Up (Pixar's latest opus)

[Josh]

Pixar’s tenth film, Up, opens in the same way as its sixth film, The Incredibles: With black-and-white newsreel footage, establishing the context, the prologue, as it were. But this is not The Incredibles. Almost as soon as the newsreel footage begins, the viewer will also notice a distinctly cartoonish visual style, not at all unlike Monsters, Inc.; later on, the film employs zany action-adventure set pieces that bear fleeting resemblance to the great chase scene that serves as Monsters‘ climax. There’s a sense of wonder in everyday thing– in this case, an old house and a giant bouquet of balloons– that recalls Toy Story; vast, colorful landscapes that capture the same sense of awe felt in Finding Nemo’s ocean vistas; and, perhaps most crucially, an entirely wordless montage of incredible visual nuance and emotional depth, similar in a great many ways to the first half hour of Wall*E.

But Up, though it is many things, is not Pixar-by-the-numbers, nor is it a film built from spare parts; rather, is is a film quite unlike any other that Pixar has ever made. In fact, it’s unlike any other film, period. It’s a Saturday morning cartoon cum B-movie adventure, a buddy movie that spans generations and continents, and a film about love and marriage, death and grief, growing old and savoring the taste of life and of adventure.

I shan’t comment on the plot, or even on the film’s central metaphors; you already know about some of these from the trailers, and really, the less you know about them the better. What I will say is that Pixar seems only to grow increasingly confident in making increasingly sophisticated films. This is a cartoon for grown-ups to enjoy just as much as their children, if not more, and, it’s as unconventional a summer blockbuster as any since, well, Wall*E– I mean good grief, the lead character is eighty years old! And speaking of Wall*E, this film is not nearly as vast or ambitious as that one, at least not in terms of pure scale, nor should it be; this is a smaller story, and at times it’s as intimate as that film was epic. And yet, there are scenes of such oddball adventure, surreal fantasy, and goofy humor that the film is as elusive as any in the Pixar canon, always defying easy categorization.

And yet, the Pixar movie it most reminds me of, I think, is Brad Bird’s beautiful, unforgettable Ratatouille. Like that movie, Up is a small and wondrous story, a miracle of a movie that is destined to be not simply liked, but cherished and treasured by many. Personally: It damn near brought me to tears on a couple of instances, with its depictions of lifelong, marital love that are as pure and as sweet and as real as in any film that I’ve seen. You’ll notice that I’ve barely mentioned the balloons. That’s because it’s as much about balloons as Ratatouille is food. It’s a story that goes deeper down than most live-action filmmakers dare to dig, ad as such, it soars higher than most filmmakers could even imagine.

[bloop]

I think we're going tonight, after Isaac's first baseball practice, and I can't wait.

[NinjaRob17]

Much like Wall-E I wasn't that thrilled about seeing this from the previews, but with all the good press it's been receiving I can't wait to see it. I'll probably go Sunday.

[Josh]

For whatever reason, Pixar's films have never translated particularly well into trailers. I stopped doubting them around the time of Cars, I think.

[Aaron]

Fun fact I read in the paper today: John Ratzenberger is the only actor to do voice work in all 10 Pixar films.

[Josh]

Yeah, Lasseter has called him their "good luck charm."

[bloop]

For whatever reason, Pixar's films have never translated particularly well into trailers. I stopped doubting them around the time of Cars, I think.

That's where several people started doubting them.  I still need to see "Cars".

[Josh]

That's where several people started doubting them.  I still need to see "Cars".

Right, and I confess that I was right there with them. Then I saw the film. Not their best work by any stretch, but eons ahead of what the trailer suggested.

I can't think of any single film director-- living and working today, anyway-- who can boast as many masterpieces as Pixar can. So when I say that Cars is not one of their masterpieces, understand that it's still waaaaay better than any of Dreamworks' animated films, for example. 

[bloop]

To be fair, Pixar has a few quality directors for their films.  Miyazaki would be the equal of any individual director of animated feature film.

But, to make it a similar comparison, I really can't name another movie studio that had a recent run of masterpieces like Pixar has.  I think even Disney in the golden age is hard-pressed to keep up with the run they've had.

[Josh]

Yeah, agreed, though I'd also say that, in addition to their quality directors-- in particular Brad Bird and Andrew Stanton-- the Pixar team also has some uniform standards of excellence and an overarching aesthetic sensibility that elevates, in my opinion, the individual achievements of the directors.

But no: Even Golden-age Disney never made a picture as audacious and unconventional as Wall*E (though Fantasia comes close), or came up with a screenplay as flawless as Toy Story 2.

[Ian]

I am suuuper excited to see this.  Money's a bit tight in the family right now, but maybe I can still convince my parents to go with me tonight...

[murlough23]

I give Up a B+. I think the "Saturday morning cartoon" aspects of it, while amusing, meant that it didn't quite rise to the level of some of Pixar's classics. But their best films are really hard to beat. This was still a very good one - they did a great job of suckerpunching us with the sad stuff right at the beginning of the film and giving the main character his motivation. The way that background story came around to deliver the true "moral of the story" later felt genuine. It was a nice counterpoint to all of the ridiculous flying business and talking dogs and such. (Though the dogs were hilarious.)

Cars is one of my favorites. I know I'm in the minority. But I was really enchanted by its "everything in the human world has an automotive equivalent" gag. Looking forward to the sequel in 2012.

[Josh]

I was initially bewildered by the action-adventure antics-- based on the trailers and such, I was assuming the film was going to be more of a somber reflection on aging than a tribute to old B-movie serials, and indeed, the change in tone midway through the movie initially seems abrupt. But it really grew on me, and gave the film a lot of depth and imagination. And let's be fair: The Saturday morning cartoon aesthetic isn't new for Pixar, as anyone who's seen Monsters Inc. can attest. (Actually, to a lesser extent, Cars is in the same, er, boat.)

That said, while I think the "dogfighting" aspects of the film are key to its composition, it's the more intimate scenes with Carl and Ellie (or later, Carl and Russell) that make it for me. In fact, I'm rather haunted by it, particularly the wordless montage of Carl and Ellie's life together and the more metaphorically weighty moments with the house. It is, quite simply, one of the best films about marriage that I've seen, and in that regard, the first Pixar movie that might actually be more for adults than kids.

[murlough23]

I'm going to discuss the outcome of the film in this post, so if it hasn't already been said, then SPOILER ALERT.

I was initially bewildered by the action-adventure antics-- based on the trailers and such, I was assuming the film was going to be more of a somber reflection on aging than a tribute to old B-movie serials

Somber all the way through would probably lose the cross-generation appeal. As much as I appreciate Pixar's attempts to make their cartoons meaningful for adults, they are still cartoons. They're allowed to make me cry and make me ponder deeper questions about my life - I appreciate these aspects - but they still need to be funny. I don't ever want to walk out of a Pixar film without my face hurting from the imaginative hilarity.

and indeed, the change in tone midway through the movie initially seems abrupt. But it really grew on me, and gave the film a lot of depth and imagination.

That might be it. They had limited time to set up their story, and they did wonders with that (and even that little montage of Carl and Ellie growing up had its humorous moments). But it was definitely a different type of storytelling than the absurd adventure that followed. The two things didn't seem to fit together. The fact that he was going to South America fit, but the tone of it - his mode of travel, etc. - could probably have been better foreshadowed by some sort of smaller-scale wacky adventure that they had as kids or something. (There were a few thematic touches like losing the balloon in the old house and so forth, but they were very subtle.)

And let's be fair: The Saturday morning cartoon aesthetic isn't new for Pixar, as anyone who's seen Monsters Inc. can attest. (Actually, to a lesser extent, Cars is in the same, er, boat.)

Monsters took place in a dream/nightmare world; you kind of expect it to be cartoonish by design. It's part of the premise. Both that movie and Cars set up a full-scale analogue of the "real world" for its characters to inhabit, so you just go into it expecting absurdities.

That said, while I think the "dogfighting" aspects of the film are key to its composition

Dogfighting. Heh. I didn't even catch that pun while watching the movie.

it's the more intimate scenes with Carl and Ellie (or later, Carl and Russell) that make it for me. In fact, I'm rather haunted by it, particularly the wordless montage of Carl and Ellie's life together and the more metaphorically weighty moments with the house. It is, quite simply, one of the best films about marriage that I've seen

I agree. All of this stuff worked. It hit me where it needed to. The old man and the kid were the perfect surrogates to help make up for each other's losses. Things came together beautifully in the end due to that. And I liked that it started and ended with what the kid called "the boring stuff" that was really the most fun... the whole montage with Carl and Ellie at the beginning was really "the boring stuff" of everyday life and to her, that was the real adventure. I liked that the film didn't have to anviliciously repeat Russell's words as a sort of catch phrase at that point, just to drive home what was already obvious.

and in that regard, the first Pixar movie that might actually be more for adults than kids.

Nah,  think it's still for both. I think kids are Pixar's primary audience, in that they always have a child-like way of imagining the world in which each film takes place, and that makes sure that the visuals and jokes work for the kids, while also referring to things that adults will find humorous (i.e. kids will just think something's goofy and laugh at it, while adults will chuckle at the sly reference to something in real life). Whatever grown-up messages come out of Pixar films are generally explained openly and done in a way that kids can understand the message even if they haven't experienced enough to understand the gravity of it. I don't think they've ever done anything to aim a film at the grown-ups at the expense of the enjoyment of the kids.

[bloop]

his mode of travel, etc. - could probably have been better foreshadowed

What is a dirigible (like the one that he sat wide-eyed in wonderment at the beginning of the picture) but a very large-scale balloon?

[Josh]

Nah,  think it's still for both. I think kids are Pixar's primary audience, in that they always have a child-like way of imagining the world in which each film takes place, and that makes sure that the visuals and jokes work for the kids, while also referring to things that adults will find humorous (i.e. kids will just think something's goofy and laugh at it, while adults will chuckle at the sly reference to something in real life). Whatever grown-up messages come out of Pixar films are generally explained openly and done in a way that kids can understand the message even if they haven't experienced enough to understand the gravity of it. I don't think they've ever done anything to aim a film at the grown-ups at the expense of the enjoyment of the kids.

That's all fair, and I agree that Pixar makes sure that their films are enjoyable/accessible to kids, but, given that this is, most centrally, a film about marriage... well, to be honest, I just think married folks will be moved by it just a tad more than non-married types. I don't think the film would have resonated with me as much if I'd seen it as a kid-- or even a year and a half ago, before I was married myself.

[murlough23]

What is a dirigible (like the one that he sat wide-eyed in wonderment at the beginning of the picture) but a very large-scale balloon?

Oh yeah! Duh.

Still, I feel like his entire plan was hatched offscreen. Suddenly we saw the empty helium tanks, and there the balloons were. We didn't really get to see him setting this up. We knew he would do it, since it was the premise of the film, but I think it might have resonated with me a bit more if there had been some sort of "It'll never fly, Orville!" aspect to it and he had the satisfaction of proving those people wrong.

NP: "Timothy Hay", MewithoutYou

[bloop]

if there had been some sort of "It'll never fly, Orville!" aspect to it

Haha - such a scene might have upset the physics critics.  It would be like the Pixar team cast them directly into the picture. 

I can just picture them, yelling at the screen.  "Damn straight it'll never fly!"

[murlough23]

That's all fair, and I agree that Pixar makes sure that their films are enjoyable/accessible to kids, but, given that this is, most centrally, a film about marriage... well, to be honest, I just think married folks will be moved by it just a tad more than non-married types. I don't think the film would have resonated with me as much if I'd seen it as a kid-- or even a year and a half ago, before I was married myself.

Hard to say, I guess, since we can't have the advantage of seeing something for the first time in two different phases of our lives. But I've always been a sucker for those sorts of "longtime devotion" stories that concern married couples. Maybe as a little kid it wouldn't have meant the same thing to me, but I would have easily understood his motivation. "Oh, OK, he's doing it for his wife." I'd get that and I'd consider it valid.

I suppose, being where I am in my life right now,  was probably primed for this film to hit me in the hardest. My wife and I are in that "When should we start a family?" phase and there's a whole lot of emotional baggage there - my worries about whether life can still be adventure when you're much more tied down and can't be as spontaneous about going places, and her worries about whether we'll have to wait so long to do it that we can't do it any more (Ellie finding out she couldn't have kids pretty much sums up my wife's worst nightmare). It was pretty much impossible for me to hold it together during that sequence. Maybe before I was married I'd have just thought "Aw, that's sweet." (The marriage, I mean. Not the miscarriage.)

[murlough23]

Haha - such a scene might have upset the physics critics.  It would be like the Pixar team cast them directly into the picture.

True. I'm not really a physics critic, but I'll admit I had to restrain myself from scoffing at the sheer ridiculousness of how they had to drag the floating house around once they arrived in South America. (Not to mention how quickly they got there!) The "cartoon physics" seemed inconsistent from scene to scene, in terms of how much helium the balloons had left and how much effort it took (or whether it was possible) to keep the house from floating away or to keep it off the ground. Then I thought of Vlad! and I made myself stop.

Bigger than any criticism of physics was the problem that it felt like the house was the vehicle to get the characters to where they needed to go, but after that point it became a burden to the plot - and for what? They ended up completely trashing it, including all of Ellie's belongings that had sentimental value to Carl, and leaving it behind in the end. At times they mined it for humor - like driving to somewhere you really wanted to go and then not being able to find a damn parking space for the car - but at other times, I was like, "Come on, just park the damn house and get on with it already."

[bloop]

Was it clear from the film whether it was a miscarriage or the doctor just explaining her infertility?  I couldn't really tell.  I like how Russel works into that dynamic.

[murlough23]

Was it clear from the film whether it was a miscarriage or the doctor just explaining her infertility?  I couldn't really tell.

Well, they were already decorating the baby's room, so I figured there was a bun in the oven at that point. They just didn't go into details, because, y'know, kids. I would assume after that point they stopped trying.

I like how Russel works into that dynamic.

Yeah. Carl needed a kid and Russell needed a dad. Not the first time that's been done, but the puzzle pieces were designed to fit together perfectly.

[bloop]

Well, they were already decorating the baby's room, so I figured there was a bun in the oven at that point.

Duh!  Yeah, true.

[Wildcatblue7]

Up takes the title of first movie EVER to make me actually cry.

Um, wow.

[murlough23]

Up takes the title of first movie EVER to make me actually cry.

Um, wow.

EVER? You must have had a heart heart before. Either that or you just watched a lot of slasher flicks.

NP: "The End", The Listening

[bloop]

Pixar grants girl's dying wish with home viewing of "Up"

"Up" didn't quite make me cry, but this.  

[Wildcatblue7]

EVER? You must have had a heart heart before. Either that or you just watched a lot of slasher flicks.

NP: "The End", The Listening

No, usually things on screen don't hit me.  I'm not a very emotional person anyway, though.  Or, more accurately, I hide my moods a lot more than is probably healthy...I just don't outwardly manifest emotion all that often, ESPECIALLY in public.

By the way, I think you meant hard heart. 

[murlough23]

No, usually things on screen don't hit me.  I'm not a very emotional person anyway, though.  Or, more accurately, I hide my moods a lot more than is probably healthy...I just don't outwardly manifest emotion all that often, ESPECIALLY in public.

I've learned to play my emotional cards a little closer to the vest as an adult (at least compared to my melodramatic outbursts as a kid/teenager/college student... OK, basically up until a couple years ago), but that movie damn near made me lose it in a public place.

By the way, I think you meant hard heart. 

Ya, me no no how too spel.

NP: "Northern Lights", Anathallo

[dgp11776]

Pixar grants girl's dying wish with home viewing of "Up"

"Up" didn't quite make me cry, but this.  

That's pretty special.

[ajyouthguy]

Nah,  think it's still for both. I think kids are Pixar's primary audience, in that they always have a child-like way of imagining the world in which each film takes place, and that makes sure that the visuals and jokes work for the kids, while also referring to things that adults will find humorous (i.e. kids will just think something's goofy and laugh at it, while adults will chuckle at the sly reference to something in real life). Whatever grown-up messages come out of Pixar films are generally explained openly and done in a way that kids can understand the message even if they haven't experienced enough to understand the gravity of it. I don't think they've ever done anything to aim a film at the grown-ups at the expense of the enjoyment of the kids.

That's all fair, and I agree that Pixar makes sure that their films are enjoyable/accessible to kids, but, given that this is, most centrally, a film about marriage... well, to be honest, I just think married folks will be moved by it just a tad more than non-married types. I don't think the film would have resonated with me as much if I'd seen it as a kid-- or even a year and a half ago, before I was married myself.

I can't speak for ALL kids, but we took our almost 6 and almost 3 year old boys to it last night, and my 6 year old said 'that was the most awesome movie ever,' and my 3 year old was glued to the screen like no movie or tv show i've ever seen him with.

[murlough23]

and my 6 year old said 'that was the most awesome movie ever,'

Ha ha. A six year old declaring "the best movie ever" is just hilarious. Compared to what, the Sponge Bob movie that she saw a couple years back and probably forgot about?

Not that Up isn't deserving, but still.

[ajyouthguy]

Ha ha. A six year old declaring "the best movie ever" is just hilarious. Compared to what, the Sponge Bob movie that she saw a couple years back and probably forgot about?

Not that Up isn't deserving, but still.

obviously spoken by someone who doesn't have or understand kids.

[bloop]

I have kids, and I think it's a funny statement for a kid to make, too.  Kids say the darndest things, you know.

[murlough23]

obviously spoken by someone who doesn't have or understand kids.

I understand what she meant, but I like to take things literally, just for grins.

Anyway, your point that it left quite an impression on the kids wasn't lost on me. I wouldn't think much of a movie if it did that while being utterly boring or stupid for the adults. But I figure Pixar's stuff had darn well better be enjoyable for kids as a baseline. The fact that we adults like it, too, is extra credit. If it appealed to our sense while boring the kids, there'd be a problem.

NP: "Keep Me in Dark", The Fiery Furnaces

[Ian]

Just saw it tonight.  I felt like a jerk for not shedding a tear during the first 20 minutes, but the last scene did it.  :')  Great movie, easily one of Pixar's 5 best, I would say.

[Josh]

I saw Ice Age 3 tonight. And suddenly, I'm appreciating Pixar all over again. They're so far ahead of the competition... well, there really is no competition. They're gods amongst ants, those Pixar folk.

[murlough23]

I saw Ice Age 3 tonight. And suddenly, I'm appreciating Pixar all over again. They're so far ahead of the competition... well, there really is no competition. They're gods amongst ants, those Pixar folk.

Interesting metaphor, given what we all seem to agree was Pixar's worst film.

I expect funny from the competition. And that's about all. So far, the Ice Age series has delivered that, so I still plan on seeing #3, but obviously I don't expect it to be in the same league as anything Pixar's done.

[Josh]

Simon Pegg is the only redeeming aspect of IA3, an otherwise useless installment in a tired franchise. (And I actually liked the first one; never saw the second.)

Bewildering: There are at least three penis jokes in this PG-rated, so-called family movie.

[murlough23]

Bewildering: There are at least three penis jokes in this PG-rated, so-called family movie.

You kept count? Are you secretly writing for Plugged In?

[Ian]

Bigger than any criticism of physics was the problem that it felt like the house was the vehicle to get the characters to where they needed to go, but after that point it became a burden to the plot - and for what? They ended up completely trashing it, including all of Ellie's belongings that had sentimental value to Carl, and leaving it behind in the end.

He got the house to where it needed to go, but by that time the house felt empty of Ellie, because she had transferred over to Russel in Karl's mind.  The whole point of the movie is that Karl had to learn when to stop dwelling in the past and start a new adventure.  

Oh, and if I ever hear people talking about physics and Pixar in the same conversation again, I think I'm going to pop a vessel. o_O  I can't think of a better way to completely ruin a great movie.