list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Up on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Up/334242/default.aspx Title: Up
Year: 2009
Director: Peter Docter
Plot: A feisty septuagenarian teams with a fearless wilderness ranger to do battle with a vicious band of beasts and villains in this computer-animated adventure scripted by Pixar veteran Bob Peterson and co-directed by Peterson and Monsters, Inc. director Peter Docter. Carl Fredricksen is a 78-year-old balloon salesman. His entire life, Carl has longed to wander the wilds of South Africa. Then, one day, the irascible senior citizen shocked his neighbors by tying thousands of balloons to his home and finally taking flight. But Carl isn't alone on his once-in-a-lifetime journey, because stowed away on his front porch is an excitable eight-year-old Wilderness Explorer named Russell. Later, as the house touches down on the world's second largest continent, Carl and his unlikely traveling companion step outside to discover that not only is their new front lawn considerably larger, but that the predators therein are much more ferocious than anything they ever faced back home. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 86
Number of Lists: 14
Number of blog posts: 8
Number of discussion threads: 2
SpoutRating: 4
]]>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:01:57 GMTUp2009Peter DocterA feisty septuagenarian teams with a fearless wilderness ranger to do battle with a vicious band of beasts and villains in this computer-animated adventure scripted by Pixar veteran Bob Peterson and co-directed by Peterson and Monsters, Inc. director <a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P___201589/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Peter Docter</a>. Carl Fredricksen is a 78-year-old balloon salesman. His entire life, Carl has longed to wander the wilds of South Africa. Then, one day, the irascible senior citizen shocked his neighbors by tying thousands of balloons to his home and finally taking flight. But Carl isn't alone on his once-in-a-lifetime journey, because stowed away on his front porch is an excitable eight-year-old Wilderness Explorer named Russell. Later, as the house touches down on the world's second largest continent, Carl and his unlikely traveling companion step outside to discover that not only is their new front lawn considerably larger, but that the predators therein are much more ferocious than anything they ever faced back home. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide86Tag Target (>10)14824http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s334242.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Up/334242/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/mbsgirl/archive/2009/11/29/44439.aspx Post By: mbsgirl
Post To: mbsgirl Blog
Post Date: 11/29/2009 1:23:01 PM
Body: it;s good
]]>Sun, 29 Nov 2009 18:23:01 GMTmbsgirlmbsgirl Blog11/29/2009 1:23:01 PMit;s good http://www.spout.com/blogs/hautecritique/archive/2009/7/14/43045.aspx Post By: hautecritique
Post To: The Haute Critique on Spout
Post Date: 7/14/2009 3:01:57 PM
Body: I can’t say that Up was a bad movie. It was, in many ways, good. When Chicken Run came out, it was 90%+ on the Tomatometer. Over the years I’ve noticed this across the board. Animated movies can be very high (with a few exceptions). Waiting for Up, we saw trailers for two horrible looking animated features. Up, however, didn’t look horrible. The Pixar/Disney film looked great. The styles, shapes, shading and color were fantastic. They’re not done with a realist’s eye, but with true inspiration. And the writing! It was nail on the head. When they needed a sad beat, it was at their finger tips (failed at child-birth, forcing your wife needlessly up a death march of a hill to give her a poignant present, killing her before she reaches to bow on the box, a boy whose douche bag father’s new woman berates him for longing for paternal acceptance). If they needed cute, oh, that came out of thin air. Baby chicks, Seth Rogen in dog form (seriously cute)… And the Tomatometer shows it. Another 90+ for Disney/Pixar. Most of their pictures are in that range. Places usually reserved for Best Picture Nominees. Are these production companies the greatest motion picture artists of a generation? Since Beauty and the Beast danced across a psychedelic chandelier with Oscar, can they do no wrong? Beauty and the Beast (1991) – 93% Aladdin (1992) – 91% The Lion King (1994) – 92% Toy Story (1995) – 100% Antz (1998) – 95% Toy Story 2 (1999) – 100% Chicken Run (2000) – 98% The Incredibles (2004) – 97% Ratatouille (2007) – 97% Wall-E (2008) – 97% Up (2009) – 97% I think that the format and style lends itself to a low bar. Leaving Up, we re-conjure the part of the film we like and, if we laugh some, check. If we are sad, another check. Shed a tear? Check plus. Laugh with that tear still on our cheek and awards season isn’t that far off. The child in us does a little victory dance. Up seems to try a little too hard for that tear. Defeats are brutal and relentless, and they are executed with a sadistic exuberance. If this were recreated in live action it would be beyond disturbing. Early on we would watch the main character start as a darling little boy and build a beautifully charming life with the love of his life. After she passes, THE MAN comes and tries to squeeze our ideal grandfather out to make way for some horrible tenement. The plucky hero, courageously stands up for his heart. Picture Ernest Hemingway or the Dos Equis guy in your head. Then, a couple of construction goofballs (think Charlie Sheen and Emilio Estevez) accidentally knock over his mail box. Suddenly plucky old man goes all Falling Down on the guy. The cartoon naturally softens the violence, but the fall from grace becomes too realistic and breaks the spell. Plus Leads to this: Click here to view the embedded video. Of course, he is booked, tried in a court of law, found guilty, and forced out of his home, by Agent Smith from The Matrix, no less. If it is so obvious that these situations are just previous motion picture archetypes playing twister on a story board somewhere at Pixar or Disney, why such hard charging positive reviews? It has to be that victory dance. The appeal of a dog telling us the reason he fell asleep next to us on the couch was because he loved us. What kid doesn’t love that? One issue with Up is that this well honed vernacular seems too technical. Technical can be beautiful, and often has been for Pixar. Up, however, lacks the pitch perfect balance that turns something technical into what the french call technique. I can’t wave you off seeing Up. In fact, I can guarantee you will see something you like. And, maybe that is enough. (But, I prefer Miyazaki.) No related posts. Originally posted on:The Haute Critique
]]>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:01:57 GMThautecritiqueThe Haute Critique on Spout7/14/2009 3:01:57 PMI can’t say that Up was a bad movie. It was, in many ways, good. When Chicken Run came out, it was 90%+ on the Tomatometer. Over the years I’ve noticed this across the board. Animated movies can be very high (with a few exceptions). Waiting for Up, we saw trailers for two horrible looking animated features. Up, however, didn’t look horrible. The Pixar/Disney film looked great. The styles, shapes, shading and color were fantastic. They’re not done with a realist’s eye, but with true inspiration. And the writing! It was nail on the head. When they needed a sad beat, it was at their finger tips (failed at child-birth, forcing your wife needlessly up a death march of a hill to give her a poignant present, killing her before she reaches to bow on the box, a boy whose douche bag father’s new woman berates him for longing for paternal acceptance). If they needed cute, oh, that came out of thin air. Baby chicks, Seth Rogen in dog form (seriously cute)… And the Tomatometer shows it. Another 90+ for Disney/Pixar. Most of their pictures are in that range. Places usually reserved for Best Picture Nominees. Are these production companies the greatest motion picture artists of a generation? Since Beauty and the Beast danced across a psychedelic chandelier with Oscar, can they do no wrong? Beauty and the Beast (1991) – 93% Aladdin (1992) – 91% The Lion King (1994) – 92% Toy Story (1995) – 100% Antz (1998) – 95% Toy Story 2 (1999) – 100% Chicken Run (2000) – 98% The Incredibles (2004) – 97% Ratatouille (2007) – 97% Wall-E (2008) – 97% Up (2009) – 97% I think that the format and style lends itself to a low bar. Leaving Up, we re-conjure the part of the film we like and, if we laugh some, check. If we are sad, another check. Shed a tear? Check plus. Laugh with that tear still on our cheek and awards season isn’t that far off. The child in us does a little victory dance. Up seems to try a little too hard for that tear. Defeats are brutal and relentless, and they are executed with a sadistic exuberance. If this were recreated in live action it would be beyond disturbing. Early on we would watch the main character start as a darling little boy and build a beautifully charming life with the love of his life. After she passes, THE MAN comes and tries to squeeze our ideal grandfather out to make way for some horrible tenement. The plucky hero, courageously stands up for his heart. Picture Ernest Hemingway or the Dos Equis guy in your head. Then, a couple of construction goofballs (think Charlie Sheen and Emilio Estevez) accidentally knock over his mail box. Suddenly plucky old man goes all Falling Down on the guy. The cartoon naturally softens the violence, but the fall from grace becomes too realistic and breaks the spell. Plus Leads to this: Click here to view the embedded video. Of course, he is booked, tried in a court of law, found guilty, and forced out of his home, by Agent Smith from The Matrix, no less. If it is so obvious that these situations are just previous motion picture archetypes playing twister on a story board somewhere at Pixar or Disney, why such hard charging positive reviews? It has to be that victory dance. The appeal of a dog telling us the reason he fell asleep next to us on the couch was because he loved us. What kid doesn’t love that? One issue with Up is that this well honed vernacular seems too technical. Technical can be beautiful, and often has been for Pixar. Up, however, lacks the pitch perfect balance that turns something technical into what the french call technique. I can’t wave you off seeing Up. In fact, I can guarantee you will see something you like. And, maybe that is enough. (But, I prefer Miyazaki.) No related posts. Originally posted on:The Haute Critique http://www.spout.com/groups/I_Love_Childrens_Movies/Re_Up/372/43041/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: I Love Childrens Movies
Post Date: 7/14/2009 2:25:27 PM
Body: [quote user="indieabby88"] Yes, I know this is rather belated (sorry for my extended absence from the boards--the KU J-school will do that to you), but I feel duty-bound to start a discussion of "Up," the latest slice of fried gold to be added to the Pixar canon. I thought this was a wonderfully whimsical, funny, and surprisingly poignant film. I don't know about you guys, but there were a couple of times where it got pretty dusty in the theater for me (read: tears running down my cheeks as I tried to keep from showing my emotion). What did you guys think? Favorite parts? I'm partial to the "cone of shame." Did anyone get to see this in 3D? My second-rate local 8-screen theater only showed it in regular 'ol 2D, so I didn't get the full effect. Let's discuss! [/quote] I wrote a blog about it. Here's what I wrote: Up I've always had an aversion to Pixar films for some reason, even though I've never sat down and watched one since Toy Story, the only other Pixar film I've seen. I had my reasons for avoiding these films. First of all, Toy Story was a kids movie. About toys and kids and their fantasy world. And I found it in my memory to be devoid of facing any real hard truths of this world. It was all kind of glossed over with the problems being about a child's level of interaction between people. Maybe I'm wrong, but this is my memory. It's a glossed, child fantasy reality. Then I saw Shrek which I hated. Now Shrek is not Pixar, I know. It's Dreamworks. But they are the primary competitors in the world of blockbuster, computer generated animation, family oriented films. Shrek features the same glossed over and simplified look at the world with the added annoyance of extra mindless pop stars and singers being tied in. Anyone else find that Smash Mouth cover of "I'm A Believer" at the end of the film to be as aggravating as me? And then since then I've felt like I've already seen all of these movies. The marketing campaign for this genre of films might be bigger than any other. I really can't go anywhere that advertisements could possibly appear without seeing ads for these kinds of movies. Not only that, the ads seem to come out almost a year before the movie. So I'm already sick of these movies almost a year before they are even released. So I didn't plan on seeing Up. But I was out with a big group of friends who all made the decision to see a movie. There were some films I might have wanted to see more, and (as is usually the case with the majority of films at the mainstream movie theatres at any given time) a lot of films I wanted to see a whole lot less. I don't think I'd seen a full length film in 3-D with the special glasses and everything before, so I was kind of interested in that as well. I was confused at first, and then I remembered hearing that all of these Pixar movies always begin with a short film. When that was over and Up began, I was surprised how moved I was. The film started out with some kids, but suddenly we were cruising through a montage of their relationship, marriage, and all of their life. Until the kid is in his seventies. I've talked to several people who watched this, and I don't think I'm in the minority that I found myself tearing up during this montage. (and again later when he opens up his scrap book). I was trying to reflect on this and see if I felt in any way manipulated in a bad way here. And I don't think I was. There was some subtle and expert filmmaking here. Like a good Frank Capra film, the emotion might have been a bit sappy, but I liked it. Some of the rest of the film was of course a bit kiddy, family friendly, and sheltered. But in the end I was shocked how much I liked this. The protagonist Carl Fredricksen is what made the movie. As a character, he was identifiable. The joy came from him. The whole floating house with balloons aspect I think was pretty much created just as a challenge by the animators to see what kind of unusual physics and scenarios they could try to animate. A couple other points: If Charles Muntz was well into his adult years when Carl Fredricksen was still in grade school, wouldn't Charles be getting close to 100 years old when Carl was in his 70s? Yet Charles looked almost younger than Carl at this time. Also, please don't confuse this film with Russ Meyer's Up!. Although that might be a fun movie to see in 3-D as well! I may consider watching another Pixar movie, yet somehow I still have the sense that this film was more of an exception. Rating: 9/10
]]>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:25:27 GMTRisseladaI Love Childrens Movies7/14/2009 2:25:27 PM[quote user="indieabby88"] Yes, I know this is rather belated (sorry for my extended absence from the boards--the KU J-school will do that to you), but I feel duty-bound to start a discussion of "Up," the latest slice of fried gold to be added to the Pixar canon. I thought this was a wonderfully whimsical, funny, and surprisingly poignant film. I don't know about you guys, but there were a couple of times where it got pretty dusty in the theater for me (read: tears running down my cheeks as I tried to keep from showing my emotion). What did you guys think? Favorite parts? I'm partial to the "cone of shame." Did anyone get to see this in 3D? My second-rate local 8-screen theater only showed it in regular 'ol 2D, so I didn't get the full effect. Let's discuss! [/quote] I wrote a blog about it. Here's what I wrote: Up I've always had an aversion to Pixar films for some reason, even though I've never sat down and watched one since Toy Story, the only other Pixar film I've seen. I had my reasons for avoiding these films. First of all, Toy Story was a kids movie. About toys and kids and their fantasy world. And I found it in my memory to be devoid of facing any real hard truths of this world. It was all kind of glossed over with the problems being about a child's level of interaction between people. Maybe I'm wrong, but this is my memory. It's a glossed, child fantasy reality. Then I saw Shrek which I hated. Now Shrek is not Pixar, I know. It's Dreamworks. But they are the primary competitors in the world of blockbuster, computer generated animation, family oriented films. Shrek features the same glossed over and simplified look at the world with the added annoyance of extra mindless pop stars and singers being tied in. Anyone else find that Smash Mouth cover of "I'm A Believer" at the end of the film to be as aggravating as me? And then since then I've felt like I've already seen all of these movies. The marketing campaign for this genre of films might be bigger than any other. I really can't go anywhere that advertisements could possibly appear without seeing ads for these kinds of movies. Not only that, the ads seem to come out almost a year before the movie. So I'm already sick of these movies almost a year before they are even released. So I didn't plan on seeing Up. But I was out with a big group of friends who all made the decision to see a movie. There were some films I might have wanted to see more, and (as is usually the case with the majority of films at the mainstream movie theatres at any given time) a lot of films I wanted to see a whole lot less. I don't think I'd seen a full length film in 3-D with the special glasses and everything before, so I was kind of interested in that as well. I was confused at first, and then I remembered hearing that all of these Pixar movies always begin with a short film. When that was over and Up began, I was surprised how moved I was. The film started out with some kids, but suddenly we were cruising through a montage of their relationship, marriage, and all of their life. Until the kid is in his seventies. I've talked to several people who watched this, and I don't think I'm in the minority that I found myself tearing up during this montage. (and again later when he opens up his scrap book). I was trying to reflect on this and see if I felt in any way manipulated in a bad way here. And I don't think I was. There was some subtle and expert filmmaking here. Like a good Frank Capra film, the emotion might have been a bit sappy, but I liked it. Some of the rest of the film was of course a bit kiddy, family friendly, and sheltered. But in the end I was shocked how much I liked this. The protagonist Carl Fredricksen is what made the movie. As a character, he was identifiable. The joy came from him. The whole floating house with balloons aspect I think was pretty much created just as a challenge by the animators to see what kind of unusual physics and scenarios they could try to animate. A couple other points: If Charles Muntz was well into his adult years when Carl Fredricksen was still in grade school, wouldn't Charles be getting close to 100 years old when Carl was in his 70s? Yet Charles looked almost younger than Carl at this time. Also, please don't confuse this film with Russ Meyer's Up!. Although that might be a fun movie to see in 3-D as well! I may consider watching another Pixar movie, yet somehow I still have the sense that this film was more of an exception. Rating: 9/10 http://www.spout.com/blogs/risselada/archive/2009/7/2/42900.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Risselada Blog
Post Date: 7/2/2009 2:22:28 PM
Body: Up I've always had an aversion to Pixar films for some reason, even though I've never sat down and watched one since Toy Story, the only other Pixar film I've seen. I had my reasons for avoiding these films. First of all, Toy Story was a kids movie. About toys and kids and their fantasy world. And I found it in my memory to be devoid of facing any real hard truths of this world. It was all kind of glossed over with the problems being about a child's level of interaction between people. Maybe I'm wrong, but this is my memory. It's a glossed, child fantasy reality. Then I saw Shrek which I hated. Now Shrek is not Pixar, I know. It's Dreamworks. But they are the primary competitors in the world of blockbuster, computer generated animation, family oriented films. Shrek features the same glossed over and simplified look at the world with the added annoyance of extra mindless pop stars and singers being tied in. Anyone else find that Smash Mouth cover of "I'm A Believer" at the end of the film to be as aggravating as me? And then since then I've felt like I've already seen all of these movies. The marketing campaign for this genre of films might be bigger than any other. I really can't go anywhere that advertisements could possibly appear without seeing ads for these kinds of movies. Not only that, the ads seem to come out almost a year before the movie. So I'm already sick of these movies almost a year before they are even released. So I didn't plan on seeing Up. But I was out with a big group of friends who all made the decision to see a movie. There were some films I might have wanted to see more, and (as is usually the case with the majority of films at the mainstream movie theatres at any given time) a lot of films I wanted to see a whole lot less. I don't think I'd seen a full length film in 3-D with the special glasses and everything before, so I was kind of interested in that as well. I was confused at first, and then I remembered hearing that all of these Pixar movies always begin with a short film. When that was over and Up began, I was surprised how moved I was. The film started out with some kids, but suddenly we were cruising through a montage of their relationship, marriage, and all of their life. Until the kid is in his seventies. I've talked to several people who watched this, and I don't think I'm in the minority that I found myself tearing up during this montage. (and again later when he opens up his scrap book). I was trying to reflect on this and see if I felt in any way manipulated in a bad way here. And I don't think I was. There was some subtle and expert filmmaking here. Like a good Frank Capra film, the emotion might have been a bit sappy, but I liked it. Some of the rest of the film was of course a bit kiddy, family friendly, and sheltered. But in the end I was shocked how much I liked this. The protagonist Carl Fredricksen is what made the movie. As a character, he was identifiable. The joy came from him. The whole floating house with balloons aspect I think was pretty much created just as a challenge by the animators to see what kind of unusual physics and scenarios they could try to animate. A couple other points: If Charles Muntz was well into his adult years when Carl Fredricksen was still in grade school, wouldn't Charles be getting close to 100 years old when Carl was in his 70s? Yet Charles looked almost younger than Carl at this time. Also, please don't confuse this film with Russ Meyer's Up!. Although that might be a fun movie to see in 3-D as well! I may consider watching another Pixar movie, yet somehow I still have the sense that this film was more of an exception. Rating: 9/10
]]>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:22:28 GMTRisseladaRisselada Blog7/2/2009 2:22:28 PMUp I've always had an aversion to Pixar films for some reason, even though I've never sat down and watched one since Toy Story, the only other Pixar film I've seen. I had my reasons for avoiding these films. First of all, Toy Story was a kids movie. About toys and kids and their fantasy world. And I found it in my memory to be devoid of facing any real hard truths of this world. It was all kind of glossed over with the problems being about a child's level of interaction between people. Maybe I'm wrong, but this is my memory. It's a glossed, child fantasy reality. Then I saw Shrek which I hated. Now Shrek is not Pixar, I know. It's Dreamworks. But they are the primary competitors in the world of blockbuster, computer generated animation, family oriented films. Shrek features the same glossed over and simplified look at the world with the added annoyance of extra mindless pop stars and singers being tied in. Anyone else find that Smash Mouth cover of "I'm A Believer" at the end of the film to be as aggravating as me? And then since then I've felt like I've already seen all of these movies. The marketing campaign for this genre of films might be bigger than any other. I really can't go anywhere that advertisements could possibly appear without seeing ads for these kinds of movies. Not only that, the ads seem to come out almost a year before the movie. So I'm already sick of these movies almost a year before they are even released. So I didn't plan on seeing Up. But I was out with a big group of friends who all made the decision to see a movie. There were some films I might have wanted to see more, and (as is usually the case with the majority of films at the mainstream movie theatres at any given time) a lot of films I wanted to see a whole lot less. I don't think I'd seen a full length film in 3-D with the special glasses and everything before, so I was kind of interested in that as well. I was confused at first, and then I remembered hearing that all of these Pixar movies always begin with a short film. When that was over and Up began, I was surprised how moved I was. The film started out with some kids, but suddenly we were cruising through a montage of their relationship, marriage, and all of their life. Until the kid is in his seventies. I've talked to several people who watched this, and I don't think I'm in the minority that I found myself tearing up during this montage. (and again later when he opens up his scrap book). I was trying to reflect on this and see if I felt in any way manipulated in a bad way here. And I don't think I was. There was some subtle and expert filmmaking here. Like a good Frank Capra film, the emotion might have been a bit sappy, but I liked it. Some of the rest of the film was of course a bit kiddy, family friendly, and sheltered. But in the end I was shocked how much I liked this. The protagonist Carl Fredricksen is what made the movie. As a character, he was identifiable. The joy came from him. The whole floating house with balloons aspect I think was pretty much created just as a challenge by the animators to see what kind of unusual physics and scenarios they could try to animate. A couple other points: If Charles Muntz was well into his adult years when Carl Fredricksen was still in grade school, wouldn't Charles be getting close to 100 years old when Carl was in his 70s? Yet Charles looked almost younger than Carl at this time. Also, please don't confuse this film with Russ Meyer's Up!. Although that might be a fun movie to see in 3-D as well! I may consider watching another Pixar movie, yet somehow I still have the sense that this film was more of an exception. Rating: 9/10 http://www.spout.com/blogs/kevynknox/archive/2009/6/29/42856.aspx Post By: KevynKnox
Post To: KevynKnox Blog
Post Date: 6/29/2009 6:26:56 PM
Body: A few days after seeing Pixar's Up, but before I had actually written this review of it, I was taken to task by the five year old son of a friend of mine. He apparently took offense toward my putting down of such a (in his opinion) fine film as Up. How he had gathered my opinion on the film I am still not quite sure, but there he was anyway. How dare I dislike this film. How dare I dislike any Pixar film. Perhaps I should not review children's films anymore, or at the very least, perhaps I should allow him to review them with me. Since he immediately went kid-shy on me when asked for his opinion by his mother (I do know he loved the talking dogs though) I must instead trudge on, alone at the helm of this review, and give my nearly thwarted critique of this, Pixar's tenth animated feature, and as the ads boldly state, the first one in digital 3-D. What my intrepid but reticent five year old fellow critic has possibly not taken into account is the simple fact that I actually did like Up. Well, perhaps like isn't the right word so much as enjoyed in piecemeal betwixt the antiseptic assembly-lineage filmmaking style that is Pixar (I believe it was Stanley Kauffmann who compared Pixar to the sterile General Motors corporation of 1950's America). The same Pixar that swooshes out practically perfect products with the greatest of ease, each and every year, to the seemingly obligatory and quite ubiquitous barrage of raves and rants and general genuflection from critics of all ills and ilks. Okay, perhaps the kid was right after all and I have no business reviewing children's movies, but Pixar's rather progressive outlook on the themes of their films leads one to the conclusion that these are not just children's films, plus he's not here right now so nerts to him. Have I mentioned lately that I'm not so much a kid person per se? Truth be told I liked the talking dogs too (though even they got tiresome after about the 114th time they said something cute) and quite enjoyed the visual amusement park ride that was the film, with its melange of Crayola-inspired house-lifting balloons and equally colorful "snipe" companion that may or may not be an avian metaphor for the entire gay and lesbian community. I was moved by the touching, tragic love story that was the first ten minutes or so, what is essentially a cross between the angst of Revolutionary Road and the bawl-your-eyes-out ending of Make Way For Tomorrow, though it does get kind of schmaltzy even for this self-admitted sentimentalist. I even found myself downright giddy at times and almost rooting for that cranky old protagonist to finish his Quixotic adventure and find that proverbial end of the rainbow - even if it does get kind of obvious after a short while. All this aside, I still have a problem, not so much with the flaws of the movie (or of the previous nine Pixar pieces of confectionery syrup) but with the overall perfection of it all. This may seem a strange complaint, bellyaching about something being made too well, with just too much precision and accomplishment, but Pixar films are so clean and spotless, so germ-free, and come wrapped in what seems like a large disinfected prophylactic full of bells and whistles and hoots and hollers, they inevitably lose the sometimes muddied heart and soul that is animation from Emile Cohl to Winsor McCay to Max Fleischer to Tex Avery to Chuck Jones to Charles Addams to Fritz Freleng to Rankin and Bass to Matt Groening to Seth MacFarlane to Miyazaki to the overgrown infants at Cartoon Network's Adult Swim. From hand-drawn to digital manipulation, animation needs that sometimes marred surface to be truly effective. It needs that soul that Chuck Jones and his ilk provided each and every time - for good or for bad. Even the short that plays before the feature (and which will inevitably receive its obligatory Oscar nomination for Best Animated Short come January), a little ditty called Partly Cloudy, is more in tune with the classic animation theories of Chuck Jones than the spit-shine big brother that follows it. Maybe the kid was right and I should shut up and get off the pot, but I just can't stop while I'm on a roll. Last year's almost unanimously praised Wall-E, with its cinematic allusions to everything from 2001 to E.T. and its progressive green attitude, is probably the closest I have ever come to calling a Pixar film something great. Up is certainly an enjoyable film and one of Pixar's better works (only Ratatouille, The Incredibles and the aforementioned Wall-E are better) and I do not begrudge its "hospital corners" superiority (much) but in the end, visually titillating delights and doohickeys notwithstanding, it leaves one cold. It's almost as if Toto has finally pulled that curtain aside to reveal the quite ordinary man behind the machine. Perhaps Pixar is actually Oz in the end and we are all looking through emerald-coloured glasses completely unaware of the wicked witch skywriting her threats above our heads. I suppose I will have to ask my friend's five year old about this the next time I see him. Okay okay. The film is fun (for adults and the kiddies alike) and maybe I shouldn't constantly bash you, the readers, over the head with my incessant knocking of visual perfection (or at least as close to perfection as humanly, or computerly possible) but I can't help myself. To recreate the comic strip Hi & Lois - again with the animation. Lois finishes showing houses to a real estate client and Hi asks her what he thought of them. She says he wanted to tear them all down. Why, Hi asks, is he a builder? No Lois says, he's a movie critic. Perhaps even after enjoying a film - for the most part - I still feel the need to find some fault, any fault, and use that to tear it down. Up is a well-made film, even with my reservations about its selling its soul to the company store. Maybe next time I am to review a so-called children's film I will get the anxious five year old to help me out after all.
]]>Mon, 29 Jun 2009 22:26:56 GMTKevynKnoxKevynKnox Blog6/29/2009 6:26:56 PMA few days after seeing Pixar's Up, but before I had actually written this review of it, I was taken to task by the five year old son of a friend of mine. He apparently took offense toward my putting down of such a (in his opinion) fine film as Up. How he had gathered my opinion on the film I am still not quite sure, but there he was anyway. How dare I dislike this film. How dare I dislike any Pixar film. Perhaps I should not review children's films anymore, or at the very least, perhaps I should allow him to review them with me. Since he immediately went kid-shy on me when asked for his opinion by his mother (I do know he loved the talking dogs though) I must instead trudge on, alone at the helm of this review, and give my nearly thwarted critique of this, Pixar's tenth animated feature, and as the ads boldly state, the first one in digital 3-D. What my intrepid but reticent five year old fellow critic has possibly not taken into account is the simple fact that I actually did like Up. Well, perhaps like isn't the right word so much as enjoyed in piecemeal betwixt the antiseptic assembly-lineage filmmaking style that is Pixar (I believe it was Stanley Kauffmann who compared Pixar to the sterile General Motors corporation of 1950's America). The same Pixar that swooshes out practically perfect products with the greatest of ease, each and every year, to the seemingly obligatory and quite ubiquitous barrage of raves and rants and general genuflection from critics of all ills and ilks. Okay, perhaps the kid was right after all and I have no business reviewing children's movies, but Pixar's rather progressive outlook on the themes of their films leads one to the conclusion that these are not just children's films, plus he's not here right now so nerts to him. Have I mentioned lately that I'm not so much a kid person per se? Truth be told I liked the talking dogs too (though even they got tiresome after about the 114th time they said something cute) and quite enjoyed the visual amusement park ride that was the film, with its melange of Crayola-inspired house-lifting balloons and equally colorful "snipe" companion that may or may not be an avian metaphor for the entire gay and lesbian community. I was moved by the touching, tragic love story that was the first ten minutes or so, what is essentially a cross between the angst of Revolutionary Road and the bawl-your-eyes-out ending of Make Way For Tomorrow, though it does get kind of schmaltzy even for this self-admitted sentimentalist. I even found myself downright giddy at times and almost rooting for that cranky old protagonist to finish his Quixotic adventure and find that proverbial end of the rainbow - even if it does get kind of obvious after a short while. All this aside, I still have a problem, not so much with the flaws of the movie (or of the previous nine Pixar pieces of confectionery syrup) but with the overall perfection of it all. This may seem a strange complaint, bellyaching about something being made too well, with just too much precision and accomplishment, but Pixar films are so clean and spotless, so germ-free, and come wrapped in what seems like a large disinfected prophylactic full of bells and whistles and hoots and hollers, they inevitably lose the sometimes muddied heart and soul that is animation from Emile Cohl to Winsor McCay to Max Fleischer to Tex Avery to Chuck Jones to Charles Addams to Fritz Freleng to Rankin and Bass to Matt Groening to Seth MacFarlane to Miyazaki to the overgrown infants at Cartoon Network's Adult Swim. From hand-drawn to digital manipulation, animation needs that sometimes marred surface to be truly effective. It needs that soul that Chuck Jones and his ilk provided each and every time - for good or for bad. Even the short that plays before the feature (and which will inevitably receive its obligatory Oscar nomination for Best Animated Short come January), a little ditty called Partly Cloudy, is more in tune with the classic animation theories of Chuck Jones than the spit-shine big brother that follows it. Maybe the kid was right and I should shut up and get off the pot, but I just can't stop while I'm on a roll. Last year's almost unanimously praised Wall-E, with its cinematic allusions to everything from 2001 to E.T. and its progressive green attitude, is probably the closest I have ever come to calling a Pixar film something great. Up is certainly an enjoyable film and one of Pixar's better works (only Ratatouille, The Incredibles and the aforementioned Wall-E are better) and I do not begrudge its "hospital corners" superiority (much) but in the end, visually titillating delights and doohickeys notwithstanding, it leaves one cold. It's almost as if Toto has finally pulled that curtain aside to reveal the quite ordinary man behind the machine. Perhaps Pixar is actually Oz in the end and we are all looking through emerald-coloured glasses completely unaware of the wicked witch skywriting her threats above our heads. I suppose I will have to ask my friend's five year old about this the next time I see him. Okay okay. The film is fun (for adults and the kiddies alike) and maybe I shouldn't constantly bash you, the readers, over the head with my incessant knocking of visual perfection (or at least as close to perfection as humanly, or computerly possible) but I can't help myself. To recreate the comic strip Hi &amp; Lois - again with the animation. Lois finishes showing houses to a real estate client and Hi asks her what he thought of them. She says he wanted to tear them all down. Why, Hi asks, is he a builder? No Lois says, he's a movie critic. Perhaps even after enjoying a film - for the most part - I still feel the need to find some fault, any fault, and use that to tear it down. Up is a well-made film, even with my reservations about its selling its soul to the company store. Maybe next time I am to review a so-called children's film I will get the anxious five year old to help me out after all. http://www.spout.com/blogs/smooth_j/archive/2009/6/17/42694.aspx Post By: Smooth_J
Post To: Smooth_J Blog
Post Date: 6/17/2009 6:34:44 PM
Body: With Up, Pixar has pulled off something magnificent--and old-fashioned adventure story and an aching comment on aging packaged in a family friendly studio film. Don't get me wrong, Up works brilliantly as a film "for the whole family," sacrificing none of Pixar's inherent charm in order to make a mature film (much like Wall-E, which addressed similarly advanced themes whilst maintaining the slap-stick, love-sick aura of a children's movie). However, what amazed this reviewer the most was the fact that the adult's in the multiplex, my mother included, and the children, my brother included, enjoyed the film equally and non-equivocally; the themes of the film appealed to both the adults and the kids, and both seemed moved, often to the point of tears. (My mom, as well as several elderly members of the audience, were moved to tears by several sequences.) One can only imagine the excitement the Pixar creative team must have felt when they nabbed the idea of an old fart flying away in his house to escape subjection to a retirement home ("How does the house fly away?" "Colorful balloons." "JACKPOT." "And there's talking dogs too." "My God, what will we think of next?"). It fits the formula of any successful film, and with Pixar behind, this film could not have flopped. I'm not going to beat the ragged drum and rave about the marvelous opening sequence, or the rollicking adventure scenes, or the hilarious dog scenes...but they are all magnificent. The impressive achievement of the film, one that sets it apart from all Pixar efforts that precede it, is the feeling of content old-fashionedness (sorry, I invented a word) that coats each frame. The waltzy score is reminiscent of 1940's Hollywood musicals and love stories, brimming with wonder and nostalgia. The adventure strived for is meant as a return to Treasure of the Sierra Madre action, with a clear-cut morality and immorality, the forces of good-nature combating the old figure of greed, embodied by a disgraced adventurer hiding out in the enigmatic Paradise Falls. Much like Raiders of the Lost Ark (I think Allmovieguide made this connection as well), it is a tribute, not a knock-off, of old adventure stories; it attempts a revamp, using adventure films' best characteristics, and discarding or playfully paying homage to their bad ones, to create something entirely new. And, in the case of Up, the ones paying tribute have crafted something remarkably beautiful. Part of what makes the approach so effective is the sympathy created for the characters--in the widely accoladed opening sequence, the audience is completely convinced of the timeless devotion Carl feels for his wife. There is no doubt that he would go to the ends of the Earth to express his love for her, even following her death. Russel, the stowaway "Wilderness Explorer," is quite possibly the most hilarious and heart-breaking part of the movie. Although the viewer never formally meets his family or glimpses into his home-life, small details are revealed in his gregariously self-conscious dialogue that his life sucks. That would be a minute detail, if Russel's character were not so lovable; his naivete is tragic, but one cannot help but feel as though it is his only saving grace. I, a heartless old wretch (at the staggering age of 17), cried like a baby when Russel discussed his relationship with his father, tinged with longing, as for some reason, his real mother is gone and his father is never around. The only thing he seems to have in his life is his Wilderness Scouts club, and he pursues his badges with hell-bent vigor. Everything about Up is instilled with an insatiable melancholy, but it doesn't stop the film from being a fun-as-hell ride. The action's great, the comedy's perfect, and the emotional resonance is second to nothing in theaters right now.
]]>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:34:44 GMTSmooth_JSmooth_J Blog6/17/2009 6:34:44 PMWith Up, Pixar has pulled off something magnificent--and old-fashioned adventure story and an aching comment on aging packaged in a family friendly studio film. Don't get me wrong, Up works brilliantly as a film "for the whole family," sacrificing none of Pixar's inherent charm in order to make a mature film (much like Wall-E, which addressed similarly advanced themes whilst maintaining the slap-stick, love-sick aura of a children's movie). However, what amazed this reviewer the most was the fact that the adult's in the multiplex, my mother included, and the children, my brother included, enjoyed the film equally and non-equivocally; the themes of the film appealed to both the adults and the kids, and both seemed moved, often to the point of tears. (My mom, as well as several elderly members of the audience, were moved to tears by several sequences.) One can only imagine the excitement the Pixar creative team must have felt when they nabbed the idea of an old fart flying away in his house to escape subjection to a retirement home ("How does the house fly away?" "Colorful balloons." "JACKPOT." "And there's talking dogs too." "My God, what will we think of next?"). It fits the formula of any successful film, and with Pixar behind, this film could not have flopped. I'm not going to beat the ragged drum and rave about the marvelous opening sequence, or the rollicking adventure scenes, or the hilarious dog scenes...but they are all magnificent. The impressive achievement of the film, one that sets it apart from all Pixar efforts that precede it, is the feeling of content old-fashionedness (sorry, I invented a word) that coats each frame. The waltzy score is reminiscent of 1940's Hollywood musicals and love stories, brimming with wonder and nostalgia. The adventure strived for is meant as a return to Treasure of the Sierra Madre action, with a clear-cut morality and immorality, the forces of good-nature combating the old figure of greed, embodied by a disgraced adventurer hiding out in the enigmatic Paradise Falls. Much like Raiders of the Lost Ark (I think Allmovieguide made this connection as well), it is a tribute, not a knock-off, of old adventure stories; it attempts a revamp, using adventure films' best characteristics, and discarding or playfully paying homage to their bad ones, to create something entirely new. And, in the case of Up, the ones paying tribute have crafted something remarkably beautiful. Part of what makes the approach so effective is the sympathy created for the characters--in the widely accoladed opening sequence, the audience is completely convinced of the timeless devotion Carl feels for his wife. There is no doubt that he would go to the ends of the Earth to express his love for her, even following her death. Russel, the stowaway "Wilderness Explorer," is quite possibly the most hilarious and heart-breaking part of the movie. Although the viewer never formally meets his family or glimpses into his home-life, small details are revealed in his gregariously self-conscious dialogue that his life sucks. That would be a minute detail, if Russel's character were not so lovable; his naivete is tragic, but one cannot help but feel as though it is his only saving grace. I, a heartless old wretch (at the staggering age of 17), cried like a baby when Russel discussed his relationship with his father, tinged with longing, as for some reason, his real mother is gone and his father is never around. The only thing he seems to have in his life is his Wilderness Scouts club, and he pursues his badges with hell-bent vigor. Everything about Up is instilled with an insatiable melancholy, but it doesn't stop the film from being a fun-as-hell ride. The action's great, the comedy's perfect, and the emotional resonance is second to nothing in theaters right now. http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2009/6/10/42608.aspx Post By: pippin06
Post To: Reel Thoughts
Post Date: 6/10/2009 9:41:37 PM
Body: Over a week ago, I made one of my rare trips to the movie theater for one of my annual devotionals to Pixar. Yes, folks, I have officially seen every single Pixar film at the show and within a week of its release. I, no doubt, have an overt bias toward this production company, but let's face it. Pixar's worst film (which for me is Cars right now) is still ahead of the curve and better than 90% of the films out there. Not to mention the fact that the originator of CGI entertainment still remains original, while all of the copycats have languished in the mediocrity of imitiation. Up is Pixar's tenth feature and a strange hybrid of the studio's most original, and yet, most cliched story concept to date (some might peg that brand on Wall-E, but I beg to differ). The first act treats us to the introduction of Carl Fredericksen and how he came to meet his future wife and soulmate, Ellie. As childhood friends and sweethearts, they shared a love of adventure and dreamt of exploring South America and the legendary Paradise Falls. They held onto this dream throughout their marriage and adulthood, through highs such as the purchase of their fixer-upper of a home (once an abandoned dilapidation they made their imaginary zeppelin) and lows, such as their inability to have children. Through it all, they remained devoted, until Ellie succumbs to old age and illness. Carl (voiced by Ed Asner) is left alone but for his promise to his now deceased wife that he would seek their adventure and find Paradise Falls. The trouble is, Carl is something of a curmudgeon and unfortunately has one of those houses located smack within what looks to be a newly rezoned commercial development project. When the construction foreman (voiced by Pixar's good luck charm, Cliff, I mean, John Ratzenberger), who tries to encourage Carl to move on, receives a blow to his noggin from an otherwise frustrated Carl, thereby causing a judge to court-order him into a retirement home, Carl takes action. As seen in all of the previews, he transforms his home into one giant zeppelin of his own, lifted by thousands of colorful helium balloons. He has two problems, however. Young and precocious nature scout Russell, who has been bothering Mr. Fredricksen in the name of a few good-deed patches, stows away on his airborne front porch. What's worse, Carl encounters a bit of turbulence and, courtesy of Russell, lands on the wrong side of the chasm containing the famed Paradise Falls. Thus, Carl and Russell take his now floating house (not unlike a land speeder in Star Wars) by the reins and drag it through tangled jungle, only to encounter strange birds, talking dogs, Carl's childhood hero turned lunatic hunter (voiced by Christopher Plummer), and more adventure than a man of advancing age bargained for. I read this article earlier this week, which was hot-linked to the imdb's home page. The article can be found here: http://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/06/03/pixars-up-paradise-lost-at-paradise-falls/ Well, it's really more of a blog post, but it's theme contemplates how Up and Milton's poem Paradise Lost share some noteworthy similarities. I wonder if these similarities were purposeful or subconscious on the part of the writers. What the article most expertly discusses is how Up is a lot deeper and more grounded than its whimsical colorful balloons suggest. In many ways, this fable is an allegory for growing pains, particularly with regard to growing old. It's an affirmation of life and love and camraderie, and the story is told in a frightfully inventive way, with humor and heartwrenching sadness. The silent movie giving the viewer the glimpse of Carl and Ellie's life together was so touching, it elicited many a vocal "aw" from the crowd with which I saw this film. The talking dogs, particularly the malfunctioning translator on the Doberman named Alpha were hilarious. The voice acting by Ed Asner and Christopher Plummer was pitch-perfect, and their animated likenesses (which were nothing like their real likenesses) were textured and engaging. The animation, as always, is superb in this film. Each brightly hued balloon looks almost real, so much so, it's almost as if you can smell that balloony smell. The depictions of the South American jungle were as lush and exotic as I would imagine the real thing to be. Pixar's expertise in creating a world, an animated one no less, in which the viewer can completely suspend disbelief is unmatched, and Up proves to be another example of that truth. This film, however, is not Pixar's best. In fact, I'm thinking it rates in the lower five for me. It comes down to the fact that while some of the film was artfully and classically rendered, giving it that shade of originality that is practically Pixar's trademark, there were elements of the film that detracted from its potential of being another masterpiece. The Russell kid was annoying. He all at once provided something of an antagonistic force and an appropriate contrast of youth, energy, and innocence compared to Carl's elderly cynicism and grief, but his purpose aside, the voice actor got on my nerves. Not all of the talking dogs were funny. The one that ends up following them around was too close to the dog in classic cartoons that frequently asked, "Can I play with the ball, George?" What was that dog's name? Well, this dog was a direct descendant of the other dog. The plausibility of a floating or flying house aside, I could not understand how an elderly man who needs a cane to walk and a snot-nosed kid alone could drag a sturdy two-story, even if gravity wasn't its primary concern. Also, the frenetic second act seemed disjointed in comparison to the simple and understated first act; then again, I know the studio tries to reach the child members of its audience as much as the adults, and the second act caters most to a younger crowd. The short attached to the film was also not Pixar's best, but that's the other great part about seeing Pixar films in the theater: one gets to see the bonus short film to be later included in the DVD extras. Still, I enjoyed Up. Like all Pixar films, it entertained me; it made me laugh, it made me cry, it made me puzzle. I think Up merits an 8.5 on the patented ratings scale. It's on my like/love boundary and falls between very good/minor flaws and perfectly entertaining. I consider many of the detractions I cited above as nitpicks, but I also still loved the film enough, possibly per my Pixar bias, to give it that rank. It also naturally passes the test. I would not hesitate to maintain my otherwise complete Pixar collection with its latest entry. In any event, Up makes the spirit soar and is worth every penny and second of its 96 minute running time. Word of caution, however: the 3-D feature is nice but really nothing to get excited about. If you see it at the theater, save two bucks and resign yourself to two-dimensional viewing. You're not otherwise missing much but an uncomfortable hour and a half with overpriced plastic spectacles.
]]>Thu, 11 Jun 2009 01:41:37 GMTpippin06Reel Thoughts6/10/2009 9:41:37 PMOver a week ago, I made one of my rare trips to the movie theater for one of my annual devotionals to Pixar. Yes, folks, I have officially seen every single Pixar film at the show and within a week of its release. I, no doubt, have an overt bias toward this production company, but let's face it. Pixar's worst film (which for me is Cars right now) is still ahead of the curve and better than 90% of the films out there. Not to mention the fact that the originator of CGI entertainment still remains original, while all of the copycats have languished in the mediocrity of imitiation. Up is Pixar's tenth feature and a strange hybrid of the studio's most original, and yet, most cliched story concept to date (some might peg that brand on Wall-E, but I beg to differ). The first act treats us to the introduction of Carl Fredericksen and how he came to meet his future wife and soulmate, Ellie. As childhood friends and sweethearts, they shared a love of adventure and dreamt of exploring South America and the legendary Paradise Falls. They held onto this dream throughout their marriage and adulthood, through highs such as the purchase of their fixer-upper of a home (once an abandoned dilapidation they made their imaginary zeppelin) and lows, such as their inability to have children. Through it all, they remained devoted, until Ellie succumbs to old age and illness. Carl (voiced by Ed Asner) is left alone but for his promise to his now deceased wife that he would seek their adventure and find Paradise Falls. The trouble is, Carl is something of a curmudgeon and unfortunately has one of those houses located smack within what looks to be a newly rezoned commercial development project. When the construction foreman (voiced by Pixar's good luck charm, Cliff, I mean, John Ratzenberger), who tries to encourage Carl to move on, receives a blow to his noggin from an otherwise frustrated Carl, thereby causing a judge to court-order him into a retirement home, Carl takes action. As seen in all of the previews, he transforms his home into one giant zeppelin of his own, lifted by thousands of colorful helium balloons. He has two problems, however. Young and precocious nature scout Russell, who has been bothering Mr. Fredricksen in the name of a few good-deed patches, stows away on his airborne front porch. What's worse, Carl encounters a bit of turbulence and, courtesy of Russell, lands on the wrong side of the chasm containing the famed Paradise Falls. Thus, Carl and Russell take his now floating house (not unlike a land speeder in Star Wars) by the reins and drag it through tangled jungle, only to encounter strange birds, talking dogs, Carl's childhood hero turned lunatic hunter (voiced by Christopher Plummer), and more adventure than a man of advancing age bargained for. I read this article earlier this week, which was hot-linked to the imdb's home page. The article can be found here: http://www.overthinkingit.com/2009/06/03/pixars-up-paradise-lost-at-paradise-falls/ Well, it's really more of a blog post, but it's theme contemplates how Up and Milton's poem Paradise Lost share some noteworthy similarities. I wonder if these similarities were purposeful or subconscious on the part of the writers. What the article most expertly discusses is how Up is a lot deeper and more grounded than its whimsical colorful balloons suggest. In many ways, this fable is an allegory for growing pains, particularly with regard to growing old. It's an affirmation of life and love and camraderie, and the story is told in a frightfully inventive way, with humor and heartwrenching sadness. The silent movie giving the viewer the glimpse of Carl and Ellie's life together was so touching, it elicited many a vocal "aw" from the crowd with which I saw this film. The talking dogs, particularly the malfunctioning translator on the Doberman named Alpha were hilarious. The voice acting by Ed Asner and Christopher Plummer was pitch-perfect, and their animated likenesses (which were nothing like their real likenesses) were textured and engaging. The animation, as always, is superb in this film. Each brightly hued balloon looks almost real, so much so, it's almost as if you can smell that balloony smell. The depictions of the South American jungle were as lush and exotic as I would imagine the real thing to be. Pixar's expertise in creating a world, an animated one no less, in which the viewer can completely suspend disbelief is unmatched, and Up proves to be another example of that truth. This film, however, is not Pixar's best. In fact, I'm thinking it rates in the lower five for me. It comes down to the fact that while some of the film was artfully and classically rendered, giving it that shade of originality that is practically Pixar's trademark, there were elements of the film that detracted from its potential of being another masterpiece. The Russell kid was annoying. He all at once provided something of an antagonistic force and an appropriate contrast of youth, energy, and innocence compared to Carl's elderly cynicism and grief, but his purpose aside, the voice actor got on my nerves. Not all of the talking dogs were funny. The one that ends up following them around was too close to the dog in classic cartoons that frequently asked, "Can I play with the ball, George?" What was that dog's name? Well, this dog was a direct descendant of the other dog. The plausibility of a floating or flying house aside, I could not understand how an elderly man who needs a cane to walk and a snot-nosed kid alone could drag a sturdy two-story, even if gravity wasn't its primary concern. Also, the frenetic second act seemed disjointed in comparison to the simple and understated first act; then again, I know the studio tries to reach the child members of its audience as much as the adults, and the second act caters most to a younger crowd. The short attached to the film was also not Pixar's best, but that's the other great part about seeing Pixar films in the theater: one gets to see the bonus short film to be later included in the DVD extras. Still, I enjoyed Up. Like all Pixar films, it entertained me; it made me laugh, it made me cry, it made me puzzle. I think Up merits an 8.5 on the patented ratings scale. It's on my like/love boundary and falls between very good/minor flaws and perfectly entertaining. I consider many of the detractions I cited above as nitpicks, but I also still loved the film enough, possibly per my Pixar bias, to give it that rank. It also naturally passes the test. I would not hesitate to maintain my otherwise complete Pixar collection with its latest entry. In any event, Up makes the spirit soar and is worth every penny and second of its 96 minute running time. Word of caution, however: the 3-D feature is nice but really nothing to get excited about. If you see it at the theater, save two bucks and resign yourself to two-dimensional viewing. You're not otherwise missing much but an uncomfortable hour and a half with overpriced plastic spectacles. http://www.spout.com/blogs/yinali/archive/2009/6/5/42534.aspx Post By: Yinali
Post To: Yinali Blog
Post Date: 6/5/2009 12:44:26 AM
Body: How letting go can help one get through in their lives. A story about one man, who is about to have an adventure he'll never forget. It's exciting, funny, sentimental, and has a whole lot to give to all types of audiences.
]]>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 04:44:26 GMTYinaliYinali Blog6/5/2009 12:44:26 AMHow letting go can help one get through in their lives. A story about one man, who is about to have an adventure he'll never forget. It's exciting, funny, sentimental, and has a whole lot to give to all types of audiences. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/26/41278.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/26/2009 7:01:03 PM
Body: In case you haven’t heard (even though most people were talking about this yesterday — sorry today is that slow), next year’s Oscars will return to the month of March, due the Academy’s need to get out of the way of the Winter Olympics. For some of you, this may mean you have extra time to see the nominees. For most of you, this also means you’ll have more time to complain about how the Academy snubbed Wolverine, Avatar, Up or whatever other movie you think deserved a Best Picture nod. As for us film bloggers, the delay gives us additional time to speculate, predict and otherwise cover awards season to death. As if this year’s Oscars didn’t seem over-blogged enough, I can only expect there will be even more movie sites, including those specializing in the Oscars, next year. And therefore I can only expect that by the time the Oscar telecast airs on March 7 I will be so sick of the whole film awards concept that I’ll almost not even live-Tweet the big night. Reactions to the Academy’s announcement from other Oscar bloggers after the jump: Despite the fact that most of these guys are the reason the season feels overlong, they almost seem to be complaining that they have an extra two weeks to beat the dead horse: “Those who have been privately arguing that a shorter Oscar season might punch up the appeal of the Academy Awards just got sucker-punched by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences,” write Michael Cieply and Brooks Barnes at The Carpetbagger, noting that the move “adds two weeks to the awards season, which already seemed a tad long by the time the ceremony was held on Feb. 22 of this year.” “The seemingly endless awards season will be a little longer next year,” writes Kristopher Tapley at In Contention. “Buckle up.” “14 more days to savor the anxiety anticipation,” writes Ryan Adams at Awards Daily. For anyone wondering why the Oscars were pushed back so far back, despite the Olympics’ end date being February 28, Jeff Wells at Hollywood Elsewhere got the scoop this morning: “The reason for the new Oscar date,’ an insider confided right after the item posted, “is that a lot of the below-the-line [guys] who work the Oscars will be working the opening and closing Olympic ceremonies in Vancouver and will be out of the country during the ramp-up to the show. They just need the time.” And now some commentary from the non-specialists: Cinematical’s Monika Bartyzel wonders if the move is actually beneficial to Oscar hopefuls or the Academy ceremony: Does it matter? Would an extra week mean that we might get an Oscar ceremony with more accurate nominations? Doubt it. And maybe they’re just passing up a big cross-promotional opportunity — stars skiing down the slopes to accept awards, skating over ice … at least it would make up for all the highly congratulatory talk, should it seep into next year’s ceremony as well. Chris Hewitt at Empire also would have preferred the Oscars to stay put: Obviously, this doesn’t mean a lot in the long run – the Oscars will still be handed out, people will still grumble about who won what and we’ll still secretly wish that they’d ask Stephen Colbert to host. But we’re a little annoyed that the Academy didn’t grow a pair and go head-to-head with the Winter Olympics. Gregory Ellwood at HitFix sees more reason the date change sucks for some people: Who might loose in all this?  It may amount to only two extra weeks, but that could be enough for studios nervous about their prestige pics to skip the trifecta of festivals that traditionally kicks off awards season: Venice, Telluride and Toronto.  And considering the importance of the Hollywood machine at those events, that could be very dire news. Don’t be surprised to see some release date shuffling due to this announcement.  Fox Searchlight currently has “Amelia” on Oct. 23.  Is that too early now?  Does Paul Greengrass’ “Green Zone” open limited to avoid the December rush?  The news will certainly make distributors big and small take a second look at their release patterns. Richard Brody at The Front Row sees further film release issues: “With the Oscars in March, it will be even tougher for new releases to break through early in the year, meaning that calendars will likely be even more crowded in the fall.” Andy Scott at Oscar and the City has a different feeling: “I’m personally all for these kinds of delays. It opens the door for potential surprises, which seem to be a thing of the past these days.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 26 Mar 2009 23:01:03 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/26/2009 7:01:03 PMIn case you haven’t heard (even though most people were talking about this yesterday — sorry today is that slow), next year’s Oscars will return to the month of March, due the Academy’s need to get out of the way of the Winter Olympics. For some of you, this may mean you have extra time to see the nominees. For most of you, this also means you’ll have more time to complain about how the Academy snubbed Wolverine, Avatar, Up or whatever other movie you think deserved a Best Picture nod. As for us film bloggers, the delay gives us additional time to speculate, predict and otherwise cover awards season to death. As if this year’s Oscars didn’t seem over-blogged enough, I can only expect there will be even more movie sites, including those specializing in the Oscars, next year. And therefore I can only expect that by the time the Oscar telecast airs on March 7 I will be so sick of the whole film awards concept that I’ll almost not even live-Tweet the big night. Reactions to the Academy’s announcement from other Oscar bloggers after the jump: Despite the fact that most of these guys are the reason the season feels overlong, they almost seem to be complaining that they have an extra two weeks to beat the dead horse: “Those who have been privately arguing that a shorter Oscar season might punch up the appeal of the Academy Awards just got sucker-punched by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences,” write Michael Cieply and Brooks Barnes at The Carpetbagger, noting that the move “adds two weeks to the awards season, which already seemed a tad long by the time the ceremony was held on Feb. 22 of this year.” “The seemingly endless awards season will be a little longer next year,” writes Kristopher Tapley at In Contention. “Buckle up.” “14 more days to savor the anxiety anticipation,” writes Ryan Adams at Awards Daily. For anyone wondering why the Oscars were pushed back so far back, despite the Olympics’ end date being February 28, Jeff Wells at Hollywood Elsewhere got the scoop this morning: “The reason for the new Oscar date,’ an insider confided right after the item posted, “is that a lot of the below-the-line [guys] who work the Oscars will be working the opening and closing Olympic ceremonies in Vancouver and will be out of the country during the ramp-up to the show. They just need the time.” And now some commentary from the non-specialists: Cinematical’s Monika Bartyzel wonders if the move is actually beneficial to Oscar hopefuls or the Academy ceremony: Does it matter? Would an extra week mean that we might get an Oscar ceremony with more accurate nominations? Doubt it. And maybe they’re just passing up a big cross-promotional opportunity — stars skiing down the slopes to accept awards, skating over ice … at least it would make up for all the highly congratulatory talk, should it seep into next year’s ceremony as well. Chris Hewitt at Empire also would have preferred the Oscars to stay put: Obviously, this doesn’t mean a lot in the long run – the Oscars will still be handed out, people will still grumble about who won what and we’ll still secretly wish that they’d ask Stephen Colbert to host. But we’re a little annoyed that the Academy didn’t grow a pair and go head-to-head with the Winter Olympics. Gregory Ellwood at HitFix sees more reason the date change sucks for some people: Who might loose in all this?  It may amount to only two extra weeks, but that could be enough for studios nervous about their prestige pics to skip the trifecta of festivals that traditionally kicks off awards season: Venice, Telluride and Toronto.  And considering the importance of the Hollywood machine at those events, that could be very dire news. Don’t be surprised to see some release date shuffling due to this announcement.  Fox Searchlight currently has “Amelia” on Oct. 23.  Is that too early now?  Does Paul Greengrass’ “Green Zone” open limited to avoid the December rush?  The news will certainly make distributors big and small take a second look at their release patterns. Richard Brody at The Front Row sees further film release issues: “With the Oscars in March, it will be even tougher for new releases to break through early in the year, meaning that calendars will likely be even more crowded in the fall.” Andy Scott at Oscar and the City has a different feeling: “I’m personally all for these kinds of delays. It opens the door for potential surprises, which seem to be a thing of the past these days.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/FRESH/Were_these_Superbowl_2009_movie_trailers_worth_3/75/40154/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: rjsprague
Post To: FRESH
Post Date: 2/2/2009 2:45:43 PM
Body: Each of these films' trailers aired during Superbowl XLIII (that's 43). Was the $3 million price tag worth it? Tell us what you think! (Click "Add to discussion" to post in this thread without quoting a post.) &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;a href ="http://answers.polldaddy.com/poll/1335631/" &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;Of the films whose trailers had an ad spot during the 2009 Superbowl, which trailer was actually worth the $3 Million fee? (Select all that apply)&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/a&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;br/&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;span style="font-size:9px;" mce_style="font-size:9px;"&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; (&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;a href ="http://www.polldaddy.com"&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; polls&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/a&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;)&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/span&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; Angels & Demons Angels and Demons Trailer on Spout Duplicity Duplicity Trailer on Spout Fast and Furious G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra Land of the Lost Monsters vs. Aliens Monsters vs. Aliens Trailer on Spout Race to Witch Mountain Race to Witch Mountain Trailer on Spout Star Trek XI Star Trek XI Trailer on Spout Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen Trailer on Spout Disney Pixar's Up Up Trailer on Spout Year One
]]>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 19:45:43 GMTrjspragueFRESH2/2/2009 2:45:43 PMEach of these films' trailers aired during Superbowl XLIII (that's 43). Was the $3 million price tag worth it? Tell us what you think! (Click "Add to discussion" to post in this thread without quoting a post.) &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;a href ="http://answers.polldaddy.com/poll/1335631/" &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;Of the films whose trailers had an ad spot during the 2009 Superbowl, which trailer was actually worth the $3 Million fee? (Select all that apply)&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/a&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;br/&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;span style="font-size:9px;" mce_style="font-size:9px;"&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; (&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;a href ="http://www.polldaddy.com"&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; polls&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/a&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;)&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/span&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; Angels &amp; Demons Angels and Demons Trailer on Spout Duplicity Duplicity Trailer on Spout Fast and Furious G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra Land of the Lost Monsters vs. Aliens Monsters vs. Aliens Trailer on Spout Race to Witch Mountain Race to Witch Mountain Trailer on Spout Star Trek XI Star Trek XI Trailer on Spout Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen Trailer on Spout Disney Pixar's Up Up Trailer on Spout Year One http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/love/MemberTagFilms.aspxlove
Number of films tagged: 12478

Number of people who tagged: 338

Number of times used: 1480

]]>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:28:29 GMT124783381480Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/funny/MemberTagFilms.aspxfunny
Number of films tagged: 609

Number of people who tagged: 316

Number of times used: 942

]]>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:10:58 GMT609316942Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/comedy/MemberTagFilms.aspxcomedy
Number of films tagged: 1087

Number of people who tagged: 253

Number of times used: 1342

]]>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:38:30 GMT10872531342Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/family/MemberTagFilms.aspxfamily
Number of films tagged: 6289

Number of people who tagged: 227

Number of times used: 1139

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 21:00:49 GMT62892271139Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/romance/MemberTagFilms.aspxromance
Number of films tagged: 7163

Number of people who tagged: 169

Number of times used: 1005

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 01:16:35 GMT71631691005Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/friendship/MemberTagFilms.aspxfriendship
Number of films tagged: 6791

Number of people who tagged: 154

Number of times used: 980

]]>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:42:20 GMT6791154980Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fun/MemberTagFilms.aspxfun
Number of films tagged: 459

Number of people who tagged: 142

Number of times used: 296

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:23:09 GMT459142296Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/death/MemberTagFilms.aspxdeath
Number of films tagged: 4306

Number of people who tagged: 140

Number of times used: 526

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:27:13 GMT4306140526Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fantasy/MemberTagFilms.aspxfantasy
Number of films tagged: 1044

Number of people who tagged: 128

Number of times used: 480

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:54:25 GMT1044128480Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/action/MemberTagFilms.aspxaction
Number of films tagged: 319

Number of people who tagged: 111

Number of times used: 460

]]>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:49:02 GMT319111460Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/adventure/MemberTagFilms.aspxadventure
Number of films tagged: 229

Number of people who tagged: 96

Number of times used: 369

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 21:00:50 GMT22996369Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/marriage/MemberTagFilms.aspxmarriage
Number of films tagged: 3471

Number of people who tagged: 67

Number of times used: 267

]]>Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:39:11 GMT347167267Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/animation/MemberTagFilms.aspxanimation
Number of films tagged: 295

Number of people who tagged: 58

Number of times used: 209

]]>Mon, 05 Oct 2009 21:34:12 GMT29558209Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/travel/MemberTagFilms.aspxtravel
Number of films tagged: 46

Number of people who tagged: 54

Number of times used: 91

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:40 GMT465491Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/life/MemberTagFilms.aspxlife
Number of films tagged: 1082

Number of people who tagged: 52

Number of times used: 224

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:43 GMT108252224Tag