WALL-E (No spoilers)

It’s the law of averages; one of these days, the folks at Pixar Animation Studios are going to fire a dud. Maybe it will be a first-class stinker; maybe it will just cause people to shrug and say “that’s not up to their usual standard.”

Whenever that may happen, it did not happen in 2008.

WALL-E is great. Just great.

A few advance reviews accused it of being a heavy-handed “message movie,” and maybe even a political polemic. Balderdash. It’s certainly no more of a message movie than “Ratatouille,” and — like “Ratatouille” — it is entertainment first, parable second. For one thing, the cartoonishness of its apocalypse is self-deprecating; it both makes its point and mocks itself for having a point. There’s a major vein of science fiction that has some sort of apocalyptic, look-what-we-did-to-ourselves slant. At its best, it can be poignant; even at its worst, it can be overlooked if the story and characters are good enough.

“WALL-E” goes way beyond good enough. It’s beautiful, and thrilling, and fun. See it as soon as possible.

The short subject, “Presto,” is terrific as well, just as we’ve all come to expect from Pixar.

By the way, I was shocked to see a teaser trailer for “Pink Panther 2″ in which Steve Martin as Inspector Clouseau tries to weasel his way in to a screening of … “WALL-E.” “Pink Panther 2″ is from MGM; “WALL-E,” of course, is Disney/Pixar. Why would one studio want to promote the other’s product? I’d read in advance that “WALL-E” incorporates some live-action clips from a well-known movie musical, and so I thought maybe this was some sort of quid-pro-quo in return for MGM giving Disney permission to use the clip.

But I looked it up just now, and the musical in question was produced by 20th Century Fox. MGM had nothing to do with it. So there must be some other explanation.

  • http://www.metazai.com/ metazai

    Disney and MGM have at least one agreement:

    “In 1985, Disney and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer entered into a licensing contract that gave Disney worldwide rights to use the MGM name and logo for a yet-to-be-built backlot studio theme park.” -Wikipedia

    So it stands to reason they have some branding crossover agreements here or there.

  • http://lakeneuron.com LakeNeuron

    Yes, but if you read the rest of that Wikipedia entry, the theme park agreement a) was the subject of litigation, and b) has expired, so the Disney-MGM Studios theme park is now the Disney’s Hollywood Studios theme park.

  • http://www.metazai.com/ metazai

    Disney and MGM have at least one agreement:

    “In 1985, Disney and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer entered into a licensing contract that gave Disney worldwide rights to use the MGM name and logo for a yet-to-be-built backlot studio theme park.” -Wikipedia

    So it stands to reason they have some branding crossover agreements here or there.

  • http://lakeneuron.com LakeNeuron

    Yes, but if you read the rest of that Wikipedia entry, the theme park agreement a) was the subject of litigation, and b) has expired, so the Disney-MGM Studios theme park is now the Disney's Hollywood Studios theme park.

  • http://answers.yahoo.ca keywoodheadc

    watch global pets sea busy student vacant german dog key home

  • glassjokeglo

    busy elephant trust [URL=http://biperformance.spaces.live.com]glass joke global are land[/URL] all usa red deliver [URL=http://framework.v2.nl]america steven home tom mail[/URL]