FlixChatter Review: Incredibles 2 (2018)

The Incredibles was released 2004 when the super hero genre was starting to dominate the box office. It was one of the biggest hits of that year but somehow a sequel never got made. Now 14 years later, the Parr/Incredibles family is back to save the world from bad guys.

Set not long after the events of the first movie, The Incredibles family just saved a city from a massive disaster but were arrested right after because superheroes are still considered illegal. With the help of an old friend, they were released from the authority. But now they are broke and homeless, Bob/Mr. Incredible (Craig T. Nelson) and Helen/Elastigirl (Holly Hunter) needs to figure out how they can support their young children. The thought of going back to the workforce as regular human being doesn’t sit well with Bob but thankfully their friend Lucius/Frozone (Samuel L. Jackson) came to the rescue. He told both Bob and Helen that he’d met a very rich man named Winston Deavor (Bob Odenkirk) who wants to make super heroes legal again and he wants to meet and offer them a new gig.

Winston runs a very successful communication firm and idolizes super heroes, he wants to convince powerful government officials to make super heroes legal and save the world from danger again. With the help of his tech expert sister Evelyn (Catherine Keener), Winston came up with a plan of having only Elastigirl go out and do all the heroics stuff first to prove to the government that super heroes are not dangerous to the public. Having always been the man of the house and the alpha male, Mr. Incredible was taken aback that Winston didn’t choose him for this gig. But since he loves his wife and kids and understands that the job will be their only option to make a living, he relented and encourage his wife to take the job.

As the story progresses, we see Elastigirl fights crime and save many lives while also trying to find the identity of the movie’s main villain who goes by the name Screensaver. Meanwhile, Bob is stuck at home playing Mr. Mom and not doing a very good job of it.

All of the actors who voiced each of the characters were great, Nelson, Hunter and Jackson slipped right back into their respective roles and we audience never get the sense that they’ve been gone for such a long time. Odenkirk’s Winston is a nice addition, he’s basically playing a rich and powerful version of Saul from Breaking Bad. Let’s hope they bring him back for the third sequel. But the character who steals the show is baby Jack Jack, he’s adorable baby with several super powers and got the most laugh from the audience. Pretty sure his toy will sell quite well during the holidays season.

This is a return to form for Brad Bird who wrote and directed the picture. I thought his last film Tomorrowland was one of the worst of 2015. He crafted a fun and exciting family superhero picture. There were some complaints from parents that the first movie was too violent, so he scaled back the action in this one. But that doesn’t mean the movie don’t have any good action scenes.

The highlight action scene for me was when Elastigirl was on her motorbike racing through the streets trying to stop an out of control train. Also, the big climatic finale where all of the super heroes used their power to save a city from destruction was well done and very exciting. The only complaint I have is that the main villain was pretty weak compare to Syndrome from the first movie.

Incredibles 2 may not be a good as the first one but it’s full laughs, exciting action sequences and some social commentary on our current pop culture. It’s still early in the summer movie season but it’s definitely my favorite so far.

TedS_post


So have you seen Incredibles 2? Well, what did you think?

FlixChatter Review: Tomorrowland (2015)

TomorrowlandPoster

I hadn’t heard much about this film until I saw the trailer a couple of months ago. Apparently it was based on a section at Disney theme parks, featuring attractions that depict views of the future. The movie opens in the mid 60s with a young boy Frank Walker (Thomas Robinson) who made his way to a New York World Fair, feverishly excited to show off his flying jetpack invention that reminds me of something out of Disney’s The Rocketeer. It’s not working properly yet and so a renowned inventor David Nix (Hugh Laurie) rejected it.

TomorrowlandStill1

Despite his failure, Frank’s enthusiasm caught the attention of a mysterious young girl named Athena, and that’s how he ended up in this amazing futuristic city that seem to exist in a parallel dimension. I was caught up in that sense of wonder as the buildup promises something that would totally blow me away. The movie seems to have a lot going for it – an intriguing sci-fi mystery concept, a talented director and big name star. It also boasts some spectacular and imaginative visuals, which is to be expected from a budget of nearly $200 mil. Alas, I kept waiting to be completely in awe of the movie right up until the end, but that moment never came.

The only times where the movie REALLY tickle my curiosity is in that first 10 minutes with the young Frank when he first saw the futuristic city. There’s also the first few minutes after a young teen named Casey (Britt Robertson) found the mystifying pin that upon touching it transports her into the spectacular universe filled with futuristic skyscrapers, connected by a sleek-looking monorail. According to this article, ILM spent 2.5 years to produce over a thousand effects shots, employing 200 employees to create that futuristic world. Was the result something that would knock your socks off? Visually, yes. But if only Disney would invest in a script that is equally awe-inspiring.

TomorrowlandStill2

Even though the movie has a lot to say about invention and creativity, the script from Damon Lindelof and Brad Bird is largely uninspiring. It’s really a huge letdown as the build-up was so promising and I was really hoping to be wowed by it all. The uneven tone throughout the movie proved to be rather distracting and the movie never quite find its footing. Midway through the movie, when Casey entered an antique shop looking for answers about the pin, the film descend into a slapstick farce. The casting of comedians Keegan-Michael Key and Kathryn Hahn just seem out of place here, but then so is country artist Tim McGraw. By that point though, I was still keen on figuring out just what the heck is going on, and so I went along for the ride.

But the more the plot is unraveled, the more underwhelming the movie becomes. The finale is formulaic, even borderline absurd, and worst of all, preachy. I appreciate the message of optimism and the attempt to inspire youth’s imagination, but I really could do without the preachy-ness of taking better care of our world, etc. Suddenly I was given an environmental lecture from a rather lame villain who barely has any character development in the movie. I really don’t know what to make of Laurie‘s character but one thing for sure, the talented actor was wasted in this role.

TomorrowlandStill3TomorrowlandStill5

George Clooney adds star power in the role of the older Frank, though he spends most of the movie being curmudgeon rather than his charming self. I was more impressed by the young actors, especially Robertson who infused the role with her buoyancy and genuine optimism. English actress Raffey Cassidy is absolutely adorable as Athena who’s perhaps the heart of the movie. Together with Robertson, the two young actresses also provide some unexpected comic relief. There are fun moments scattered throughout, like the scene involving the Eiffel Tower, but overall the movie just feels haphazard and irritatingly heavy-handed. It’s disappointing given the talents involved, especially Brad Bird who’s a creative visionary behind The Iron Giant and The Incredibles. I suppose I should’ve been worried when I saw Lindelof’s name attached to the script, given what he did with Prometheus, among other things.

TomorrowlandStill4

Similar to another big-budget sci-fi Elysium, this movie feels like a poorly-executed ambitious concept. I wouldn’t say Tomorrowland is a terrible film or that it’s completely without merit. I think kids might still enjoy it and there are plenty of cool, shiny things to wow them. But for me, all the visual gadgetry and bombastic action involving giant robots and weird cyborgs ring hollow. At 130 minutes, there are numerous fillers that feel pointless by the end of it. It’s like an exhilarating ride that was fun for a while, then runs out juice halfway through but yet kept going on for far too long.

2halfReels


Have you seen Tomorrowland? Well what do YOU think?

007 Chatter: Seven directors wishlist for the next Bond movie

In anticipation for Bond 23, a.k.a. Skyfall coming on November 9th, 2012, Ted and I are starting a new monthly series called 007 CHATTER… look for it sometime in the first week of each month.

I’ve also added a new category for this, so click on 007 Chatter on the category drop-down menu for all Bond-related posts.

Ok, so last month we’ve singled out seven actors we think might be a good pick to play Bond. Now, we set our sights to the directors who’d do the franchise some good.

Skyfall‘s director Sam Mendes is quite an unlikely choice to direct a Bond film given his theater background and his films often deal with troubled ordinary people, a far cry from the ultimate action hero. But that fact is what makes Skyfall so promising to me. Some have said that this next Bond flick will be lighter on action but with heavier character development and I welcome that. Now I think we can still expect some high-stunts action sequences, car chases, what have you, but there’s nothing wrong with giving this 50-year-old franchise more depth and profundity.

Well, without further ado, these are seven directors Ted and I think could do the franchise some good:

TED’s and RUTH’s PICKS:

Kenneth Branagh

Ted: Ah now we are finally talking about a director whom the producers might already be considering to direct the next one. He’s a Brit and he’s just made a big budgeted action film, Thor.  Also, he’s already signed on the reboot another espionage franchise, the untitled Jack Ryan film. So not only is he a Brit but he’ll also have the experience of working on a spy flick, so it’s a win-win for the producers. I think Branagh can bring back those classic styles of the Bond flicks from the 60s.

Ruth: The multi-talented Irish thespian maybe known for his Shakespearean work, but he’s far more versatile than than, as proven with the success of the comic-book adaptation of Thor, among others. I’m certainly optimistic about him directing the fifth Jack Ryan spy thriller with Chris Pine. As an accomplished triple threat, actor/writer/director, he’s also got a knack for casting [case in point: then-unknown Tom Hiddleston as Loki in Thor] so perhaps we’d have another star in the making with a yet unknown Bond actor.

TED’s PICKS:

David Fincher

Fincher was actually going to direct another spy franchise back in early 2000s (Mission: Impossible 3). But because of the dispute between him and the studio over the film’s tone, he left the project. With Fincher’s style and flare, his Bond flick could be one of the best ever made, heck he already directed James Bond aka Daniel Craig in The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo so maybe Craig will help convince the producer to hire Fincher for the next Bond flick. We know Fincher can handle big-budgeted films so that won’t be a problem. He’s never done an action film before but some of his films has some great action sequences, for example the foot chase scene in Se7en and the shootout sequence in The Game, so he can definitely stage great action set pieces. Also, his schedule is wide open since Disney put an axe on 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, he was set to direct the remake of the 1954 film but Disney new chief wanted save some cash. But because he’s American, I don’t think he’ll ever be consider for the gig.

Park Chan-Wook

Another candidate I don’t believe Bond producers will ever consider, but it would be awesome if Park Chan-Wook gets to make a Bond flick. Actually I think the South Korean director should’ve directed Quantum of Solace. Most of his films dealt with vengeance and I think Quantum would’ve been a great film had he directed it. Like Fincher, this man knows how to shoot great looking films, his Vengeance Trilogy are some of the best looking films I’ve ever seen and they’re pretty low budget. So imagine if he has $200mil to shoot a film, it would look spectacular. And with a character like Bond, he could explore the darker side of the character.

Quentin Tarantino

Some may remember right before the producers of the Bond films decided to reboot the franchise, Tarantino was on The Tonight Show and started talking about much he wanted to make Casino Royale (per MI-6 HQ.com). He told Jay Leno, “Just give me $50mil and I can make an awesome Bond flick based on Casino Royale novel.” Well a couple of years after QT made his comments, that movie came out but unfortunately QT didn’t get to direct it. For the next Bond flick, I think the producers should consider QT as their next director and I know it’s very unlikely since they have strict rules against hiring non-European directors. QT is a Bond fanatic so I know he can make a great Bond film but again I don’t think it will ever happen.

Honorable mention:

Kathryn Bigelow – Now here’s a director that I don’t believe the producers will ever consider, she’s an American and well she’s a woman. But look at her resume, she can definitely direct a big action film. Point Break is one of my favorite guilty pleasure action films; she also made another great and very underrated action film, Strange Days. Oh yeah she’s an Oscar winner too. So come on now the Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson, let’s put her on the list of the next Bond director.

RUTH’s PICKS:

Christopher Nolan

I know Nolan has expressed interest in directing a Bond movie. In fact, he even admitted on several occasions of that the intense action sequence in the snowy mountain area in Inception was inspired by growing up watching Bond films. Well, considering how astounding his Batman films and Inception were, I think the 42-year-old Londoner could potentially do something very intriguing with this franchise. On his IMDb profile, it’s said that Nolan’s films often have ‘obsessive protagonists with a troubled past,’ well then Bond would be a perfect character for him to tackle. Plus, given his huge fan-base, it’d certainly be a good move financially for the studios as well.

Surely rising star Tom Hardy would be very keen on this idea. He’s even said that he’d do the role if Nolan is directing. He told Metro UK, “I’d love to play Bond with Chris Nolan (as a) director or something, it would be awesome.” Yes indeed!

Matthew Vaughn

Here’s another young, talented Londoner who’s expressed interest in directing a Bond movie. He’s said in many interviews that his X-Men: First Class was partly inspired by the 60s Bond films, describing it as “… part Bond flick and part John Frankenheimer political thriller.” Vaughn quite forthright about his desire to do a Bond movie in this Bleeding Cool article:

I sort of want the Brocollis to regret never hiring me. I was very keen to direct Bond. I don?t know if I am any more, to be blunt, now that I?ve done this. I really love Daniel [Craig], though you know, it might be interesting if they one day decide to cast Fassbender as Bond, then maybe I? ll go ?Hey!?

Fassbender’s Magneto was practically Bondian in his quest for personal vendetta, he even had the strut down pat. It’d be great to see these two team up in a Bond film. Maybe his wife Claudia Schiffer could even have a cameo as a Bond girl 😀

Brad Bird

This is the off-the-beaten path pick as Bird is American, but it’d be great if the Broccolis make an exception once in a while. Somehow they don’t seem to mind about the Bond actor not being from the UK, so why not the director?

The critical and box office success of Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol proves that Bird could tackle live-action flicks as well as he does animated features. He’s obviously able to take a formidable but stale franchise to new heights with innovative and thrilling action sequences. He’s sort of made an homage to Bond movies with The Incredibles, and given his screenwriting track-record, he’d be able to balance the thrills and gadgets with engaging characters and narrative. Oh, perhaps Michael Giacchino could work on the Bond score? Now, that’d be a winning combo!


Like this post? Please submit to Reddit. We’ll be eternally grateful! 😀


Well, those are our choices, folks. Please vote below and if you pick ‘other’ please let us know who it is and why in the comments.


Attention action directors: Shaky cam and fast editing needs to go away

This is my rant to action some action directors in Hollywood who thinks that by having shaking cam and fast editing style will make your action scenes look cool. Please stop doing that right now! Those kind of sequences made some of us the viewers dizzy and a lot of times distract us from enjoying your movies.

I tweeted Brad Bird the other day asking him what’s his take on these kind of new style of shooting actions scenes and here’s what he tweeted back:

In the hands of a talented filmmaker (like Greengrass) it can be great. But a lot of hacks use it because they can hide bad staging.”

I agree with what he said 100%, besides Paul Greengrass I don’t believe any other directors has done a good job of shooting those crazy hand held shaking cam action set pieces. It seems like after The Bourne Supremacy came out, there has been an onslaught of action films with unwatchable action sequences.

I wonder if these kind of style are now being taught in film schools or that the studio big bosses are demanding that an action film needs to be done in fast-editing and hand-held-camera style. To me, it seems some of the newer filmmakers tend to take these kind of style to heart, for example I recently saw Safe House which was directed by a new young director Daniel Espinosa. The action scenes he shot were overly-done with that fast editing and shaky cam that I couldn’t really tell what the heck was going on. Another director who seems to love to make people sick while watching his film is Jonathan Liebesman. I dare you to watch his masterpiece pile of poo, Battle: Los Angeles, without getting a little dizzy.

But the worst offender to me was Sly Stallone, he shot so many bad action sequences in The Expendables that I thought he was high on something.

Take a look at this car chase scene from that film, it was so badly-edited and shot that I got dizzy from watching it:

Vodpod videos no longer available.


When I saw it in the theater, I wanted to yell out: “Stallone pull the darn cameras back and let us see what the hell is going on!”  The scene was so tightly-shot and the hand held shaking cam style didn’t help at all. I love car chase scenes but I was begging for this particular one to be over fast. The sad part is, had Stallone and his cinematographer pull the cameras back a little and forgo this overused filmmaking style, that scene could’ve been very exciting to watch.

Another experienced action director who seems to now love this kind of style is Tony Scott. His last few films were pretty bad and the action scenes in those films were even worst. Take a look at the shootout scene from Domino:


If I didn’t know it was Scott who directed it, I would’ve thought it was some amateur filmmaker who tried too hard to make that scene look exiting. I couldn’t even finish watching that scene, I had to fast-forward it because I felt sick watching it. What’s so depressing was that Scott actually shot two similar scenes in his earlier films, True Romance and Enemy of the State, but in those films he did a great job of creating chaos during a shoot out scene in a tight space. And those films were very good while Domino was an awful movie.

Then there are some directors who’s now jumping into doing action films. For example, Marc Forster, who made Quantum of Solace and most of the action scenes in that film were badly shot. With the exception of the opening car chase and the foot chase/shootout during the opera, the rest of set pieces in that film were incomprehensible. Hopefully he’ll do a better job on his next big action film Word War Z. Now I haven’t seen the film yet but I read that in The Hunger Games, Gary Ross used too much of the hand held shaky style on a lot of scenes.

Another director I need to mention is Christopher Nolan (don’t hate me Nolan fanatics, I’m a huge fan of his too), the man still doesn’t know how to shoot a well-crafted action sequence. Apparently Nolan is the only big name director in Hollywood who doesn’t have a true second unit director working for him. He wants to shoot every scene for his films and so he’s there for all of the big action sequences. I love Batman Begins but I thought all of the action scenes in that film were poorly shot and edited. His style improved in The Dark Knight but some of the action scenes in Inception were so-so. Hopefully he’ll give us some great action set pieces in The Dark Knight Rises. Although after seeing the opening scene of The Dark Knight Rises last winter, my gut feelings tells me Nolan might still needs to improve his skills as an action director.

I think these directors needs to study how to shoot great and exiting action scenes from the directors such as Steven Spielberg, Ridley Scott, Peter Jackson and Sam Peckinpah. I thought Brad Bird did an amazing job of shooting the action scenes in Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol, instead of giving us the usual shaky hand-held and fast-editing look, he built the tension up and the results were some very cool and exciting set pieces.

One of my favorite action scenes is from the final shoot out of Extreme Prejudice (which Jack Deth reviewed here), here’s the clip:


The film was directed by Walter Hill and I think this scene should be shown in film school everywhere on how to shoot an action sequence properly. I love this scene and can watch it over and over again. It’s an homage to Peckinpah’s classic The Wild Bunch, which has, in my opinion, the best finale shootout in film history. Check it out here:


Well that’s my rant to Hollywood action directors about shooting bad action sequences. Do you agree that this kind of style needs to go away or do you find them to be quite exciting to watch?

Guest Post: Cold of Metal, But Warm of (Animated) Heart

Special thanks to Le0pard13 (aka Michael Alatorre) – the sharp-witted blogger of It Rains … You Get Wet | » Follow Michael on Twitter


I’ve gone to my fair share of animated movies in my lifetime. However, I have to confess when I’ve taken my children to see these, sometimes they (my kids) are really just around for the ride. I’m really the one going to see the feature. And with Toy Story 3 completing the trilogy with a high note last year, I don’t think my children could be more excited and moved than their old man by the time the end credits arrived. For all the years since I was the child, I continue to be drawn to the classic Disney animation pictures of old, and the Pixar (and other modern animation studio) films of late. Some of these, in fact, do not take a backseat to any of the great live-action films I’ve watched. They remain at the forefront in my library collection, as well.

Last year, I discovered that my friend Pop Culture Nerd, fellow PCN-reader (and artist) Shell Sherree, and I share an absolute fondness for a certain animation character and film. Additionally, not too long ago my kids and I revisited another cherished animated feature (easily our umpteenth viewing), which caused something to finally dawn on me. The pair of animated pictures, in question, has more in common than I originally thought. They share some special properties, I believe, even though you could say The Iron Giant and WALL•E are on the flip side of each other in the sci-fi genre.

The Iron Giant

Directed by Brad Bird and released in early August 1999, this animated film is based on a 1968 novel by the late-British poet laureate Ted Hughes. As it happens, the author also was involved in its development and gave approval on the film’s screenplay by Tim McCanlies. Warner Bros. Animation (the successor company to WB Cartoons) produced the film. The feature received rave reviews by critics, which for some unknown reason only seemed to doom it regionally at the box office. Since it didn’t even make back half (barely over $23 Million) of it production budget ($48 Million), it was considered a failure by the studio in the U.S. market. Still, it was a worldwide success since it grossed $103 Million overall. Many media analysts at the time surmised that the WB didn’t know what it had on its hands and mis-marketed the film… big time. The subsequent quick release to VHS tape (remember those?) and disc late in ’99 began its steady upward acceptance among sci-fi and animation fans. It quickly reached cult hit status, and is now thought of as a masterpiece of story and animation.

Synopsis: in October 1957, as the world grows ever deeper into the Cold War with the successful orbit of Sputnik, a giant metal machine falls out of the sky. And while one small town in Maine begins to experience strange and unexplained events, it will come down to a nine-year boy by the name of Hogarth to find the answers.

WALL•E

Released in June 2008, this movie was directed by Andrew Stanton, who also came up with the original story, along with Pete Docter. Furthermore, Stanton performed double-duty on the film as he co-wrote the screenplay with Jim Reardon. This computer-generated film was produced by what still is considered the leading animation studio currently, Pixar. WALL•E was the final story that came from the now fabled brainstorming lunch between Stanton, John Lasseter, Pete Docter, and Joe Ranft in 1994. The films A Bug’s Life, Monsters, Inc., and Finding Nemo were the first of the films to come out of that extraordinary group discussion. As had been expected from this studio by just about everyone, the film opened to critical and box office success from day one of its release. It grossed over $223 million in the U.S. and over $534 million worldwide. The film easily surpassed its hefty $180 million production budget. Its subsequent release in November of that year to DVD/Blu-ray Disc only continued its success with audiences (I have to admit, my family also has an soft spot for the BURN•E short on the disc).

Synopsis: in the distant future, since the Earth’s resources have been depleted and ecology ruined by corporate profit and neglect, only a few creatures inhabit the now desolate and deserted planet. The lone organic and artificial life forms remaining will unexpectedly greet a sleek, but formidable, reconnaissance robot sent to Earth to find proof that life is once again sustainable.

Why They Are Distinct Opposites

What is immediately apparent to anyone who views both films is that each production visually reflects their studio’s distinctly dissimilar technical animation philosophies. Pixar is very much a CGI animation house in their product look and feel, while Warner Bros. Animation films retain the classic cartoon appearance (for the most part). The late Steve Jobs-led studio, Pixar, is a relatively young company so it’s no surprise their work is entirely state-of-the-art computer-generated animation. Compare that to the venerable Warner Bros. studio, its name, and its long-time traditional cartoon pedigree with its Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies series of yesteryear. Yet, WB’s mid-line modern hits, and the DC Comics animation film stable of recent times means it remains a player in this market. Truth be told, there were small segments in The Iron Giant where CGI is well employed. But overall, the two films look nothing like each other; with the exception that each remains a film of moving color drawings.

The main characters themselves are also quite the contrast. On one side, you have the diminutive, but long lived, Waste Allocation Load Lifter Earth Class machine (WALL•E) — which has known only one home its entire existence. On the other, it’s hard to see it match up with the towering bi-pedal, metal-munching behemoth which lands on this planet in Brad Bird’s fore-running film. Story-wise, The Iron Giant‘s account is told through the eyes of the small town inhabitants, while WALL•E’s tale is his to tell. Additionally, the giant metal creature has no name or descriptor that can be turned into a clever acronym… or a readily determinable purpose, unlike his compact counterpart. Nor does the colossus have a memory (again, as opposed to our little load lifter friend, who practically lives byway of his collections).

As well, the time periods for each of these films differ dramatically. The Iron Giant touches down during the paranoia of the late 50’s, at the end of the second Red Scare chapter where security and vigilance were paramount. And, where Communism was to be feared. Measure that against WALL•E’s future time interval (in the year 2805) where the aftereffects of Capitalism and carefree, wasteful consumption have already reaped a toll on the third rock from the Sun. Here, there’s no one left to convert or subvert. Everyone has long gone, and left a mess behind. Additionally, WALL•E’s visual sensors offer a telling perspective. Thus, it would seem that they (the characters and films) have little in common. However, I submit that appearances are deceiving.

Why They Are Very Much Alike

Key point: no one (real or artificial) who comes in contact with either of these leading characters is ever the same again.

First off, each of these characters is prominently non-human. However, through the course of their stories, they each attain an almost spiritual, aware state. Each embodies, for lack of a better word, nobility in their films. It’s almost insulting to refer to them as achieving a human-like quality since both of the underlying science-fiction narratives take careful aim in criticizing the less than praiseworthy aspects and traits of said species.

For example in The Iron Giant, it is our tendency to overreact based (and perhaps fed on) by fear and mistrust (in this case, spurred on by controlling, authoritative segments of our society) that’s examined. It may not be a sin, but it seems criminal that this cycles back on us with almost clock-like regularity. Hence, Iron Giant‘s story bears repeating. By the way, look closely and you’ll see the Sputnik satellite appears in both films.

In WALL•E‘s prospective future, while you have technological proficiency, it is corporate dogma and malfeasance that are on prominent display (one only needs to look at the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico to see how it applies to current times). In the film, the questioning of authority (in response to such wrongdoing) garners a regulated response to sweep such infractions under the rug in automaton fashion (where have we seen that before?). The challenging of convention, and those in charge of stewarding the people and planet respectively, is an underlying motivation in both films. Moreover, both principal characters represent the mechanized tools of their creators — they are the byproducts of genus and scientific success over time. WALL•E and the Iron Giant are utilitarian mechanisms almost in the extreme (with the quality and capacity of self-repair being major).

However, as the story (and audience) reaches the climax in both films, each machine life form evolves into something substantially more than their originators intended. Director Stanton said it best of his film, but it really applies equally to WALL•E and The Iron Giant:

“… irrational love defeats life’s programming”

At the core of these two specific animation films lies a very similar and tender essence. And, it is through the deuteragonist in each of these films where they locate their story’s heart. It is situated with the 9 year-old Hogarth Hughes in The Iron Giant. And it is literally within EVE (Extraterrestrial Vegetation Evaluator), the sleek and powerful state-of-the-art robotic probe with her role in WALL•E. Brad Bird (who’d would go on to join and develop The The Incredibles for Pixar years later), like Stanton, pushes his film in an identical open-minded (but touching) direction — even though it becomes clear in the story that The Iron Giant was originally intended as a weapon… a rather powerful one. But, it is through Hogarth, after befriending the metal titan, that the creature learns the real-life meaning of friendship and empathy. His revealing use of comic books (featuring Superman and his antithesis robot counterpart) brings an unexpected insight for the metal being. It learns that it can instead choose what it wants to be. The Giant’s choice — it’s not just about being a gun — at the end recognizes all of that.

WALL•E on the other hand has evolved after 700 years of labor into a sentient entity. One that now knows how alone it really is since it is the last of its kind (on the now abandoned Earth). Making a friend of the eternal cockroach only goes so far, it seems. Yet, it is EVE’s introduction into the environment that sparks the chain reaction that liberates and literally saves WALL•E, and humankind. But, it still takes WALL•E’s selflessness to overcome the ingrained ways of others at almost every turn in the tale. For example, it is EVE that learns to find her capacity to feel (beyond her programming) through WALL•E’s acts of kindness and undying love for her (and her directive). If you’re not touched by each of these animation stories (like PCN, Shell, my kids and I), it’s doubtful this post will reach and convince you otherwise. Still, the culmination of watching either of the two films is not to draw the audience to the notion that love is good. Not hardly. Each story emphasizes a greater, more touching affirmation. The real meaning in both films is that it illustrates (beautifully I might add) how one learns to love.

It is that last similitude that continues to hold my interest and increases my fondness for both films. Never more so than because my children seem to hold it in the same high regard as I do (at least I hope so). And if someday, my children’s children find a similar fascination in the stories of the metal characters with the warm hearts, then there is always something to hope for. For these reasons, both animated films, and their commonality, remind me of an optimistic line from another favorite (live action) sci-fi film of mine, which may finally convince the softhearted among you reading this of the point I’ve been attempting to make:

“You have to look with better eyes than that.” ~ Lindsey Brigman, The Abyss


Have you seen Wall•E and/or The Iron Giant? Well, what are your thoughts about these animated films?