Up

[ríomhaire]

I was suprised I didn't see a thread about this film after it came out. Who went to see it?

I think it's the saddest film I've ever seen. I balled my eyes out in several places. On the other hand I also laughed my arse off. It is such a strange mix. You have the very serious scenes near the start, and you get a little silly with the flying house, but nothing prepared me to see

Spoiler

talking dogs. Seriously, I coudn't believe it was the same film for a minute. They were so cute though. The dogs' dialogue was perfect. The malfuncioning translator was a cheap gag but still funny and not overdone, but the sublte little problems in the translators were very funny; how it behaved like an online translator and messed up anything but the most simple sintax. The Cone of Shame was also great.

I'm not sure whether I'd put this above or below Wall-E. They're similar in the way they're both far more serious at the start than the end, but I think Up works at being a coherent story better. I always thought the first half of Wall-E seemed missmatched from the second and the ending also a bit disjointed. Up flows better, even though the more serious and more silly elements contranst hugely.

 

[PorkPi]

UP did something very interesting for me. My favorite character in the movie was Ellie, Carl's wife. I liked her character not just because of her part in the movie's opening, but because throughout the movie she was represented by the house and the things in it. The house itself took on a personality. Whenever it was put in danger I got worried about it. That's seriously something no movie has ever done for me.

 

[kupocake]

If there was a thread about the film, it was probably posted the other side of the ice age when it was released in the US. The October UK release made no ****ing sense, so was the Irish release even later?

I posted my impressions in the film review thread and came to the same conclusions, with a little more anger. Up is half of one of the best animated films ever created, saddled with a set of late comer characters so dire that Dreamworks would raise their eyebrows and step away. When I go to see a Pixar film, I'm never expecting a sombre Grave of the Fireflies ordeal, but they've got to start following through on their fast halves which have really started to push the envelope on what you can expect from a film primarily target at children and families. Wanting the best of both worlds, they've started creating two-part movies with really jarring transitions between subject matter: furthermore, they clearly believe their films should have a higher level of credibility because they always have a good moan about the animated film being shoved into its own award category.

Friends I saw this film with make the excuse that 'it's a film where a house floats away' as a defence, which is utterly ridiculous. Animation doesn't always obey our laws of physics and logic, but it usually makes an attempt to be internally consistent even with a degree of flexible reality. In our reality, even the vast quantity of balloons used wouldn't float the house, but the basic principle is easily identified and pre-figured in the film by showing the balloons floating the cannister in the montage. Yes dogs communicate on some level, but animation has never been afraid to show dogs talking (101 Dalmatians, Lady and the Tramp, Bolt), just rarely before to humans ("CHOOWEE" excepted). My issues with it are more that:

a) An explorer from the freaking 1930s, lost in South America for some sixty to ninety years* has single handedly developed and mass produced an electronic device of any kind, let alone a GPS capable video-phone that also translates Dog language.
b) the device doesn't only allow dogs to talk, it anthropomorphises them to the point where they can fly ****ing biplanes.

It's just altogether too far. The collar itself aside, Doug doesn't feel out of place precisely because he's an idiot and thus actually recognisably a dog. That and he actually has some intelligently written lines, instead of having a silly voice (which was frankly sub-zero funny many, many minutes before it finally stopped).

* When does the film actually take place? The Star Wars marque in the credits suggests the 70s, but the artbook ages Carl up to the present day.

 

[Adabiviak]

My wife and I saw it in an outdoor theater in the forest. It was a pretty touching story... I think the introduction (what, the first ten minutes?) would make a good movie on its own.

 

[ríomhaire]

UP did something very interesting for me. My favorite character in the movie was Ellie, Carl's wife. I liked her character not just because of her part in the movie's opening, but because throughout the movie she was represented by the house and the things in it. The house itself took on a personality. Whenever it was put in danger I got worried about it. That's seriously something no movie has ever done for me.

I started crying when

Spoiler

SQUIRREL!

Spoiler

the house was set on fire

And yes, the dogs were definitely taken too far. Doug was ok but the level of anthropomorphisation (is that a word?) was far too high with the others. Also, how the other guy seemed in far better shape than Carl, despite being at least twenty years his elder.

 

[Nomad]

The beginning montage of the movie was... amazing. Just amazing.

 

[dfc05]

I agree it was a little disjointed how they kept switching back and forth between funny and sad. That would be my main complaint.

 

[Azner]

Pixar never fails to amaze.