goers. among the items, i noticed WALL-E ticket stubs. my oh my.
i thought the beginning was really great, but once they get onto the Axiom and the good guys/bad guys plot kicks in, it does start to degenerate into a generic chase movie. visually as well the movie suffers when it moves onto the spaceship.
well now, here’s a turn of events. I was emotionally gripped by the romance (especially the idea of love returning one’s true character) and message of consumerism and technology keeping us distant and unhealthy, and I admired the film’s technical aspects and the music, yet I also found it boring for some reason. Well maybe not boring, maybe a pacing problem? I’d give it a B+ (and huge kudos for giving us the best female Disney character – evah).
I loved the movie, but surprisingly not for the reasons I expected. Wall-E was a film that surprised me because I was so moved by the love story. After a lifetime of watching romance films, I’m sort of become immune to them and it takes a very exceptional one to mean anything to me. We also live in an age when love is sort of easily thrown away. You meet people online, dump them with a text message – I find it ironic that technology is what has made us so numb to romance, yet in Wall-E, it’s the technology itself that can teach us a little about love. I admit, I cried a little at the end. And vinnymac you took the words out of my mouth: it was Chaplinesque.
I don’t know how this ranks with Finding Nemo, it might take me a while to figure that out. But Nemo is a different kind of movie and came to me at a time in life when I needed to find it. Anyway, I’m starting to ramble, but it’s a film that might make me look at things a little differently for a while.
Dan: You expressed yourself very well.
I just disagree with you to the extreme. WALL-E was extraordinarily emotional, and the best film of 2008 so far.
I just read that Ryan Adams has said the very same thing–best film of 2008. Thrilled to be in his company.
I just got home from seeing the movie and I loved it. It is fantastic and poetic and sweet and funny, but it has an incredible message behind it. It is nice to me to take my kids to see something that is not merely a cartoon with graitoutous violence but with substance.
Sasha, I agree whole-heartedly with the ending being much-needed the way it is. The main point I took from the movie had to do with the ending: the old ushering in the new ushering in the old. We get to see a great Chaplinesque silent for the first half of the movie, but what we get during the second act brought tears to my eyes. Using the Chaplin shoe to introduce the plant was great, but keeping it for the duration of the film is brilliant…and touching. To me, it was the most wonderful moment to see the shoe with the great tree growing out of it during the credit sequence.
You’re not the only one Dan. I didn’t feel it either. But I don’t want to be a kill-joy for the rest who wholesomely loved it–and I don’t mind that at all. That’s the trick y’alls.
I think Stone is spot on about the film’s message. I really don’t relate to any of you who think otherwise.
“The zero G flight scene (with the extinguisher) was one of the most romantic scenes i have ever seen.”
See, I thought this was nice, but I thought King Kong and Anne in Central Park was much more romantic.
Nothing in Wall-E really gripped me emotionally. Maybe I should see it again (the kid next to me was so bored with the film that he bounced around violently whenever it got “slow”)!
Was I the only person who did not think Wall-E was that emotional? Some of it was moving (“define dancing”, ect.), but I thought the relationship between Wall-E and Eve was not compelling. Too much boringly predictable sentimentality for me. Too much of the same gags over and over again. I believe Finding Nemo to be a much more moving picture–the relationship between Nemo and his father is more complex, they each risk their lives to get back to one another, and the stakes are higher. Plus, Dory risked her life to find Nemo, even though she had never met him (not to mention, she was hilarious). If Wall-E gets hurt, it’s okay because you can always just repair him, and Wall-E getting hit in the head and shaking severely were only funny the first time.
And I can’t get over the feeling that the Wall-E character was misconceived. If a robot could teach us what it means to be human, that would indeed be something, but the robot can’t essentially be a human in the first place!
Once the humans entered the picture, I felt as if I were being bludgeoned over the head with the message (and yes, I think this most certainly was a “message” movie). As Ms. Zachareck states, the action in the middle did feel slightly tacked on, and what the hell did the mutiny have to do with this story? It was just there so we could have some action scenes.
I make it sound like I didn’t like this movie. I did like it; I just didn’t love it. Pixar was very brave in making this movie, and I agree with Sasha that films which mix art and commercial have the biggest impact. But I think what Zachareck is saying is that Wall-E starts out as an art movie then becomes very commercial, and this shift is a bit jarring. Stanton should have integrated the arty and the commercial parts better. If you set the bar super high at the beginning, a commercial second half is inevitably going to seem dissapointing.
Did any of that make any sense? I’m not the best at expressing my ideas. I know everyone is probably going to disagree with me, but I thought I would comment anyway.
There are so many excellent qualities to this movie. Is it a message movie? Yes. But it does not make the message movie faux pas, where the message is the movie.
This is a love story set in extra ordinary times. I cannot think of a film that had as little dialogue tell so much.
The zero G flight scene (with the extinguisher) was one of the most romantic scenes i have ever seen.
A day after seeing this movie i am still affected by it.
what an amazing love story, thats how I would look at this movie. I watched it twice already 🙂
Richard A:
I couldn’t disagree with you more. America’s film critics have resoundingly given this the best composite assessment of any Pixar fiulm to date, and after seeing it on Friday I completely concur.
I don’t have the problem you vociferate in your second paragraph–the non-talking gives this film a special resonance that recalls silent cinema. The robots must remain non-speaking entities.
I loved RATATOUILLE (and THE INCREDIBLES to a lesser degree) but this is a the piece de resistance of animated films since BEAUTY AND THE BEAST in 1991.
Perhaps apart from its extraordinary craftsmanship, it is far more emotional than the two you say you rate “way above it” and it appeals and can truly be appreciated by adults, even more than by children.
Ms. Zacharek is entitled to her opinion (and her review) but she is part of a dearth of adverse reaction to a film that has taken the entire critical establishment by storm. Her review is well-written, but I agree with sasha in that she compromises much of what she asserts by citing what her “expectations” are.
Does it really mean anything if we agree with the critics or not? Not really, especially simce all of us have been on both sides of the fence on this. But it’s comforting to know that nearly 100% of the people DO feel the way you do. It’s human nature to appreciate “being validated” in this sense.
well there’s no denying this weekend’s box office was an event…
this is from boxofficeprophets weekend wrap thing…
“After about two hours of research, I can confirm that this is a record breaking weekend, as we have two openers above $50 million for the first time ever. Many times we have seen more than two $50 million films in the top two, but one of the films has always been a holdover, a blockbuster from a previous weekend.”
hmm…..
Well, it’s a message movie definitely. But it’s one that’s not as subtle or as effective as the subversive movies like Brad Bird’s The Incredibles and Ratatouille. From that point of view, I’m ranking WALL*E far below those two Pixar movies. It probably ranks below Finding Nemo and Monster Inc. (It has to stew for a bit).
To me the message has to do with excess and consumerism. The big box stores, trash, space junk, etc. That’s the message that was successful in terms of coming across.
One of my problems with movie is something that these robots have artificial intelligence and an apparent emotions, and yet they can’t really talk? Even Number 5 talked! Cars in cars talked. Nitpicky, I know. Also, it’s a lot of homage (that’s a nice way of putting it) to 2001: Space Odyssey.
Sasha, this person indeed does do a very childish and juvenile mistake when one compares a movie’s internal qualities with that of one’s external expectations.
A movie is…what it is, for better or for worse.
I mean, has PIXAR made good movies before? Oh yes. But they also made the meh CARS….no movie is a guaranteed good movie.