UP (Pixar, 2009)

[DavidSeven]

You called it "above average".

The animation is very good. I used the wording "above average" for stylistic parity (paired it with "below average cartoon"). In any event, is Pixar so untouchable now that "above average" is now considered a knock?

[Qrazy]

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.

The grammar concern only interests me in so far as it relates to the meaning being expressed. I'm not convinced that the meaning remains unambiguous (for issues seemingly unintentional of insinuation).

[Qrazy]

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.

No not cartoonish but never really mentioned again or given much weight. Carl never has an I just effectively killed this man moment and the film ends with them eating ice cream.

[DavidSeven]

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.

That's not really my problem with it. My problem is that they would actually show something like that in a children's film where death has previously been given considerable emotional weight. I thought it was inappropriate.

[Melville]

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?
That's right. I would disagree that the film is being overpraised, but I wouldn't think the sentence says anything about people other than those who are wowed by any and all 'dream' cinema, etc. (unless the person writing the sentence has a history of sloppy comma usage, in which case I would be uncertain about what they meant).

[DavidSeven]

You guys need to stop that shit.

[Qrazy]

That's right. I would disagree that the film is being overpraised, but I wouldn't think the sentence says anything about people other than those who are wowed by any and all 'dream' cinema, etc. (unless the person writing the sentence has a history of sloppy comma usage, in which case I would be uncertain about what they meant).

Ok ok. On a different but related note how do people feel about the word OK. Technically you're supposed to write it OK but I find that puts across an all caps unintended intensity. So I write Ok instead.

[Watashi]

No not cartoonish but never really mentioned again or given much weight. Carl never has an I just effectively killed this man moment and the film ends with them eating ice cream.

Carl doesn't actually kill him though. Muntz falls off on his own mistake. I wouldn't want a scene where Carl mourns Muntz and goes to his funeral, etc, etc.

I'm having a hard time understand you guys what you could have wanted. A scene after the credits to show that Muntz's balloons got caught in a tree so he didn't die?

[Sycophant]

I usually use "okay."

[Qrazy]

You guys need to stop that shit.

Would you prefer we discuss black holes? *contemplates some way of linking singularities to punctuation*

[Watashi]

You guys need to stop that shit.
Yeah, I'll agree with this.

[Melville]

Ok ok. On a different but related note how do people feel about the word OK. Technically you're supposed to write it OK but I find that puts across an all caps unintended intensity. So I write Ok instead.
Yeah, OK always reads to me like it's voiced in frustration. I usually write "okay".

[Qrazy]

Carl doesn't actually kill him though. Muntz falls off on his own mistake. I wouldn't want a scene where Carl mourns Muntz and goes to his funeral, etc, etc.

I'm having a hard time understand you guys what you could have wanted. A scene after the credits to show that Muntz's balloons got caught in a tree so he didn't die?

Well he kills him in the manslaughter sense of kills him. He gets everyone else out of the house and then the house falls with Muntz in it. He made no effort to save Muntz.

I posted what I would have preferred. Just make him fall with a couple more balloons on his ankle so that he doesn't seem to be plummeting to his death. Without his ship and dogs he's screwed anyway, just don't outright kill him off.

[Sycophant]

The villain-falling-to-his-death-not-directly-because-of-the-hero has been done to death and I think is called the Disney Death. It felt really out of place in this film.

I didn't really care for any of the "present day" Muntz stuff.

[Watashi]

Considering the age of Muntz, pretty sure he was going to die one way or the other.

[Qrazy]

Considering the age of Muntz, pretty sure he was going to die one way or the other.

Euthanasist!

[Sycophant]

Considering the age of Muntz, pretty sure he was going to die one way or the other.

What does this have to do with anything?

[Watashi]

What does this have to do with anything?
....it's called a joke....

Wow. Relax.

[Sycophant]

Apologists are supposed to be better at apologetics than this, Wats. I'm not bent out of shape. I just assumed you were actually trying to defend the film.

I'd like to see a remake or alternate telling of Up where Muntz's lonely routine is interrupted by the arrival of Carl and Russell and together they become a new makeshift family and even Muntz in his old age realizes what a vain waste his seventy-year pursuit has been and that it's not the public's perception of you that matters, but the perception of those you are close to and yourself.

Pixar has this in them.

[number8]

I posted what I would have preferred. Just make him fall with a couple more balloons on his ankle so that he doesn't seem to be plummeting to his death. Without his ship and dogs he's screwed anyway, just don't outright kill him off.

So he'll die in the jungle of starvation or pneumonia, but because the film doesn't show it, that's more acceptable?

I believe it's more honest this way, especially after establishing that death exists, it's inevitable and it's permanent. I prefer it.

[Watashi]

I'd like to see a remake or alternate telling of Up where Muntz's lonely routine is interrupted by the arrival of Carl and Russell and together they become a new makeshift family and even Muntz in his old age realizes what a vain waste his seventy-year pursuit has been and that it's not the public's perception of you that matters, but the perception of those you are close to and yourself.


They kinda tackled that in Ratatouille with Linguini wanting to impress all of his critics.

[Qrazy]

Apologists are supposed to be better at apologetics than this, Wats. I'm not bent out of shape. I just assumed you were actually trying to defend the film.

I'd like to see a remake or alternate telling of Up where Muntz's lonely routine is interrupted by the arrival of Carl and Russell and together they become a new makeshift family and even Muntz in his old age realizes what a vain waste his seventy-year pursuit has been and that it's not the public's perception of you that matters, but the perception of those you are close to and yourself.

Pixar has this in them.

Yeah that would have been much more Miyazakian. Which is a good thing.

[Qrazy]

So he'll die in the jungle of starvation or pneumonia, but because the film doesn't show it, that's more acceptable?

I believe it's more honest this way, especially after establishing that death exists, it's inevitable and it's permanent. I prefer it.

He won't necessarily die. I was under the impression Paradise Falls was a smallish region. I think he could easily make it back to his cave and continue his endless hunt for the bird... which will end soon because he's so old anyway. Without his ship he's not a threat to our heroes and without his dogs he's barely a threat to the bird. My ending robs him of his capacity for villainy without killing him... kind of like taking away Magneto's powers.

[Ezee E]

Hmm... I had no problem with the death at all, and didn't even think beyond of, "And now is the time for him to get his badge."

[Spaceman Spiff]

How was the short before this? Any good?

[MadMan]

How was the short before this? Any good?It was awesome, and very funny. Kind of touching, even. I loved it. Might be the best one I've seen since Geri's Game.


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.Yeah, there was no clapping during any death scenes at the screening I went to, either. That's a strange criticism to make, as if the movie's creators are to blame for people being dumb.

And I have to say that those who have a problem with Mutz's death should also have a problem with (don't read this if you haven't seen The Incredibles, btw) Syndrome's death in The Incredibles. To me, both deaths are fairly similar. And on top of that, I don't really think Carl would have been able to save Mutz, anyways, since Mutz wouldn't have listened to him telling him to get out of the house. Plus, Mutz was armed with a rifle and would have tried to kill Carl had Carl attempted to save him from falling. Would you go near a man wielding a gun, shooting at you? I sure as hell wouldn't. I'd try and finish him off before he killed me. Its called self-defense.

This whole line of discussion about how the movie handled one death over another is better than the whole thing about comma usage, or whatever in hell that was all about.

[Qrazy]

It was awesome, and very funny. Kind of touching, even. I loved it. Might be the best one I've seen since Geri's Game.

Yeah, there was no clapping during any death scenes at the screening I went to, either. That's a strange criticism to make, as if the movie's creators are to blame for people being dumb.

And I have to say that those who have a problem with Mutz's death should also have a problem with (don't read this if you haven't seen The Incredibles, btw) Syndrome's death in The Incredibles. To me, both deaths are fairly similar. And on top of that, I don't really think Carl would have been able to save Mutz, anyways, since Mutz wouldn't have listened to him telling him to get out of the house. Plus, Mutz was armed with a rifle and would have tried to kill Carl had Carl attempted to save him from falling. Would you go near a man wielding a gun, shooting at you? I sure as hell wouldn't. I'd try and finish him off before he killed me. Its called self-defense.

This whole line of discussion about how the movie handled one death over another is better than the whole thing about comma usage, or whatever in hell that was all about.



I don't think anyone thinks Carl should have saved Muntz. He just a) shouldn't have died, had a few more balloons and floated away or b) Carl should've had an oh shit I killed a man moment or at least a passing line.

How did Syndrome die again?

[Sycophant]

Thing is, MadMan, those things were all creative choices made by Docter and his crew--they decided what Muntz had in his hands or didn't and wrote the sequence in question. So, the whole "What else would he have done?!" just don't hold water.

[ledfloyd]

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.
i thought carl was one of the best realized characters in pixar's canon. he exists as much more than an archetype.

[Qrazy]

i thought carl was one of the best realized characters in pixar's canon. he exists as much more than an archetype.

I agree, I thought Carl was very well rendered.

[ledfloyd]

I agree, I thought Carl was very well rendered.
i'm trying to decide if this is a joke or not.

[Qrazy]

i'm trying to decide if this is a joke or not.

An intentional double entendre but not sarcastic in either sense.

[Melville]

This whole line of discussion about how the movie handled one death over another is better than the whole thing about comma usage, or whatever in hell that was all about.
Personally, I find comma usage to be much more interesting than Pixar.

[Raiders]

Personally, I find comma usage to be much more interesting than Pixar.

Yes, we know you don't like Pixar by now.

For the purposes of this forum:

movie discussion > grammar policing

[Qrazy]

Yes, we know you don't like Pixar by now.

For the purposes of this forum:

movie discussion > grammar policing

What's your av from, The Tracker (haven't seen it)?

[Melville]

Yes, we know you don't like Pixar by now.

For the purposes of this forum:

movie discussion > grammar policing
I wasn't trying to reiterate my lack of interest in Pixar; I was emphasizing my interest in grammar. And nobody's grammar was being policed. Other than my recent snarky response to Boner (which I apologize for—I was in a bad mood), I don't recall doing any grammar policing on here. My grammar is just as bad as anybody's. I just think it's very interesting how the meaning of a statement is built from the structure provided by punctuation.

[Raiders]

I wasn't trying to reiterate my lack of interest in Pixar; I was emphasizing my interest in grammar. And nobody's grammar was being policed. Other than my recent snarky response to Boner (which I apologize for—I was in a bad mood), I don't recall doing any grammar policing on here. My grammar is just as bad as anybody's. I just think it's very interesting how the meaning of a statement is built from the structure provided by punctuation.

I do find it hilarious that grammar, of all words, is among the most frequently misspelled words in the English language.


What's your av from, The Tracker (haven't seen it)?

Yep. Highly recommended.

[balmakboor]

The more I read people's comments, the more I like my interpretation.

People seem to be bothered by how all the laws of physics are thrown out the window starting with the balloons lifting the house, bothered the fate of Muntz, and bothered by how the house somehow winds up back at the top of the falls.

I noticed an odd sense during the South American section of impoverished mise-en-scene. It isn't like any sort of real South American locale. It is like an image of one in the head of a person who has always dreamed of going there but never has and has only seen it in travel guide illustrations. And then this empty fantasy of a landscape is populated only with things from Carl's experience. The dogs, the bird, Russell, Muntz and his airship, Paradise Falls... And Muntz's fate is reminiscent of the fact that one of Carl's greatest disappointments as a child was the fall of Muntz, his hero.

I still think that Carl offs himself, experiences an extended mental episode inspired by his desire to go on an adventure to join Ellie, and then ends up in what for him would be Heaven -- he and Ellie together in their house perched beside Paradise Falls.

Isn't that notion of Heaven the whole reason the falls are named Paradise anyway? And isn't that why the film is titled Up? People go up to Heaven.

[Raiders]

The more I read people's comments, the more I like my interpretation.

People seem to be bothered by how all the laws of physics are thrown out the window starting with the balloons lifting the house, bothered the fate of Muntz, and bothered by how the house somehow winds up back at the top of the falls.

I noticed an odd sense during the South American section of impoverished mise-en-scene. It isn't like any sort of real South American locale. It is like an image of one in the head of a person who has always dreamed of going there but never has and has only seen it in travel guide illustrations. And then this empty fantasy of a landscape is populated only with things from Carl's experience. The dogs, the bird, Russell, Muntz and his airship, Paradise Falls... And Muntz's fate is reminiscent of the fact that one of Carl's greatest disappointments as a child was the fall of Muntz, his hero.

I still think that Carl offs himself, experiences an extended mental episode inspired by his desire to go on an adventure to join Ellie, and then ends up in what for him would be Heaven -- he and Ellie together in their house perched beside Paradise Falls.

Isn't that notion of Heaven the whole reason the falls are named Paradise anyway? And isn't that why the film is titled Up? People go up to Heaven.

Uh, then what about the ending?

He pins the cap on Russell at his award ceremony, clearly in the "real world" and back in the city.

Not to mention such an idea would completely go against the idea of the film that Carl learns near the end about adventure and living.

No, sorry, this is one time that reading makes practically no sense to me.

[balmakboor]

Uh, then what about the ending?

He pins the cap on Russell at his award ceremony, clearly in the "real world" and back in the city.

Not to mention such an idea would completely go against the idea of the film that Carl learns near the end about adventure and living.

No, sorry, this is one time that reading makes practically no sense to me.

I've only seen it once. What is the last image?

[Qrazy]

The more I read people's comments, the more I like my interpretation.

People seem to be bothered by how all the laws of physics are thrown out the window starting with the balloons lifting the house, bothered the fate of Muntz, and bothered by how the house somehow winds up back at the top of the falls.

I noticed an odd sense during the South American section of impoverished mise-en-scene. It isn't like any sort of real South American locale. It is like an image of one in the head of a person who has always dreamed of going there but never has and has only seen it in travel guide illustrations. And then this empty fantasy of a landscape is populated only with things from Carl's experience. The dogs, the bird, Russell, Muntz and his airship, Paradise Falls... And Muntz's fate is reminiscent of the fact that one of Carl's greatest disappointments as a child was the fall of Muntz, his hero.

I still think that Carl offs himself, experiences an extended mental episode inspired by his desire to go on an adventure to join Ellie, and then ends up in what for him would be Heaven -- he and Ellie together in their house perched beside Paradise Falls.

Isn't that notion of Heaven the whole reason the falls are named Paradise anyway? And isn't that why the film is titled Up? People go up to Heaven.

Except that thematically much of the point of the story is to remain grounded in reality and recognize the value of the people that are still in your life. For instance at the end when Carl makes himself available for Russell. If he were in heaven he would be with Ellie at Paradise Falls but instead he has to let go of the house and her... he can continue to cherish her memory but he has to recognize that she is dead while he lives on... and can use his life to aid others.

However on the flight of fantasy side of things that shot of the house spinning wildly in the bad weather is straight out of The Wizard of Oz. So Paradise Falls is like the land of Oz but Oz does not represent the afterlife... it represents a dream world that allows the protagonist to find meaning, beauty and value in their real life and the people around them.

For fun (it doesn't quite work)...

Carl - Dorothy
Dug - Cowardly Lion
Kevin - The Tin Man
Russell - Scarecrow
Muntz - The Wizard of Oz and the Wicked Witch
The Dogs - The Flying Monkeys

[balmakboor]

Except that thematically much of the point of the story is to remain grounded in reality and recognize the value of the people that are still in your life. For instance at the end when Carl makes himself available for Russell. If he were in heaven he would be with Ellie at Paradise Falls but instead he has to let go of the house and her... he can continue to cherish her memory but he has to recognize that she is dead while he lives on... and can use his life to aid others.

However on the flight of fantasy side of things that shot of the house spinning wildly in the bad weather is straight out of The Wizard of Oz. So Paradise Falls is like the land of Oz but Oz does not represent the afterlife... it represents a dream world that allows the protagonist to find meaning, beauty and value in their real life and the people around them.

For fun (it doesn't quite work)...

Carl - Dorothy
Dug - Cowardly Lion
Kevin - The Tin Man
Russell - Scarecrow
Muntz - The Wizard of Oz and the Wicked Witch
The Dogs - The Flying Monkeys

That's the thing. My memory was that the final image was the house sitting beside the falls. But I admit it's probably hazy. If the final image is the Ellie pin on Russell's chest then I admit my reading falls apart.

[Qrazy]

That's the thing. My memory was that the final image was the house sitting beside the falls. But I admit it's probably hazy. If the final image is the Ellie pin on Russell's chest then I admit my reading falls apart.

I think the final image is a pan up past them eating ice cream to Muntz's airship and into the sky... not sure though.

[Qrazy]

Speaking of The Wizard of Oz. In my opinion too many films invoke either that or Alice in Wonderland.

[Ezee E]

I like balmakboor's idea. The fat kid becomes the son that he never had. Still perfectly fits with his idea really.

[Ezee E]

Still makes sense though. The kid was never around the house when it went up. He just appeared out of nowhere. The old man seemed cranky, but if I remember right, there was a quick, subtle reaction of him liking the kid.

He offs himself, house goes up, everything is imagined, and he now has a son in his fantasy.

[Qrazy]

Still makes sense though. The kid was never around the house when it went up. He just appeared out of nowhere. The old man seemed cranky, but if I remember right, there was a quick, subtle reaction of him liking the kid.

He offs himself, house goes up, everything is imagined, and he now has a son in his fantasy.

There was never any evidence for or reason to believe Carl was suicidal in the first place. He may have had reason to be (everything around his house being demolished) but he never appeared to be (a shot of sleeping pills, a gun, or something to that effect). If that's what they were going for they could have had such a moment of insinuation just before the men arrive to bring him to the retirement home the next day.

Furthermore if he were to have a son in his fantasy why would he give his would be a son a convoluted back story involving a distant father... and why would he be so attached to his house at the expense of this would be son.

His time in Paradise Falls is very clearly not wish fulfillment for Carl.

[Ezee E]

There was never any evidence for or reason to believe Carl was suicidal in the first place. He may have had reason to be (everything around his house being demolished) but he never appeared to be (a shot of sleeping pills, a gun, or something to that effect). If that's what they were going for they could have had such a moment of insinuation just before the men arrive to bring him to the retirement home the next day.
Leaving his home to go to a retirement community was something he obviously dreaded. Seemed reason enough already, considering his misery he was already in.

It's a long shot, and certainly not to be taken for granted, but I like that idea more than what I actually saw.

[Sycophant]

It's an interesting reading--and entertaining to think about--but the ending sequences seem to kind of nullify its usefulness.

Still major problems with the Russell family situation.

[balmakboor]

I saw Russell's involvement in the fantasy, if that's what it is -- and frankly if it isn't a fantasy of some kind then the whole movie seemed pretty poor to me, to be an expression for Carl's guilt over having sent the little tyke away on a wild goose chase. Plus, Russell probably reminded him of himself as a child, reminded him of the child he and Ellie wanted and never had...

Admittedly, I'm probably searching for a reading that allows me to like the movie at all rather than my initial impression that it was great for a while until a bunch of stupid stuff started to happen.

[Qrazy]

I saw Russell's involvement in the fantasy, if that's what it is -- and frankly if it isn't a fantasy of some kind then the whole movie seemed pretty poor to me, to be an expression for Carl's guilt over having sent the little tyke away on a wild goose chase. Plus, Russell probably reminded him of himself as a child, reminded him of the child he and Ellie wanted and never had...

Admittedly, I'm probably searching for a reading that allows me to like the movie at all rather than my initial impression that it was great for a while until a bunch of stupid stuff started to happen.

Well I mean it's a fantasy but it's also a literal fantasy. It's like in Spirited Away, that stuff most likely literally happened to the girl but it doesn't detract from the metaphorical meaning of the fantastic events.

[number8]

I think the final image is a pan up past them eating ice cream to Muntz's airship and into the sky... not sure though.

No, that shot dissolves into a shot of the house on top of Paradise Falls. Then it fades to black.

[Qrazy]

No, that shot dissolves into a shot of the house on top of Paradise Falls. Then it fades to black.

Ah. Kind of cements the fact that he's back in reality while his house without him is what's in Paradise Falls (dreamland).

[Raiders]

I think it is more that it demonstrates he achieved what he wanted while also realizing that his adventure does not end at Paradise Falls. I don't think the two places exist at different levels of consciousness or "worlds." The film, I think, attempts to de-mythicize Paradise Falls (once the Muntz storyline has set in, the name is almost ironic) to the point where Carl is holding onto something his wife had long ago learned existed somewhere else (for Carl, it is in Russell). The shot at the end bookends the dream that began as a young boy, but the man lives on, now living in a new dream.

[Qrazy]

I think it is more that it demonstrates he achieved what he wanted while also realizing that his adventure does not end at Paradise Falls. I don't think the two places exist at different levels of consciousness or "worlds." The film, I think, attempts to de-mythicize Paradise Falls (once the Muntz storyline has set in, the name is almost ironic) to the point where Carl is holding onto something his wife had long ago learned existed somewhere else (for Carl, it is in Russell). The shot at the end bookends the dream that began as a young boy, but the man lives on, now living in a new dream.

True enough, for the purposes of the debate I carried the dreamland metaphor further than I think it extends (which is to say not at all)... that is to say if we interpreted Paradise Falls as a dream then Carl is removed from that dream by the end... thus providing further invalidation for such a reading since he is removed from Ellie and that 'dream' by film's end. Since Carl returns from Paradise Falls with The Spirit and the dogs I really don't think there's any reason to think of the Falls as post-death dream wish fulfillment or as a dream at all. This film's Oz is firmly established as an existent reality.

[baby doll]

After Up, he loudly said, "That was pretty good but way too long."The prologue could've been an entire NFB short, and the image of Carl steering his house made me think of Terry Gilliam's The Crimson Permanent Assurance. I suspect the short feature before Up, Partly Cloudy, is part of a sinister Pixar plot to discredit short animation, even though (or is it because?) they seem to have difficulty sustaining their inspiration for an entire feature--hence turning Carl's childhood hero into a villain so he has somebody to rescue the bird from. (I also liked the second half of Wall-E a lot less than the first.) I remember when I was four, going to Duck Tales: The Movie, and liking the short feature better than the main attraction.

[Qrazy]

The prologue could've been an entire NFB short, and the image of Carl steering his house made me think of Terry Gilliam's The Crimson Permanent Assurance. I suspect the short feature before Up, Partly Cloudy, is part of a sinister Pixar plot to discredit short animation, even though (or is it because?) they seem to have difficulty sustaining their inspiration for an entire feature--hence turning Carl's childhood hero into a villain so he has somebody to rescue the bird from. (I also liked the second half of Wall-E a lot less than the first.) I remember when I was four, going to Duck Tales: The Movie, and liking the short feature better than the main attraction.

Riiight. Or maybe they want to keep the art form alive which is why they are one of the few studios which has short films before their features?

In terms of Muntz as villian he provides more than someone to rescue the bird from, he serves as a direct antagonist or conflict which provides Carl with a sufficient reason to abandon his old house and look after his new friends. If Carl wasn't given a compelling reason to let go of his past (mirrored in Muntz) he would have remained a backward looking curmudgeon.

[baby doll]

Riiight. Or maybe they want to keep the art form alive which is why they are one of the few studios which has short films before their features?

In terms of Muntz as villian he provides more than someone to rescue the bird from, he serves as a direct antagonist or conflict which provides Carl with a sufficient reason to abandon his old house and look after his new friends. If Carl wasn't given a compelling reason to let go of his past (mirrored in Muntz) he would have remained a backward looking curmudgeon.Obviously I don't really think Pixar has it in for short animation, but boy was that cartoon cloying. And I understand what you're saying about Muntz; structurally, the film is very sound, but there were times when I could feel the gears of the plot turning. Like I knew, even as I was watching the prologue, that there was going to be a scene where Carl would realize that the real adventure was their marriage together. More fundamentally, I think the best animated films (from Chuck Jones to the better NFB shorts to Jan Å*vankmajer) are often shorts, and as a grownup, I have a hard time rationalizing to myself investing an hour and a half of my time in going to see a kids' movie like Up, which seems better suited to the short form anyway.

[BuffaloWilder]

and as a grownup, I have a hard time rationalizing to myself investing an hour and a half of my time in going to see a kids' movie like Up, which seems better suited to the short form anyway.

“When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.” C.S. Lewis

Obligatory, obviously. Couldn't help it. I've got a few problems with it in its entirety (which I originally posted, then erased because it looked awkward), but it does the job well enough.

[Qrazy]

One issue that hasn't been discussed a great deal is the film's environmental ethics. The thesis of Wall-E was much more anthropocentric (and rightfully so imo)... essentially that the only way the earth is going to return to form (in a biological sense) is if we return and cultivate it. Although of course not entirely anthropocentric as we seemingly ought to validate love between robots and recognize the value of 'dysfunctional' robots, etc.

In Up on the other hand we have a conflict between two humans generated by the affections of a third human for a bird and it's young. I believe Muntz's dogs are allowed to speak for much more than just comic relief. Talking dogs means dogs capable of some level of self-concept and a strong capacity for communication. These dogs are roughly portrayed as rational agents fulfilling Kantian ethical criteria as well as Mary Warren's criteria for personhood (consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, capacity to communicate, self-awareness).

Muntz takes a traditionalist, human superiority approach to animals and nature. He takes what he desires. Although he does treat his dogs well he still thinks of himself as their master. Carl on the other hand at first wishes to abstain from the conflict between Muntz and the bird. It's none of his concern he claims. Later however he enters into the conflict... it is unclear how much of this is for Russell's sentiments towards Kevin and how much of this is for Kevin herself (and her young). The calls between Kevin and her young do seem to weaken Carl's resolve to stay out of the matter.

In the film the bird is purported to care for it's young much the same way human beings care for their own. When Carl goes after Russell and assumes responsibility for Russell's well being he seems to effectively be assuming responsibility for Kevin and her young as well... both because this is what Russell wants but also because Carl seems to implicitly accept that the relationship he is now validating (between himself and Russell) is equivalent to the relationship between Kevin and her young. But what is the primary basis for film's morality? Sentiment? Russell's childish affections for the bird or something greater? Again, perhaps the recognition (or assumption) of a similarity between any parents affections for it's offspring. Perhaps this is an unreasonable assumption for the film to be making but I maintain the film makes it nonetheless.

Anyway, keep in mind that the bird is not given the capacity for speech while the dogs are. The bird is a wild animal while the dogs are domesticated. Docter seems to be suggesting a generalized ethics (non-species-centric) which includes the well being of other creatures (or at the very least endangered ones). At the same time he seeks to legitimize the relationship between humans and domesticated animals. Carl accepts his role as Dug's master and this seems to be the best for both creatures (or at least what both creatures want)... this dynamic functions as a refutation of PETA's extremist anti-pet stance.

So while Wall-E takes an anthropocentric perspective on environmental ethics, Up takes a biocentric perspective. That is to say that species ought to be protected and cared for because they pursue a good of their own. According to the film even without the capacity for verbal communication or the features of a complex rationality we ought to be ethically concerned for these species.

Further reading on the biocentric outlook... Paul taylor - Biocentric egalitarianism...

Aldo Leopold - A Sand County Almanac...

"A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise." The concept of a trophic cascade is put forth in the chapter Thinking Like a Mountain, wherein Leopold realizes that killing a predator wolf carries serious implications for the rest of the ecosystem."

Criticisms of the above: Richard Watson - A Critique of Anti-anthropocentric biocentrism... Janna Thompson - A Refutation of Environmental Ethics

[monolith94]

http://thomaswagnernielsen.com/images/FarSideDogCartoon.jpg

I really liked the similarity between Karl and Muntz, and how the conflict between them was really about the conflict between two men and their respective dreams, and how they go about achieving said dreams. This film had its downsides, and wasn't always perfect, but ultimately had waaaaay more positive elements than negative.

The biplane dogs really strained my sense of disbelief, but even that bad point was compensated by their "checking in." I laughed so hard at that.

[Qrazy]

Obviously I don't really think Pixar has it in for short animation, but boy was that cartoon cloying. And I understand what you're saying about Muntz; structurally, the film is very sound, but there were times when I could feel the gears of the plot turning. Like I knew, even as I was watching the prologue, that there was going to be a scene where Carl would realize that the real adventure was their marriage together. More fundamentally, I think the best animated films (from Chuck Jones to the better NFB shorts to Jan Švankmajer) are often shorts, and as a grownup, I have a hard time rationalizing to myself investing an hour and a half of my time in going to see a kids' movie like Up, which seems better suited to the short form anyway.

I'm with you on the plot gears turning and the real adventure/notebook element... although it still worked for me I could definitely see it coming.

Don't really agree with you on shorts versus features except in so far as I find that it is very hard for the most interesting animators to procure funding for features so some of the most unique and inventive animation is therefore in shorts. I don't think this is inherently an issue of animation being better suited to a short format though.

So I don't think that Up should have been a short film but I do wish people like Norstein and Petrov would make features... Norstein has been working on one for a long time now.

[number8]

But what is the primary basis for film's morality? Sentiment? Russell's childish affections for the bird or something greater? Again, perhaps the recognition (or assumption) of a similarity between any parents affections for it's offspring. Perhaps this is an unreasonable assumption for the film to be making but I maintain the film makes it nonetheless.

It's the latter, I believe, as Carl's shattered dream to have his own offspring must have affected his judgment in helping Kevin reunite with her young. I think adoptive parenthood is a strong theme in the film, because of Russell's fatherless life being a gap for Carl to fill, also. The film purports that genuine love doesn't have to be biological (and Russell being Asian, I suspect, has something to do with it, too).

[Beau]

I agree, the film is a grand metaphor. Whether Paradise Falls is a dream-world or whether it is a post-death wish-fulfillment fantasy is a bit irrelevant, since I don't personally really think that figuring out the "reality" of Paradise Falls (that is, whether or not it exists) is very rewarding or interesting. What matters is that it works as metaphor, a playground where the main character can confront the past and learn to leave it behind. There's plenty of conventional plot turns, including the "hero becoming the villain," the "annoying sidekick becoming endearing partner," the "life is an adventure theme," etc. I see them. They're done well, though, and more importantly, the plot turns have some good thematic backing, so I can swallow them. In particular, the "hero becoming the villain" works here, since the hero becomes the villain because he gets stuck in the past, which is what our protagonist has to learn not to do (the villain serves as a model for the protagonist to avoid, a warning of what he might become if he doesn't put the past behind him), and more importantly, the fact that both the house and the villain "fly away" from the protagonist together seems to suggest that the only way for the protagonist to put the past behind him - and more specifically, put his wife behind him - is to confront precisely that figure that got them together, the mythical adventurer. As for the short before the movie, I liked it. I laughed. It has a sweet message. It's over before it's annoying. Enter key, next line.

[Winston*]

http://www.kochcan.com/items/large/GTE-DV-554393.jpg

[Bosco B Thug]

One issue that hasn't been discussed a great deal is the film's environmental ethics. Okay, so this is kind of what bugged me most about the film. If the film's biggest message is about Carl cherishing his wife by adventuring on, and then his growing relationship with a boy who desires for the "boring" times he had with his dad, what element of this has to do with the rights of this bird? With the personhood of animals and what dominion we have over them, as Qrazy writes about?

I'm struggling to find much cohesion between the "Carl & his wife & new adventures & life values" half of the film and then the "Muntz & his obsession & the bird & the dogs" part of the film. I get that the bird is a mother, a thematic point I find kind of weak, and that Muntz is stuck on legacy which is a negative value to have in life, a thematic point which I find strong, but still, either way, this conflict between Muntz and the bird and the ethical choices it puts upon Carl just feels kind of thrust onto the film like a non-sequitur. I mean, I'm afraid to say it, but maybe he was right the first time, that Muntz and the bird real aren't his concern? I hate to promote the "Oh, the world is just messed up so making a difference on a small scale is useless!" way of thinking, but animals get captured for exhibition all the time. I feel as if the writers didn't have faith in this either, which is why they made Muntz an outright delusional murderer of all those past interlopers into Paradise Falls and a would-be murderer of a little boy.

Another con is I felt a lot of the jokes fell flat. Lots of lulls in the comedy.

But it's really well-done otherwise. It's sincere and touching and genuine, and it deals with its outlandish fantasy premise smartly. The story leading up to Carl setting off is well considered and very grounded. I'm not one to cry in movies, but that opening montage and the phrase written in the Adventure album got me damn near close I couldn't believe it. That phrase especially. So tender and beautiful. :cry:

[megladon8]

#16 on the IMDb 250.

[Henry Gale]

I have to say that for whatever reason the final shot was the moment that hit me the hardest. It obviously wouldn't have without the other big emotional scenes before it that were also immensely effective and lead up to the last moment. But I guess I just didn't see it coming at all and suddenly I was choked up as if I ate my own head. Absolutely perfect.

Harder for me to rank all the Pixars, but I'll say that this is now in my Top 3 with WALL-E and The Incredibles. It's easily my #1 so far right above Coraline and Adventureland, too.

[lovejuice]

agree with balmakboor. without the "fantasy interpretation" the movie is quite poor and silly in many respects. the positive and the negative balance each other out, and at the end, i still enjoy it. (i cry, although in a somewhat ironic sense.)

the "fantasy interpretation" makes the film sad and nuance. but i am not going to credit pixar with that. you can read up that way, but the ending hardly assists that reading.

[BuffaloWilder]

I doubt that was the intention, because Pixar's never done anything that heady, and the film really only lends itself to that interpretation by some massive reaching around, in the first place.

But, it is your viewing experience.

[Duncan]

I liked it. Not great. Second half reminded me a bit of The Mummy or the latest (and terrible) Indiana Jones movie. High pitched alpha dog gag had me laughing pretty hard.

[MacGuffin]

Excellent movie. The spirit of adventure feels very much alive. The depth of Carl's character and Pixar's sensitive, yet nonetheless meaningful and almost masterful display of melodrama is spot-on here and even Muntz is a kind of tragic character; too caught up in his own vanity to realize the true nature of adventure, which I think is the overall theme of the movie. But yes, awesome flick, and it's probably my third favorite Pixar or perhaps tied for second after Ratatouille, and my favorite Pixar movie, Toy Story.

[Rowland]

For what it's worth, the highly respected online critic Michael Sicinski gave the movie a negative score. Here's his review:

[SIGNIFICANT SPOILERS] If we can agree that the Brad Bird Pixar films are, from an auteurist standpoint, a different, um, animal, then Up is the first film from the studio that deals primarily with human beings. This isn't to say that other Pixar works lack humanity, or that the other films have lacked recognizably human moments. (To cite only the most obvious and poignant: Jessie's backstory in Toy Story 2.) But one of the reasons I found Up so disappointing was that Docter and crew seemed to find themselves at a loss for how to orchestrate a story based on human lives and emotions. We begin in a cinema, meeting young Carl Fredricksen taking in newsreel adventures of derring-do explorer Charles Muntz, then meeting his future wife Ellie who is also a Muntz / wild adventure fan. Giving us Up's emotional fulcrum very early, Docter provides a clever and at times affecting montage which takes us through Carl and Ellie's courtship and marriage, their lives together, all the way up through Ellie's death. In my view, it is only inside this ten-minute montage that Up offers anything resembling actual human behavior, unmoored from cinematic or pulp-literary convention. We see Ellie's discover that she can't have kids, and Carl sagely suggest that they save up for that South American safari they'd always wanted to take, and then slowly, slowly (but for us, of course, all too quickly) see the demands of the quotidian intercede, forcing dreams further and further into the background. The mundane manner in which this happens for Carl and Ellie is familiar and true.



And so it's all the more frustrating that, when the main story kicks in, we're essentially treated to a slight variation of the "curmudgeon softened by moppet" story, remapped through exactly the sort of second-tier Spielberg that we'd expect those Charles Muntz adventure stories to implant in an impressionable mind. (And why not? Spielberg has long cited his childhood matinee experiences with Alan Quatermain serials as his inspiration for the Indiana Jones series, although luckily Spielberg had the talent and good sense to improve on his forebears' efforts.) When Carl escapes a forced nursing-home intake by spiriting away his old house by helium balloons, he's providing Up with its only real visual idea, one which itself is slightly cribbed from Terry Gilliam's flying-building featurette The Crimson Permanent Assurance. And he's also letting the gentrification problem within Up's diegetic universe essentially solve itself. Nevertheless, his unexpected relationship with Russell, the stowaway Wilderness Scout, follows the Spielberg template in the most basic of ways, giving fatherless Russell the fatherly attention and masculine grounding he needs while providing Carl with the child he and Ellie could never have. Likewise, the house, which Carl has taken to calling "Ellie," must eventually be sacrificed in the name of rescuing Russell, meaning that the old man must let go of the past and embrace his "new adventure" in the present and future. But even more unnerving than these pat male homilies is Up's wholesale subscription to unreconstructed adventure-story tropes. When Carl and Russell find Muntz in South America, he is tended to by canine minions outfitted with collars that translate their thoughts into speech. This is an amusing enough conceit ("Hello, my name is ... SQUIRREL!") but when seen in context, the dogs are Up's rather direct replacement for the horde of natives who'd be tending to Muntz in a similar film from the 40s or 50s.



Nevertheless, Up essentially engineers a MacGuffin (a rare bird) to which Russell takes a shine and which Muntz wants to capture dead or alive, so that most of the remainder of the film can consist of more sub-Spielbergian adventure-book material. Angry dog chases, literal cliffhangers, aerial battles on the outer wing of a dirigible, and a full twenty minutes of Carl and Russell in jeopardy, all of which seemed bizarrely perfunctory for Pixar -- this is where we have to put our "exciting part" -- while being so genuinely nerveracking that I wouldn't show it to my own kid. And part of the reason is that there was so little narrative or character build justifying this sudden lurch into high gear. Really, again, it felt as though Up was simply doing what "these movies" do, and by that point I was well past caring. Even as I write this, I do feel awkward, since I stand alone with the loonies in the critical community in failing to respond to Up. I do trust my own taste, but I'm not usually this out of step. Nevertheless, Pixar's generally high quality of animation will always make their work stand out against the overall sea of mediocrity in a given year's offerings, so perhaps Up is a "2009 thing." I'll be shocked if, in three to five years, anyone regards Up as anything more than a Cars-level also-ran.

[Watashi]

I'll be shocked if, in three to five years, anyone regards Up as anything more than a Cars-level also-ran.

Uh, huh. Up is the second highest rated Pixar film by critics (behind Toy Story). I'm pretty sure it will be remembered more than its lowest rated (which is still getting a sequel).

[MacGuffin]

Uh, huh. Up is the second highest rated Pixar film by critics (behind Toy Story). I'm pretty sure it will be remembered more than its lowest rated (which is still getting a sequel).

Yeah, I'm a big Michael Sicinski fan, but I think he's wrong here on most levels. I thought the movie was a triumph for Pixar in how it crafted emotion and pathos, while obviously he doesn't, for the reason that the movie basically turns into an adventure (when the adventure serves as a mere backdrop for the real emotional depth to occur).

[Sycophant]

Thanks for posting that, Rowls. I pretty much agree with it.

I don't see what Cars getting a sequel has to do with anything.

[Qrazy]

"When Carl escapes a forced nursing-home intake by spiriting away his old house by helium balloons, he's providing Up with its only real visual idea, one which itself is slightly cribbed from Terry Gilliam's flying-building featurette The Crimson Permanent Assurance."

That's a dumb thought.

I also find it hard to endorse the notion of Kevin as Macguffin when the character is given a family of it's own. I early explored the film's (in my eyes) problematic environmental ethics but Kevin is certainly much more than a Macguffin.

[Watashi]

http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/06/09/is-kevin-the-tropical-bird-in-pixars-up-a-nod-to-the-lbgt-movement/

[Bosco B Thug]

I also find it hard to endorse the notion of Kevin as Macguffin when the character is given a family of it's own. I early explored the film's (in my eyes) problematic environmental ethics but Kevin is certainly much more than a Macguffin. Kevin should have been more of a Macguffin (i.e. no chicks), then the film would've worked better. It would've given Carl's decision to value Kevin's life a more discerning imperative (promoting "new relationships," new caring-for-the-sake-of-caring) instead of forcing on it ethics requiring over-done animal anthropomorphism.

Similarly, I'm beginning to realize Russell's fatherlessness strikes me as rather shoe-horned-in and besides-the-point as well.

[Spun Lepton]

Reading comprehension much? Boo-ya!

It's less about what you said, and more about the attitude behind what you said. I get tired of people who dislike a movie and need to project or manufacture an external "reason" for why their opinion is in the minority, aside from, "It's not my thing."

"Ohh, well, I didn't like X The Movie, but many, many people did. Obviously, this isn't a blind spot in my own tastes, because I love everything that's excellent. It must be a problem with other people."

On the Internet: "X: The Movie's popularity is obviously made up by pimply virgin teenagers and MILFs in their 40s going to the theater to hook up. I don't have any real evidence for this, but I'm totally positive that I'm correct because I currently have a raging hard-on."

(*wank wank wank*)

[Spinal]

(*wank wank wank*)

Are you allowed to do that in a Pixar thread?

[Qrazy]

It's less about what you said, and more about the attitude behind what you said. I get tired of people who dislike a movie and need to project or manufacture an external "reason" for why their opinion is in the minority, aside from, "It's not my thing."

"Ohh, well, I didn't like X The Movie, but many, many people did. Obviously, this isn't a blind spot in my own tastes, because I love everything that's excellent. It must be a problem with other people."

On the Internet: "X: The Movie's popularity is obviously made up by pimply virgin teenagers and MILFs in their 40s going to the theater to hook up. I don't have any real evidence for this, but I'm totally positive that I'm correct because I currently have a raging hard-on."

(*wank wank wank*)

Speaking of X the movie I watched the first two parts on youtube the other day. It seemed well animated but I wasn't getting into it.

[Qrazy]

Are you allowed to do that in a Pixar thread?

Not in Iowa. *rimshot*

[Sycophant]

MATCH CUT
All discussion will eventually be about masturbation
(or at least erections)

[balmakboor]

Probably the most out of step thing I'll ever say around here:

Cars >>> Up

That's entirely honest though. Cars really connected with me and I thought it was a beautifully told story. The first part of Up also strongly connected with me. But then it withered away into silliness.

[Qrazy]

Probably the most out of step thing I'll ever say around here:

Cars >>> Up

That's entirely honest though. Cars really connected with me and I thought it was a beautifully told story. The first part of Up also strongly connected with me. But then it withered away into silliness.

Talking dogs > Talking cars

[Ezee E]

I'm with balmakboor. I liked Cars more as well. Granted, there isn't a scene in Up that's as awful as the highway scene, but the overall John Ford-small town thing that was going on there really worked for me. I think it's the best looking Pixar movie as well.

[Spinal]

Do you people who like Cars think it's funny? Or do you like it for other reasons? Because that was my main problem. There just wasn't a lot of effective humor in it.

[balmakboor]

Do you people who like Cars think it's funny? Or do you like it for other reasons? Because that was my main problem. There just wasn't a lot of effective humor in it.

I think Ezee put it very well.

For me, Cars is more of a charming and nostalgic trip than it is a funny one. I used to take 101 in California -- the Interstate. Then one time my roommate and I took Hwy 1 along the coastline. Other than car sickness, it was the best road trip ever. Little Mom & Pop restaurants and motels are just so much more charming and inviting than Applebees and Super-8s.

[Winston*]

I just spent most of Cars trying to figure out how the universe could make sense.

[Raiders]

I think Ezee put it very well.

For me, Cars is more of a charming and nostalgic trip than it is a funny one. I used to take 101 in California -- the Interstate. Then one time my roommate and I took Hwy 1 along the coastline. Other than car sickness, it was the best road trip ever. Little Mom & Pop restaurants and motels are just so much more charming and inviting than Applebees and Super-8s.

I haven't seen Cars and it is pretty much for this reason. I do not have this sense of nostalgia nor do I find rural America charming in its simplicity and "wholesomeness" which is the vibe I have always gotten from the film. The values that extend from these parts of the country by-and-large are not my own and unless I found the movie extremely funny, which doesn't seem very likely (especially given the presence of Larry the Cable Guy), I imagine it would be a waste of my time.

[balmakboor]

I just spent most of Cars trying to figure out how the universe could make sense.

Do you mean you turned all philosophical while watching? Or do you mean you couldn't buy into the idea of anthropomorphic cars?

Personally, I just bought right into the movie's universe. Of course, I also grew up on The Love Bug.

[balmakboor]

I haven't seen Cars and it is pretty much for this reason. I do not have this sense of nostalgia nor do I find rural America charming in its simplicity and "wholesomeness" which is the vibe I have always gotten from the film. The values that extend from these parts of the country by-and-large are not my own and unless I found the movie extremely funny, which doesn't seem very likely (especially given the presence of Larry the Cable Guy), I imagine it would be a waste of my time.

Based on this, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that I probably liked Napoleon Dynamite a lot more than you did also. I thought it captured some great truths about the small town milieu.

[Winston*]

Do you mean you turned all philosophical while watching? Or do you mean you couldn't buy into the idea of anthropomorphic cars?

Personally, I just bought right into the movie's universe. Of course, I also grew up on The Love Bug.

I doesn't make sense! How does a car come into being in a universe populated solely by cars? It hurts my mind.

[Spun Lepton]

I doesn't make sense! How does a car come into being in a universe populated solely by cars? It hurts my mind.

Didn't your parents ever talk to you about the mufflers and the tailpipes?

[Derek]

I doesn't make sense! How does a car come into being in a universe populated solely by cars? It hurts my mind.

And why are there car flies?

[Winston*]

I suppose you could go the creationist route for how the cars came about in the first place. But what kind of deity would create a race of beings that have to subside on a substance that has to be actively drilled out of the earth? A stupid car deity that's who.

[BuffaloWilder]

I've never really had much of an attraction toward small towns, myself - purely from experience, having lived in two for six years, altogether. That's probably one source of my distaste for Cars, right there.

[Duncan]

I don't agree with everything in that Sicinski review, but I think the sub-Spielbergian cookie cutter critique is valid. As I mentioned above, the second half felt like Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I suppose Hook is also a decent comparison. Aging man discovers new adventures.

[Watashi]

I can see the Spielbergian comparisons, but not for Kingdom of the Crystal Kingdom? What particular from that Indy film reminded you of Up?

[ledfloyd]

i rewatched cars recently and it dropped to the bottom as far as pixar films go for me. too much potty humor. and if larry the cable guy wasn't intolerable enough to begin with he finds a way to work in some of his catch phrases, which makes it even more annoying. and the film is just too long.

[Ezee E]

Cars isn't at all funny, but neither are most of the Pixar movies really. yet I enjoy most of them.

[dreamdead]

I finally get to see this today. :)

I'm going in fairly optimistically, looking to see how the second act of this compares to Wall-E's....

[Mara]

Cars was just plain bad. There's no way around it.

[Qrazy]

I can see the Spielbergian comparisons, but not for Kingdom of the Crystal Kingdom? What particular from that Indy film reminded you of Up?


Aging man discovers new adventures.

.

[balmakboor]

Isn't "aging man discovers new adventures" more archetypical than merely Spielbergian?

I guess I never felt anything about the film was particularly Spielberg-like -- or at least not any more Spielberg-like than say Miyazaki-like or classic Disney-like or ...

[Qrazy]

Isn't "aging man discovers new adventures" more archetypical than merely Spielbergian?

I guess I never felt anything about the film was particularly Spielberg-like -- or at least not any more Spielberg-like than say Miyazaki-like or classic Disney-like or ...

Just clarifying what I took to be Duncan's meaning.

And yeah I think I agree with you.

[Spinal]

I never thought Pixar would make a film worse than Cars, but a mere three years later, here we have it. Up is a gloomy, humorless, maudlin, coarsely manipulative turkey of a film. A grumpy old man teams up with an irritating boy scout and a slightly moronic dog to find a rare giant bird with an annoying shriek. Oh joy!

The film uses a montage at the beginning to set up the fact that the old man promised his wife that one day they would take an adventure to Paradise Falls. So then he straps a bunch of balloons onto his house so that they will carry him to his destination. So far, so good. Kind of like The Straight Story meet James and the Giant Peach. I can see the possibilities.

But then the film commits a fatal error by skipping right over what should be the most extraordinary part of the story. The journey. Within the film's first half hour, we are already within a couple of miles of the final destination. And while the old man's adventure will eventually become about something other than reaching the Falls, there is no excitement or emotional release to finding that this crazy plan has in fact carried him all the way to South America. It literally happens in an instant.

Instead of documenting adventures in the sky as the flying house slowly makes it way towards its destination, the writers have decided that it would be preferable to follow the old man on the ground as he walks the last part of the way tugging the floating house behind him with a garden hose, an absurd betrayal of any internal logic the film may have had. Now, before I am accused of not being able to suspend disbelief, let me explain. For the sake of a fantastic story, I am willing to believe that enough balloons can rip a house up from its foundation in good enough shape to travel a long distance. But when you tell me that an old man cannot walk up stairs on his own, yet has the strength to stop this same house on his own before it goes careening over a cliff, then you have ceased to make any coherent sense. You are lying to me in an effort to crudely manipulate my emotions. When a man is feeble when you need me to cry, strong when you need me to get swept up in the action, throws out his back when you need me to laugh, is slow or nimble whenever it suits your purposes, then you have failed to create a character that means anything at all to me.

So despite the fact that the balloons were able to rip the house out of the ground and carry it aloft, this little old man is enough to anchor essentially that same weight to the ground (give or take a few balloons that were cut away). And this same man who uses a cane is able to maneuver this bulk through trees without it somehow getting tangled up. Riiiiight.

Maybe this would be forgivable if the film was any fun. But it's not. Apart from the ever present specter of impending death, the film has little in the way of humor unless you are amused by the somewhat desperate convention of 'talking dogs'. It doesn't even have the beautiful visuals that made Cars at the very least tolerable. All in all, a supreme disappointment, a lazy effort, and to be honest, a grating disaster than I hope never to watch again.

Have a nice day.

[Ezee E]

:-)

Well said Spinal.

[Spinal]

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.

Completely agree with this.

[Rowland]

This is the most interesting example of a sizable disparity between Match-Cut and the critical community in some time. I liked the film quite a bit, but I can imagine that some of the elements which bothered me the first time around, most brought up to some degree in this thread, may distract me more upon a second viewing, so I recently lowered my score a few points to borderline-70's. For the record, I too was bothered by the inconsistent character behaviors and over-convenient plot contrivances, including the example cited by Spinal pertaining to the balloon miraculously finding its way to the valley in what appeared to be a few hours. And here's one: how the hell did that kid survive under the porch as the house lifted away, and furthermore, how did he climb atop the porch when there didn't appear to be any means of doing so, especially considering that the kid is established later on with the rope climbing to have no physical ability whatsoever. A bit of nitpicking perhaps, but it bothered me.

[balmakboor]

Man, I still think the only way to like this thing is to find yourself a little head space where nothing after the guy goes into his house and shuts the door is to be taken literally.

[Spinal]

A bit of nitpicking perhaps, but it bothered me.

But the film is riddled with stuff like this.

How about the blazing fire that is put out in seconds by the old man's coat? Cheap manipulation without the effort to come up with a fair resolution. Narrative cheating.

[balmakboor]

I just told my death dream fantasy interpretation to my kids:

My 17-year-old: "Yeah. That makes a lot of sense. It's kind of like this story I read where a guy gets hung and lives a fantasy during the split second while he dies."

My 13-year-old : Got mad at me and said, "Dad. You think too much. Why can't you just let a movie for kids be a fun movie for kids?"

[Rowland]

Yeah, if I had to specify one chief, overriding fault here, it's that the picture wants to have its cake and eat it too, in that it tries hard to establish itself as being firmly grounded in reality, related with means both broad, what with the thematic emphasis on the shadow of death, and minor, such as what I believe may be the first sight of blood in a Pixar movie, while also feeling like the least immediately plausible universe Pixar has realized, what with all the cartoonish antics and internal logic-defying details.

[Spinal]

Another one:

The kid hanging from the hose goes crashing into the cliff face multiple times and then the giant bird is the one who needs medical attention for a gimpy leg? What?

[Raiders]

Yeah, I'll file most of this under the same mental file I saved for "why would a trash-compacting robot have the ability to become self-aware."

[Spinal]

Yeah, I'll file most of this under the same mental file I saved for "why would a trash-compacting robot have the ability to become self-aware."

The "legitimate questions regarding narrative inconsistency" file?

[Spinal]

By the way, Partly Cloudy sucked too.

EDIT: I agree with the criticisms Rowland already laid out.

[Raiders]

I'll file this under the "Grumpy Spinal" mental file.

[Spinal]

I'll file this under the "Grumpy Spinal" mental file.

That's gotta be a pretty big file. :)

[Raiders]

That's gotta be a pretty big file. :)

Indeed. In file size, it is just behind "WTF Sven," "MadMan is lazy" and "Barty = lolwut."

[DavidSeven]

This is the best page of this thread.

I also hated the short.

[Raiders]

I understand the complaints against the film, but I still don't understand the complaints against the short as laid out by Rowland.

[DavidSeven]

I didn't realize Rowland's criticisms tied into the short. I'm just not really a fan of this sort mean-spirited humor especially when the climax is so soft. The narrative was completely flat. What exactly is The Stork trying to acheive? What's his end goal? What's the conflict? Am I just supposed to keep laughing at the different ways he gets hurt for no reason? This was like a lazy version of the Ice Age's Squirrel and Nut "story" sans the nut. Chaplin and Keaton always had a proverbial nut. Presto had a carrot. Here, no nuts; no carrot; just an illogical bird, no laughs, and some nice animation. Doesn't cut it for me.

[Rowland]

Oh, they're referring to criticisms I made several pages back:

"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."

Glad I wasn't the only one bothered by it.

[DavidSeven]

Ah, missed that. Completely agree.

[Raiders]

I didn't realize Rowland's criticisms tied into the short. I'm just not really a fan of this sort mean-spirited humor especially when the climax is so soft. The narrative was completely flat. What exactly is The Stork trying to acheive? What's his end goal? What's the conflict? Am I just supposed to keep laughing at the different ways he gets hurt for no reason? This was like a lazy version of the Ice Age's Squirrel and Nut "story" sans the nut. Chaplin and Keaton always had a proverbial nut. Presto had a carrot. Here, no nuts; no carrot; just an illogical bird, no laughs, and some nice animation. Doesn't cut it for me.

I think the beginning of the short, showing the joy a mother feels when her baby is "delivered" into the world, shows why the stork had his dedication and what his goal to achieve is. We kept expecting him to quit or give up, but then think of all the joy he is robbing those mothers and it makes sense that his ultimate act is one of acceptance. It's not my favorite of theirs, but I think it is nice enough. It's certainly not as awful as Boundin'.

[Spinal]

I think the beginning of the short, showing the joy a mother feels when her baby is "delivered" into the world, shows why the stork had his dedication and what his goal to achieve is. We kept expecting him to quit or give up, but then think of all the joy he is robbing those mothers and it makes sense that his ultimate act is one of acceptance. It's not my favorite of theirs, but I think it is nice enough. It's certainly not as awful as Boundin'.

It would be nice if that was in the film, but I don't really think it is. We don't ever see the stork deliver to the alligator mom or the porcupine mom. We don't see him have any moments where he pauses to think of the mothers. I suppose you can read that in, but I don't think the film is effective in communicating that theme. It's much more effective at showing us a bizarre S and M relationship in which the dominant gets emotional when it appears that his submissive is going to leave him before the submissive returns for more abuse. I mean, I think there's more textual evidence to support that interpretation than there is to support the fact that the film is a touching tribute to the idea that ugly babies are worth loving too.

And I am obliged to say that Boundin' is probably my second favorite short next to Presto.

[number8]

This might be weird, but I didn't care for the short because I am wholly against perpetuating the stork myth to kids. What a dangerous load of crap. Cute enough, though, I suppose.

[Spinal]

This might be weird, but I didn't care for the short because I am wholly against perpetuating the stork myth to kids. What a dangerous load of crap.

Definitely not weird. I was disappointed in that as well. So 1940's.

[number8]

Who came up with it anyway? We didn't have that myth (or "the birds and bees") where I grew up. I learned about it through Merry Melodies cartoons when I was like 10 or 11 and I remember thinking, "WTF is wrong with Americans? Babies are from birds? What?"

[Watashi]

............................

I never want to look at that last page ever again.

[Watashi]

In fact, Raiders, delete that page.

[Watashi]

Just delete every post that is not mine in this thread.

*is really angry right now*

[Sycophant]

Oh, Wats.

Well said, Spinal.

[Watashi]

Oh, Wats.

Well said, Spinal.

No, it's not "Oh, Wats". And don't give me any of this "Well said, Spinal" shit. Don't pat him on the back for this.

I just got back from a hellish 10 hour day at work and saw that the Up thread was updated. I was excited because I knew Spinal saw the film today and that the fact that he hated it made my life worse. It felt like Spinal took a shotgun and shot my dog in the face. That's how it felt. I never get angry over one dude's opinion, but with the time and mood all in place, everything clicked.

[Watashi]

I have read every piece of "criticism" critics have put out (all three of them), and it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make any sense for this film on Match Cut to be so viciously hated on. It's fucking ridiculous.

I don't even know you people any more.

[Ezee E]

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd98/kapatts/tissue.jpg

[Watashi]

Wow. A picture of kleenex. How original. Just like all your posts.

[Ezee E]

I'm only trying to console Wats. Heart-hug.

[MacGuffin]

I have read every piece of "criticism" critics have put out (all three of them), and it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make any sense for this film on Match Cut to be so viciously hated on. It's fucking ridiculous.

I don't even know you people any more.

Hey Wats, didn't you see my posts? I liked it more than I thought I would, and more than most.

[Watashi]

I want to apologize to Spinal if my attitude comes off as childish and dickish, but Match Cut is where I spend most of my time and the only community where I can talk about films seriously and not listen to how much Paul Blart is the pinnacle of cinematic achievement with my co-workers. This is a safe-haven from that world, and I consider Spinal one of the people I connect to most (personality wise or film taste wise), and to have him rip this harmless Pixar film into shreds is like having my best friend stab me in the back and sleep with my wife. It hurts. It really hurts.

I need to sleep now. Maybe I'll feel better in the morning.

[BuffaloWilder]

Wow. A picture of kleenex. How original. Just like all your posts.

You seem to be in need of a Thorazine drip, Doctor.

http://videodetective.com/photos/539/022648_26.jpg

[Watashi]

Hey Wats, didn't you see my posts? I liked it more than I thought I would, and more than most.
Yeah, you, 8, Duncan, and others have all liked it (not saying it's a crime to dislike the film, but I have yet to read one strong criticism for it).

I'm just one of those people that think "Pixar is untouchable" and so on. It's a touchy subject for me.

[MacGuffin]

Yeah, you, 8, Duncan, and others have all liked it (not saying it's a crime to dislike the film, but I have yet to read one strong criticism for it).

I'm just one of those people that think "Pixar is untouchable" and so on. It's a touchy subject for me.

Yeah, Pixar and Studio Ghibli are where it's at as far as animation goes. Outside of that, I'm not entirely knowledgeable (and I'm afraid I'm not too knowledgeable even with those movies, though I've seen all the Pixar movies), but The Triplets of Belleville is pretty great if you haven't watched that. I also like Stan Brakhage's hand-painted movies, but is painting on film strips considered animation? Probably, but not in the context we normal regard "animation" I don't think. Same for those Richard Linklater movies, which I also like a lot.

[Sycophant]

Wats, if it makes you feel better, I'm pretty well alone in my problems with Up in my circle of friends.

[EyesWideOpen]

I had avoided this thread until I saw the movie so 20 or so pages of reading was fun. As far as the short goes easily my favorite Pixar short.

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

I've loved all of them (even Cars and I hate cars & car culture) except for Finding Nemo which I find slighty above average.

[number8]

I know a friend of a friend who hates all Pixar movies and refuses to watch any more of them because they are "not funny."

In retaliation, I have decided to not watch any more Jessica Alba movies because they are "not porn."

[Spinal]

Yikes.

Uh, how about that Brave Little Toaster? That's some awesome shit right there.

[Spinal]

Oh, and Watashi, my son said the film was "awesome" and that he really liked the doberman with the high-pitched voice.

[Watashi]

Then it's official.

Spinal's son > Spinal

[Watashi]

I bet when your son said that Up was awesome, you began to tell him all your criticisms of the film and how illogical it is for an old feeble man can carry a house tied to a garden hose. Your son would then tell you that Pixar doesn't care about logic because they have movies about robots that can fall in love and rats that cook. He'll also mention that the dogs were funny and you don't have a soul.

Today was the day your son became a man.

[ledfloyd]

i don't care that the paradise falls stuff doesn't always adhere to earth-logic. it's called poetic truth.


This might be weird, but I didn't care for the short because I am wholly against perpetuating the stork myth to kids. What a dangerous load of crap. Cute enough, though, I suppose.

i agree 100% i was actually slightly offended by it. i thought we were beyond that.

[Raiders]

It would be nice if that was in the film, but I don't really think it is. We don't ever see the stork deliver to the alligator mom or the porcupine mom. We don't see him have any moments where he pauses to think of the mothers. I suppose you can read that in, but I don't think the film is effective in communicating that theme. It's much more effective at showing us a bizarre S and M relationship in which the dominant gets emotional when it appears that his submissive is going to leave him before the submissive returns for more abuse. I mean, I think there's more textual evidence to support that interpretation than there is to support the fact that the film is a touching tribute to the idea that ugly babies are worth loving too.

Well, right, if they showed upfront all the other moms such as the alligator receiving their baby, then the pan from all the "cute" babies to the not-so-cute babies wouldn't really work. They start out by showing us what happens and then switch to our story about the "misfits" of the baby world, the ones not so cute and cuddly.

I don't know. Guess it was enough for me to understand and appreciate it.

[Qrazy]

Oh, and Watashi, my son said the film was "awesome" and that he really liked the doberman with the high-pitched voice.

I guess it's time I prioritized Johnny Got His Gun. I've had the film for a while now. I also read the book a long time ago and really liked it and I'm also generally a fan of Dalton Trumbo. So yeah.

[Spinal]

I bet when your son said that Up was awesome, you began to tell him all your criticisms of the film and how illogical it is for an old feeble man can carry a house tied to a garden hose. Your son would then tell you that Pixar doesn't care about logic because they have movies about robots that can fall in love and rats that cook. He'll also mention that the dogs were funny and you don't have a soul.

Today was the day your son became a man.

No, I let him feel how he wanted to feel about the film.

[Spinal]

i don't care that the paradise falls stuff doesn't always adhere to earth-logic. it's called poetic truth.


No, it's not. It's poetic dishonesty. As I said in my review, I don't care if a film obeys earth logic. I merely expect to follow the logic that it establishes for itself. The old man's age and feebleness is meaningless because it goes away whenever it is convenient. That's not poetic truth. That's lazy, unimaginative writing.

[Qrazy]

Well, right, if they showed upfront all the other moms such as the alligator receiving their baby, then the pan from all the "cute" babies to the not-so-cute babies wouldn't really work. They start out by showing us what happens and then switch to our story about the "misfits" of the baby world, the ones not so cute and cuddly.

I don't know. Guess it was enough for me to understand and appreciate it.

The major criticisms seem to be a) laughing at the pain of the stork and b) the stork baby story itself. To a) I say, that's a staple of the animation industry/genre (if we can call it that). It's a reasonable criticism on a meta level but only in so far as it is applied to all such films... all Chuck Jones films are thrown under the bus so to speak. To b) the film is just a bit of fluff (clouds) having fun with examining an old myth/story (what happens to the not cuddly babies). It's not propagating the stork/baby myth anymore than any alien movie is claiming aliens exist and are with us or any supernatural film is rooting for the reality of it's relative premise. I mean are you equally mad at all fantasy films and all films dealing with Santa Claus? Why do people find the stork/baby myth particularly onerous?

And Spinal, yeah you're right, the short could also be read in relation to an S & M dynamic. Given that article Wats posted about the sexual ambiguity of Kevin perhaps Pixar is making a statement on S&M relationships such that if the stork enjoys the dynamic, who are we to say he shouldn't engage in it. Then again this reading is imprecise because the cloud is not intentionally causing pain, it does not seem to enjoy watching the Stork get hurt. The cloud is merely doing it's job and the stork experiences pain as a result.

[Spinal]

The major criticisms seem to be a) laughing at the pain of the stork ...

Read DavidSeven's post again. I think he puts it best. It's not that we can't laugh at pain. Of course we can. It's that the film doesn't succeed in making us understand the stakes for the stork. Why is he willing to endure the pain? When Bugs Bunny humiliates Elmer Fudd, we know that it is just desserts for his wanting to kill Bugs in the first place. What is it about the stork's needs/desires that make his pain funny? I'm not sure.



Why do people find the stork/baby myth particularly onerous?

Because it is a lie about sexuality. To be honest, belief in Santa does also make me uncomfortable, but that is such a large part of our culture for young children that it is hard to oppose without seeming like a grinch. Misinformation about sexuality and where babies come from seems to me particularly bothersome.



And Spinal, yeah you're right, the short could also be read in relation to an S & M dynamic. Given that article Wats posted about the sexual ambiguity of Kevin perhaps Pixar is making a statement on S&M relationships such that if the stork enjoys the dynamic, who are we to say he shouldn't engage in it. Then again this reading is imprecise because the cloud is not intentionally causing pain, it does not seem to enjoy watching the Stork get hurt. The cloud is merely doing it's job and the stork experiences pain as a result.

Hee hee. Good point. Although I never meant to say that this was in fact an airtight interpretation of the film. Merely that the film is not in control of its own themes and that there is just as much (if not more) evidence to support this one than there is for one which states that the stork is dedicated to the ugly babies of the world.

[Watashi]

Wait... people thought Partly Cloudly was actually promoting the myth about storks and where babies come from? Uh... what?

[Watashi]

Read DavidSeven's post again. I think he puts it best. It's not that we can't laugh at pain. Of course we can. It's that the film doesn't succeed in making us understand the stakes for the stork. Why is he willing to endure the pain? When Bugs Bunny humiliates Elmer Fudd, we know that it is just desserts for his wanting to kill Bugs in the first place. What is it about the stork's needs/desires that make his pain funny? I'm not sure.


Read Raiders's post again. The stork endures the pain because he thinks even the non-cute and cuddly creatures deserve the same happiness despite their dangerous qualities. Even my 6 year old sister got this message across.

It's probably my favorite short after Lifted.

[Spinal]

Read Raiders's post again. The stork endures the pain because he thinks even the non-cute and cuddly creatures deserve the same happiness despite their dangerous qualities. Even my 6 year old sister got this message across.


Read my response to Raiders again. I mean, we can do this all day. The arguments are laid out there. You and your 6 year old sister are perfectly welcome to disagree.

[Watashi]

Read my response to Raiders again. I mean, we can do this all day. The arguments are laid out there. You and your 6 year old sister are perfectly welcome to disagree.

I've read your arguments and frankly they befuzzle me on how anyone could have came with that conclusion that stork has no goal to obtain and only endures this violence for our petty amusement. It. makes. no. sense.

*brain explodes*

*Watashi runs around yelling insane gestures*

*Watashi dies from insanity*

[Spinal]

I've read your arguments and frankly they befuzzle me on how anyone could have came with that conclusion that stork has no goal to obtain and only endures this violence for our petty amusement. It. makes. no. sense.


The stork may have a goal, but his purpose and the reasons for enduring the cloud's punishment are not clearly defined within the film. This hurts the potential for humor.

It's not just my argument. Others in this thread have agreed with me and articulated the objections better than I have.

[Spinal]

I mean, all you have to do is look at Presto to see a prime example of this sort of thing done well. There is humiliation and pain in that short too. But the conflicting needs of the two main characters are masterfully defined so that when they come into conflict, we know what is at stake and enjoy watching one try to get the edge on the other.

[Mal]

The stork may have a goal, but his purpose and the reasons for enduring the cloud's punishment are not clearly defined within the film. This hurts the potential for humor.

Nah man. That Stork had it coming.

[Spinal]

One of my least favorite cliches is reviewers who say "well, it's not top-shelf Pixar, but it's still better than most other family films."

So I decided to look at my top ten family films of the Pixar era (1995-present) and it looks something like this:

1. Kirikou and the Sorceress
2. The Iron Giant
3. Happy Feet
4. Whisper of the Heart
5. City of Ember
6. The Emperor’s New Groove
7. Wallace and Gromit in the Curse of the Were-Rabbit
8. Princes and Princesses
9. Finding Nemo
10. A Bug’s Life

I am leaving out films like Pirates of the Caribbean and Spider Man 2, as well as the G-rated The Straight Story, which is for adults I'd say.

Speed Racer could have taken one of those bottom two spots, but I think this list is a fairly accurate reflection of my tastes. To be fair, I am also leaving out the exceptional short, Presto.

Point being, hooray for Pixar's track record, but going overboard about their singular contribution to family film making is inaccurate and slightly obnoxious.

[Spinal]

Nah man. That Stork had it coming.

:lol:

[number8]

I don't think you're interpreting the comment right. If it's "most" then it shouldn't be compared to your best ones. It should be compared to the likes of Shrek and G-Force and Dr. Dolittle and Hannah Montana, the likes of which saturate the family film market.

[Ivan Drago]

Wait... people thought Partly Cloudly was actually promoting the myth about storks and where babies come from? Uh... what?

Yes, just like how the guy in that Slashfilm article you posted said that WALL-E date raped EVE.

[Qrazy]

Read DavidSeven's post again. I think he puts it best. It's not that we can't laugh at pain. Of course we can. It's that the film doesn't succeed in making us understand the stakes for the stork. Why is he willing to endure the pain? When Bugs Bunny humiliates Elmer Fudd, we know that it is just desserts for his wanting to kill Bugs in the first place. What is it about the stork's needs/desires that make his pain funny? I'm not sure.

I don't really agree that we laugh because Fudd is getting his just desserts. That might be part of it but there are plenty of those old cartoons where we laugh at someone getting hurt and they didn't deserve it. I watched one the other day of a wolf or something going to teach a class of kids and the kids did the typical dynamite routine with him. He was just trying to be a teacher, didn't really deserve ill treatment.

Cartoons just allow for elaborate slapstick. Falling down now becomes getting stuck with spikes. For instance the comedic antics of Kung Fu Hustle. Well not for instance since KFH is not a cartoon but yeah... same idea in relation to overly violent slapstick.


Because it is a lie about sexuality. To be honest, belief in Santa does also make me uncomfortable, but that is such a large part of our culture for young children that it is hard to oppose without seeming like a grinch. Misinformation about sexuality and where babies come from seems to me particularly bothersome.

Well as a fellow atheist I'm also sort of annoyed by such myths but I'm not that bothered by them in fictional storytelling. However, tangentially I find it interesting how frequently art seems to embrace the supernatural side of things. More often than not in cinema where the question is raised... could a demon, ghost, etc exist? And a little ambiguity is maintained for a while... the story almost always seems to conclude that the thing does exist. And I've found that often stories which opt for the non-mysterious explanation (which as a skeptic in theory I prefer but) tend to be a bit of a let down (excepting Tintin).

[Spinal]

I don't think you're interpreting the comment right. If it's "most" then it shouldn't be compared to your best ones. It should be compared to the likes of Shrek and G-Force and Dr. Dolittle and Hannah Montana, the likes of which saturate the family film market.

But I'm comparing those films to top-tier Pixar, not the lower-tier stuff that the critics are apologists for. So I make even less sense than you thought. Take that!

[Pop Trash]

I pretty much agree that this movie is frustrating because what's good in it is very very good, but then it veers in some overly cutesy, kiddie land world and threatens to become a different movie. Every time it zigs in a direction that makes me do this: :rolleyes: it zags in a new and surprising and often moving way. The oft mentioned wordless montage in the beginning is indeed a mini-masterpiece. I do agree that the way Muntz is eventually handled feels rather shallow and anti-humanist for a production company that is often better than that (think of the way the antagonist Anton Ego is handled in the finale of Ratatouille then think of the way Muntz is handled in the finale of this...no comparison really) Kevin was a little too much for me as were the talking dogs that weren't Dug. Russell was actually an interesting character after awhile, especially his ambiguous background. Did his father leave his family or was he still around but didn't pay much attention to him? Was Russell with a foster parent? Couldn't tell.
It's still a good film but even more frustrating than some of the relatively minor problems I had with Wall-E and Ratatouille. What's more frustrating is I think Pixar is aware of the things they need to do to make their films an all-out masterpiece but they keep blinking and feeling the need to throw some bones to the kids in the audience, less they get bored.

My Pixar rankings (of the ones I've seen):
1. Ratatouille
2. Wall-E
3. Toy Story
4. Toy Story 2
5. Up
6. The Incredibles
7. Finding Nemo

[number8]

Russell was actually an interesting character after awhile, especially his ambiguous background. Did his father leave his family or was he still around but didn't pay much attention to him? Was Russell with a foster parent? Couldn't tell.

No, Russell lives with his real mom (who's at the ceremony at the end), who was abandoned by the dad for another woman. He said everytime he tries to spend time with his dad, Phyllis tells him that he's bugging him. Phyllis is the other woman.

I did like how subtly they revealed that. It took me a minute to get that too.

[Pop Trash]

I should also mention that the flaws in this film probably didn't bother me as much as some because, in general, I'm a big fan of movies that deal with the aging process, seniors, and mortality with some depth and insight. I'm talking about movies like About Schmidt, The Straight Story, Wild Strawberries, Ikiru, Synecdoche, NY, Away From Her, Gran Torino, and, yes, Up, just to name a few.

[Milky Joe]

An absolute delight from start to finish. I couldn't have been more pleased.

[dreamdead]

It's a good enough film. I see some of Spinal's complaints, mostly in terms of narrative shorthand and how Russell operates too much as a plot mechanism and seems to alternate between strong and weak too much (as Rowland states about his climbing up the stairs when he later isn't given the strength).

I wonder if some of these tonal shifts aren't becoming a bit formulaic for Pixar between this and Wall-E. There is the wonderful first act, and then the second becomes far more about getting to the close of the narrative arc, rather than sustaining the delicacy that governs the first acts. It is still interesting as a film, but all the material with the dogs decidedly shifts the tone from the melancholic opening, and it's far less interesting.

Muntz falling, though, feels entirely apropos. Don't see why anyone would demand that he be shown experiencing a less fatal fate, since he has essentially admitted to killing three other trekkers to Paradise Falls and continually threatens their lives.

number8, thanks for clarifying Russell's dynamics between his mom and Phyllis. I didn't catch that, but it makes perfect sense.

[Qrazy]

It's a good enough film. I see some of Spinal's complaints, mostly in terms of narrative shorthand and how Russell operates too much as a plot mechanism and seems to alternate between strong and weak too much (as Rowland states about his climbing up the stairs when he later isn't given the strength).

I wonder if some of these tonal shifts aren't becoming a bit formulaic for Pixar between this and Wall-E. There is the wonderful first act, and then the second becomes far more about getting to the close of the narrative arc, rather than sustaining the delicacy that governs the first acts. It is still interesting as a film, but all the material with the dogs decidedly shifts the tone from the melancholic opening, and it's far less interesting.

Muntz falling, though, feels entirely apropos. Don't see why anyone would demand that he be shown experiencing a less fatal fate, since he has essentially admitted to killing three other trekkers to Paradise Falls and continually threatens their lives.

number8, thanks for clarifying Russell's dynamics between his mom and Phyllis. I didn't catch that, but it makes perfect sense.

The problem could have been handled a few different ways. Muntz could either have been given a different fate or Carl could have had a line of dialogue or at least a look or something, anything at all really, registering the fact that he just manslaughtered someone. The film just kills the guy off and follows that up with ice cream.

[Watashi]

Don't you eat ice cream everytime you kill someone? I know I do.

[thefourthwall]

I really liked it. Possibly more than Wall-E. I certainly cried a lot more in Up, which is some indicator to me. All films are manipulative, so if they do it well, good for them.

I did giggle when in the middle of the film I thought "oh, that'd make an awesome avatar"

the two chairs sitting in the desert

[BuffaloWilder]

I can't be the only guy who wants to see Pixar do something that's really outside of their comfort zone, am I?

[EyesWideOpen]

I can't be the only guy who wants to see Pixar do something that's really outside of their comfort zone, am I?

I think everyone one of their movies has been markedly different with the only real similarity being that their animated.

[Russ]

I should also mention that the flaws in this film probably didn't bother me as much as some because, in general, I'm a big fan of movies that deal with the aging process, seniors, and mortality with some depth and insight. I'm talking about movies like About Schmidt, The Straight Story, Wild Strawberries, Ikiru, Synecdoche, NY, Away From Her, Gran Torino, and, yes, Up, just to name a few.
You should seek out Make Way for Tomorrow, if you haven't already.

Back on-topic, I found Partly Cloudy charming. I was less concerned about the stork's motivations than about his relationship/friendship to the dark cloud and his committment to his profession and how he stuck it out in the face of adversity. In real life, lots of people have dangerous jobs, but they realize the value of their (sometimes unheralded) contributions. It's practically a shout-out to those that take on the most dangerous jobs for the good of society. You could almost draw parallels to the firefighters and policemen of 9/11. Almost.

[Morris Schæffer]

I can't be the only guy who wants to see Pixar do something that's really outside of their comfort zone, am I?

In a way, I felt that Wall-E was considerably outside of their comfort zone, but soon enough the film degenerated into more comfortable shenanigans with lots of oh so cute characters - how does photorealistic Fred Willard transform into cute, rotund Michelin Men? - and an overly frenetic style that's at odds with the remarkable first 45 minutes. And the ending is phony. Hey let's go back to Earth even though it's still a colossal wasteland and nothing has really changed.

[Milky Joe]

I liked the dogs. They were funny.

[Spinal]

Hey let's go back to Earth even though it's still a colossal wasteland and nothing has really changed.

I'm hardly the biggest champion of this movie, but I do think that this part of the ending works well. The implicit message to the audience is "if these lardasses can look at a trashed Earth and find something in it worth saving, then why can't we?" What's changed is that the community has become aware of what they have been missing out on and how far away they've drifted from their core humanity (the simple joy of touching another human being, etc.)

Agree with you that it gets far too cutesy though.

[Qrazy]

I would agree that it would be nice to see Pixar make a completely non-pandering adult film.

[number8]

I couldn't care less either way. My only requirement is that it pleases me.

But, you know, I'm a fan of children's movies and slapstick humor.

[Qrazy]

I think they make excellent, crowd pleasing, well crafted family films but I think they could go beyond this if they wanted to. There isn't nearly enough feature length adult animation out there (and I don't mean sex/violence)... stuff dealing with mature themes in a contemplative manner.

[Sycophant]

What 8 just said made me realize what movie I want so see most of all:

A classic screen villain (a la Snidely Whiplash), says a couple of words (preferrably about foreclosing mortages), then proceeds to comically fall down a long flight of stairs for 75 minutes.

That may very well be my perfect movie.

[Sycophant]

What 8 just said made me realize what movie I want so see most of all:

A classic screen villain (a la Snidely Whiplash), says a couple of words (preferrably about foreclosing mortages), then proceeds to comically fall down a long flight of stairs for 75 minutes.

That may very well be my perfect movie.

Oh my god, I am not even fucking joking. I want this movie to exist.

[Qrazy]

What 8 just said made me realize what movie I want so see most of all:

A classic screen villain (a la Snidely Whiplash), says a couple of words (preferrably about foreclosing mortages), then proceeds to comically fall down a long flight of stairs for 75 minutes.

That may very well be my perfect movie.

lol yeah that's pretty great. Although would you incorporate flashbacks or dream sequences during the fall after particularly nasty bumps on the head in order to spice things up or would it be just an on going fall? You could also build a narrative into the fall like after the first 10 minutes or so he could adjust to his new lifestyle and discover things to do while falling down the stairs or instead there could be other people/objects on the stairs which convey a story... or he could have an internal monologue over the top of the film. Actually while I agree this would make a great feature I think it would be more manageable to create as a short and it would make an excellent short.

[number8]

Oh my god, I am not even fucking joking. I want this movie to exist.

Thanks. I have just incorporated this as a framing device into the movie I'm currently writing. It's exactly what I've been looking for that's missing from it.

[Sycophant]

You'd better get that script made, Arya, or else I'm gonna have to take this into my own hands.

Or maybe we can be like Pixar and Dreamworks and have two movies out at the same time and have them be kind of similar in concept.

[Sycophant]

lol yeah that's pretty great. Although would you incorporate flashbacks or dream sequences during the fall after particularly nasty bumps on the head in order to spice things up or would it be just an on going fall? You could also build a narrative into the fall like after the first 10 minutes or so he could adjust to his new lifestyle and discover things to do while falling down the stairs or instead there could be other people/objects on the stairs which convey a story... or he could have an internal monologue over the top of the film. Actually while I agree this would make a great feature I think it would be more manageable to create as a short and it would make an excellent short.

Alas, you're right about all of that, though in the name of artistic purity, I'm inclined to resist.

Srsly thinking about how to make this actually happen. At least the short version.

[number8]

You'd better get that script made, Arya, or else I'm gonna have to take this into my own hands.

I plan to. If I can save enough money I might go shoot it. It'd be fun.

[Beau]

Did you all just really begin planning the forthcoming shooting of a film about falling down a flight stairs as an off-shoot of a bitter discussion about a film called Up?

[Sycophant]

I plan to. If I can save enough money I might go shoot it. It'd be fun.

Awesome!


Did you all just really begin planning the forthcoming shooting of a film about falling down a flight stairs as an off-shoot of a bitter discussion about a film called Up?

I'd say "Welcome to Match Cut," but you've been here a while, and this doesn't happen that often.

[number8]

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/pixar-up-movie-2468059-home-show?orderby=TimeStampDescendi ng

:sad::sad::sad::sad:

[balmakboor]

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/pixar-up-movie-2468059-home-show?orderby=TimeStampDescendi ng

:sad::sad::sad::sad:

That's quite a story. I lost it when the girl said, “I’m ready (to die), but I’m going to wait for the movie."

[Watashi]

Spinal killed that little girl.

[BuffaloWilder]

Spinal killed that little girl.

Too soon.

[Spinal]

Heartbreaking story. Very cool of Pixar to honor her wish.

[D_Davis]

I read that on Fark this morning, and I guess my allergies must've started acting up because my eyes started watering. Stupid allergies.

[D_Davis]

This might be weird, but I didn't care for the short because I am wholly against perpetuating the stork myth to kids. What a dangerous load of crap. Cute enough, though, I suppose.

It's just a myth or a tall tale - like how the leopard got its spots, or why the giraffe's neck is so long. Just so stories, and that kind of thing. I've never really known any kid who really believed that, nor is the idea of the myth dangerous.

[Russ]

It's just a myth or a tall tale - like how the leopard got its spots, or why the giraffe's neck is so long. Just so stories, and that kind of thing. I've never really known any kid who really believed that, nor is the idea of the myth dangerous.
Yeah, I keep seeing this "dangerous" tag thrown around, wtf? I mean, I saw that shit when I was a little one and, I wasn't stupid, it's simply a tale born of a (much) earlier era's puritanistic values, and even at a very young age I recognized it as such.

Please tell me what the hell's so dangerous about it?

[Amnesiac]

Yeah, I'm really not seeing the danger either. Using that logic, I think I could look back on my childhood and locate a lot of 'dangerous' myths propagated by cartoons and video-games.

[Duncan]

So, since Wats said I liked it above, I just want to clarify that I did indeed like it, but with many reservations. I don't think the second half is very good. Comparisons to the latest Indy film: aging guy with "son" runs through jungle jumping from cliffs, fighting amidst archeological paraphernalia, semi-idiotic henchmen, even the whole blimp thing with the planes (squirrels instead of Connery's birds) and whatnot is very similar to stuff in the Last Crusade. My opinion is that Indiana Jones was a definite influence, and that they took many of the worst components for the second half. I think the first half is very solid filmmaking.

In response to Spinal's criticism about an inconsistent protagonist, I felt that his increasing athleticism was actually pretty true to life. My experience is that the elderly, when forced (and not that I'm putting old folks through manual labour or anything) or even excited by something, will temporarily overcome their physical limitations. Maybe they'll seriously regret it the next day, but I've seen near invalids play soccer with their grandkids. It can happen. Agree about stuff like the fire though. Another one is when they're first fleeing Muntz and Dug gets pushed off a cliff and lands on a ledge. Then, all of a sudden, he has overtaken all these other dogs and is right beside Carl et al.

[Grouchy]

http://www.theultrageeks.com/wordpress25/wp-content/themes/mimbo2.2/images/up3dsmall.jpg

This was an excellent film. Pixar simply continues to grow artistically as well as technically. More than Indiana Jones I was reminded of the Conan Doyle novel The Lost World. Muntz is pretty much a more sinister version of Professor Challenger.

Although it'd only be my third favorite Pixar film (after The Incredibles and WALL-E) I think it has the best realized character arc. I think it's great that Carl's grumpiness is so organic to the character's personality (shy, introvert but a person of strong feelings) instead of just putting on a Walter Matthaw act to contrast with the kid. Also, the early scene where he hits the man with the cane is awesome and a great example of manipulation in the positive sense of the word. Here we are, rooting for this old man who's helpless in the face of big corporations (I loved that the bad guy in this part wasn't "villanous" but totally inhuman, dressed like a Man in Black) and then he does something which we'd love to do but which is in fact really ugly, and he doesn't even apologize - he's scared and he runs back inside to his comfort zone.

I agree with fasozupow that, once the house lifts off into the air, there are definitive details that suggested to me that what we're seeing is only a fantasy on Carl's head attempting to give some meaning to his life. I don't think it's 100% intentional and the closing scenes appear to contradict it, but it's a valid reading. This part of the movie is an adventure, and as such, I don't think some of its fantasy elements really need an explanation. The talking dogs have mechanical collars - that's it. I don't need to think too hard about it, specially since Pete Docter had the good sense to keep them acting like dogs, much like Grant Morrison did with the talking animals in We3. There are also some really nice notes on this part about how nature really works, specially the scene where Doug becomes the Alpha male. The bird, since it appears on the first scene, also didn't seem to me like much of a stretch. And really, since the whole premise of the story is baloons lifting a house all the way from the U.S. to Venezuela, I wouldn't worry too much about it.

Up is just genuinely exciting and heartfelt. A joy to watch, and an unusual story told with enthusiasm and care. It has its somber points (Carl's misanthropy, Russell's family life) and emotional milestones such as the discovery of all the stuff Ellie really did. Maybe the protagonist's change of heart suffers from a excess of symbols (the emptying of the house, the final moments on the plane) but I'm not really all that much of a sucker for subtlety.

Partly Cloudy also bothered me a little with the stork thingy, but the message of the short is that someone has to do the shit work even if it doesn't look nice and that has nothing to do with the actual myth - it just uses it as a story device.

[Derek]

I never thought Pixar would make a film worse than Cars, but a mere three years later, here we have it. Up is a gloomy, humorless, maudlin, coarsely manipulative turkey of a film. A grumpy old man teams up with an irritating boy scout and a slightly moronic dog to find a rare giant bird with an annoying shriek. Oh joy!

The film uses a montage at the beginning to set up the fact that the old man promised his wife that one day they would take an adventure to Paradise Falls. So then he straps a bunch of balloons onto his house so that they will carry him to his destination. So far, so good. Kind of like The Straight Story meet James and the Giant Peach. I can see the possibilities.

But then the film commits a fatal error by skipping right over what should be the most extraordinary part of the story. The journey. Within the film's first half hour, we are already within a couple of miles of the final destination. And while the old man's adventure will eventually become about something other than reaching the Falls, there is no excitement or emotional release to finding that this crazy plan has in fact carried him all the way to South America. It literally happens in an instant.

Instead of documenting adventures in the sky as the flying house slowly makes it way towards its destination, the writers have decided that it would be preferable to follow the old man on the ground as he walks the last part of the way tugging the floating house behind him with a garden hose, an absurd betrayal of any internal logic the film may have had. Now, before I am accused of not being able to suspend disbelief, let me explain. For the sake of a fantastic story, I am willing to believe that enough balloons can rip a house up from its foundation in good enough shape to travel a long distance. But when you tell me that an old man cannot walk up stairs on his own, yet has the strength to stop this same house on his own before it goes careening over a cliff, then you have ceased to make any coherent sense. You are lying to me in an effort to crudely manipulate my emotions. When a man is feeble when you need me to cry, strong when you need me to get swept up in the action, throws out his back when you need me to laugh, is slow or nimble whenever it suits your purposes, then you have failed to create a character that means anything at all to me.

So despite the fact that the balloons were able to rip the house out of the ground and carry it aloft, this little old man is enough to anchor essentially that same weight to the ground (give or take a few balloons that were cut away). And this same man who uses a cane is able to maneuver this bulk through trees without it somehow getting tangled up. Riiiiight.

Maybe this would be forgivable if the film was any fun. But it's not. Apart from the ever present specter of impending death, the film has little in the way of humor unless you are amused by the somewhat desperate convention of 'talking dogs'. It doesn't even have the beautiful visuals that made Cars at the very least tolerable. All in all, a supreme disappointment, a lazy effort, and to be honest, a grating disaster than I hope never to watch again.

Have a nice day.

Spot on. Except the part about it being worse than Cars.

[Watashi]

Spot on. Except the part about it being worse than Cars.
This is bizarro world.

[Watashi]

Seriously, did you have to quote that review again? I read it again and it made me angry.

Thanks a lot, Derek.

[Spinal]

Spot on. Except the part about it being worse than Cars.

Welcome aboard, my fellow pariah.

[Derek]

This is bizarro world.

You like Cars more?

[Milky Joe]

It's amazing, I completely disagree with almost every single word of that review. It seems almost wantonly false. Are you sure you weren't trying to hate this movie, Spinal?

[Watashi]

It's amazing, I completely disagree with almost every single word of that review. It seems almost wantonly false. Are you sure you weren't trying to hate this movie, Spinal?

I think Spinal wanted to like it, but he probably got up on the wrong side of the bed and stepped on his cat or something.


All in all, a supreme disappointment, a lazy effort, and to be honest, a grating disaster than I hope never to watch again.

This is the worst sentence in the history of Spinal's posts. It's like the film offended his deep personal morals and doesn't want to ever hear or see a single frame any more or he will start killing innocent children.

I don't want innocent children to die, Spinal.

[Spinal]

It's amazing, I completely disagree with almost every single word of that review. It seems almost wantonly false. Are you sure you weren't trying to hate this movie, Spinal?

Because ... why? What possible reason could I have to want to hate this film that I took my child to go see? Your post is insulting. You're essentially calling me a liar. I'm not sure why you think that's reasonable.

[Spinal]

This is the worst sentence in the history of Spinal's posts. It's like the film offended his deep personal morals and doesn't want to ever hear or see a single frame any more or he will start killing innocent children.

I was supremely disappointed. I thought it was a lazy, uninspired film, particularly in terms of writing. I thought the characters were grating. I never want to see the film again. Check, check, check and check. It did not offend my morals. Whatever that means. I don't want to kill children. I want them to have a better film to watch.

[Winston*]

Here is your new avatar, Spinal. Wear it.
http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/5757/oldman.jpg

[Sycophant]

Hey Wats, it seems that you've had your fun. This is getting old. Please either start actually discussing the film and engaging its criticisms or just stop.

[Watashi]

Hey Wats, it seems that you've had your fun. This is getting old. Please either start actually discussing the film and engaging its criticisms or just stop.
Thanks, but no.

Spinal's criticisms is that he can't suspend his disbelief of how an old man can carry a house on his back, even though it's supposed to be played off as allegory and not literal reality within the film (like Raiders said, this goes with how can a robot be self-aware on how to love? WALL-E's reality is our reality is it not?). Both films are science fiction. I can suspend my disbelief that this old man can do these things because that's the way he's written. But judging from Spinal's first paragraph complaining about an "irritating boy scout", a "moronic dog" and a rare bird with an "annoying shriek", it looks like he had his sights set from the start. I can't really discuss the film beyond "okay, but I found it fun".

Spinal's Up is a lot different from Pete Docter's Up. Spinal's Up wanted the journey to be Carl's point A to point B balloon ride but in Docter's Up, the journey was not a physical one, but an emotional one that many people (on this site too) felt very deeply. I can't argue Spinal's criticisms because he doesn't leave anything open to rebuttal. He hates the old man, the kid, the dog, the bird, the villain. Hell, he even hated the short. I haven't discussed the film with him because it's pointless. So yes, sycophant, I know that your opinion of the film has lowered and you keep reminding me of this by complimenting other negative reviews, so please... I'll gladly stop when you stop.

[Watashi]

And I have been discussing this film to death all over the thread. I have been giving my analysis throughout. Not all my posts are self-congratulating Pixar masturbation.

[Derek]

Are you sure you weren't trying to hate this movie, Spinal?


it looks like he had his sights set from the start.

I'll just echo Spinal's thoughts of how tired and insulting comments like these are whenever someone goes against the grain on a widely loved film!? Why would Spinal go in wanting to hate this movie? Perhaps you could make a legitimate claim that someone like Heilman, who hates everything Pixar, went in with a pre-determined negative response or, oh say, Wats went in pre-determined to have a positive response, but that is only because there's a wide range of history to actually back up such a claim. It's not even worth arguing because it's such a stupid and pretentious thing to say and it suggests that no one could watch the film with their critical faculties intact and come to a different conclusion than you.


And Wats, if it does make you feel better, I really didn't dislike the film overall nearly as much as Spinal. Parts of the first half worked well for me, but I felt it went off the tracks a bit too much once the bird became a major element of the plot. I would not be averse to seeing it again and I have no intention of slapping any member of your family.

[Milky Joe]

I was being like 85% facetious with that comment, Spinal, just to convey how deeply I disagreed with you. No insult was desired nor intended.

[ledfloyd]

spinal's reaction to up is similar to my reaction to finding nemo. as far as finding the main sources of comic relief annoying, therefore not finding the film fun so the minor things stick out to the point that they impede my ability to enjoy the film.

i don't agree with him. i thought kevin and russel were hilarious, and dug was pretty funny. but i understand where he's coming from, cause i have trouble conceiving how anyone could find dory or the turtles funny in nemo.

[Watashi]

The Rescuers Down Under **
The Rescuers ***1/2

If there is one thing wrong in this thread, it's this.

The Rescuers is one of Disney's worst films, while Down Under is a masterpiece.

[Watashi]

I don't think Spinal wanted to hate the film from the start. My comment was in regards to that the fact that he seemed grumpy to begin with and couldn't find one redeeming aspect in the film outside of the already universally praised opening montage. His comments did not sound like meager disappointment as he stated, but hatred of a film that I thought couldn't be hated. Spinal is known to go against highly loved films (Star Trek and The Wrestler to name a recent few), and I know he didn't go in expecting to hate those as well.

[Watashi]

I just find it odd that Up is the biggest split between MC posters and critics/bloggers ever. A 98% with 200 plus reviews out is insane for a big summer film like this and just on a low trafficked board like Match Cut, I can count some "rotten" reviews on more than one hand.

[Watashi]

Well, I haven't checked the tomatometer in awhile so it looks like its down to 97%.

MC's own Rob Humanick gave it a negative review.

[Ezee E]

With a good-numbered people here all not liking it for similar reasons, I'd say Spinal isn't just being Spinal or anything.

[ledfloyd]

If there is one thing wrong in this thread, it's this.

The Rescuers is one of Disney's worst films, while Down Under is a masterpiece.
The Rescuers is a blast, Down Under seems more like Indiana Jones with mice than anything else.

[Watashi]

Hmmm... Rob also didn't like WALL-E... yet he called Paul Blart "It's only almost the making of a comedy classic". Hmmmm. :|

[Ezee E]

I don't remember a thing about The Rescuers, but even now, I'd still watch The Rescuers Down Under. Definitely the better of the two.

[Watashi]

The Rescuers is a blast, Down Under seems more like Indiana Jones with mice than anything else.

You people and your comparing stuff to Indiana Jones like its a bad thing.

Down Under is a blast. You have Marahute's flight, George C. Scott, Johanna, Frank, and the great animation of Australia.

[number8]

This thread stopped being fun. I guess I'm done with this movie now.

[Spinal]

With a good-numbered people here all not liking it for similar reasons, I'd say Spinal isn't just being Spinal or anything.

Yeah, you know how many different people have repped my comments on this film? Four.

[Watashi]

Only 3 people have repped me. :sad:

[Spinal]

MC's own Rob Humanick gave it a negative review.

Who cares? Dennis Cozzalio is the only critic that matters.

[Spinal]

Just read Humanick's review and it's a real stretch to call it negative. He felt let down by the ending, but he calls the first hour "assured and breathtaking", says that Carl's life story "ranks with WALL-E’s first half as Pixar’s finest moment to date", and says that the interaction between Carl and Russell are "inflective and revealing, touching on the film’s themes of spiritual comfort." Maybe it's a little mixed, but it's a definite lean towards the positive side.

[Fezzik]

The Rescuers is a blast, Down Under seems more like Indiana Jones with mice than anything else.

I liked Down Under well enough, but I feel The Rescuers is incredibly underappreciated. Sure, it shows some of the earmarks of Disney's troubled 1970s era, but it's a smaller story with an incredible amount of charm - a lot of it due to Newhart and Gabor. I find Penny to be a very sweet character, and the film also has one of my favorite songs from a Disney film, Someone's Waiting For You.

As for this thread...

Wats, I agree with you about the film - and I'm an unabashed Pixar fanboy like you are, but...I also have to agree with Sycophant in that your posts are becoming more sanctimonious and aggressive.

Spinal (and others) don't like the film. They've even given their reasons. Let it go.

[Qrazy]

It doesn't really matter. Aleksei German's new film is the only thing that has any importance in life anyway.

[Boner M]

People should just stop watching Pixar movies and start watching the movies that only I watch. I feel lonely.

[Grouchy]

Yeah, you know how many different people have repped my comments on this film? Four.
Whoa. I'm impressed.

NOT.

[Dukefrukem]

I was supremely disappointed. I thought it was a lazy, uninspired film, particularly in terms of writing. I thought the characters were grating. I never want to see the film again. Check, check, check and check. It did not offend my morals. Whatever that means. I don't want to kill children. I want them to have a better film to watch.

Maybe he was referring to your; "to be honest" line? Are you saying you've never been honest on these forums before but only in this UP discussion?

[Qrazy]

People should just stop watching Pixar movies and start watching the movies that only I watch. I feel lonely.

What's the best Garrel film and/or entry point.

[Qrazy]

Maybe he was referring to your; "to be honest" line? Are you saying you've never been honest on these forums before but only in this UP discussion?

I think he meant he was literally being honest. Literal honesty is the most like serious kind.

[Spinal]

Whoa. I'm impressed.

NOT.

Ah, good one, Garth.

I mentioned that not to impress you, but to let Wats and others know they can stop treating me like I'm out on a limb and making stuff up. There are actually quite a few people here who found the film disappointing.

[Boner M]

What's the best Garrel film and/or entry point.
I'd start with Not Really a Qrazy Kinda Guy, and then move onto Who Cares You'll Hate Him Anyway, and if all else fails, Stick With Your Current List, Aight?

I dunno, I've only seen 3 of his, but I'd say Regular Lovers is the best starting point out of those ones. Be warned, he has a Warhol-ish sensibility about him, albeit he's more attuned to the idea of duration used as a poetic tool rather than a pissing-you-off device.

[Qrazy]

I'd start with Not Really a Qrazy Kinda Guy, and then move onto Who Cares You'll Hate Him Anyway, and if all else fails, Stick With Your Current List, Aight?

I dunno, I've only seen 3 of his, but I'd say Regular Lovers is the best starting point out of those ones. Be warned, he has a Warhol-ish sensibility about him, albeit he's more attuned to the idea of duration used as a poetic tool rather than a pissing-you-off device.

So much anger.