"WALL*E": 5 Reasons Why

When asked what his favorite movie of all time was, M. Night Shyamalan responded: "Favorite movie... interesting wording.  Because I think the best movie ever made was 'The Godfather', being tonally flawless.  But the term, favorite movie... there's a little guilty pleasure implied there, and for me that would be 'Raiders Of The Lost Ark.'"  I echo his sentiments in that I think the greatest Pixar film ever made is "The Incredibles."  But my favorite I expect will ever be "WALL*E". 

Five Reasons Why, in no particular order.

1.  This movie and its title protagonist parade one thing humanity seems to craves these days, that being innocence of heart.  I'll say, anyone who desires the same, for themselves or the world around them, go watch Shyamalan's "The Village" again, see what you missed the first time around.  Or, come back soon for my illuminating review.  Digressing again.  WALL*E is this intelligent and sentimental machine stuck on a barren earth, with one purpose: picking up other people's trash.  Does he mind?  Does he even notice?  What a dismal purpose of life.  AI films usually involve some kind of insurrection, where the machines aren't gonna take it anymore,

reflecting rhetoric on human cruelty or slavery.  This film instead suggests that all things have a purpose and an accompanying choice, to accept or reject said purpose.  WALL*E not only accepts his purpose, but he enhances it to achieve a purpose even greater than his own.  Until that day however, he not only concedes to his given purpose, he enjoys it.  We Speech Pathologists call it redirection.  Makes me laugh to watch him just dinkin' around this desolate planet, humming his beloved Hello, Dolly!, playing with his cockroach, collecting his trinkets, yearning for dancing lessons.  Is it his undying curiosity that keeps his cogs moving, or his hope that something better is on the way?  He retains his optimism even through hard (and undeserved) work and loneliness for a companion.  Begs the question, how different are optimism and innocence?  And humility?  Or confidence?  Something to chew on.

2.  As a child of the 80's, I grew up alongside a sci-fi revolution in the movies.  Robots and aliens started coming out of the woodwork.  So I'm sitting in the theater watching WALL*E with his comedic beeps, his bells and whistles, his explosive personality.

And I'm seeing R2D2, I'm seeing E.T., obviously Johnny 5, even the little saucer fix-its from "*batteries not included".  Pushed me right to the edge.  The characters, the sets, the music, the sound effects, even the Nintendo-esque credit sequence... boy but was there ever such a tribute to my childhood sentimentality!  This film pays wonderful homage to its great sci-fi predecessors.  Themes of Strauss from "2001", dark electricity from "Return Of The Jedi", giant airlocks from "Aliens" (with Sigourney Weaver as The Computer---hah!), etc.  EVE could have easily been the quiet child of C-3PO, while "Auto" was clearly the spawn of HAL9000.  Writers Stanton and Reardon must've had a ball with it all.

3.  I'm a sucker for stories involving post-apocalyptic, dystopian societies.  What can I say, it's a weakness.

4.  I'm sorry, but I've had to raise an amused eyebrow at hearing people sneering at this film for its "environmentalist" bias.  The biggest complaint from cynics was its hinting to global warming.  To that I say, show me; I'd love to see it.  Then I respond---don't mess, because there's no such hint, not in this show (and I'd love to hear a single politician say he has no problem with polluting the earth---as many of them think it).  Still, these guys weren't beating around the bush.  This film makes an unabashed call to the world, not just to be more caring of our surroundings, but of ourselves, and our integrity too.  What wonderful audacious satire was making the world's government a mega-corporation, By 'N' Large.  Way to stick it to 'em, Stanton.  BnL could be likened to a false god or Big Brother just as well as to WalMart, taking its subjects slaves through duping them into virtual leisure and complacency.  I've heard people say this movie's "fatties" and their lifestyles just depress them.  As always, I say, keep watching.  For all its cynicism, this is not filmmakers getting preachy and pointing fingers.  This is

a tale of human redemption.  Is WALL*E then a Savior, or a type of him?  No, but a type of Adam rather, bringer of restitution to humanity, yet powerless without his help meet.  Hence the arrival of EVE (may I say, I love seeing the modern woman in action here).  Earth's dilemma is obviously comparable to Noah's ark and the flood, with EVE also akin to the dove wielding the olive branch, alerting passengers that earth is becoming safe again.  This is no children's tale.  It is a tale of the innate humanity inherent in all creatures great and small.  It is a message our planet could really use right now, whether we take heed or not.

5.  But at the end of the day, "WALL*E" is a romance.  Among the greatest romance films I've seen.  Unscathed shimmering irony.  Scene: Lido-Deck (Small Spoiler Alert).  EVE and WALL*E dodging guards, EVE's mind racing on how she can accomplish her mission.

There behind her is WALL*E, and what's the thing on his mind?  Not saving the world.  He proceeds to blast Michael Crawford singing "It Only Takes A Moment" in attempts to woo his woman with romantic overture, fingers outstretched.  She's like, whaaa??, pushing him back going, This really is NOT the time, babe.  I love this moment because it shows WALL*E's courage in being honest, if tactlessly upfront, about his feelings.  Don'tcha love it when we do that, girls?  Really though it's the kind of honesty that our society has become overly cynical about, males and females alike.  It's one way that this movie does NOT resemble the 80's, a time when Hollywood warped society's very expectations of what love and romance should be---a thing they now often make fun of.  I take courage from WALL*E's stark example of how a true romantic will in the end win fair lady (in spite of Hitch's wise axiom "With no game and no guile, there is no girl.")

So, there's the first five that came to mind (I'll talk about its flawless art direction or the legendary Ben Burtt another day).  My question, where are the flaws?  I look for them in every film, and find none here.  Except how WALL*E keeps saying: "WALL*E!" to everybody.  That I could skip (tee hee).  I usually make a point not to review recent box-office smashes.  Obviously I couldn't help myself this time.  Running time: 98 min.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0910970

"What Dreams May Come" Dons Dantean Impressionism

JOE'S SUMUP: visually stunning, descriptively daring

(1998) Richard Matheson wrote the bangsian fantasy "What Dreams May Come" in 1978.  At the end of his highly successful career of some thirty novels, he wrote: "I think What Dreams May Come is the most important book I've written.  It has caused a number of readers to lose their fear of death -- the finest tribute any writer could receive."  I don't need to read the novel to know that the film doesn't likely match up.  I do know though that it serves its own purpose.

Matheson's contention was that he did not tell this story as a work of fiction, but based on research.  New Zealand Director Vincent Ward brought it to life in a way no other film on the afterlife ever was.  It tells the story of two parents, Chris and Annie Nielsen (Robin Williams and Annabella Sciorra), who first lose their two young teenage children in a car accident.  Then, a few years later (all within the first fifteen minutes), Chris is likewise taken in a car accident.  We see things through his eyes as he begins his journey into the unknown, which seems intent on defying any convention or belief he as a Christian ever held.  He is taken under the wing of Albert Lewis, a former-doctor whom he interned under in life.  A lively performance by Cuba Gooding Jr., this man helps Chris gain his footwork in an existence which at first seems perfect, while explaining to him life and being in his new existence.  Chris quickly comes to realize the power of the mind, seeing that "he thinks therefore he is" and that is all any person can in the end keep hold of.  But it is not enough for him, not without his greatest treasures, his wife and children.  

This is a daring movie.  Cudos first to Interscope Communications for producing it, since producers generally steer far clear of this subject matter, let alone invest $85 million in it.  It isn't without its flaws, I'll say first.  The script is sometimes lacking and sometimes just pretentious (occasionally rendering language that sits uneasy in its contexts).  It fortunately compensates for itself the rest of the time.  Attempts to pull our heartstrings also occasionally seem forced, but it's worth looking past those moments.  It isn't difficult to tell when things are contrived, and this film is thoroughly sincere.  Know too, without giving anything away, the third act contains images that may frighten certain audiences.  My advice, keep watching.

Woven together here is a story of people and of imagery.  One of the great beauties of this story is its agreement with a statement I subscribe to saying: "...that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there..."  The director understood that to make a movie about the life hereafter, it has to be about people.  Even against its Academy Award winning imagery, this film's greatest achievements lie first in its explorations on self-identity.  It discusses potential ramifications of choices we make in life, and how these things affect our status -- not with God or the world beyond -- but with ourselves.  It displays ideas on how people and relationships may be weaved together from one sphere to the next---another bold move by the director.  It's interesting that, theologically, this vision incorporates bases of many beliefs and ideologies, and not just in the ways that they agree.  It bravely does not comply with only Christian nor Hindu nor Islamic views on the afterworld, and has in consequence often left its audiences with mixed feelings.  Appropriately so.  Any person of faith could dispute one point or other of its doctrine.  But the audacity of the picture's objectives should gain the respect of anyone not trapped in their own dogma.

If there were one great challenge for the director, it was telling a fine story amidst the 

backdrops he wished to create.  This film is just stunning.  Ward achieves it though, letting the plot shine atop a canvas so magnificent and aesthetic, bearing such vivid details, from what was then very new technology in computer imagery.  He's here created entire worlds that give even the Star Wars saga a run for its money.  If a film could ever be compared to the impressionist's painting, this would be it.  The scenes in this story do not detract from its flow (as the Star Wars ones sometimes do, often deliberately so---apologies, Rob Bott), but rather enhance it.  Casting Robin Williams was likewise daring, who has sometimes botched dramatic roles with comedic hyperbole.  Here, he fits in, as both a levelheaded pediatrician and an insecure newly born spirit.

All in all, a good and convincing movie.  It breathes freely, having no identity crisis, even as a romance/thriller/feelgood.  I give "What Dreams May Come" the credit it deserves.  Running time: 113 min.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120889/