Up (Pete Docter, 2009)

[jojo]

One of the main reasons why elderly are put into nursing homes is that they suffer from some sort of physical or mental ailment (or a combination of a bunch of them). Carl displays none of these problems other than a rickety bone or two. I think a "Don't disrespect the elderly" message, if that is what it is, is way too simplistic, especially since it is clear that Carl needs no taking care of. But when you show elderly people needing help bathing, pooping, eating or whatever, that would muddy the issue a lot more and they make up 95% of the reasons why children (or the state) would send the elderly to a nursing home. Honestly, Hollywood only seems to portray either the elderly as highly functional and unfairly maligned, or that they have children who are overly protective of them to the point of babying them. While these depictions may have merit, they are usually the minority and simplifies the issue a lot.

[rs98762001]

Another Pixar marvel. Overall I feel it's more consistent from beginning to end than Wall-E (whose second half paled in comparison to its astonishing first hour), and it might have the most perfect first 15 minutes of any film made this year. And I adored the dogs; an an owner of one myself, it was hilarious to see how accurately their thought processes and behaviours were captured. If Pixar could be collectively considered an "auteur" they might be the most consistent American one over the last 15 years.

[exte]

Yeah, ten hits in a row, I think so. And thank God I wasn't the only one in tears after that prologue. The whole room was whimpering.

[knives]

Cars was arguably a miss, or at least overly long and too similar to the Dreamworks dreck.

[rs98762001]

Agreed. But who else in mainstream American film has made three films in a row as good as Ratatouille, Wall-E, and Up? Alex Payne with Election, About Schmidt and Sideways? Wes Anderson's first 3 films, before he became a complete parody of himself? I'm sure there are others I'm forgetting off the top of my head, but regardless that's pretty good company...

[jojo]

A Bug's Life still seems like minor Pixar to me. It's fun, but I don't consider it any better or worse than such films as James and the Giant Peach, or The Nightmare Before Christmas, or Corpse Bride. All "pretty good" films but nothing you'd be hopping mad over.

I'd also suggest that some people try to watch Toy Story 2 and Monsters Inc back-to-back. I think a few of you might reconsider your position on Monsters Inc after that. I know I did.

[souvenir]

I'd also suggest that some people try to watch Toy Story 2 and Monsters Inc back-to-back. I think a few of you might reconsider your position on Monsters Inc after that. I know I did.

Could you elaborate on this? I'm not sure what the position is on Monsters Inc. that might be reconsidered.

[jojo]

I'm talking about Monster Inc's relatively high standing with Pixar fans. My opinion of it fell several notches after watching both Monsters Inc and Toy Story 2 on consecutive days. I still think it's a very entertaining film on its own, but I can't bring myself to consider it a complete "hit" after seeing it this way. I won't elaborate more than that since I'm assuming some people here haven't seen either film yet.

[kaujot]

I always got the impression that Inc was generally thought to be a lesser Pixar film.

[Highway 61]

If people admire Monsters, Inc today it's probably a case of trying to atone for the outrageous praise initially given to Shrek. Pixar didn't have its 'can do no wrong' reputation until Finding Nemo.

[Tom Hagen]

Inc. has always had a pretty sterling reputation with the Pixar faithful. And if I am not mistaken, it was a pretty big leap forward for them animation-wise as well.

[Chull]

I watched M.I. for the first time quite recently and thought it was really charming. The only problem I had with T.S.2 was that it simply felt like more-of-the-same. It was still well done, and entertaining, but I just didn't feel the same fascination as I had for the first. In fact, as much as I love Rat. and WALL-E, I would have zero interest in a sequel. I'm a bit disappointed that their next is another T.S. (and aren't they doing a sequel to something else?)

[knives]

Sequel to Cars and there are rumors of a MI sequel.

[JHunter]

Sequel to Cars and there are rumors of a MI sequel.

No longer a rumor (scroll to the bottom).

[Tom Hagen]

Three sequels now? Oy! Pixar has earned the unmitigated benefit of the doubt, but this is way too much Tim Allen, Larry the Cable Guy, and Billy Crystal for me to remain overly optimistic.

Hey, at least according to that article there will also be a Shreck 4. Smashmouth needs those "All Star" residuals to keep rollling in.

[Cde.]

There's also a Puss in Boots movie in 2012 and Shrek 5 set for 2013.

[Jun-Dai]

I wonder how much Cars 2 and the like are Pixar's doing versus Disney's doing. If knocking off sequels without tying up their top directors is what it takes to get Disney to leave them alone to keep putting out original stuff, then it might be worth it. I can see why Disney would want to milk the powerful branding that Pixar has created with these films.

If, on the other hand, Pixar is resting on their laurels and has laid their last golden egg for a while (Up), well that'd be a shame. I wonder if Brad Bird has any plans on coming back to Pixar for another round. I wonder what the status of his 1906 project is.

[knives]

Well they do have two original movies in production.

[Jun-Dai]

…scheduled starting from two and a half years from now.

Hmm… I guess either their talent is tied up in the sequels or they're taking a break after such an extraordinary run of films. Neither of the films seem to involve their A-list directors (which I take to be Lasseter, Stanton, Bird, and Docter).

Maybe they'll do another one of those brilliant teaser trailers. "…and so there were a bunch of ideas we came up with over coffee that afternoon. The Incredibles, Ratatouille, Up, Toy Story 3 and Cars 2…"

Also, looking at their next original film, I think I'm going to have to give them a big benefit of the doubt here: In Scotland, Merida (Reese Witherspoon), a member of the royal family, decides to give up her family name for her dream of becoming an archer. Merida makes reckless choices, resulting in the destruction of her father's kingdom and her mother's life. Merida then struggles to set things right. Really? That's Pixar's next film? Sounds like a made-for-TV Disney affair. I can only hope it will be decent despite the description.

[Cde.]

I absolutely loved this film, but my favorite aspect was the children's reactions throughout. These two next to me in particular were really interesting. They were absolutely silent, stunned throughout the opening montage. I thought it may have gone over their heads.

Spoiler

But then when Carl hits the man over the mailbox and has to go to court made them burst into tears, I thought they may have needed to go out for a second. I've never seen children react to a movie that way before.

They had fun the rest of the time though.

Spoiler

The infertility bit would probably go over their heads, but really is not necessary for the film to work.

Spoiler

The kids seated behind me at the matinee I attended today were really disturbed by it -- and one of them confidentially and proudly told her siblings, "the baby inside her died!" Fortunately, a) this was the only genuinely inappropriate outburst of the afternoon (once again proving the point that kids are as captivated by Pixar as any of us are) and b) dad quickly corrected what happened for the younger siblings.

You guys were all very lucky for the children in your theatre to have been so attuned to the emotions of the film. This opened in Sydney last week and I saw it at a packed Sunday matinee. I could barely believe my ears when, at the end of the introductory montage, a kid behind me commented, "he's an old man, why doesn't he just die?", and later commented "I would just write 'die'" as Carl flicked through the 'Things to Do' section of the Adventure Book.

To be fair, in general the behavior was pretty good. I've seen much worse from children (and adults) in cinemas before. The vast majority of the audience seem enraptured and reacted in appropriate ways, and I even heard a kid crying at the end of that opening montage.

I was disappointed by this film. I'm a big fan of Pixar's work, but I can't help but feel that they're sticking too close to a worn-too-thin formula. I knew all the emotional beats to come and the way they would, and it all felt very rote and uninspired. Beyond the fairly brilliant first act, I didn't find myself emotionally involved. It felt too stale.
Up is very transparently 'screenplay 101' in a lot of ways,

Spoiler

for example the way that the way that conflict breaks out between our two heroes, but then Carl looks inside the Symbolic Book and has a change of heart, but then Russell is already leaving to Muntz's base, so Carl will need to journey back and redeem himself... or anything involving the incredibly blunt symbolism about 'letting go' involving the house and the book.

The same can be said of many Pixar films, but the difference is that this one feels rushed, and leaves its characters and their emotional states underdeveloped. As a result, it feels like going through the motions.
The way that the villain is introduced is another example of this. We barely even meet him, and then he makes an incredibly contrived transformation into the big-bad who's going to drive the last half of the film.

It seems like Pixar are focusing too much now on keeping alive their winning streak and the 'magic touch' associated with the studio, and in the process sucking away the real magic that could be found in these stories. I get the feeling that they're becoming too limited by people's expectations of them, and their famous 'story development' process is now propagating a 'tick-the-boxes' approach.

As has been said, it has more of a conventional 'kid's movie' feel than the other Pixar films in some ways, e.g. the running gags about the evil dogs, which I just found annoying. Dug was funny though. That joke about the squirrel is a classic.

Also, am I the only one who finds the last two Pixar films to be visually a big step-down from Cars and Ratatouille, in both design and execution?

Also, looking at their next original film, I think I'm going to have to give them a big benefit of the doubt here: In Scotland, Merida (Reese Witherspoon), a member of the royal family, decides to give up her family name for her dream of becoming an archer. Merida makes reckless choices, resulting in the destruction of her father's kingdom and her mother's life. Merida then struggles to set things right. Really? That's Pixar's next film? Sounds like a made-for-TV Disney affair. I can only hope it will be decent despite the description.

Early descriptions of Pixar films tend to be very vague (remember when Up was about a 70 something teaming up with a wilderness ranger to travel the world and fight beasts and villains before having dinner at 3 in the afternoon?). I'm sure The Bear and the Bow will be a lot more interesting than that extract suggests. Still, I'm not really seeing what's so horrible about it.
I think this project is by far their most promising looking film. The plot and setting really sound like a broadening of their horizons, and the concept art shown a year or so back looked really unique and interesting. Brenda Chapman is a director with a sensibility far removed from the typical Pixar work. The Prince of Egypt had some gorgeous imagery. If she can imbue a sense of beauty and grandeur into CG (which it sounds like she is planning to, given the themes and scope the film apparently covers and the words used thus far to describe it) it will be a real treat. I wouldn't write it off just yet.

[Finch]

Have to agree with Cde. on this one: I had some expectations for this film and also came away disappointed. I found the opening 15 mins or so wonderful (if this and Basterds had to be judged only on their first thirds, they'd be among the year's best), especially the mostly silent prologue which, if nothing else, demonstrates that when Pixar have complete confidence in their visual storytelling their films have devastating emotional power and I wish they would try for a proper silent with a Giacchino score (earlier examples of this include Jesse's abandonment in Toy Story 2 and much of the early section of Wall-E). But once they get to South America, the film falls well short of what the opener promised: you have a Lost World scenario and all you can come up is a giant bird and talking dogs, and fairly mundane chase scenes? To me it felt as though they didn't give the plot a lot of thought beyond the wonderful premise: like cde. mentioned, the second half feels rushed and Carl apart, none of the characters are especially interesting. A lot of the gags in the second half are a bit too broad or flat (hopefully not a sign that Pixar are getting complacent) and I couldn't shake the feeling that while it's all still quite nice and fun to watch, it also could and should have been a hell of a lot better. More so than with Wall-E I feel that they were content to coast along on the strength of the premise and the first act, and didn't deem it necessary to revise the rest of it. Not Pixar's worst by a long shot but not among their best either.

[Alphonse Doinel]

Live Action trailer

[hearthesilence]

I saw this in 3D when it came out, but except for the pile of rocks (if you remember the film pretty well, you'll probably know what I mean), I can't remember another moment where a 3D effect was memorable. Since this was also the summer of Avatar (i.e. Up was finished before 3D REALLY took off), I kind of wondered how committed they were about making 3D an integral part of this film, if at all.

Found a possible answer in this NPR interview. Relevant section:

TERRY GROSS: I didn't see it 3D...So what did I miss? I really loved the film. I know it doesn't have to be in 3D to enjoy it.

Mr. DOCTER: Right.

GROSS: But what did I miss?

Mr. DOCTER: Well, I mean we tried to use 3D as just another element to tell the story. So, for example, when Carl is alone in his house we really tried to squash space to make him feel claustrophobic and locked in. And then by contrast, as he floats his house off, we really tried to push the depth and you know, make him seem free. And so it's to us kind of another tool like lighting, like color, cinematography, it's just another way of furthering the emotion that we're trying to communicate to the audience.

GROSS: So did you work on the 3D part of it?

Mr. DOCTER: I worked with - there was a separate group that we set up. So initially, when we started the project, we had no thought of doing 3D. We were just doing, focused on story and characters. And John Lasseter came to us, I think it was about a year and a half, two years in, and said, hey, we'd really love to do this in 3D. So we set up a group much like, you know, we have the art department, we have the animation department, and now we have the 3D department, and they followed along sequence by sequence and would use 3D in the way I described, really trying to further the story. But I'll confess, it was not really in the forefront of my mind. The things I was most focused on were just story and character. And we tried to use it a little more like a window that you look into as opposed to - I don't know about you, whenever I see 3D movies and stuff is going booga, booga, booga--

GROSS: Yes.

Mr. DOCTER: --in your face, I'm suddenly aware, oh, I'm sitting in the theater wearing dopey glasses, you know? So we tried to use it much more subtly and a little more like, you know, my father had a bunch of stereophonic test records when I was growing up and you'd have you know, bongos on the left channel, trombones on the right channel, and now it's much more integrated and subtle, and that's kind of the way we were trying to approach the 3D on this film as well.