"Up"

Movie reviewers tend, at least in private, to get ever-so-slightly blasé about the output of Pixar, Disney's computer animation arm. From Toy Story to A Bug's Life to The Incredibles to Ratatouille to, well, you get the idea, the stuff functions on such a high level of quality, from a certain perspective, it gets a little boring to write about. It's always so imaginative, so funny, so full of real heart, so visually and technologically innovative, one almost gets flummoxed. (Then there's the integrity thing—that hardly every Pixar picture functions as a pretext to create lots and lots of expensive ancillary merchandise.) One could almost hear a collective critical sigh of something like relief when Cars turned out to be just okay—albeit just okay on a very high level. 

I'm almost reminded—and this is gonna sound weird, but bear with me—of a certain period in the career of the reliably dyspeptic post-punk band The Fall, whose run of albums from the early '80s to 1990 was so staggering that by, say, 1985's This Nation's Saving Grace, one ceased to be quite so staggered. "Ho-hum, another great Fall album," one would say. Which isn't to say one was ungrateful. Anyhow, not to go off on a tangent, as The Fall and Disney/Pixar really have little in common (although Fall frontman Mark E. Smith did pen a lyric entitled "Disney's Dream Debased," about [I think] an ill-fated trip to Disneyland, back before Pixar even existed). But still. 

So it's not likely that I'm going to surprise anyone by saying that Up,directed by Pete Docter and Bob Peterson, is terrific, but I will cop to that fact that the film—you'll excuse the phrase—had me at "hello," and for reasons that are largely extra-critical. As you probably know from the trailer, Up is about Carl, a grumpy old fellow who escapes from a worse-than-humdrum existence by making a flying ship out of his house, with the assistance of a shitload of helium balloons. His unwanted companion on the trek is an eager-beaver of a simulated Boy Scout named Nelson Russell, who only lacks an "Assisting the Elderly" badge to complete his vast array of such awards. 

But the movie begins with Carl as anything but a grumpy old fellow; it depicts him as an adventure-obsessed (but shy) little boy who finds the ideal playmate, and eventually soulmate, in an equally adventure-obsessed (and not shy) little girl named Ellie. One of the most affecting scenes in the film, and one of the most brilliant things Pixar's ever done, is a wordless montage depicting the great ordinary love story of these two souls. And I have to admit it gave my heart more than a little tug that the adult Ellie—seen with Carl in the above still—reminded me an awful lot of My Lovely Wife. Who aside from being as smart and lively and beautiful as the cinematic Ellie, also has a similarly adventurous streak—while I was grilling basil, tomato, and mozzarella sausages this last weekend, she was off in Belize, snorkeling, cave-tubing, and zip-lining. (I would have joined her on the trip, which also included a wedding, save for a schedule conflict. But I sure as hell wouldn't have gone zip-lining.) Carl and Ellie's story ends sadly—hence Carl's grumpiness—but then, thanks to a wonderful reveal at the end of the movie, an end is shown as a potential new beginning, as Carl is reinvested with the couple's sense of adventure and...well, I don't want to reveal much more. But the moving stuff here is rich in sentiment as opposed to mere sentimentality, and it works like a charm.

As for the rest of the picture, well, I don't want to give away too much of that either, except to say that as Pixar stuff goes it's a lot more overtly cartoony than many of its prior features. Which, cartoon nut that I am, is cause to celebrate. Once Carl and Russell leave the U.S., they find a realm of high cliffs and funny animals, two staples of the genre. The sight of our duo and a couple of their guests being pursued by a pack of dogs whose alpha has an amusing glitch will no doubt remind fellow animation aficionados of the 1947 Looney Tunes gem, A Hare Grows In Manhattan, in which Bugs Bunny is chased by a similarly goofy group of canines. And the action set pieces have the same combination of creative lunacy and meticulous timing that distinguished the can-you-top-this? toy train sequence in Nick Park's latter-day Wallace and Gromit classic, The Wrong Trousers. 

In short, great stuff. And nothing to be blasé about. 

UPDATE: A reader in comments asked if I had seen the picture in 3-D. Yes, I had, and was pretty impressed. The technology is used in a pretty subtle and nuanced way, more in the planes-and-depth vein of Hitchcock's Dial "M" For Murder than like the comin'-at-ya! pyrotechnics of Zemeckis' Beowulf. Is it essential to see the film in that format? No, but I'd say it's desirable. 

Comments

[Match Cuts Glenn]

Great to hear Up doesn't disappoint! Would it be fair to put Pixar as a company in the same sentence as Chaplin, Hitchcock, Godard, etc. in terms of iconic influence? I wonder if critics are ready to make that leap.

[Benjamin Strong]

Wow, hats off for working in musings on The Fall (aka the best band ever) into a Pixar review. Actually, Carl and MES have a lot in common, curmudgeon wise. To quote MES from the most recent Fall album: "I'm a 50 year old man-uh, whadda you gonna do about it-uh?!"

And yeah, UP is wonderful.

[Steven Santos]

It is getting to the point where the annual Pixar film is one of the 2 or 3 summmer movies I have any desire to see. Despite constantly being tagged as children's movies or cartoons, their films speak just as much to adults, moreso than the arrested development of the sequels and franchise reboots that are cluttering the theaters out there.

I definitely feel they should be noted for their iconic influence, as Match Cuts Glenn mentions. I think their films have stood the test of time so far and have some of the best visual storytelling of the last 15 years.

[JC]

Did you see it in 3D, Glenn? I was going to indulge that format with my nieces on Friday, my first 3D film ever in a conventional movie theater...

[Ctrl-Alt]

Makes me want to re-read Elkin's The Magic Kingdom.

[Brian]

The Fall? Really? Such pretentious, tuneless garbage.

[Dave McDougall]

Glenn - that 4th paragraph is killer. Thanks.

[Ctrl-Alt]

The Fall aren't pretentious. But the people who don't like them are.

[Christian]

Never liked The Fall for sonic reasons. Tho I see why people would. UP looks great and Pixar should be a hallowed name at this point, the quality of their stuff is so staggeringly unique and heartfelt.

[lazarus]

Doesn't "Ellie" look EXACTLY like the cowgirl in Toy Story 2? Just sayin'.

Also, I remember reading about that cave-tubing excursion when planning my trip to Belize. It looked like a hell of a lot of fun, and I'm bummed out I passed it up, but I think it involved having to take a small plane to that area, which is pretty high up on my list of Things Not To Do.

[JC]

You could also argue that Ellie sort of resembles Elastigirl from The Incredibles...but certainly Jessie The Cowgirl from Toy Story 2, minus the hat.

[swhitty]

I loved the film too, Glenn, and had the same Nick Park thought, although I haven't enjoyed Pixar consistently enough to have gotten blase quite yet -- didn't rave over Ratatouille and Cars left me in neutral, if I can descend into Shalit-approved Blurbese.

But as to the the similarities of Ellie to other Pixar femmes -- could it be possible that someone high up at the studio has a fixation? Not a full-blown, Quentin T, oh-my-god-can-I-take-some-more-pictures-of-your-size-11s fixation, but just a strong fondness for a certain, tom-boyish type?

It's not unheard of. I mean, there are the Hitchcock blondes, of course. And I think of Tim Burton's films in which the heroine -- whether it's Winona, Christina, Helena, or that stop-motion ghoul in "Nightmare" -- almost invariably has a high domed forehead, pale complexion, huge eyes and curls.

My guess? He saw Elsa Lanchester in "Bride of Frankenstein" at an early, impressionable, and highly sexed age and never quite got over it.

Could be the same with our cowgirl/Incredible/Ellie prototype...

[Match Cuts Glenn]

How full of crap is Armond White? Trick question.

[Paul Johnson]

As someone who rather disliked A Bug's Life, Monsters Inc, The Incredibles and Ratatouille, I think it would be rather nice to see someone not named Armond White attempt a probing, thoughtful and suitably mean take down of Pixar. But as someone who liked or loved Toy Story, Toy Story 2, Finding Nemo and Wall-E, I'm not especially inclined to do so myself. All I will say is they haven't produced a work as beautiful or poetic as the early Disney features (Snow White through Bambi), although had Wall-E's second half matched its first, they would have. Also, their short films, clever though they are, don't come close to matching the anarchic brilliance of the best of Fleischer, Avery, or Jones. So in other words, I'm not quite ready to rank them amongst the immortals, but that's not to say that won't change in the near future, especially if they ever manage a work that sustains the intensity of the best parts of Wall-E.

All of which also pretty much sums up my feelings about the Fall. Just change out the film titles with various Fall albums (in particular, change Wall-E to This Nation's Saving Grace) and in place of references to other animators put various Punk bands. The only difference being that I don't have much hope Mark E. Smith has a bona fide masterpiece in him at this late date.

[Max]

Okay, this is completely not the right place to comment on this, but I need to get this off my back and feel like you're the right man to talk to.

Have you seen Rex Reed's review of Pontypool, Bruce McDonald's new excellent horror film? Looking past the fact that some people won't like it (it's at a 70% on Tomatometer, but Lisa Schwartzbaum nailed it with her 'A' review), is there anyone who dislikes things with more unearned arrogance and hatefulness than Reed? Up to this point I felt everyone had their right to an opinion but I really feel as though Reed's should have his taken away.

Beyond the dismissive way he condemns the plot, he first writes "The acting is so abominable that the cast is better off unmentioned." The supporting work may not be the strongest, but Stephen McHattie is positively tour-de-force in this movie. It's worth seeking out to see him (and great to see him, albeit briefly, in Watchmen as Hollis Mason).

But also, the way he trashes all Canadian film in one fell swoop is quite awe-inspiring. Well, a FEW fell swoops.

"The title ... means “something’s gonna happen.” Nothing ever does (it’s a Canadian movie, after all)."

"Like most Canadian movies (this is a rude generalization that I have learned, through time and experience, is worth making), it has no tension, meter or structure, and is utterly pointless. "

Even for Reed, this is too fucking much. Isn't this the kind of shit that had his Oldboy review taken off the site? Okay, I guess he doesn't mock Canada as a nation, just our film. And I know the output isn't that strong, but to condemn ALL Canadian work, like the work of Cronenberg, Atom Egoyan, Francois Girard Denys Arcard, the recent films C.R.A.Z.Y and the excellent doc RiP!: A Remix Manifesto, and so matter-of-factly just makes you a piece of shit.

Fuck Rex Reed.

Sorry for this exceedingly long rant in such an inappropriate location. Just wondering if you've read the article, or seen Pontypool (I think it'd be up your alley). I think Up looks great, and enjoyed your review (especially your acknowledgment of the fact that it seems boring to praise Pixar, and the contradiction because they really ARE that good).

[Dan Coyle]

Rex Reed is still reviewing movies?

Fuck, Rex Reed is still ALIVE?

John Nolte, who's known to hold his grudges (he threw a temper tantrum over Wall-E), just gave the Up a huge blow job over at big Hollywood. Even said Asner deserves an Oscar nomination.

John Nolte. Said Ed Asner. Deserves an Oscar Nominaton.

This thing's GOT to be as good as they say.

[JC]

So right now it's just Armond White and Joe Morgenstern giving Up negative reviews? I figure it'll get around eleven in total.

[Owain Wilson]

I seem to be one of the few moviegoers who does not love Pixar. For me, the problem is that every one of their films is exactly the same, with the exception of The Incredibles and maybe Ratatouille (which I haven't seen).

There's a funny little society operating right under our noses, and we aren't even aware of it. One day, a spunky member of this society finds themselves out in the real world so their little pals bust out on a rescue mission.

Which Pixar film am I talking about? It could be Toy Story, Toy Story 2, A Bug's Life, Monsters Inc. or Finding Nemo, and to a slightly lesser extent Cars and Wall-E.

It's the same every time, and it's boring. I know those wacky Pixar guys with their humourous Hawaiian shirts and day-glo work spaces are extremely clever and produce beautifully crafted movies, but the acclaim heaped upon their imaginations is a little over the top.

But that's just me.

[Jason M.]

Ironically, one of the criticisms that White levels against UP is that:

"artistic standards get trumped by a special feature: sentimentality."

Seems like a strange critique for a guy who seems to worship Spielberg, most of whose movies could be summed up by that very critique. But perhaps I am expecting consistency where I have no right to...

[Glenn Kenny]

Armond White's review of "Up" is an apt demonstration of the old adage "There's no prick like a stupid prick." Well played, as they say.

[Pete Segall]

Are the lack of spaces between White's serial commas his own syntactic laziness or a further symptom of the Press's generally shambolic operation? I mean, the site as a whole looks like something somebody slapped together on a Geocities template around 3:30 this morning, but at the same time White reads like someone whose idea(s?) just kind of seeped out of him, half-formed and turgid but as refined as it'll ever get. It's a genuine puzzler.

[Match Cuts Glenn]

@ Owain Wilson - By placing all of the Pixar films under one umbrella generalization, I think you're missing the nuances of these beautiful films. Sure, they have commonalities, but the genius of Pixar lies in the subtle details of the characters, time and place, all very different from each other. Of all the Pixar films, Cars is by far the worst, and Ratatouille suffers from a terrible middle act, but other than that they are mostly pure gold. And these films are everything but boring.

[Owain Wilson]

@Match Cuts Glenn - I'm not really placing them under one umbrella generalization, but that was my main point about them and all I had time to write!

I don't find them all boring, but when film after film is basically the same as the last one - nuances notwithstanding - it's hard to feel enthusiastic about them.

But I totally understand why everyone loves them. I'm crazy about James Bond which makes me a total hypocrite when it comes to complaining about repetition.

[Ctrl-Alt]

I think some of you are forgetting that Pixar movies are made with children in mind. I think it would be funny to hear some of you try and explain to my 4 year old daughter why Monsters, Inc. isn't really as good as she thinks it is. Seriously, some of you need to lighten up.

[Ryan Kelly]

So because they're 'children's' films they deserve to be taken less seriously? That's not only a dubious line of thought, it's insulting to children.

[LondonLee]

Oddly enough, the supposedly weak Cars is my two-year-olds favorite Pixar movie (she's seen them all). She saw it for the first time the other week and was spellbound.

[Ctrl-Alt]

Dude, why are you so belligerent all the time? How am I being insulting to children? All I'm saying is that if you have ever seen the joy a child gets out of watching all of these movies then I don't think you would be so apt to call them overrated. And I am referring to the collective you that thinks these movies are not as good as everyone says they are, not YOU, RYAN KELLY. I mean, what are you talking about? Go have a drink or something. Get over yourself. Go take as many things seriously as you want. No one is stopping you.

[vadim]

From Rex Reed's review of WHAT GOES UP in the same PONTYPOOL debacle: "What Goes Up features a sub-mental script and paralytic direction (both by Jonathan Glatzer, a name to erase forever from your Facebook)."

What I want to know is, does Rex always friend the people who make the movies he reviews before seeing the movie?

[Ryan Kelly]

Sorry, don't mean to be belligerent. Text only conveys so much. If I've been a jerk to you now or before, or if it came off that way, I'm sorry.

But the idea that we should hold children's films to a lower standard is one that genuinely plotzes me. And it's exactly why so many children's films are crap. We should never settle for less. If anything, they should be held to a higher standard. During Disney's early years, Walt never would have half-assed a movie because it was supposed to be for kids.

And I never said that I don't like Pixar. I do think they're kind of sell-outs, and their last two features (not counting "Up") I found most disappointing. But "Toy Story" is easily among the studio's best, I think. But in no way should they be above criticism. And I've taken my little brother to just about every Pixar movie and will do the same for "Up", albeit begrudgingly. But suddenly I or anyone else can't have an opinion on it? Dare I say, that's exactly part of the backlash against Pixar--- any complaints or criticism about the movie's they make is met with responses of "Oh, you're a crank, it's just for kids".

Now, as for the drink, that's not such a bad idea!

[Owain Wilson]

So the adults who love them are taking them too seriously, and the adults who don't like them are taking them too seriously ... ?