Summer Movie Suicide Mission No. 21: The Dark Knight

In which one man attempts to view every summer blockbuster for the entire season, regardless of taste, genre, or getting chased by a Mack truck-driving nutcase in clown makeup.

With all the hype surrounding The Dark Knight, Christopher Nolan’s follow-up to the excellent Batman Begins, I couldn’t help but be a little underwhelmed. It’s hard not to be; every word I’ve read about the film has been so laudatory that I came to expect nothing short of perfection.

The Dark Knight is not a perfect film. It dismisses what could be a major plotline for a sequel in the last fifteen minutes, and Christian Bale’s put on Batman voice is more than a little distracting. But those problems are so insignificant in the grand scheme of things that they can’t really diminish the overall work, which handles the superhero genre with a complexity that Iron Man or The Incredible Hulk only dabbled with by comparison. And I loved both of those films mostly for the complexity with which they handled their superhero characterizations. The Dark Knight is, simply, a cut above. It’s not a perfect film, certainly. But it’s damn close.

Nolan directed Memento, which is the kind of bizarre character study that a lesser filmmaker would ruin, and Nolan handled it deftly and subtly (Guy Pearce’s standout performance didn’t hurt). Following up with Batman Begins, Nolan again did excellent work, but was hampered a bit by the necessity of an origin story that went on a little too long. The Dark Knight has no such necessity. Bale’s Batman is already developed, and the film can focus on a single episodic adventure, as complex and far reaching as this one happens to be.

The standout performance is, of course, Heath Ledger’s Joker, a role he plays with the kind of sociopathic bravado that Jack Nicholson, great as he was, could never aspire to. Even as the Joker, Jack was still just being Jack. Ledger puts on the clown makeup, but never once feels like a cartoon. He’s more Hannibal Lecter than Cesar Romero.

Aaron Eckhart, as new District Attorney Harvey Dent, delivers a similarly good turn, and like Ledger, outshines Bale on screen. Bale does a fine job as the Bruce Wayne/Batman dyad, but The Dark Knight is not really his movie. It’s more of an ensemble piece, the kind of great crime thriller that transcends the superhero genre into something more eventful, more grounded, just, more.

It’s also a great city showcase film, with Chicago subbing for the fictional Gotham (Even the license plates look like Illinois’). It’s the first Batman film that makes Gotham feel like a real place; Tim Burton’s adaptations gave painted Gotham only in shades of black and gray, while Joel Schumacher’s versions were strange technicolor abominations. 

The hype machine is a strange beast. It can bring in a massive audience, but it can leave people disappointed. In The Dark Knight’s case, it certainly has done the former, but it mostly delivers on its promise.

Film: The Dark Knight
Director: Christopher Nolan
Stars: Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Aaron Eckhart, Gary Oldman, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman

Viewing Situation: Weekday evening, full house; standard projection
Rotten Tomatoes Average: 94%
My Grade (Out of 10): 9

Next Up: Space Chimps

Mad Men: Season Two, Episode 1, “For Those Who Think Young”

Advertising seems like such a modern American phenomenon, it’s easy to forget that the medium is as old as mankind. Western capitalism has refined the process to such a point that, today, products are almost indistinguishable from the messages that sell them. The medium is the message, to borrow McLuhan, and so it goes that the delivery system is just as important as that which is being delivered.

Mad Men protagonist Don Draper (Jon Hamm) grasps the significance of that, and lives it, operating as he does in the golden age of his business. During the post-war prosperity of the 1950s, consumer products were more sought after than ever. Production was high, and consumption kept pace. Unlike in other markets throughout the world, the television industry in America sprung up with advertising as its backbone, providing an optimal venue for moving product. While advertising was ever present in American life before the TV age, it was around this time that it became integral and unavoidable. It was a great time to be selling pretty much anything.

When Matthew Weiner wrote the pilot for Mad Men in 1999, he was looking to explore the end of the prosperous 1950s, when the whole experience of being American was becoming something radically different that it was during the decade’s infancy. He chose the advertising industry as a lens to explore the culture in flux, an industry that changes slowly (in lockstep with the societal tide), in almost perfect contrast to the fast and furious messages it delivers.

It’s in this spirit that Mad Men paces itself: slowly, deliberately. This is not a criticism; for a period drama that begins in 1960, when the massive social shifts that would define the end of that decade just beginning in a slow burn, it’s hard to imagine approaching it any other way. Little happens in any given episode of the series, but the devil is buried deeply within the details. The show so richly develops the period and its characters that even the tiniest plot turn is incredibly rewarding.

Season one dealt more with a changing tide in the American lifestyle, where the traditional family structures and gender roles became steadily more liberal and diverse, while exploring the vestiges of the old ways and contemporary taboos. Season two, which premiered Sunday, seems (if the first episode is any hint) to delve more deeply in the changes to come in the ad business. Draper and company seem poised to ponder their own obsolescence, as the Sterling Cooper agency reluctantly approaches a youth movement.

As Draper interviews some potential young new hires, the fear among the rest of the old guard is palpable. Undoubtedly some will not survive, while others will adapt to stay afloat. As Weiner’s camera has increasingly gone beyond the agency walls as the run of the series has gone on, we’re likely to see how the youth movement effects life outside of business, which, of course, is the whole point.

Episode one continued at a familiar pace, but it’s noticeable that the stakes are being raised. Roles are changing: after a fourteen month lapse in the plot, Peggy Olsen (Elisabeth Moss) is (almost) fully accepted in her creative position; Betty Draper (January Jones) is escaping her home life more than her husband would previously have allowed; Don is being reluctantly faithful to his wife; and Pete Campbell (Vincent Kartheiser) is, well, still kind of a pain in everyone’s ass.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Or just change really, really slowly.

On a show like Mad Men – or really, on any show worth a damn — the subtext is much more important than the surface message. And subtext is more valuable the deeper it’s imbedded. This might as well be an advertising credo. Draper knows that selling a product is really about selling the consumers a better version of themselves. Weiner knows that when he tells his narrative, he’s really taking a new look at history.

Summer Movie Suicide Mission No. 20: Mamma Mia!

In which one man attempts to view every summer blockbuster for the entire season, regardless of taste, genre, or Remington Steele trying to sing.

The so-called “jukebox musical” is a relatively new and pretty lazy form of entertainment. It’s kind of mindless, stuffing an already beloved piece of art into a new medium. And it’s worked, at least on the stage. Plays like Jersey Boys, Movin’ Out, and others are hits, and have fit in pretty naturally into the Broadway landscape, making money, winning Tonys, and packing in huge crowds over long runs.

The idea is making its way to the big screen. And they’re not even all bad. Last year’s Across the Universe and Romance and Cigarettes were both surprisingly pleasant, though flawed, films. There’s something to be said for lazy packaging when the contents are worth the price of admission.

I came to this same conclusion when I saw Mamma Mia!, the ABBA musical, on stage. When the actors performed the songs, the play works as delightful, escapist fare. When the show attempts to advance its plot, it mostly fails. Good thing the plot is so knowingly paper thin that the writers don’t see fit to dwell in it too much.

There are probably a hundred reasons why Mamma Mia! borders on great as a stage play but disappoints so spectacularly on screen, but I’ll only bother with a few of them. There is, of course, the discussion to be had about the suitability of musical talent. In a stage musical, actors are cast with their singing voices as the main showpiece, with their acting ability a secondary concern. In movie musicals (or at least in recent ones), the face and the name are far more important than the voice. In Mamma Mia!, this couldn’t be more evident. Sure, the audience gets to see Pierce Brosnan star as one of Amanda Seyfried’s potential fathers, but they soon get to see Brosnan embarrass himself trying to sing “SOS,” one of the film’s intended showstoppers. Meryl Streep, who plays Seyfried’s overbearing, hotel owning mother, has a nice enough voice (as shown in A Prairie Home Companion), but she can’t really rise to the material here. And thankfully, Stellan Skarsgard (who, with Brosnan and Colin Firth, rounds out the trio of daddies) didn’t have to sing much of anything. Seyfried herself has a beautiful voice, but, despite the fact that she’s really the lead character in the story, her role was minimized in the film version.

Besides casting, there’s another fundamental difference between stage and screen. On stage, the pure spectacle of the musical number is enough to engender a great deal of goodwill in the audience. A theater audience is much more likely to overlook silly plot points, as long as they don’t come at the expense of that spectacle. Audience motivations are different. On screen, a musical performance, even a great one, will never rise to the level of a real live performance, which strikes an audience on a visceral level that film can’t attain. The real thing is so much better than the substitute. Film, obviously, can do things a live performance can’t. It needs to play to those strengths. Without a plot deeper than something a four year old could carve onto a sheet of construction paper, the vocal performance can’t do much.

In an era where the Hollywood sheen can make a phony genre like the musical seem even phonier, a successful movie musical needs to go in one of two directions. Either make a play at realism, or go impossibly big. There are good recent examples on both counts. Once, the Irish musical which one an Academy Award in 2007, went the earthly route, keeping its production minimalist, setting the action in a recognizable, real cityscape, and weaving its music seamlessly into the narrative. Across the Universe, a Beatles themed jukebox musical, went the other way, providing an unabashed fantasy with elaborate production numbers that could never prove functional in any other medium.

Mamma Mia! stays so close to its source material that it doesn’t allow itself any room to operate. Granted, it would be impossible for a story like this one to go for a realist structure, but it certainly could have gone for overblown fantasy. I would have like to have seen this film not take itself seriously at all, but it felt alternately too weighty and too thin.

Ed. Note: I thought about ending this post with some real zinger of an ABBA pun, but decided to cut my losses. You can thank me later.

Film: Mamma Mia!
Director: Phyllida Lloyd
Stars: Meryl Streep, Pierce Brosnan, Colin Firth, Stellan Skarsgard, Amanda Seyfried, Christine Baranski

Viewing Situation: Only gentleman in a half full audience; digital projection
Rotten Tomatoes Average: 53%
My Grade (Out of 10): 4

Next Up: The Dark Knight 

>> Jukebox musical [Wikipedia]

Summer Movie Suicide Mission No. 19: Meet Dave

In which one man attempts to view every summer blockbuster for the entire season, regardless of taste, genre, or human-shaped spaceships that shit hot dogs.

On a Monday afternoon, myself and a couple of teenagers entered the theater to see Meet Dave. I spent the duration of the film lamenting the fate of late period Eddie Murphy; the teens spent the time drinking clandestine beers in the dark. I’d say they had the better end of the deal.

Ever since The Nutty Professor remake, Murphy has been on a downward spiral. I haven’t seen enough of his films over the past decade or so to say with absolute confidence that Meet Dave is the worst of the lot, but I can venture a pretty good guess. At any rate, Meet Dave hasn’t given me a reason to check out any of those other movies. Ever.

So what happened to the Eddie Murphy of Trading Places, Beverly Hills Cop, et al.? Has he tried too much to play to a family audience, becoming bland and inoffensive (and unfunny) in the process? Has he immersed himself into too many trite star vehicles, refusing to take any risks?

Of course, that much is true, but the real problem is more fundamental than that. Murphy has completely lost his sense of comedic timing. From his standup, through Saturday Night Live, to his early years as a major film star, Murphy was sharp as a tack. His reactions, and his knowing smirks, were delivered impeccably, his laugh lines were natural, solicitous even, making even the silliest jokes riotously funny. In Meet Dave, Murphy made me laugh exactly once, but that one joke was delivered so perfectly it left me wondering why he can’t pull off that trick more often.

Searching for the reason, though, is kind of futile. You never can tell where the talent goes. Other comedic actors, and Murphy contemporaries like Chevy Chase and Dan Aykroyd have lost the funny over the years, too, for whatever reason. Murphy, however, gets to keep making movies. The others don’t. And it’s not like any of Murphy’s non-Shrek films of late have been anything but colossal bombs. He keeps getting the chance, and keeps failing.

In Meet Dave, Murphy’s persona (or, rather, both of them, as he plays two parts, which is actually less than usual for him) is fundamentally annoying. He plays the captain of a spaceship from the planet Nil (which I think is supposed to be a joke, but I don’t get it), who speaks in a generic voice devoid of any emotion. The spaceship itself is designed in its captain’s image, and interacts (in Murphy’s voice) completely unnaturally, despite the fact that the humanoid miniatures who comprise its crew have verbal interactions that are recognizably human.

Unfortunately, Murphy drags a pretty good supporting cast down with him. Ed Helms plays Murphy’s first mate, and can’t play anything but annoyed throughout the whole film. Probably, Helms was frustrated himself that his agent signed him up for this movie. Elizabeth Banks, who’s hilarious when the script allows it, as in films like The 40-Year-Old Virgin, plays a major part here, yet still doesn’t have anything much to do. Judah Friedlander shows up and does a boring version of his signature goof character. Gabrielle Union, who’s beautiful and endearing but pretty one note, plays Murphy’s love interest and shows why she doesn’t have any crossover appeal outside of things like Eddie Murphy movies.

The Nillians (still don’t get the joke) have landed on earth to steal the world’s water supply to save their own planet. Yet they become so infatuated with Earthlings that they can’t bring themselves to do it. It’s a shame their civilization will have to die, though it at least guarantees there won’t be a Meet Dave 2.

Film: Meet Dave
Director: Brian Robbins
Stars: Eddie Murphy, Elizabeth Banks, Scott Caan, Ed Helms, Gabrielle Union, Mike O’Malley, Judah Friedlander

Viewing Situation: Weekday matinee, me, drunk teens; standard projection
Rotten Tomatoes Average: 21%
My Grade (Out of 10): 1

Next Up: Mamma Mia!

Summer Movie Suicide Mission No. 18: Wanted

In which one man attempts to view every summer blockbuster for the entire season, regardless of taste, genre, or curvy bullet action.

In some kind of alternate, Matrix-free universe, Wanted would be seen as some kind of impressive technical achievement: the stunts are well choreographed, the plot deals with a richly developed hidden community, and the CGI can make bullets do some crazy stuff. Instead, Wanted comes off cold, trying to piggyback off of a superior sci-tech franchise about seven years too late.

Wanted’s signature move is its use of the “curved bullet,” a lame ripoff of BulletTime where the extreme slow motion is used to get a better look at the implement flying through the air. In the Matrix, it was a fresh technology, and it fit the impossibly high-tech motif of that film. In Wanted, the filmmakers try to build a plot around the effect, and just seem to come up small.

Still, that’s not nearly the biggest problem with Wanted. Even at their best, special effects can never make a movie. As a public, we’ve seen pretty much everything there is to see; every “new” effects style is really just a variation on what’s come before. Similarly, bad effects can’t break a film that has a rewarding narrative. This is filmmaking 101, and Wanted fails.

For starters, the plot is ridiculously convoluted. James McAvoy (who seemed to worry more about perfecting his American accent than bother with actually acting) starts out the film as average Joe schlub, working a dead end job, with a cheating girlfriend and a crippling anxiety disorder. Soon he’s recruited by Angelina Jolie and Morgan Freeman into The Fraternity (creative name!), a centuries-old team of assassins, under the pretense that his father (a world class killer who McAvoy had never known) has just been killed. And the same rogue who killed the father is now after McAvoy.

This turns out to be a lie, and the whole Fraternity concept turns out to be kind of bullshit itself. The lies upon lies make even the ostensible good guys unlikeable, and the filmmakers intended for McAvoy to come out as the lone wolf hero in this equation. But the film is anchored by occasional narration by the McAvoy character, where he unwittingly reveals himself to be a first class asshole, even going so far, in the film’s final moments, to insult the audience directly, essentially calling us out for not having freaky mind powers and taking delight in indiscriminately killing people. Thanks, James.

The rest of the cast in pretty plain and unremarkable. Jolie delivers a performance so one note that the biggest stretch of her acting talents comes when she devours a cheeseburger, and act which, judging by the width of her biceps alone, she would never accomplish in real life. Freeman, similarly, just shows up and does that thing he does in every movie. A kind appraisal of Freeman’s acting would call him a throwback to the golden age of cinema before method acting, when you just had to have a familiar face and a voice that echoed god’s. Me, I just get bored by seeing the same performance all the time. Though in this film, Freeman does say “fuck” a lot. It’s the little nuances that count.

In a big year for superheroes, Wanted plays a little bit with that genre, even if that’s not its main intention. The Fraternity members definitely have talents that are superhuman, but the film can’t decide if it wants to go down that road, or just make all its characters into little James Bonds, human but invincible, and with lots of cool gadgets. The whole endeavor seems incredibly schizophrenic, trying to develop audience loyalty in its characters, while not even really knowing what those characters are supposed to be. It may have been better served to play the superpower aspect up. In a hyper violent, high action mess like this, the audience might react better if it wasn’t expected to care about the characters on a human level. Especially in the case of McAvoy, who, by the end of the film, undermines all the goodwill he started with.

I realize it’s a bit like splitting hairs to worry about plot and characterization in a film that doesn’t really care about either. If Wanted wasn’t so derivative in the “stuff go boom” category, that other stuff might be forgivable.

Film: Wanted
Director: Timur Bekmambetov
Stars: James McAvoy, Angelina Jolie, Morgan Freeman, Terence Stamp, Common

Viewing Situation: Weekend matinee, half full; digital projection
Rotten Tomatoes Average: 72%
My Grade (Out of 10): 3

Next Up: Meet Dave

Barney Stinson Rocks Sesame Street. Plus, Coming Soon on Mentos and Manatees

A little piece of web junk to tide over How I Met Your Mother fans until the new season: Neil Patrick Harris as the “shoe fairy” on a future episode of Sesame Street, via YouTube.

I’m wrapping up a busy week, but in the upcoming days on Mentos and Manatees, we’ll get caught up onthe Summer Movie Suicide Mission with reviews of Wanted, Meet Dave, Mamma Mia!, and The Dark Knight. Plus, we’ll take a look at the outstanding new HBO mini Generation Kill, and see what’s up with the Madison Avenue crowd on the new season of Mad Men.

Thanks for the huge response to the movie list this week. I’d like to make Let’s Play a Game a regular feature. Any suggestions for tedious list making exercises are more than welcome. Now let’s all have a nice weekend.

>> Sesame Street: Neil Patrick Harris has Telly’s New Shoes [YouTube]

Let’s Play a Game: Name a Favorite Movie for Every Year You’ve Been Alive

The idea of naming a favorite album for every one of your years on Earth has been kicking around the internet for a little while now. I’ll give that a try some time soon, but in the spirit of this blog, I thought I’d give the game a go with my favorite movies. The further I go back, the less movies I’ve seen that year, so some of these picks are less representative of my taste than others. I’m being honest about movies I like, rather than resting just on films with good reputations. So let’s go!

1980: Caddyshack 

In a pretty strong year for movies, the irreverent slice of life at Bushwood Country Club comes out on top. It’s still eminently watchable (and eminently quotable), and I’ll give it a slight push for pure enjoyment over runner-up Raging Bull.

Honorable Mention(s): Raging Bull, Airplane!, The Empire Strikes Back, The Shining
Dishonorable Mention(s): The Blue Lagoon

1981: Raiders of the Lost Ark

In a year with fewer of my favorites, the first (and still best) Indiana Jones foray comes out on top.

HM: Superman II, Stripes
DM: Nothing else too great this year, but nothing too offensive (that I’ve seen anyway) either.

1982: Fast Times at Ridgemont High

Probably the best film in both Amy Heckerling’s and Cameron Crowe’s oeuvre, Fast Times handles teenage life with equal parts crudeness and sophistication, which is why it’s the definitive cinematic statement on the topic, even today.

HM: E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial
DM: Airplane II: The Sequel

1983: The King of Comedy

Features a darkly comic Robert De Niro (back when he was method), and a deadly serious Jerry Lewis, playing against type. Scorsese explores celebrity obsession at a time when it was just beginning to be a hot button issue.

HM: Return of the Jedi, Risky Business, Trading Places, National Lampoon’s Vacation
DM: The Big Chill

1984: This is Spinal Tap

A top contender for funniest movie ever made, in a banner year for mainstream comedy.

HM: Ghostbusters, The Karate Kid, Broadway Danny Rose, Sixteen Candles, The Muppets Take Manhattan, Amadeus
DM: Footloose, Police Academy

1985: Back to the Future

Sure, the special effects don’t really hold up, but it’s hard to think of a movie from the 1980s that’s more iconic of its era. This despite the fact that most of the film takes place in 1955. Even on the hundredth viewing, I still root for Marty to make it to the clock tower in time, as if I don’t already know the ending.

HM: Pee Wee’s Big Adventure, Rocky IV
DM: Mask
 

Summer Movie Suicide Mission No. 17: Journey to the Center of the Earth

In which one man attempts to view every summer blockbuster for the entire season, regardless of taste, genre, or yo-yos that hit you in the face.

All that’s wrong with Journey to the Center of the Earth, in bullet points:

• Brendan Fraser, action star. I can deal with Brendan Fraser, unfrozen neanderthal, Brendan Fraser, maladjusted man-child, or even Brendan Fraser, plastic gun toting heavy metal singer. But no way am I ever willing to accept him as an action hero. In Journey, Fraser bumbles, as is his forte, but pulls it together to save the day. Yet his face is tailor-made for screwball comedy, and I get the feeling that he hasn’t earned a reputation as a leading man so much as the public has been bullied into believing he is one. In this film Fraser provides one of the least appealing lead performances I’ve seen this summer. And you already know how I felt about Patrick Dempsey.
   
• Brendan Fraser, scientist. Different concept; same rules apply. Fraser has built such a track record of playing morons, that he’s impossible to believe as a member of the scientific community. And the writing here doesn’t do him any favors. In an early scene, we’re expected to believe that Professor what’s his name, a leading geologist, would have to wrack his brain to remember some of the more basic elements in the periodic table. Though Fraser is such a dolt, he actually almost pulls that part off.
   
• If you’re going to adapt a book, adapt a book. Journey is not a straight adaptation of the Jules Verne classic. It deals with a fictitious cult of scientists that believe the novel is more than a work of fiction, and that the world Verne described is real. And, wouldn’t you know, it turns out it is! And Fraser, his nephew, and the daughter of a like-minded geologist who also happens to be a mountain guide, end up trapped in it. Super. Why not just give us a straight retelling of the original story? The same effects could have been used, and we wouldn’t have had to concoct a razor thin plotline around them as an excuse to inhabit an already richly drawn universe.
   
• Hollywood, I hate it when you insult my intelligence. Or the intelligence of your ten year old target audience, for that matter. This movie is so profoundly stupid, I can’t even bring my self to tick off the laundry list or problems. Suffice it to say that it’s not suitable for anyone with a measurable IQ. Perhaps babies may like this film; I can’t be sure. But anyone old enough to have the word “sucks” in their vocabulary will likely go right ahead and use that modifier.
   
• When I can’t control my laughter, it does not necessarily mean that I approve of what I’m seeing. Sometimes it just means that what you’re showing me is so ludicrous as to preclude any other response. I’ve enjoyed myself at your expense. You can thank me later for the extra two bucks for the 3D glasses.

And what went right:

• 3D is kind of awesome. It was immensely fun at times when the 3D effects were in full force, and I applaud the filmmakers for using the technology, which is much better now than I can remember. But I don’t hold out too much hope that 3D will be used for many movies that will attempt to be any more than a showcase for the technology. Maybe someday a film with a creative plot will make use of 3D, but films like Journey aren’t going to do a whole lot to legitimize the form.
   
• The two guys sitting next to me, making catty comments and likely enjoying the benefits of some wonderful and mind-expanding drug. You guys made my day. If only I’d had as much fun as you. You can sit next to me anytime.

Film: Journey to the Center of the Earth
Director: Eric Brevig

Stars: Brendan Fraser, Josh Hutcherson, Anita Briem
 

Viewing Situation: Weekday evening, crowded theater; digital 3D

Rotten Tomatoes Average: 60%

My Grade (Out of 10): 3 

Next Up: Wanted
 

Summer Movie Suicide Mission No. 16: Hancock

In which one man attempts to view every summer blockbuster for the entire season, regardless of taste, genre, or drunk superheroes.

Let’s talk for a moment about the art of the twist. Not the dance craze, kids. We twisted last summer, and this time we’re not going to twist again. No, I’m talking about the plot twist, that ever mysterious device that can make or break a narrative. In The Sixth Sense or The Usual Suspects, for example, the twist works as a real art form, elevating an otherwise pedestrian movie to a sublime climax. We remember these films fondly because they messed with our expectations, leaving us wondering about the clues we missed all the way out of the theater. But sometimes (or more often than not, maybe; I don’t have stats on this), a misplaced plot twist can ruin an otherwise pleasurable experience, by trying to deliver a little more than was really necessary.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Hancock, a film that’s thematically creative but underwhelming because it ends up shooting at the wrong target.

Quite essentially, spoilers will follow. If you haven’t seen the movie (and I don’t necessarily recommend that you do), you may not want to indulge the rest of this post.

But if you’re up for it, let’s jump.

Summer Movie Suicide Mission No. 15: WALL-E

In which one man attempts to view every summer blockbuster for the entire season, regardless of taste, genre, or hot dog milkshakes.

WALL-E is the kind of film I don’t think I even need to rave about, as you can’t turn any corner of the internet or elsewhere without somebody else doing so. Suffice it to say that WALL-E is a fantastic piece of work, a cautionary tale equal parts saddening, maddening and uplifting.

Pixar Animation Studios (Toy Story, Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, et al.) has built a solid track record in the field of computer animation, rendering worlds that feel like our own, but somehow brighter and better. Pixar has really created a fresh genre where fantasy feels real, and human.

WALL-E has taken criticism from a number of sources, a likely backlash when it comes to a movie this universally revered. Critics have claimed that it’s too dark for children, claiming that an uninhabitable world is not the sort of setting that’s gentle enough for the impressionable ones. But the kids in my theater seemed to enjoy it just fine, and if they learn to heed the warnings about excessive consumption, all the better.

Others have claimed that WALL-E plays as leftist propaganda, that it is alarmist about the crises facing the planet. But those crises are real. We throw out more garbage than we know what to do with, and our ecosystem is in serious danger. Only the most dubious of scientists would claim that the climate crisis is not something worth being alarmed about.

The film has come under fire from, of all places, obesity rights groups, who claim that the film (which portrays exiled humans living on a luxury satellite as fat pigs, who are mostly immobile and eat all of their food in milkshake form) is insensitive to the overweight. However, the film really portrays obesity as a consequence of not having a planet to live on, and being spoonfed by a large corporation whose sole business seems to be forcing consumption upon its consumers. Similarly, the film has been portrayed as anti-corporate, which is indeed a large part of its message. The future is portrayed as a world where corporations and government have become synonymous. Of course it’s a bit of a slippery slope, but not terribly far fetched when we take a long look at the world we live in now.

Further, some have claimed that the film’s anti-corporate message runs counter to the business behind the film (Disney), which has manufactured countless WALL-E themed products to cash in on the franchise. Well, I guess I can’t really argue against that one.

It’s undeniable that WALL-E is a politically charged film, and if you fall on one particular side of that fence, it may stick in your craw a little. But I’d wager that even those who disagree with the film’s agenda would still be sucked in by the story, which is characteristically charming and endearing. And WALL-E himself is kind of like a new E.T. (just look at the eyes and listen to the voice). And who can hate on E.T.? People without souls, that’s who.

That’s not even to mention how beautiful this film is visually. Pixar has come as close to perfecting digital rendering as I can possibly imagine. In last year’s Ratatouille, when Remy looked out over the animated Paris, I felt like I was looking at the real thing. WALL-E is even sharper. The post-apocalyptic Earth looks both real and frightening, and provides a rugged point of juxtaposition for WALL-E himself, the cuddly figure who roams its corners alone.

WALL-E is a complex text, whose happy endings aren’t really that happy, and whose overall tone can get very dark at times. But this is really what we should want from our entertainment. Film can be incredibly democratic, giving the public the cute story it wants, but still have themes that run deeper, and mirror society at both its best and its worst. Anyone expecting a trifle of a kid’s movie may be disappointed at first, but if they stick with it, they’ll be rewarded. And anyone who expects a little more shouldn’t need my encouragement to see this one.

On my way out of the theater, I knew that this was one of the best movies I’d seen this summer. But the more I’ve thought about it (and I’ve had a lot of time to think, since, as you may have noticed, I haven’t been writing anything), it really gets better and better. Hands down, WALL-E is the best film of the season, and the best of the year so far. Believe the hype. It’s earnest, bold, sweet and frightening. WALL-E will be a big smash come award season. Maybe it’s time the Academy gave some Best Picture love to an animated feature.

After all, this might be the realest fantasy you’ll ever see.

Film: WALL-E
Director: Andrew Stanton
Stars: Ben Burtt, Elissa Knight, Fred Willard, Jeff Garlin, Kathy Najimy, Sigourney Weaver, John Ratzenberger

Viewing Situation: Weekend matinee, half full house; standard projection
Rotten Tomatoes Average: 97%
My Grade (Out of 10): 10

Next Up: Hancock