Why is it
that Pixar gets a pass when they make a formulaic movie, and no
other studio does? Reading the reviews for Up, an utterly
conventional film despite its complex appearance, I’m shocked
that the company has established itself as such a giant that few
critics are willing to question its excellence. When has a
purported gold-standard been this uniformly accepted?
Oh, yes,
there are many features that distinguish Up from its more
routine animated counterparts, but I would argue that they don’t
amount to substantive story or emotions. Granted, they make
Up an intermittently entertaining, inventive, and even
dazzling movie – just not one that’s easy to become invested in.
Pixar should indeed be commended for conceiving an elderly
protagonist, so rarely seen in the modern media. And, yes, their
film looks incredible, especially in the inciting scene in which
balloons burst out of the house and allow it to fly high in the
sky. Not to mention, I never expected to see animated characters
soar to a remote, high-altitude South American paradise in a
non-Miyazaki film. But Up also has dogs that can talk to
humans and a sickening sense of sentimentality, among other
tedious animated conventions.
Carl
Fredrickson (voiced by Ed Asner) is a 78-year-old man who has
been grumpy since his wife Ellie, who he knew since childhood,
died. In the film’s opening sequence, we watch them share life
together in an extended montage that’s borderline nauseating
because it’s manipulative and full of itself. I use the latter
term because Pixar implements the passages as if to directly
play to those eager to praise them by depicting such realities
as infertility and sickness. These aren’t real emotions –
they’re syrupily-constructed ploys to get people to believe
greatness is at work. The movie transcends self-awareness and
reaches a point at which one wonders if writer/directors Pete
Docter and Bob Peterson made it with only one concern: how it
would fit into Pixar’s prized oeuvre.
After the bad
opening, Up hits its stride for about a half an hour. For
ages, Carl and Ellie dreamt of a special trip they would take to
Paradise Falls, a remote Venezuelan tropic where the iconic
1930s news-reel explorer Charles Muntz (Christopher Plummer)
discovered an exotic bird but was shunned by the popular-press
because some said he rigged the fossil. Carl finally decides to
escape to Paradise Falls when he’s sentenced to a nursing home
after hitting a construction worker with his cane… by attaching
thousands of helium balloons to his home. Little does he know,
young cub-scout Russell (Jordan Nagai), who’s desperate to
assist him in order to secure a merit badge, has been hanging
from the porch the entire time. A buddy comedy dynamic ensues,
and Carl slowly but surely comes to like the boy who once
irritated him.
When Up
is at its best, truly whimsical and not overly manipulative, it
becomes easy to embrace the characters and marvel at the film’s
gorgeous technical accomplishments. Certain passages of Up
defy the rest and, suddenly, Carl and Russell actually develop
intrinsically, as they should. Unfortunately, these passages do
not make up the bulk—or even half—of the movie. This is really
the key distinction between the majority of Pixar project and
those of its frequent (undeserved) comparison, animation master
Hayao Miyazaki’s Studio Ghibli: Pixar still sees a need to
overindulge character foils and transformations as if to make
sure kid audiences understand them, whereas Ghibli realizes this
isn’t necessary. In fact, the best picture the American company
has ever made (Ratatouille) recognized the fact. But
Up does not. The moments in which Russell confides in an
enlightened Carl his family problems, for instance, are as
insufferably overcooked as they are obligatory.
But
overextended emotionalism, a common flaw in American animation,
is only half of the problem with Up. The picture’s other
big downfall is the farcical nature of its final 50 minutes. While
there is still the occasional quietly reflective moment, which
will probably go unnoticed by the masses, Docter and Peterson
toss in everything but the kitchen sink. There’s a deceptive,
mad-scientist-like villain; the aforementioned dogs who can
speak to humans, thanks to the most pathetic excuse for talking
dogs in a movie yet; and lots of clunky action sequences. None
of this is interesting, and much of it verges on annoying. In
the process, the souls of the main characters are lost, and
previously insignificant things like Russell’s spit-filled
baby-talk become grating.
The movie is
the latest entry in the snowballing 3D movement, and it marks
perhaps the most unnecessary implementation of the technology to
date. One would think that Pixar would have done more with the
gimmick given how much altitude and dimension matter to the
story, as per Coraline, but the 3D is only used to
provide subtle background-foreground distinctions. Hence, its
use here comes off as little more than a means of gouging
ticket-buyers for an extra $2 to $4 a pop—or, more aptly stated,
$6 to $25 a family. This is just one of the many illustrations
of the fact that Up is yet another animated film made
with purely commercial intentions, no matter how delightful its
visuals and high-concept its premise may be.
-Danny Baldwin,
Bucket Reviews
Review Published
on: 6.13.2009
Screened on:
5.29.2009 at the AMC Santa Monica 7 in Santa Monica, CA.
Up is rated G and runs 96 minutes.
Back to Home
