Up (Pete Doctor/Bob Peterson, 2009)

Up

Most of the time, when I tell people that I wasn't much impressed with Up, they growl "you sonuvabitch..." at me.

I understand.  I do.  You feel threatened because I still have yet to be brainwashed by Pixar's magical spell of melarcky.  (uh huh, I went there)

I saw this flick at the drive-in, my infant son was in the car, it was his first official movie.  And, hey, I'm as human as the next guy.  The opening montage pulls at my heart and makes me a little misty too.  But, whereas, you all drop to your knees and begin declare Pixar's brilliance and et cetera, I stand up to the manipulation of my emotions and say "No! I will not be swayed!"

I resent Pixar.  I resent their heartfelt montages (Toy Story 2's girl cowboy doll montage, WALL-E when the little robot takes care of the girl robot when she's sleeping)

People like the dog and the old couple.  I know, I know, they're cute.  The little fat kid too, kinda.  (I don't like the little fat kid) And there is some pretty cool action sequences embedded within the stale, tired story structure that has been popular in cartoons since the Egyptian hieroglyphs.  Okay, the movie's not bad, it's okay.  It's like most every other cartoon ever except that you can see more scruff on the dog and the old man.  So it looks cool.

So, I say okay, it's okay.  I won't go beyond that.

Translation to everyone in the world:

::I am a heartless foreskin flea who wants to steal the whole milk from every baby's bottle so that I can feed the machines that will turn the baby's into energy when the sun explodes. ::

whatever

At the risk of alienating myself more from main stream society --

1. The bird was the one that started following the fat kid, so its the bird's fault that the bad guy got all kooky bananas
2. Like the old couple couldn't find a two week period to go to Peru in any of the 173 years that they were together?  Come on.  It's not like they had kids.
3. What, so the fat kid never resolves things with his dad?  A man who is about to die any minute is a poor substitute for a father.
4. I just don't know when the old man turned into such a sour puss.  He woke up one day and he was all douchey.
5. Give John Ratzenberg a better character!
6. The bad guy was drummed out of the country as a fraud, cast out with only one thing that could allow him to come back -- catching that bird.  And this old guy and fat kid come in and take it, I'd be pissed too if i was him.  And then he fell off of a flying whatchamacallit balloon into the ocean???  I truly think the bad guy got screwed.

(Read Less...)

Ruben of the Floating Red Couch<br />
http://www.floatingredcouch.com

Last updated: 2010-04-22 13:00:24 by user01

Up

Directed by Pete Doctor
Starring the voices of Ed Asner, Christopher Plummer, and Jordan Nagai
Rated PG
96 minutes 

Plot: Carl Fredrickson flies his house to South America- with accidental stowaway Russel tagging along. The pair land and find talking dogs, danger, and the realization that they need each other.  Up, like Star Trek, had an incredible opening. Carl Fredrickson, and his late wife Ellie, planned on taking a trip to South America among other things. The beginning is definitely the strongest, but the rest of Up barely lowers in it's charm, thrills, and laughs. The charm is most evident from the beautiful animation and clever humor. Most of this is made up of talking Canines, boasting some of the best lines of the year. Up is also adventurous and imaginative. The movie is literally an adventure of course, but who knew Pixar could create such an emotional pull? The climax got me as pumped as Star Trek's did! Whether old or young, Up is an exceptional movie and belongs in the Top Ten of the year.

(Read Less...)

Last updated: 2010-04-11 20:33:50 by user01

UP (2009)

BOTTOM LINE: Pixar do not seem to know how to make a bad film, cranking out another winner with “UP”, a delightful new CG-animated flick that has all the charm, character, story and visual sophistication we have all come to expect from Pixar, despite its unusual concept.

THE GOOD: “UP” tells the story of 78 year old Carl Frederickson who sets out to fulfil his lifelong dream of exploring the wilds of South America. The dense and moving ten minute prologue chronicles Carl’s life with his lively wife Ellie, from their cute beginnings with their shared interest in exploration, through to their marriage, life and the eventual death of Ellie. Many themes of life, birth, death, love and marriage are played out in this prologue, almost making it worthy of a film on its own, with a moment or two pulling at the heart strings and are much more adult than you would expect in a kids’ film. When Carl finds himself being sent to a retirement home after an unfortunate incident with a property developer, he sets out to fulfil his promise to Ellie of exploring the wilds of South America. He ties a huge amount of helium balloons to his house which when released cause his house to fly away, setting him off on his adventure. However, he has an 8-year old scout stow-away on board and together, they find themselves in the midst of a grand adventure neither ever expected. The premise for “UP” is very unusual for a Pixar film, with characters that are not as easily ‘marketable’ which makes the success of this movie all the more astonishing. All of the ingredients are there including great characters, funny dialogue, good story and wonderful visuals, particularly when seen in 3D. The dynamics of the plot are quite interesting, particularly as Carl’s hero Charles Muntz (Christopher Plummer) turns out to be the main villain of the piece, despite his heroic introduction in the news reel footage at the beginning of the film. The filmmakers ability to work against type by taking an otherwise heroic character on a genuine mission of exploration and making him the bad guy, particularly as the heroes are a 78-year old retiree and an 8-year old boy scout, is a testament to their collective talents in making the whole thing work; this can be said for the film as a whole because the concept is certainly odd to say the least. “UP” is yet another winner from Pixar Animation Studios who have produced an excellent, and unique story almost everyone should enjoy.

THE BAD: “UP” proves to be very good filmmaking, with very little to criticise. It is only when comparing this film to others in the long line of Pixar films that one might find a problem or two. The characters in general, although solid and with the exception of Carl and boy scout Russell, are not as memorable as those from previous Pixar films. Also, previous films have produced better cinematic images, with WALL-E being the standout example of computer generated images that could almost pass as the real thing. All said however, “UP” is still an excellent film that you will enjoy.

RATING: 8/10

(Read Less...)

Todd Murphy <br />
http://www.allaboutmovies.net

Pixar’s “UP”-The Standard From Now On

I like to think I am not one to over-indulge in hyperbole.  But for the movie “UP” there are not enough words to describe how wonderful this film is.
 
In fact, let me get the only criticism I have about the film out of the way.  The movie’s title is only remotely, very remotely, associated with the film.  I’m not at all sure if the two-word title generates intrigue about the movie or tends to make an American public hopelessly addicted to cute, short sound bytes to dismiss the movie out of hand.
 
UP Home Page
 
This movie has it all: charm, sentiment, adventure, excellent animation, a riveting storyline, and yes, dogs.  Lots of dogs.
 
The film begins with the story of a couple who grow up together, get married and vow to live a life of adventure while following the lead of their favorite childhood movie adventure hero, Charles Muntz.
 
Right there we have the charm of a life well-lived, the poignancy of loss, the sentiment of a lifetime love. 
 
Carl Fredericksen, the film’s protagonist, in a fit of disgust at the changes going on in his surround decides he’s going to embark on that adventure he and his beloved Ellie never undertook.  Imagine a movie protagonist in his 70’s!
 
Thus begins the story that will have you thinking, rocking, laughing, and sighing with relief as Carl and his small friend Russell ride a house, yes a HOUSE, to South America where they meet not only a bird named Kevin and a dog named Dug, but also Fredericksen’s childhood hero Mr. Muntz himself.
 

 
Only Mr. Muntz is not such a hero anymore and the story races on as Carl, Russell, Dug and Kevin must save the floating house from dog packs and shotguns.
 
Interspliced artfully are vignettes of sentiment as Russell shares his story of childhood angst and Carl discovers the true meaning of an adventurous life.  These are not maudlin moments but thoughtful, quick and bittersweetly true sentiments of life that are not forced upon the viewer but are scenes placed where they belong before moving on to the next cinematic adventure.
 
I saw this movie with my 5-year-old granddaughter.  She was so mesmerized by the movie that just as soon as it was over she said she needed to pee quick.  “I didn’t go pee during the movie because I did not wish to miss one second of it,” was how she explained it.
 
Indeed Kaitlyn did watch the entire movie, almost two hours long, without showing one sign of restlessness.
 
We saw the movie while wearing 3-D glasses and goodness, what an amazing feat of technology.  Throughout the film it was as if objects were coming right at us.  I’d describe it as a cinema experience where the viewer feels as if he or she is right in the middle of all the action.  Granddaughter, as expected, loved it.
 
There was not one curse word, not one reference to sex, not one hint that the movie was not entirely suitable for families with all types of members. 
 
And yet the movie entertained so wonderfully that upon its end most folks in the theater didn’t get up real quick to exit.  The movie just left the viewer with a real good feeling, the sort of feeling that makes you just want to sit and let it linger inside of us.
 
If you do nothing else this year, see this movie.  You’ll marvel at America’s talent so evident in the film and you’ll definitely be a better person for it.

(Read Less...)

Last updated: 2010-01-11 14:42:44 by PatFish

Pixar's Up Review

Ever since I was a young child Pixar has made a lasting impression with each of their animated masterpieces, so its no surprise that UP exceeded the award winning standards that Pixar’s delivered film and film again.
This time around Pixar not only managed to take the audience on a ride full of emotion, humor and visual amazement, they did it in 3-D. Equip with a ticket stub and a pair of 3-D glasses both adult and child alike experienced the wonders of the South American terrain, the heartache in an old mans tale, the innocence of a child’s ambition, the predictable mind of a dog and the excitement of an epic adventure.

The adventure begins with the life of  Carl Fredricksen, a 78 year young man with a heart thriving full of adventure. Along with his childhood companion turned wife Ellie they devoted their life of happiness to finding their South American  promise land Paradise Falls. But soon the burdens of life began to bear down the two lovers with adventure pumping through their veins. The days grew shorter and time moved faster and before they knew it a life time had passed them by, old age set in and Carl was forced to live out his days alone with only the lasting memory of Ellie  and her unfilled scrap book dedicated to adventure, their colorful home and the need to pursuit ones childhood dream during their final years.
Carl’s adventure first begins in his later years, after being anchored by the burdens of life Carl is living the rest of his days in the slow lane unwilling to adjust to the fast pace of the common era. Faced with the difficult decision of giving into the new generations expectations or living the dreams they he once shared with the love of his life, Carl transforms his house into a air ship with its primary lift supplied by a colossal number of balloons and sets off to find Paradise Falls. Rendered with eye popping 3-D effects the home turned air ship drifted across the screen as the audience watched with amazement, hands down this was some of the best animation work that I’ve ever experienced.

Anyway with his sails set and balloons filled Carl sails the skies overwhelmed with joy as he lives his dream. And as we all know life always seems to find a way to slow you down and in Carl’s case his road block came in the form of a young Wilderness Explorer scout named Russell. Accompanied by child thriving to reach his dream Carl reaches the South American  terrain. With only a few days of helium left in the balloons,  Carl and Russell come face to face with the deadly force of denounced adventurer Charles Muntz, Carl’s childhood hero, in search of the mystical creature that ruined his career. Determine to regain the welfare of his name Muntz and his well trained attack dogs search the South American jungle in search of the creature that finds the protection and love of a young child and the tough love of a bitter old man.
Now adults especially you parents,  you have to admit…Pixar looked out on this one. They made the movie just as entertaining for the adults in the audience, so those of you who only went to sent the movie because your child wouldn’t leave you alone about it this is the one time when you can’t complain. I’m 19 years old and I probably enjoyed it more than the kids did. The story of how the old man who lost the love of his life and grew cold hearted was taught how to care again by the innocence of a child kept the adults in the audience glued to the screen while the story of a young boy who goes on a great adventure and the humor of a dogs mind keep mixed with in with 3-D effects kept the kids entertained.
Overall UP was a excellent movie and honestly I couldn’t find any flaws. I only have good things to say about this movie, so for those of your out there who haven’t seen it….it’s definitely worth the price of admission.

(Read Less...)

The Wiz

Last updated: 2010-01-16 01:44:58 by FadingMemory

up

up is about an old man who buys some viagra. it also involves a young kid and a dog. i bet you’re excited now.

so that was a lie. that previous synopsis. what then, is this movie? and why did so many people give it high ratings? i’m not against children movies; i love the lion king, and not just because it had kittens. but i did not love up.

i’ll admit, the first 15 minutes of this movie paint an excellent back story, and they did a good job to make it real and emotional. but after that i no longer cared. do you know why this movie was animated? i’ll tell you why: no old man of that age is able to do the acrobatics required to defeat a pack of talking dogs. so they had to CG it up. the main theme i got from this movie is “old people aren’t useless. and neither are kids.” well nice try, but you couldn’t even get a real old man to do this shit.

i give this movie a 4/7. it passes, because some of the humour is unexpected and funny.

(Read Less...)

Last updated: 2010-01-09 01:12:57 by user03

UP

Up is the latest film by Pixar, the animated film company which serves up one big movie each year and is always received with outstanding reviews.  Some I’ve liked more than others, but their films are usually better than most of the animated movies put out there.
This one actually focuses on a senior citizen named Carl who has always dreamed of visiting a place called “Paradise Falls” somewhere in South America.  In a bit of a stretch of storytelling, he attaches TONS of balloons to his house to float away and finally travel there.  A boy named Russell is on the porch of his house when it takes off; Pixar must’ve realized a movie just about an old man would be a hard sell to kids.
Though the movie is called Up, a lot of it actually takes place on the ground due to weather conditions that force them to land.  They meet a very large but friendly bird, and later stumble upon talking dogs which are probably the funniest aspect of the film.  The dogs have collars put on them which convey their inner thoughts audibly.  But it is the old man and the boy who start to bond and become rather fond of each other through the course of the movie.
Up is pretty entertaining as far as animated films go, and the visuals are pretty amazing.  The movie plays in 3-D in some theatres but it’s probably best viewed in 2-D to see all the detail put into the animation.  The story gets a little far-fetched towards the end when they’re back in the air again and battling a villain, but there’s enough good stuff in the movie to make it worthwhile overall.  Plus the wordless montage in the beginning part of the film which explains the relationship between Carl and his wife is more moving than anything in most non-animated films.

(Read Less...)

Recommendations: The Shawshank Redemption (1994), Se7en , 25th Hour

http://www.examiner.com/x-39833-Philadelphia-Movie-Examiner

Last updated: 2009-12-22 17:58:39 by thatmoviedude

Up

I think I’m not alone in thinking of Pixar as the most reliable storyteller in movies today. At least when it comes to companies, not individual writers — and even trying to think of one, I still can’t think of a single writer who has delivered, since the beginning of his fairly extensive career, a body of work as consistent and exceptional as Pixar has as a company. They don’t seem to have a “black sheep” within them.

“Up” stays true to this amazing quality standard, even though it is, by no means, better than “Wall-E”, which was far more creative and thematically ambitious. But really: blaming a movie for not being better than “Wall-E” is kind of really fucking unreasonable. “Up” has a heart of its own and deals with another theme many companies would be afraid of tackling on a film for all ages: the dream everyone has for their lives. Their final ambition, their lifelong goal.

Carl Fredricksen is an old man who had a very happy marriage for all his life, until the recent death of his beloved Ellie. Since then, Carl has grown disinterested in society and life in general, which isn’t helped by the fact everything around his house is being rebuilt by a construction company — which would like his house to disappear as well. Refusing to let himself live the rest of his years in nostalgic self-pity, Carl decides to pursue his and Ellie’s never-fulfilled dream of having a house on Paradise Falls, and seeing no easy way to do this conventionally, he tethers thousands of ballons to his house to lift it off the ground and go to South America, where the place is located. Only an unwanted guest, an hyperactive child called Russell, comes along by accident, and once in Paradise Falls, Carl’s dream clashes with another man’s: adventurer Charles Muntz, whom Carl has been a fan of since childhood.

Obviously, “Up” is not a movie concerned about realism, and requires some suspension of disbelief at times — we never see Carl or Russell eating or drinking, the way Russell ends up in Carl’s flying house isn’t very believable and it’s preposterous, to say the least, that Carl and Russell manage to reach South America after a single day of voyage (this would have been more believable if the trip happened with no problems, but they run into a storm, which makes it all harder to stomach). Also, it’s inconsistent to show Carl using a lift to descend his staircase, but then show him performing moves that require incredible agility. Even for a movie about a guy flying his house with the help of balloons, this kind of stretches the limits of my personal suspension of disbelief.

However, it’s the heart of the movie that makes it memorable. The relationship between Carl and Ellie is illustrated by a quick sequence in the beginning of the film that shows them as kids. This sequence not only portrays Ellie as adorably excited, it also portrays Carl as adorably quiet, and their chemistry managed to touch me in less than five minutes. This sequence also showcases Pixar’s typical technical proeficiency — like the subtle way they find to show us that Carl is blushing when Ellie is touching his hand. They don’t even need a close-up to show it, they just use lighting and movement.

But it’s the next sequence that really works as the film’s base: the montage that shows Ellie and Carl’s married life. There is no dialogue at all, only Michael Giacchino’s (wonderful) music and the characters’ movements and facial expressions. It not only portrays the beautiful relationship between them with, I dare say, perfection, it also develops Carl’s character to the point where his bitterness after she dies is not only entirely believable, but entirely forgiveable (and the script never overdoes Carl’s bitterness to “Gran Torino” levels. Fortunately).

Also, I think it’s the first time Pixar uses blood in a blatant way (maybe in any way), when Carl accidentally hits a man with his cane way too strongly, causing his forehead to bleed — a moment that makes clear that “Up” is a film that won’t hold back in its depiction of grief and that won’t patronise kids to the point where a liquid that runs in everyone’s veins can’t be shown briefly. Even kids expect a blow like that to hurt, and only showing the man scratching his intact forehead would be like the Coyote being merely covered in ash after being blown up by tons of TNT — it works for the cartoon, but comedy wasn’t the point of this particular scene. This is also not the only depiction of violence in the film.

“Up” deserves a lot of credit for exploring its theme to the fullest. The film’s “villain”, adventurer Charles Muntz (even older than Carl), is not portrayed as an unidimensional monster, only becoming a threat when he feels his lifelong dream is in danger. In fact, he’s painted as an once reasonable person who, in his loneliness, grew a tendency for madness when dealing with things he’s obsessive about. This makes him into a much more intriguing antagonist, and it’s particularly interesting how he avoids killing Carl even when he has the chance to do so, only resorting to this when absolutely convinced Carl’s death is the only way for Charles to achieve his own dream.

You might ask, then, how Carl can be the “hero”. After all, what makes Charles’ dream less worthy of fulfillment? In this case, Charles is a hunter, and he’s after a certain bird for years and didn’t hesitate in dealing harshly with whoever got in his way (i.e. killing them). This bird also has offspring and isn’t a threat to anyone, and Charles only wants him as a trophy and a way to clear up his name (ruined in his early years, when one of his trophies was revealed to be a fraud).

Regardless, “Up” avoids the black-and-white morality most “all ages” films go for, showing a conflict between two men after their dreams, rather than a “hero” and a “villain”. And the resolution of this conflict is very brave in not providing narrative satisfaction — something that enriches the film tremendously. Check the last paragraph for a better explanation, but beware SPOILERS.

“Up” is less successful with a member of its supporting cast. While Carl is a fascinating protagonist, Russell only works as an obvious and often annoying counterpoint to Carl’s age. He has a good number of funny moments, but he’s the stereotypical child sidekick. I felt kind of the same way, to a larger degree, about Short Round on “Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom”, although most people felt a bit stronger about him: more spefically they wanted to see him stomped on by an elephant. I didn’t feel that way, although I can understand the feeling. Dunno, call me patient.

The rest of the supporting cast, however, brings the usual Pixar charisma to the film. The talking dogs are a touch of genius not because they talk, but HOW they talk — like dogs. To the point where they interrupt conversations and yell “SQUIRREL!”, going silent and still for a moment, before resuming exactly where they left off. Also, the portrayal of the dog’s inconditional love for its owner is downright brilliant, as evidenced by Dug’s immediate affection for Carl and Russell. Not to mention the dog’s weakness — an urge to go fetch whatever you throw — is explored to hilarious effect.

Kevin, the giant bird, is equally funny — portrayed as wild and yet not a threat to anyone that doesn’t endanger him. Carl’s relationship with the bird (basically summarized by “Shoo! Get out of here! Off! Go!”) and Russell’s (“Can he stay? Can he stay?”) is a bit cliched, but so well-executed I didn’t care.

The voice acting is nothing short of magnificent. Elie Docter (daughter of co-director Pete Docter) gives the Young Ellie a contagious energy, Edward Asner gives Carl a bitter yet good-hearted voice, Christopher Plummer shows Charles’ change of attitude with subtlety and efficiency, co-director Bob Peterson does a spectacular job as the dogs Dug and Alpha, giving them entirely different and hilarious personalities, and Jordan Nagai is the reason Russell is an often funny character — his childish voice full of wonder makes him nearly impossible to hate. I especially love the way he says “I’m a friend to aaaaall animals”.

In terms of visuals, “Up” is, of course, ingenious. The animation is superb, full of subtleties and impressive facial expressions. The character design is incredible, with special mention to Muntz’s similarity to Kirk Douglas. Pixar once again makes it look easy (when it’s anything but). Also, directors Bob Peterson and Pete Docter go for mostly static but beautifully composed camera angles, but when an action scene is called for, they do not hesitate to impress, giving those sequences a lot of visual energy (there’s a particularly exciting — and very funny — moment when Carl is riding the bird with Russell hanging from a rope and swinging from one side to the other. Peterson and Docter pull the camera back to show the scene on its whole, and the amount of confusion happening is so much it made me laugh while not forgetting the characters are in danger).

Michael Giacchino, who has been proving himself one of the best composers in the business with his consistently brilliant work in “The Incredibles”, “Speed Racer”, “Star Trek” and others, does his typically excellent job of composing the music with an emphasis on helping tell the story as effectively as possible — and as the sequence showing Ellie and Carl’s marriage proves, he succeeds. The sound design also deserves applause for its efficiency and attention to detail — it’s great how they make the wires tethering the balloons emit musical notes, like a guitar, to show how stretched they are when Carl passes his fingers on them.

But when it comes to some of the visual design, “Up” might look too bland for Pixar. Paradise Falls can be accurately summed up as rock formations and jungles, and the heart of the place itself is nothing but a lonely waterfall — however, I’ve come to realize while writing this review, this is actually perfect — since it shows how personal Carl’s dream is and also, how superficial. “Paradise Falls” looks much more charming and appealing to him than it should to the audience, and if it actually made our jaws drop, Carl’s idea of trying to ease his grief by going there wouldn’t sound so doomed to fail, and the moment when he finally does get there and realizes nothing has changed wouldn’t seem as believable.

And this leads to that which is the most memorable scene in “Up”, when Carl realizes Ellie’s legacy in an absolutely beautiful moment that sounds entirely believable. You might think it’s far-fetched that he would only notice it at that point in his life, but it’s perfectly coherent with Carl’s character — after Ellie’s death, he had no wish of looking for it, because it reminded him of her in a painful way because she wasn’t alive to fulfill their lifelong dream. This might sound vague, and it does, if you haven’t watched the film, but I want to keep spoilers to a minimum. I think you’ll see what I mean when you watch the film, which, I hope it’s clear by now, you should.

Weakened only by a few and aforementioned problems (Carl’s preposterous agility, etc.), “Up” is an emotionally powerful and thematically brave film about dreams that does not try to soften its message, and even contains a metaphor of how our dreams can come at the expense of other people’s. It’s funny and it has a heart, and it was clearly crafted with passion like all Pixar films. The company has reached a point where, even if their future output for some unfathomable reason becomes shit, the legacy they’ve already left behind has reached the status of undeniable.

Written by André Navarro on November 8th 2009 

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS FOR FUCK’S SAKE SPOILERS FROM HERE ON:
 
 
 
 
 
 
The death of Charles Muntz doesn’t feel as narratively satisfactory as similar deaths in other Disney films — much to the contrary, it feels like a necessary evil and a shame. As twisted as his dream was, he only wanted to fulfill it and be loved, and Carl’s dream came true at the expense of Charles’ dream and also his life, even though the “villain’s” attitude is to blame for this. And this feeling of “it didn’t have to be this way”, as I said, only enriches the film.

 

(Read Less...)

http://andrenavarro.wordpress.com/

Last updated: 2009-12-22 13:13:50 by andre_navarro

Appeals more to adults than kids

In my view, "Up" is the first Pixar movie that was purposely produced for adults. Not that there's raunchy sex or random acts of violence. Rather, the story of an old man fulfilling his promise to his late wife's dream is one that would resonate more closely and dearly with the grown-ups.

Perhaps this movie was a sign that Pixar is growing up from its kiddie toy roots. Of course, there was still a lot for the kids to enjoy. This is, after all, a Disney film. So there are the dogs with their squirrel fetish, the funny looking birds, and basically the grand adventure of being whisked away on a fantastic adventure.

See my full review here: http://bit.ly/124SfQ

(Read Less...)

Up (Pete Doctor/Bob Peterson, 2009)

Directed by Pete Doctor and co-directed by Bob Peterson, Up is from the guys who created Monsters Inc. (2001) and who work at one of modern cinema’s most consistent production companies - Pixar Animation Studios. Up is the tenth feature film from Hollywood’s Jewel of Creativity following the successes of films such as Toy Story (1995), Finding Nemo (2003), The Incredibles (2004), and Wall.E (2008).
 
This latest picture is another bold step away from what Pixar has done over the decade, and together with Wall.E (which was considerably bold enough), both represent a significant change in priorities in the company’s vision. Producing family-friendly fare is a thing of the past. Now they are using CG technology to transcend animation filmmaking, to give the once isolated genre devoted to entertaining five-year-olds a strong cinematic identity, one that mature audiences can find themselves unashamed of appreciating.
 
Up is perhaps the most risky venture by Pixar thus far. The lead character is not a cute fish, or a loveable rat, or a friendly monster, but a short, bespectacled, and grumpy old man with a face as unappealing as a box. How marketable is that? Fears that Up could be Pixar’s first real flop are swept away within the first fifteen minutes. The prologue sequence that introduces Carl Fredricksen is a gem both in its execution and its ability to comprehensively and instantly portray the old man as someone we have no difficulty empathizing.
 
Carl’s dream of visiting Paradise Falls in South America is triggered to reality when he is forced to relocate to a retirement village. That morning he made his house fly, lifted by thousands of colorful balloons, and propelled by wind as it pushed the curtain-like sails hung out on rails on each side. Russell, a chubby boy with a zest for adventure happened to be on Carl’s front porch when the house made its ascent. Together they explore South America and evade obstacles which appear more life-threatening than they expect.
 
The introduction of the actual villain Charles Muntz in Up comes slightly too late into the film. Because of limited development of the character, Charles is not as imposing as he should be. While it does create an extent of fear, there is not a moment in the film when we have doubts of the protagonists surviving unscathed. Likewise, the climax arrived too quickly as well. Although the adventures of the leads are mostly engaging, they appear short-lived. I see it as a flaw because the filmmakers could have spent more time adding more action set-pieces to the fray.
 
As with Miyazaki’s Howl’s Moving Castle (2004), a major influence to this film, physical logic has to be cast aside. Many of the scenes can never happen in reality. Can an old man really navigate a floating house with his frail physique? Can balloons really lift a house? Up tends to indulge in fantasy far more than reality. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but when a film whose devotion to human emotions and bonding (themes grounded in reality) far eclipse that of its far-fetched plot, there is a fair chance that it might turn out to be a mixed bag of unclear priorities. And it does to a small extent. Up is still effective, uplifting, and mostly heartwarming, but it is one of the less accomplished works by Pixar. But that is still saying something.
 
SCORE: 8/10
[www.filmnomenon.blogspot.com]
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED!

 

(Read Less...)

Recommendations: Toy Story 3 (Lee Unkrich, 2010), To Kill a Mockingbird (Robert Mulligan, 1962), The Visitor

Singapore's Most Prolific Film Blogger @ www.filmnomenon.blogspot.com