UP (Pixar, 2009)

[Grouchy]

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.
I still think you mentioned it just to impress me.

[Spinal]

I still think you mentioned it just to impress me.

All right. I admit it.

[number8]

Well, it certainly impressed me.

[DavidSeven]

Guys, I disliked this film like 10 days before Spinal!

:cool:

[Watashi]

Guys, I disliked this film like 10 days before Spinal!

:cool:
Who are you again?

[Dead & Messed Up]

I'm going to see this tonight.

Yay.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I really enjoyed it. I understand Spinal's complaint about how the reality shifts at times. It's odd to see the banality of retirement homes and real estate developers subsumed by the extraordinary sights of dogs in planes and old men lugging houses behind them, as dogged and tragic as Sisyphus rolling his rock.

But I thought that was the entire point of the picture. Spirit of adventure! Seize the day! Things got colorful and joyous and whimsical, and I will never have a problem with a film that encourages such a message to children. The film's called Up, for crying out loud! The entire point is that it ascends from one level of reality to another.

That's why, while I don't agree, I think some of the posters here are on the right track by considering the story a figment of Carl's imagination. It's not, but it's supposed to embody the power of imagination and positive thinking and optimism. I loved how the house at first symbolized this, but then its presence grew more and more troubling. Not surprisingly, the house becomes the most banal image when they reach Paradise Falls.

I do like the suggestion that Muntz not be a villain, if only because I found his shotgun-toting rage lacking. It reminded me too clearly of Disney Villains like Gaston and Clayton, but those characters' descents into villainy were more convincing. Not surprisingly, those two characters also fell to their deaths.

One thing that surprised me was how dominant a character Russell became during the second act. Much of that time, Carl was basically following Russell. I can't say I loved that - one of the main draws of the film, for me, was the prospect of an old fogey dominating the narrative. There are a couple of times where he's struggling to catch up.

Overall, though, I was intensely satisfied. The dogs were charming, the adventure was bright and inviting, the animation was superb. A few small caveats don't change the fact that this is great fun.

PS: Partly Cloudy was okay. It's no Presto.

And, for kicks:


Finding Nemo
Toy Story 2
Wall-E
Toy Story
The Incredibles
Up
Ratatouille
Cars

[Spinal]

The film's called Up, for crying out loud! The entire point is that it ascends from one level of reality to another.


That sounds like an interesting idea, but does the film really do this? I'm skeptical. Maybe the step from living in the house to floating in the air is an ascension, not only literally, but from one level of reality to another. But beyond that, I don't think the film gives us a vision of heightened reality that is coherent or as structured as you suggest. I think of Satoshi Kon films or upper-tier Miyazaki and this film does not approach their level of wonder and atmosphere. We spend too much time on the ground with second-rate comic relief antics. Too much time setting up a conventional showdown with an antagonist that is only tenuously connected to the main character. Too much time engineering an emotional response. What are these levels of reality? Because I'm only seeing 'the real world' and 'the real world where we fudge the laws of physics a bit'.

[Dukefrukem]

Well, it certainly impressed me.

I thought you were done with this thread. ;)

[Dead & Messed Up]

That sounds like an interesting idea, but does the film really do this? I'm skeptical. Maybe the step from living in the house to floating in the air is an ascension, not only literally, but from one level of reality to another. But beyond that, I don't think the film gives us a vision of heightened reality that is coherent or as structured as you suggest. I think of Satoshi Kon films or upper-tier Miyazaki and this film does not approach their level of wonder and atmosphere.

I haven't seen any Satoshi Kon, and I've only seen a few Miyazakis, so I can't directly compare them to Up.


We spend too much time on the ground with second-rate comic relief antics.

Honestly, I'd consider the comic relief first rate. I adored the opportunity to learn what dogs thought, and Alpha's broken voicebox brought me an almost unfair amount of pleasure.


Too much time setting up a conventional showdown with an antagonist that is only tenuously connected to the main character.

I'd agree that the showdown is conventional, but I like the idea of Carl not only battling Muntz, but what Muntz represents: someone lost in the adventure, their eyes too set on the prize to see the wonder and joy of the place they're in. Carl goes through that himself by harumphing his way across the plateau.

But as I said, it'd be nice if the filmmakers offered Muntz a more humane way out, either through self-revelation or, at least, surviving.


What are these levels of reality? Because I'm only seeing 'the real world' and 'the real world where we fudge the laws of physics a bit'.

I figure that once they make their way through the storm and wind up in Paradise Falls, the film's lept from "banality" into "adventure."

Still, I felt like Carl wasn't some superman (re: his ability to pull the house).
Logically, if there's no friction, it's shouldn't be difficult to pull the house. Should it? Now my physics classes are coming back to haunt me. :)

I'll certainly concede that a few more moments at the expense of his age wouldn't hurt.

[Grouchy]

I honestly don't understand why you guys are so dead set on Muntz surviving. I thought it was pretty clear he regularly killed people who arrived at the Falls, so it's not like it's, like, too sadistic to off him at the end.

[Derek]

Honestly, I'd consider the comic relief first rate. I adored the opportunity to learn what dogs thought

It made for a few chuckles, but you make it sound like it revealed a side of dogs we didn't know before. Oh, they're easily distracted and enjoy pleasing their masters. Thank goodness the film has Dug and others remind us of this a dozen times.


and Alpha's broken voicebox brought me an almost unfair amount of pleasure.

Because he's big and fierce and the voice is small and squeaky? Meh, that's one small step up from the farting tractors in Cars.

[Spinal]

Logically, if there's no friction, it's shouldn't be difficult to pull the house. Should it? Now my physics classes are coming back to haunt me. :)


I mostly object to him being able to slow the house's momentum and anchor it when it was hurtling over the cliff. I think it's also silly to think that he would be able to walk through trees.

[Spinal]

Because he's big and fierce and the voice is small and squeaky? Meh, that's one small step up from the farting tractors in Cars.

I thought it was a decent gag, but they tried to get way too much mileage out of it.

[Dead & Messed Up]

It made for a few chuckles, but you make it sound like it revealed a side of dogs we didn't know before. Oh, they're easily distracted and enjoy pleasing their masters. Thank goodness the film has Dug and others remind us of this a dozen times.

Sorry. That wasn't my intention. I just wanted to point out how much fun it was. Compared to the other films with talking dogs, I thought this one's execution was pretty much tops.

And almost every time they got distracted, I got a chuckle. "Point!"


Because he's big and fierce and the voice is small and squeaky? Meh, that's one small step up from the farting tractors in Cars.

I never said it was intellectual. Just that it made me laugh. And it did. Frequently. Surely you've witnessed jokes that slide past your defenses and make you laugh?

As soon as the voicebox was fixed, I knew that it was going to be broken again, likely at a vital moment in the story. And when that moment occurred, and it broke, I still laughed. I laughed hard.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Also, one comment I forgot to make: the 3D was unimpressive. I took off my glasses a few times, when the planes of vision matched and the image was clear, and I felt no sense of greater or lesser "immersion."

I'm sticking to my guns. Screw 3D.

[Spinal]

The 3D was much more impressive in both Coraline and Monsters vs. Aliens.

[Dead & Messed Up]

The 3D was much more impressive in both Coraline and Monsters vs. Aliens.

Coraline did have a couple good moments, yeah. But not enough that the thing feels like anything more than a gimmick.

[Spinal]

Coraline did have a couple good moments, yeah. But not enough that the thing feels like anything more than a gimmick.

Hmmm ... I'll respectfully disagree. I thought it was well integrated. The opposite of gimmicky.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Hmmm ... I'll respectfully disagree. I thought it was well integrated. The opposite of gimmicky.

I respect your disagreement.

[Spinal]

I respect your disagreement.

:pritch:

I've had so much disrespectful disagreement lately.

[Fezzik]

Hmmm ... I'll respectfully disagree. I thought it was well integrated. The opposite of gimmicky.

I agree with Spinal on this one. I felt the 3D in Coraline was wonderfully used. There were very few "ha! stuff is coming at you" moments. The rest made the movie feel like a living diorama. I loved that.

[Ezee E]

The 3D in Coraline made the movie more enjoyable. The use of it as the world was imagined. The look through the windows.

I can't say that I remember any particular 3D moments in Up really.

[KK2.0]

The 3D was much more impressive in both Coraline and Monsters vs. Aliens.

Beowulf remains my favorite use of 3D so far, and i watched it at a conventional theater while Monsters vs Aliens was fakeIMAX(tm).

I guess it's because Beowulf's set pieces were conceived with 3D in mind from the start, while most animations add the effect later for visual candy only.

i still need to watch Coraline but unfortunately it will be on DVD. :|

[megladon8]

Wonderful. Just wonderful.

Best film of the year so far.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Well. Better than Cars, but not by much. Consider me underwhelmed. Weak villain, inconsistent protagonist, underdeveloped drama (though I seem to be the only one who thought so in our theater, judging by all the sniffling), and kind of an inane story with some pretty blunt metaphors. Had some decent laughs, Doug was cute at times, annoying after awhile, montage was really well done to kick things off. My seven year old thought it was hilarious, though they did a poor job developing a sense of danger, as he was laughing at Russel no matter what his circumstances, and he's usually in tune to when characters are in danger and shouldn't necessarily be the butt of a joke. This was the first movie my three year old saw in a theater. He wasn't thrilled. First off, thirty minutes of previews and commercials. He was ready to leave before the movie started. Second, he's deathly afraid of birds and dogs. :|

Anyway, this was a disappointment. If it hadn't been for Cars, this would be the worst Pixar film I've seen. Didn't particularly care for the short either. Not sure it had a purpose, though I'd be willing to listen to arguments.

[balmakboor]

I may be having a Pixar backlash moment, but I don't think they've ever improved upon the first Toy Story for sheer entertainment perfection. I think that The Incredibles, Wall-E, and Up are all big steps downward and all, I'll say it again, have severe second act problems after brilliant first acts.

I think Pixar needs an injection of new minds into their story department.

[Sven]

This movie is very weak. It has grace moments strewn about, but none of them have to do with the narrative, which is shockingly stupid. Will catch up on the thread and perhaps add my own thoughts, if they haven't been covered by others who write better than myself. But basically, I laughed at the dogs and the little boy because they were stupid, noble creatures. And cantankerous old man grumbling always amuses me. But this is not a very good movie.

[Watashi]

So.... I bet you are all expecting me to flip out on these recent posts, but I won't. I'm over it. I'll just simply classify it as a "screw loose" in the Match Cut era and move on. :)

I can relax and look at the 97% tomatometer and 88 Metacritic score to comfort me in these dark times.

[Kurosawa Fan]

To be honest Wats, I never expected you to flip out the first time. I'm constantly amazed at how seriously you take Pixar.

[Ezee E]

http://seattlest.com/attachments/seattle_audrey/hulk.jpg

[Sven]

So.... I bet you are all expecting me to flip out on these recent posts, but I won't.

Yeah. Gotta say, I really don't care about your feelings one way or the other. I mean, I know you like them, but my reaction was not posted with any kind of response in mind, let alone from you.

Please, take a step back, re-evaluate your allegiances, note those that give in proportion to your own input, and see where you end up.

[MadMan]

Wats wears extremely stretchy pants? I had no idea :P

[Watashi]

Yeah. Gotta say, I really don't care about your feelings one way or the other. I mean, I know you like them, but my reaction was not posted with any kind of response in mind, let alone from you.

I know you weren't baiting me so I didn't bother to respond.


Please, take a step back, re-evaluate your allegiances, note those that give in proportion to your own input, and see where you end up.

*steps back*

*re-evaluates*

Yeah, I still love the movie and you're still a bunch of loonies. :)

[megladon8]

This movie definitely made me pee out of my eyes a few times.

[BuffaloWilder]

To be honest Wats, I never expected you to flip out the first time. I'm constantly amazed at how seriously you take Pixar.

"No artist takes their work as seriously as their fans do. We can, in fact, laugh at ourselves."
- someone who's probably famous whose name I can't recall

[BuffaloWilder]

This movie definitely made me pee out of my eyes a few times.

That's usually a sign of cancer, you know.

[MadMan]

I was brought to tears a few times, yes. And I also thought the movie was pretty damn great. Can't say whether or not its the best of the year, as I've only seen six 2009 movies so far.

[Spinal]

To be honest Wats, I never expected you to flip out the first time. I'm constantly amazed at how seriously you take Pixar.

I'm more amazed by how seriously he takes Match Cut.

[Sycophant]

I'm more amazed by how seriously he takes Match Cut.

Wait, who are we talking about now?

[KK2.0]

Late to the party as usual, movie finally opened in my country and i went with lowered expectations after both match-cut and a friend (which is a Pixar fan) stated their disappointments.

I agree with the criticism that after the touching (daring even) opening, the rest of the movie doesn't quite match, the script is pretty predictable, but i couldn´t help but love everything else. The main characters are so damn charming, loved their dynamics, the weakest link being the villain.

Wonder how well it will hold after a second view.

[Grouchy]

This movie just opened in Brazil? Wow.

By the way, my friend from Sao Paolo has just returned there yesterday after three and a half years over here and our Brazil-Colombia trip. I gave him a copy of El Eternauta to catch up with Argentinian comics while abroad.

[Boner M]

This is probably Pixar's most narratively desultory film yet (Cars nonwithstanding, which I'll likely never see), but it's just so likeably eccentric that I don't care. Plus, the less-than-disciplined storytelling actually kinda benefits the 'life should be an adventure rather than an itinerary' message. Has "It is funny because the squirrel gets dead" been quoted to death already? I don't care, because I'm quoting it again.

[angrycinephile]

I finally saw this a few days ago. Wonderful film. I would put it above Wall-E but behind Ratatouille if we shall compare it to Pixar's recent films.

I need to get Michael Giacchino's score.

[Morris Schæffer]

Thought the movie was acceptable, but here are some really cool Art deco posters to celebrate the release of the DVD and Blu-Ray:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/42946

[megladon8]

This is pretty cool.

"Upular" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVxe5NIABsI) - a piece of music composed entirely with sound clips from the movie.

[Mysterious Dude]

The most disappointing thing about this movie, for me, was the dog. I thought he looked really fun in the trailer because it seemed like the collar was saying things that I would expect a dog to actually say if it could talk ("Squirrel!" "I hid under the porch because I love you."), but I think those were the highlights. He seemed like a pretty standard cartoon dog in the movie.

This is kinda nitpicking, but I wondered how the dogs could understand each other. Did the collars also give them the ability to comprehend human speech?

Also, I wish they had introduced the malfunctioning collar on the Alpha dog a little later, instead of at his first appearance. I was never able to take him seriously as a villain.

All in all, I found the film a lot more "cartoony" than I have come to expect from Pixar.

[MadMan]

I like that the villian wasn't even that important, really. After seeing 23 movies on the year, this is still my #1.

Also after the rather serious second half, where the main characters are actually in serious danger, coupled with the amazing and highly effective first 20 minutes, I'm hoping this results in Pixar creating movies for much older audiences. Even though its unlikely considering how much money than rank in from families, I would like to see them make a movie solely for adults.

[Skitch]

FINALLY got to see this. Lot of fun, hilarious.

...although it never topped this:

Old Man: "Get outta here!"

Bird: "Wha wha wha!"

I pretty much missed the rest of the movie, I was couldn't see through the tears. Everytime I thought I would be all right, I'd see that DAMN BIRD would go "wha wha wha" and I'd lose it again. So funny!

[Beau]

I gave him a copy of El Eternauta to catch up with Argentinian comics while abroad.

Hilarious. It's like giving somebody Casablanca to catch up with American cinema. He has a long way to go!

So do I, though. Should finish Mort Cinder, at least. And Parque Chas. I think I have Sherlock Time somewhere.

[Morris Schæffer]

I like that the villian wasn't even that important, really. After seeing 23 movies on the year, this is still my #1.

I'd use the term "half-assed." But what bothers me is just how lazy and facile the script really is. If the old man has been looking for his precious bird for what must surely be around 4 decades, it isn't particularly convincing that a kid manages to do it within minutes...because he's holding a candy bar.

And why is the old man even the villain? Why not ask Carl, who worships Muntz anyway, to help him clear his name?


Also after the rather serious second half, where the main characters are actually in serious danger, coupled with the amazing and highly effective first 20 minutes, I'm hoping this results in Pixar creating movies for much older audiences. Even though its unlikely considering how much money than rank in from families, I would like to see them make a movie solely for adults.

"Danger" without an ounce of danger, thrills or sense of jeopardy. How can you have zeppelins and biplanes and make it so boring?

Pixar is beginning to repeat itself with movies that start out fairly maturely, but then eventually become victim to commerce and rampant cuteness.

But yeah, I would like to see them go all the way for once.

[Mysterious Dude]

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


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

And just because its animated....
I know these posts are old, but I kind of want to address this. Don't those 'kid' elements of the film make it somewhat less of a film for adults? I mean, if you added a talking dog and a giant bird to, say, There Will Be Blood, wouldn't that kind of cheapen the experience?

[Fezzik]

I know these posts are old, but I kind of want to address this. Don't those 'kid' elements of the film make it somewhat less of a film for adults? I mean, if you added a talking dog and a giant bird to, say, There Will Be Blood, wouldn't that kind of cheapen the experience?

Thematically, it still resonates more for Adults.

So did Finding Nemo. It's central theme was about a parent needing to learn to let go and let his kid grow. That's not something a kid is going to latch on to.

Some of the more fanciful elements simply made it appeal to a wider audience. And "adult" doesn't always have to mean "serious."

Its part of the wall that American animation has been fighting to get over for a while now. A lot of people have it set into their heads that if a movie is animated, and its not "cute" or hilarious, then it sucks.

Ratatouille and Wall*E are perfect examples of this. They had, probably, the fewest of what you would call "childish" elements in them, and most people I know found them boring.

Their loss, but what Pixar is trying to do - I think - is what car companies do. Each year their model changes slightly so that eventually, when they release the brand new "look" people won't be so jarred by it.

Eventually, Pixar will be able to safely release a true animated drama and nobody will bat an eye. That time just isn't now.

[Ezee E]

I know these posts are old, but I kind of want to address this. Don't those 'kid' elements of the film make it somewhat less of a film for adults? I mean, if you added a talking dog and a giant bird to, say, There Will Be Blood, wouldn't that kind of cheapen the experience?
Thank you.

[number8]

Wha? Why would you add a talking dog and a giant bird to There Will Be Blood? It doesn't make much sense to add clearly comedic elements to that film.

[Sycophant]

I've gotta say, most adult-oriented comedies would probably benefit from giant birds and talking dogs.

[Mysterious Dude]

Wha? Why would you add a talking dog and a giant bird to There Will Be Blood? It doesn't make much sense to add clearly comedic elements to that film.
It's a hypothetical. I have seen the argument "Up is a film for adults, apart from the dog and the bird," but you can't remove the dog and the bird without changing the film, anymore than you can add them to another film without changing that film.

[number8]

Well, I agree. You don't need to remove the dog and the bird to consider Up an adult film.

[Sycophant]

And my distaste for Up has nothing to do with whether or not it's an "adult" film.

[Winston*]

I think if you remove the second two acts you've got a short for adults and if you remove the first act you've got a film for children. Other Pixar films managed to weave it better.

[number8]

I think if you remove everything but the milkshake line There Will Be Blood is the most laugh-out-loud family-pleasing comedy of the year.

[Morris Schæffer]

I think if you remove everything but the milkshake line There Will Be Blood is the most laugh-out-loud family-pleasing comedy of the year.

Didn't it have sheep in one shot? It has a horse too. A bunch of them if I recall correctly and I think I do.

[MadMan]

I'd use the term "half-assed." But what bothers me is just how lazy and facile the script really is. If the old man has been looking for his precious bird for what must surely be around 4 decades, it isn't particularly convincing that a kid manages to do it within minutes...because he's holding a candy bar.Cause kids got the magic touch? I fail to see how this is a problem, actually, and it feels like your nitpicking.


And why is the old man even the villain? Why not ask Carl, who worships Muntz anyway, to help him clear his name?Maybe you weren't paying attention. The Old Man was paranoid that Carl was after his bird, which is why he killed all of those other people. He had an obession, just like Carl did. The difference being that Carl was able to let his go in the end. This was previously stated in the thread somewhere. I thought it was obvious.


"Danger" without an ounce of danger, thrills or sense of jeopardy. How can you have zeppelins and biplanes and make it so boring?Really? I thought there was plenty of danger with danger (WTF is that even supposed to mean?), and the action elements were quite thrilling. I have no idea now what you were even looking for.


Pixar is beginning to repeat itself with movies that start out fairly maturely, but then eventually become victim to commerce and rampant cuteness.Since 2006, I've only seen Up and Rattatoile (I'm not looking up the goddamn title), so I can't say for sure which direction they are going. Toy Story 3 looks like a step back since its a sequel, but I bet it will be good. I don't think they are repeating themselves if Up is any indication.


But yeah, I would like to see them go all the way for once.Maybe they will.

[Sycophant]

MadMan, you seem awful angry lately.

[MadMan]

MadMan, you seem awful angry lately.Nah. What I found fault with Morris's post is not that he didn't like the movie. I'll admit that Wats and I probably among the few who found this movie to be great (and I wonder if even Wats has this as his #1 of the year like I do, for the time being). Rather, I was annoyed by what his criticisms were.

[Sycophant]

Nah. What I found fault with Morris's post is not that he didn't like the movie. I'll admit that Wats and I probably among the few who found this movie to be great (and I wonder if even Wats has this as his #1 of the year like I do, for the time being). Rather, I was annoyed by what his criticisms were.

Not just here, man. You seem so irritable and pissed in so many of your posts.

I'm worried about you.

[Morris Schæffer]

Everything in Up can be explained, reasoned away, but for my money, there's a lack of depth, nuance, and ambition in the screenplay.


Since 2006, I've only seen Up and Rattatoile (I'm not looking up the goddamn title), so I can't say for sure which direction they are going. Toy Story 3 looks like a step back since its a sequel, but I bet it will be good. I don't think they are repeating themselves if Up is any indication.

Ratatouille and The Incredibles weren't problems for me, but since Wall-E's, oh let's say 46th minute, I've perceived a lack of ambition/depth in the screenplays.

But MadMan, you've always been one of my fave goddamn posters.:)

[Dead & Messed Up]

Since 2006, I've only seen Up and Rattatoile (I'm not looking up the goddamn title), so I can't say for sure which direction they are going.

Madman, you know I like you, but why wouldn't you take three seconds to open a new window and look up the spelling of Ratatouille? I mean, that's not even laziness, because you make a point of explaining your poor spelling, which requires a loosely equal amount of time and effort. It's...I don't know what it is.

:|

[Qrazy]

Madman, you know I like you, but why wouldn't you take three seconds to open a new window and look up the spelling of Ratatouille? I mean, that's not even laziness, because you make a point of explaining your poor spelling, which requires a loosely equal amount of time and effort. It's...I don't know what it is.

:|

Proactive laziness?

[BuffaloWilder]

"Oh, they have to tone it down for wider audiences, because people just aren't ready."

Fuck that noise. Get weird or go home, that's what I say.

[MadMan]

Madman, you know I like you, but why wouldn't you take three seconds to open a new window and look up the spelling of Ratatouille? I mean, that's not even laziness, because you make a point of explaining your poor spelling, which requires a loosely equal amount of time and effort. It's...I don't know what it is.

:|Sometimes I just don't feel like doing so...its extreme laziness. The Dude is one of my heroes, man :P


Everything in Up can be explained, reasoned away, but for my money, there's a lack of depth, nuance, and ambition in the screenplay.Fair enough.


Ratatouille and The Incredibles weren't problems for me, but since Wall-E's, oh let's say 46th minute, I've perceived a lack of ambition/depth in the screenplays.You know I'm now left to wonder how I'll feel about Wall-E's second act, as many posters here have taken issue with it.


But MadMan, you've always been one of my fave goddamn posters.:)Same goes for you, man :cool:


Not just here, man. You seem so irritable and pissed in so many of your posts.

I'm worried about you.Sometimes I can be a cranky old man, and act rather grumpy. It happens every once and a while.

[Dukefrukem]

Okay... I was in tears during the first encounter with the Snipe. God this movie is so good.