Reviews WesternAnimation / Wall E

:/ This is actually disappointing, not enraging. To begin with, the first half was supposed to be like that. Would you prefer everything narrated and explained all at once to us? That would've been very blunt and to be honest, very boring. The opening narration was explanation enough, wasn't it? I haven't seen it in a while but the CEO of Buyn Large gave all we needed for backstory. The world was evacuated to allow the Wall-E's to clean up the world, but after the time allotted the CEO jumped the gun and assumed it was uninhabitable completely. They thought they shut down all the Wall-Es but the forgotten one is where we get started. He's been doing his job for 700 years and has developed something akin to a soul. He finds all these interesting things to him and collects them, including video tapes of Hello Dolly, and from them learns something about kindness and love, and the ways of expressing that. He eventually begins to long for something like that.

And you know, Wall-E was-scratch that, Pixar has NEVER marketed solely to kids. They take the G for General Audiences thing seriously. Don't undermine kids, because many kids can instantly be engrossed in the action and characters, NOT just the pretty pictures.

That isn't what Pixar thinks of humanity, that's what they think humanity may become if we let computers and things do all of it for us. It's a semi-exaggeration that works partly in humor but is also able to

I'd say the aesop isn't even that blunt either. They never outright state that "Pollution is bad" etc, it's all done with visuals. The movie makes you draw your own conclusions about it. The obvious hate for big business doesn't really seem like hate so much as a warning about monopolization and its effects.

The thing is, the air wasn't toxic. It's probably stayed pretty much the same since everybody left. And the plant did survive inside of a refrigerator. A refrigerator that has been closed for probably close to 700 years, probably. I'm surprised the walls weren't slathered with moss.

The dancing scene was a cute vignette to add a little bit of breathing time. Being nonstop action would just be stupid. If you weren't enjoying it then...I'd hate to take personal stabs but, you must have went into the movie not wanting to give a damn. It's more of a romance with a scifi future setting with a green message than anything else. So if you can't get involved with the main romance of course you're going to be bored.

Wall-E is basically a child at heart, so his idea of love is really just "I find her pretty and want to hold hands". The fact that he goes so far for her is because he probably doesn't want to lose the pretty much only other interaction he's had in 700 years. It's a very cute movie to me, because it's like seeing a kid on the playground asking a girl to marry him.

I had a couple of bits about how you misunderstood two pretty big points, but then I rechecked the bold parts: The first part of the movie had no dialogue and the bits with the space had sounds.

Are those really your main complaints? Because if you ask me, the first part had more than enough communication and robot noise dialogue to understand everything that was going on (kid or not, what exactly wouldn't kids get about "Lonely boy robot meets girl robot, but girl robot is scared at first, then they get to know each other and boy robot falls in love with girl robot"). And I have a hard time believing that the fact you could hear sounds (other than the music) in some of the space bits really mattered at all.

A couple of pointers.

- The "killing machine" never killed a single thing. I don't ask you why you didn't stop hitting your cat yet, do I? - Message of the movie is "Humans are great, futuristic monopole megacorporations and their plans for a computer-controlled utopia suck". Some humans screwed up big time, but the rest are pretty boss. - They are fat, yes. Lazy, no. There isn't a single lazy person in the entire movie (that, perhaps, may make it too optimistic about humanity). Maybe you misunderstood something? - Sci-fi fictional megacorporations holding both monopole and power over humanity is not equal to big business. I don't remember either Pixar or Disney being a fictional megacorporation that creates utopian spaceships and rules the entire planet. Until that changes, I see nothing wrong with the artists and writers they employ making movies about the former. Well, if they made the latter, that means they were allowed to do it, which means big business either isn't that evil or not very good at being evil.

Besides, what is so evil about a business that builds a spaceship that saves the lives of thousands of people and keeps them in good comfort?

I agree that it was anvilicious but I don't think the first half was particularly hard to follow and my sisters seemed to know what was going on

"Besides, what is so evil about a business that builds a spaceship that saves the lives of thousands of people and keeps them in good comfort?"

Yeah, that's a major flaw in the film's message. Well, that and the sort of life they abandon the spaceship for. If the grossly distorted radical environmentalist and/or reactionary luddite (take your pick) moralizing wasn't obvious enough, they just had to top it off with a totally unrealistic Back to Nature credit sequence.

The spaceship is a virtual utopia, mankind having at long last fulfilled potential plenty. Turns out Walmart will deliver what socialists promised all along, but all is not well, in a most anvilicious way. Efficiency and consumerism are ultimately soulless and self defeating, at least when they exist in a vacuum. So what's our alternative? Dirt. More specifically, subsistence farming. Which will be bad for excess population, and also, frankly, everyone who manages to subsist. But don't worry, in ten millenia or so you could be up to feudalism. So you got that going for you.

My main problem, in summation, was the false either/or choice. Either luxury and obesity and sinister Walmart robots lording over you or sweet, dirty freedom. Not that I expect children's movies to be less hamhanded. But, yes, actually, I do, since none of the other Pixar films are. To my knowledge, that is, I haven't seen Cars. They can be obvious, admittedly, though usually with less controversial lessons like "family is good," "chase your dreams," or whatever, as opposed to "civilization sucks."

From what I am reading from your review, I feel that you came into the theatre set to de-ride the film. Of course, you probably didn't go in thinking "I know Wall-E is bad", but it feels like you came in with a negative impression of it.

Wall-E has a lot of underlying themes in it, not just "Everybody Go Green". Things like the essence of humanity, the monopolisation of businesses, authority controlling and supressing human freedom, things like this are played with throughout the film, and if you look back into the film and try and find even more in what they are trying to show, then you just might find a whole new dimension from the movie.

And about the parts about sound, I'd like to add that sound and film haven't always existed together. The basis of film is more on providing new perspectives and giving us a fresh new look at the world through another set of eyes. The sound only serves to enhance the emotions of the visuals.

No sound, you say?

Now, I will be arranging your own Personal Hell where you'll have to watch silent movies without music for 100 years and a day.

Mwahahahaha...

"Wall-E has a lot of underlying themes in it, not just 'Everybody Go Green'. Things like the essence of humanity, the monopolisation of businesses, authority controlling and supressing human freedom, things like this are played with throughout the film"

Sorry, but all those themes fit perfectly well within the "Everybody Go Green," and insofar as they transcend it, they aren't given enough development for me to consider them on their own. "The monopolisation of businesses" resulted in Walmart, err, "Buyn Large," which was bad because it destroyed the planet and turned people into gross greenie parodies of consumerism.

"The essence of humanity" we never divulged in detail. There's a montage of dancing and farming and such, but the summation seems to be whatever people did before Buyn Large. Given what they choose to do once liberated from Buyn Large, the essence of humanity is to be subsitence farmers.

"Authority controlling and supressing human freedom" was represented by the 2001 robot, and the ship as a whole, was were themselves extensions of Buyn Large.

There are other things going on in Wall-E than an extended enviormentalist joke, and it can be enjoyed while totally ingoring what it is that led that plucky robot to be alone on trashy Earth. But none of those other things appeared in your list.

"was were themselves extensions of Buyn Large" = which were themselves extensions of Buyn Large.

"we never divulged in detail" = they never divulged in detail

"Besides, what is so evil about a business that builds a spaceship that saves the lives of thousands of people and keeps them in good comfort? "

That wasn't the evil part, that was them having a pang of conscience for the fact that they rendered their planet uninhabitable.

lol wtf this review sucks bitch gtfo

Hah! You have been flamed by he who is I!

Jokes aside, I must say that I disagree completely. The first part of the movie had no dialogue because the robots (or at least EVE and WALL-E) do not communicate like we do, and their expressions and behavior were (in my opinion) enough to understand what they were trying to say.

And why do you presume that's what Pixar thinks of humanity? I did not get that impression at all. They were perhaps hinting at a possible future for humanity if we continue to rely so heavily on technology, which I think is a valid point. These days we have in development mirrors with an interface that tells the person what is in fashion and what they should wear, as if they are not smart enought to make those decisions themselves, and the Internet has become such a convenient means to do virtually anything that there is less and less reason to leave your house to, for example, buy something, meet people, etc.

What they were trying to say, as I understood it, is that technology is not bad, but there must be a balance between technological advancement and nature. These days we have talks about the develoment of A Is that would make human intervention close to obsolete, but the point is that those machines and technolgy could not be built, or thought of, were it not for human intelligence. They job is to expand on our capacities, not to completely overwrite them. That's what many people seem to forget, and what the movie was trying to remind them of.

As for the "worst part", I'm surprised you'd make such a big deal of something that is present on nearly every space movie ever made. It's worth noting that the music is not actually playing; only the audience can hear it. Or do you think that, in the Mortal Kombat movie, when Liu Kang and Shang Tsung were fighting, someone in the background started singing "choose your destiny, flawless victory, Liu Kang, Sonya, Jax, Kitana..."? No, right?

" THERE'S NO FREAKING SOUND IN SPACE, "

And robots don't have ears, either.

Things in space vibrate, and moderately sophisticated sensors, such as LIDAR, can detect that. So sound should be part of any futuristic immersive representation of space.

"That wasn't the evil part, that was them having a pang of conscience for the fact that they rendered their planet uninhabitable"

I suppose that's the weakest part of the whole story: that they didn't really explain how life (temporarily) came to an end on earth, and that what details we were told were utterly ridiculous. Oh, and also that a company which could support life in luxury among the stars for centuries on a ship with no apparent source of food, not to mention everything else, couldn't manage to keep any part of an entire planet "sustainable." If they could isolate civilization within a ship, why not in a biodome?

But nevermind, back to what it was, exactly, that destroyed Earth. Trash couldn't be it. Entire cities taken down with tidal waves of refuge in the short span of time they allowed was beyond laughable. Even if they had that much trash, why couldn't that be what they sent into space, instead of jellyfish people? But that's beyond the point. Granting the Megatrash problem, there must have been another killer. Life still goes on in dumps, is what I'm saying.

What made it so that only a cockroach and not a single blade of grass survived? I would have been comfortable with something, anything to cover the hole. Say Buyn Large's production process sluiced off evil black sludge; say it was gamma radiation; say something. Don't leave me with nothing to succor but that an otherwise hyper-competent company run by super genius robots couldn't avoid destroying the capacity for life on an entire freakin' planet.

"What they were trying to say, as I understood it, is that technology is not bad, but there must be a balance between technological advancement and nature."

They might have made that point better if they didn't represent the effects of "technology" with jellyfish people and "nature" with the happiness of subsistence farming. Unless you think "balance" between the two consists of technology up to feudal times at best.

Maybe if you don't point out every single little logical flaw and let yourself actually enjoy the movie, you would like it more.

"Maybe if you don't point out every single little logical flaw and let yourself actually enjoy the movie, you would like it more"

If this is directed at me, I'd like to say that my problems are not little. Nor logical, really. Okay, the lack of explanation about the destruction of earth's livability and what stage they ended up at along the civlization timeline may be nitpicky. I'd say focusing in on such details helps explain the mindset infecting the entire film, but never mind.

I did enjoy the movie, in fact, or Wall-E's part at least. The rest of it, a gross, sub-SNL parody of consumerism and Wall-Mart that I could do without. I might be willing to forgive that part of the movie had the climax—where the captain is googling dancing and farming and such—delivered the same way Ratatouille's ratatouille eating scene delivered. But it didn't.

No, that wasn't directed at you, that was at the original reviewer. I didn't even read the comments until now.

You know, I REALLY hate it when someone says a movie sucks because it has a green aesop. The moral of the story isn't as important as how well they did the story. You can talk about that all you like, but saying that one of the reasons WALL-E sucked was because you didn't like the moral is like saying a debator sucks because he's debating for the opposite side, or a soldier is a horrible fighter because he's fighting for another country.

Of course, you're not reading any of these comments anyways, so it doesn't really matter what I say.

YOU SUCK FOR NOT LIKING WALL-E, YOU NOOB!! >:(

"You know, I REALLY hate it when someone says a movie sucks because it has a green aesop."

Either you're speaking desultorily, or this is a strawman argument. The reviewer did not criticize it for having a Green Aesop; he criticized it for, and I quote, "this movie basically hammered, pounded, warped, and dropped a freaking nuke on me with its Green Aesop."

It's hard to call the movie anti-technology when the heroes are robots.

So you like cars...a merchandise driven piece of crap...better than WALL-E. My head hurts

Someone's forgotten about Ratatoullie again....

But it is refreshing to see a negative review for this movie. I did like it but it was far from the epic dramatic best Pixar film evah that so many have made it out to be. I mean, the aesopp alone is problematic. We're being told that big businesses and reliance on technology is evil...in a CGI animated movie made by a big business that could not have been possible to ever make without reliance on technology! The Fridge Hypocrisy really weighs it down when you think about it.

...no coment

We know there's no sound. But if you discount that for WALL-E then you have to discount that for all of Star Wars, all of Star Trek... come to think of it, almost every science-fiction franchise.

Whoa... someone actually likes CARS the most out of all pixar movies? Not that I hate cars but... pretty unique opinion there.

"After Cars, my favorite Pixar movie of all time, this was a letdown of epic proportions to me."

This was when I knew you were just looking for attention.

@tublecane

two words, Grammar Nazi.

I actually think you're right. Now that I stop and think about it. But I liked the silent part. It was more meaningful than the whole dialogue, so :( for that part of the review.

How DARE a movie have atompshre and not force feed you everything!

"two words, Grammar Nazi"

Where, when, how?

"How DARE a movie have atompshre and not force feed you everything!"

I was perfectly fine with the first half of the movie; well, aside from its overreliance on "Hello, Dolly!" The very problem with the second half was that it force fed you an avilicious Green Aesop at the expense of story, aside from the "define dancing" scene.

By the way, it wouldn't have to be a Green Aesop that was anvilicious and monopolistic. It could be anything, including something we all agree on. But then, of course, the objection could be that it shouldn't take that much time to convince us of whatever we already think. Okay, it could be something that we all would agree on but don't necessarily already realize.

It's a problem for me that the movie argues its case so badly, and that it has a bad case. But it's more to the point that it takes time away from the story, and for me at least sucks most all the drama out of the ending.

"was were themselves extensions of Buyn Large" = which were themselves extensions of Buyn Large.

"we never divulged in detail" = they never divulged in detail

I've asked you several times why you make separate posts and you've never answered me, now I ask, do you know how to edit posts?

"do you know how to edit posts?"

Yes, now, though not when I posted what you quote.

It's inappropriate to call someone a Grammar Nazi for correcting themselves.

why? since when was that a rule? I said Grammar Nazi, not hypocrite. In fact if you ask me this was a perfect example, you made a small mistake and even though it made little to no difference even in understanding what you were trying to express, you went out of your way to point out the correct way it should had been written.

Don't try titling a review "Please don't flame me", People will always do and say the opposite. If you mean what you say, then just critique the subject without apologizing for yourself. You can be critical of something popular but you don't have to concede to anyone.

"After Cars, my favorite Pixar movie of all time."

Trolololololo

I love how the reviewer immediately dismisses the movie for having a "Green Aesop" when the movie itself is CLEARLY fine with a society built on technology and progress. The title character is a robot, a product of human technology!

The problem the movie points out is that mindless consumerism without thought is dangerous and building a society in which the humans don't even think for themselves kills the spirit of society. All technological progress stopped at the Axiom and the machines ceased to exist for anything but perpetuating a loop of soulless comfort. Instead of continuing to invent and create, they regressed.

I think it's also hard to call it critique of capitalism as a whole, though as expected, certain groups of people cannot possibly contemplate the idea that rampant brutal destructive capitalism is maybe not the ideal economic model for the world (much like they shriek at even the gentlest Green Aesop as being communist propaganda.) Buy n' Large isn't evil - they eventually realize their way of running the world ruined it. They gave up on saving the planet, but didn't give up on humanity. Their method allowed humanity to survive in their soulless comfort, but still in comfort. And in reality, it is THEIR technology that did save the world - Wall-E is a product of these people, not a rebel, and the Axiom's original function to return the humans to Earth when the planet could be inhabited again does in fact work.

Anyway, I hope you got the attention you so clearly craved by taking an extremely popular and lauded film and dumping on it on a website while passively-aggressively demanding flames in response.

There's nothing wrong with not liking a movie, but this review makes you sound like a monumental idiot.

You know, you almost managed to fool me for a moment. Then you mentioned Cars being your favourite Pixar movie of all time. Try not to, well, try so hard next time you want to troll someone, if that makes any sense. And "hilarious" is spelled with only one "L".

FOREIGN CONTAMINANT

Fox Trax will hate this film because he MUST FOLLOW HIS DIRECTIVE.

Cars, your favorite movie? This sums your review up.

Have to say I half-agree with this review. Wall-E is better than Cars, but I agree that this movie's preachiness is way over the top and the love story element was unnecessary. Even a few kids on TV said they were bored by it. I think it's an okay movie but it certainly isn't one of my favourites.

I agree about the preachiness, but isn't the unstated love story the whole point of the film?

Haha, good joke! Can't believe no-one got it! After all, no-one would admit Cars to be their favourite film 😂

I'm getting a sneaky feeling that this Tublecane guy is actually Fox Trax under a different alias doing what he told us he wouldn't do....

Anywho...I have no idea how to react. Wall-E isn't my favourite Pixar movie (that goes to Up), but it's certainly not meant for people who want spoon-feeding merchandise driven stuff like Cars. It's more of an artwork than your standard animated film. It wasn't a Ferngully or Captain Planet "screw you humans", it was a typical "screw you big corporations". Also nitpicks made this cringey.