May
30
“Wall-E” Folly
Filed Under Blockbusters, Movies
I’m not sold on “Wall-E.” Not even a little bit. I didn’t see “Cars” until it was on cable, and even then, I missed the first thirty minutes or so. I skipped “Ratatouille” altogether. I found “The Incredibles” — the last Pixar movie I caught in theaters — to be cute, but cold. Okay, put down the torches and pitchforks. I love both “Toy Story” films and enjoyed “Finding Nemo,” “Monster’s Inc.” and even “A Bug’s Life.” I just haven’t found Pixar’s output of late to as ingenious or accessible as their earlier films. Then along comes “Wall-E,” a post-apocalyptic science fiction art film for the whole family. Color me skeptical.
I read an article on CHUD.com about the film that was so ridiculously praiseworthy, I thought the director’s mother may have actually ghost-written it. What do people see in this film that I don’t? The character designs are pedestrian (Wall-E looks like a pre-pubsecent Johnny-5 from “Short Circuit”), the trash-pickup trailer is boring and the entire concept sounds like an overinflated Pixar short.
Wasn’t there already a CGI cartoon about robots? I believe it was called “Robots” and produced by Blue Sky, the makers of “Ice Age.” The movie was so forgettable, though, that as I walked out of the theater, I sort of remember thinking to myself, “What happened? Where am I? Did I just see a movie?” And that film more or less exemplified the standard operating procedure for CG family films: name actors provided the voices, the visuals were bright and shiny, the plot was instantly forgettable making it suitable for children to watch on DVD over and over and over again — never once getting bored.
But I think “Wall-E” is going to bore the kiddies stiff. It’s not that I’m of the opinion that “Robots” is the quintessential computer-animated film. It’s not. It’s as mechanical as its cast of characters. However, culturally we’ve been conditioned to largely reject any creative endeavor that’s outside of the mainstream. Reality TV, popcorn movies, the average person’s unsettling desire to “not wanna think” — these are all byproducts of our cynical and unimaginative entertainment industry, providing the equally cynical and unimaginative audience with a whole lot of nothing. Now I’m aware of this, and I’m still not impressed with “Wall-E.” Maybe it’s because the film — for all the risks it seems to be taking — isn’t really that far removed from the mainstream. It’s still a kid’s movie. It’s still got cutesy characters. It’s still going to be a merchanding behemoth. Damn if “Wall-E” isn’t just more of the same.
Before Disneyland opened in the ’50s, critics called it “Disney’s Folly.” In the ’30s, critics said “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” would be a commercial failure. They were wrong on both counts. So what happens when critics universally and prematurely praise a Disney venture?
-Brad Lohan
Comments
2 Responses to ““Wall-E” Folly”
Leave a Reply
Wall-E is the Charlie Chaplin of the 21st Century. Sad that we have to turn to animation to get one, but god knows none of our live-action comic actors are up to the task.
And yes, “Cars” was subpar, “The Incredibles” was a tad dry, and I even consider “Finding Nemo” one of the most over-rated films of recent history, but Pixar has earned the benefit of the doubt, regardless. Even their bad movies are better than most good movies. And “Wall-E” has the potential to be among their best.
[…] the pre-release confusion fanboys seem to be having about this weekend’s “Wall-E,” a film with a pro-environmental message that’s completely unintentional — at […]