Wallll- Eeeeee

The Pixar machine rolls out yet another, fully-formulated, intergenerational, merchandise-friendly, and still all-around-touching piece of box-office gold.

It will take the number one spot in the numbers this weekend with about $62 mill at this point (for those interested, Wanted is making a hell-of-a, better-than-expected showing, as predicted). The question that remains now is whether or not it can become the biggest opener of the Pixar slate (having to top the Incredibles at 70.5 mill). Is it deserving of that kind of money? Absolutely.

While there is barely a word spoken for the first half hour of the movie, it could not be more captivating, and not just for the kids that filled the matinée I attended. WALL-E (whose design is straight out of Short Circuit, see: Johnny-5), is endearing and emotionally compelling. He is the only “living” resident left on Earth, save for his little cockroach friend, left to clean up the garbage that left by a wasteful consumer-culture. The piece of the story that keeps the parents (and college students) interested, is the social commentary present right from the start.

I know what you're thinking, another preachy film highlighting humanity's abuse of the planet and global warming and all that jazz. As a big opponent of movies that exploit that message (see: The Happening), I can say for certain that WALL-E focuses more on the laziness of humanity and our dependence on technology than the whole environmental thing – humans, while occupying a spaceship on hovering La-Z-Boys for 700 years or so, degenerate into formless blobs.

The heartwarming nature of the film comes from the love story between two robots (if Nemo can travel from a dentist office drain to the ocean, robots can fall in love). With the dailogue between the two mostly consisting of them calling each other's names (EVE, or EVA as WALL-E pronounces it, is the other robot who has been sent to search for plant life), the credit really goes to the animators here. Two cold metal objects, one looking very much like an Apple product (Pixar is a Steve Jobs brainchild), become distinct, full, and sometimes fiery, characters. They both have a twinkle in their eye, something Pixar has mastered, and souls that can make you feel sorry for the cell phone you traded in with your last upgrade. Also, the lack of defined gender roles is refreshing as there are no real sex determinants (the names maybe qualify but the character traits are traditionally reversed). EVE is often times dominant, aggressive, and trigger-happy, and WALL-E, an emotional romantic, craves affectionate touch and true love (and is a big fan of the classic musical, Hello Dolly).

Since the dialogue is lacking, a thrilling score by the established (read Ocsar-nominated) Thomas Newman ( The Good German, Finding Nemo) drives the feeling of the film. One moment he clanks along during the high-speed chase involving malfunctioning, misfit machines, and the next he's crafting a mid-space, robot ballet.

Oscar Gold?

Stanton, whose work has mostly been in screenplay writing, makes a solid directorial debut here. Oscar worthy? Probably not, but he'll have a few more productions coming his way after this if he wants to try for it. Every gear moves smoothly in tandem, and Stanton architects it all as a true cinematic engineer.

Some reviewers have thrown around the idea of WALL-E as a Best Picture contender (Disney has said they are pitching it as such). Despite the film's determination, I think is a little too soon to be saying. The Oscar season is just beginning (at this point last year, people heard Juno, they thought Alaska). I see it a shoe-in for Best Animated Feature, but with Cannes's finest about to hit the big screens, I think, I hope there is more to come in the big category.

Wrap Up

The movie falls under the Good Movie category. It causes some reevaluation of our reliance on computers (something the Millenials can never have to much of), contains some revolutionary aspects of the genre (a near-silent, wishy-washy robot headlining a film is more daring than Remy the rat last year; plus the animation is out of this world), and it might establish itself as a pop-cultural icon (this has still yet to be seen). It has proficiency is multiple aspects of the film-making process, but its recycling of the standard Pixar formula disqualifies it, in my mind, from being a Great Film.

PS

Someone asked me after I saw it, if I thought it topped Nemo? I still have to sit on this, maybe a second watch will affect my answer. What do you all think?

This Weekend at the Box Office

First and Foremost, Response to Comments:

1) The Chick Flick
This type of movie, I have to admit greyslev, is one of my least favorite genres. I am not a chick, therefore this type of movie is not really directed toward me anyway, but since it exists (and after Sex and the City's success, I think we'll see a lot more popping up) I should comment on it. I do have the guilty pleasure chick flicks that I find pretty entertaining in their humor (see: The Truth About Cats & Dogs), in their pop culture icon status (see: She's All That), or, I have to admit, in cheezy, romantic value (see the height of the genre: Pretty Woman). Some people include musicals in this area, but I disagree and file them under their own category.

2) Bad Movies
There is a dilemma here. While a lot, maybe most, of the movies I see are bad, some sink so low that they actually come back up as entertaining (see because you probably haven't: Get Over It). Then there are the movies that are not worth the time, and I love the examples given by Anonymous of Gigli and Battlefield: Earth.

:::Sidenote::: For those of you who don't watch E!, John Travolta turned down the role of Billy Flynn (Richard Gere) in Chicago to do Battlefield: Earth, a movie based on a book by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard. Chicago won best picture in 2002.

As for today...

How Wanted is WALL-E?

I know I promised a movie review, but it's going to have to wait. Today I am making predictions for this week's box office.

This weekend is going to bring some tight competition between star-studded Wanted and Pixar's WALL-E. While Wanted features James McAvoy, just off Academy Award nominated (and in my opinion incredibly overrated) Atonement, a red hot, and apparently overly tattooed, Angelina Jolie, and Mr. Consistent Morgan Freeman, I think WALL-E is going to pull this one out.

Its G rating will make it a sure hit with families, as long as they aren't too worn out from Kung Fu Panda and Get Smart. Panda is a few weeks old already though, and Get Smart is targeting a little bit older of an audience with PG-13, so I think the way will still be clear. Also, Pixar, coming off of Ratatouille, can pretty much do no wrong. Their simple formula of cute animated character who longs to find his greater place in the world, or in WALL-E's case the universe, puts up big every time. I think everyone is familiar with the successes of Cars, Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Monsters Inc., and, can't forget the classic gem that started it all, Toy Story. This project though is not backed up by any kind of star power unless you count Jeff Garlin or Sigourney Weaver.

So that's my prediction for this weekend. Wanted will definitely come in at a solid second doing a nice amount of business for Universal, and throwing some more distribution dollars to Paramount, who has already hit the billion dollar mark for domestic box office (reaching the mark a couple of weeks earlier than their record-setting last year).

Let me know what you think. Can Wanted, which has gotten some good early reviews (83% right now on rottentomatoes) capture first place with big moves, big effects, and big names, or will family fun win this weekend with WALL-E?

Evaluation and Classification

I begin this blog as a forum where I can opine (gotta love the word and our right to it) on today's movies and movie industry in today's world. A place where I can discuss, within the context of current events and the coming-of-age of the Millennials (of which I am one), the films released in the modern market. It is for my own amusement I admit, the amusement of others I hope, and for my own agenda as well. For if we can disperse our opinions, who knows what outcomes can be witnessed--just look at Snakes on a Plane. I also look forward to hearing the reception of my ideas about movies and the business.

Let me first clarify the system by which I evaluate movies. It isn't the best, and it's been the subject of several arguments. Some say, “Appreciate the movies as they are.” But with any art (or any work in general), there must be a mode of classifying and rating. If everything is great, nothing is.

I start with a separation by genre. Obviously a comedy isn't a drama, and therefore, it should not be treated as such. Then there are movies that aren't worth grading (See: M. Night Shyamalan's recent pics). Finally there is the scale of rankings:

Decent Movie: one which has at least one of four things:

1) a choice made by the creators that contributes to evolution of the genre (see: The Matrix)

2) a memorable feature that surpasses the movie's initial fame to become an intrinsic part of the times (see: Titanic)

3) a concept that challenges currently held beliefs enough to cause a reevaluation of some kind amongst its viewers (see: Crash)

4) at least a piece that carries historical importance (see: Bowling For Columbine) – it should be pointed out that this is the rarest quality and, perhaps because of that, the most transcendent, far-reaching, and lasting

Good Movie: one which has at least two of those things and proficiency in multiple areas of the film making process, for example the direction, acting, writing, music, sets, etc. (see: Juno).

Great Film: one that has at least two, but most likely more, of the original four things and has proficiency in almost, if not, all of the areas of the film making process (see--an obvious choice--: The Godfather). A Great Film will not have any aspect of the movie that is completely lacking in any area either.

A category unto itself is the Entertaining Movie. This can be defined as any movie, usually in the action genre, that doesn't have me glancing at my watch in an attempt to convince myself I can make it to the end (see: various works of Michael Bay). The Entertaining Movie is an experience that keeps my interest and satisfies, if not pleases, a moviegoer with the return on his/her $10 movie ticket, $3.99 Netflix, or $1 Red Box rental. There are also a series of other distinctions which are broad, and can not be broken down in further analysis: “alright”, “OK”, “not bad”, “didn't hate it”, and the always versatile “Eh. . .”

When I look at comedies in a critical light, the only criteria which I can think to judge them by is laugh measurement, future quotability/refer-ability, and, an important one, second watch (or ability to provoke a second watch). The latter must be considered as there were many comedies that I did not appreciate until they settled in my mind (see: Zoolander). It should be noted that comedies are not excluded from becoming Great Films (see: Animal House).

Some say my criteria is harsh, and limits the title of Great Film to very few, if any, movies each year. Some may say it's pretty lenient, allowing for the inclusion of Hollywood blockbusters instead of sticking to the “true art” of the Indie scene. Let me know what you think of my system. Can you think of better evaluation methods? Also, are there better examples than the ones I chose? Next week I promise to follow up with a post on a specific movie.