Combination of the Two

1. "Robots." I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only person out there who has been waiting with increasing impatience for Robin Williams to get all of this sappy, sickly-sweet "Patch Adams" stuff out of his system... and even the sinister "Insomnia" image is starting to get old... ad go back to making movies where he can really BE Robin Williams: pure incoherent sillyness. But I'm not sure I was expecting that to happen in a movie like "Robots."

"Robots" is the story of Rodney Copperbottom, a robot with a dream to become an inventor of things that will improve the lives of robots everywhere. When he arrives in Robot City to go to work for his idol, the brilliant Mr. Bigweld, he finds Bigweld replaced at his own company by sinister forces who definitely don't have their fellow robots' good in mind. Now Rodney has to team up with a bunch of robot outcasts known as the Rusties to stop those evil forces.

The art of computer generated animation has progressed at such an incredibly fast pace that each new production leaves the last one in the dust, and this is no exception. The film has a look that has to be seen to be believed, and even that might not be enough. Williams has plenty of opportunity to do his hyper routines (they seem to annoy as many as they amuse, but I'm not among that crowd), and the rest of the voice cast (Ewan McGregor, Mel Brooks, Halle Berry, Amanda Bynes and many others) actually manage, somehow, to keep up with him. Logically, this movie ought to be one a winner, start to finish. So why does it feel so flat so much of the time?

Well, for starters the basic story is every "poor boy goes to the big city to make good" story you've ever seen. Yeah, it has a cast of robots this time, but you might be surprised how little difference that makes. The dialogue, other than Williams' (which was largely improvised by him) isn't exactly filled with snappy, memorable one-liners, either... but then, it WAS written by two former writers of "Happy Days" and "Laverne and Shirley." And the characters they created to SPEAK that dialogue are, by and large, a pretty bland lot. On top of all of this, there's the fact that a major, gigantic Hollywood studio is once again putting out a film about evil, gigantic major corporations being beaten by the little guy... let's pacify the audience by not only giving them false hope, but make them think that WE'RE not one of those evil mega-conglomerates, shall we?

If this were a Disney movie (speaking of mega-conglomerates) there'd probably be a "Greatest Characters" video eventually featuring excerpts of their most memorable characters from different movies and featuring plenty of Williams' highlights from this film. But this film was made by 20th Century Fox (thank you, Rupert Murdoch) so no such luck. You don't exactly have to suffer through a wretched turkey to see Williams, but still... is it worth it, really?

It probably is true that small children will not be so picky and will likely have fun at "Robots." But is that an excuse to continue making bland, not-much-of-anything movies: "Hey, the kids will see anything!" You want a really good animated movie? See "The Incredibles", or check out "Incredibles" director brad Bird's previous movie, "The Iron Giant."
They may even be enough to restore your hope for good kids' movies. As for "Robots," well... I guess it's better to have this in theatres than "Baby Geniuses 3."

2. "Nobody Knows." And now, for something completely different. Inspired by actual events in Tokyo, this Japanese import is the story of a not very devoted single mother who decides that her children are cramping her style, so one day she simply walks out on them. Among the problems: she never told her landlord about the three YOUNGER children, only the oldest (12). So the 12-year-old has to become the head of the family, hiding the others from prying eyes while providing them with a meager existence.

This is the kind of story that, if it were made in Hollywood, would likely be played for the maximum amount of sentiment and artificial pathos possible. But director Kore-Ida Hirokazu (of the wonderful "After Life") doesn't take that route. "Nobody Knows" is as simple, unadorned and straight-forward as it's possible for it to be. Nothing exagerated, nothing overblown. Which makes many moments all the more powerful, including very strong scenes in which Akira (the 12-year-old) makes a futile attempt to communicate with his estranged father in hopes of getting him to help, or when the weight of the awesome responsibilities he's taken on really begin to sink in. This is no piece of sentimental fluff... this is the story of the kinds of circumstances that adults would often find hard to face, being dealt with by four children who aren't even in their teens yet. They may have surprising reserves of strength, but how can you expect them to thrive?

And here, once again, we find another of those "But I don't want to see that, it sounds DEPRESSING!" movies. To which I can only respond: is it depressing to see how people overcome or at least endure situations that ought to destroy them? Just because a movie doesn't feature fist-waving triumph and a thousand strings playing a dramatic victory theme, that doesn't mean there isn't anything positive to take away from it. A movie doesn't always have to make you feel good to be a good movie (I've trademarked that phrase, and if you use it without permission I'll find out). Besides, I think a movie that can make you forget you're watching fiction and become as engrossed in the lives of its characters to the extent that "Nobody Knows" does has accomplished something most film makers can only dream of, and that's enough reason for it to exist.

As unusual a film as "Nobody Knows" is, there IS one other film that it doesn remind me just a bit of: an early (1993) effort by Stephen Soderbergh called "King of the Hill." If you're interested in how strongly a film about children can effect the emotions of adults, you should definitely check it out. But don't watch it back to back with "Nobody Knows", though... there CAN be too much of a good thing.



So: anybody recognize the source of this column's title?