I felt it was more poignet then most of the movies I’ve seen this year, and I really didn’t have a problem with “talking dog collars”. The dogs flying planes got me for a second and then I said “Why not? Hell, If dogs can cook, why not fly planes?” Plus the fact it was so much fun to watch, which let me forgive a lot.
And if you’re going to complain, you might as well complain about the lack of female dogs to sustain the pack for 50 or so years.
“Up” is the first movie I’ve seen in a while where I really can’t think of any criticism for it, other then going a bit slow at times due to a rather thin plot…and the fact it’s not as good as WALL-E(Which is nothing to be ashamed of).
No Pixar trailer has ever been as good as the film. And that is exactly as it should be. A film that doesn’t live up to it’s trailer is the definition of “disappointment”. I’ve not been disappointed by a Pixar film yet - even the ones that are at the bottom of my list, like A Bug’s Life and Cars are still enjoyable films. Because the ones at the top of my list, like Toy Story 2 rank (obviously, in my estimation) as some of the greatest films ever made.
I saw the 5:40 show, and it’s past midnight and my wife and me are still giggling like fools about that. Something about it struck me perfectly, and I totally lost it. I was howling with laughter, gasping for breath, nearly falling out of my chair. It’s right up there with the first time I saw This Is Spinal Tap at a screening with an audience that had no idea it was a mockumentary. My wife told me on the bus afterward “I’m glad we shared that”.
Also, the montage of Carl and Ellie’s life together was deeply moving, and had me in tears. It was definitively great animation - telling an emotionally powerful story with nothing but characterization and movement.
I agree with those who thought the first half or so was great, after which it went completely off the rails (with the exception of the conclusion of Carl’s emotional arch).
The biggest problem for me was that they turned Charles Muntz into a villain at all. It was so sudden and pointless. Here the three of them are sitting down to a nice meal, enjoying one another’s company, when Muntz reveals that he’s been trying to track down Kevin all these years. Why oh why oh why is Carl so distressed at this news? Muntz doesn’t want to kill Kevin - he wants to bring him to the U.S. to prove he’s not a fraud. And anyways, Carl still doesn’t like Kevin at this point, and probably wouldn’t have cared if Muntz had wanted to shoot him - he certainly wouldn’t care if Muntz wanted to bring Kevin to a zoo. He and Ellie had worked at a zoo!! I was expecting Carl to jump up and say “What a coincidence! I’ve got that bird right outside!” Him being upset made no sense.
Also terribly annoying was the scene where Muntz captures Kevin in the net, and Carl stops trying to cut him loose when he has to run and put out the fire under his house. Made perfect sense to me - they were completely overwhelmed at that point, what with the dogs swarming around them. But of course this evokes a dramatic scene of Russell staring at Carl, lips a-quiver, saying “You abandoned Kevin…” :rolleyes: I mean, I like kids and all, but I feel like that type of scene (dewey-eyed kid accusing adult of breaking some offhand promise, when the adult is doing the best they can) is fast becoming movie cliche hell.
Well, I think it can be said, that Muntz wasn’t necessarily a villain, so long as you weren’t in his way, otherwise he welcomed you in to show off all his accomplishments. Once he realized, at first, that Carl and Russell weren’t hunters (or a threat to Muntz’s interests), then he became very hospitable. Once he realized they had Kevin, Carl was starting to see the world through Russell’s eyes. He also knew giving up Kevin to Muntz would be betraying Russell, so he was trying to protect Russell, more than the bird. Just like a father or grandparent.
Also, while Carl may not have been as invested in the well-being of the bird as Russell, he knew the bird had babies it was trying to get back to, to feed and take care of. Only an asshole would shrug that off. Let Muntz take some pictures, for crying out loud.
Anyway, did anyone catch the final Dug joke at the end when they were counting red and blue cars? Dug said, “There’s a gray one!” Dogs are colorblind. heh.
If I may add one other thing: this particular bird was basically Russell’s pet. In my estimation Carl might’ve been fine with Muntz taking any other bird, even the chicks.
I think Muntz was a villain in the classic sense because his desire to service his fatal flaw (vanity?) was greater than the desire to preserve life. And considering he developed a very useful canine-human communication tool, he should be understood to be a great man.
This is just another layer to a movie that seems to be about understanding the many contradictions in this world. You know, the crack on the head of the innocent construction worker. (The blood was shocking.) And what about the whole “it’s just a house” quote? Dang. It’s good for kids to be exposed to this early.
I think it’s all quite zen.
Added Muntz in brackets to cmyk’s quote for clarity.
Saw it, cried like a little girl* twice during the marriage montage (Ellie grieving in the yard, Ellie in the hospital), and generally loved it. I thought it was almost as good as WALL-E.
Muntz definitely revealed his villainy when he tried to drop a defenseless kid out of his blimp! But I was fine with him - it was clear he was going to figure in the story from the beginning.
*or maybe not: when Carl was talking to Ellie’s picture at one point she turned to me and matter-of-factly said, “She’s actually dead.”
When the “dogfighers” came flying out, did you catch the Star Wars reference as they checked in over the radio?
One thought…how the frak old is Charles Muntz? He was an accomplished adventurer when Carl was 6 or so. Now Carl is, what, 70? Muntz is pretty darned spry for an centenarian. Must be the warm weather in the jungle!
Saw it, enjoyed it. The whole theater was laughing out loud during the funny bits and very quiet during the sad bits.
The one thing that bothered me most was Muntz supposedly falling to his death. Sure he had some balloons on him that may have slowed his fall but it seems more likely he died. I just thought that seemed a bit dark. I guess he deserved it because it was implied that he had killed other explorers and he was certainly willing to kill a kid by dropping him from his blimp.
I was thinking of bringing kaylasmom to the movies tomorrow to catch a matinee. Then my daughter mentioned that with it being in 3D, I’d have to pay an excessively high admission, which would include two pairs of 3D glasses.
Somehow, I don’t think 3D glasses will cause kaylasmom’s prosthetic eyes to become functional. Actually, I’m sure of it, since Michaela brought a pair home from the Hannah Montana concert movie, and we tried them.
Is it possible to find non-3D showings of this film, or do I have to wait until I open my Christmas presents?
Luckily for both you and me, 2D showing outnumber the wretched 3D nonsense, at least in my area. AMC’s River East 21, where we saw it, had five 3D showings yesterday in one of their smaller theaters and 17 2D showings in several of their largest. I can’t resolve 3D and commasense and me have gone round and round about the probability of this crap becoming the standard. Based on this release, it doesn’t look like it’s going to take over any time soon.
Naw. 3D can only be made for really high end movies or CG animated films. Even for the seeing-impaired such as yourself and kaylasmom, most films will always be showing on a 2D screen, regardless. Even Avatar, a movie that is being designed from the bottom up, pinning itself to the 3D experience, will be played on 2D screens.
Especially if they’re going to charge a premium for 3D (I think an extra $2 is what’s happening at my AMC), they need to keep the standard 2D option/price, or they’re going to lose a ton of money.
Also, a lot of movies make a ton of money just from the DVD sales. Until mostly everyone has a 3D television (which will be a looooong time), don’t expect all movies to be made that way exclusively.
But I’m curious, why do you think watching a film in stereo-vision is wretched?
Because, like roughly eight to ten percent of the population cannot resolve 3D. I can see out of both eyes, but my eyes cannot combine a forced stereo perspective into a stereo image. I’ve had this confirmed by an optician - basically, if you cannot see those “stereograms”, you will not have a pleasant time at a 3D movie. And even those who can see 3D frequently report headaches and eyestrain. I’ve tried. Every year at SIGGRAPH, the computer graphics conference, they would have a portion of the Electronic Theater presentation (the best work of the year) in 3D. And every year, I’d wind up having to cover one eye.
If this shit catches on, I’m going to be forced to pay more money to have a worse filmgoing experience.
Weird. I’ve never heard of that. What’s really weird is all it’s doing is replicating what your eyes deal with in the real world: That is, two slightly different angles of the same view, and your brain overlays and parses depth from that. I’m curious as to where it fails when replicating the illusion.
Or, do you not have depth perception in the real world as well?
