Tuesday, June 23, 2009

"Up" review

Pixar's recent film entitled Up has gained much positive response from critics and viewers from a large age range. If have seen this movie or have no intention of seeing it then please read this. If you are planning on seeing it soon, then wait until that time to read this review. I don't want to make you think something and then have you resent the movie, I want you to formulate your own opinion and then disagree with me. It's much more fun that way.

synopsis: Boy and girl like adventure from a young age, they are married and have a wonderful life together. They have dreams of traveling to South America and having their house on top of Paradise Falls.Woman is old and dies. She gives her husband her "Adventure Book". The man does not want to go to a retirement home (and let the company take his property) because the house is something he deeply associates with his belated wife. Upon agreement to be taken to a home, thousands of inflated balloons through the chimney lift his house into the air and he is on his way to accomplish the dream he and his wife never fulfilled.

He is looking near the waterfall, but the balloons do not have enough inflation to bring him over the gap in the land to his destination. He straps the garden hose to himself and the accidental boy-scout stowaway, and they make their way over to the waterfall by foot. Along the way, they bump into a talking dog with a collar which allows him to speak his thoughts. The dog's owner is searching for an exotic bird whom has been following the boy and the man for a few minutes of the story. They make it to the waterfall. The man reads his wife's Adventure Book in the "stuff I'm going to do" section, and there are wedding pictures and pictures of their children and pictures of their house. She leaves him a note in the back: "Go have your own adventure. -Ellie"

The man promises the boy that he will keep the bird safe from the owner of the dog. The villain, the owner of this dog and thousands alike to him, tries to kill the man and boy to get the exotic bird. Irony: the villain is a famous TV/movie adventure star whom the man admired as a child. It all ends up great blah blah villain dies.

The good things:

1) The trip to South America shows the great lengths he goes in order to accomplish his belated wife's dream, and the balloons the great heights of his ambition. All this shows his devotion and heartbreak.
2) The boyscout enforces the "adventure" point of the story. How it can be frivolous and childlike and meaningless, be taken too far, and produce great reward and pride. He also serves as a companion to the man which keeps the story and the main character lighthearted throughout struggle and despair. The growing friendship in the story shows a progression of the main character from bitter and mourning his wife, to warm-heartedness and acceptance.
3) His wife's note shows that he did not need to fulfill their dream to please her. That they had their adventure, and it was a good one. It shows both that his want to accomplish this was a result of his sadness, and it allows him to realize this, and have peace with his accomplished life-long dream.

The bad things:

1) The fact that he goes and has his "own adventure" does NOT send me the message that he is getting over the death of his wife. In fact, it sends me me the opposite message that he is displacing his grief and sorrow into a want for more fun and near death.
2) His want to protect this bird is a sign of his desire for the boy's love. They want the character to seem as if he does this because of his compassion for the bird and not wanting it to be captured, but to me it seems that he is so lonely from the death of his wife, that he wants someone to like him. He goes to far too great measures to accomplish this.
3) This movie does not explain the reason why the boy wants to "save" the bird from the villain and why the villain wants to KILL them to get this bird. We have no idea if this man wants to kill the bird for dinner or for a coat from it's colorful feathers or for scientific observance or for a circus! They don't tell us anything, and it makes the entire struggle of "keeping it safe" seem stupid and unjustified.
4) The villain was on a quest for this bird for many years, just as the main character was on a quest to have a house in South America. The both had a goal, they both wanted it with all their heart. The protagonist achieves his goal, while the antagonist dies plummeting towards the jungle from miles above ground. WHY? Why do they NEGATE their own POINT of trying to accomplish your goals? Was what the villain wanted so horrible that he should DIE on his way?
5) The talking dogs. Oh god how I hated them. They made no sense, they were thrown in, they had nothing to do with anything.
6) The villain was someone that the main character admired as a boy. Are they trying to send the message that kids should not have role models? That adventure actually is evil? I don't see the point in having him be this person. I see opposite meaning in it. Perhaps they said it should be him for the shock of the reveal of character, and also the fact that creating a new character would be hard to do and feel insignificant. There is ONE way his character could work. And that would be that the main character feels that everything he has ever known (or admired) is turning his back on him. That just before he accomplishes his goal, things continue to get in his way. But he still yet deals with the villain after he accomplishes it, so it makes no sense in this context either.

My points:

THERE WAS NO NEED FOR HIM TO HAVE ANOTHER ADVENTURE! The Adventure Book showed him the adventure he had. There was no need. No need. His adventure was having his life with Ellie AND making it to Paradise Falls.

THERE WAS NO NEED FOR THE VILLAIN! He went against the "you can do anything you want to do" moral, as he died trying to achieve it. He distracted us from the reason the main character is in South America. There were already villains in this story. First, we had Man vs. Himself with his struggle of missing his wife, and this continues throughout the story. Then, it was Man vs. Society with the company wanting his property and everyone saying he should leave his house. Finally, it was Man vs. Nature as he flies though storms and makes his way through the jungle towards his destination. There was plenty enough villain in this story for me without an actual character to think is evil.

When they start the alternate plot line, with the talking dogs and the villain, the symbolism of the house and balloons, and his physical struggle in making his way there, and even the colorful bird is RUINED. They make all this beautiful imagery be taken completely literally. They use it as an excuse for violence and near death and excitement. The main character is fighting for something that makes no sense with his past wants, and that is not for pure "adventure", like his wife suggested. Her note in the book was not for him to endanger his life, it was for him to not dwell, and have fun. I can hardly call fighting for your life fun, I call it stressful.

I think a better ending would have been suicide off the waterfall after he reads the book. But the note from Ellie should not be there. But this would be the grownup version of the story, that's not really a good look for Disney.

Overall:

I loved this story. I liked how it addresses death in a child movie. I liked how the montage of his life with Ellie hints toward a stork delivering their baby, I absolutely loved the scene where he looks at the Adventure book on the waterfall (it made me cry). I liked the bird, I even kind of liked the first talking dog only because it annoyed the man so much. I really did like the movie until they introduced the villain. The movie got severely boring for me after that point, and I wished for it to end.

Also, the real title of this movie is "The Spirit of Adventure". The first few minutes of the movie shows these words several times, so I am sure it must have been the working title until they thought up the alternate plot line when Disney said "we should Disney this up a bit" and then it couldn't be called that anymore because that was the name of the villain's blimp and it would be blatantly stupid to have the point of the story OBVIOUSLY negated like that, rather than discreetly.

2 comments:

TwoSocks said...

I just wanted to say that a portion of your review is incorrect. I watched Up recently, and in your third bullet of all the bad things about the movie, you said:
"this movie does not explain...why the villian wants to KILL them to get this bird. We have no idea if this man wants to kill the bird for dinner or for a coat from its colorful feathers or for scientific observance or for a circus..."
And I'd like to argue that it did state why he wanted the bird and why he wanted it dead. It stated more of that he wanted, and never really physically said he wanted it dead, but here's my point:
The villian collected things he'd found or captured or whatever, and he'd get credit for it. When he found a boy bird he turned it in, but the other scientists thought it was a fake so they did not give him credit. Which drove him to madness and living in that forest place so he could catch the girl bird alive and show the scientists he never had a fake. In his blimp-thing, he had an entire collection of skeletons of animals he'd captured. They were like trophies. And why would the girl bird be different? If her captured it, he would have either kept it until it died or killed it himself, so that he could put up its bones for display. Like a trophy. Even though it never really says that, you get it from the movie anyway. And also, you said that it never explains why the boy wants to save the bird from the villian.
Well, the boy was pure and innoncent and he named the bird, which hints that he likes it and that he wants it to be his friend. And if a villian was coming after my friend, I would want to save it too.
But I think you're review is very good, although I don't agree with all of it.

Monocle Barbie said...

I cannot recall the exact chronological plot line anymore so I can't disagree with your arguments.

But to me, even if they did say why he wanted to get the bird and kill the boy and the man, I didn't really care, for it had nothing to do with anything in the story beforehand and was completely unnecessary. Quite possibly, I zoned out as the villain explained why he wanted the bird, because I was severely annoyed that the movie hadn't ended where it should have. Because of this, I apologize if I have incorrectly described the reasoning of the plot line that the writers intended.

thanks for the input! ;)