Upcoming
Youth in Revolt
January 15
January 22
Drool
The Girl on the Train
Down With Up
The animated 3D Up (Disney/Pixar, 5.29) is a comic adventure fable of a very high order. Even by Pixar's high standards it's a notch or two above the norm. Visually luscious and spunky and intriguing at every turn, it's an amusing (i.e., somewhat funny), sometimes touching, briskly paced film that's about...well, pretty much everything that relatively healthy, forward-thinking middle-class people care about.
Like finding your dreams, making a family, dropping your guard, warming your heart, and standing up for your friends, for starters. As well as the finding of courage and fulfillment, the blooming of love, nurturing the past (as well as letting go of it), and embracing the now.
It revels in all this, and in a peppy, delightful and at times Chaplinesque way. (Particularly in a silent sequence that tells the story of loving marriage over the course of seventy years or so.) And without going cheap or coarse. It's about as good as this sort of thing gets.
The story -- a really cranky old guy and a cheery obese kid bond during the course of a balloon trip to a remote area in South America which holds enormous emotional significance for the old guy -- is way off the ground. It's kind of crazy-surreal in a sense, like a weird dream. It makes you wonder if director Pete Docter and co-director and screenwriter Bob Petersen get high at all, or at least used to get high. (Once you've turned on you never lose that stoner sensibility.)
And yet it's a fairly square and tidy thing as the same time. It's not meant as a putdown to say that Up is too immersed in buoyant punchiness and mainstream movie-tude, which basically boils down to Pixar's always-front-and-center task of giving the family audience stuff to laugh at and go "oooh" and "aahh" about, to finally matter all that much. It's too entertaining, in put it another way, to sink in all that deeply.
And yet it's almost too good for the family market. You just know there's a significant sector of that crowd that will be saying to each other after they see it, "What's with the old guy? Where was the truly-over-the-top fantastical stuff? Where were the cheap junk-food highs? Why didn't it throw in a little toilet humor to round things out? Why didn't they go with a manic-nutso chase sequence of some kind? You know...why didn't they thrill-ride it a bit more?"
(l.) Charles Muntz character in Up; relatively recent shot of Kirk Douglas.
I'm not saying that people who like lowbrow entertainment talk like this (if they did they wouldn't be lowbrow) but if they did they'd probably continue the thought by saying, "It's not like we don't appreciate quality-level movies but Up is almost too nutritious for us. It's good stuff -- bright, funny, lots of fun and amazing-looking -- but it feels like it was made by people who went to college and eat vegetables and exercise two or three times a week, unlike us."
Then again they might relate to it due to the lead adolescent character, Russell (voiced by Jordan Nagai), physically resembling a high percentage of American kids today. I don't care what anyone says -- I think Docter and Petersen knew this would strike a chord out there.
I sure didn't see it as a metaphor for anything in my life, I can tell you. It's just a high-strung story with a lot of gee-gosh stuff going on and some recognizable issues propelling the two main characters.
So what am I saying, boiled down? That it's really quite well made and has an almost stoner sensibility in portions but may be a little too good for the lowbrows and at the same time isn't really deep and resonant enough to penetrate with quality-cinema buffs? Something like that. I realize what I'm writing (and re-reading) may sound a bit contradictory but there it is.
The only other thought I have is that the face of an old explorer character named Charles Muntz (voiced by Christopher Plummer) seems to have been inspired by Kirk Douglas. Or at least on Douglas's cheekbones.
Note: The title of this piece means I'm down with this film, that I'm cool with it. That's obvious from reading the review but some might interpret it to mean, you know, "down" with it as in "off with its head."
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on May 13, 2009 at 6:20 AM
comment #1
slutsky
says ...
Haha, that "Note" addresses what I was just going to ask.
Posted by slutsky
at May 13, 2009 6:45 AM
comment #2
allstar397
says ...
Jeff, have to agree with you on the sensibilities of many families towards animated films. I thought WALL E was gonna be their biggest earner ever, and it didnt work out for that very reason. Let them see Shrek 4 and laugh at a donkey making a paris hilton reference or something. Can't wait for Up.
Posted by allstar397
at May 13, 2009 6:45 AM
comment #3
actionman
says ...
"...and has an almost stoner sensibility in portions..."
NOW I am EXTRA curious...
Posted by actionman
at May 13, 2009 6:46 AM
comment #4
caslab
says ...
carl is clearly modeled on spencer tracy, so the kirk douglas comparison is interesting.
Posted by caslab
at May 13, 2009 7:11 AM
comment #5
DavidF
says ...
Muntz does have a chin dimple too...that certainly ups the Kirk Douglas resemblance...
Posted by DavidF
at May 13, 2009 7:55 AM
comment #6
Tom Brazelton
says ...
I think the jet lag has caught up to you, Wells. This was a mess of a review.
It's too well-put together to appease the lowbrow but not deep enough for cinema buffs? Gee, what's left but the *largest possible market share?*
If the film works - if you're "down" with it - then why do you care about what audience it excludes?
Posted by Tom Brazelton
at May 13, 2009 8:17 AM
comment #7
JCEFalconi
says ...
Sounds exactly like I was expecting. Recent Pixar movies have felt like that too, like mild art films.
Hey, I don't know if it was on purpose, but you repeat the same paragraph twice word-for-word. The ones that talk about "buoyant punchiness" and Pixar's need to have people go "ooh" and "aah".
Posted by JCEFalconi
at May 13, 2009 8:23 AM
comment #8
bildeaux
says ...
I got some serious de-ja vu while reading that one Jeff.
b.
Posted by bildeaux
at May 13, 2009 8:29 AM
comment #9
CitizenKanedforChewingGum
says ...
Good review, man. I kind of had some contradictory thoughts on Wall*E -- sort of a love/hate relationship with it, so I understand where you're coming from.
Oh, and I bet early in development, those Pixar guys get high as a kite. Hell, they probably devote an entire "thinktank" day to it. Or week.
Posted by CitizenKanedforChewingGum
at May 13, 2009 8:32 AM
comment #10
Josh Massey
says ...
Oh, Kirk Douglas. For a second, I thought that was Mickey Rourke without makeup.
Posted by Josh Massey
at May 13, 2009 8:42 AM
comment #11
Rod32303
says ...
How is Asner as the voice of the lead character? Always liked Ed Asner.
Posted by Rod32303
at May 13, 2009 9:20 AM
comment #12
Edward
says ...
I've always like Ed Asner as well. I had the privilege of meeting him several years ago at the theatre I was building sets and doing other backstage work. He was an extremely pleasant gentleman.
Posted by Edward
at May 13, 2009 10:31 AM
comment #13
MikeSchaeferSF
says ...
Funny, from the TV spots I assumed the villain was modelled after and voiced by John Lithgow. Glad they went with Plummer.
Posted by MikeSchaeferSF
at May 13, 2009 11:10 AM
comment #14
prairie_oysters
says ...
JCEFalconi Author Profile Page says ...
"Sounds exactly like I was expecting. Recent Pixar movies have felt like that too, like mild art films"
Thank fuck for that, eh. Pixar really boils down to the sensibilities of just a handful of people - John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton, Pete Doctor, Brad Bird and a couple of others I can't bring to mind immediately - and they haven't shown any sign of slacking off their standards in over a decade.
Every Pixar release is tinged with as much anxiety as anticipation; 'will they drop the ball with this one?' But to date they've only come close with Cars and even that film has acres more charm and structural rigour than their competition can muster.
I'm pleased that I can look forward to Up on the back of a glowing review from Todd McCarthy and a grudging endorsement from curmudgeonly Jeff and can now set my worry dial in Toy Story 3's direction.
Posted by prairie_oysters
at May 13, 2009 11:18 AM
comment #15
T. Holly
says ...
Is this going to be like The Simpsons or Monster House, you know, like about real people?
Posted by T. Holly
at May 13, 2009 11:25 AM
comment #16
p.Vice
says ...
Stoner sensibility? That's the kind of advertising copy Pixar can't put a price tag on.
Posted by p.Vice
at May 13, 2009 11:32 AM
comment #17
ZayTonday
says ...
From the title, I thought you meant it in the "off with his head" sense myself.
Posted by ZayTonday
at May 13, 2009 11:51 AM
comment #18
BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey
says ...
I just watched Wall-E. It was quite good, but definitely overpraised. It was really nice when they were on Earth just doing their thing. Then a load of fat people and wacky robots on a spaceship came on and it got a bit noisy and obnoxious. Plus it had a terrible Peter Gabriel song on the end.
Kind of hammers you over the head with the message. I wish the whole film was like the first 30 minutes.
Posted by BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey
at May 13, 2009 7:23 PM
comment #19
crazyeight
says ...
"And yet it's almost too good for the family market. You just know there's a significant sector of that crowd that will be saying to each other after they see it, "What's with the old guy? Where was the truly-over-the-top fantastical stuff? Where were the cheap junk-food highs? Why didn't it throw in a little toilet humor to round things out? Why didn't they go with a manic-nutso chase sequence of some kind? You know...why didn't they thrill-ride it a bit more?""
Wow Wells, you couldn't possibly be more wrong here and still use English.
Has Pixar *ever* played to the cheap seats? I think the closest they've ever come to is Larry the Cable Guy in "Cars," but even then it was hardly the same as Shrek.
This is the studio of Toy Story, The Incredibles, Ratatouille, and Wall-E. Not one of these films played to the audience you're speaking of, yet each of these films MADE BOATLOADS OF CASH. Oodles.
And they influence other animated films, and how the public sees other animated films-- Pixar is a rightly-recognized mark of quality for the audience.
This "significant sector" crap is just that-- complete erroneous crap. I can't believe *anyone* has ever walked out a Pixar film thinking this way, let alone enough people for you to actually bother counting.
Enjoy France!
Posted by crazyeight
at May 13, 2009 7:33 PM
comment #20
JCEFalconi
says ...
crazyeight you missed the point.
Wells was referencing the people that DO sit in those "cheap seats". THOSE people will be left a bit confused about a movie with no cute furry animals farting and going on roller coaster rides while Smash Mouth plays in the background.
I don't think the movie lost anybody any money, but I do remember grumblings in articles about the last two movies underperforming, because of both movies' distinct vision.
Posted by JCEFalconi
at May 14, 2009 12:08 PM
comment #21
free games
says ...
I watched this movie today and i loved it :)
Posted by free games
at October 26, 2009 10:29 AM
comment #22
canadian cialis
says ...
I like it
For most men, their ability to get an erection and have sex is considered as a important part of their masculinity and potency. It is no surprise that the onset of impotence, even when due to underlying physical condition, can lead to psychological issues that increase the problem of impotence.
Posted by canadian cialis
at January 3, 2010 3:45 AM
comment #23
jinnlost5
says ...
I thought it was going to be some boring old post, but it really compensated for my time. I will post a link to this page on my blog. I am sure my visitors will find that very useful. cpcentercity garrywillmott springstreetfloral prisonerofwonderland tourlinkshow sbenterprisepacific cromalinsupport kidandteen
Posted by jinnlost5
at January 27, 2010 7:16 AM
Post a comment