*** Official UP Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[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" !

 

[Doug Schiller]

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.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

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.

 

[Edwin-S]

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.

 

[Tino]

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.

 

[Doug Schiller]

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.

 

[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.

 

[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".

 

[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"... :rolleyes

 

[Colin Jacobson]

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!

 

[PaulDA]

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.

 

[Chris Atkins]

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.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

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...

 

[Doug Miller]

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

 

[Brian-W]

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.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

 

[Eric Peterson]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Doug Schiller]

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.

 

[Doug Schiller]

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.