In theaters. Rated G, 96 minutes. Trailer.
As Doc has pointed out, Pixar's track record for producing quality films is unmatched. Up hits the mark again, providing a multi-layered and emotional film about living life in the present. Ed Asner voices the main character, Carl, a widower facing a nursing home who chooses instead to float his beloved house to South America to belatedly fulfill a childhood promise he made to his wife, Ellie. He is unintentionally joined on this journey by an earnest and lonely boy scout, Russell. Click below for more on UP!: 
The first scene shows how the timid and cautious Carl meets his future wife, the boisterous and adventurous Ellie when they were both little kids and Carl promises to take Ellie to Paradise Falls in South America. It then shows a rapid fire depiction of their life together and Ellie's death, ending up with a Gran Torino-esque widower on the porch facing change in his neighborhood (this time its a huge development surrounding his lone, little house). As he spars with the developer and fights off the nursing home, we get a sense of Carl, and when Russell, the little boy scout, comes to his door seeking to "assist an old person" to earn the associated badge, he sends him off on a fools errand. Carl gets in a fight with the developer, overreacts and is then forced to sell the house and relocate to a nursing home. Before they come to get him, though, he ties a zillion balloons to his house to float it (and Ellie's memory) to Paradise Falls.
Along the way he finds Russell on the porch, and they make it almost to the falls - only needing to walk a few days to get there. As they journey, they encounter dogs with special collars that voice their thoughts - a very funny bit. They are also joined by an odd bird that they end up helping at the end. The balance of the film deals with outrunning Carl's childhood hero who is obsessed with finding the odd bird to save his reputation and Carl and Russell's fight to save him.
The first third of the film is very emotional, I don't know how a widower could get through it. It is an elegiac ode to a life lived (Carl's) and his love for his wife and the little girl she used to be. Well, guess what? I am happily married and I have a little girl, so this was the perfect storm for Mr. Goodfellas. I withstood the tearjerking at this point, but stay tuned. This part of the film is really unbelievable, as the filmmakers gather such emotion with such little dialogue and quick images. The music was noticeably great here and throughout the film.
The film's deals with themes of loss, moving on, dealing with the present, friendship, childhood heroes, conservation and baggage. I felt that the main thesis of the film was to live your life for the present and appreciate the people you encounter on a daily basis. It also emphasized the mundane things in life as being some of the best parts - try to appreciate them as they are happening. Russell is neglected by his father, but remembers sitting on the curb watching cars with him. Carl feels like a failure because he didn't take Ellie to Paradise Falls, but they led a full, rich life. At the end of the film, he looks back through Ellie's childhood "Adventure Book" which has her little kid stuff (whack!) and then their life story (pow!), and my tear ducts couldn't take it anymore. A great film.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Up - A-
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Looks great. Did you take your kids?
No - I did a solo preview screening to see if it would be appropriate. I can't decide. There are parts they will love (dogs, bird), but it strikes me as more of an 8 years and up type movie because of the death, infertility, and elder issues. They would probably like it (and my overprotective self didn't see anything in the film I wouldn't want them to watch), but it is more mature than Toy Story (which they love - "look, I'm Picasso" is a big phrase around my house) and Monsters, Inc.
Great review. After seeing it recently I appreciate the ability to accurately describe the movie without giving anything away.
I went into it with really no expectations and couldn't hold it together after the first 30 minutes.
After watching it I called my parents, who are getting into their 60s and recently went to South America, to recommend it to them. They were going to watch Angels and Demons the next day...they thankfully changed their collective minds and loved Up.
There were a few kids watching it when I viewed it who audibly didn't understand what happened to Ellie and were frightened by the dogs.
It's a tough call for kids...I would probably not recommend it for my five year old niece.
ch-
I don't know if you were implying that I gave too much away in my recent Revolutionary Road post, but my apologies if you were. The greatness of that film isn't found in the plot. I'll admit that my RR "review" meanders and is poorly assembled, possibly even incoherent if you haven't seen the film. That is why I linked to lawyer's theatrical review for a better summation.
In my rare theatrical reviews or if I'm the first one reviewing something (e.g. Killshot), I go deeper into the plot and avoid all plot points after the first act. I rarely go past the half way point for the DVD reviews. Perhaps I went to far with RR. A single paragraph in an intended post about "Oscar also-rans" (w/ Frost/Nixon and Changeling) exploded in all directions.
I'd love to see your thoughts on those two, by the way. F/N makes me cringe just thinking about it.
Hey Doctor,
Not the implication I was trying to make. I haven't seen Revolutionary Road...I'm not to keen to see it and I haven't read the review. I apologize if you felt the comment was directed toward you.
In general I just thought it was a well written review...for example the sentence:
"the little boy scout, comes to his door seeking to "assist an old person" to earn the associated badge, he sends him off on a fools errand."
I appreciate the usage of fools errand instead of just saying what happened. Seeing the movie, the errand is aptly described, but for those who haven't viewed it it's a funny scene and the initial response as to what the errand is remains intact.
Anyways, it's been a while since I've probably been as moved in a movie as I was in this movie...I think the genius in the movie is that you can tell someone what the movie is about, but it won't encapsulate the feelings brought up in a four minute montage of a marriage set to superb music.
...The review gives me a great description of the movie and leaves all the surprises intact...
Sorry again for the confusion.
Lawyer-
I agree with your F/N review which reads like a B-. It feels like accomplished, professional filmmakers making a passionless, unimportant project. The colors are great. Michael Sheen is great. But who cares? There was no great insight to apply universally (other than don't get drunk and taunt the opposition).
I liked Changeling more (B+). It probably deserves a full post. I really liked what Clint was doing with motivations and responsibility. The lurid nature of the incredibly true story drew me in. Jolie was terrific and Malkovich played against type nicely.
Changeling a B+ and RevRoad a B+????? You crazy.
As I've said before, Clint's directorial style just doesn't do it for me (big exception, Gran Torino). This was a decent movie at best - not even 20% as thought provoking as RevRoad.
F/N- I agree it should be a B-, but it was hard to withstand the chorus of A's for this during Oscar season when I saw it. It is just a waste of time for everyone.
When putting together my "Final Top Ten", I did notice my "B+" range ballooned more than in past years. So rather than having "Others receiving B+", I had "Runner-ups", which Changeling was not part of. I rank so many that I may need to go a number system where In Bruges and Revolutionary Road get around an 89.4 and Changeling and Quantum of Solace get around an 86.5. (Writing that, obviously, I am crazy.) I'll try to defend Changeling in a full post, but it may be awhile.
Priest- we could use a tie-breaker on Changeling, Rachel Getting Married, and Synecdoche, New York.
Synecdoche gets an I for incomplete for me. I don't feel like I can grade it until I see it a couple more times.
I need to watch Rachel again, but I am a sucker for hard core family drama, which explains my affection.
I knocked Changeling a lot for not having any complexity - it is well made, but boring.
i still need to see synecdoche and changeling. i watched rachel a couple months ago. it's probably an A- from me, definitely at least B+, but it's fair to say that i'm a sucker for hot chicks with issues. i do agree that i've got questions about why a family as (overly) pulled together as the groom's would hook up with Rachel's, but it happens all the time. seeing how the death is working havoc in all the characters, but it's rachel that is giving voice to it all, was interesting to me. Also, interesting, most if not all the music in the film is actual music being played in the background of the scene. a nice touch.
I sure hope there's a dishwasher in Wyoming so you guys can have a race loading it.
i started to mention that as a low point and a largely incomprehensible scene....
That scene is great. It illustrates that the family can't ever really get over or forget the tragedy - not because of some failure on their part, but because of the nature of the tragedy. It is a poignant moment that captures one of the film's essential elements.
I read Jenny Lumet wrote the scene based on an actual incident in the late 70s where her father and Bob Fosse had a dishes loading contest at a party. Which kind of makes sense for obsessive, perfectionist film directors. It didn't make as much sense in the film to me. And I didn't believe they would leave an emotional powderkeg (the kid's plate) just lying around to be found (they would have gotten rid of it years ago). But these people are nuts, so anything's possible.
The acting in the scene was great though (especially by the father).
Post a Comment