I actually enjoyed this movie better than any other Pixar film. I saw it yesterday and can't wait to see it again.

One thing the review doesn't take into account is that children are probably not going to analyze the movie so deeply. The movie is also very entertaining, with humor targeting both children and adults. The kids in the theater do not suddenly shut up from their initial questions because they are baffled by the movie's underlying message; they simply are watching something that caught their attention.

I wouldn't say its as much anti-consumerism as it is pro-pickyershiatup. Cute movie, enjoyed it, moving on.

Working for The Washington Times, this reviewer clearly wakes up on the Right side of the bed every morning.

I bet he wrote this from his backyard bunker that he, and his commie hatin' dad built in the back yard in the 60s while eating a can of spam. I love how he doesn't pause for a second to mention that it's possible the problem the movie was focusing at is we're filthy farks killing our planet slowly?

Oh, wait, it's the washington times.

I didn't like it. I couldn't believe they never started actually having any useful dialog. All they ever did is say each others name, directive and plant. The supporting robot characters didn't even get a word in. Not one. The movie itself was ok, but they really missed an opportunity to develop the characters. It leaves you with nothing quotable, nothing really memorable, about the movie. Pixar finally fails. It was bound to happen.

That robot's face is a total ripoff of Johnny 5

oldebayer: Working for The Washington Times, this reviewer clearly wakes up on the Right side of the bed every morning.

Let's be fair here. The Washington Times is owned by a man who says that he's the second coming of Jesus, and who openly advocates a theocracy with himself as the head.

It's far beyond simply "right".

serpent_sky: I think they did an amazing job developing characters using movements and facial expressions. I'm glad they didn't speak -- it would have changed the movie so much. I loved the silent movie feeling it had, especially the beginning. The animation is gorgeous, and a lack of speaking makes it all the more powerful.

My only complaint would be the Fred Willard scenes. I'm really not sure why they were live action, but they were jarring and uncalled for. And I like Fred Willard.

Pixar finally redeemed itself, as I have disliked all their stuff since Monsters Inc, a movie that made me want to rip my ears off my head.

except the movie was made and marketed to kids. And it wasn't at all ENTERTAINING. It had cute moments sure, but it sucked. Old people got it. But I was with a packed house full of kids, and they all were like "that's it?" when it was over.

These are kids movies. They're supposed to be kids movies. They're supposed to be cartoony and stereotypical. Like Mater in Cars. Was it a cheap joke to include Larry the cable guy? Sure. But the kids ate it up. And it made the movie quotable. This movie lacks ALL of that. So, it will ulitmatly fail.

From TFA: "suffice to say the film treats our capitalist system as the Earth's ultimate sin."

I've not seen it yet, I'm planning to on Wednesday. But the various very conservative religious homeschooling people blogs I've seen that mentioned the film at all, this was the major complaint they had (even while many liked the film overall).

Mind, having read them for a while, pretty much any mainstream entertainment, this is the sort of thing they LOOK for to criticize, as it fits in with the view that the entertainment biz is run by liberal godless environmentalists. If a story suggests in any way that humans aren't righteous by taking dominion over the earth, or criticizes free enterprise capitalism in any way, that's a problem. Then on the fringe you'll have a few who will go so far as to complain that the environmentalism is being set up as an alternative religion.

eqtworld: I was thinking he looked awfully familiar too!

I don't understand the people who look for a lot of character development from this movie. It's a movie about robots being robots. Robots are not going to have a lot of character development, unless you subscribe to the "computers eventually gain shifting minds of their own" theory.

Wall-E is easily the cutest of the characters Pixar has created, not only due to his adorable appearance, but also his naive curiosity about the world(s) portrayed and his simple innocence and inexperience with anything other than his programming. Simply-put, though I'm not a huge fan of cartoons or movies in general, this one had me riveted and, in an unheard-of gesture for me, I'm already planning on seeing it again.

wyltoknow: I don't understand the people who look for a lot of character development from this movie. It's a movie about robots being robots. Robots are not going to have a lot of character development, unless you subscribe to the "computers eventually gain shifting minds of their own" theory.

So it's ok to assume they fall in love with each other and exhibit all these other human traits but it's too much to ask these machines to have talked to one another?

And why was fred willard the only actual human depicted in the movie?

lionfish: I didn't like it. I couldn't believe they never started actually having any useful dialog. All they ever did is say each others name, directive and plant. The supporting robot characters didn't even get a word in. Not one. The movie itself was ok, but they really missed an opportunity to develop the characters. It leaves you with nothing quotable, nothing really memorable, about the movie. Pixar finally fails. It was bound to happen.

How does it feel? To have no soul, I mean.

lionfish: But I was with a packed house full of kids, and they all were like "that's it?" when it was over.

Did you do an exit poll of every kid to see if they "got it" or were entertained?
My kid is seven and he LOVED this movie. He probably didn't get the underlying message, but he loved the visuals, the action, and understood that WALL-E was picking up after the humans who left the planet so dirty.
You are right, this is a kids movie, but you are very very wrong that it was not entertaining. Maybe you weren't entertained by it, but I was and so were my wife and son. Different strokes, maybe?

Cagey B: Let's be fair here. The Washington Times is owned by a man who says that he's the second coming of Jesus, and who openly advocates a theocracy with himself as the head.

It's far beyond simply "right".
[sarcasm]
So who owns the Washington Times? Rush Limbaugh? Sean Hannity? George W. Bush?

Not enough hints in your statement.
[/sarcasm]
// Rev Moon seems less far right when you start comparing him to a batch of neocons...

What kind of dialogue were you looking for? Wall-e's sound design was 1/2 his charm.

Excellent film.

And I think the Fred Willard bit was nicely put by optikeye

You are right, this is a kids movie, but you are very very wrong that it was not entertaining. Maybe you weren't entertained by it, but I was and so were my wife and son. Different strokes, maybe?

Actually, it's not a kids movie. I thought Pixar always made a point to not make kids movies, because kids will watch anything; so they decided to make movies for adults.

I went with my husband and 2 kids (3 and 4.5), and both my kids loved it. My 4.5 year old has been drawing WallE pictures for a while now, so they were really looking forward to it and it went over great. I think this was the best movie Pixar has done so far. Someone compared it to a Chaplain film, and I very much agree it has a Chaplain flair to it (and we're big Chaplain fans here). I thought it was a beautiful movie.

And I will say that Finding Nemo, although it's a great movie, was one of my least favorites. I don't really know why.

eqtworld: That robot's face is a total ripoff of Johnny 5

Glad someone else thought that.

I liked WALL-E. It definitely has an anti-consumerism/pro-environmental slant to it, but so do all of the other animated films and I've learned to overlook those parts because I expect them to be in these movies. The best parts of the movie were definitely those without dialogue. I would say that this is PIXAR's best work visually, it's just lacking in the plot department.

/facepalm

I've not seen Wall-E, and don't currently plan to see it in the theater, but getting upset because a movie would dare indicate that being wasteful and polluting is bad? There's something deeply wrong with those people.

I came to say what Fruitland said.

Ashtrey: eqtworld: That robot's face is a total ripoff of Johnny 5

Glad someone else thought that.

imo, more like a nod to johnny 5, just like the many nods to other famous robots in the movie (e.g., otto was a dead ringer for hal). i doubt pixar was trying to piggy back on the fame of short circuit.

as far the movie being a failure it looks like its holding up pretty well with audiences...$60+ million this weekend i read.

lionfish: So it's ok to assume they fall in love with each other and exhibit all these other human traits but it's too much to ask these machines to have talked to one another?

And why was fred willard the only actual human depicted in the movie?

Part of it is probably that the Pixar people were trying to send a message that this was a movie, not just an animated movie. That a movie doesn't get exempt from the normal rules of what is or isn't quality just because you do it with computer graphics.

Another part of it is probably that Willard is supposed to represent different era of humanity. The animated humanity, robots and all, are shapeless and surrealistic. Willard, by contrast is absolutely realistic. Wall-e falls in between, and has characteristics of both. His shape, design, and his level of detail make him look like something that could actually exist in real life today. At the same time, his personality and the way he moves make him look artificial. Figuratively and literally he bridges the gap.

Willard is also probably there to remind us that the world in the movie isn't supposed to be some abstract representation of some random civilization, it's supposed to be us. That first of all connects us to "the message", and second of all allows the audience to mentally identify all of the relevant characteristics of the world without needing any additional information. Some films try to avoid that so that you don't bring all your preconceived notions of what is or isn't real into the film. This film wants you to bring those preconceived notions with you, so that they don't have to waste more time explaining it to you fresh.

PumpkinCake: You are right, this is a kids movie, but you are very very wrong that it was not entertaining. Maybe you weren't entertained by it, but I was and so were my wife and son. Different strokes, maybe?

Actually, it's not a kids movie. I thought Pixar always made a point to not make kids movies, because kids will watch anything; so they decided to make movies for adults.

Exactly. Pixar movies are made, first and foremost, for adults. Specifically, the creators of the movies make the exact sort of movies that they would like to see. They do not try to just go with what will make it popular. They instead make movies that they feel will be just plain good, and it turns out that they're right. I wish more film makers followed the same philosophy, unfortunately, most studios simply want to go for what they think will make them the most money, and thus continue to churn out the same old crap.

Ashtrey: eqtworld: That robot's face is a total ripoff of Johnny 5

Glad someone else thought that.

He is not a ripoff of Johnny 5. It's not a matter of WALL-E being a copy of Johnny 5, it's more like convergent evolution. They each went for the same goal, a cute expressive robot with a fairly realistic design, and so they wound up with a vaguely similar face shape. In reality, the face and head of each of them look quite different from each other, and the rest of him doesn't even look anything like J5. I really wish people would stop throwing that sort of "ripoff" comment into every thread about this movie.

I didn't feel an attachment to any of the characters save for the protagonist. I actually kind of disliked EVE. I felt the movie was generally very shallow but the initial premise was promising. Also some scenes felt completely stilted and blatantly emotionally manipulative, while adding nothing the plot.

Ratatouille was a masterpiece. This was no Ratatouille.

Finding Nemo was beautiful. Cars sucked. Monsters Inc and A Bug's Life were great. All the other Pixar movies were awesome.

Wall-E was great. Way different from the other films. Heavy on the physical comedy, lean on the clever dialogue, obscure with its film references. (Raise your hand if you recognized the opening song. Didn't think so.)

FWIW: Here's my rough top 8 list of Pixar films:

1. Finding Nemo
2. Toy Story
3. Toy Story 2
4. The Incredibles
5. Wall-E
6. A Bug's Life
7. Monsters, Inc.

...and, way in the back...

8. Cars

Cars sucked. I spend too much time stuck in traffic. Why spend time & money watching others doing the same? But, they're going really fast! Relative to their competitors, no, they're not. All they are is moving billboards. Plain and simple.

Wanna make it interesting / worth watching? Have some truth in advertising. Have the Tide car agitate once in a while. Have the Army car shoot up some stuff. And require the Viagra car drive with a 60-degree vertical incline.

I loved this movie. On so many levels. Out of the gate, I do not believe this movie is a kids flick. It will appeal to them because of the graphics and colors and characters. There is a love story that they may or may not comprehend. I do believe this movie to be completely harmless to children.

I will say the day after seeing this movie I found myself in a Wal Mart where I saw a LARGE woman in one of those electric scooters, basket already full of food, she had two gallons of ice cream resting against her chest, being held in place by her arm. I laughed out loud at her.

PresentCompanyExcluded: Wanna make it interesting / worth watching? Have some truth in advertising. Have the Tide car agitate once in a while. Have the Army car shoot up some stuff. And require the Viagra car drive with a 60-degree vertical incline.

I lol'd.

By the way; why are people so amazed with this film graphically? Sure the first half hour was great, but after that the bulk of the film took place on either the black backdrop of space or a largely textureless, sparsely detailed, spaceship. The Incredibles and Ratatouille, in contrast, had very complex and vivid backdrops.

PresentCompanyExcluded: Cars sucked.

You're probably not looking forward to Cars 2 then are you?

The theatre full of kids I was in all loved WALL E, even my emo goth teenage daughter said the movie was very "cute".

Conservatives are so insecure. Everything is always some for of attack on them.

Probably because deep down they know they're selfish farkwads

lionfish: wyltoknow: I don't understand the people who look for a lot of character development from this movie. It's a movie about robots being robots. Robots are not going to have a lot of character development, unless you subscribe to the "computers eventually gain shifting minds of their own" theory.

So it's ok to assume they fall in love with each other and exhibit all these other human traits but it's too much to ask these machines to have talked to one another?

And why was fred willard the only actual human depicted in the movie?

You do realize that you just made it totally plain to even the less observant Farkers that you haven't seen the film, right?

Try again later. You fail.

Mother's Bloody Sperm: By the way; why are people so amazed with this film graphically? Sure the first half hour was great, but after that the bulk of the film took place on either the black backdrop of space or a largely textureless, sparsely detailed, spaceship. The Incredibles and Ratatouille, in contrast, had very complex and vivid backdrops.

I thought that the space scenes were absolutely gorgeous, personally. Specifically, the shots of certain galaxies and the "dancing" scene just made me feel all fuzzy... The "Earth" scenes were more impressive graphically, no doubt, but the space scenes were nothing to sniff at. Either way, it is still the most graphically impressive all-CG film that I've seen to-date (opinion).

Leishu there's a difference between "pretty visuals" and "good graphics". We're talking about textures, their complexity, polygon count, and detail. Compare the abyss of space and the textureless ship to the tropical locales of the Incredibles. There is no comparison.

Mother's Bloody Sperm: Leishu there's a difference between "pretty visuals" and "good graphics". We're talking about textures, their complexity, polygon count, and detail. Compare the abyss of space and the textureless ship to the tropical locales of the Incredibles. There is no comparison.

Compare the number of polys in the galaxies to the number of polys in the Jungle. The galaxies had far more.

lionfish: I didn't like it. I couldn't believe they never started actually having any useful dialog. All they ever did is say each others name, directive and plant. The supporting robot characters didn't even get a word in. Not one. The movie itself was ok, but they really missed an opportunity to develop the characters. It leaves you with nothing quotable, nothing really memorable, about the movie. Pixar finally fails. It was bound to happen.

Yes, they failed because you didn't like it. Who are you? Dwayne Hoover?