Up Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES PLOT SUMMARY
A young Carl Fredrickson meets a young adventure spirited girl named Ellie. They both dream of going to a Lost Land in South America. 70 years later, Ellie has died. Carl remembers the promise he made to her. Then, when he inadvertently hits a construction worker, he is forced to go to a retirement home. But before they can take him, he and his house fly away. However he has a stowaway aboard. An 8 year old boy named Russell, whose trying to get an assisting the elderly badge. Together, they embark in an adventure, where they encounter talking dogs, an evil villain and a rare bird named Kevin.
| Edward Asner | Carl Fredricksen |
| Christopher Plummer | Charles Muntz |
| Jordan Nagai | Russell |
| Bob Peterson | Dug, Alpha |
| Delroy Lindo | Beta |
| Jerome Ranft | Gamma |
| John Ratzenberger | Construction Foreman Tom |
| David Kaye | Newsreel Announcer |
| Elie Docter | Young Ellie |
| Jeremy Leary | Young Carl |
| Mickie McGowan | Police Officer Edith |
| Danny Mann | Construction Worker Steve |
| Donald Fullilove | Nurse George |
| Jess Harnell | Nurse AJ |
| Pete Docter |
8.40 out of 10 (93920 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Move Thee Reviews: Up Lets Me Down
posted on 31 Aug 2009Up is a funny adventure with very well rendered and well animated 3D images. It delivers a message that we, irrespective of age, should never forget about dreams and are able to lead meaningful lives. It also sheds some light on the importance of letting go.However, some ideas are underdeveloped and puzzling. First, the relationship between the old man Carl and the kid Russell is not well-developed enough. Judging from Carl's indifference to Russell's visit, I do not feel his desire to have children after Ellie's death. Simultaneously, Russell's admiration for Carl as his role model can be further developed so that their very good relationship in the last two scenes can be better prepared. For example, what skills has Russell learned from Carl who used to be an adventurer? After watching the film, some may find the ten-minute Carl-and-Ellie love story much more touching and memorable than the Carl-and-Russell adventure. Second, Carl, who relies on an electric chair to move downstairs and staggers along with a stick, suddenly becomes so strong that he can even climb the ladder with his feet hanging in the air, which does not make any sense even in the created world. Third, it is too easy for them to "float" to Paradise Falls, a mysterious place, without scenes showing Carl's prior knowledge on aviation or science, which not only makes the plot contrived, but also the first-15-mintue adventure less exciting. Fourth, why and how does the bad guy invent a device helping his dogs talk with different languages? Fifth, the bad guy should be much older than Carl and I wonder why he is still alive and looks even younger than Carl. Sixth, why does the dog, a loyal animal, betray the explorer, even when he has the upper hand?On the whole, Up is interesting, visually stunning and suitable for kids to watch. However, the story and characters can be further developed. Wall-E, with robots who cannot speak, is more touching, while Bolt, a Disney animation, is funnier than this one with hundreds of dogs. Until now, my favorite Pixar film is still Finding Nemo. Toy Story 2 and Wall-E rank the second and the third respectively. The rest of my top five are The Incredibles and Ratatouille. Up, despite using two ordinary human beings as the main characters, lets me DOWN.
"I have just met you and I love you!"
posted on 31 Aug 2009When Carl was a little boy, he was fascinated with the daring exploits of Charles Muntz, the famous explorer. Then he met Ellie, and she shared Carl's passion for adventure. They had a long and happy life together, but now that Carl is alone, he doesn't want to do anything but be a grump. One day he meets a young scout named Russell and his life changes; maybe Carl has one more adventure in him, after all.I'd heard this animated film was touching, and sure enough, ten minutes into it, I was reaching for a tissue and sobbing. The movie deals with love and loss, and adults who have experienced this may well get more out of the film than children will. It's all about doing what you always wanted to do and it's very good.Ed Asner provides the voice of the old codger Carl and I liked him more than I thought I would. Christopher Plummer is the villain who's not really very menacing at all. The little boy, Russell, is a bit annoying in his helplessness and naiveté, but Dug, the dog is so adorable that I would see the movie again just for him.While not quite as memorable as Pixar's "Wall-E," this movie will leave you with a smile on your face and a lump in your throat.
Pixar rests on its laurels
posted on 29 Aug 2009It's gotten to the point that most people assume that whatever Pixar does, it's going to hit a home run. But in the case of their latest 3-D animated story, "Up", I'm sad to report that this new Pixar concoction does not live up to the all the hype. For those who are watching a Pixar animated film for the first time, of course 'Up' will seem quite impressive. After all, no other studio comes close to Pixar when it comes to the technical aspects of animation. But ultimately, whether a film is animated or not, it's the story and the characters that make a film great.It was a bold move to choose an octogenarian as the film's protagonist—on the surface the crotchety curmudgeon, Carl Fredrickson, the elderly Spencer Tracy look-a-like, is the type of character we haven't seen before especially in an animated film. And 'Up' starts off with two very neat scenes: 1) a take-off on the old Movietone newsreels a la Citizen Kane and 2) a lovely montage sequence which chronicles the graceful aging of Carl and Ellie, the girl he's known since childhood, who becomes his wife.The montage sequence is notably silent and doesn't allow for much character development as to what makes Carl tick. It seems he was always introverted but seemingly happy until Ellie's death. It's perhaps suggested that loneliness has turned Carl into a curmudgeon but with all those happy memories of Ellie, I wonder why he turned into such a sour puss. And that essentially is the problem for most of the film: Carl is simply not very likable. He spends most of his time not acting very nice to Russell, the Explorer Scout stowaway, until the film's climax. But it's quite predictable when Carl finally learns the all-important life lesson that it's much better to be empathetic than uncaring.'Up' is similar to Pixar's prior effort, "Wall-e', in that it takes too long to introduce the film's antagonist. In Wall-e, we spend a little too much time observing Wall-e as earth's last operable trash compactor. But even those activities prove to be far more interesting than the flying house in 'Up'. After about five minutes, the house with the balloons becomes tiresome; it's not a very clever idea to begin with and all the smashups as it makes it way to South America, prove to be more repetitious than Wall-e's penchant for turning mounds of junk into perfect cubes.When we finally meet up with the long lost "Man of Adventure', Charles Muntz, and we saw that Muntz was already probably 30 years old in the newsreel at the beginning of the film, then we must conclude Muntz would be at least 110 years old when he meets up with Carl. But he doesn't look a day older than 90! Muntz at least has a little more personality than Carl but he's much too mean a character for such a light-hearted story. For all parents who plan to take their young children to see 'Up', be forewarned: Muntz and his talking dogs are vicious and wholly inappropriate for your young children who will probably leave the movie theater quite scared and some even crying! The giant dodo-like bird, Kevin, is much more appropriate for the kids but when Muntz's pit bulls start attacking him in old-fashioned bi-planes (straight out of King Kong), the charm flies out the door.The film's denouement wouldn't have been so bad had the adventure in South America been a little more engaging. There were just too many scenes of Carl and Russell tethered to the house, huffing and puffing as they try to reach the illusory waterfalls along with the talking dogs. The rest of it was perfectly acceptable: Carl becomes the good guy, realizes that the reaching his goal was an illusion and bonds with Russell back home. The best part of the film are the closing credits which give us a sneak peak into Carl and Russell's life after their return to the 'ordinary world'.In the end, 'Up' is a tale of political correctness. Two outsiders, the elderly Carl and the obesity challenged Wilderness Explorer Russell, are able to not only defeat pure evil but overcome both the forces of nature and their own limitations. For Carl it's his self-pity and for Russell it's his lack of self-confidence. Ultimately 'Up' falls 'down' since it's all rather predictable stuff. Pixar has become complacent, simply resting on its laurels. There is only one direction Pixar can go from now on…and that is up!
Tragic, Mesmerizing and Utterly Hilarious, One of Pixar's Finest
posted on 29 Aug 2009Pixar has never disappointed (so long as we block Cars from our memory). After Wall-E, the bar was set higher than ever. Wall-E was a beautiful haunting picture, made not for children but more for people willing to absorb the imagery without needing to be guided by dialogue. Despite the success of Wall-E, I think Pixar realized how it may have alienated children to some extent with its long first act, and has included more colour and dialogue in their next picture, Up. However, even if a slightly less mature picture at times than its predecessor, Up ranks among the best Pixar films to date and may actually be its most haunting.Up is the story of 78-year old widower Carl Frederickson. After the death of his wife, he finally decides to do what they always dreamed of doing and having a house on Paradise Falls. However, when his houseship has an unexpected passenger in young boy scout (sorry, "Wilderness Explorer") Russell, his journey becomes something else entirely.Carl is probably the most tragic character Pixar has ever made, possibly even including Wall-E. The opening montage of his life is probably the single most tragic thing I've ever seen in an animated feature. Even Russell, the requisite annoying-yet-noble child, has his share of tragedy surrounding him, also dealing with themes much more mature than the standard studio. It's a tale of a man trying to live his life in its twilight, and its done wonderfully.Of course, no kids want to see a tragedy, so importantly, Up is very funny. There's a man with an army of talking dogs, from which much humour ensues (particularly from Dug, the "SQUIRREL!" dog from the trailer, as well as Alpha, a Rottweiler with a malfunctioning collar). Then there's the large-bird-thing Kevin, also producing some very funny material. Despite the tragedy of the whole story, you really can't help but be entertained, and certainly this is a very funny movie.I do have my complaints, however. The climax seems too stereotypical, a pitfall of all kids movies. It works, however, even if it doesn't blow away. Also, as a physics major, I have some issues to settle with the mechanics of walking around dragging a flying house, but its a pure fantasy movie, and eventually i coerced my brain into shutting up in that respect.One final note: the 3D aspect. I did see it in 3D, and was very impressed. Unlike most 3D movies, there was not a single "OMG 3D" moment in Up (forgive the expression). The use was subtle, yet did add a degree of immersion to the film. It also made the dogs that much more frightening at times. The movie definitely is very good in 2D, but the 3D gives it an extra layer, even if not necessary. If the idea does make you queasy, go for the 2D, because the 3D does not drive the soul of the film.Overall, Up is a triumph. Pixar seems more focused than ever with these last few films, and I'm absolutely loving it. If this implies that Toy Story 3 will be the best yet, bring it on.NOTE: There's a 3D Toy Story 3 trailer attached. That makes it worth admission alone.NOTE: The short film before the movie (as standard with Pixar) is not their best, but its very cute and works its magic to warm you up for the film.
Fairly uplifiting but highly imperfect
posted on 29 Aug 2009It was a good movie, but not great. The beginning sequence was well-done, tender, and sweet, but it was not quite as emotionally affecting as I expected. I would have liked to see a couple more scenes of Carl and Ellie interacting with dialog because the scenes with them as kids didn't quite cut it for me...I liked how it set up Carl's instantaneous love for Ellie, foreshadowing the endurance of his love for her, but her character came off as unique (which was good) but also kind of annoying. If we got to see a little more of her character and dynamic with Carl, maybe a scene of her showing some love for him, I think the following music-only sequence and the whole movie would have been more emotionally compelling.Anyway, Carl as a character was a good protagonist, not the stereotypical, grumpy old man one might expect but instead a quiet, relatable human being. Russel, on the other hand, wasn't the best counterpart for Carl; he had some good moments, but was overall pretty typical and annoying at parts.And while I liked Kevin and Dug, I didn't care for their introduction and their plots. The fact that a giant bird, a pack of talking dogs, and a crazy old man comprise a large part of the story doesn't sit well with me, especially since the movie at first seemed to be rooted in realism (a balloon-propelled house isn't entirely realistic, of course, but it is not cartoonish like the aforementioned elements are).I would have overall preferred if the movie kept a sense of realism to it; there are plenty of ways to have adventures without all that hyper-cartoonish stuff. Even Muntz was a bit cartoonish for such a movie. However, while I would have liked the movie better without these unrealistic plots, they ended up working pretty well once the real point of them as a new adventure for Carl--an adventure to bring him and Russel together in a strong way and for a common good--was more firmly established and explored. However, this purpose still could have been accomplished in a less cartoonish way.As for humor, I didn't find many of the jokes to be funny. Maybe a couple were, but overall, it was kind of weak on humor. Several gags were predictable, and even those that were decent weren't great. I also think the writers thought Russel was a lot funnier than he actually was. And as for the emotion, there were some lines and scenes that seemed forced (for example, Russel's stories about his father), but there were other scenes that got the emotion just right; it worked best when it was understated and subtle.My favorite scene in the movie was when Carl looked through Ellie's "Adventure Book" and saw the photos of their enduring marriage inside with the final note of "Thanks for the adventure. Now have a new one!" A very simple yet powerful scene, in my opinion. And while I found the ending to be very predictable and the scene with the badge lacked the emotional impact it wanted to have, I did like the final scene of Carl and Russel eating ice cream and counting cars (unfortunately, it was the first time I felt a real bond between the characters.) Anyway, the end credits were really great too, very nicely summing up the whole message of the film...one of my favorite parts of the whole movie, actually. And this message of everyday life being an adventure when spent with someone you love was really nice, one of the best things about the movie.Technically speaking, the visuals were pretty great. I saw it in 3D, and it utilized the 3D well without overdoing it. The only thing that bothered me a little was that parts of Carl looked strange...his ears and hands mainly. But overall, really nice-looking movie. Oh, and the music (particularly the old-fashioned piano music) was awesome.In précis, probably worthy of a B/B-. Tentative grade, but there it is. Didn't reach the heights of emotion and beauty of "Wall-E"; didn't as successfully accomplish the feeling of friendship and fun like "Toy Story" did, but still a fairly solid Pixar film.
A Fabulous But Uneasy Adult/Family Animated Movie
posted on 29 Aug 2009"Up" attempts the difficult fusion of both children and adult elements in the same movie and usually succeeds marvelously at both. This sharp, 3-D animated movie handles both roarously funny scenes along with dramatic emotional scenes dealing with love, growing old, and the issue of what's important in life. However, as a serious movie, it attempts to incorporate childlike fantasy elements and sometimes the rigors of logical and reasonable cause and effect go out the window which would be no problem in a traditional animated movie directed towards young people. But "Up" in attempting to have it both, both serious grown-up issues and thoughtful scenes, it brings with it an expectation of a tighter reign on more realistic scenes regarding chases and escapes while thrilling go beyond plausibility, breaking the suspension of animated realism, which when 3-D is used actually increases the need for virtual practical sequences. Overall however, this movie is captivated with fabulous colors, the action is riveting, the plot outline decently strong and in some instances even more intimate than Coraline (2009). 8/10.
Excellent!!
posted on 29 Aug 2009Took my 7 year old daughter to see Up(3D) this afternoon. What can I say: visually-excellent; stylistically-excellent; story line-simple but beautifully done; score-wonderful; characters-superb/interesting ... as the story unfolds I felt a full range of emotions (some, I felt deeply -and I'm a 42 year old man's man). Actually, I could relate to this story on so many levels (e.g. experiencing great loss; deferred dreams; deep regrets; the struggle between holding onto the past versus moving forward in life; spirit of adventure and letting go of self imposed obstacles to finally reach for my dreams; something that at first seems an imposition but turns out to be of great value; and much more) . Who could ask for more in an animated film. "Up" is a must see - one of the best animated films ever in my opinion. My daughter loved it too :) We give it a 10.
Good...but, Pixar, please keep the subliminal political agendas out!
posted on 29 Aug 2009Unwanted Jewish-looking old man being pushed out of his home, unfairly deemed a 'menace to society,' to be put into a concen...I mean 'retirement home,' strives to realize the lifelong dream to relocate his home to the 'promised land,' carrying the memory of loved one who shared the dream but didn't make it, struggles to survive the ill-will of an obsessed Germanic-looking guy flying around in a Hindenburg-like airship, with a little Asian kid without a father tagging along. That about sums up the plot of 'Up.' Can we be any more obvious? The subliminal ethno-political allegorical symbolism was rampant in this movie, and it seems to be creeping more and more into Pixar movies. Pixar, please keep the politica agenda out and leave our children to their innocence! Other than that it was a cute movie with some chuckles. My niece seemed to like it. The sentimentality was strategically interwoven to tug on the little heart-strings of those who might not be emotionally mature, geopolitically aware, or not actively studying this curious phenomenon. I'm really going to have to start documenting my findings and write a book.
Up gets my sky high rating
posted on 27 Aug 2009The best cinematic thing the Walt Disney Company has done in the past half century is tie in with Pixar, a group of brilliant animation filmmakers founded by John Lasseter who left Disney for Lucasfilm in the early eighties and Ed Catmull who was made the head the new company's digital imaging at that time under new corporate head, Steve Jobs. We all know of their extraordinary success. The films appear to just get better as the years roll by and fine writers are located and brought aboard.UP is a quality peer of the best animated feature films ever made. However, somewhat unlike the first two Disney animated features, Snow White and Pinocchio. These two are as yet to be surpassed in enduring content…what the great director, Frank Capra, once told me, "Something to put in their pocket and take home with them." It's what I call spiritual content, that is, subtext that speaks to the soul.Thus, unlike the first two classics made under the auspices of Walt Disney himself, however, UP is a bit light in its spiritual core and heavier on action and story…two good attributes of all Pixar features, and in this case with strong sentiment and heartwarming scenes. However, this lack in formula always shortens the legs of all features, live action included.Another fuzz-ball in the lens is the contemporary use of well known voices such as Ed Asner, who does a commendable job as the lead character in UP, Carl Fredricksen, but whose voice clearly kicks off real life images from the brain's memory bank which then conflict with the animated character's image on screen.In 1978 while researching my first place national book festival prizewinner, The World of Animation, at the Walt Disney Company in Burbank, I interviewed several people that had worked with Disney in the mid to late 1930s and was also associated for some years with Shamus Culhane who worked on both of the first two Disney animated features. As a brief sidebar, Jimmy (Shamus)Culhane's name was left out of the of Pinocchio credits because he quit Disney before that film was released in order to help (and in addition for an erroneous health assumption) the Fleischer brothers in Miami on their first two animated features…two films not so successful due to poor scripting but both features that had charm: Gulliver's Travels and Hoppity Goes to Town.As for Shamus, most of the scene where Pinocchio sets out to school with an apple for the teacher and meets the fox and cat was animated primarily by Shamus.Shamus and others who were there at the time of Snow White's production confirmed that the reason that Walt Disney used Adriana Casellotti's singing voice, totally unknown, instead of Deanna Durbin's or Judy Garland's in Snow White, for example, was primarily because of the image conflict that does occur with audiences when they hear a very well known voice speaking for an animated character with which we are trying to identify. Today nearly all (but not all) American animation studios use celebrity voices in contrast to the very early years. They also pay top dollar for these voices, a completely unnecessary budget expense.All that said, UP is a wonderful animated film and not just for children, another idea that Walt Disney had that has often been forgotten…that animation is not just for children. The feature animation from other nations bears this out.
Pixar's Up Dives Down
posted on 27 Aug 2009Disney-Pixar's UP is an expertly animated, well-written and brilliantly executed film, exactly what I have come to expect of the Pixar company...and I absolutely hated it. From the offset, Up is a tale of mortality and loss, beginning with a beautiful and tear-jerking expose of Carl Frederickson's life, marriage, dreams, and ultimately, the death of his wife. Pixar takes unexpectedly but refreshingly bleak take on life as the wife dies without having achieved her dreams or lived the life she had always wanted to. In truth, the beginning of the story is very much a return to the classic Disney formula, both in its sad tone and generally dark outlook on life before we meet our heroic main character. Therein, though, lies the problem: Up, arguably, has no hero. From Carl to the endearing, albeit damaged Wilderness Explorer, the entire cast is wrought with issues and problems and no one is the clear cut victor. While this works and I even applaud it in more mature fare, in a Disney movie, particularly one aimed at audiences even younger than last year's Wall-E, it faltered. The second largest problem is the lack of a seriously sinister villain. The villain of UP, an old, washed-up explorer with a bone to pick with the world, comes off boring and uninteresting. Not to mention his league of vox-wearing, super dogs is one of the silliest things I have seen since the debacle that was Beverly Hills Chihuahua. They occupy a good portion of screen time, which is a shame as they are generally unfunny and do nothing to advance the plot.Up is what many people were expecting and wanted to see, particularly those with very young children. However, it was not what I was hoping for. Had its beautiful beginning style been carried out through the film, this would have been a fantastic triumph for me. Sadly, though, UP fell very quickly. An excellent film on merit, it just wasn't for me.
Astonishing is not a strong enough word for "Up"
posted on 27 Aug 2009After the brilliance of "Wall-E," Pixar had nowhere to go but down. Instead, they went "Up," way up! I defy even the most cynical viewer to watch the Carl-and-Ellie opening montage and not shed an honest tear. So emotionally overwhelming is this astonishing piece of animated film making that the viewer is completely sucked in to the rest of the story. The technical and artistic brilliance of this sequence is worth the price of admission, but, happily, there is much to come that is comparable.There are characters, authentic in their realization, utterly believable in their execution, wonderfully written and voiced. There is spectacle, there is adventure and suspense and a great many out-loud laughs. There is poignancy and heartbreak, heroism and redemption -- all of the things that create a memorable movie-going experience.A brief word about the 3-D work in the film: utterly flawless and free from the obtrusiveness that mars so many 3-D efforts. Pixar did not use 3-D as a trick to be exploited, but rather as an element that enhanced the wonder of the visuals and extend the story. This is a lesson in how to use a technology to actually advance a story. Well done!I can only hope that with the Academy's expansion of Best Picture Nominees from five to ten this year that "Up" will at least get a nomination. If there is real justice, it will receive the award that "Wall-E" should have won. But "Up" is altogether deserving of the award on its own merits. This is a movie to be treasured, to be seen with someone you love.
Nothing wrong with the animation that's for sure
posted on 27 Aug 2009As far as the plot goes, this was probably the most depressing Pixar movie I've ever seen. Basically, this boy meets this girl and you see a montage of them getting married and aging. Hopes and aspirations are dashed: They are unable to have children and they never realize their dream of making it to Paradise Falls. The wife dies and the guy lives alone, unable to "let go" of the house he once shared with his soul mate. Pretty original huh? Well anyways, he eventually faces eviction because he caned someone who was only trying to help him out. Long story short, he uses a bunch of balloons to float his house to Paradise Falls, meets friends and foes along the way. Lessons are learned, hearts are changed and once again evil is not able to prevail (in the end that is). I'd like to see the protagonist of a story lose more often in films. Remember when Rocky lost to Apollo Creed in Rocky I? Wasn't that great? If Up's plot is formulaic, that's fine. But the story is boring, and that's not fine. Basically, it's just the old man and the kid walking. I only laughed a couple times, especially when the dogs went "SQUIRREL!". To conclude, this movie was okay at best.
Pleasant but very artificial
posted on 27 Aug 2009Pixar seems to be hitting a bit of a wall lately. "Wall-E" may have wowed some adult critics, but I noticed that it did not hold the attention of actual children in an actual theater. Sadly the same is true for "Up" even though it has a more childlike storyline. Too many disparate elements -- a house powered by balloons, hordes of talking dogs, a big bird and a giant dirigible? OK, whatever. This is one of the weirdest movies I've seen lately but it's a shame the screenplay is a sort of rehash of aspects of previous Pixar movies. The tearjerking dialogue-free story of loss? We already saw that in TOY STORY 2. Long stretches of no dialogue or limited dialogue? WALL-E. I got the feeling that this movie was just "Let's do a movie about a house powered by balloons!" and they just threw a lot of other stuff at it. (And why did they spend 2/3 of the movie firmly on the ground in a boring, rocky landscape on a tedious plodding trek to a waterfall we can already see? A lot of this movie just isn't any FUN.) Don't mean to sound too harsh - the characters are lovingly created and occasionally also lovable (although his character was annoying and trite, I loved the expressions on the little Asian boy).The action-packed ending is pretty exciting. And, make sure to stay for the credits to see what happens to the characters. It's by no means the worst Pixar film (that honor goes to CARS)... and I liked this one better than WALL-E......but at the same time, it's no TOY STORY, BUG'S LIFE or INCREDIBLES either. It's a given that nothing in UP is going to make any sense physically, but some things in the characters' lives don't make any sense either. Only in Hollywood fairy tales do modern American boys join Wilderness Scouts and go door to door down city streets (!) looking for old men to help, for example. What planet do these writers live on? Slowly over the years, Pixar's stories (while technically as impressive as ever) have been getting more and more contrived and less natural feeling; they also feel as if they're trying to score more points with adult film critics than with the children. (One of the previews at this showing was for PARTLY CLOUDY WITH A CHANCE OF MEATBALLS, which looked like more of a blast for the kids, and a movie I wish they had made when I was a kid!)But the whole superiority of Pixar WAS the combination of the stories plus the technical achievement. So, this trend remains worrisome. Pixar really needs to get back to basics with their next project.
"Up" is up, up and away.
posted on 27 Aug 2009"Up" is well worth seeing in 3D. It utilizes the polarized glasses that were first released in 1952 with the black and white film, "Bwana Devil". However, this cartoon has enhanced the quality of presentation with effects that were unavailable in the 1950's. The storyline is one that is bent more toward the adult, and true empathy for the characters is unique to this film. The kids may enjoy the special effects and cartoon animals, however, the adults will appreciate the kind and gentle approach to the elderly that is a welcome change in the cartoon world. Edward Asner is the perfect voice for the protagonist. And Christopher Plummer is pleasure to listen to as Mr. Charles Muntz. I highly recommend this film for old and young alike.
Up really takes Pixar Up
posted on 27 Aug 2009I thought Pixar had lost me since the movie Cars. I saw Wall-e and I didn't like it. I thought that Pixar had gone down and will never redeem themselves. But I was wrong. Up is such success and pure Disney Pixar Magic. The adventures of these characters is so original and so well made out. The plot and sequences really amazed me. This masterpiece will go into the Pixar legends. A great story for boy and girls young and old. Up is an Oscar worthy film. On the other hand, this movie has some intense things for small viewers and deserves the PG rating. Even though this movie may be rated PG, is a good film that I recommend for anyone who wants to see a really well made animated film.Good Job Pixar. You really surprised me once more.
A great time at the movies!
posted on 25 Aug 2009"Up" continues the tradition of movies like "WALL*E," "Finding Nemo" and "Ratatouille": a Disney/Pixar collaboration released in the summer months, buoyed by excellent visuals and a story that leaves the audience in tears of joy. I'm not entirely sure how the people behind these flicks are always able to produce top-of-the-line quality at just about every time up at bat (the exception, I think, is "Cars" -- a meandering comedy that relies too heavily on Larry the Cable Guy's one-trick pony tendencies. Though even then when Disney and Pixar aren't at their most entertaining, they are still better than most of their competitors.), but I'm not complaining; as long as I'm leaving the theater in such a joyous mood, I'm good.And boy, let me tell you this: I'd wager that even the most high-brow critic will be broken by "Up," even if they look at the trailers and think, "a movie about a guy taking a trip around the world with several balloons wrapped around portions of the guy's house? How can a movie be good whenever its plot is so unrealistic?" It doesn't feel silly. It doesn't feel like something only little kids would be impressed -- though it will certainly impress kids: all the visuals, the witty dialogue that won't go over the heads of children but won't seem too childish to the parents accompanying them, and the sweet, tender story behind all of this. Even the most stingy people that don't like the "Full House" morals hidden in movies (and may or may not have liked the not so subtle message of "clean up the Earth or this will happen" from last year's "WALL*E") won't feel preached to; "Up" is about escaping your duties for one last adventure. In Carl's case, he wants to go visit South America -- something he and his wife had long planned to do but the wife had died before she could go on the journey. Carl wants to go to honor her wishes, but also for something quite obvious: he wants to leave the monotonous environment he is currently trapped in.If you've seen the movie trailers, you know Carl (voice of Ed Asner, whose voice acting here is invaluable at capturing the range needed in such a character: dark and tidy on the inside and tender when you break him down) isn't the only one going -- pardon the pun -- up. An eight year old boy scout trying to earn an "assist the elderly" badge from Carl accidentally gets stuck on the front porch as the balloons hoist the house up in the air (side note: pay close attention to the way the emphasis is on this portion of the movie. Obviously it's the defining portion of the plot, but the way the scene plays out with such a level of rushed urgency makes for what I can only assume is the reaction from the audience that is a "hey, take me too!" And really, who wouldn't want to just drop everything and go for a long trip?) and is the unintentional companion to Carl for this trip. Oh, and there's a dog that can talk. Hilarity ensues, but be warned: this is a three-tissue -- at least! -- flick, and it will make you weep tears of sadness without a bit of warning. If you can make it through the first ten minutes without getting choked up, you aren't human.I could spoil as much as I feel like, because the film really isn't about plot twists or a surprising finale -- but instead it's the trip there. I can explain the sights of Paradise Falls in South America and it would do no good because I can't convey the amount of amazement in words. It's all about the experience, and the feeling you will get from "Up" is something that I can't prepare you for. Suffice it to say, prepare for a great time.Note: This film was viewed in 2D, as opposed to the hyped digital 3D. My reasoning to stick with the old reliable goes beyond the adage of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." For me, the animation in "Up" is so top-notch as it is in the original 2D animation that I see no real reason to upgrade; certainly I have to wonder if such rich colors will hold up with such a limited -- albeit pretty spiffy -- gimmick of 3D, and I have to wonder if it's just a scheme by Disney to scam me out of an extra $3 that could be better spent by upgrading to a medium popcorn. I just think visually if everything's so perfect in 2D, why should I want to change it? (I guess this does go back to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" thing -- so sue me.) Rating: **** out of ****
A Summer Upper
posted on 25 Aug 2009"The thirst for adventure is the vent which Destiny offers; a war, a crusade, a gold mine, a new country, speak to the imagination and offer swing and play to the confined powers." Ralph Waldo Emerson Let's play a little game: What's the common denominator of these Pixar films?Toy Story A Bugs Life Toy Story 2 Monsters, Inc. Finding Nemo The Incredibles Cars Ratatouille Wall EYou're right! Animated characters with humanity, soul, and individuality. Did you think Pixar would lose its touch with Up? Of course not. It will rank with the list above as one of its best. But then, all the above are Pixar's best.Seventy-eight year old Carl Fredricksen (voice of Ed Asner) has lost his wife and his reason to enjoy life. Enter eight year old Russell (Jordan Nagai), a stowaway on Carl's flying house as they float with thousands of balloons to South America to fulfill Carl's commitment to his dead wife to find adventure.Enter Pixar's expertise at fashioning character out of animation: Carl's expressions are so true to an old man's disappointments and lost dreams that the animation medium is benignly lost to the humanity. Enter Carl's traveling buddy, Russell, a pudgy scout with uncertain Asian influences in his genes, who earns the equivalent of a Boy Scout badge by helping Carl travel to a remote falls in South America to fulfill the dream of his deceased wife to live there.Besides the 3-D loving color and careening objects, directors Peter Docter and Bob Petersen explore the universal need for meaning in life beyond the accumulation of things and the old man/young man dynamic without maudlin musings. Add another old man to the mix, explorer Charles Muntz (Christopher Plummer), who simply means for Pixar another chance to consider the need of old men to find final meaning, a philosophical closure, in their descending lives.Up is a summer upper. It will keep you from being down and from suffering my paltry puns.
Pixar do it again! Up soars to new heights!
posted on 25 Aug 2009Viewed at the Festival de Cannes 2009 The opening film of this year's festival, and the first animated film ever to have this honour, Up is truly a film for all ages. The story of the adventures of an old man and a young boy, a flying house tethered to countless balloons, a long-lost (and mad) explorer, a giant bird called Kevin and assorted 'talking' dogs gets funnier and more exciting as it goes along.This isn't slapstick humour, although there are some lovely visual gags, but deeper, more thoughtful. At times Up is even touching and poignant.Visually, this is a treat and while I was sceptical about the use of 3D to begin with, it is built into the story so seamlessly that it really is worth the effort to seek it out. At the same time, I can't help feeling the 2D version could be even better because the 3D glasses had the effect of dimming the picture. The use of colour in the film is especially noteworthy, with various palettes used according to mood, character and phase of the story. Character voicing and music are also spot on.I have no connection with Pixar, Disney or the film whatsoever, even if this review reads like a puff piece. The fact is, Up is an incredible piece of cinema, was a big hit with a very demanding press audience, and is worthy of your time and money.Anyone who says animated films cannot amuse and entertain, while at the same time delivering any kind of emotion, does not know what they are talking about.Up is so good I can now forgive Pixar for Cars!
Exceeded my already sky-high expectations
posted on 25 Aug 2009At this point, I expect nothing less than excellence from Disney/Pixar. It's only natural after seeing them produce 9 high quality films in a row, a streak that is unmatched by any studio in Hollywood. And the greatest thing about their films is that they continue to mature from movie to movie, both in the animation and the storytelling. Culminating in last year's triumph, "Wall-E", Pixar showed us that they can take any story, and character, and make us care about them.Well, the trend continues and then some with this summer's "Up". Like I alluded to earlier, this film continues the maturation trend that Pixar has shown throughout their existence. In fact, this could be the most mature 'children's film' since "Bambi", both in the themes that it covers and the way that it presents them. But part of the genius of these storytellers is that they can make an extremely mature film without it losing its innocence. I personally consider that to be the greatest achievement of the film, apart from the wonderful animation.We are introduced to balloon salesman Carl Frederickson (Ed Asner, the best voice-over since Ellen DeGeneres) early on as the movie takes us joyfully, and painfully, through his life. His wife has passed, and he is now alone living around a construction zone. When an incident with a construction worker forces him to move to a retirement home, he has trouble leaving his house. So much trouble, in fact, that he decides to tie thousands of balloons to his house and soar away to South America, a dream he and his wife shared while she was still alive. But unknown to him upon takeoff, a precocious young boy named Russel was on his porch, and becomes an unexpected stowaway on the voyage.Once in South America, Carl and Russel run into Carl's childhood hero, an exiled explorer accused of fabricating evidence of a "monster" in South America. The explorer vowed to leave the U.S. and not return until he found the monster. Pleasant company quickly turns unpleasant, however, after the explorer thinks that Carl and Russel have come to claim the monster for themselves, and a battle quickly ensues between the two parties. By the end of the struggle, Carl is able to learn valuable lessons about life, and the small adventures that often go overlooked.The film is incredible, the animation is stunning, the voice-over work is tremendous, and the themes are timeless and important. 15 years ago, if anybody had said that an animation company who made films on a computer would become the most consistently successful film company in Hollywood, people would have laughed.Nobody is laughing now. Or rather, everybody is. They're just all laughing with Pixar.10/10
The first CGI film that truly has something for everyone, and it's all brilliant
posted on 31 Aug 2009After tackling rats with chef skills and voiceless robots on journeys of self-discovery, leave it to Pixar to make the star of its latest film an elderly man and continue to defy Hollywood's long-held belief that animated films have to zero in on children and concepts that can be marketed into hats and toys and backpacks. Heck, in "Up" even animals talking are explained rather than simply taken for granted. But what sets it apart from other Pixar gems is that it's the animation studio's most inclusive for-the-whole family adventure to date.It's no surprise to anyone anymore that Pixar leads field in terms of computer-generated animation and while "Up" continues this tradition, that's not its specialty. "WALL*E" is still more of a spectacle and innovator. "Up" is Pixar's proof that they can combine beautiful, heart-filled storytelling with laughs for every age group and adventure and action to boot and *still* make a killing at the box office.On premise, most analysts wouldn't predict a film about 78-year-old Carl Fredricksen ballooning his house to South America to honor a promise to his late wife to be even close to a box office success in the genre of animated family films, but attach the name Pixar and anything is possible. Dogs with collars that turn their thoughts in words and the dynamic between a young boy scout named Russell who accidentally was on Fredricksen's porch when the house took off and an old man prove to be more than enough for great comedy and entertainment.Sure, the plot itself once they get to South America leaves something to be desired, and the feasibility of an old man who can't walk down his stairs being able to hold onto a dangling rope with a boy, a dog and a large bird on the other end will fail to suspend many adults' disbelief, but there is never a moment devoid of something clever or meaningful in the entire film. The fresh and humorous concept proves quite forgiving as does the touching motivation in the story of Carl doing this for his dead wife. The montage through their years together is incredibly powerful for happening so early in the film. Pete Docter and Bob Peterson do an excellent job, though obviously Pixar's constant success must be credited to John Lasseter. Next to "WALL*E" whose innovation, imagination and genius themes might never be repeated in animated film, "Up" is Pixar's best to date. There is honestly something for everyone: the elderly will relate to Carl's struggles with aging, loss and unfulfillment; children will find plenty of physical humor to enjoy between the hysterical dogs and Russell's slight lack of smarts; and the ages in between will find the story touching and the concepts and their execution nothing short of genius. And for once, Disney is even politically correct/inclusive in the diversity of characters.