Ever since "Cars," it seems that Pixar has lost its way and unfortunately "Up" falls into this category.
The in the first 15 minutes, we watch the life of Carl Fredricksen, voiced by Ed Asner, go from childhood to widowed old man. It concludes with a bitter-sweet ending, leaving Carl alone and sad, surrounded by greedy developers. An incident with one of the crew forces Carl to take drastic action and it's then that he comes up with the idea to tie his house to helium balloons and float away. It's only after the house has taken off that we realize an over-anxious wilderness scout has been trapped aboard. Naturally, the house floats from its original location to the exact mountaintop in Venezuela overnight... And this is when the story starts again... and again... and again.
But this is just one of my beefs with "Up." Although you would think watching a story start and stop and start again would make it adventurous, it's not. After a while you lose interest as more obstacles and more minor challenges are presented that derail the main plot.
Another setback to the story are the villains. These villains perform truly evil acts that would scare any small child. With such clever nemesis, why is there a need for such heinous and physical violence against such defenseless heroes. And why do we need bullying to exist in a family film?
I also had trouble with a lot of the logic in the second half of the movie. For example, if Muntz and his dogs have been stranded in the wilderness for decades, how is it that one goofy golden retriever was born amongst herds of dobermans, bulldogs, rottweilers and pit bulls. Or if Muntz is brilliant enough to have dog's thoughts translated into speaking voices, why can't he create a gadget that catches the bird. And why must he capture it live? Wouldn't photographic or video evidence be enough? And wouldn't these gadgets enough to redeem him? And how is it that dogs now suddenly talk to each other with their thoughts? Do they understand English? And why are they now suddenly intelligent enough to use electronic gadgets and cooking utensils...
As you can see, a whole slew of logic questions sprang up in my mind after I've already accepted the notion that tying a whole bunch of balloons to a chimney would safety transport the whole house across two continents! This is a tell-tale sign that the story had too many holes in it... and too many side stories.
Most films get its heart by having its main character overcome his biggest weakness and claim the prize. But in this film, even when Carl reaches his goal (by accident), I'm left feeling unsatisfied. The story fails to understand that losing a cherished love one cannot be overcome or "fixed" with a home full of stray children and dogs.
For me, "Up" created such a sad set-up that no conclusion could make it end on a high note.
The in the first 15 minutes, we watch the life of Carl Fredricksen, voiced by Ed Asner, go from childhood to widowed old man. It concludes with a bitter-sweet ending, leaving Carl alone and sad, surrounded by greedy developers. An incident with one of the crew forces Carl to take drastic action and it's then that he comes up with the idea to tie his house to helium balloons and float away. It's only after the house has taken off that we realize an over-anxious wilderness scout has been trapped aboard. Naturally, the house floats from its original location to the exact mountaintop in Venezuela overnight... And this is when the story starts again... and again... and again.
But this is just one of my beefs with "Up." Although you would think watching a story start and stop and start again would make it adventurous, it's not. After a while you lose interest as more obstacles and more minor challenges are presented that derail the main plot.
Another setback to the story are the villains. These villains perform truly evil acts that would scare any small child. With such clever nemesis, why is there a need for such heinous and physical violence against such defenseless heroes. And why do we need bullying to exist in a family film?
I also had trouble with a lot of the logic in the second half of the movie. For example, if Muntz and his dogs have been stranded in the wilderness for decades, how is it that one goofy golden retriever was born amongst herds of dobermans, bulldogs, rottweilers and pit bulls. Or if Muntz is brilliant enough to have dog's thoughts translated into speaking voices, why can't he create a gadget that catches the bird. And why must he capture it live? Wouldn't photographic or video evidence be enough? And wouldn't these gadgets enough to redeem him? And how is it that dogs now suddenly talk to each other with their thoughts? Do they understand English? And why are they now suddenly intelligent enough to use electronic gadgets and cooking utensils...
As you can see, a whole slew of logic questions sprang up in my mind after I've already accepted the notion that tying a whole bunch of balloons to a chimney would safety transport the whole house across two continents! This is a tell-tale sign that the story had too many holes in it... and too many side stories.
Most films get its heart by having its main character overcome his biggest weakness and claim the prize. But in this film, even when Carl reaches his goal (by accident), I'm left feeling unsatisfied. The story fails to understand that losing a cherished love one cannot be overcome or "fixed" with a home full of stray children and dogs.
For me, "Up" created such a sad set-up that no conclusion could make it end on a high note.
Trailers and Clips
Top Box Office
- 1.$55.6M
- 2.$25.5M
- 3.$17.4M
- 4.$12.6M
- 7.$3.0M
- 8.$2.7M
- 9.$1.8M
- 10.$1.6M
1 comment