Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › *** Official UP Discussion Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

*** Official UP Discussion Thread - Page 2

post #31 of 87
5/31/09 at 12:12pm

Re: *** Official UP Discussion Thread

Good movie. Did anyone else think the young (30's-ish) Carl bore a resemblance to JJ Abrams?
Reply
post #32 of 87
5/31/09 at 7:13pm

Re: *** Official UP Discussion Thread

I was disappointed. PIXARS weakest film....which isn't such a bad thing.


I'm bummed.
Reply
post #33 of 87
5/31/09 at 9:13pm

Re: *** Official UP Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quentin
I'm not sure I can criticize UP. It's that good. Such solid, perfect storytelling. Such memorable characters. Maybe the dog stuff is a little too silly? I dunno. Someone here want to take a shot? Because i just don't see anything wrong with this film.
The dog stuff is the major reason I gave this a 3.5 out of 4 instead of a 4 out of 4. I was totally on board with the collars that let dogs talk. The dogs flying planes and such was a little too broad for my tastes.

The human stuff was stellar, though. The miscarriage is essential to understanding the film, as mattCR mentioned, because it defines Carl's whole relationship with Russell. If Carl and Ellie had had kids, he would not have been left alone at the end of Ellie's funeral and would not have become the crotchedy old man who slowly retreated as the world boxed him in. The end montage of Carl's adventures with Russell counterbalances the opening montage of Carl's life with Ellie. The former documented his role as husband, the later documented his role as father. Russell completed Carl's story.

Still can't get over how complete of a performance Ed Asner managed to achieve with just his voice. The animated performance definitely led from Asner's vocals, instead of creating a performance from the vocals. If the picture cut out after the opening montage, the movie would still be a singularly entertaining journey.
Reply
post #34 of 87
6/1/09 at 11:18am

Re: *** Official UP Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Lenhardt
The dog stuff is the major reason I gave this a 3.5 out of 4 instead of a 4 out of 4. I was totally on board with the collars that let dogs talk. The dogs flying planes and such was a little too broad for my tastes.

The human stuff was stellar, though. The miscarriage is essential to understanding the film, as mattCR mentioned, because it defines Carl's whole relationship with Russell. If Carl and Ellie had had kids, he would not have been left alone at the end of Ellie's funeral and would not have become the crotchedy old man who slowly retreated as the world boxed him in. The end montage of Carl's adventures with Russell counterbalances the opening montage of Carl's life with Ellie. The former documented his role as husband, the later documented his role as father. Russell completed Carl's story.

Still can't get over how complete of a performance Ed Asner managed to achieve with just his voice. The animated performance definitely led from Asner's vocals, instead of creating a performance from the vocals. If the picture cut out after the opening montage, the movie would still be a singularly entertaining journey.

That's what I was thinking, Adam. The plane flying seemed to come out of nowhere.

And, yes, Asner was amazing. He sounds so tired early on and his voice gains a strength to it as the story progresses.
Reply
post #35 of 87
6/1/09 at 1:07pm

Re: *** Official UP Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quentin
The plane flying seemed to come out of nowhere.
To me, that fit in fine in a movie where dogs talk with special collars and a house can float thousands of miles when it has lots of balloons attached to it.
Reply
post #36 of 87
6/1/09 at 7:42pm
Thread Starter 

Re: *** Official UP Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by TravisR
To me, that fit in fine in a movie where dogs talk with special collars and a house can float thousands of miles when it has lots of balloons attached to it.

Not only could the dogs talk and fly planes, they could tie up people and prepare fine dinners and desserts! If you accepted dogs as chefs, you've gotta accept dogs as pilots.
Reply
post #37 of 87
6/2/09 at 7:52am

Re: *** Official UP Discussion Thread

While UP is not my favorite Pixar movie -- the dogs were too broadly silly at times -- I really liked it. More than anything, it renews my respect for Pixar's skill at mature storytelling. The opening sequence rivals "Jessie's Song" for its sublime connection to adults' anxiety of aging and being left alone.

Unrelated...When will a Pixar movie star a female? I was reflecting on their movies and in typical Hollywood fashion, the stars are always male. Females do have significant roles (Elastigirl, Dory, Jessie), but men are always the central character. Pixar doesn't need to go "Disney Princess", but I think it would be interesting to have a female protagonist (and even antagonist).
Reply
post #38 of 87
6/2/09 at 9:49am

Re: *** Official UP Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveF
Unrelated...When will a Pixar movie star a female? I was reflecting on their movies and in typical Hollywood fashion, the stars are always male. Females do have significant roles (Elastigirl, Dory, Jessie), but men are always the central character. Pixar doesn't need to go "Disney Princess", but I think it would be interesting to have a female protagonist (and even antagonist).
I've seen a few feminist groups start complaining about this; which I take as a sign of our society's extraordinary sensitivity to identity political divisions; Disney's "Princess and the Frog" is already stirring up controversy as its first "black" animated feature.

It's also a reflection of Disney animation's careful balancing of target audiences; Snow White followed by Pinocchio, Alice in Wonderland followed by Peter Pan, Beauty and the Beast followed by Aladdin, Mulan followed by Tarzan. (Although there have been extended periods of mostly girl-targeted animated films and periods of mostly boy-targeted animated films.

I think the real reason is that Pixar perhaps the most auteur-driven animation studio in American cinema. All of the directors thus far have been men, and so it's natural that the stories they have to tell are male-centric. The first Pixar movie directed by a woman, the upcoming The Bear and the Bow, will have a female protagonist. Of course it's being criticized for being yet another princess movie.
Reply
post #39 of 87
6/2/09 at 1:52pm

Re: *** Official UP Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Lenhardt
I think the real reason is that Pixar perhaps the most auteur-driven animation studio in American cinema. All of the directors thus far have been men, and so it's natural that the stories they have to tell are male-centric. The first Pixar movie directed by a woman, the upcoming The Bear and the Bow, will have a female protagonist. Of course it's being criticized for being yet another princess movie.
That was my assessment: Lasseter, Docter, Bird...the top people are men and Pixar is still driven by the art more than the $$$. I don't want to hate on Pixar -- love their stuff. But in a world half-filled with little girls watching Pixar movies, it's not unreasonable to give them a movie about a grumpy old lady.
Reply
post #40 of 87
6/2/09 at 2:45pm

Re: *** Official UP Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Orr
Not only could the dogs talk and fly planes, they could tie up people and prepare fine dinners and desserts! If you accepted dogs as chefs, you've gotta accept dogs as pilots.

Exactly! I didn't have a problem w/ any of that - kinda thought the use of the dogs was creative and pretty funny. The "cone of shame" was awesome too.
Reply
post #41 of 87
6/3/09 at 12:41pm

Re: *** Official UP Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quentin
That's what I was thinking, Adam. The plane flying seemed to come out of nowhere.

I see a lot of people complaining about the dogs driving the planes. I think it was just meant as a joke from the writer. You know: "dogfight" !
Reply
post #42 of 87
6/3/09 at 1:33pm

Re: *** Official UP Discussion Thread

I loved it but its the second weakest Pixar film to me.
Not as empty and hollow as Bug's Life but close.
Amazing artwork and voice acting but this really seemed like one of their opening shorts spread out over 80 minutes.
There really isn't a major theme that I can think of.
Is it Paradise Falls? if so, why? Is it the adventurer guy that turns out to be the bad guy?
The quest for the bird seem to only exist to move the story forward, it made no sense.
As soon they get out of the storm and they were in South America, the film died to me.

So, I would stick it between Bug's Life and Car's at the bottom.
Reply
post #43 of 87
6/3/09 at 4:21pm

Re: *** Official UP Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Bang
I see a lot of people complaining about the dogs driving the planes. I think it was just meant as a joke from the writer. You know: "dogfight" !
Yeah, I didn't have a huge problem with it, it was just a bit too broad for me. When they talked using the gadgets, they said the kind of things real dogs might be thinking. It pushed the bounds of reality, just like the balloons carrying the house did, but didn't completely break it. The dogs cooking and flying planes just went a bit over the line into personification. Not a deal breaker, just a bit too much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Schiller
There really isn't a major theme that I can think of.
The theme is life. Carl and Ellie had one adventure together, which was the lives they spent together. Carl embarked on his trip to Paradise Falls as a way to keep his promise to Ellie and stay close to her, but unbeknownst to him, she'd already asked him to start a new adventure. That adventure is Russell, the child they wanted but were tragically unable to have. Thanks to Russell, Carl is able to start living again. I would argue it's one of the least hollow of the Pixar films.
Reply
post #44 of 87
6/3/09 at 10:59pm

Re: *** Official UP Discussion Thread

The child centric comedy with the dogs didn't mesh well with the adult themes of loss and unfulfilled dreams or the perception of unfulfilled dreams. The dogs flying planes was just too stupid and stretched the suspension of disbelief to the breaking point.

I know the balloons also stretch suspension of disbelief but I felt that I could accept the unreality of a house being supported by thousands of balloons because it naturally flows from the story being told. The humour involving the dogs worked as long as it stayed true to what dogs are capable of doing, but the humour became stupid and distracting when the dogs started performing duties that are purely human activities.

The film had a lot going for it until it got pulled down by the reliance on broad humour; although the dogs playing poker was a nice touch. Still, this film was vastly better than JJ Abrams STAR TREK which is the only other film that I have bothered to see at the theatre.

I also thought that the attempt to manipulate emotions in this film was not very subtle. CARS also attempts to elicit emotions and I thought that film did it with a lot more subtlety than UP did. Personally, I would put CARS above UP any day of the week. UP is the first Pixar film that actually dragged a bit for me; although, it is still a good film.
Reply
post #45 of 87
6/4/09 at 3:56am

Re: *** Official UP Discussion Thread

I pretty much agree with everything Doug and you said Edwin, except for your STAR TREK comment, I thought it was terrific but that's for another thread.

BTW, to those saying A Bus Life is weak, have you watched it recently? I did and it holds up great and still believe it's better than UP.
Reply
post #46 of 87
6/5/09 at 8:22am

Re: *** Official UP Discussion Thread

I put in my Bug's Life DVD for my daughter recently and it fell just as flat for me.
I bet if they made Bug's Life today, with a similar story, it would come off better.
It looks so plasticy and fake to me.
Nemo, Monster's and Wall-E (which I just watched also) are like in another universe.

Again, I liked Up but I don't remember thinking once during the film, I can't wait to watch this on Blu-Ray, like I did with Wall-E.
Also, not really Pixar's fault, I thought the 3D was too subdued for a film that was produced for it.
Reply
post #47 of 87
6/5/09 at 1:38pm

Re: *** Official UP Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Schiller
Also, not really Pixar's fault, I thought the 3D was too subdued for a film that was produced for it.
That's what I loved about it, they didn't feel the need to bang you over the head with 3D gags. They just told there story and it was in 3D which just add another since or realism for me, it drew me into the movie even more. If 3D is going to hang around, they need to just tell there story and just let the 3D draw you into the movie but, not draw attention to itself. All the gags should be left to theme parks.

Plus, I don't think Up was produced for 3D. Pixar wouldn't do that, they are just going to tell the story they want too and leave the theme park gags to Dreamworks. Supposedly, the decision to go 3D happened pretty late in the production.
Reply
post #48 of 87
6/5/09 at 7:46pm

Re: *** Official UP Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Teller
Notorious crank Armond White steps up to the plate: The Way of Pixarism
Yes, well, it's always a joy to read critics who are so imbued with their own sense of superiority. His review reads like an over-eager effort to make sure he's not one of the "suckas" like those people who do like the movie (clearly philistines, one and all ).

He's free to dislike the movie and he doesn't even need to justify his dislike. But if he does dislike it, and wishes to say why, it would be helpful if he didn't come off as desperate to be "above the masses".
Reply
post #49 of 87
6/6/09 at 7:08am

Re: *** Official UP Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulDA
Yes, well, it's always a joy to read critics who are so imbued with their own sense of superiority. His review reads like an over-eager effort to make sure he's not one of the "suckas" like those people who do like the movie (clearly philistines, one and all ).

He's free to dislike the movie and he doesn't even need to justify his dislike. But if he does dislike it, and wishes to say why, it would be helpful if he didn't come off as desperate to be "above the masses".

And he praises much-panned efforts like Land of the Lost and Dance Flick. Apparently he loved the God-awful Little Man!

Hey, we all have opinions that go against the grain, but he strikes me as someone who goes out of his way to counter the consensus so he can seem "cool" and "daring"...
Reply
post #50 of 87
6/6/09 at 7:10am

Re: *** Official UP Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tino

BTW, to those saying A Bus Life is weak, have you watched it recently? I did and it holds up great and still believe it's better than UP.

I liked Up more than you did, I guess, but I agree that ABL is really underrated. I have no clue why it inspires so much disdain from the fans. It's my FAVORITE Pixar flick!
Reply
post #51 of 87
6/6/09 at 12:56pm

Re: *** Official UP Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin Jacobson
And he praises much-panned efforts like Land of the Lost and Dance Flick. Apparently he loved the God-awful Little Man!

Hey, we all have opinions that go against the grain, but he strikes me as someone who goes out of his way to counter the consensus so he can seem "cool" and "daring"...
I went to university with a guy like that. He was a right royal pain at parties.

I don't mind people not liking something I like (I hate, virulently, The Blair Witch Project but apparently millions of people do like it). I do mind when people explain why they don't like something in such a way as to suggest those who do like it are idiots of some sort.
Reply
post #52 of 87
6/6/09 at 1:09pm

Re: *** Official UP Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quentin
I looked hard for, and found, flaws in Wall-E and Ratatouille. They're both classic films - top notch - but, I hold Pixar to the highest possible standards and at least felt like their excellence needed to be tempered with some criticism.

I'm not sure I can criticize UP. It's that good. Such solid, perfect storytelling. Such memorable characters. Maybe the dog stuff is a little too silly? I dunno. Someone here want to take a shot? Because i just don't see anything wrong with this film.

Pixar is king.

One small script criticism: when Carl and Muntz are having their big sword fight, Muntz has Carl cornered and is moving in for the kill. Carl is only saved by the fact that Dug accidentally backs into the control stick, which sharply turns the airship and causes Muntz to lose his balance.

Just a small bit of lazy screenwriting in an otherwise excellent script.
Reply
post #53 of 87
6/6/09 at 2:21pm

Re: *** Official UP Discussion Thread

Actually, I think the biggest problem with the movie is Muntz's age. How old is he supposed to be? Shouldn't he be about 90 at LEAST? He's gotta be at least 20 years older than Carl, and he's clearly in his 70s!

Muntz seems awfully nimble for someone as elderly as he. I waited for the movie to offer some "fountain of youth" explanation, but that never comes...
Reply
post #54 of 87
6/7/09 at 7:47am

Re: *** Official UP Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattCR
I watched this film with the wife & fam yesterday, and praised it heavily. I still stand by that. I watched it today with a good friend who wanted to go. Near the beginning, there was a scene that I kind of noticed when I was with the family, but of course, when you're handing out drinks and things with kids, it doesn't hit you the same way.. As Ellie plans out her family, and then we cut to a scene of a miscarriage/stillbirth and news that she can have no more children, I just about threw up. I had kind of caught this the first time, but I guess it didn't click with me in the same way. Last Tuesday, a very good personal friend of ours lost her child (stillborn), and my wife & I experienced a miscarriage before our children.

When that scene happened, and it really "clicked" with me and I was kind of dumfounded. The whole rest of the film kind of changed. I had always felt, when I first watched the film, that this was about him accepting the loss of his wife and finding hope and friends in the world again. And I found that touching & moving stuff. But after I realized that opening sequence in a different way today, the whole movie seemed very different. The kid wasn't just a per-chance kid, he was a chance to be a father, the real adventure he missed. And Ellie had given him that adventure in the end.

I left the theater kind of sick this time. It's a beautiful film, an A+ in my book, but it now falls into that Schindler's List kind of category. I'm glad I saw it, it was really powerful, I have no desire to see it again.

This is pretty identical to the way I was thinking. I knew going in what the premise of the movie was -- Even knowing that, I was literally tearing up in the first two minutes of the movie because I knew she was going to die. But as those first few minutes moved on and you got to know Ellie more, it got even harder.

I'm married and have two kids. We just lost my wife's uncle the other day to unexpected cancer. We weren't particularly close, but the concept of death is just a tough thing for me. Last year we lost a close friend, again to unexpected and sudden cancer. He had children our age, and like me, he was 35. To think of losing someone so close to you is really heartbreaking -- By the time Carl finally flips past the pages in the scrapbook I had a hard time holding it in. How many of you are to that point where you've been married longer than you lived at home? I've been with my wife for 16 years, married for 12. That's nearly half of our lives. Relate that to being in your 80s, and think of your grandparents or parents.

This movie was a blend. The kids are going to think it's hilarious because of the talking dogs flying planes, the goofy stuff that overserious adults will say is "ridiculous". But where they're not going to understand it or internalize it, is the stuff that is really powerful for adults. There's a lot of emotion in this film.

Like Matt, I saw it. I'm happy I saw it, but quite honestly, I don't want to see it again.

Doug
Reply
post #55 of 87
6/7/09 at 5:25pm

Re: *** Official UP Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Will
Supposedly, the decision to go 3D happened pretty late in the production.

Correct. And doing a 3D film presents its own challenges which were not easy and not always welcomed.

As for the "fountain of youth" and Muntz, I so want to drop a spoiler but I cannot.
Reply
post #56 of 87
6/7/09 at 10:35pm

Re: *** Official UP Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian-W
As for the "fountain of youth" and Muntz, I so want to drop a spoiler but I cannot.

Reply
post #57 of 87
6/8/09 at 5:19am

Re: *** Official UP Discussion Thread

Definitely the best film that I've seen this year, and the first Pixar film to move me to tears since "Toy Story 2". I'll admit that I thought the dog stuff got a bit too silly, but I also picked up on the "Dog-Fight" reference.

Did anybody else notice that the villain was clearly designed to look like Kirk Douglas? It was so obvious to me as to almost be distracting. Was there a particular reason for this? Any thoughts?

EDIT: I found a review online that also mentioned Muntz looking like Spencer Tracy and that's dead-on. It's a Spencer Tracy from "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" even with the thick glasses. I'm still curious why they picked those two actors though.
Reply
post #58 of 87
6/8/09 at 11:39am

Re: *** Official UP Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin Jacobson

Lovely NDA agreements.

Must wait until Blu-Ray is released, I'll be curious to see what they include and hopefully it has the story iterations that they were originally going to go with.
Reply
post #59 of 87
6/10/09 at 10:46am

Re: *** Official UP Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Will
That's what I loved about it, they didn't feel the need to bang you over the head with 3D gags. They just told there story and it was in 3D which just add another since or realism for me, it drew me into the movie even more. If 3D is going to hang around, they need to just tell there story and just let the 3D draw you into the movie but, not draw attention to itself. All the gags should be left to theme parks.

Plus, I don't think Up was produced for 3D. Pixar wouldn't do that, they are just going to tell the story they want too and leave the theme park gags to Dreamworks. Supposedly, the decision to go 3D happened pretty late in the production.

Yeah, but you can have great 3D without gimmicky effects.

The scene in Monsters V Aliens, when Susan is hover chasing through the tunnels in the spaceship added so much depth of field, I felt like I was watching it through a window.

I'm not asking for the boy scout kid to throw a yo-yo at the camera.

If someone were to ask me if it was worth the extra $3.50 to see it in 3D, I would tell them to save their money.
Reply
post #60 of 87
6/10/09 at 10:58am

Re: *** Official UP Discussion Thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian-W
Lovely NDA agreements.

Must wait until Blu-Ray is released, I'll be curious to see what they include and hopefully it has the story iterations that they were originally going to go with.

If you are saying they had an explanation and cut it for the theatrical release, that makes it even worse.

Muntz is probably the worst villian in the history of movies.

He is shown as a disgraced hero, because of embarassment???

Compare that to the story Mr Incredibles forced retirement.

He is obviously shown as someone 10-20 years older then the main character yet he looks almost younger.

No explanation why.

Paradise Falls isn't really explained well. Is it an actual place? Is it a place no one believes in and he tries to get there on a lark?
Does it have magical powers, which is alluded to by the mysterious bird and a "not as old" Muntz.

And the biggest thing to me, Muntz is a super nice, very hospitable guy until the bird is mentioned, then he is the most evil man in the universe.

So, he banished himself to this mysterious place, was able to invent, with modern materials, these magic dog collars and breed hundreds of dogs for the sole purpose of finding this bird?

I am sorry, it is beautiful to look at and has some of the most amazing parts of any Pixar movie (the beginning that was mentioned) but it really seems they put the horse before the cart when creating this.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movies (Theatrical)
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › *** Official UP Discussion Thread