Follow TV Tropes

Reviews WesternAnimation / Up

Go To

09/28/2014 02:56:13 •••

A very sad and depressing film

I'm probably one of the few vocal minority here, but I didn't enjoy this film as much as I should have.

The first thing I was cautious about when this film was coming out to its near-critical acclaim. I didn't get the chance to see it straight away. After Cars, and their temper tantrum at the Annie's awards with HTTYD beating Toy Story 3 (for once), Pixar seems to be lobbying within its own success and accomplishments. I'm very worried the company is reaching a culmination of pretentiousness and arrogance, as opposed to focusing on good stories.

The major problems I have is that heartbreaking opening IS TOO GOOD. Like the sibling relationship in Lilo and Stich, it unwittingly works against the rest of the film. Carl Fredricksen and Ellie growing old together. Its so somber, so depressing, so realistic. Carl desperate not to lose his house and go into a retirement home accidentally injures a man. This isn't funny people. Its dead serious. It essentially KILLS the mood for the rest of the flick.

His kid sidekick, a giant bird, not even that cliched talking dog "Doug" (seriously how many films have had talking animals?) could lift my spirits "UP" after that.

Then it has its second major flaw. Unlike the first however, this one is a bad one. Charles Muntz.

He is quite possibly, the WORSE villain with the worse motivation to be a villain, ever in any film. He's even No.5 on's Top 5 Needlessly Evil villains list. He's the reason why Carl and Ellie wanted to be explorers in the first place. His start of darkness? He's a famous explorer fallen into disrepute after allegations that the skeleton of a never-before-seen-bird was a fake. That's NOT the way the scientific method WORKS! New species are always being discovered. A little scrutiny would reveal it IS A REAL skeleton. Look Pixar, you cannot have your cake and eat it. Either go for a film portraying real life, or don't.

Not to mention: HOW is Muntz still alive? Carl was a very young child watching his exploits. Now he's easily in his 80s. This would make Charles at least 120-130!? I can accept talking dogs guys, but the suspension of disbelief here was shattered by his appearance.

The sad thing is, there was HUGE potential for a wonderful film here, but they botched it UP! My advice? Watch the first brilliant 10 minutes, then turn it off.

02/23/2014 00:00:00

Really whining about an animated movie being having too much fantasy? Really? -_-

03/09/2014 00:00:00

Your red herring comment does not address the film's merits nor its faults.

03/09/2014 00:00:00

How does the opening ruin the rest of the flick? It's not possible to be "too good." I, and most people, enjoyed the opening as well as the rest of the flick. It's not like the opening is completely separate to the rest of the film or anything- it's like Carl's whole character arc

03/09/2014 00:00:00

Just a thing I take into consideration for animated movies (or most in general), is the artistic licence they take with age and/or time in general. People don't seem to age in some movies, in others they have crazy life-spans.

Oh, and Kung Fu Panda blocked out WALL-E at the Annies, so I can see where Pixar's coming from. Regardless, their recent movies haven't been the best so I agree with the latter part of that comment.

The villain type wasn't THAT bad, for some reason, other movies have followed suit with the same type or so.

Yes, the first ten minutes was amazing, but I don't feel that it ruined the rest of the movie for me.

04/18/2014 00:00:00

You complaining about an animated movie having fantasy lacks any fine points.

09/27/2014 00:00:00

Regarding Muntz's age: the bonus features on the DVD/Blu-ray include the directors mentioning their original intention to have Kevin's eggs be a Fountain of Youth, and this would explain how he managed to live so long. When this was cut, I seem to recall them saying or implying that the water at Paradise Falls had similar properties too/instead. So while this didn't end up in the final product, there was at least an explanation considered and proposed.

Regarding his motivation: you seem unaware that despite the scientific method, in earlier times unusual claims were in fact often dismissed or rejected out-of-hand for various reasons. A good example is the platypus, which was disbelieved when first discovered. Not to mention the fact there have been actual fakes purported to be true scientific discoveries, such as the Piltdown Man. The tragic irony with Muntz is that if he had stayed in civilization, he would have been around when advances in science and other discoveries had proved such things as his specimen were real and true, and in the fact the scientific theories of his time were the ones that were later dismissed and discredited as poor science. Not to mention if he had lived long enough, DNA would have proven his claims.

Regarding your comments about Pixar...even if they are true (which you haven't really proven), that has nothing to do with the merits or flaws of this film. Whether the creators of a movie are pretentious and victims of their own success is separate from whether the movie itself is good, and just because something receives a lot of hype doesn't mean it was unjustified. You can argue the film has flaws without having to make such fallacious appeals.

09/27/2014 00:00:00

...Roiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. I can see OP's points of argument are impossibly nitpicky and subjective to the point of pain, at least to me they do, so I'm not going to waste my time debating that. Even my modified Hyperbolic Beretta M9 couldn't produce a masterpiece of hyperbole such as the whole "worst villain ever" thing. You might wanna reword your argument, or re-assess it altogether, if only for the sake of appearances.

I will say this... you do have a point about Pixar reaching a point of... well, I can't really call it "pretentiousness" or "arrogance", at least not in so many words... something more akin to complacency. But that all began after TS 3, which, in case you were unaware or whatever, was released after Up. I don't really have a clue what you're talking about with the Annies but I can see how being passed over for a completely okay movie like Dragon may have put a sizable chink in their previously impregnable armor.

Huh, maybe "arrogant" IS the right word. Oh well. Maybe Pixar's fall from grace was just meant to be. Good things never last forever, after all. (Except, of course, the delicious but decomposition-resistant Mc Donald's cheeseburgers that will remain long after humanity is reduced to an irradiated heap of ashes by Mean Green Mothers from outer space.)

09/28/2014 00:00:00

One of my favourite Pixar movies. This film, to me, is an example or proper animated art. I really love the Ratatouille/WALL-E/Up trio, all of those three films are so gorgeously artful, even though WALL-E has a lack of story.

Leave a Comment:


Example of: