Animation
The Wild Robot (PG)
30/10/24 20:34 Filed in: 2024
Starring: Lupita Nyong'o
September 2024
Warning! This is NOT a movie review. This is a critique of the film. Intended to initiate a dialogue, the following analysis explores various aspects of the film and may contain spoilers. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. Ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!
In some far-flung forest, frolicking animals accidentally activate a robot inside a busted crate. Following its programming, the robot, Rozzum unit 7134 (voiced by Lupita Nyong’o), tries to assist the skittish animals, but ends up doing more harm than good in many instances. In a fateful moment, Roz falls onto a bird’s nest, killing the mother and crushing all but one of the eggs.
Roz’ mission becomes protecting the egg at all costs, especially from a wily fox named Fink (Pedro Pascal) who fancies the egg as his next meal. As if fending off ferocious beasts isn’t enough of a challenge, Roz’ task gets far more complicated when the egg hatches, revealing an adorable little chick that follows the robot around as if the mechanical being is its mother. Reprogramming itself to learn how the various creatures communicate, Roz seeks advice on how to deal with this “crushing obligation” from a possum mother, who simply recommends patience.
But how can a robot programmed to serve a human family raise a tiny gosling on a hostile island where everything wants to eat it?
Welcome to the wondrous world of The Wild Robot.
Based on the book of the same name by Peter Brown, The Wild Robot is directed by Chris Sanders (How to Train Your Dragon) and produced by DreamWorks Animation and Universal Pictures. The final animated movie to be produced entirely in-house by DreamWorks, The Wild Robot is a real gem. Visualized in a similar style to Hayao Miyazaki’s celebrated animated features, The Wild Robot has a gorgeous, painterly aesthetic that gives it a dreamy, fairy tale quality.
The movie boasts several magical sequences, like when Roz touches a butterfly-blanketed tree and the myriad insects explode into a swarm of color and scintillating beauty, or when Roz teaches young Brightbill (Kit Connor) how to fly down a leaf-covered stonework runway, or when Roz holds onto a tree with one arm and leans out over the edge of a cliff to watch the migrating geese fly away into the sunset. In contrast to these “big moment” sequences, even the movie’s quiet passages are deeply affecting, like the shot of a melancholy Roz sitting in the forest as snow gently falls to the ground. The “story time” sequence, which is animated in a different style than the rest of the movie, is sheer genius. In short, the lovingly crafted and brilliantly realized animation in this film creates an alluring, immersive and unforgettable visual experience that favors traditional, handcrafted animation over the pristine, photorealistic CGI of most modern animated features.
As with the assorted forest animals, the movie’s cast is equally diverse. In addition to Nyong’o, Pascal and Connor, many notable stars lend their voice talents to the film, including: Bill Nighy as elder goose and migration leader Longneck, Ving Rhames as the falcon Thunderbolt, Mark Hamill as the bear Thorn and Catherine O’Hara as the possum mother Pinktail.
Spoiler alert: Though populated with colorful characters and buttressed by an engaging and moving story, there’s very little that’s new here. The “swapping sympathies” plot—where an individual from a more advanced society falls in with the natives, identifies with them, and defends them against aggressive members of their own race—has been employed in many movies, including: Enemy Mine (1985), Dances with Wolves (1990) and Avatar (2009).
Also, there’s an oblique reference to Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer (song and 1964 TV special) in the movie. When Brightbill is first reunited with the other members of his species, they call him names and ostracize him. Later, when the geese come under attack by robots, Longneck places Brightbill in charge of leading the birds to safety. When the geese arrive back home, they praise Brightbill for his leadership and courage under fire. Like Rudolph, Brightbill goes from outcast to hero (a similar redemptive story arc is also present in Happy Feet).
Allusions aside, the story (adapted by Sanders from Brown’s book) contains several adult topics that add a deeper dimension to the film. This isn’t the first story to depict a robot walking through nature, but that visual foregrounds the impact of technology (specifically AI) on nature. Can technology and nature peacefully coexist, as the movie suggests? Time will tell.
Another fascinating subplot involves predetermined responses vs free will. In a desperate attempt at dealing with the complexities of parenting, Roz alters its programming. This decision gives Roz the capacity to feel, and eventually love. But when Roz encounters another of its kind, the other robot determines that by altering its programming, Roz has become defective. This is an ironic viewpoint since the capacity to override our programming (learn and grow) is what makes us human…and makes life worth living.
Yet another of the movie’s many themes is isolationism vs social integration (the animals are only able to defeat the invaders when they work together). But isn’t this topic a tad advanced (and uninteresting) for most kids? And, is this just an innocuous subplot or a thinly-veiled attempt at indoctrinating our children with a pernicious form of idealism (wolves and bears don’t pal around in the real world)? Hollywood’s track record on such matters would point toward the latter.
For a kids’ movie, The Wild Robot contains an inordinate number of references to death. Indeed, the dialog is saturated with words like “dead/die/dying,” “expire,” “kill/killed,” “murder,” “terminated,” and other morbid terms like “squish you into jelly.” Alarmingly, much of this fatalistic dialog comes from young characters.
It’s unclear why such dire dialog is infused into this ostensibly family film. Perhaps it’s Sanders’ way of underscoring the predatory, “survival of the fittest” aspect of life in the great outdoors. But is an animated film the appropriate place for this macabre topic?
Despite minor quibbles over the appropriateness of its speech and subject matter, The Wild Robot should appeal to a wide audience, including kids and adults who enjoy well-told, finely-rendered animated movies. It joins the small set of stellar robot animated flicks, which represent some of the finest animated features ever made: The Iron Giant (1999), WALL-E (2008) and Big Hero 6 (2014). Regardless of where it ranks, The Wild Robot justly deserves to be placed alongside these other animated greats.
The movie’s coda sets up the possibility for another story with these lovable characters. But whether or not a sequel is ever produced, by DreamWorks or some other animation studio, this movie is a wild ride worth taking.
Rating: 3 out of 4
Incredibles 2 (PG)
24/06/18 01:17 Filed in: 2018
Starring: Craig T. Nelson
June 2018
Warning! This is NOT a movie review. This is a critique of the film. Intended to initiate a dialogue, the following analysis explores various aspects of the film and may contain spoilers. Views are my own and elaborate on comments that were originally tweeted in real time from the back row of a movie theater @BackRoweReviews. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. Ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!
While waiting to watch Incredibles 2, I detected an insidious pattern in the previews. For The Lego Movie 2, Wyldstyle (Elizabeth Banks) admits that she almost singlehandedly saved the world in the first movie, but that Emmet (Chris Pratt) took all the credit. The next trailer was for Wreck-It Ralph 2. In a telling scene, Vanellope (Sarah Silverman) stumbles into a room full of Disney princesses who initially question her right to join them until they identify with her plight; people always assume that all of Vanellope’s problems will be solved as soon as a big, strong man shows up. When the feature presentation finally started, I thought for sure the anti-male bias was over—surely Pixar wouldn’t stoop to such shameless sexism, right? Wrong. It would appear that the sentiments behind the #MeToo and #TimesUp movements have now infiltrated kids’ movies…and that makes me mad. For a detailed diatribe of my stance against movies that seek to indoctrinate children with partisan political views, read my review of Happy Feet. Suffice it to say, unhealthy stereotypes of men are everywhere now, even in typically high-quality, high class Pixar pics. Case in point is Bob Parr/Mr. Incredible (Craig T. Nelson). If we thought Bob was emasculated at the beginning of first film as the deskbound, pencil pushing cube dweller, imagine how worthless he feels when his wife Helen Parr/Elastigirl (Holly Hunter) gets a crime fighting gig and he’s left at home to raise the kids Mr. Mom style. When Bob’s efforts to take care of his three kids go up in smoke (as a former accountant, he can’t even teach his son math because it’s “new math”), he reaches out to friend Frozone (Samuel L Jackson) for advice and prevails upon costume designer Edna (Brad Bird) to babysit Jack-Jack. Particularly disturbing is the cost analysis scene, which flags Mr. Incredible as an extreme insurance risk. The analytics reveal that Elastigirl (woman) completes her missions without bending a blade of grass, while Mr. Incredible (man) inflicts massive damage while attempting to defeat villains. Men are characterized as blundering buffoons who just can’t help but destroy everything in their path (much like Wreck-It Ralph or Hulk). So then, if Bob is a failure as a father and a superhero, what good is he? The last player in the NFL draft is referred to as Mr. Irrelevant. In I2, Bob Parr isn’t Mr. Incredible, he’s Mr. Irrelevant. Bob is the exemplar of the scores of men who’ve been sidelined and debased. Will it get to the point where men are nothing more than laborers and lovers in a matriarchal society, as was depicted in Gene Roddenberry’s Planet Earth (1974)? Time and societal evolution will tell, but as for now, we’re on the verge of the systematic censure, deconstruction and endangerment of the male of the species. Aside from gender roles, the movie also gets political when it deals with the integration of the Supers back into society; a topic that could relate to refugees from the Middle East, illegals pouring over the border from Mexico or even the way the LGBT community is being assimilated into the broader populace. The movie also makes thinly-veiled commentary about our growing screen obsession. Staring at one of villain Screenslaver’s hypnotic patterns can override a person’s will and make them highly susceptible to committing evil acts. Walk into any public place and you’ll see people with their faces buried in screens, in essence hypnotized by onscreen content and completely oblivious to what’s going on around them. The parallel is obvious; the solution isn’t. It’s ironic that this problem was in its initial stages when The Incredibles was released in 2004. Despite its broad spectrum of commentary, the film does have some fun, although not nearly as much as the original. Even though the scenes with Jack-Jack are the highlight of the film, the tyke is given far too many superpowers and the various applications of those powers are way overplayed, usually to generate laughs. Syndrome (Jason Lee) is a far superior antagonist to Screenslaver, whose identity is obvious from the start. There are several new characters here including: salesman Winston Deavor (Bob Odenkirk), inventor Evelyn Deavor (Catherine Keener), Voyd (Sophia Bush), Krushauer (Phil LaMarr), Reflux (Paul Eiding), Rick Dicker (Jonathan Banks) and Ambassador (Isabella Rosellini). As with the first movie, Brad Bird wrote and directed I2. So is I2 worth the wait (14 years)? It pains me to say that I2 fails to capture the first film’s unbridled creativity and off-the-wall exhilaration…and fun. Though I2 is entertaining, it certainly isn’t incredible.
Rating: 2 ½ out of 4 stars