I'll get the good stuff out of the way first.
Last year I lost someone who meant the world to me. The first 20 minutes of "Up" so perfectly captured the joy of love and the despair at its loss, that I cried almost continually.
As for the rest of the film... eh.
Pixar is perennially complimented for its focus on story, story, story -- in particular, character-driven stories. Up to the point where Carl "takes off", "Up" is a character-driven story.
Unfortunately, once Carl lands in Paradise Falls (courtesy of a Wilderness Scout GPS system) he now is obliged to have the adventure he's been waiting 50 years for. What will it be? I know! His childhood hero, Charles Muntz, is still alive, still trying to catch a phororhacos to prove the bird actually exists. And guess what? Muntz (voiced by a wasted Christopher Plummer) is actually a villain, murderous in his attempts to keep anyone from "stealing" his discovery.
The last third of the film is violent in a way that's downright mean-spirited for a PG "family" film. Muntz leaves Russell tied to a chair where he can fall out of the dirigible, and comes after Carl with a sword. And though he's been in the jungle for half a century, Muntz somehow has access to microcircuitry that make it possible for his dogs to talk. (Even Bob Pease isn't that clever.) And, of course, Muntz isn't reformed, but falls to his death.
Can you say obvious? Can you preposterous? Can you say stupid?
This isn't character-based storytelling, it's plot-based melodrama. What happens to Carl occurs because it "has" to in order for him (and Russell) to strut his (their) stuff.
This isn't good storytelling. It stinks, in fact. Bad Pixar. Bad Pixar. Not even all the very funny stuff you expect from a Pixar film, which is present in abundance, can save "Up" from being shallow and dismally predictable.
Unlike most Pixar films, it's unlikely I'll want to see this one even a second time.
A Note on 3D
I saw 3D movies when I was a kid, but don't remember the details. (Yes, they used gray Polaroid filters, not red and green, despite what all the "experts" tell you.) Pixar's use of 3D is superb. It never draws attention to itself, except when it's visually pertinent. And every object has depth and roundness -- this isn't the ViewMaster sort of image, with multiple planes of flat objects.
As for the RealD system, there is nothing _fundamentally_ new about it. The digital projector eliminates registration and timing problems, and the use of circular polarization means you don't have to hold your head perfectly level. But it works the same as the first polarized 3D movies did at the GM exhibit at the 1938 World's Fair. (I have a bunch of the viewers.)
However... One reviewer commented at the loss of "vividness" when you put the glasses on, ascribing it to the unavoidable loss of light in the viewing filters. To my surprise, this reviewer was correct. The colors are not only somewhat desaturated, but look "odd" in a way I can't quite explain. This is not simply a drop in light level; something else is going on, but I don't know what it is.
THOUGHTS ON THE BLU-RAY (AND FURTHER THOUGHTS ON THE FILM)
Because I could get the BD set for $15.50 (including tax and shipping), I was a hypocrite and bought it. The image quality (on a 60" Kuro) is far superior to what I saw in the theater. (This was likely the fault of that particular theater's presentation, as the 3D editions of "Toy Story" and "Toy Story 2" at another theater were much better.) The BD also makes you aware of the subtle naturalness of the animation.
A second viewing only confirmed what an utter botch this film is. If you replace the talking dogs with regular dogs, you have a serious adult film lightened only (a bit) by the presence of an irritating child. It's obvious that the talking dogs are there for humor (and there's no denying they /are/ funny -- when they're not threatening to rip out a character's throat), and to appeal to the kids. (The dogs are the focus of the TV spots.) Without them, there's little in this film to appeal to children.
In one of the supplements, Pete Docter explains the difficulties in figuring out how to kill off Muntz. Muntz is supposed to be Carl's psychological "Doppelganger", the person Carl was in the process of becoming, so it's necessary to get rid of him so that Carl can progress. This thought had never crossed my mind (I don't remember any review, anywhere, that raised it), and the story does essentially nothing to develop it. Indeed, the "reveal" that Muntz is a psychopathic murderer comes much too soon, cancelling any opportunity for interaction between him and Carl that would have clarified their implied relationship.
Of course, once you get rid of the talking dogs, you're left with a fairly conventional drama of the sort we've seen too many times before -- a grumpy old person who's just lost their spouse is restored to happiness by a child who brings light and happiness into their wretched life.
When Walt Disney was making "Snow White", he said he never wanted to do anything "ugly". "Up" has a number of truly ugly moments that are out of place in a movie intended for all ages. Yes, life /can/ be ugly, and there is no reason why children shouldn't be exposed to it. (When Disney's daughter complained about the death of Bambi's mother, his resonse was that that was the way life was.) But you don't do it in a film that's an unpalatable mish-mosh of broad humor and crude terror -- including, but not limited to, a child being tied to a chair and left where he will fall to his death.Get more detail about Up (4 Disc Combo Pack with Digital Copy and DVD) [Blu-ray].
No comments:
Post a Comment