Hollywood hates children. Well, nowadays, for the most part. The past decade has seen a decline in the realm of family films so drastic it’s almost embarrassing to behold. A constant barrage of sub-par, placating, dreck that insults the intelligence of the child and the adult they will one day grow to be. Substance and craft are no longer the main concerns for children and families, simply be garish, be happy, and NEVER be realistic in tone (DEATH DOESN’T EXIST, ONLY iPods DO!!!) The youth of today have virtually nothing to grow up with and rediscover as surprisingly well-made entertainment, all they have is films equivalent to my generation’s Masters Of The Universe (great for nostalgia, not so great for adult criticism.) They need, and deserve, more fare like Beetlejuice, Return to Oz, Gremlins, or The Neverending Story (yes, I’m bias)… films where they grow up, re-watch and think “Holy hell! This was for kids?” They are feeding them messy piles of sugary air such as Alvin and the Chipmunks, Beverly Hills Chihuahua, or Night At The Museum (1 or 2, take your pick), which are so hackneyed and sloppy that the slightest hint of adolescent logic or understanding of story structure forces them to collapse under their own faulty welds and lashings. However, in a world of film that treats kids like permanently-imbecilic-spider-monkeys, there is still Pixar.
And Pixar has balls. SEXY. PLUMP. BALLS.
Not even going to bother jumping on the Pixar worship-wagon here. You know, as well as I do, about their reputation and their increasingly growing catalogue of well-crafted films that are arguably genre masterpieces (Wall-E, The Incredibles) or great against all odds (Cars: completely entertaining in spite of stilted-premise and Larry The Cable Guy.) Up continues this trend, possibly in the animation house’s greatest triumph of supremely original ideas and adult-story-telling-for-kids.
The film opens by following the life, from pre-adolescence to golden years, of Carl Fredricksen (voiced by the great Ed Asner.) He is an old man with an unfulfilled dream of adventuring in the South American wilderness and a home that is being strangled by industrial development. In short, he ties thousands upon thousands of balloons to his house and floats away, toward South America, on what is to be the last adventure of his life, one that he is forced to share with a young boy who inadvertently is on his porch during take off. Simple right? Odd right? Confusing right? Right, but it’s the approach that matters.
Amongst the fantastical elements in the film, the ones that can be seen in the trailer, like a house being floated by mere balloons, talking dogs, or elderly men being WAY too physically active for their own good, Up has a grounded heart and realism in place that metaphorically punches the adult-mind in the gut, and righteously, yet not viciously, sprays pepper-sauce in children’s faces (the kid next to me in the theater cried A LOT.) The movie deals with death, abandonment, and the loss of heroes at the fore front of its surface.
******************SPOILERS START HERE**************************
This blunt realism kicks right off, as the beginning of the film introduces us to the epitomes of pure cuteness and naivete that are young Carl and Ellie (his future wife.) They both seek adventure and have the same hero, Charles Muntz (voiced by the legendary Christopher Plummer), and we are treated to a montage of their life together. We witness their marriage, their home life, their romance, their laughter, and eventually, their inability to conceive children (yup,) and ultimately their parting. THAT’S RIGHT. Ellie dies. Not just dies, but dies in a montage around 20 minutes or so into the film… Pixar sets you up, and knocks you down… all to the loving tunes of a soothing and sad score. All that went through my mind was “Holy hell! This is for kids?” Which, trust me, is a huge compliment.
Pixar’s balls, by this point in the movie are already huge and pulsating, but they still get even bigger. The reason Carl even floats his home in the first place is because the government is taking it away and forcing him into a retirement-home due to him attacking a construction worker with his cane (drawing blood!) Through the course of the film we also see Carl discover that his (and Ellie’s) childhood hero is a deranged, psychopathic, MULTI-murderer and that the kid, Russell, has a deadbeat dad who basically wouldn’t care if he lives or dies… we even see dogs getting hurt and possibly killed (due to their own actions, its not Pixar’s Hostel.) Topping off the dark tones found here is a joke played on the audience that is so genius, cruel and hilarious that scriptwriter Bob Peterson must have been laughing since the day he put it on paper. I won’t spoil it for you. Heh.
******************END SPOILERS*******************
Up‘s realism, risks, and complimentary attitude toward the audience is not the only positive however. In no way am I trying to sell it on the merits of making children cry alone… ok, maybe a little. It is also quite successful on all other standard fronts, and it’s got plenty of well-executed laughs and a grand vibrant color scheme. The script is extremely original, not to mention the cast of characters which includes a huge bird, Dug the Dog, and his fellow army of talking K-9 brethren. Dug is the comedic stand out of the movie, as his dialogue perfectly plays out the awkward nature of how dogs would actually sound if they could miraculously speak English. All the main players in the movie get their own small, but useful, character-arcs… even the bird (oddly the only character not able to speak.)
The fantastical elements are handled in a way that doesn’t grate the logic. Unlike sloppy piles of confusion like the continuity, rules, or consistency of the magic tablet in Night At The Museum 2, the material here is given mystery and logic where it needs it, and glazes over where it doesn’t… which is why you wont be questioning how Muntz (Christopher Plummer) invented a collar that translates dog speak to English, or how those balloons wouldn’t remotely lift that house, let alone tear it from it’s foundation (I believe Mythbusters tested a similar idea, and it was only picking up the weight of a single child)
The triumph of the animation here is that Pixar does make art, but they don’t try to re-invent the wheel when the wheel is working just fine. The movie is absolutely beautiful, not as visually breath taking as Wall-E, but still it looks fantastic. The blocking of some of the scenes is incredible, the little house mushroom-topped with a cloud of balloons floating across a vast blue sky in an ultra-wide shot is iconic and slightly haunting, especially considering the “rainbow” visual of the balloons. Up, much like most of Pixar’s flicks, excels in its craft (from all angles, writing, direction, choreography) and not merely in the technology of the craft. The digital 3D print is especially gorgeous, and is highly recommended.
It’s not often that a bitter old grump like me sees a film and can’t find too much negative to say about it. If I had to really rack my brain, I guess I could say the only problem was that maybe the movie makes Carl too much of a physical action hero at times, considering his age, but it’s handled with such care in the narrative of the movie, so its not a big deal, and certainly not out-weighing the good. This is probably Pixar’s least marketable film yet, being so morbid an odd. The less broad they get, the better they get…which is kind of a mind boggler when concerning Pixar… how do they continue to get better? How? In this case most of the praise should be directed toward director Pete Doctor, who some how improved on his wonderful Monsters Inc. with this new offering.
Also, just to put things into perspective, this review was written by someone who doesn’t even honestly like computer-generated animation at all, and who has really never publicly “sucked off” Pixar. Up was just class-A entertainment, and perhaps an arguable masterpiece in the family film genre. It’s good to know that this generation has at least a few movies, like Up, to grow older with and re-watch and see the adult themes, the quality craftsmanship and exclaim “This was for kids?”
QUICK THOUGHTS AND RANDOM BITS
Star Trek: a few weeks later…
J.J. Abrams’s Star Trek was great fun. As a die hard Original-Cast-film fan, still have no debilitating complaints… except, upon further reflection… it was great, but it really just isn’t Star Trek. Long Live Shatner.
Annoyed at “revisiting” reviews
Something that grates on the nerves is when an old franchise is resurrected (Terminator) or announced to be resurrected (Ghostbusters) and we have to sit through a plethora of reviews, rants, and ravings by young-ins saying how the originals (T1, T2, Ghostbusters) are overrated in the first place. Just want to say: SHUT UP JUNIOR! Your ill-informed meandering is not making your CGI-raped re-imagining any less horrendous.
What’s in a name?
If you hate McG, director of Terminator Salvation, simply because of his name then your opinion is invalid. First, his real name is McGinty, “McG” is the nickname given to him by his family… it’s not a self-chosen moniker due to douchebaggery. Second, hate him because his movies are sub-par… even though to hear the guy talk it really seems like he is actually trying, just failing miserably.
Exterminators exterminate… so Terminators should… ?
If you are going to make Terminator 4, if you just can’t help but do it, and you have to make it a heaping pile of poorly constructed blandness… could you at least follow the one rule that even the hokey Terminator 3 didn’t break? If a Terminator, no matter what make or model, gets its hands on a human, don’t let the machine give a dramatic pause, don’t let the machine just “play around” with them, let them INSTANTLY kill. Terminator 1-3 never let the villains even touch the targets… why? Because they are terminators, they would terminate at all costs. Why couldn’t you at least follow this logic? Why sir?
It works in Reno, but not at the multiplex.
Robert Ben Garant and Thomas Lennon, You were great writers on The State, and are hilarious writers on Reno 911!, so how come every time you make the leap to film its completely dreadful? Taxi (the Queen Latifah movie), Balls of Fury, The Pacifier, Let’s Go To Prison, Herbie Fully Loaded, Night at the Museum, Night at the Museum 2: Battle for the Smithsonian… Your film work reads like the listings for a multiplex in the deepest circles of hell… what is going on there guys?
There is always room for Jell-O… and more Bitterness!
Got into an argument with a young “film buff” who was saying that The Dark Knight and Iron Man are better films then The Outlaw Josey Wales, Akira Kurosawa’s Seven Samurai, and Apocalypse Now. Is there any hope for the future?
Comments: 2 Comments
2 Responses to “Opinion In A Haystack: UP Makes Children Cry”Leave a Reply |
May 28th, 2009 at 11:22 am
The last part disturbs me, disturbs me a lot. He also probably thought Bale rehashing that same jackass voice from the batman movies in his role as John Conner was a good idea too.
I am actually excited for UP. I listened to a podcast with Andrew Stanton(Wall-E) a while back, and he talked about how Pete Doctor pretty much told everyone to fuck off, he was making UP. The big complaints were that it isn’t marketable.
Plus he talked about the camera work in Wall-E alot, just read the photography section here http://tinyurl.com/q8uqpy . you will appreciate Wall-E even more.
Good article.
May 28th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Thanks alot chuck.
Yeah, while watching T4 I just wanted to scream “KILL HIM…YOU HAVE HIS NECK IN YOUR HAND!!!”
Regarding the thing about Pete Doctor, yeah, that is what I was trying to say, this movie does tell the broad market to Fuck Off…I’m sure alot of board room meetings were had discussing how unhappy they were with the content. But, like I said in the article, this movie ultimately loves children more for putting a story like that out there, and “hollywood” kinda hates them for only giving them sugar.
thanks for the link.