UP (Pixar, 2009)

[Sycophant]

A Grand Don't Come for Free is a great album.

One of my absolute favorites.

[ledfloyd]

i didn't find the opening montage that sad...

i did love the film though. it's not wall-e great, but great nonetheless.

[Watashi]

I saw it in 2D today. It's even better the second time. :cool:

[ledfloyd]

if i have one complaint it's the dogs aside from doug. especially the plane flying dogs.

[Watashi]

Uh, the plane flying dogs are awesome.

All the dogs are awesome.

Delroy Lindo > All

[ledfloyd]

Uh, the plane flying dogs are awesome.

All the dogs are awesome.

Delroy Lindo > All
that may be true but it doesn't make sahara a good film, nor does it necessarily make the evil dogs awesome.

[Sxottlan]

*Yawn*

Another Pixar masterpiece.

And not to sound like Ben Lyons or anything, but screw Transformers 2. This is the real emotional Devastator. ;)

[trotchky]

*Yawn*

Another dull children's cartoon.

And here I was thinking it would be at least as good as WALL-E. Silly me.

[trotchky]

Eminem sucks. His first two LPs were OK, the rest has been garbage. To be clear by my comment I did not mean that The Beastie Boys weren't good. The Streets also has a few solid tracks.

I'm not sure where this hip-hop discussion came from, but Eminem has never been listenable to me, even when he demonstrated some talent (MM LP).

Paul's Boutique is a masterpiece and I just started listening to The Streets but he's pretty good too. Sage Francis is fucking terrible. If we're going to classify musicians by skin color, Aesop Rock and El-P are two of the best White Rappers working today, or maybe ever.

[number8]

*Yawn*

Another use of "children's cartoon" as a put down, as if that ever signifies any less quality in a work of art.

[Raiders]

*Yawn*

Another dull children's cartoon.

And here I was thinking it would be at least as good as WALL-E. Silly me.

Is there something more constructive we should be expecting?

[trotchky]

*Yawn*

Another use of "children's cartoon" as a put down, as if that ever signifies any less quality in a work of art.

It doesn't, at least not inherently, but in this case I think it's fair to attribute the simplicity and straight-forwardness of the movie, not to mention its obvious and conservative stabs at humor, as indicative of a work created for children.


Is there something more constructive we should be expecting?

I was expecting something more nuanced, thought-provoking, maybe funnier, but definitely more affecting--this is the movie that moves audiences to tears, that makes married men grip their wives hands in existential terror? Really?

[Boner M]

*Yawn*

Another kneejerk trotchky dismissal that he'll hold for an hour before changing his mind.

[trotchky]

WALL-E's chase scenes were, like, fifty times more dynamic and fun to watch than the action sequences in this movie. Dogs flying fighter planes! Whoa-hay!

[trotchky]

*Yawn*

Another kneejerk trotchky dismissal that he'll hold for an hour before changing his mind.

Tell me one movie besides The Limits of Control (which I reconsidered after having a long conversation with Clipper Ship Captain about it) I've held an opinion on briefly before changing my mind. I dare you.

Also, I don't see how my reaction is any more "kneejerk" than some of the posters who have lavished wild praise on the film.

[Boner M]

Tell me one movie besides The Limits of Control (which I reconsidered after having a long conversation with Clipper Ship Captain about it) I've held an opinion on briefly before changing my mind. I dare you.
In My Skin, a few days ago.

[number8]

*Yawn*

Snide comment.

[trotchky]

In My Skin, a few days ago.

Oh yeah.

Still, it's not like I hate that film or anything. I just don't think it's as good as I did initially. What's more, I don't know why that should be a problem--is there something wrong with thinking through works after your initial, gut reaction to them, or with allowing your discussions about them to change and perhaps enlighten your perspective, rather than stubbornly defending your initial opinion no matter what just so you won't appear "stupid" or "wrong"?

Plus, I actually did yawn while watching Up, so I see my post as more honest than the guy who yawned at it being just another masterpiece.

[Kurosawa Fan]

It's okay to think things over and change your opinion, but why not wait to post until you've thought things through and settled your mind a bit? Seems like the more reasonable thing to do.

[trotchky]

It's okay to think things over and change your opinion, but why not wait to post until you've thought things through and settled your mind a bit? Seems like the more reasonable thing to do.

You may be right, but I often find that talking to people about movies helps me see things from different perspectives and whatnot.

[MacGuffin]

At least we can say trotchky's opinions allow us to see both sides of an argument.

[Kurosawa Fan]

You may be right, but I often find that talking to people about movies helps me see things from different perspectives and whatnot.

Understandable. Maybe don't come out so strong in your opinions if you aren't that confident in them to begin with? Ask people what they thought and why they thought it and discuss rather than praising or dismissing a film from the start.

[Watashi]

I've seen this three times already.

[Watashi]

I was expecting something more nuanced, thought-provoking, maybe funnier, but definitely more affecting--this is the movie that moves audiences to tears, that makes married men grip their wives hands in existential terror? Really?
You must have walked in 15 minutes late.

[Watashi]

What does everyone think of the short Partly Cloudy? I loved it. It might be my favorite Pixar short. They do keep on getting better.

[Russ]

I've seen this three times already.
Where's it rank for you?

[Watashi]

Ugh... see, I can't do this. After the two Bird films, they are all pretty much even for me (except Cars, which would be last).

Up is definitely the most "mature" of the Pixar films if that makes sense. Very few animated films tackles themes like letting go of someone and accepting death.

[ledfloyd]

What does everyone think of the short Partly Cloudly? I loved it. It might be my favorite Pixar short. They do keep on getting better.
it was good. but presto is still my fav.

as for ranking the films.

1. Wall-E
2. The Incredibles
3. A Bug's Life
4. Up
5. Toy Story 2
6. Toy Story
7. Ratatouille
8. Cars
9. Finding Nemo
10. Monster's Inc.

[trotchky]

You must have walked in 15 minutes late.

Not quite. Maybe if the miscarriage hadn't already been spoiled for me I would have thought it was pretty ballsy for a children's cartoon, but in either case I don't think I would have found a seconds-long, vague reference to such an tragedy (delivered via montage as a means of establishing expository detail, no less) particularly heart-wrenching.

And, I'm sorry, but a vague reference to divorce just doesn't mean much in this day and age. Maybe if more time was spent on these themes, sure. Like, what WALL-E's environmentalist message lacked in intensity it made up for in the sheer amount of screen time devoted to that message. Here the points about parenthood and familial love are few and far between, and when they do come they're fuzzy, if not outright anemic.

[number8]

I should clarify that when I said married men would cry, I wasn't referring to the montage.

[Russ]

Wats makes a good point because looking at ledfloyd's rankings illustrates how bizarre it is to see which films are at the very bottom of his list (because, I guess, a case could be made for any of them, with maybe the exception of Cars, which I still haven't seen, to be residing at the top of someone's rankings.

It's inevitable isn't it? New Pixar rankings after every new release. Pixar's track record is one incredible thing to behold.

[ledfloyd]

Not quite. Maybe if the miscarriage hadn't already been spoiled for me I would have thought it was pretty ballsy for a children's cartoon, but in either case I don't think I would have found a seconds-long, vague reference to such an tragedy (delivered via montage as a means of establishing expository detail, no less) particularly heart-wrenching.

And, I'm sorry, but a vague reference to divorce just doesn't mean much in this day and age. Maybe if more time was spent on these themes, sure. Like, what WALL-E's environmentalist message lacked in intensity it made up for in the sheer amount of screen time devoted to that message. Here the points about parenthood and familial love are few and far between, and when they do come they're fuzzy, if not outright anemic.
eh, i'd rather have a film underplay something than pound it into my head. the fact that the shot you mention was seconds-long i felt increased it's affect. also you didn't find his wife dying right after he bought the tickets for them to go on an adventure sad? or the continual imposition of real life on their dreams. i have a feeling if they spent more time on these things than they did it would've come off as preachy. treating them as just a part of life suited the film. and i found carl's finally coming to terms with things as he looked at the picture book very affecting as well.

[Watashi]

Have you seen Up yet, Russ?

What is your favorite Pixar?

[MacGuffin]

1. Toy Story - 9
2. Ratatouille - 8
3. Monster's Inc. - 7
4. A Bug's Life - 6
5. Toy Story 2 - 6
6. Finding Nemo - 6
7. Wall-E - 5
8. Cars - 4
9. The Incredibles - 3

[Russ]

Have you seen Up yet, Russ?

What is your favorite Pixar?
Not yet.

I'd probably go with:

1. Ratatouille
2. A Bug's Life
3. The Incredibles
4. Wall-E
5. Monsters Inc.
6. Toy Story 2
7. Toy Story
8. Finding Nemo (the only one I'm kinda lukewarm on)

I started watching Cars on Youtube but haven't finished it yet.

My point is they're all so close, it's very, very difficult to rank them to a degree that really makes much sense. I mean, really, they're all quality. Any nitpicks I have are pretty minor, even with Nemo.

[Watashi]

You watched Cars on YouTube? Ew. Even though the film is weak, the visuals are absolutely gorgeous.

Please don't tell me you watched the other Pixars on YouTube.

[Russ]

You watched Cars on YouTube? Ew. Even though the film is weak, the visuals are absolutely gorgeous.

Please don't tell me you watched the other Pixars on YouTube.
I own all the other Pixars.

:cool:

[Watashi]

I love Pixar's casting choices so much.

Their leads have consisted of Albert Brooks, Patton Oswalt, Ed Asner, Craig T. Nelson, Dave Foley, and Owen Wilson. Even Tom Hank and Tim Allen weren't famous when they were brought on board.

They just have that know-how of matching their characters to a voice that doesn't revolve around A-list celebrities (I'm looking at you, DreamWorks).

[ledfloyd]

yeah, cars, nemo and monsters are the only ones i don't love. though i do owe nemo another watch. all in all though amazing the quality they've maintained.

[Watashi]

I own all the other Pixars.

:cool:
I have a confession to make.

I don't own Wall-E. I never gotten around to buying it and haven't seen it since theaters

I put my head in the cone of shame.

[ledfloyd]

I love Pixar's casting choices so much.

Their leads have consisted of Albert Brooks, Patton Oswalt, Ed Asner, Craig T. Nelson, Dave Foley, and Owen Wilson. Even Tom Hank and Tim Allen weren't famous when they were brought on board.

They just have that know-how of matching their characters to a voice that doesn't revolve around A-list celebrities (I'm looking at you, DreamWorks).
cars is the only one that feels a bit miscast to me. other than that they are nearly flawless.

[Amnesiac]

Pretty wonderful. I really liked the subtlety and restraint of the opening montage. The lack of dialogue and the cursory glance at all of the events somehow made it seem all the more pitiful and poignant. The same compliment can be paid to several other scenes later on.

And, not surprisingly, there are some truly visually astounding sequences, put together with adroit finesse. In particular...

...the escape from Muntz's dogs atop the crumbling cliffs.

A lot of the sequences were just downright fun to watch. Breath taking, even. Kinetic, energetic, vertiginous... particularly in regards to the film's climax.

I still have to digest it for a while... but as of now, I can't help but say that this was just a pure joy to watch, at the very least. Sublime visuals, and a story that reached new, heart-wrenching, gracefully handled, mature territory for Pixar. And, not surprisingly, it delivered some really endearing characters.

[Winston*]

Even Tom Hank and Tim Allen weren't famous when they were brought on board.

Huh?

[Watashi]

Huh?
Tom Hanks had just wrapped up Philadelphia and Tim Allen was just into Home Improvement when they were offered the job.

[Pop Trash]

Tom Hanks had just wrapped up Philadelphia and Tim Allen was just into Home Improvement when they were offered the job.
What the?? Tom Hanks had been famous years before then for Splash and Big. And Home Improvement was pretty dang popular in the early 90s.

[Watashi]

What the?? Tom Hanks had been famous years before then for Splash and Big.
Was he really an A-list star though?

[Pop Trash]

Was he really an A-list star though?

Probably as much of an "A" list star as Jack Black is today. He was also in Sleepless in Seattle which was pretty dang popular.

[Qrazy]

Was he really an A-list star though?

# Apollo 13 (1995) .... Jim Lovell
# Forrest Gump (1994) .... Forrest Gump
# Philadelphia (1993) .... Andrew Beckett
# Sleepless in Seattle (1993) .... Sam Baldwin

I'd say so.

But you're right about Tim Allen. I mean his show was popular but it was still TV.

[Pop Trash]

# Apollo 13 (1995) .... Jim Lovell
# Forrest Gump (1994) .... Forrest Gump
# Philadelphia (1993) .... Andrew Beckett
# Sleepless in Seattle (1993) .... Sam Baldwin

I'd say so.

But you're right about Tim Allen. I mean his show was popular but it was still TV.
I think Wats was saying they signed him pre-Philadelphia and I'd say it was the trifecta of Sleepless in Seattle/Philadelphia/Forrest Gump that launched him into super A-list stratosphere of say Tom Cruise. But he was definitely very famous before those movies.

But I get what Wats is saying and it's pretty true. I just think that when Toy Story was made, they were breaking new ground and probably thought it wouldn't hurt to have a few name actors.

[B-side]

Been a while since I've seen Monster's Inc. or either of the Toy Story's, but this is how I'd rank them right now:

1. Wall-E
2. The Incredibles
3. Ratatouille
4. Toy Story 2
5. Toy Story
6. Monster's Inc.
7. Finding Nemo
8. A Bug's Life
9. Cars

[Spinal]

I would say that Hanks has been a major star since at least 1984. Don't really have a sense of how big Bosom Buddies was.

[Ezee E]

I would say that Hanks has been a major star since at least 1984. Don't really have a sense of how big Bosom Buddies was.
I wish I knew what it was like when I saw Tom Hanks tackle his first drama role.

Now all I want to see him do is a comedy again. Love his comedy. His SNL bit on himself was gold.

[Sxottlan]

Plus, I actually did yawn while watching Up, so I see my post as more honest than the guy who yawned at it being just another masterpiece.

I was being honest. It is another Pixar masterpiece. ;)

[trotchky]

eh, i'd rather have a film underplay something than pound it into my head. the fact that the shot you mention was seconds-long i felt increased it's affect. also you didn't find his wife dying right after he bought the tickets for them to go on an adventure sad? or the continual imposition of real life on their dreams. i have a feeling if they spent more time on these things than they did it would've come off as preachy. treating them as just a part of life suited the film. and i found carl's finally coming to terms with things as he looked at the picture book very affecting as well.

I mean, I felt something, but it was in that wide-eyed, puppy dog manner that's characteristic of all Pixar movies. Every emotional and thematic gesture is just too broad stroked for me to become particularly invested in it. Pixar's silent movie sensibilities go both ways, as far as I see it--they may have all the joyous physicality of a Chaplin film, but they also have all the exaggerated affect...and without the benefit of being produced in the 1930s.

Up isn't a bad movie by any means; I'm really just trying to wrap my head around the insane love that's being poured out over it. I can't for the life of me fathom what people see in this, or any Pixar movie, that makes them not just consider it a masterpiece, but a work of serious emotional depth. And I reckon I never will understand it. No other...studio (I wanted to say director, but that would be inaccurate) produces works that I feel so removed from the general consensus on...and on a gut, visceral level. Like, emotionally, instinctively, the praise these movies get goes against my most basic aesthetic values and sensibilities.

[Thirdmango]

I loved Up though I could have done with out the 3D. I'll watch it again in 2D and probably love it more. As for an order.

1. The Incredibles
2. Wall-E
3. Up
4. Ratatouille
5. Toy Story
6. Toy Story 2
7. Monster's Inc.
8. Cars
9. Finding Nemo
10. A Bug's Life

Notes: I haven't seen A Bug's Life since it came out and I didn't really like it, but I do need to give it another chance. Cars is actually pretty good when you've seen it over 25 times. (I have a severely autistic brother who likes to watch certain movies over and over again. Cars was one of them, also I've probably seen Mary Poppins more then any other movie.).

[jamaul]

This film was wonderful. I laughed, I cried, I was thrilled . . . it was ninety minutes packed with exhilaration, comedy and pathos. Of course, the animation was top notch.

The montage in the beginning, spanning the marriage of Carl and Ellie was a mini-masterpiece in-and-of-itself. Never has a small snippet of dialogue-less montage had that much of an emotional impact on me.

[Sycophant]

I liked it alright. I certainly found the film and its characters charming and the animation beautiful to behold, but I found it surprisingly limited, shallow, and repetitive. Some of this may have come from too-high expectations, but I'm not sure that I can say that I really had any specific expectations, outside of being a very good movie. It may, in fact, very well be my least favorite of Pixar's work (haven't seen Cars), though there are some I haven't seen in long enough to say for sure.

1. Monster's Inc.
2. The Incredibles
3. Wall-E
4. Ratatouille
5. A Bug's Life
6. Toy Story 2
7. Finding Nemo
8. Toy Story
9. Up

Also, I am not sold on this 3D thing. Not sure it's a detriment to a film, but at the same time, I don't think it's an asset either. It's just kind of there. When given options in the future, I'll be going to 2D showings.

[Fezzik]

I should clarify that when I said married men would cry, I wasn't referring to the montage.

Out of curiosity, were you referring to

When Carl was flipping through Ellie's adventure book at the end? When he finds all her pictures of their life together with that little message written on the page?

Because although I teared up at the opening montage, I totally lost it there.

On an additional note: Giacchino's score was wonderful.

I have to digest this a bit more, but I felt like I was watching a Pixar-Miyazaki collaboration at times. It was surreal and incredibly emotional, funny and exhilarating.

Fantastic film.

[Watashi]

Yeah, Giacchino's score is definitely my favorite from him and out of any Pixar so far. It's so amazing. Much better than his Trek score.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I loved this movie so much. Might be my favourite Pixar, though I'd like to mull it over in my mind a bit before making such outrageous claims.

[Spinal]

Pixar is deservedly praised for being consistent in producing very good family entertainment. Haven't seen a full-length film of theirs that I would remotely call a masterpiece yet though. Or even give four stars.

[Watashi]

Pixar is deservedly praised for being consistent in producing very good family entertainment. Haven't seen a full-length film of theirs that I would remotely call a masterpiece yet though. Or even give four stars.

http://saysomethingfunny.files.wordpr ess.com/2009/02/yoda.jpg

"That is why you fail."

[Spinal]

Oh, Yoda. I lost all respect for you when you went CGI and started flipping around like a Mortal Kombat character.

[Raiders]

Hmmmm... good, at times great, but also a little disappointing. Docter was certainly channeling his Miyazaki here (Laputa and Howl's most obviously), but the second half of the film was very scattershot. The dogs were just annoying and sadly reductive for a film where Pixar looked to humans to see them with animals with the intellect of most humans and the ability to talk (they made me yearn for the simplicity of WALL-E's emotive output). Carl and his relationship with his house is by far the film's best asset and all the more so that it essentially creates the sentiment via a four-minute long montage early in the film. I never warmed much to Russell's character and wonder how much more expressive Docter and co. could have been if they had been forced to focus solely on Carl's plight (though Russell does allow for the inevitable catharsis). Without a doubt the most sentimental of all Pixar films, with some of the biggest highs of all their films, but also with some of the most disappointing flaws. For all its focus on actual humans, the film feels more superficial than Pixar's best. All in all though, a great story told reasonably well.

[Watashi]

Bah! The dogs are the best part.

Also, Tom McCarthy created the Russell character when he was brought on board as a story supervisor.

[transmogrifier]

Pixar is deservedly praised for being consistent in producing very good family entertainment. Haven't seen a full-length film of theirs that I would remotely call a masterpiece yet though. Or even give four stars.

Agreed. They are very solid, safe, and at times (Ratatouille, The Incredibles, Cars) kind of boring. Perfect for kids, but I think a little overpraised by adults who are wowed by consistency and name brands.

[Watashi]

Outside of Dug and maybe Russell, Up is by far a film for adults than kids.

[Watashi]

Out of the 10 Pixars film, I have given 9 of them **** stars.

[transmogrifier]

Out of the 10 Pixars film, I have given 9 of them **** stars.

Yep, that would be an example over the overpraising I mentioned earlier.

[Watashi]

Yep, that would be an example over the overpraising I mentioned earlier.
Not really overpraising if I think they're all worthy of that rating.

[Watashi]

I'm thinking I'm going to do a Pixar list soon.

[Fezzik]

Outside of Dug and maybe Russell, Up is by far a film for adults than kids.

This can be said of a lot of their fare. Just because something is safe for puerile consumption does not mean its MADE for kids. Its a crutch I wish people would quit leaning on.

And just because its animated....

Well, that's a rant I really don't want to get into right now. Suffice it to say that in this regard, I agree with Brad Bird's assessment of what "animation" is.

[Watashi]

There is rumors that the next Pixar film after Cars 2 will be PG-13. Not saying it will be, but Brad Bird and co. has always wanted push that their studio is not crutched down by a "kid-friendly" audience.

[number8]

Out of curiosity, were you referring to

When Carl was flipping through Ellie's adventure book at the end? When he finds all her pictures of their life together with that little message written on the page?

Because although I teared up at the opening montage, I totally lost it there.

That's one of them, but I wasn't referring to one scene in particular. To point out one single moment would be reductive of what Pixar accomplished here, I think. Ultimately what's so sad about the film is Carl's relationship with the house told throughout the film.

I hate movies that use death as a cheap tearjerker, and that's why I love the placement of the montage early in the film, because it serves as a set up rather than the primary emotional moment. The actual heartwrenching moments are spread throughout the film, fueled by our memory of the montage, just like Carl.

There are so many simple and subtle moments that made me want to cry because of how well we understand Carl's feelings at that point. I'm talking about things like Carl waking up and cleaning up the trophy mantle first thing in the morning. Or when he sits down on his chair, and it's a two-shot of two chairs, but the other one is empty. Or the look on his face when the house entered the storm and Ellie's photo is falling off the wall. Brilliant stuff.

[trotchky]

Out of the 10 Pixars film, I have given 9 of them **** stars.

Jesus, we get it already.

[Ezee E]

Jesus, we get it already.
I figured we all knew this by now, but we are getting a few new members.

[number8]

There is rumors that the next Pixar film after Cars 2 will be PG-13. Not saying it will be, but Brad Bird and co. has always wanted push that their studio is not crutched down by a "kid-friendly" audience.

After Cars 2 they're making The Bear and the Bow and Newt. I don't think either are PG-13.

But, you know, that's Brad Bird. I think Lasseter still likes the fact that they can make movies both kids and adults can enjoy, at least content wise. They've been veering more and more to adults lately, with Wall-E and Up.

[Raiders]

Also, I know part of the film's point is Carl's growth from lazy, creaking old man to adventure man (complete with his dismissal of his cane), but what is up with Muntz? Shouldn't he be like, 100 years old at minimum? Is Paradise Falls fed by the fountain of youth?

[Rowland]

You know what I'm tired of? Jeremy Heilman unmitigatingly hating every Pixar movie. Scroll to the bottom. (http://www.moviemartyr.com/2009/screening2009.htm) Considering some of the crap he loves, I just don't get it...

[transmogrifier]

You know what I'm tired of? Jeremy Heilman unmitigatingly hating every Pixar movie. Scroll to the bottom. (http://www.moviemartyr.com/2009/screening2009.htm) Considering some of the crap he loves, I just don't get it...

But this whole thread has celebrated the awesome consistency of Pixar, right? It stands to reason that someone who dislikes one of these films will be pretty down on all of them?

I don't see why it would anger you. It is a couple of digits. Armond White deserves ire because he is incapable of formulating a coherent argument. Heilman can be shrugged at.

[Raiders]

You know what I'm tired of? Jeremy Heilman unmitigatingly hating every Pixar movie. Scroll to the bottom. (http://www.moviemartyr.com/2009/screening2009.htm) Considering some of the crap he loves, I just don't get it...

I don't know why you even bother reading him. I have never found him worth paying any attention to.

[Rowland]

But this whole thread has celebrated the awesome consistency of Pixar, right? It stands to reason that someone who dislikes one of these films will be pretty down on all of them?

I don't see why it would anger you. It is a couple of digits. Armond White deserves ire because he is incapable of formulating a coherent argument. Heilman can be shrugged at.I think the last review for a Pixar movie Heilman wrote was for The Incredibles (http://www.moviemartyr.com/2004/incredibles.htm). He received so much hate mail that he stopped trying IIRC.

[transmogrifier]

I think the last review for a Pixar movie Heilman wrote was for The Incredibles (http://www.moviemartyr.com/2004/incredibles.htm). He received so much hate mail that he stopped trying IIRC.

A thought-provoking review, that. Certainly, The Incredibles is the worst Pixar film I have seen.

[Watashi]

A thought-provoking review, that. Certainly, The Incredibles is the worst Pixar film I have seen.
Actually, it's the best.

[Watashi]

Alright... this was tough, but this is how I would rank the 10 Pixar movies:

1. The Incredibles
2. Ratatouille
3. Wall-E
4. Up
5. Toy Story 2
6. Finding Nemo
7. Toy Story
8. Monster's Inc.
9. A Bug's Life
10. Cars

[number8]

Mmm:

1. Up
2. The Incredibles
3. Wall-E
4. Finding Nemo
5. Toy Story 2
6. Toy Story
7. A Bug's Life
8. Ratatouille
9. Monster's Inc.
10. Cars

[trotchky]

1. Toy Story - ***1/2
2. Wall-E - ***
3. Monster's Inc. - ***
4. A Bug's Life - **1/2
5. Up - **
6. Toy Story 2 - *1/2
7. Finding Nemo - *1/2

[ledfloyd]

ratings for fun

Toy Story - ***1/2
A Bug's Life - ***1/2
Toy Story 2 - ***1/2
Monster's Inc - **1/2
Finding Nemo - **1/2
The Incredibles - ***1/2
Cars - **1/2
Ratatouille - ***
Wall-E - ****
Up - ***1/2

[lovejuice]

from my favorite to least. except for Cars, they're all good.

1. Toy Story 2
2. Ratatouille
3. Finding Nemo
4. Toy Story
5. Monster's Inc.
6. A Bug's Life
7. Wall-E
8. The Incredibles
9. Cars

[Fezzik]

I'll give this a shot, too.



1. Wall-E (10)
2. Up (9.5)
3. Ratatouille (9.5)
4. Finding Nemo (9)
5. Monster's Inc (8.5)
6. Toy Story 2 (8.5)
7. The Incredibles (8)
8. Toy Story (8)
9. Cars (7)
10. A Bug's Life (7)

[Qrazy]

1. Finding Nemo
2.The Incredibles
3. Ratatouille
4. Toy Story
5. Wall-E

6. Toy Story 2
7. Monster's Inc.
8. A Bug's Life

9. Cars

Top five are relatively interchangeable.

[Raiders]

1. WALL-E
2. Ratatouille
3. A Bug's Life
4. The Incredibles
5. Toy Story 2
6. Up
7. Monsters, Inc.
8. Toy Story
9. Finding Nemo

[Qrazy]

1. WALL-E
2. Ratatouille
3. A Bug's Life
4. The Incredibles
5. Toy Story 2
6. Up
7. Monsters, Inc.
8. Toy Story
9. Finding Nemo

What are your Toy Story gripes?

[Sven]

A thought-provoking review, that. Certainly, The Incredibles is the worst Pixar film I have seen.

I like the focus of that review. I've said similar things in the past, being most troubled by the fact that the scene where Mr. Incredible puts his boss in traction is played for laughs. Then, when he thinks his family is dead, he threatens to squeeze the life out of that Latina woman. Neither of those instances of frightening protagonist violence is given any consequential weight, and brushed off in a snap. So terrible.

[Qrazy]

I like the focus of that review. I've said similar things in the past, being most troubled by the fact that the scene where Mr. Incredible puts his boss in traction is played for laughs. Then, when he thinks his family is dead, he threatens to squeeze the life out of that Latina woman. Neither of those instances of frightening protagonist violence is given any consequential weight, and brushed off in a snap. So terrible.

Don't agree that the latter case isn't given weight. I think he is shown as very dangerous, unhinged and over the edge in that instance. With the former I dunno, those kinds of scenes are a staple of both animation, comedy and action scenes. Do we begrudge the Pink Panther the harm that befalls Clouzot's boss? What's the difference here such that the scene shouldn't be played for laughs?

[Raiders]

Are we holding Pixar to some ridiculous, unattainable level of moralism? I mean, is Pixar not allowed to use physical comedy, particularly of the kind that has been in animation for ages? I suppose we could say that at least Bugs Bunny, Elmer Fudd, Daffy Duck and so forth always shook off their injuries so we were never concerned about their well-being where Pixar bothers to show the ramifications.

Don't get me started on the Heilman review. He makes it sound as though the kids came up from behind and knifed some unsuspecting strangers.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Hmmmm... good, at times great, but also a little disappointing. Docter was certainly channeling his Miyazaki here...

Uh oh.

[Sycophant]

Know, KF, while I felt like Docter was in fact striving for some Miyazaki-esque quality in the film, that I think he missed the mark. Whether that will be good or bad for you, I don't know.

[number8]

I like the focus of that review. I've said similar things in the past, being most troubled by the fact that the scene where Mr. Incredible puts his boss in traction is played for laughs. Then, when he thinks his family is dead, he threatens to squeeze the life out of that Latina woman. Neither of those instances of frightening protagonist violence is given any consequential weight, and brushed off in a snap. So terrible.

I don't agree with either. There's something clever with that boss scene because when he put him through a wall, it's played for laughs, since we're used to cartoon characters getting injured with no problem (and the multiple hole in walls support that assumption). But then it cuts to him in a hospital with severe injuries, and we get a dialogue scene about how expensive medical bills are, how he could've died, and how Bob Parr doesn't fit in with society. It's Watchmen-lite, yeah, but the violence is hardly brushed off. In fact it's quite the opposite, it's a cold water to the face.

Docter does a very similar turn here in Up, which I really liked (I mentioned it in my review first thing).

[jamaul]

Oooh, I want to play.


Wall-E
Ratatoullie
Up
The Incredibles
Toy Story
Finding Nemo
Toy Story 2
Monster's Inc.
A Bug's Life
Cars

[NickGlass]

Me, me, me. Even though their most contemporary productions have been more driven by clever theme and allegory, I prefer old-school Pixar.

1. Monsters Inc.
2. Finding Nemo
3. A Bugs's Life
4. Toy Story 2

5. Ratatouille
6. Wall-E
7. Toy Story
8. The Incredibles

9. Cars

[Russ]

Wats makes a good point because looking at ledfloyd's rankings illustrates how bizarre it is to see which films are at the very bottom of his list (because, I guess, a case could be made for any of them, with maybe the exception of Cars, which I still haven't seen, to be residing at the top of someone's rankings.
Since I made this statement, the only two films that have not appeared at the top of a Matchcutter's list are Cars and A Bug's Life (which would probably be rectified if Transmogrifier posted his top list).

:P

[Watashi]

Since I made this statement, the only two films that have not appeared at the top of a Matchcutter's list are Cars and A Bug's Life (which would probably be rectified if Transmogrifier posted his top list).

:P
KF thinks A Bug's Life is the best Pixar film. I really owe it a rewatch. It's the one Pixar film I haven't seen in over 10 years.

[Derek]

1. Wall-E
2. Toy Story
3. Ratatouille
4. Monster's Inc.
5. Toy Story 2
6. A Bug's Life
7. Finding Nemo
8. The Incredibles
9. Cars

[Spinal]

Finding Nemo and A Bug's Life battle it out for the top spot in my mind. Ellen's voice-over makes Nemo the straight-up funniest for me, while I am most satisfied with Bug's Life in terms of an edifying message.

[Bosco B Thug]

I think the last review for a Pixar movie Heilman wrote was for The Incredibles (http://www.moviemartyr.com/2004/incredibles.htm). He received so much hate mail that he stopped trying IIRC.
Whoa, bad review. A simplistic, literalistic way of looking at the film. While I can accept seeing these troubling elements in the film (although his claims of 9/11 imagery and the promotion of violence?) he's much too preoccupied with them, almost willfully glossing over the film's rather apologist nuances (I think the film does have a weird apologist streak for the excesses of the superhero mythos...) to distill his perception of the film. He never touches upon Syndrome, for one glaring example. Then again, not prepared to get into a defense of The Incredibles, need to re-watch it.

Watching UP today, I believe. *crosses fingers*

[Kurosawa Fan]

$68.2 million opening weekend. That's more than Wall-E. Impressive, especially since Night at the Museum 2 is a big kid's draw right now as well.

[Raiders]

$68.2 million opening weekend. That's more than Wall-E. Impressive, especially since Night at the Museum 2 is a big kid's draw right now as well.

The couple bucks per 3D ticket probably helped quite a bit. Unless that doesn't get counted into that total.

[jamaul]

I think Pixar has been making wonderful films for years, but it wasn't until Ratatouille that they started making great ones. Between Toy Story and Cars, their films were brimmed with astonishing animation, some of the best writing anywhere, great characters, and very enduring themes. But Ratatouille was for me, the first film of their's that actually resonated with me, with the Joycean Portrait of the Artist as a Young Rat approach. Wall-E of course was an astonishinly bleak vision of the future, at once a sweet love story between two robots (!), as well as a warning of our potential devolution if we continue to lose touch with our natual surroundings. Up really touched me on an emotional level because even at my young age I'm constantly affraid of not realizing my dreams; of allowing myself to grow too comfortable and age too quickly, realizing the tragedy of watching one's life fly by so quickly I'd be left in the dust wondering what happened. Up didn't necessarily solidify that fear for me, but instead based its adventure and story on the idea of it never being too late to realize one's dreams, or, rather, too late to try. Other things of course really made the film resonate, either on a personal or a human level, but one of the things that astonished me was the subtlety of how those themes were handled. An example:

When Carl watches his home fall through the clouds, out of sight: the moment is both sad and relieving, but the affect it has on the character of being a positive moment in his life (to let go) is one that isn't expressed through much dialogue or over-exemplified body language. Carl simply says, 'It's just a house.' And I loved this moment for leaving it up to the audience to decide how they wanted to feel about it. The film was filled with these moments.

All in all, I believe Up may be Pixar's most mature film yet . . . even if it includes a supporting cast of talking dogs.

[transmogrifier]

Finding Nemo and A Bug's Life battle it out for the top spot in my mind. Ellen's voice-over makes Nemo the straight-up funniest for me, while I am most satisfied with Bug's Life in terms of an edifying message.

1. Finding Nemo
2. Wall-E

3. Monsters Inc.
4. A Bug's Life
5. Toy Story

6. Toy Story 2
7. Cars

8. Ratatouille
9. The Incredibles

[Kurosawa Fan]

The couple bucks per 3D ticket probably helped quite a bit. Unless that doesn't get counted into that total.

Hm. Not sure about that.

[Amnesiac]

. . . even if it includes a supporting cast of talking dogs.

Yeah, one of the main criticisms I've been hearing is that the talking dogs just don't fit in with the tone of the movie. They're too random, too sci-fi. I don't know where I stand on this, but the more I think about it, the more random the talking dogs seem...

Then again, it also works well. It makes Muntz seem like even more of a decidedly solitary egotist and it consolidates his portrayal as this certifiably unstable antagonist who may have gone a bit crazy over the years as a result of only having these obsequious canine companions.

[Sycophant]

CASUAL SPOILERS BELOW

The more I reflect on the film, the less I like it. There are some keen comedic moments (everything with Dug up until the forty-first squirrel joke) and obviously some gorgeous animation. The first ten minutes truly are something special (though I've heard the "You don't say much, do you? I like you!" thing too much to not roll my eyes just a little bit). But this thing just doesn't cohere for me.

With the film being so unreal, it was sometimes hard to connect to what was really at stake. The cartoon characters here felt much more like cartoon characters than most of Pixar's previous outings. The characters' motivations frankly felt impenetrable sometimes, with Carl mystifyingly, unbelievably callous to Russell from time to time. Russell's complete lack of fear and the overall static nature of his character didn't sit right with me, and the marginalization of his mother in all this rang false and inconsiderate. Not that I wanted ten minutes of her crying at her lost boy, but the fact that she's watching her boy stand pathetically alone to receive a scout's award from the sidelines hit me the wrong way, which may come from my own experience as the scout son of a single mother.

The whole Muntz thing really... I'm not really sure what to do with it, but it felt deeply unsatisfying.

Fun story: at the screening my friends and I attended (what up, Thirdmango!), there was a little boy that howled with delight at Muntz's exit, while the rest of the theater was dead silent.

There's a lot of heavy themes involved here--absence of a father, grief, the betrayal of heroes, the big letdowns in live, but I'm not sure all these things are well enough supported to lavish praise on Pixar for their inclusion. Am I setting the bar too high? Maybe.

Perhaps some of my problems stem from my own expectations. I tried not to get too anticipation-happy and impose my own desires on the film, but when we were introduced to Kevin, I was hoping this was the first in a series of surreal, cartoony adventures. That first encounter was delightful, though.

Oh, and I EPIC FAIL and Wats > me and blahblahblah, so we can just get that out of the way now.

[Watashi]

There are only two squirrel jokes, syco.

[Watashi]

Hm. Not sure about that.

Of course it does. Why wouldn't it?

IMAX tickets are more expensive and they contribute to the box-office.

[Duncan]

I think Pixar has been making wonderful films for years, but it wasn't until Ratatouille that they started making great ones. Between Toy Story and Cars, their films were brimmed with astonishing animation, some of the best writing anywhere, great characters, and very enduring themes. But Ratatouille was for me, the first film of their's that actually resonated with me, with the Joycean Portrait of the Artist as a Young Rat approach. Wall-E of course was an astonishinly bleak vision of the future, at once a sweet love story between two robots (!), as well as a warning of our potential devolution if we continue to lose touch with our natual surroundings. Up really touched me on an emotional level because even at my young age I'm constantly affraid of not realizing my dreams; of allowing myself to grow too comfortable and age too quickly, realizing the tragedy of watching one's life fly by so quickly I'd be left in the dust wondering what happened. Up didn't necessarily solidify that fear for me, but instead based its adventure and story on the idea of it never being too late to realize one's dreams, or, rather, too late to try. Other things of course really made the film resonate, either on a personal or a human level, but one of the things that astonished me was the subtlety of how those themes were handled. An example:

When Carl watches his home fall through the clouds, out of sight: the moment is both sad and relieving, but the affect it has on the character of being a positive moment in his life (to let go) is one that isn't expressed through much dialogue or over-exemplified body language. Carl simply says, 'It's just a house.' And I loved this moment for leaving it up to the audience to decide how they wanted to feel about it. The film was filled with these moments.

All in all, I believe Up may be Pixar's most mature film yet . . . even if it includes a supporting cast of talking dogs.

If there's a literary reference for Ratatouille, it's definitely not A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. That might kind of maybe work if Ireland and the Catholic Church suddenly decided to help Dedalus on his quest to be an artist in Paris, or if Joyce completely lacked a sense of irony, but neither of those things are true. As has been mentioned somewhere on this site and in a number of reviews, Ayn Rand is a more appropriate reference point.

[Sycophant]

There are only two squirrel jokes, syco.

Of course, my 41 number was an exaggeration, but I distinctly remember at least 3, though not all with Dug (the first one, the one in the first scene with the other dogs, and the "payoff" gag).

[Raiders]

CASUAL SPOILERS BELOW

The more I reflect on the film, the less I like it. There are some keen comedic moments (everything with Dug up until the forty-first squirrel joke) and obviously some gorgeous animation. The first ten minutes truly are something special (though I've heard the "You don't say much, do you? I like you!" thing too much to not roll my eyes just a little bit). But this thing just doesn't cohere for me.

With the film being so unreal, it was sometimes hard to connect to what was really at stake. The cartoon characters here felt much more like cartoon characters than most of Pixar's previous outings. The characters' motivations frankly felt impenetrable sometimes, with Carl mystifyingly, unbelievably callous to Russell from time to time. Russell's complete lack of fear and the overall static nature of his character didn't sit right with me, and the marginalization of his mother in all this rang false and inconsiderate. Not that I wanted ten minutes of her crying at her lost boy, but the fact that she's watching her boy stand pathetically alone to receive a scout's award from the sidelines hit me the wrong way, which may come from my own experience as the scout son of a single mother.

The whole Muntz thing really... I'm not really sure what to do with it, but it felt deeply unsatisfying.

Fun story: at the screening my friends and I attended (what up, Thirdmango!), there was a little boy that howled with delight at Muntz's exit, while the rest of the theater was dead silent.

There's a lot of heavy themes involved here--absence of a father, grief, the betrayal of heroes, the big letdowns in live, but I'm not sure all these things are well enough supported to lavish praise on Pixar for their inclusion. Am I setting the bar too high? Maybe.

Perhaps some of my problems stem from my own expectations. I tried not to get too anticipation-happy and impose my own desires on the film, but when we were introduced to Kevin, I was hoping this was the first in a series of surreal, cartoony adventures. That first encounter was delightful, though.

Unfortunately I think I agree with this. This may very well wind up at the bottom of my Pixar list.

[balmakboor]

I'll put my slightly extended Up thoughts here.

It may be my favorite Pixar movie so far. But, it ran into the same mid-section problems I've found The Incredibles and Wall-E to have. Namely, a great first act and then a shift in tone that doesn't very naturally follow it up. The talking dogs thing may actually be the worst change of direction of the three. I found the first act though to be, perhaps, the best American filmmaking I've seen in years, period.

So, I don't know. I think this and Wall-E will probably live on as Pixar near-masterpieces for me while the less ambitious Toy Story movies and A Bug's Life will continue to be my favorites.

[number8]

Then again, it also works well. It makes Muntz seem like even more of a decidedly solitary egotist and it consolidates his portrayal as this certifiably unstable antagonist who may have gone a bit crazy over the years as a result of only having these obsequious canine companions.

This.

From my review:


“Adventure” is the key phrase of the film. That’s the promise Carl made to his wife and it’s what motivates him. Russell (Jordan Nagai), a young boy who tags along in this journey, is a Wilderness Explorer looking to earn a badge. There’s also Charles Muntz (Christopher Plummer), Carl’s childhood idol who disappeared many decades ago in pursuit of a shocking discovery. But there’s something else that links these three boys-at-hearts other than their desire for adventure: it’s the yearning for acceptance. Carl goes on this South American escapade because he’s lost meaning ever since his wife passed. Russell, we find out, is as lonely as Carl and goes exploring because it keeps him distracted from disappointments. Even the talking dog, Dug, just wants to find a master. It’s only appropriate that the villain is a man who’s driven mad by solitary and has to talk to dogs with technology. The only thing he wants? To be adored and revered, of course.

[Sven]

Don't agree that the latter case isn't given weight. I think he is shown as very dangerous, unhinged and over the edge in that instance. With the former I dunno, those kinds of scenes are a staple of both animation, comedy and action scenes. Do we begrudge the Pink Panther the harm that befalls Clouzot's boss? What's the difference here such that the scene shouldn't be played for laughs?

The difference in the Pink Panther is that Clouseau (Clouzot, ha ha) isn't out to harm his boss. And I never said that the moment shouldn't be played for laughs. It's quite expertly staged slapstick. Unfortunately, it is also quite heavy character development, as it indicates an uncontrollable physical aggression that takes over the body of Mr. Incredible. More below.


I don't agree with either. There's something clever with that boss scene because when he put him through a wall, it's played for laughs, since we're used to cartoon characters getting injured with no problem (and the multiple hole in walls support that assumption). But then it cuts to him in a hospital with severe injuries, and we get a dialogue scene about how expensive medical bills are, how he could've died, and how Bob Parr doesn't fit in with society. It's Watchmen-lite, yeah, but the violence is hardly brushed off. In fact it's quite the opposite, it's a cold water to the face.

Cold water to the face would've been if that scene somehow resonated through the rest of the film. Unfortunately, the consequences painted by that encounter evaporate, Mr. Incredible threatens to squeeze the life out of a woman, and then the family blows a bunch of dudes up. The address of real harm done by violence is practically nil. It's given scant mouth service, but any narrative implications are washed over in favor of a trite, cute family message.


Are we holding Pixar to some ridiculous, unattainable level of moralism? I mean, is Pixar not allowed to use physical comedy, particularly of the kind that has been in animation for ages? I suppose we could say that at least Bugs Bunny, Elmer Fudd, Daffy Duck and so forth always shook off their injuries so we were never concerned about their well-being where Pixar bothers to show the ramifications.

It's not about morality, it's about narrative function. Also, it's about morality. But moreso, it's about the fact that we are treated to a scene where Mr. Incredible loses his control, puts his boss in traction, and the rest of the film avoids talking about his loss of control by putting him in situations where his violent tendencies are justified. This doesn't make narrative or moral sense to me.

Slapstick is one thing. But it's difficult to have this one both ways. One of the reasons the Looney Tunes is so great is because it doesn't attempt violence of consequence. It is, through and through, a cartoon. The more real-looking and real-behaving such "funny violence" gets, the more troubling it is to accept. I think if you are going to write a film where the main character is prone to doling out life-threatening violence, you have to do something with that tendency rather than either a) justifying it by allowing him to be "good" violent or b) ignoring it. The Looney Tunes are a red herring.

[number8]

Cold water to the face would've been if that scene somehow resonated through the rest of the film. Unfortunately, the consequences painted by that encounter evaporate, Mr. Incredible threatens to squeeze the life out of a woman, and then the family blows a bunch of dudes up. The address of real harm done by violence is practically nil. It's given scant mouth service, but any narrative implications are washed over in favor of a trite, cute family message.

I think it does. The point is that Mr. Incredible is unstable and is a violence junkie, and the film makes that clear by having him lie to his wife. It likens his "superheroism" to substance abuse or infidelity. Later, he threatens to break Mirage for the first time and Syndrome quips "That's a little dark for you, isn't it?" and taunts him, which is when Parr realizes how far he's capable of going. The second time he threatens to kill Mirage, he is stopped by her telling him that his family is still alive. So essentially Mr. Incredible, I think, is a man who isn't capable or murder, but is prone to violence, unless he has his wife and kids to remind him of what's important. It's valid to dislike the morality of the character, but if your gripe is about narrative, I think it is consistent.

It does condone violence against bad men, true, but then again, that's like the basis for most superhero stories.

[Sven]

It's valid to dislike the morality of the character, but if your gripe is about narrative, I think it is consistent.

I remain unconvinced, but I will defer to my own preferences here for a moment. Mr. Incredible is "bad" violent for maybe three scenes, but the impression I get, overall, is that he's a righteous hero and a good father. That reality doesn't linger--that feeling of the violent Mr. Incredible that could've been had he not began a family. In my estimation, that is a much more important element of the film's design than it wants to permit. I don't care about messages about family unity and being special. That's just bland icing on what should be a dynamic and tasty cake. Unfortunately, Bird trades interesting character dynamics for the utterly predictable.

In other words, I think the film should have been more about Mr. Incredible because he's much more interesting than the film's unsurprising retreads of well-trodden ground. But the half-assed treatment his tics are given is a terrible distraction to the film's capacity to resonate on a recognizably human level.

I suck at this tonite. I know there's a better way to say what I want to say. Oh well.

[jamaul]

If there's a literary reference for Ratatouille, it's definitely not A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. That might kind of maybe work if Ireland and the Catholic Church suddenly decided to help Dedalus on his quest to be an artist in Paris, or if Joyce completely lacked a sense of irony, but neither of those things are true. As has been mentioned somewhere on this site and in a number of reviews, Ayn Rand is a more appropriate reference point.

Really, I was just using the name. Maybe I shouldn't have said Joycean, because no, Remmy is not at all like Dedalus, as: he lacks much of the inner conflict Dedalus had; the film itself lacking anything resembling a stream-of-consciousness narrative approach; Remy has a clearly defined artistic ambition, whereas Dedalus spent much of the novel housing his resentment of his personal, social, and religious limitations without a clearly pinpointed medium to express those frustrations. But, Ratatouille is a portrait of an artist, just as 8 1/2 or La Belle Noiseuse are.

Also, a bit off topic, but I've always felt that Chef Skinner slightly resembled Luis Bunuel.

[transmogrifier]

The sentiments behind Ratatouille (geniuses are born that way and everyone else had better just toe the line and follow their vision) and The Incredibles (don't even think about trying to emulate through hard work what the truly talented are gifted with) are poisonous, but that would be okay if the actually plots and stories were funny or interesting enough. They aren't.

[Barty]

The sentiments behind Ratatouille (geniuses are born that way and everyone else had better just toe the line and follow their vision) and The Incredibles (don't even think about trying to emulate through hard work what the truly talented are gifted with) are poisonous, but that would be okay if the actually plots and stories were funny or interesting enough. They aren't.

That's not the sentiments of them at all. :|

[transmogrifier]

That's not the sentiments of them at all. :|

Well, I can't speak for Bird's intentions of course, but that's what I read into them. When you have the arch-villian being the only one who attempts to transcend genetics and become a superhero through innovation (The Incredibles), and a hero who totally refuses collaboration throughout the whole film and the catharsis comes when all the food plebs work together to serve the self-evident genius (Ratatouille), it can't help to sour the films in question. Not the type of sentiments I find energizing or interesting.

[Duncan]

Yeah, it's come up before, but I definitely agree with trans on this one. Neither of those films has a message that I can even mildly endorse.

[Qrazy]

Since this has already been a lengthy discussion in the past I'll just reiterate that I don't agree whatsoever that that is what the films are about.

[number8]

Since this has already been a lengthy discussion in the past I'll just reiterate that I don't agree whatsoever that that is what the films are about.

Same. And we can leave it at that.

[Watashi]

I couldn't let this go unnoticed.

Alex Weitzman dissecting Armond White's review of Up line by line. (http://rottenonions.freeforums.org/wherein-i-trounce-armond-white-s-review-of-up-t371.html?sid=25d732926f8ff134 973866dc4722c34d)

It's so awesome.

[number8]

Man, I miss Alex.

Also, am I the only one who was surprised by White's "pie-face" comment when describing Russell? I realize that it can also mean fat, which is likely what Armond was using it for, but given that the character is Asian and it's a racial slur, it seems like a poor choice of words.

[DavidSeven]

I really try my best to ignore White. I really, really do. Don't search his reviews. Don't click the links that are posted. Just find that he has little to nothing to add to my own cinema experience. But I read the Weitzman piece.


This absurdity (Up/Pixar praise) clarifies contemporary news media’s unprincipled collusion with Hollywood capitalism

Is there any way to defend this quoted line? I know he has at least a couple fans here and others think he's reasonably intelligent, so I just want to know how the above line can be read as anything other than grossly intentional baiting. I'm tired of flaming the guy, but this quote has more holes than a mediocre sci-fi film. I want to know who can defend this quote with a straight face.

[Sven]

I couldn't let this go unnoticed.

Alex Weitzman dissecting Armond White's review of Up line by line. (http://rottenonions.freeforums.org/wherein-i-trounce-armond-white-s-review-of-up-t371.html?sid=25d732926f8ff134 973866dc4722c34d)

Too bad it's terribly ill thought-out and just as logically unsound as he is accusing White of being. The response to the first paragraph alone is full of error: as though White has never liked a popular film, as though his "hatred" is "blind", as though White's "rambling" about Bullmoose was not pointed with critique... Alex is assuming that the reader is on his side, which is something that he accuses White of doing. I understand that Pixar is super popular and well-loved, but that doesn't mean that anyone writing about it HAS to tackle it from any vantage point other than their own.

[Ezee E]

Too bad it's terribly ill thought-out and just as logically unsound as he is accusing White of being. The response to the first paragraph alone is full of error: as though White has never liked a popular film, as though his "hatred" is "blind", as though White's "rambling" about Bullmoose was not pointed with critique... Alex is assuming that the reader is on his side, which is something that he accuses White of doing. I understand that Pixar is super popular and well-loved, but that doesn't mean that anyone writing about it HAS to tackle it from any vantage point other than their own.
Funny how most hate threads work out like that.

[Qrazy]

Too bad it's terribly ill thought-out and just as logically unsound as he is accusing White of being. The response to the first paragraph alone is full of error: as though White has never liked a popular film, as though his "hatred" is "blind", as though White's "rambling" about Bullmoose was not pointed with critique... Alex is assuming that the reader is on his side, which is something that he accuses White of doing. I understand that Pixar is super popular and well-loved, but that doesn't mean that anyone writing about it HAS to tackle it from any vantage point other than their own.

You do a great disservice to yourself every time you defend that man. Is he really your gold standard for film criticism?

[Sven]

Is he really your gold standard for film criticism?

Of course not.

[Qrazy]

Of course not.

Ah k... so it's more of a 'you don't think he's that much worse than anyone else' than a 'he's an awesome reviewer' kind of thing?

[Sven]

Ah k... so it's more of a 'you don't think he's that much worse than anyone else' than a 'he's an awesome reviewer' kind of thing?

Well, there's certainly that, but I do like him and think he deserves defense. Still, for all the nit-picking White is given, choose ANY SINGLE OTHER REVIEW EVER WRITTEN ABOUT THE MOVIE, and I can guarantee you that I can find unsatisfactory logic and pinpoint reasons that the critic doesn't know what they're talking about. It seems counter-productive to me to single out White because at least he's trying something different. I suppose, though, that it's pretty boring tearing apart the cookie-cutter critics line-by-line because those reviews are much less interesting.

[Russ]

At this point don't most people read AW's enfant terrible diatribre more to see what outrageous thing he'll say next? I just can't imagine anyone agreeing with him so much that they check out his column first as a barometer of what's good.

[Sven]

I'm SO tempted to do a line-by-line response to Alex's "take down" (which was totally embarrassing, by the way). Problem is, for some reason I'm getting this impression that I've got better things to do. Sad.

[Sven]

I just can't imagine anyone agreeing with him so much that they check out his column first as a barometer of what's good.

1) I still do, kinda. He's steered me right more often than not, sorry to say. If it's wrong to love Crank, hate Apatow, love Altman, and hate Ridley Scott, then I'm very happy to be wrong.

2) Love the new avatar.

[D_Davis]

That take down reminded me of something Kevin Smith would do defending the new Star Wars movies or something.

This is my favorite line:


I myself rated the film ***1/2/****, putting it on the lower end of Pixar's films.

Lower end is .5 a * from perfection?

[number8]

1) I still do, kinda. He's steered me right more often than not, sorry to say. If it's wrong to love Crank, hate Apatow, love Altman, and hate Ridley Scott, then I'm very happy to be wrong

I hate Crank, love Apatow, love Altman and hate Ridley Scott, what am I?

[Sycophant]

I hate Crank, love Apatow, love Altman and hate Ridley Scott, what am I?

You are half Armosven.

[Watashi]

That take down reminded me of something Kevin Smith would do defending the new Star Wars movies or something.

This is my favorite line:


Lower end is .5 a * from perfection?
When it comes to Pixar, yes.

[Watashi]

Kevin Smith wishes he could write a fifth as well as Weitzman could.

[Watashi]

I'm SO tempted to do a line-by-line response to Alex's "take down" (which was totally embarrassing, by the way). Problem is, for some reason I'm getting this impression that I've got better things to do. Sad.
You haven't even seen the film yet.

I'm just so tired of you being the lone defender of this guy when people jump all over him. Alex is not hating on White because he hated "our beloved Pixar", but just because he does a sloppy way of journalism that only himself can understand. In his review, he goes out of the way three times to tell his audience how overrated WALL-E is. Why? The review is not about that film, but about Up. Why does White do this? Oh yeah, because he wants to rub his extreme differences in our faces.

[Qrazy]

I hate Crank, love Apatow, love Altman and hate Ridley Scott, what am I?

I haven't seen Crank, am indifferent about Apatow, like Altman and frequently enjoy Ridley Scott, what am I?

[D_Davis]

I guess I'm just not part of the cult of Weitzman; to me he's just some dude who posts on message boards, like the rest of us. Although, he posts a lot.

[Watashi]

I guess I'm just not part of the cult of Weitzman; to me he's just some dude who posts on message boards, like the rest of us. Although, he posts a lot.
There is no cult around him. I've met him and I think he's just a really passionate guy who can write amazingly well.

[Sycophant]

Alex Weitzman has no use for us (http://match-cut.org/member.php?u=256).

[MacGuffin]

I'm just so tired of you being the lone defender of this guy when people jump all over him.

No, I'll defend him, too, if you want.

[[ETM]]

I don't like this thread anymore.

[Watashi]

;169472']I don't like this thread anymore.
Neither do I.

It's gotten far beyond the typical royale of "Pixar is good or bad". I wrote a pretty lengthy vehement response to Sven before I stopped, read it, and realized I would only making the argument go further and to territories I don't want to go down, so I erased it.

I am fully self-aware of my Pixar fanboy rampage these past few days and my quick reflexive to anything remotely anti-Pixar. My predictability of these actions is just as predictable as Sven harping about the overexposure Pixar, Apatow, or the constant nagging of White's polarizing takes. A Pixar film gets released once a year, and it's one of the few times where I can be truly excited for the stuff that Hollywood churns out and enjoy that the public also shares this enthusiasm. Let me have my fun.

[Sycophant]

We still have people yet to watch this, right? Really hoping someone has something interesting to say about it.

[Ivan Drago]

Now that I just got back from Up, I can join in on the Pixar list happy fun time!

1. Finding Nemo 8.5
2. Toy Story 2 8.5
3. Ratatouille 8.5
4. The Incredibles 8.5
5. Up 8
6. Monsters, Inc. 8
7. Toy Story 8
8. WALL-E 7.5
9. A Bug's Life 7.5
10. Cars 6.5

[Rowland]

About equal to Wall-E for me, both just a few miscalculations in tone and structure away from being fully endorsable as great. I'll need to reflect a bit more to formulate why exactly, but it's still easily the best new release I've seen so far this year.

[Sven]

You haven't even seen the film yet.

Doesn't mean I can't follow reviews.


I'm just so tired of you being the lone defender of this guy when people jump all over him.

Would you rather he have no defenders?


but just because he does a sloppy way of journalism that only himself can understand.

Given how comprehensible this statement is, it's no surprise that you have a hard time following the English language.


In his review, he goes out of the way three times to tell his audience how overrated WALL-E is. Why? The review is not about that film, but about Up. Why does White do this?

Because it is a film related, fairly directly, to the one being talked about.

I'm sorry that defending a negative review takes away your fun. I don't mean to diminish anything.

[Winston*]

Armond White is boring. People complaining about Armond White is boring. People complaining about complaining about Armond White is boring. People complaining about complaining about complaining about Armond White is boring. People making snide commends about complaining about complaining about complaining about Armond White is boring. etc.etc. etc.

[Qrazy]

Some more people who don't like White. (http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/some_came_running/2009/02/jesus-h-christ-.html)

[Russ]

A Pixar film gets released once a year, and it's one of the few times where I can be truly excited for the stuff that Hollywood churns out and enjoy that the public also shares this enthusiasm. Let me have my fun.
I think it's really cool that you still have the passion.

[Boner M]

Some more people who don't like White. (http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/some_came_running/2009/02/jesus-h-christ-.html)
You could probably crash the forum by posting every blogosphere takedown written about White. Adrian Martin (http://www.filmkrant.nl/av/org/filmkran/archief/fk300/engls300.html) did it best:


Twenty years ago, in the pages of Film Comment and other publications, I appreciated and enjoyed the trenchant attacks by American critic Armond White on the growing trend of 'thumbs up-thumbs down' film reviewing, and his tenacious lists of all the brave, little films overlooked by mainstream US culture (two decades ago, that list included the Belgian Crazy Love and the Australian Dogs in Space).

But today, primarily in the pages of New York Press, White (whom I do not know personally) faces the problems of any self-styled maverick who once hurled his provocative bombs from the margin of culture, but now finds himself at its centre. White is still proudly in attack mode: but who, exactly, is the enemy? And now that he has stormed the citadel of popular film reviewing, can he deliver the alternative critique that he once called for?

On April 23, White published an over-3000-word opinion piece titled 'What We Don't Talk About When We Talk About Movies' (www.nypress.com/21/17/news&columns/feature3.cfm). It offered a summary of White's feisty opinions and his inflammatory rhetorical procedures. The Internet reaction was instantaneous and voluminous, both pro and con (see the discussion at Glenn Kenny's Premiere blog (http://glennkenny.premiere.com/blog/2008/04/white-noise.html)).

In the field of film criticism, White is against everyone: reviewers, promoters, bloggers, cinephiles. They are not merely myopic, in White's estimation, but 'wilfully blind' to the truth before them on the screen and in the world, because of ideological bias, or their desperate need to flee reality. But what is that truth, this reality? In his essay, White spontaneously offers 'ten current film culture fallacies' - ranging from 'Gus Van Sant is the new Visconti when he's really the new Fagin, a jailbait artful dodger', to 'Only non-pop Asian cinema from J-horror to Hou Hsiao Hsien counts, while Chen Kaige, Zhang Yimou and Stephen Chow are rejected'.

That list is Armond White in a nutshell: it's all dubious assertion (only 'non-pop' Asian cinema is acclaimed?) and even more aggressive counter-assertion (Van Sant is a phony), in a non-stop, strident loop. There is no argument, no development, no depth in this writing - for the simple reason that White is always dancing on the surface of ideas, a polemical 'moving target'. His modus operandi is confusion, as in this thumbnail account of Apichatpong Weerasethakul: all critics (except White) apparently ignore the 'fundamental terms', 'the facts of his Asianness, his sexual outlawry and his retreat into artistic and intellectual arrogance that evades social categorisation'. So is he for or against the filmmaker? Who can tell?

White's fancy moves are partly a result of his intriguing political profile: he is simultaneously progressive (black, gay, a supporter of edgy pop culture) and a 'post 9/11' conservative, taking his adversaries to task for their lack of religious education, or their 'kneejerk liberalism'. And, as a critic heavily influenced by Pauline Kael, he is fatally caught between extolling cinema as an art and over-identifying with the assumed taste of 'the people'. Just like Richard Corliss of Time ('Do Film Critics Know Anything?' (www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1693300,00.html)), who thinks that No country for old men is an 'elitist' taste! These are strange days indeed, when White interprets the absence of 'popular hits' from critics' end-of-year lists as ultimate 'proof' that they 'have failed to rouse the moviegoing public in any direction'...

[Duncan]

I guess it's good to know I'm not alone in thinking that he's literally incomprehensible.

[Watashi]

Doesn't mean I can't follow reviews.

White's review spoils a pretty big scene in the film. White has been known to spoil movies in his reviews. It's why I skim his reviews before I read them.


Would you rather he have no defenders?


White loves Spielberg, so I'm sure he has his share of fans.


Given how comprehensible this statement is, it's no surprise that you have a hard time following the English language.


That was not called for.



Because it is a film related, fairly directly, to the one being talked about.

It is related because they are both popular Pixar movies that White happened to be the few dissenters to. He has bludgeoned non-Bird Pixar films in the past. He's just beating the dead horse by bringing it up.


I'm sorry that defending a negative review takes away your fun. I don't mean to diminish anything.

It's doesn't. White makes it even more fun. We can't have everyone love everything.

[Sycophant]

Not to protract this any longer, but...


Let me have my fun.

What was that about, then?

[Ezee E]

Eek, I didn't really like this at all.

This is for adults? Talking dogs, the fat goofy kid, and a crazy bird? Right.

Anyway, this all seemed so by the numbers. Where Wall-E literally worked with just two characters mulling around a wasteland for an hour was jawdropping, this is something I'd expect to see if I saw Bolt. Well, minus a great opening. But the movie strayed too far from it being about the Old Man and the love of his wife, to eventually him just going, "Eh, it's just a house."

No.

[Watashi]

I'm not even going to bother.

Of course it's not solely for adults.

[Watashi]

What was that about, then?

What?

I'm having fun.

[number8]

Just saw it for the second time. Liked it even more.

[Ezee E]

I'm not even going to bother.

Of course it's not solely for adults.
Might as well analyze every other line.

[B-side]

I think I sit with those that enjoyed it, but were far from being blown away. Docter shoe-horned in a few too many slow, tender close-ups and shots forcing your sympathy, and the talking dogs didn't do much for me. Dug was fine. Kevin was funny and tender. The little chubby Asian kids was largely throwaway, but he had his moments. Muntz was underdeveloped. I laughed out loud a few times and damn near cried in that opening montage.

[soitgoes...]

Great opening, great animation, wonderful score, but a meh story left me wishing for more. Not as bad as Cars, but as much of a disappointment coming off of WALL-E and Ratatoiulle. The dogs (why did they need the multi-lingual collars?) and bird, while funny in moments, had me wondering how the film got to this point. And Muntz, how old is he supposed to be?

[number8]

I... I don't understand these reactions to the giant bird and the dogs. They introduced both in the very first scene of the movie.

[Watashi]

The dogs (besides to be the main source of laughter) are there just to show how far from the tree Muntz has fell during his exploration in Paradise Falls. Think about it, he has trained and bred these dogs to cook and serve him. He is weighed down by this ambitious bird hunt, that he evolves canine companions to be more human-like to keep him slightly sane.

Obviously the multi-lingual collar is just a gag and nothing more. It's all Loony Tunes humor and I found it hilarious how detailed Pixar captured a dog's personality if artificially vocalized. Dug does further add to Carl's dreams (like 8 said, Dug is always in search of a proper master), but the other dogs are there to beef up the action and make it more exotic. I actually think the dogs are the most Miyazakian aspect of the entire film. I don't see them as random at all.

[Amnesiac]

I... I don't understand these reactions to the giant bird and the dogs. They introduced both in the very first scene of the movie.

Their ability to talk wasn't.

[Watashi]

I... I don't understand these reactions to the giant bird and the dogs. They introduced both in the very first scene of the movie.
Yeah, that too.

[Watashi]

Their ability to talk wasn't.
Does the film really need to clarify that Muntz has somehow invented a talking dog-collar? If they showed the dogs talking during the prologue, Dug's introductory punchline would have been lost.

[Watashi]

A lot of just rests on what you find funny. I was rolling around when Alpha first spoke. Even though I knew it was coming (from WonderCon), the regular viewer doesn't.

[trotchky]

Kevin Smith wishes he could write a fifth as well as Weitzman could.

Yes, I'm sure Kevin Smith wishes he could write a fifth as well as an anonymous poster on an internet message board.

[Rowland]

I actually think the dogs are the most Miyazakian aspect of the entire film. I'd just like you to elaborate on this, merely out of curiosity for your reasoning.

I like Gonzalez's reading that they reflect Muntz's disdain for mystery in the world, his literal and figurative desire to expose the skeleton deprived of flesh and life.

[number8]

Their ability to talk wasn't.

But Muntz's ability to invent sci-fi devices that make the dogs do things for him was. Is talking really where you guys draw the line?

[Amnesiac]

Does the film really need to clarify that Muntz has somehow invented a talking dog-collar? If they showed the dogs talking during the prologue, Dug's introductory punchline would have been lost.

I didn't say that they should have revealed their ability to talk during the prologue. I didn't even mean to imply that. And Dug's punchline wouldn't have been entirely lost as it still relied on the fact that the characters weren't aware of their ability to talk. The audience is surprised as well but it's not like the joke wouldn't have still worked. And, at the end of the day, it's one joke. Even so, I wasn't suggesting that Docter should have revealed their ability to talk earlier so none of this is really relevant.

In fact, I was the first one to indicate how the dogs do work in terms of consolidating Muntz as this solitary, demented egotist. So, I'm not in the camp that might think the dogs are an entirely superfluous or illogical addition. Dissonant, maybe, but not necessarily illogical.

What I was actually trying to imply with the post you quoted is that because their ability to talk was withheld until later on, it is understandable that some people would be taken aback. While the dogs were introduced early on, their ability to talk wasn't, and it's thereby totally understandable that people would find the latter a bit dissonant or at odds with the logic the film had established thus far. A bit too sci-fi, even. Yes, we have a floating house, but that kind of fantastical flourish seems more at home here than the sci-fi tech that Muntz uses. I like what it says about Muntz's character but I'm not going to pretend that it's totally ridiculous for people to be taken aback by it (in a bad way, not a 'oh that's hilarious' way).

[Amnesiac]

But Muntz's ability to invent sci-fi devices that make the dogs do things for him was. Is talking really where you guys draw the line?

I don't recall the devices that Muntz invents in the beginning. I must have missed that bit. In terms of drawing the line at talking, it depends on what Muntz's devices made the dogs do in the prologue. Since I don't recall that part, I can't say. Was it a fleeting glimpse at his technological prowess? If so, then perhaps the surprise/distaste that people felt when the talking was revealed is still justified.

[ledfloyd]

Well, minus a great opening. But the movie strayed too far from it being about the Old Man and the love of his wife, to eventually him just going, "Eh, it's just a house."
which is pretty much the point of the film...

[Rowland]

which is pretty much the point of the film...Exactly. Sentimentality being so much baggage when new relationships are to be forged and adventures to be explored.

[B-side]

I like Gonzalez's reading that they reflect Muntz's disdain for mystery in the world, his literal and figurative desire to expose the skeleton deprived of flesh and life.

Yeah, I like that.

[Watashi]

I'd just like you to elaborate on this, merely out of curiosity for your reasoning.


Miyazaki has always been known to take the normal and make it abnormal. The normal in Up isn't just the dogs, but the modern animated anthropomorphism of talking dogs. For Pixar to have the dogs look like dogs and react like dogs, but only communicate like a dog would if it could speak is a way of abnormally taking a standard animated practice and turning it upside down in a realistically and imaginatively matter. Outside of the floating house ("castle") and bright colors, that aspect sticks out to me as the most Miyazakian.

I love how Miyazaki and Herzog were the two major influence in Up's visual design and story.

[Ezee E]

which is pretty much the point of the film...
Then it's poorly done, because its so matter of fact. He changes like a switch.

EDIT: I'm basically in the camp that Sycophant and Raiders are in, calling it superficial.

[Fezzik]

Miyazaki has always been known to take the normal and make it abnormal. The normal in Up isn't just the dogs, but the modern animated anthropomorphism of talking dogs. For Pixar to have the dogs look like dogs and react like dogs, but only communicate like a dog would if it could speak is a way of abnormally taking a standard animated practice and turning it upside down in a realistically and imaginatively matter. Outside of the floating house ("castle") and bright colors, that aspect sticks out to me as the most Miyazakian.

I love how Miyazaki and Herzog were the two major influence in Up's visual design and story.

Didn't Miyazaki have a movie that featured a pig flying a plane? I seem to recall that. If that's true, it supports the dogs=Miyazaki thing even more.

[Ezee E]

Didn't Miyazaki have a movie that featured a pig flying a plane? I seem to recall that. If that's true, it supports the dogs=Miyazaki thing even more.
Porco Rosso. Granted, it was a human that morphed into a pig though.

[Ezee E]

Then it's poorly done, because its so matter of fact. He changes like a switch.

EDIT: I'm basically in the camp that Sycophant and Raiders are in, calling it superficial.
To add more on this, maybe its because the film is pretty successful at the beginning in seeing how important the house is. The mailbox, the windows, the arrangement of the furniture. When it gets messed up, we get upset too, as 8 has mentioned.

But when it goes to "oh, just a house," I don't get any feeling of growth. It just felt forced so that the kid and bird could be saved, nothing more.

RANKS:
1)Toy Story
2)Toy Story 2
3)Ratatouille
4)Wall-E
5)Finding Nemo
6)Cars
7)The Incredibles
8)A Bug's Life
9)Monsters Inc.
10)Up

Partly Cloudy, however, was wonderful. I forgot that there was a short film in front of the films, and was pretty amazed at how long of a beginning it was before we got to the house. ha.

[Rowland]

EDIT: I'm basically in the camp that Sycophant and Raiders are in, calling it superficial.I had my criticisms, but in this respect, I felt the film was rather nuanced. Everything that happens in Paradise Falls is designed to challenge Carl's fiercely dogged single-mindedness, specifically geared to the gradual realization that those very qualities embodied by his wife and their collective dreams are being reflected, revitalized, or even rebuked by the characters and conflicts discovered through his journey, so that it finally dawns on him (with a little encouragement from a note she left for him in their Adventure book) that he'd be paying a more tangible tribute to her spirit by realizing their dreams vicariously through these new proxies. The house-pulling is an overt but elegant metaphorical albatross, perhaps the most manifest example of pure metaphor for its sheer borderline-abstraction in any Pixar movie. It's certainly miles away in this respect from the blunt instrument that was Wall-E's second half.


Partly Cloudy, however, was wonderful. I forgot that there was a short film in front of the films, and was pretty amazed at how long of a beginning it was before we got to the house. ha.Glad someone else mentioned this, because I found it rather mediocre at best, and almost mean-spirited in its discernible physical and mental abuse upon the stork.

[Raiders]

I had my criticisms, but in this respect, I felt the film was rather nuanced. Everything that happens in Paradise Falls is designed to challenge Muntz's fiercely dogged single-mindedness, specifically geared to the gradual realization that those very qualities embodied by his wife and their collective dreams are being reflected, revitalized, or even rebuked by the characters and conflicts discovered through his journey, so that it finally dawns on him (with a little encouragement from a note she left for him in their Adventure book) that he'd be paying a more tangible tribute to her spirit by realizing their dreams vicariously through these new proxies.

Carl's realization that his single-minded mission is actually betraying his wife's spirit as opposed to living it was very nice indeed, but the packaging of the surrounding story still irritates me. Rather than "superficial," perhaps it would be better to say the film works rather unevenly on overwhelming sentiment and underwhelming humor.


The house-pulling is an overt but elegant metaphorical albatross, perhaps the most manifest example of pure metaphor for its sheer borderline-abstraction in any Pixar movie. It's certainly miles away in this respect from the blunt instrument that was Wall-E's second half.

I don't really see how the physical pulling of the house is any less blunt or overt than WALL-E's second half.


Glad someone else mentioned this, because I found it rather mediocre at best, and almost mean-spirited in its discernible physical and mental abuse upon the stork.

I think you're missing the point here. The stork wants to go through the torture because somebody has to; and think of all the poor mothers, not to mention the lonely outcast cloud, who he is bringing happiness by way of his own sacrifice. Everyone has their crosses to bear and though we originally feel sorry for him, the ending shows not everyone hates their job just because it is tough on them.

[Rowland]

I don't really see how the physical pulling of the house is any less blunt or overt than WALL-E's second half.Wall-E is pretty blunt (and imo slightly hectoring in spirit) with its visual condemnation of consumerism gone madly awry, whereas I feel Up is more elegant and compassionate in its operative baggage metaphor, not dissimilar to the ending of The Darjeeling Limited but realized with so much more visual wit and grace.


I think you're missing the point here. The stork wants to go through the torture because somebody has to; and think of all the poor mothers, not to mention the lonely outcast cloud, who he is bringing happiness by way of his own sacrifice. Everyone has their crosses to bear and though we originally feel sorry for him, the ending shows not everyone hates their job just because it is tough on them.The short focused too much on the pain being subjected to the stork and not enough on the positive results that justify her self-imposed abuse (and our amusement by such). I understood the basic message as you described it, but I mainly just felt sympathy for the dinged-up stork by the end.

[Raiders]

Wall-E is pretty blunt (and imo slightly hectoring in spirit) with its visual condemnation of consumerism gone madly awry, whereas I feel Up is more elegant and compassionate in its operative baggage metaphor, not dissimilar to the ending of The Darjeeling Limited but realized with so much more visual wit and grace.

I don't deny that WALL-E is more caustic and forceful, but it is just as graceful in its handling, particularly coupled with the interactions between WALL-E and EVE (I think that the central scene in the second half--the space dance between the two--is beautifully free of the excess of the ship's interior). I think it manages broad satire and charming, beautiful character moments much more successfully than Up manages its compassionate story of Carl with the story of Muntz and the dogs which distracted more than resonated with eachother.

[number8]

I almost wish the house didn't land back at Paradise Falls at the end. The "It's just a house" comment was powerfully foreshadowed already by the fact that Carl succeeded. It's great plotting to have your character accomplish the film's main goal and the moment feels like a downer. Carl lifting his house into the air again to catch up to Russell, and being so happy about it when it does, is beautifully symbolic. And I love how he dumped everything into a pile, save for the two chairs.

[balmakboor]

I didn't get the impression that the house ending up by Paradise Falls at the end was meant to be taken literally.

Only having seen it once, I don't have much of a leg to stand on, but while watching it thoughts of An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge struck me.

I truly thought that when he entered the house for the last time before it took flight that he was going in to kill himself and join Ellie in Paradise. Then the whole tone radically shifts moments later and impossible stuff starts to happen (after the film had so far been grounded in reality) like a house floating in the air suspended by balloons and an old man being able to walk it along the edge of a jagged cliff.

I guess it occurred to me that the film was going for a "what flashes through the mind of a man at the moment of death" vibe.

The audience reaction to the movie was interesting. During the first act, kids were getting really restless. During the rest, they were either laughing or crying (because the dogs were scary).

[number8]

The audience reaction to the movie was interesting. During the first act, kids were getting really restless. During the rest, they were either laughing or crying (because the dogs were scary).

It's interesting that I've seen this twice, once with a theater full of kids, the second time in an also full theater, but with a total of 3 kids tops. I had that same reaction the first time: restless kids, big laughs, some crying, I mentioned earlier in the thread that a kid in the row behind me was loudly begging to go home every time there's a sad scene.

Second time with adults, I heard way less laughs, but more audible sniffling.

From what I can eavesdrop, the average reactions were, Kids: "That was pretty cool." Adults: "That was so great!"

[balmakboor]

I... I don't understand these reactions to the giant bird and the dogs. They introduced both in the very first scene of the movie.

Can you describe the first scene for me? Spoiler it if necessary.

[number8]

Can you describe the first scene for me? Spoiler it if necessary.

The first scene is Carl watching the movietime newsreel in the theater. They show Muntz with the giant bird skeleton and his whole thing of going to Paradise Falls was to capture the giant bird alive. Given that Land of the Lost vibe, I don't see how the bird's appearance is out of place.

Also, the reel shows Muntz with an army of dogs, and then dogs with mechanical contraptions on their head operating machineries on the blimp. The announcer says that Muntz is accompanied and staffed only by dogs.

[balmakboor]

The first scene is Carl watching the movietime newsreel in the theater. They show Muntz with the giant bird skeleton and his whole thing of going to Paradise Falls was to capture the giant bird alive. Given that Land of the Lost vibe, I don't see how the bird's appearance is out of place.

Also, the reel shows Muntz with an army of dogs, and then dogs with mechanical contraptions on their head operating machineries on the blimp. The announcer says that Muntz is accompanied and staffed only by dogs.

I have a sneaking feeling that Up will benefit greatly by a second viewing. Thanks for the summary.

[Watashi]

I hate when people proclaim that WALL-E's first half is much better than the second half. There is a large shift in tone when WALL-E leaves Earth, but that does not make it inferior because it introduces a whole new storyline of characters and whatnot.

I think most people enjoy the first half more because it's clearly the most cinematic of the halves. It works as its own silent feature with WALL-E as the Little Tramp, but the real meat in Stanton's sci-fi epic is found in the second half. WALL-E's "love at first sight" romance may be centered around EVE, but the relationship between WALL-E and the captain is what drives home Stanton's message of dependability on survival in whatever the future may have in store for us. It's not as cute or as funny as WALL-E's earlier Chaplin-esque antics, but it contains the soul of the film, and that is WALL-E's crucial decision of the importance of global return than to remain alone with EVE. It is not merely an environmental message, but a human one.

Sorry, I just rewatched the film today, and find the second half just as equally as mesmerizing as the first.

[Qrazy]

A second viewing of Wall-E wasn't kind to the romance for me. What on first viewing seemed genuine and heartfelt now strikes me as much more manipulative and treacly.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I hate when people proclaim that WALL-E's first half is much better than the second half. There is a large shift in tone when WALL-E leaves Earth, but that does not make it inferior because it introduces a whole new storyline of characters and whatnot.


Yeah, I hate other people's opinions too.

[Watashi]

Yeah, I hate other people's opinions too.
Especially when their opinions are wrong. ;)

[Sven]

If it makes you feel any better, Wats, I thought the entirety of Wall-E was just about the same level of good.

[Raiders]

A second viewing of Wall-E wasn't kind to the romance for me. What on first viewing seemed genuine and heartfelt now strikes me as much more manipulative and treacly.

Ooof.

Honestly though, for my own sanity, can we just stick to Armond White bashing?

:pritch:

[Spun Lepton]

Agreed. They are very solid, safe, and at times (Ratatouille, The Incredibles, Cars) kind of boring. Perfect for kids, but I think a little overpraised by adults who are wowed by consistency and name brands.

:rolleyes: Arrogant and naive much?

[Milky Joe]

It's not as cute or as funny as WALL-E's earlier Chaplin-esque antics, but it contains the soul of the film

Is this really what people think of the first part of WALL-E? that it's cute and funny? I found the first part almost unbearably sad. I watch it with a grapefruit-sized lump in my throat the entire time. It is absolutely devastating. The lump returns and I get goosebumps just thinking about it. That where the soul of the film lies, not in the far, far cuter and far more antic-y second half. Sheesh.

[Ezee E]

Wall-E is like Full Metal Jacket. A masterful first half with a pretty good second half.

[number8]

Wall-E is like Full Metal Jacket. A masterful first half with a pretty good second half.

Therein lies the flaw. FMJ's second half is just as good, and is completely essential to the film. The first half is rather worthless without the second.

I agree with the comparison, though. Wall-E is the same.

[balmakboor]

Wall-E is like Full Metal Jacket. A masterful first half with a pretty good second half.

I was about to compare both Wall-E and Up to Full Metal Jacket actually. Except Full Metal Jacket has a masterful first part and an even more masterful second part. I do know that I consider the sniper sequence the greatest thing Kubrick ever directed.

[Qrazy]

Therein lies the flaw. FMJ's second half is just as good, and is completely essential to the film. The first half is rather worthless without the second.

I agree with the comparison, though. Wall-E is the same.

Thematically essential but nearly as well rendered as the first half (in both cases).

[Qrazy]

Just saw it, unfortunately 3D showing was sold out. I liked it quite a bit, I had some thoughts but now I forgot them. The end.

[Qrazy]

I didn't get the impression that the house ending up by Paradise Falls at the end was meant to be taken literally.

Only having seen it once, I don't have much of a leg to stand on, but while watching it thoughts of An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge struck me.

I truly thought that when he entered the house for the last time before it took flight that he was going in to kill himself and join Ellie in Paradise. Then the whole tone radically shifts moments later and impossible stuff starts to happen (after the film had so far been grounded in reality) like a house floating in the air suspended by balloons and an old man being able to walk it along the edge of a jagged cliff.

I guess it occurred to me that the film was going for a "what flashes through the mind of a man at the moment of death" vibe.

The audience reaction to the movie was interesting. During the first act, kids were getting really restless. During the rest, they were either laughing or crying (because the dogs were scary).

You have an uncanny ability to stretch a realist reading of a film far beyond the point where it seems reasonable to do so. I mean it's an interesting sentiment I just don't think the evidence is there.

[balmakboor]

You have an uncanny ability to stretch a realist reading of a film far beyond the point where it seems reasonable to do so. I mean it's an interesting sentiment I just don't think the evidence is there.

Takes a bow.

[transmogrifier]

:rolleyes: Arrogant and naive much?

I don't know, but you'll notice my specific use of the relative clause:

....overpraised by adults who are wowed by consistency and name brands.

Nothing in this sentence claims that all adults who praise Pixar are adults who are wowed by.....etc. Rather, I have chosen the group "adults who are wowed...etc" and stated that they tend to overpraise Pixar. This is a comment on a subset of all the people who praise Pixar, not a characterization of the whole group.

Reading comprehension much? Boo-ya!

[transmogrifier]

Wall-E is nothing like Full Metal Jacket, which has a tolerable first half with a laughable second half.

Fixed

[Ivan Drago]

Yeah, I hate other people's opinions too.

Oooh, buuuurrrn.

[MadMan]

....overpraised by adults who are wowed by consistency and name brands.If by consistency you mean a high level ranging from good to great, then I fail to see how this is a bad thing :P And name brands? What?

Full Mental Jacket is great overall, and has fantastic first and second half's. I haven't seen Wall-E yet, but I'll get to it hopefully this year along with Cars.

And Up was really excellent. It doesn't get a 100 from me, but it comes quite close, and its the best of the Pixar movies I've seen so far. I saw it in 3D, but I'm not sure if it really enhanced the experience or not. Still the technology is kind of cool, and I did keep the glasses. Oh and I was surprised at how emotional much of the movie was. I knew about what happens in the beginning to a certain extent, but I didn't think it would be so stark or powerful.

[transmogrifier]

If by consistency you mean a high level ranging from good to great, then I fail to see how this is a bad thing :P And name brands? What?
.

I was talking about aesthetic consistency (i.e. looking or sounding similar from movie to movie).

[MadMan]

I was talking about aesthetic consistency (i.e. looking or sounding similar from movie to movie).Okay, well that's quite another thing all together. I must admit that at this point, Pixar's animation skills are so stunning that with Up I hardly even noticed them, as it was expected that it would be as such anyways. Pixar's screenplays are usually the biggest strength about their movies, but that's just my opinion. Plus the voice work, which is typically top notch as well.

[trotchky]

Therein lies the flaw. FMJ's second half is just as good, and is completely essential to the film. The first half is rather worthless without the second.

I agree with the comparison, though. Wall-E is the same.

Yeah I agree with this, even though Wall-E isn't as good as Full Metal Jacket.

[DavidSeven]

Disappointing.

To consider Up in the same class as Wall-E really diminishes the latter. Wall-E is great cinema. Up is a below average cartoon with above average animation. Up never bother to reach beyond really familiar and tired characterizations of overused character types. Can we say there is irony in Pixar's first 3D film having its most 2D characters to date? Up also never establishes firm rules, beyond a Looney Tunes default, for what is and is not possible in this world. Because of this, the action loses all drama and peril does not exist. That's just terrible filmmaking. Probably gets a rotten from me.

[Sycophant]

Can we say there is irony in Pixar's first 3D film having its most 2D characters to date? Up also never establishes firm rules, beyond a Looney Tunes default, for what is and is not possible in this world. Because of this, the action loses all drama and peril does not exist.

Yeah, this.

[Qrazy]

SPOILERS

One thing I disliked is how they essentially killed off Muntz. They really should have given him a few more balloons on his ankle so he could just float off in frustration. Without his ship or his dogs there wasn't much harm he could do anymore. In the film he was falling way too fast to survive.

[NickGlass]

The prologue is beautiful. See score, and Syncophant/Raiders/DavidSeven's comments, for my opinion on the rest. Maybe I'll think of something original sometime in the near future.

[NickGlass]

SPOILERS

One thing I disliked is how they essentially killed off Muntz. They really should have given him a few more balloons on his ankle so he could just float off in frustration. Without his ship or his dogs there wasn't much harm he could do anymore. In the film he was falling way too fast to survive.

Yes. For fear of sounding too sensitive (but how can you sound too sensitive when there's casual depiction of a disposable life), I was quite disturbed with the way they handled Muntz' character. It's not the deranged angle of the character, but the flippant tone of his introduction and death. The audience clapped in my screening as he free-falled.

I'm just glad I'm not very afraid of heights; I would have been an absolute nervous wreck in the theater. Perhaps its Pixar's recent use of humans as something other than a peripheral character, which grounds the films in a heightened realism that makes me feel rather uncomfortable and nitpicky at times.

[Qrazy]

I don't know, but you'll notice my specific use of the relative clause:

....overpraised by adults who are wowed by consistency and name brands.

Nothing in this sentence claims that all adults who praise Pixar are adults who are wowed by.....etc. Rather, I have chosen the group "adults who are wowed...etc" and stated that they tend to overpraise Pixar. This is a comment on a subset of all the people who praise Pixar, not a characterization of the whole group.

Reading comprehension much? Boo-ya!

There's really nothing in the sentence that suggests one reading over the other. It's good that you meant what you meant but there was no failure in his reading comprehension.

[Qrazy]

Yes. For fear of sounding too sensitive (but how can you sound too sensitive when there's casual depiction of a disposable life), I was quite disturbed with the way they handled Muntz' character. It's not the deranged angle of the character, but the flippant tone of his introduction and death. The audience clapped in my screening as he free-falled.

I'm just glad I'm not very afraid of heights; I would have been an absolute nervous wreck in the theater. Perhaps its Pixar's recent use of humans as something other than a peripheral character, which grounds the films in a heightened realism that makes me feel rather uncomfortable and nitpicky at times.

Yeah, to be honest I had no problems with the slapstick quality of either the film or the short. As long as some distinction is made between falling down and getting hurt. When Carl hits the guy on the head at the beginning he's clearly actually hurt. When Russell scrapes against the ground or window he is not hurt. However in this case we're dealing with an implied death (real hurt) and it's not treated with proper sensitivity.

[Melville]

There's really nothing in the sentence that suggests one reading over the other.
Yes, there is: the lack of a comma between "who" and "are". If there were a comma between "who" and "are", the sentence would refer to all adults. Since there's no comma there, the sentence refers only to those adults who are wowed by consistency and name brands.

EDIT: what Duncan said.

[transmogrifier]

Yes, there is: the lack of a comma between "who" and "are". If there were a comma between "who" and "are", the sentence would refer to all adults. Since there's no comma there, the sentence refers only to those adults who are wowed by consistency and name brands.

This.

PS Thanks.

[number8]

When Russell scrapes against the ground or window he is not hurt.

Actually, I paid attention to this on my second viewing. You're talking about when he's hanging on a rope, right? Everytime he hits the cliff, it's his huge backpack that makes the impact, not his body. As for the window... I suppose it's not weird to assume that rubbing your face across glass may hurt, but won't injure you.

[Duncan]

I feel a little weird posting this, but I think it's the lack of a comma between "adults" and "who" that removes ambiguity from the sentence, not the lack of a comma between "who" and "are".

[Russ]

I feel a little weird posting this, but I think it's the lack of a comma between "adults" and "who" that removes ambiguity from the sentence, not the lack of a comma between "who" and "are".
Yeah, you are right.

[Melville]

I feel a little weird posting this, but I think it's the lack of a comma between "adults" and "who" that removes ambiguity from the sentence, not the lack of a comma between "who" and "are".
*slaps self* Yeah, that's what I meant to post. The sentence wouldn't even make sense with a comma between "who" and "are".

[transmogrifier]

*slaps self* Yeah, that's what I meant to post. The sentence wouldn't even make sense with a comma between "who" and "are".

Oops. I should read more closely as well. Still, the sentiment holds true.

[Qrazy]

Yes, there is: the lack of a comma between "who" and "are". If there were a comma between "who" and "are", the sentence would refer to all adults. Since there's no comma there, the sentence refers only to those adults who are wowed by consistency and name brands.

That doesn't make any sense. You wouldn't put a comma between who and are in either case. Since the question is whether or not the sentence suggests that those adults who praise Pixar do so because they are wowed by consistency and name brands or that only the adults who are already wowed by consistency and name brands are the ones who overpraise. The comma is moot.

Perfect for kids, but I think a little overpraised by adults who, are wowed by consistency and name brands.

That's a bizarre place for a comma.

Perhaps instead... Perfect for kids, but I think a little overpraised by adults, who are wowed by consistency and name brands.

Still kind of awkward but even with or without the comma I maintain that the ambiguity remains.

edit: Ah Duncan beat me to it.

[Melville]

That doesn't make any sense. You wouldn't put a comma between who and are in either case. Since the question is whether or not the sentence suggests that those adults who praise Pixar do so because they are wowed by consistency and name brands or that only the adults who are already wowed by consistency and name brands are the ones who overpraise. The comma is moot.

Perfect for kids, but I think a little overpraised by adults who, are wowed by consistency and name brands.

That's a bizarre place for a comma.

Perhaps instead... Perfect for kids, but I think a little overpraised by adults, who are wowed by consistency and name brands.

Still kind of awkward but even with or without the comma I maintain that the ambiguity remains.
You're totally going to delete that post when you read the rest of the thread. But no, there's no ambiguity in the sentence.

[Qrazy]

Actually, I paid attention to this on my second viewing. You're talking about when he's hanging on a rope, right? Everytime he hits the cliff, it's his huge backpack that makes the impact, not his body. As for the window... I suppose it's not weird to assume that rubbing your face across glass may hurt, but won't injure you.

Huh? I'm saying I'm fine with these bits because it's clear that they don't hurt him. But no I was talking about the window and when he just lays face first against the ground and the house drags him (not the hitting cliff bit).

[Qrazy]

You're totally going to delete that post when you read the rest of the thread. But no, there's no ambiguity in the sentence.

So it has to refer only to adults who already embrace those features and could not refer to adults who praise and then insinuates that their praise is because they embrace those features? I don't buy it.

Particularly in the context of what is being said. The assumption being that Pixar is being overpraised. If it is being overpraised than it seems that those giving it a great deal of praise are the ones in question, not just a sub-group of the ones 'overpraising'.

If I were to say Mulholland Drive is I think a little overpraised by adults who are wowed by any and all 'dream' cinema no matter how obtuse and simplistic.

You would then think well I like Mulholland Drive but I'm not one of those adults so that statement does not apply to me? It's all good?

[Melville]

So it has to refer only to adults who already embrace those features and could not refer to adults who praise and then insinuates that their praise is because they embrace those features? I don't buy it.
Look up restrictive versus nonrestrictive clauses.

EDIT: I don't know about insinuation. But the point is that the sentence, as written, states only that the adults who are wowed by consistency and name brands overpraise Pixar. It doesn't say anything about other adults who praise Pixar.

[Watashi]

Disappointing.

To consider Up in the same class as Wall-E really diminishes the latter. Wall-E is great cinema. Up is a below average cartoon with above average animation.

Oh come on. Now you are just baiting. "Above average animation"? Do you even know what you're saying? Other people's complaints have been somewhat valid, but to knock the animation is just crazy.

[DavidSeven]

I want to join those who were extremely put off by how they handled Muntz finale. As Qrazy mentioned, the moment is especially miscalculated given the weight given to injury and death at the beginning of the film.

Also, 3D... meh. Did nothing for me beyond an initial gimmicky "hey, that's kind of, sort of cool, I guess" moment.

[DavidSeven]

Oh come on. Now you are just baiting. "Below average animation"? Do you even know what you're saying? Other people's complaints have been somewhat valid, but to knock the animation is just crazy.

I didn't knock the animation. Read it again.

Edit: My problems with the film have nothing to do with the animation.

[Watashi]

I didn't knock the animation. Read it again.
You called it "above average".

[Sycophant]

Which is not a knock.

[Watashi]

I want to join those who were extremely put off by how they handled Muntz finale. As Qrazy mentioned, the moment is especially miscalculated given the weight given to injury and death at the beginning of the film.

Since Nick is going by audience reactions, my audience gasped and was silent during his free fall (all three times). If people were howling and clapping, then that is their own demented fault.

His death is not cartoonish. There was no puff of smoke when he hit the ground.

[Watashi]

Which is not a knock.
In my narrow-minded viewpoint, it is.