Talk:Joe Versus the Volcano
|WikiProject Film||(Rated Start-class)|
The Reception Section
Whoever wrote that - specifically the Ebert part - should be banned from ever contributing anything to this site ever again, in my opinion. Here is what Ebert actually wrote in his (extremely favorable) review: "It is not an entirely successful movie, but it is new and fresh and not shy of taking chances." Now go back and read what, on the JVtV page here, he's said to have written. See a difference? I'm a huge fan of this film, but I was shocked and really kind of offended that someone would do that. For one thing, here's a movie that got soundly thrashed by almost every critic in the world. And you go and take the one glowing review, by the most prominent critic of all, and, rather than appreciate that such a big name so loves the film you love, rather than just quoting his very positive review as he wrote it, you actually took a line that meant something else and twisted it to make it seem he gave the film unqualified praise. He certainly did not. What an ungrateful, dishonest edit. And it doesn't even make sense. If the film is "entirely successful," wouldn't have he have given it the full four stars? But he only gave it three and a half. Apparently that and the unusually sympathetic rave review accompanying it wasn't good enough for the person who went out of his way to mislead readers of this article. Shameful.
I took out the offending line myself, if anyone's wondering what I'm referring to here. As it was written, Ebert was said to have called it "an entirely successful movie." Whoever originally wrote that section/included that bit has missed his calling, he should be working for Fox News. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 12:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- The Analysis and Conclusion segments of this article reek of POV. --Feitclub 19:15, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Whoops the NPOV tag was added on 05-10-18 15:56:31 Bwithh (NPOV (regarding Conclusion section)) - I moved the tag to the section thinking it had been there for almost a year. Anyway the whole article doesn’t have a POV, just like Feitclub said the last two sections have this and that is why I moved the lines. Instead of getting a first impression (right now at least) that the article has problems, the reader can read a good section then read the stuff with the NPOV tag. It might get a better response for cleanup(?).
Fair use rationale for Image:Joe Versus The Volcano.jpg
Image:Joe Versus The Volcano.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Existential Themes And Unique Metaphors
Someone should mention the wonderful (and subtle) existentialist themes and metaphors throughout this film.
For instance, the movie is primarily about a man's "existential leap" and several references to the "existential leap" idea appear in the film such as while talking to the orange-haired Meg Ryan, he says, "Why not take the leap and do what you're scared of doing?", also, the soda the Waponi Wu have is called "Jump" and finally, Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan ultimately "take the leap" by getting married before they literally jump into the volcano.
Another metaphor is the "crooked road" theme which appears as the path Joe takes to enter the factory, the logo to the factory and the lightning bolt that sinks the Tweedle-Dee and the path of torches the natives take up to the top of the volcano. Joe, at the mouth of the volcano, refers to his life as "a crooked road."
The duck image appears when characters are lying or when there's "quack" medacine such as when Joe's doctor is explaining the brain cloud. Another appearance is after the Waponis do the cleaning ceremony of Joe and yet another is when Grahammore is telling joe about the idea he has and he prominently displays his duck-head-cane-handle.
Also, although dying, the luggage salesmen tells show "may you live to be a thousand years" and eventually, twice the luggage saves his life. As the movie ends he says, "wherever we go, whatever we do, we are going to take this luggage."
Another, sort of, quirky element is that the factory he works for manufactures "petroleum jelly" and a "rectal probes" which they show a glimpse of and look pretty rough!
Joe's boss has a pair of testicles display in what mysteriously looks like a trophy suggesting that the company has Joe "by the balls."
It's curious that Joe's boss is refered to as "Wahoo Waturi" and the natives are similiarly called the "Waponi Wu".
When Joe receives the bad news about his brain cloud he hugs a big dog for support, which later, he very subtly chooses not to do later when he's out "discovering himself" through shopping.
The orb on Joe's doctor's desk is certainly odd.
When Joe sings the cowboy song to the sleeping Meg Ryan the song ends with "gideyup".
Also, it's a great touch how the LA Meg Ryan has this fake persona (involving the orange color of LA Joe remarks that "it looks fake" in the taxi).
The Waponi's ancestors were blown off course around "the horn of Africa" and previously Joe went to "The Horn of Africa" which was the store Joe made fancy purchases in.
When Joe is shopping and experiencing a new freedom, he chats with someone doing that "painted-statue-people" routine who looks like the Statue of Liberty.
Grammore says "i can't find more than a gram of this stuff".
The Waponis, who came from a complex and rich blend of culture,
The painting the LA Meg Ryan made is a situation she tries to recreate as if she'd gone through the relationship facade many times before and her other partners played along with her phony version of love.
There are more, but I can't think of them.
Joe Banks, the name of the title character, is also the name of a famed Botanist and one time president of the Royal Society that travelled with Captain Cook round the Horn of Africa to explore the South Pacific. The main purpose of the voyage was to record the Transit of Venus. Banks was the founder of the African Association, a British group devoted to the exploration of Africa. The Banks Islands of Vanuatu are named after him. The Sir Joseph Banks Conservatory in Lincoln, UK is named after him and features a tropical hothouse filled with plants reminiscent of his voyages. He's notorious for having packed a ridiculously large number of things, including 2 large Greyhound dogs that he was exceedingly fond of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 03:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- The movie does touch on the theme of existentialism through the character's alienation from his own humanity.Smallman12q (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
So much of the subsequent adventure was present in the factory life that I was expecting Joe to wake up. Things from the factory/life that appear in the adventure includ: DeDe (twice), Joe's volcanoe lamp, the flourescent tubes giving off a flashing lightening-like light, "Wahoo Waturi" boss and subsequent tribe, the sole/soul that might be lost, wetness and a danger of drowning (that water main), his past as firefighter, and the crooked road. --Timtak (talk) 02:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- To make people think this is a British film? Seriously, it's outa here. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
What makes this an existentialist film? Seems to me it is open to many different interpretations, some much more humanistic and some even heavily moralistic. Did the filmmakers say it's an existentialist film? In the absence of any source for this claim, I suggest that be removed from the opening sentence and perhaps some other more general term like "philosophical" be used instead as it does obviously have some philosophical content.