Film Specs

  • Certificate:
    PG
  • Running Time:
    96 minutes
  • Released:
    2009
  • Country:
    United States of America
  • Director:
    Pete Docter
  • Starring:
    Voices of:
    Ed Asner
    Christopher Plummer
    Jordan Nagai
    Delroy Lindo
    Bob Peterson
    John Ratzenberger
  • Genre(s):
    Animated

Up

16-10-2009 21:32 | 11586 views  |  clydefro jones  |  Show Backlinks

Pixar has this wonderful paradox it's been able to exploit where critical tastemakers judge the studio's features favorably against the enormous amount of animated dreck that gets released without really applying the same scrutiny as would greet a live action film. The rationale seems to be that the Pixar movies are for kids so they get a longer leash, but so often these very pictures are touted as being just as delightful for the parents as the children. Rave reviews garland the films, they make oodles of cash, and an Oscar statuette typically awaits. No one wants to seem like the grump who dares criticize the cuddly monolith of Pixar. It's like there's some air of ungratefulness in questioning the almighty deities of computer animation. But just because the films are good and the other animated features are largely intolerable for adults doesn't require giving Pixar a pass every time the same basic formula is trotted out like it's the annual chosen one. Showing appreciation is fine, but ignoring just how flawed these movies often are when measured as something other than distractions for children should also be allowed, even encouraged.

The ultimate hope would then be that Pixar will someday make a feature that largely avoids cliches, resists oversentimentalization, and doesn't feel obligated to use action sequences which tend to lack any suspense since everyone already knows the protagonist will emerge victorious. Happy endings are fine. They're great, but tighten the ship a little Pixar. Of course, these things are never going to happen because, yes, the consensus continues to enable such limitations to persist via the laudatory reviews and massive box office success. Pixar's secret formula is to please the audience with the cliche, sentiment and action, plus some remarkably beautiful animation, while winning over critics both by having poor competition and by including moments of truly awe-inspiring cinema. The company has never lacked for brilliance on a small scale. Its shorts are still the most artistically successful part of the Pixar brand, and there are at least half a dozen of those which are far superior to any of the features. Certain chunks of the films are completely brilliant in every conceivable way. The first half hour of Wall-E, for instance, belongs in the pantheon of cinematic greatness. Similarly, a poignant, even tearful sequence occurs near the beginning of the latest Pixar outing Up that really takes the strengths exhibited by the shorts and applies them to this swatch in a full-length movie.


The plot of Up is fairly and impressively multi-faceted, though unfocused might be an equally apt description. A timid young boy fascinated with adventure sees his idol on the big screen in a newsreel probably from the 1930s. The bespectacled boy, Carl Fredricksen (wonderfully given voice in the majority of the film by Ed Asner), wears an aviator's cap and goggles to try and emulate the explorer Charles Muntz, who becomes somewhat disgraced by charges he fabricated the bones of an exotic bird he'd discovered near Paradise Falls in Venezuela. Young Carl unexpectedly finds young Ellie, a spunky redhead who shares the same love of adventure, and soon enough we're ready for the most wonderful montage you're likely to see for a long time. It's still the first few minutes of the movie and the tears have already welled up in your eyes. Just achingly gorgeous work on Pixar's part. It's rare to find a better display of humanity and life and all the things we hold important than what's portrayed in this sequence. If they gave Oscars for greatest moments in film, with any justice, this would win.

The action picks up decades later, in contemporary times, and Carl is now elderly, alone and his house is in the middle of a construction zone. The overseeing forces of the ostensible improvement are portrayed as wearing suits and sunglasses, attached to a wireless phone, and generally appearing like slick corporate executives. This is another example of Pixar's false resistance to a certain business specimen that keeps appearing in these films. Pixar is, unequivocally, a major part of the Walt Disney family, a company that is the "largest media and entertainment conglomerate in the world," yet it seems obsessed with bending reality to be portrayed as the little guy. You're not really fighting the good fight when all of those non-biodegradable plastic Wall-E toys are littered throughout the global marketplace.

Speaking of Wall-E, a chubby little kid straight out of the blobby humans in that film becomes our second main character in Up. Russell the junior wilderness explorer (voiced with a perfect mix of innocence and energy by young Jordan Nagai) needs only to earn his Assisting the Elderly badge to be a full-fledged senior wilderness explorer. He zeroes in on Carl, and when the old man decides to trick the people trying to put him in an assisted living center by attaching a festival of helium balloons to lift his house into the sky, Russell invites himself to tag along. The intended destination is, appropriately, Paradise Falls. As this unbelievable monstrosity flies through the atmosphere, it seems that the viewer is expected to simply accept such an idea at face value. Sure a bunch of balloons could allow a house to go up in the air and be directed to Venezuela. Why not, right. Well, it's obvious fantasy and one can accept that. The trouble with fantasy, and things only continue to stretch just how far the reasonable person would comfortably allow, is that it lessens how affecting the non-fantastic elements can be. An allegory can get away with a great deal, but Up is hardly an allegory.


Without wanting to give away any more of the plot, it should suffice to register the complaint of how brazenly unrealistic Up skews. There's the house, sure, but also the leap of how a guy who should probably be around 110 years old manages to play such a vital role. A few other things best left self-discovered also remain bothersome. Still, these are all forgivable concerns despite being caused by what is basically lazy story development. What's more troublesome is this rut of obviousness that Pixar films create by throwing in nonsense physical comedy and forced conflict. It seems like an appeal to the masses, but how unfortunate that it's the masses who are being appeased. Most all of Pixar's films have clearly outlined how idiotic the masses tend to be, yet time and again it's those very people who are catered to in the dumbing down aspects of these movies. The message Pixar is presenting is woefully mixed, and each of the company's films will be similarly flawed as long as the prize remains both the cake and the luxury of eating it.

Up is out now in the USA and Canada and is expected to open in UK cinemas on 16th October 2009.

DVD Times Ratings

  • Overall: 
    7
    7 out of 10

Reader Ratings

  • Overall: 
    7.7

Comments

#1 Posted: 01-06-2009 23:10
zombeaner
Member
Posts: 13

Report this post
Grump.
Quote this post
#2 Posted: 02-06-2009 08:14
Dream_31
Member
Posts: 30

Report this post

Pathetic review

Quote this post
#3 Posted: 02-06-2009 12:26
BillWatkins
Member
Posts: 31

Report this post
Got a grudge against Pixar?
Quote this post
#4 Posted: 02-06-2009 12:47
Colin Polonowski
Administrator
Posts: 412

Report this post
I'd love for one person to put some thought into their comments...

Rather than one-word responses to the review (based on a film none of the posters have seen), why not say WHY you have these feelings? I mean, are you really that pathetic that you can rubbish a very good review just because it doesn't all-out rave about a film you're interested in?

7/10 is a pretty reasonable rating and I'd probably give similar to all of the Pixar films I've seen to date (with the exception of the original Toy Story). Pixar are an extremely talented bunch of people, but they're not infallible and while I see merit in everything they've done, I've also been disappointed in many cases.
Quote this post
#5 Posted: 02-06-2009 12:48
Noel M
Contributor
Posts: 482

Report this post
My, such reasoned, intelligent responses to clydefro's review, presumably from people who haven't even seen the film...

I haven't seen it either, but the review has a legitimate complaint about Pixar. They have been cut a lot of slack, particularly in regards to Wall-E. No complaints about the animation - it was superb - but the storyline was lazy and formulaic, with a mixed message and a confused idealogy about commerce and waste that was at odds with the huge amount of junk-food tie-ins of the film's promotional material.

It's the one-word, two-word and - oh, look, almost a coherent sentence - comments so far that have been pathetic.
Quote this post
#6 Posted: 02-06-2009 13:31
hexenductionhour
Member
Posts: 77

Report this post

The opening of the film is very good, but it's all downhill from there. It's all in all a middling experience. But at the level of middling, it's above every other Pixar film.

Quote this post
#7 Posted: 02-06-2009 16:19
eddyospina
Member
Posts: 20

Report this post
Why's it not opening here till after the summer? Seems a bit of a strange thing to do
Quote this post
#8 Posted: 02-06-2009 21:28
badblokebob
The Duck
Posts: 707

Report this post
Quote:
Originally posted by eddyospina
Why's it not opening here till after the summer? Seems a bit of a strange thing to do



Yeah, why save a family film until all the kids are off school and have bags of time to go see it?

Oh, wait...
Quote this post
#9 Posted: 02-06-2009 22:50
eddyospina
Member
Posts: 20

Report this post
After the summer?? Surely they'd have more time during the summer holidays then after they go back to school in September? Hence the summer release in the states. Have British schools summer holidays been moved?
Quote this post
#10 Posted: 03-06-2009 07:49
NeverOffside
Member
Posts: 29

Report this post
Can you not just review the film without reviewing the studio that made it?

I also happen to think the review is poor. Not because I disagree with the opinions, as I haven't seen the movie, but because it's badly written. Its swings from ridiculously negative to equally ridiculously positive. Is there no middle ground in your opinion range?

And as for this statement...

Pixar's secret formula is to please the audience with the cliche, sentiment and action, plus some remarkably beautiful animation, while winning over critics both by having poor competition and by including moments of truly awe-inspiring cinema

So you're saying that having poor competition is part of Pixar's way of winning over critics? I take it that means all critics except you? A tad arrogant, no?

And please stop with the slating of Wall.E. Some reviewers saw the eco theme for what it was, the backdrop to what was essentially a love story. What on earth has Wall.E got to do with doing a review of Up anyway, unless it's intention is simply to feed your desire to have a pop at Pixar?
Quote this post
#11 Posted: 03-06-2009 09:24
badblokebob
The Duck
Posts: 707

Report this post
@eddyospina: My bad, I thought the film was out mid/late August here (hadn't bothered reading the date at the end of the review!) In which case, your point stands. It's stupid.

@NeverOffside: I see no reason why a review shouldn't mention the studio that produced the film -- or the director's other work, or the cast's, or previous films by any of them. It puts it in a context, which is arguably of vital importantance to reviewing a film. Imagine if Mulholland Drive opened with "An Uwe Boll Film" proudly displayed across the screen -- in that context, no one would be praising it, it would just be a confusing and indulgent mess (which I'm sure is some people's opinion of Lynch anyway, but hopefully you take my point).

Maybe films should just be judged on their individual merit, but they're not. The fact that it's A Pixar Film impacts nearly every review of their films, be that in a positive context (as is usual) or a negative one (as is rarer, such as here). Personally I agree that they're given too much slack by some/most critics, which often makes their films disappointing for those of us who tend to leave it late in the cinema run/'til the DVD release, though I don't wholly agree with every criticism made here.
Quote this post
#12 Posted: 03-06-2009 10:06
Noel M
Contributor
Posts: 482

Report this post
Quote:
So you're saying that having poor competition is part of Pixar's way of winning over critics? I take it that means all critics except you? A tad arrogant, no?


I love the way some people thinking having your own opinion is arrogance, just because it differs from the majority. A pretty feeble attack.
Quote this post
#13 Posted: 03-06-2009 10:48
K
das contributor
Posts: 899

Report this post
Mentioning the film's studio and their previous works is entirely valid. Go on any forum for example discussing Pixar films and I guarantee you that people will be comparing one to another. Expectations and all that.
Quote this post
#14 Posted: 03-06-2009 11:11
NeverOffside
Member
Posts: 29

Report this post
Quote:
I love the way some people thinking having your own opinion is arrogance, just because it differs from the majority. A pretty feeble attack.


I was pointing out that it was somewhat arrogant of the reviewer to judge other critics as being 'won over' by Pixar simply because the competition is poor. Seems pretty straight forward to me; the reviewer can see through such complexities but apparently the people that disagree with his opinion of Pixar's output have been somehow won over? Pathetic.

babblokebob - Yes, I do think a movie should be reviewed on it's own merits, regardless of studio making it. The references to Pixar weren't even putting the movie in context, which I can see is useful though should be kept brief. The reviewer is simply complaining about some perceived bias towards the studio's previous output. To drag in this clearly biased anti-Pixar agenda is just irrelevant to a review of the movie. Fine, he has a problem with the supposed 'long lead' given to Pixar, so write an article about it.

K - Yes, I imagine if I went on any forum I would see various opinions on Pixar. But as I've said, this review is not putting the movie in the context of previous Pixar output, it is having a go at how Pixar are treated by reviewers, suggesting they've all been 'won over'.
Quote this post
#15 Posted: 03-06-2009 11:17
Noel M
Contributor
Posts: 482

Report this post
Quote:
I was pointing out that it was somewhat arrogant of the reviewer to judge other critics as being 'won over' by Pixar simply because the competition is poor. Seems pretty straight forward to me; the reviewer can see through such complexities but apparently the people that disagree with his opinion of Pixar's output have been somehow won over? Pathetic.


He didn't say it was "simply" because the competition is poor - he said it was one of the factors, and it's true - the other factor, which you conveniently ignore, is that they make outstanding animation. For some people that's evidently enough, and in your view it clearly puts Pixar beyond criticism, but it doesn't mean everyone has to accept that. Nothing arrogant or "anti-Pixar" about that.
Quote this post
#16 Posted: 03-06-2009 11:33
NeverOffside
Member
Posts: 29

Report this post
Quote:
...and in your view it clearly puts Pixar beyond criticism, but it doesn't mean everyone has to accept that. .


That was a bit cheap as I don't have that opinion at all.

Bu then again, sweeping generalizations isn't uncommon around here.

Quote this post
#17 Posted: 03-06-2009 12:01
Michael Brooke
Member
Posts: 603

Report this post
Quote:
Imagine if Mulholland Drive opened with "An Uwe Boll Film" proudly displayed across the screen -- in that context, no one would be praising it, it would just be a confusing and indulgent mess (which I'm sure is some people's opinion of Lynch anyway, but hopefully you take my point).


Oh, I think I would still be praising it - that film has some of the most electrifying moments in all post-2000 cinema, and in such circumstances I couldn't give two hoots about its director. I might express surprise that he's improved so dramatically, but stranger (or equally strange) things have happened.
Quote this post
#18 Posted: 03-06-2009 12:16
folate
Member
Posts: 4

Report this post
Why can't the reviewer accept the idea of a house floating through the air having had helium balloons tied to it? Of course it's nonsense but then toys don't get up and walk around (Toy Story 1 &2), fish and ants don't talk (Finding Nemo & A Bug's Life), people don't have superpowers (The Incredibles) and rats don't become chefs (Ratatouille).
Quote this post
#19 Posted: 03-06-2009 18:03
Noel M
Contributor
Posts: 482

Report this post
Quote:
Quote:
:
...and in your view it clearly puts Pixar beyond criticism, but it doesn't mean everyone has to accept that. .


That was a bit cheap as I don't have that opinion at all.


Nothing cheap and nothing generalised about it - you had a go at the reviewer for criticising Pixar as if he had no right to do so to the detriment of reviewing the film (when in fact he did write a balanced view of both), and fired around accusations of a "anti-Pixar" agenda conspiracy (having clearly never read any of Clydefro's favourable reviews of the studio's work or you would have noted the reviewer rated Wall-E second best film of last year - http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content/id/69713/dvd-times-top-10-films-of-2008.html).

Feel free to actually read and address the criticisms made in the review rather than make half-baked generalised attacks on the reviewer with no backing or foundation whatsoever.
Quote this post
#20 Posted: 03-06-2009 19:27
Michael Brooke
Member
Posts: 603

Report this post
Quote:
Why can't the reviewer accept the idea of a house floating through the air having had helium balloons tied to it? Of course it's nonsense but then toys don't get up and walk around (Toy Story 1 &2), fish and ants don't talk (Finding Nemo & A Bug's Life), people don't have superpowers (The Incredibles) and rats don't become chefs (Ratatouille).


I'm glad to see you left open the possibility that blue hairy monsters live in cupboards, because of course we all know that's completely true.
Quote this post
#21 Posted: 03-06-2009 20:02
folate
Member
Posts: 4

Report this post
Quote:
I'm glad to see you left open the possibility that blue hairy monsters live in cupboards, because of course we all know that's completely true.


Of course it's true. Isn't Monsters, Inc a documentary?
Quote this post
#22 Posted: 03-06-2009 20:51
clydefro
Member
Posts: 52

Report this post
NeverOffside didn't comprehend something I wrote in my review of Wall-E either so I probably should not be surprised that he's popped up here as well. To address a few of these digs:

Quote:
Can you not just review the film without reviewing the studio that made it?

Pixar has become such a brand that the studio inspires people to see its films regardless of any factors other than simply being made by Pixar. The formula from one film to the next reveals a real through line that is starting to feel stale and lazy to me.

Quote:
Its swings from ridiculously negative to equally ridiculously positive. Is there no middle ground in your opinion range?

Please find where I'm being ridiculously negative about Up in this review. It seems there are sensors being activated for some people when anything unflattering is expressed about Pixar. I focused specifically on something I liked in the film and mentioned an overall quality for which I didn't care. This is classified as a preview cinema review so I was reluctant to enter very many specifics without having to clog the piece with spoiler tags. Maybe I'll further some of these particular reservations I have with the film in a later review of the Blu-ray, on which, if tradition holds, you'll add a contentious and possibly demeaning comment.

Quote:
And please stop with the slating of Wall.E

I mentioned Wall-E the film twice - once praising its first half hour and pointing out the physical resemblance in body shape that Russell in Up has to the humans in the earlier movie. I also pointed out that the abundance of plastic toys of the Wall-E character don't seem consistent with that film's message. That's hardly slating.

Quote:
Seems pretty straight forward to me; the reviewer can see through such complexities but apparently the people that disagree with his opinion of Pixar's output have been somehow won over? Pathetic.

Critical consensus is astoundingly favorable for Pixar's films. That's what I was getting it by using the words "won over." I haven't any idea what you're trying to get at other than insulting me.

folate -

Quote:
Why can't the reviewer accept the idea of a house floating through the air having had helium balloons tied to it?

I think I addressed this in the actual review, didn't I? I understand and accept it as fantasy, but, in doing so, some of the emotional pull is otherwise lessened. I don't know whether you've seen Up, but it isn't just the concept of the floating house that's a gigantic stretch. It's also the execution of the entire thing.
Quote this post
#23 Posted: 03-06-2009 22:17
eddyospina
Member
Posts: 20

Report this post
Quote:
Why can't the reviewer accept the idea of a house floating through the air having had helium balloons tied to it? Of course it's nonsense...


Apparently not:

http://www.worstpreviews.com/headline.php?id=13685&count=0
Quote this post
#24 Posted: 04-06-2009 07:32
NeverOffside
Member
Posts: 29

Report this post
God this site is so pompous. You write self indulgent, largely irrelevant reviews and round on anyone that posts a criticism. Responding is fine, but deliberately missing the point in most critical posts is cheap. It WAS a cheap shot to suggest I though Pixar was 'beyond criticism' as I've not said that and I don't believe that.

In much the same way as I like to see reviews of movies, not studios, I also read the reviews without having a a clue who the author is or what they've reviewed previously. It's typically egotistical of you lot to assume we care who writes reviews.

Again, clydefro saying I 'didn't comprehend' something in his review of Wall.E is staggeringly arrogant and patronising. I disagreed, yes, but I didn't fail to comprehend! Can I remind you that you're reviewing movies, not writing novels.

Though I doubt you're particularly bothered, I've had enough of this site. You're so up yourselves it's laughable. Shame really as the design of the site is great. I'll make my own mind up about movies, and studios, without your guidance on how to see through these shady studios.
Quote this post
#25 Posted: 04-06-2009 07:59
Colin Polonowski
Administrator
Posts: 412

Report this post
Goodbye. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Quote this post

Page: 1, 2, 3