5/15/2009

Gran Torino

Walt Kowalski in Gran Torino could be your dad. He sure is mine, or some version of mine, anyway. And if he's not your dad, he's your friends dad, or your girlfriend's dad. Trust me. He loves his dog, not his kids. His house is cleaner than it needs to be. Everything is organized and arranged just-so. He uses arcane expletives. Takes great pride in his lawn. And he's got a souped-up old car in the garage that he never drives. Sounding familiar yet? Perfectly rounding out this laser-etched archetype, Walt is a man filled up to the brim with a vaguely defined hatred of just about everything he encounters in his daily life. His kids and grand kids have been spoiled by his meager success and are now too busy for him. His neighbors, whom he calls 'gooks' and 'zipperheads' (as if those were still the preferred slurs even amongst racists..) are immigrants from Laos with a strange way of life that he tells himself he has no tolerance for or interest in. And his wife (whom we do not have the pleasure of meeting in Gran Torino,) has just died. Walt is a man isolated with his own rage.

The film opens on a cookie cutter Catholic funeral, one like we've all been to, where the Pastor has nothing new or extraordinary to impart, and everyone knows it, but plays along in some kind of vague spirit of honoring the dead, even as the kids fumble with their video games, and the adults mumble quietly to themselves about it all. Walt stands up front, greeted passively by each visitor, seething with resentment. He sees the moment for what it is; an empty ritual more useful for assuaging the guilt of the attendees than for condoling his loss. From here, we begin our journey with Walt, which will end up in unexpected and barely believable places. Walt will do things that ordinary men, even desperate, challenged or 'brave' ordinary men, do not do in today's world. And we, the audience, will lap it all up. Why? Because Walt is played by Clint Eastwood.

In anyone else's hands, Gran Torino would probably be dismissed as just a bit too drama-by-numbers. A bit too easy and a bit too safe. But in Eastwood's, it's a portrait of a generation. HIS generation? Clint's charms, even at 79 years old (which he will be at the end of this month) are many. In Gran Torino, he growls a lot, and his scowl, decades removed from his Spaghetti-western roots, is as gruesome and gnarly as ever. Even all these years later, Eastwood is still delighting in his badassness. He's the "Last Cowboy," and he knows it. But lest we forget, Clint is also a cultured man, and he has let in show more and more in recent years. A lover of music, particularly jazz, Eastwood has hopped into and out of various genres in his career, ever since his white-knuckle directorial debut Play Misty For Me. Mystic River in 2003 proved a milestone, earning numerous awards and a renewed interest in his filmmaking, as well as signaling a shift towards the more bracing, "serious" dramas he continues to produce. His films since have not disappointed, and Gran Torino proves to be no exception.

Walt is a reverse-Peter Pan, a fully grown-up man who refuses to grow up into any other kind of man. Or does he? (dot dot dot... the film plays on.) About halfway through Gran Torino, glugging down a Tsing Tao, now slowly warming to the affections of his immigrants neighbors, Clint/Walt lets his guard down and cracks a smile. So it's the 'old bastard with the heart of gold' story, right? Fine, but should we really swallow that pill so easily? We have by now come to grips with the nature and implications of Walt's various ill-defined hatreds and prejudices. Some are bullshit, just talk and nothing more. Some are very real, very deserved, and totally logical. And so we, as viewers, must allow ourselves a moment to determine for ourselves if we really can excuse Walt these myriad imperfections. But before we can muster up our argument, we are swept up into some unpleasantly violent circumstances, which of course serve to hammer home the "we're all in this together,' flag-waving banner that Gran Torino seems to have no qualms about shoving down our throat.

Maybe Eastwood doesn't apologize for Walt. But true to his Hollywood roots, Clint can't resist a few hilariously easy and uber-schmaltzy pock shots to tug at the heartstrings. A true blue entertainer, just givin' us what we want. But in the process, the 'message' one might take from Gran Torino loses most of its credibility. Are we are allowed to ponder how all this relates to Clint himself? To the characters he has made a living playing for 50 years? To Dirty Harry? If I had to guess, seeing as Eastwood himself has never been necessarily averse to change, enduring at least three career 'revivials' and reinventions, I would say that Eastwood is not 100% sympathetic to Walt. Walt is a man, a part of a generation, who's lives, actions and demeanors might just have been influenced by the tough-as-nails portrayals of such characters as Clint practically invented. In this way, Gran Torino can be cautiously viewed as some sort of back-handed denouement, a conscience-clearing admission on the part of Eastwood that being a cranky, snarling son-of-a-bitch is only as good as the baggage you bring along to it. But didn't he already handle that in Unforgiven?

In the end, as an entertainment, Gran Torino is a complete success and a film to relish, even though Eastwood (and screenwriters Nick Schenk and Dave Johansson) mostly just hint at the real emotions at play in these very real scenarios. When push comes to shove (and, in Gran Torino, it very literally does,) Walt just wants what's right in the world. Or so we are led by the hand to believe. It's worth asking why these emotions had laid dormant in Walt for so long. Why, in fact, he gives what he gives, when he gives it, to his sons, to his Pastor, and to Tao, the neighbor's young son whom he takes under his wing. And whether or not any of that is actually OK. But Gran Torino doesn't approach these details. It offers only the things we want to see, the things we WANT to believe about Walt. Perhaps even about our own fathers. And, let's be fair; Eastwood never did play no angel, did he?

Make no mistake, this is not realism, and not fantasy. It's Hollywood, Eastwood style. Where boys become men, and men.. are men. Everybody learns their 'valuable lesson,' and Walt (and Clint) have their last laugh, their scripted version of 'justice,' all the way up to the films laughably corny ending moment. And then, the credits roll.

Whatever you say, Clint. You nutty-ass Mick bastard. Tell me another one.


(note: I am well aware that I am writing reviews of movies on this site that are already well past the sights of the movie reviewer world. There is a multi-faceted explanation for this: 1.) It takes me a while to catch up to these movies, sometimes. 2.) I like the idea of being able to review something a little bit past it's buzz-generating opening. I like to let the dust settle and then see what I see. So.. stay tuned for my review of Iron Man! (you think I'm kidding..)

4/17/2009

CLICK HERE

Blue Collar Film Scholar will be on semi-temporary hiatus as I wrap up my semester at school and continue sorting through bags, boxes and totes. So, in the meantime:





The Substance of Style

I had been planning for some time to write a piece entitled "In Defense of Wes Anderson" for this site, but Mr. Zoller Seitz does a pretty damn good job here. (Also - GOD DAMN IT I WANT AN AMBERSONS DVD. I WANT IT. YOU GIVE IT.) Watch all five parts. Will somebody give this guy a show on IFC or something? Speaking of which:


Green Porno

Issabella Rossellini is a freaky, hilarious chick. Watch both seasons. It'll take like twenty minutes.

"If I were a firefly, I would light up my ass at night..."



Not Again: 24 Films Too Painful To Watch Twice

This is old, but I somehow stumbled onto it recently. I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesn't have the balls (or the stomach) to put in
Requiem again. It just sits there on my DVD shelf, menacingly. (PS- A.V. Club is the real deal.)


Criterion Collection: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Benjamin Button gets the Criterion treatment right out of the box. The first since "The Life Aquatic," I believe.

Thinking back on this film, I remember quite a bit, and this release especially has me excited to revisit it. The women in this film were remarkable. Tilda Swinton probably gives the best performance in the film, as she so often does (see:
Michael Clayton,) and Blanchett too was memorable. So what if it's Forrest Gump? I liked Forrest Gump. Didn't you? (Also, for the requisite 8 pages of "OMG wHy iS TCCOBB oN cRiteeeRiON?" click HERE.)


Where the Wild Things Are

In place of a full NJAFBIT posting, click here to check out the trailer for Spike Jonze's Where the Wild Things Are. Best trailer song ever? It works fantastically well. This trailer is awesome, and Jonze has never made a bad movie (they're.. *cough..* both good.) Nuff said. This is a twenty-something indie-kid's Halloween wet dream. These damned hipster filmmakers just refuse to force us all to grow up. (Early contender for trailer of the year. Last years winner was
Pineapple Express, btw.)

in the pipeline: LOG on The Relic. Seriously. Check back often!

3/05/2009

LOG: The Reader

Upon entering my local, neighborhood cheap (*AHEM* 'second run') theater this evening, I was struck with a dilemma; I had purchased my ticket for Doubt at 9:40, but found that The Reader was also playing at 9:45. I paused between the two theaters a moment, and weighed my options. Two hand-wringing dramas, neither of which figured to hold me a very captive audience. After a bit of thought, I decided that even the vaguest prospect of hot-and-heaviness courtesy of Kate Winslet was enough to undo my admittedly weak desire to watch Streep and Seymour-Hoffman act it up, Nazi subplot be damned

Well, I got my hot-and-heaviness. And I also got a by-the-numbers literary adaptation, co-starring that most by-the-numbers actor of them all, Ralph Fiennes. Even its most moving moments were badly contrived. Winslet does a nice job with her haggish, slightly sexy hausfrau, no question, but that whole Nazi business just felt tacked on. More than once I wondered if I had picked the right movie.. but I'm pretty confident I did. I'd rather watch Winslet over-compensate for an underwritten role then watch the Doubt folks do it the other way around.

I left as I entered, unenthused, unmoved, and ready to go home. A glance at the "coming soon" posters, however, with such future presentations as Milk and Coraline, was just enough to lift my spirits.. Indeed, thankfully, there will be better days.

2/12/2009

NJAFBIT: Inglorious Basterds



WHY I'M INTERESTED:

You gotta hand it to Brad Pitt; he's making it almost impossible to hate him these days. Realistically, if you look at his output as a whole, he's pretty much ALWAYS been in cool movies. It's easy to forget how many. Since his breakout in Thelma & Louise (itself nothing to scoff at,) he's bounced from Cool World to Kalifornia, to Se7en, to Fight Club, to last years fantastic Burn After Reading and Benjamin Button, never going more than a couple years without appearing in something great. He's co-starring with (WTF?) Mike Myers, straight off his blockbuster star-making turn in The Love Guru.

The trailer shows shades of both Tarantino's lamer side (Pitt's lousy, boring monologue,) and awesome side (some fun, Kill Bill-ish action moments.) Worth betting that both sides will turn up in the finished film, but in what proportion, who can say. The problem I'm having more and more with QT movies is my inability to just listen to what these people are saying, without picturing it coming from the mouth of QT himself. This is the major problem with outspoken, wordy filmmakers (ie. Kevin Smith, et al.)

But, much as I may try to resist, I end up seeing every Tarantino movie in the theater. He is one of the defining filmmakers of our generation, and I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt until he gives me reason to think otherwise. For a 'teaser,' this gives a pretty damn good indication of what we will be getting. I'm intrigued enough not to immediately dismiss it.

PREDICTION: Imperfect, funny, weird, awkward.

RELEASE DATE: 8/21/09

2/06/2009

LOG: Targets

Boris Karloff is, and will ever be, my favorite actor. I love him. He had the greatest voice, and one of the greatest presences in all of the movies. Targets was, by all accounts, his last important (read: good) film, finished and released less than a year before he would succumb to emphysema-related pneumonia at age 81. Famous names surround the production; Roger Corman produced, and Bogdanovich took the script to Sam Fuller for some uncredited rewrites. Karloff made $22,000 dollars for appearing in this film, refusing to accept pay for the additional time he worked (past the 2 days he owed Corman from a previous commitment.)

I could sing the praises of Bogdo all day long, but mostly as they relate to his excellent writing abilities. As a filmmaker, apart from this and The Last Picture Show, his output borders on dreadful, and in recent years he has retreated into menial acting jobs. But he is an ever-present, if oft-maligned, force on DVD and in film scholarship, and I say let him talk.

If Targets isn't a masterpiece, it's because the parallel plot lines (1- Karloff as washed up horror star, 2- Young man goes on rifle-fed killing spree) don't necessarily pair all that well. But they do pair well enough intellectually that you can concede the idea of the film, particularly knowing the restrictions that Bogdo had handed down to him from Corman. As meta-Karloff, the film succeeds, but only because Karloff was exactly the kind of man who could own up to the biographical aspects of Bogdo's script. When Boris is not on screen, however, the film suffers badly. What would you expect?

Putting what you know will be considered your film 'epitaph' in the hands of a young, unproven director? That's just Karloff doing what he always did- being the greatest professional of his time.

Strangely, this DVD has gone out of print. It's a gem at it's original $5.99 asking price (I think I bought it at a K-mart.)

1/27/2009

NJAFBIT: Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li



WHY I'M INTERESTED:

Well folks, you certainly don't need me to tell you that 2009 is looking grim. But what you might not know is that it's looking awfully grim in the movie world as well. Even after we endure the annual pre-Oscar famine currently plaguing multiplexes, the horizon still looks dreadfully bleak. So bleak, in fact, that there is not a single movie currently announced that I can get excited about until May 29th (Pixar's Up). But hey, what's this... a Street Fighter movie..?!?

Chances are you forgot about 1994's original Street Fighter, perhaps as an act of self-mercy. To refresh your memory, it featured Raul Julia and JCVD hamming it up in what turned out to be the first ripple of water in a tidal wave of crappy retro video game-turned-movie cash grabs. This time, Michael Clarke-Duncan leads a cast of nobodies, including Hinsdale's own Chris Klein (not heard from since his sparkling lead turn in Rollerball,) who has amazingly not yet commited suicide even after his fiancee dumped him and briskly went on to spawn the demonseed of Tom Cruise.
Director Andrzej Bartkowiak, who was actually the DOP on a few semi-prestigious pictures, made the leap to directing about ten years ago and promptly fell into a ditch, first directing that legendary thespian DMX three times (THREE TIMES) and then moving up the ladder to guide The Rock through another ten-years-too-late video game adaptation (Doom.)

But, let's keep things in perspective. We beggars must not be too choosy. It's gonna be desperately slim pickings for a couple months, kiddos. We've got a couple groan-worthy horror remakes, a massive heap of lame looking at best comedies, and.. this. Sadly, horribly, we might actually end up seeing this. Will it suck? Oh yes, it will suck (not a good sign: the film's "blog" has not been updated since June..) But hey, if it sucks in a good way, then at least we know we can look forward to the super-secret He-Man and Voltron adaptations that are supposedly being penned as we speak by the same writer.. (GULP)

PREDICTION:
The ultimate test of "so bad it's good."

RELEASE DATE: February 27th

1/12/2009

My Year at the Movies: 2007

Yes, you read that right. I have decided to do my "Year in Reviews" one year late. I find that a year of hindsight affords films some much deserved time to age, settle in in your brain and be reflected on with the benefit of hindsight. So, without further ado, in five sentences or less each and in chronological order, my take on 2007 at the movies.



Pursuit of Happyness

Grade: C+

A feel good story. I remember being impressed with his son's performance. Other than that, I draw a blank.







Children of Men

Grade: A+

I was floored by this in the theater. Amazing action, design and vibe. It has held up well on repeat viewings. It's like Spielberg but with a very artful touch. Perhaps not an 'important' movie but about as good as one can be without any super-serious pretensions.






Volver

Grade: A

My first Almodovar in the theater. Penelope Cruz is so vibrant and so sexy. So fun to watch. I could watch this right now.







Inland Empire

Grade: A+

Best movie experience of the year, and the best film that I saw. Showed at the Music Box Theater, with introduction and Q & A by David Lynch. Favorite moment- Q: "What is it about?" A: "It's on the poster." Read my review HERE.






Pan's Labyrinth

Grade: A-

Thoroughly enjoyable, and Del Toro's best yet. The night I went to see this, I was dealing with some serious bad news. A nice way to take my mind off. Maybe not the pitch-perfect masterpiece is was made out to be, but very strong and very successful nonetheless.





El Topo

Grade: A

Another night at the Music Box. Brilliant and bizarre. I'm convinced Jodorowsky is just a lunatic, and this film means nothing, but it is so damn fun to watch.







Zodiac

Grade: B++ (edit: A+)

Much like There Will Be Blood, this was a film whose greatness crept up on me. Fincher is building quite a body of work these days, and here he crafts another truly great crime movie.







Grindhouse

Grade: B- (Planet Terror/Trailers B+/A, Death Proof D)

A sadly failed experiment by capable filmmakers. At the time, I enjoyed Planet Terror quite a bit, and hated Death Proof. Now, I couldn't tell you one thing that happens in Planet Terror, but I do remember the chase 'scene' (if you can call 45 minutes a scene..) in Death Proof. Call it a wash, I guess.


Drawing Restraint 9

Grade: A+

Indescribable and wonderful. Bjork and Matthew Barney on a creepy whaling ship, engaging in some strange rituals. Underwater seashell flesh carving, anyone? Yes, please. I understand his motivations, but it's a travesty that these are not available on video.






Hot Fuzz

Grade: A-

Hilarious. Major Wicker Man vibe was off-putting at first, but it works. Maybe not as great as Shaun of the Dead. But what is?








Rescue Dawn

Grade: B+(!)

A superfluous film, but a good superfluous film. Herzog, sadly, announces the twilight phase of his career. I'm over it, and he's gone on to better (and also much worse) things.







Killer of Sheep

Grade: A+

Music Box again. This time in the little room. This release will surely realign this film's place in history, as it should. Need to check out more Burnett.






Ratatouille

Grade: A-

Pixar continues their unparalleled run of absolute greatness. Patton Oswald makes some real money. The world rejoices. People get tired of saying "Pixar has topped themselves." They would officially give up in 2008 thanks to a movie about a robot.






30 Days of Night

Grade: D

Great idea for a horror movie. Worst execution imaginable. Danny Huston is sadly reduced to playing a brooding blood-sucker with a fake accent in a trendy eurotrash suit. Then they lock him up in the local jail. Such total crap. How sad.




The Nightmare Before Christmas 3D

Grade :o)

$15 well spent. Obviously, the movie is a legend. The 3D was impressive and really cool. This could become a fun technology. Any reason to get the kiddies to actually care about what is on the screen is good enough for me. (Now, Coraline, please don't let me down.)






The Darjeeling Limited

Grade: A+

Thank you, Wes Anderson. In a world where filmmakers let you down again and again (M. Night Shamalan,) you stay true. I will defend you to the end.








Across the Universe

Grade: B

I don't know. Maybe I expected too much. But Moulin Rouge it ain't. Eddie Izzard provides some of the year's strangest on-screen mugging. See my review HERE.






"Blade Runner: Final Cut" A,

My first digitally projected film (at Muvico Rosemont,) and WOW. Particularly for a film released in 1982. Eye-popping.









"Curse of the Demon" A

Jacque Tourneur's neglected monster movie. Showed at Gene Siskel, with introduction and afterword by Jonathan Rosenbaum. Worthy of the Lewtons, if maybe just barely.






2008 advance preview:

Looking back on my year at the movies in 2007, I would have to say unequivocally that 2008's offerings were superior in every way (in point of fact, however, I saw two films technically released in 2007 second-run in 2008.) Hope you got to the theater in 2008, folks. With things being the way they are in the world, 2009 could be some seriously rough sailing. But, if there ever was a recession-proof business, it's the movies. Here's hoping we get some good efforts in theaters to take our mind off things. Suddenly, $9.50 a ticket doesn't sound so bad.

1/01/2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

Full Reviews -
Long-form reviews of films.

Log -
Screening Log. Short (often very short) reviews.

NJAFBIT -
Stands for "Never Judge a Flick By It's Trailer." A lousy acronym. I could spell it out, but that might be even lousier. These are reviews of trailers, and musings upcoming films.

My Year at the Movies -
Annual rundown of the films I saw "last year." Meaning, one year ago (i.e., I wrote about my year at the movies in 2008 at the end of 2009.) I do this because I find that a year of hindsight makes all the difference in the world in assessing movies. And because I think it's funny.

Idiot Ego -
Reviews which were written for the (now sadly defunct) Elgin-area Music & Arts 'zine Idiot Ego. The captain of that ship was Mr. Jim Miller, who is now occuiped in other, equally worthwhile pursuits. (SEE: Cassette Deck Media.)

THE DVD -
DVD reviews. I think there is only one. Maybe there will be more?

Essays -
Other stuff, usually long-form, that pertains to movies.

On Second Thought -
Re-reviews of films I did not initially like upon their release. Only a couple here as well, but I like this idea, so hopefully more will follow.

ALSO:

7-7-7 -
This was meant to be the chronicle of a seven day straight movie marathon I did in December '09. It's not finished yet. Hopefully it will be. For better or worse.

Screen Shots -
Actually photographs (from my iPhone 3GS,) of movie screens. Lame? I don't know. It seemed like a good idea at the time. However, I am always leery of holding up a camera in a movie theater. Don't need to go to prison.

12/17/2008

LOG: Adaptation

I have watched this film twice this month. There is so much here to digest. The pursuit of meaning, in life, in writing. Self-doubt and self-loathing. The yin and yang of painful change and new discovery. The ability of people to inspire and catch each other when they fall. Ambition. When Donald starts getting in on the screenplay, and the alligator attacks LaRoche in the swamp, Kaufman fictionally slaps himself, and we reel for him. And it sees the film through, just as he hoped it would.

I am, however, unable to decipher the riddle/problem that is Nicolas Cage. For every Leaving Las Vegas or Raising Arizona there seems to be at least four Snake Eyes or Ghost Rider's. Is he really not capable of figuring out the difference? He's amazing in this film. How, damnit? HOW? Also, after years of resistance, I am ready to submit that Meryl Streep is, indeed, THAT good.

John Laroche
: You know why I like plants?
Susan Orlean
: Nuh uh.
John Laroche: Because they're so mutable. Adaptation is a profound process. Means you figure out how to thrive in the world.
Susan Orlean
: [pause] Yeah but it's easier for plants. I mean they have no memory. They just move on to whatever's next. With a person though, adapting is almost shameful. It's like running away.

This movie could be the soundtrack to the new year, or every year. Charlie Kaufman has made a living out of fascinatingly restating, over and over again, in the grandest and most ridiculous and wonderful terms possible, that "Life sucks. And, it's great." He's right, of course.

12/15/2008

WALL-E

Once in a great while, the cinema is graced with the works of a pure poet, for whom filmmaking is less about storytelling than about conjuring the most breathtaking visuals and surreal environments that they can muster (Jean Cocteau is the standard example.) More often, however, discerning movie-goers are left to hunt for sparse parcels of poetry in more traditional "commercial" cinema offerings. Of this, Pixar studios is perhaps the reigning champion. The majority of their nine feature films (from Toy Story up to Finding Nemo and The Incredibles) all feature beautiful landscapes, artful storylines, and at least one supremely sad sequence. Pixar may have hit critical mass in this trend, however, as it's hard to imagine how a G-rated film could incorporate any more heartbreak, foreboding and despair than WALL-E does and still somehow remain fun. But WALL-E is fun.

And that's not all it is. The film has broken new ground for Pixar (and for family films) in several ways perhaps never to be breached again. Consider the elements. Our hero, WALL-E, is a robot. Right off the bat, Pixar has denied the kiddies something soft and cuddly, the plush doll they can ask for for Christmas. No, WALL-E was not commissioned to be a Happy Meal toy. Cute as he is, there's no snuggling up to this dingy, dented little dude. Call that Strike One. The film opens on a desolate landscape, barren and dry, with mustard-discolored soil whipping up and swirling around in the wind. Not a word is spoken. WALL-E enters alone, spins, shrieks, beeps, jumps, and so on, but he doesn't speak. Thus, there's no words for the kiddies to listen to. No catch phrases, no "To Infinity, and Beyond!" Strike two. Then, the story follows WALL-E as he is unwittingly caught up in the battle over (*gasp*) ..a plant. Who cares about a stupid plant!? That's gonna save the world? Strike three. And just like that, the kiddies, I suspect, are back to their Wiis and their text messaging. But not so fast, mom and dad. Don't pop that Blu-ray disc just yet. Even if the kids don't get it, sit back and let it spin. It's really quite good. Romantic, too. And very beautiful.

So what is WALL-E, anyway? Actually, you'd better ask 'who,' as Pixar endows WALL-E with the full spectrum of human emotions; fear, longing, a sense of pride in his work, etc. Take equal parts Johnny Five, R2D2, and E.T., and you'll have a pretty good idea of his demeanor. He's been outfitted with a quaint little cargo hanger for a house, filled with shelves of bric-a-brac he collects with wonder from the heaps of rubble just outside. He's even somehow found a working VCR (!) and a tape of "Hello, Dolly," which sends him into little robot fits of forlorn longing as he sings along and blips around the room. He's the last left of his kind, and apart from his cockroach buddy (ha ha), his is a lonely life. Until, at last, a ship lands, depositing EVE, a robot on a mission. EVE falls for the sheepish little WALL-E, of course (I will not attempt to detail their courtship, as it is best experienced with rapt wonder and disbelief). And after that pesky little plant arrives on the scene, WALL-E gets caught up chasing EVE through space and onto the Axiom, the massive space cruiseship which now harbors the former human inhabitants of planet earth.

WALL-E is absolutely dripping with barely-buried eco-socio-political commentary. It's not overbearing, but it's kind-of unrelenting. The Axiom is a full-out attack on the lazy consumerism of America, and it's a bulls eye. Basically, if Costco built a flying shopping mall/cruise ship and launched it into space, it would be the Axiom. It's passengers all float around on hoverchairs, complaining about the food, fat, lazy and unquestioning. Just the way they like 'em. Indeed, the act of depicting a story where robots, not humans, are the heroes, exhibiting emotions, saving the day, shows a remarkable dissatisfaction and separation from the human race as a whole. WALL-E never really comes right out and states it, but the implication is clear as day; this is the world that could exist if all these experts predicting grave consequences for the future of Earth are correct. This, children, is what could happen. It's almost become fashionable to include (or base a film on) grave prophesizing about the pitfalls of man, but no film has yet put it in terms such as these, and no film has targeted this message to those who will need to hear it most: future generations.

Progressive and forward-thinking as the film is, it does shy away from a few punches it could have landed. I wondered at first if Pixar might have the balls to leave gender out of the equation in the romance of WALL-E and his paramour, Eve. Alas, his maleness and her femininity are made very clear. It's a slight shame that they didn't, as I can't think of a better way for Disney to make it's first tiny step into acknowledging non-hetero relationships without having to really own up to it (robots ARE genderless, are they not??) Even so, in the end it's hard to argue, as the play of the two robots is irresistible, even downright romantic.

WALL-E is as memorable as Toy Story, as thrilling as The Incredibles, and somehow even more beautiful than Finding Nemo ( it cost nearly twice as much.) Got a Blu-ray player and a nice big TV? Buy it. It's beauty is simply unparalleled. This is perhaps the first film that even die-hard fans of old school hand drawn animation cannot deny to be absolutely stunning, a work of art the equal of anything in the Disney canon. It is, however, somewhat less fun and certainly more cerebral than it's older siblings, and perhaps less attractive for the little ones. Though I feel certain that any thoughtful, attentive young movie watcher will find themselves just as glued to the screen as I was.

The films of the Pixar studios exhibit a wonderful old-fashionedness found almost nowhere else in current family entertainment. This is most likely a credit to John Lasseter and his cabal of talent, who possess a childlike sense of wonder which seems totally out of step with today's fast-paced youth culture. It's as if they cradled the spirit of classic Disney, carefully and lovingly extracted it from that studio, took hold of it and raised it up once again as their own. Today, Pixar IS Disney. The torch has been passed, and Disney proper has become something else.

Pinning down exactly what makes WALL-E the best Pixar film yet (and perhaps the best movie of the year) is nearly impossible. To say that it is a combination of irresistible charm, tender budding emotion and effective commentary is to barely scratch the surface. WALL-E screams and demands to be experienced. It took a huge leap of faith to make this film, as seemingly unpalatable and uncommercial as it is. And its bigger ideas will not be lost on many. What does it say about us as a society, that we are able to produce great art such as this about our impending demise, yet still somehow seem unable to prevent it? While every Pixar movie succeeds in being some degree of wonderful, WALL-E is perhaps first that can be called not only essential, but also truly important.