Directors:Pete Docter, Bob Peterson(Monsters, Inc.)
Writer: Bob Peterson
Producer: Jonas Rivera
Starring: Edward Asner, Christopher Plummer, Jordan Nagai, Bob Peterson
MPAA Rating: PG
Running time: 96 min
Synopsis:
Continuing Pixar’s streak of unconventional yet populist animated features, Up follows 75 year old Carl Fredricksen as he floats his house, via thousands of helium balloons, from America to Venezuela in an effort to fulfill a promise he made to his recently deceased wife. A young boyscout tags along for the ride.
read all of our reviews below…
Andrew:
(4.5/5)
Doubtful that Up will find the same praise that Wall-e found a year ago; simply because it doesn’t have the same heavy handed message and folks probably won’t be as in love with a crotchety old man as they were with a “little robot that could.” To me, this was a bit more on the Cars end of the Pixar spectrum… which is why I loved every second of it. Having said that, this may finally be the year when an animated film gets the recognition it deserves as a best picture nominee (admittedly maybe as a make-up for last year’s failure).
But this movie hits every chord perfectly. Great characters, a heart warming story (on several relationship threads), laugh out loud funny throughout and probably needless to say, but it was stunningly gorgeous, full of texture and no detail, however small, was overlooked.
The adventure is epic in nature but loaded with fun and never drags. A huge reason for that are the delightful characters. I’ve always been leery of Pixar when they introduce humans into their stories. This is what often times brings the story too close to reality; when I look to Pixar for the fantastical. But here, for some reason it works from the get-go with a couple’s life journey told through mostly images and soft music. When the adventure begins, I’m invested in the characters emotionally and thoroughly.
Add to this the beyond delightful tag alongs whom they meet along the way and the perfect characterizations that the Pixar studio is known for is complete. Dug the dog is probably my favorite character of the year of any film (a talking animal done with a unique slant) and a huge contribution to probably my favorite movie of the year so far, UP!
Jandy:
(4.5/5)
There may be a few directors, a handful of actors, some other individuals about whom it could be said that they never make a bad film, but Pixar may be the only company about which that is true. They set the bar extremely high for themselves with every film, and yet with every film they manage to make something magical. Up doesn’t reach the dizzying heights of The Incredibles or Wall-E, perhaps, but it’s certainly very close to them in the Pixar pantheon.
There are things that don’t work as well as others in Up – the talking dogs went a little too far, though I didn’t mind them in concept, and the adventure plot got a little bombastic towards the end at the expense of character, but there was much more that I loved than I didn’t like, and I can’t begrudge the kids sitting near me the their enjoyment of the silly puppies and exciting chases.
With every film, however, Pixar increases their strength at creating extended wordless sequences that convey more character, individuality, and pathos in their animated figures than most live-action films can muster using real people. The montage spanning some fifty years of Carl and Ellie’s marriage – wedding, home-making, pregnancy, loss, joy, growing old together, illness – is among the most beautiful and poignant depictions of a relationship I’ve ever seen in any film. Truth be told, I’m tearing up again now just thinking about it. Even if the rest of the film had been utter dreck, it would have been worth it for this ten or fifteen minute sequence.
Thankfully, it’s not utter dreck. It does turn a lot more kid-friendly, not always for the better, but there were still enough good moments to keep me loving it. Dug the Dog was well-done and funny; the other dogs got more annoying, because they weren’t well-developed enough. Kevin the bird kept distracting me by making me think of old Looney Tunes shorts (Roadrunner, yes, but also the Dodo in Porky in Wackyland) – not sure if that was intentional or not. The one thing I did wish from the end was more closure regarding Russell’s absentee father. But as a whole Up is certainly emotionally satisfying, and keeps Pixar’s quality-level aloft.
Kurt:
(3.5/5)
This is going to sound strange. I liked Up a lot, but I am going to spend most of the following review being critical of its shortcomings. While the Bay Area companys magic is in full effect, most definitely in the opening moments of the film involving a silent montage of Carl Fredricksen’s life with his soul-mate Ellie, things never again reach that high water-mark in the film that follows. Pixar has a found a real knack for graceful silent story telling and the opening sequence is certainly one to savour. They managed to squeeze more than a tear out of me (even as the details went way over the heads of my own children sitting beside me). The remaining story is not without its charms and thrills, and a little daring to put a 75 year old man as the hero and centerpiece of the story, but it feels more than a little incomplete. Less polished than Pete Doctors previous Monster’s Inc., and well behind Ratatouille, Wall-E or The Incredibles.
For such focus on few players, the characters never feel fully fleshed out, most particularly the enthusiastic Boyscout stowaway, Russell. Ellie, Carl’s wife in the opening sequence, had more personality and she is gone in mere moments. The hastily pasted in villain, Carl’s childhood idol and source of his dreams, Charles Muntz leans towards a Dr. Moreau type crossed with Indiana Jones, but is voiced rather blandly by Christopher Plummer, with highly questionable motivation or even competence. In fact the movie never found a way to satisfyingly meld its matinee serial action set-pieces, familiar to lovers of King Kong, George Lucas and Harry O. Hoyt, with its quiet ruminations of frumpy surrogate father Carl. And the talking dogs, frankly, suck. Sure, Pixar finds a way not to follow into the schmaltzy cute talking animals of Disney or pop cultural snark of Dream Works, but talking dogs (even if it is through technological collars) who serve dinner (and play poker)? Ho Hum. When they started flying airplanes, I was pining for Gromit to show up with a little class.
At one point, Russell, a Junior Wilderness Explorer for long enough to collect all the badges save ‘helping the elderly’ but has never really been outside suburban comfort, says to Carl in one of his few brainstorms, “The wilderness is actually pretty wild.” It is a strange bit of dialogue in a movie that is actually built on comfort and convenience and finding joy in that. The film is ostensibly about Carl coming out of his comfort zone (both as a child, and then as an elder) and reconciling expectations and dreams with reality, before having his cake and eating it too. Yet the film never actually attempts him earn anything. The jungle is never that threatening. Moving his house around tethered to him while traversing the landscape conveniently ignores physics and logistics (and I have no problem suspending disbelief on this) to the point that it was just a prop. Even the action beats at high altitudes seem safe and comfy. There is a lot of commotion in the third act of Up, but I preferred the boring parts.
Lastly, I’ll say that Carls jettisoning of his past for a shiny glistening future, “The Spirit of Adventure,” is an interesting metaphor for Pixar as a company. They are aware of what has come before, and honor it, but are happy to take their stories to new places with new and interesting tools (both technology and storytelling). If this review sounds like I am unfairly bashing the successful and loved studio, it is only because they have set the bar so high for so long. At the end of the day, Up gently kicks the pants off any other American studios recent output, save only Coraline (which was uncommonly boutique and baroque). But it still needed a few more passes through the typewriter for perfection. And please lose the talking dogs.
Marina:
(3.5/5)
Grumpy old man. That was what sold me on Up though I expected the story was going to be a whole lot more than a grumpy old dude looking for adventure and it is more than that – but not by much.
Let the skinning begin because I didn’t love Up. That’s not to say that Pete Docter and Bob Peterson’s new film isn’t great: it looks fantastic, the 3D is great (even though I swore I wouldn’t see it in 3D I didn’t have a choice; at least it didn’t give me a headache) and I had fun watching it but it started to lose steam partway through. Like Wall-E (our review), Up starts with a large silent chunk (easily the best part of the entire film) which shows us Carl’s life with the love of his life. Those few minutes are the most powerful I’ve seen in some time because they feel realistic. Life isn’t easy but you take it as it comes and Carl and Ellie’s perseverance reminded me of always living life to the fullest.
It’s at this point that Carl decides to take his adventure and that’s were the film should have ended: with the house floating above the city and Carl disappearing into the great beyond in search of the adventure that eluded him while Ellie was alive. The second part of the film which takes Carl and Russell to South America has fun and even touching moments (and yes, a peppering of more important themes) but it feels overly stretched as if it was hurriedly expanded from a short film to full length feature.
I enjoyed Up. I laughed, I cried, I was reminded of how life is short and you really do need to live in the moment but all of these thoughts came in the first 20 minutes and I spent the remainder of the film wondering what I should be doing in my life that I keep putting off; what’s holding me back?
Consensus:
Average score:
(4/5)
Up succeeds in it moments of unabashed sentimentality, particularly the wordless montage near the beginning of the film, and should shake tears from anyone old enough to understand how life often works (hint: It’s what happens while making other plans). As ‘films made for everyone’ go, it is better that most of the stuff lobbed into the multiplex, but against Pixars own formidable yardstick, it is merely a solid entry.
Relevant Links:
IMDb profile
Official Site
If you want to watch it onl1ne for free,...
Get bent. The dogs were probably my favorite part. First of all, I love the innovation behind how they…
…
** SQUIRREL!!!**
…
…
… made the talking aspect “believable.” Then they play with it a little and make the sentences ultra basic and exactly how a dog thinks. Putting that voice on the villain was a surprising bit of hilarity. If you didn’t laugh you’re an asshole.
Comment by Andrew James — June 2, 2009
I thought the Squirrel gag was pretty lazy, as with the ‘chase the ball’ gags. Edging into Dreamworks territory. You know how I feel about that. I like when Pixar tries to stretch is ultra-wide audience. I liked the ‘grown-up’ parts of UP, but a lot of it felt off to me.
Still a very good movie. Don’t get me wrong. Just didn’t gel (and I can’t believe I’m typing this) in the same way as DRAG ME TO HELL.
I guess I’m a Down guy over an Up guy. Even in that over-stretched comparison between two apples to oranges movies.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — June 2, 2009
I’m surprised you’re discovering this now, it’s so true though
I fucking loved the dogs and couldn’t get enough of them, and was so releived to have them distract me from Russel, who is easily my least favorite major Pixar character ever.
Comment by Goon — June 2, 2009
So my opinion of UP is definitely biased by how I saw it, but in general I thought it was alright, but I expected them to do a lot more with the concept than they ultimately did. This is where you could let your imagination run wild as a writer, and instead we are stuck with a colourful bird and a bunch of talking dogs and thats essentially it.
I loved the life montage but it lost me shortly after that.
Comment by rot — June 2, 2009
Also, they really glazed over the ‘Carl falls asleep’ and Russell pilots the house to Venezuala in what, a few hours? A minor nitpick (much like how easy it was to move the house around), but it just felt lazy by Docter and company. Kinda like the dogs.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — June 2, 2009
And sadly Real D is better than Imax 3D. Thus far they all are pretty ineffective even if they still have a sexy-cool aura about them.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — June 2, 2009
The true nitpick should yeah, be stuff like nobody minding the kid is gone, Carl doesnt even say word one about it, just has a 20 second imaginary sequence of abandoning him. But I don’t see the nitpick about his mom after the fact, there’s a zillion possible excuses out of that situation. As far as family entertainment examples go – the ZERO POINT FIVE seconds they spend resolving that issue is easier to swallow than the parents accepting say, Jack Black in School of Rock, after hearing their kids play one song.
It seems from everyone I know that the people who saw it in 2d had the better and brighter experience. The only film I’ve seen in 3d I really got something out of was Nightmare Before Christmas, which was layered but appropriate, and the dark tones of that film didnt feel like it was being hurt by those dimmed glasses.
I really don’t want to see Up get dimmed by 3d tints. I’m only upset that its the only way i can see it digitally.
I still haven’t seen Drag Me to Hell. I’m not in any rush, and despite the acclaim its on the back burner for me almost as much as Terminator 4, and its going to have to get in like being the Hangover as well. I’m not doubting that its good or I’ll like it. Even though I have a good number of horror movies in my collection, I have absolutely no fanboy defensive enthusiasm towards any horror movie. Not one. Even if we’re counting Let the Right One In, as much as I like it, I couldn’t get in a passionate argument about it.
Comment by Goon — June 2, 2009
For all its faults, this movie is significantly better than Coraline. I actually completely forgot about that movie already until the other day, and I like Coraline less and less the more I think about it. The weakest character in Up is better than the best character in Coraline.
Comment by Goon — June 2, 2009
And just to keep being an ass, Up for all its faults is also way better than Paprika, which was seriously not that good.
Comment by Goon — June 2, 2009
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — June 2, 2009
Comment by rot — June 2, 2009
I refuse to rise to the bait, otherwise. If you can’t see the imagination on display in Paprika, well there ain’t much help for you Goon!
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — June 2, 2009
There are SO FEW GOOD films that simply entertain and make me purely enjoy life for 90 minutes. Pixar is a master at doing this. Funny enough the ones that try to dive too deep (Ratatouille and Wall-e) are the ones I don’t enjoy as much. I love the monsters on giant door factories, I love little forklifts who change a set of tires in 3 seconds I love cute talking dogs that I wanna take home with me. If their parents are alcoholics, then the movie stops being entertaining and starts making me think. Again, I have enough of that with plenty of other great films.
Comment by Andrew James — June 2, 2009
1) Because it’s just kind of annoying.
2) Because it’s more expensive.
3) Studios are only doing it to help curb piracy.
So for those three reasons I won’t support that and perpetuate a potential takeover of 3D technology. God help me if it ever goes to every film. I will literally lose interest in the film… at least new ones.
Comment by Andrew James — June 2, 2009
I am fine with the idea of UP being justified as pure entertainment, but you gotta admit the leash is on pretty tight, they don’t stray too far from anything in the trailer, one would hope it was a tease for grander imaginative heights (what if the house floated away into the stratosphere, kept flying into space, I don’t know, anything) but I never got the wonder of the location they went to.
Comment by rot — June 2, 2009
Well that and stating the obvious in the gorgeousness of the whole thing. The details in the shirt as wife was putting on Carl’s tie every day. the colors on the walls after the big storm had knocked everything around, etc.
Comment by Andrew James — June 2, 2009
To be honest I don’t even remember much else about it anymore. I couldn’t explain the plot of Paprika again. It’s forgettable as fuck and drags. I just asked my girlfriend if she remembered the plot either:
“Some girl goes into peoples dreams for some reason, it might be illegal, and theres a parade over and over that people are trapped in, and it’s over. Some dreamworld destroys cities? Everyone loves the girl and hooray. All the boys love Paprika. Whoop de doo”
I didnt even remember Paprika was her name. Jeez. I remember your misprononciation of the title more than the movie
– I didn’t outright loathe it but after all the ballyhoo I expected something at least as good as Howl’s Moving Castle.
Comment by Goon — June 2, 2009
Or maybe I just didn’t like the bird because Russell liked him.
Comment by Goon — June 2, 2009
A bunch of stuff happens. But the stuff that happened was mostly good, and some of it just plain great. I couldn’t get into a fight over this movie, I liked a lot of it but am no apologist.
Comment by Goon — June 2, 2009
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — June 2, 2009
Rot: 3D
Kurt: 2D
anyone else?
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — June 2, 2009
I think Up is going to have a deeper impact depending on your age and how long you’ve been with your significant other, and with that in mind its no surprise a lot of the (older) critics are so deeply in love with it. The “Choose your own adventure” message in Up does it for me better than “we scare because we care”.
I’ll agree the door chase is still probably the best set piece they’ve put together, but Up’s to me is a close second, Incredibles third. I don’t judge any of the films based on what has the best set piece though, its all about what works for that film.
Comment by Goon — June 2, 2009
Which is why Nightmare Before Christmas was just fine for me in 3d.
Comment by Goon — June 2, 2009
However I found it very interesting that at a afternoon Weekend show (11am-1pm) on Saturday, groups without kids waaaaaay outnumbered the parents with kids. Pixar has left the ‘kiddie-ghetto’ based on that screening.
” I don’t judge any of the films based on what has the best set piece though, its all about what works for that film.”
I absolutely agree on this too, but Pixar can do ‘fireworks’ with the best of them. I guess that was my clumsy point.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — June 2, 2009
Goon, I think you’re right about the film’s effect depending on how you relate to it emotionally, but I’ve never had a relationship anything like as deep or lasting as Carl and Ellie’s – maybe I just hope for that someday, and that’s why it grabbed me so strongly.
Comment by Jandy Stone — June 2, 2009
2D!!
Comment by Andrew James — June 2, 2009
Comment by Marina Antunes — June 2, 2009
Yes it does, but Pixar does it with much more gusto, flair and genius than any other animation studio. Saying that Up delves into Dreamworks territory is misleading and insulting to Up. If Dreamworks had talking dogs in their movie (which they probably do somewhere), it would not be nearly as fun, humorous and entertaining as it’s done here. This is WHY I go to Pixar movies. Because I WANT mostly just fireworks and their fireworks are good. The other guys don’t bother with choreography.
No offense here, but I think Goon is right when he says Rot (and Kurt) are judging the film on what they want it to be, not what it is. Because what it is, is what it is and “is” is pure magic here. Yeah, I used “is” 5 times in a sentence. Fleshing out drama of why the mom lost her baby would be so needless and would completely devalue the film – basically defeating the entire purpose of the movie. Go watch “If These Walls Could Talk” if that’s what you want.
Comment by Andrew James — June 2, 2009
Mine was filled with kids, and much like Greg mentioned on the FJ podcast, the crowd was laughing their ass off at a lot of things I was kind of like “really?” about.
Comment by Goon — June 2, 2009
I think that Up best resonates with the Carl/Ellie relationship which happens mostly offscreen. Difficult stuff to grasp for the tikes. But the most rewarding part of the film for me as well.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — June 2, 2009
Comment by Matt — June 2, 2009
Comment by Andrew James — June 2, 2009
Comment by Andrew James — June 2, 2009
Comment by Andrew James — June 2, 2009
I’ve got a vision of a Cylon Mobile Unit, but sadly such a thing was never realized, not even on New Caprica.
Comment by Dave — June 2, 2009
also do a search for “unfilmable” + watchmen.
Get a new argument dude.
Comment by Rusty James — June 2, 2009
Except Grant Morrisson did it better in We3 5 years ago. A comic bettering Pixar. Whatever shall Kurt do.
Comment by Matt Gamble — June 2, 2009
Would you prefer if I (not so) simply listed out the hundreds of links attesting to my proclamation?
Comment by Andrew James — June 2, 2009
http://everythingandnothing.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/07/27/johnnyfive.jpeg
Comment by Matt Gamble — June 2, 2009
Comment by Andrew James — June 2, 2009
You make some asinine arguments Matt.
Comment by Rusty James — June 2, 2009
Comment by Matt Gamble — June 2, 2009
We3 is not personally one of my favorite Morrison works. My favorite is his run on Doom Patrol.
Comment by Rusty James — June 2, 2009
Comment by Andrew James — June 2, 2009
We rued the day that religion took over morality, and comic books took over the film business.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — June 2, 2009
Don’t play the appeal to authority fallacy please.
By that standard of film analysis, then Leonidas in 300 is Bush, and so is Xerxes. Also, Batman is Bush, and Emperor Palpatine is Bush, Garfield is a critique of capitalism and Papa Smurf is Karl Marx.
Comment by Goon — June 2, 2009
I’ve seen Wall-E a number of times now, and other than the fact that its a future where garbage ruined the planet, I don’t see any actual preaching about environmentalism. The fat people of the world have a better case against the film, and they don’t seem to get it either. If instead of ruining the future with trash it was the result of nuclear devastation (a bit heavy for a kids film, the trash angle lets the human race actually survive) people would still complain it was trying to say something.
Wall-E is really about as heavy handed about the environment as Jurassic Park is heavy handed about cloning.
Comment by Goon — June 2, 2009
I opined the message in Wall-e was a bit heavy handed. Someone called me an ignorant fool for thinking that, so I pointed to hundreds of examples of other critics that said the same thing. Assuming that most mainstream critics are not ignorant fools, I win.
Get off your high horse kiddies.
Comment by Andrew James — June 2, 2009
“Assuming that most mainstream critics are not ignorant fools, I win.”
Mainstream critics are just as capable of being wrong as anyone else, and considering we both like Speed Racer, and you like Brave One and Blindness (you did, right?) and a number of other hated movies, you should be able to recognize when lazy critics grab on to whats topical so they can have something to fill their shitty reviews.
Citing that lots of other people hold that opinion doesn’t make a lick of difference to me. Show me the quality of their argument. Picking just one good attack of Wall-E citing specific reasons and scenes about how heavy handed it was is more valuable than giving me a list of people.
Comment by Goon — June 2, 2009
But then, isn’t this topic so last year?
Comment by Dave — June 2, 2009
“Assuming that most mainstream critics are not ignorant fools…”
Seriously, by this standard every time the majority of critics like movie X, then movie X is objectively good. Thus I’ll accept Wall-E is heavy handed when you accept that Hellboy 2 is one of the best films of 2008.
…and I dont even accept that most critics found Wall-E heavy handed anyways. A google search doesn’t show me any sense of majority or minority, it just shows that it has been discussed.
Comment by Goon — June 2, 2009
Agreed 100%. If Wall-E has any message, its to get off your ass and do some work, or machines will be more human than actual humans. that’s the entire theme of the movie, the machines developing personality and the humans becoming a conformist bloc right down to the color of their jumpsuits. And what makes it brilliant is that this massive conformity comes via a massive consumerist society that should for all intents and purposes be able to supply infinite choice.
Comment by Goon — June 2, 2009
Comment by Goon — June 2, 2009
In the original context of the watchmen comments it was a complete non sequitor.
Comment by Rusty James — June 3, 2009
Comment by Rusty James — June 3, 2009
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — June 3, 2009
exactly, I mean look at Miller’s Crossing and how many people love that film despite it being certifiably bad.
but continue…
Comment by rot — June 3, 2009
-But fine. I am the only one who ever said Watchmen was an unfilmable comic. In fact, I was the first one to ever say it and anyone who said it after me is an ignorant fool for not coming up with it on their own.
-As for Wall-e having a “hit you over the head” message, that too was only noticed by me. Forget the hundreds of other articles mentioning the same thing.
- From now on whenever someone links to another review that backs up what they said, I’m going to cry bullshit and that you’re an ignorant fool.
Comment by Andrew James — June 3, 2009
Comment by Andrew James — June 3, 2009
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — June 3, 2009
‘Heavy Handed in Cars is not a problem’
‘Heavy Handed in WallE is a deal-breaker’
/confused
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — June 3, 2009
Comment by Andrew James — June 3, 2009
‘Heavy Handed in WallE is a deal-breaker’
Wall-e characters are boring (in the second half) and story is not fun and action is lame.
Cars is funny, great characters and exciting. “Freebird!”
Comment by Andrew James — June 3, 2009
Since when was it not common knowledge that Watchmen was an unfilmable source material?
As for Walle, the writer claims no explicit intent to make an environmental issue out of its story, but despite what the author thinks, I can totally see how someone can interpret that in the film. Whether it is heavy-handed is another matter though.
Comment by rot — June 3, 2009
This is fascinating. Seriously. I can totally believe this. I truly believe that a lot of movies are made for merely entertainment purposes. Then critics pull out all of these coincidental references and look much deeper into a film than I think the writer/director ever intended (like the Christ like pose in T4). Not saying discussion on these issues is a bad thing, just saying I think we look into these films way too hard sometimes when it is unwarranted or at least intended.
Comment by Andrew James — June 3, 2009
Rusty? Never.
Comment by Andrew James — June 3, 2009
I just think you’re wrong and its no big deal. Relying on the existence of other people holding the same point as evidence is more wrong, because instead of making a specific argument about various scenes or showing evidence of the writers’ intentions, you’re giving us “But other people also think…”
“the disagreement is whether ’stating you are with the majority’ is any sort of valid or cogent argument.”
This.
i find it weird you take it as a personal attack.
Comment by Goon — June 3, 2009
You’re confusing the issue. When you link to another review or article that says things better than you could, that is a far cry from saying that the existence or prevalence of an argument is in itself, evidence of wisdom. I’m harping on you for using existence of argument as evidence, rather than using any specific points of those arguments as ammunition.
Comment by Goon — June 3, 2009
As for pointing out various scenes and pointing to the film for evidence… I’ve done that many times on several podcasts and in my original review of the film (I think). which is why it aggravates me even more when some dingleberry comes out of nowhere and criticizes me personally without any context or frame of reference.
Jesus Christ you guys are making me start to sound like Campea.
Comment by Andrew James — June 3, 2009
Comment by Goon — June 3, 2009
The one argument I will not stand for is authorial intent. The film is the thing, if a credible argument can be made by what is in it, it is just as valid as what the director says was intended. As Eisentein said movie images are hieroglyphs, its not up to a director to tell me what it means.
Comment by rot — June 3, 2009
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — June 3, 2009
Exceptions to the Rule: Ridley Scott & George Lucas who never seem to stop playing around with their films.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — June 3, 2009
sometimes yes, sometimes no. Consider my background in fine art and illustration and you can see how fucking nuts i get with people cooking up meaning after the fact and passing it off as intended, and critics doing vice versa. The fine art world has its head up its ass with this uber pretentious bullshit. A lot of critics drum up meaning where none exists just to fill space.
I made a drawing for an alt weekly lately that was about buying local. It had to be two illustrations mirroring the other. I made one that was a farmer selling carrots to a rabbit, and the mirror was a rabbit selling baby rabbits to a farmer. I chose the latter because thats all rabbits make – other rabbits. But I got all these PETA fuckholes after me for promoting selling pets rather than adopting, trying to get the magazine to never use me again.
Sorry, but to me their take is not as valid as what I intended. Sometimes a joke is a joke, a maguffin is a maguffin, etc.
Comment by Goon — June 3, 2009
In the case of WallE it doesn’t matter that the writer never intended an environmental issue with his film, if a credible case can be made from aspects in the film that such an idea exists, it is valid irrespective of intent. What you create is no longer yours to be deciphered.
Comment by rot — June 3, 2009
Like, I consider the Jesus Christ pose in Gran Torino ‘heavy handed’, and when I say that I’m purposely indicating that I believe Eastwood intended for that image to be symbolic in that sense.
Comment by Goon — June 3, 2009
It’s the equiilant of saying “I read it on the internet”.
Wall E is environmentalist propaganda. I read it on the internet
Barack Hussien Obama is a muslim kenyan sleeper agent. I read it on the internet
9/11 was an inside job. Don’t you read the internet!!?!?
@ Since when was it not common knowledge that Watchmen was an unfilmable source material?
It maybe a popular opinion but it’s certainly isn’t “common knowledge”. When I asked Andrew how he reached this conclussion without seeing the movie OR reading the book his answer was “I read it on the internet”.
Comment by Rusty James — June 3, 2009
In the Wall-e scenario, I made the claim myself, me, personally, (that would be Andrew) made the claim that it was heavy handed (because I think it is). Then someone called me an idiot and I just wanted that person to know that by singling me out and calling me an idiot, that they are actually calling hundreds of other people an idiot. Some of whom I respect.
So I never said Wall-e was heavy handed because I read it on the internet. I said I am not an ignorant fool for thinking it is heavy handed.
I think we’re going in circles here. I never base my judgments regarding the critical analysis of a film based on what others are saying. I never have and never will.
Comment by Andrew James — June 3, 2009
Comment by Andrew James — June 3, 2009
I think Rusty has an excellent point that just because you happen to agree with the majority, it doesn’t make you more right, less an ignorant fool, and underscores your unwillingness to put together an actual argument.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — June 3, 2009
@ Because I read that “Tristram Shandy” was regarded as an unfilmable novel, does that make it not so because I read it on the internet?
True or not, it would be a weird claim that they should’ve never made a Tristam Shandy movie (that you never saw) because it completely failed to adapt the book (that you never read).
And most of those returns that come back in your google query are people reporting (uncited) that Watchmen has been called “unfilmable” by other (uncited) people. Ad googlem is just a bad way of making a point. It was bad when this idiot did it (http://www.rowthree.com/2008/05/05/r3-review-iron-man/#comment-8816), and it’s bad when you do it.
Comment by Rusty James — June 3, 2009
Comment by Rusty James — June 3, 2009
1) It is NOT a common occurrence that Tristram Shandy (which I DID see theatrically and liked for the most part) was generally regarded as unfilmable because it’s on the internet.
2) Anyone who thinks that Wall-e was heavy handed, is A) an ignorant fool and B) only saying it because the masses did.
3) It is NOT a fact that many regarded Watchmen as unfilmable. The only ones that did were conspiracy web sites (of the movie equivalent of 9/11 slash Loose Change variety).
And Kurt, pay attention. This isn’t about a majority being correct or not (in regards to the unfilmable comment). It is FACT. Many many people regarded both Tristram Shandy and Watchmen as unfilmable. That is a FACT. Whether or not they are correct or not is up for debate (and irrelevant to this conversation). The statement that 600 years ago, people generally regarded the Earth as flat is a FACT. But I read that on the internet so maybe Rusty has a point.
Comment by Andrew James — June 3, 2009
and since I’m already responding.
@ The statement that 600 years ago, people generally regarded the Earth as flat is a FACT
This is not true.
Comment by Rusty James — June 3, 2009
I cannot believe that you merely wanted to state ‘facts’ no you wanted to make a point about the film, and to do that you merely cried “The Majority said this!” Inferring that yes, the majority has to be right. They all can’t be fools?
I’m being vague. Goon said it best anyway, further up the thread.
“Citing that lots of other people hold that opinion doesn’t make a lick of difference to me. Show me the quality of their argument. Picking just one good attack of Wall-E citing specific reasons and scenes about how heavy handed it was is more valuable than giving me a list of people.”
Any thinking person would take offense that just because a bunch of people said something, that is something to stand a case on.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — June 3, 2009
The content of his argument relies upon the notion of common knowledge, so he is justified to bring up the internet as case in point, insofar as ‘the internet’ can sub in for a majority opinion.
Somewhere along the line, and maybe not originally, but Andrew has a valid point.
Anyone who says Watchmen was not thought to be unfilmable prior to the film coming out by a majority is playing Devil’s Advocate, its bullshit. I listen to a lot of podcasts, I read stuff on the internet, the consensus of what I heard was Watchmen is unfilmable… add to that the fact I read the graphic novel and can state resoundingly that to be the case.
Was it common knowledge that Wall-E was heavy-handed? I would say probably, although that is less concrete then the Watchmen thing.
Comment by rot — June 3, 2009
and he was called an idiot by the unspecified Matt, and he responded with the common knowledge argument to show he wasn’t alone in his opinion, which is a way to say if I am an idiot than the majority of people are… except, yeah, probably the majority are.
Comment by rot — June 3, 2009
It certianly wasn’t “common knowledge” among the studios and film makers all working to produce the Watchmen film over the past several years.
But that’s sort of besides the point. I don’t have some objection to anyone opining that they think it’s unfilmable (although I think that term is over applied). I did think the way Andrew went about making the point in that other thread was rather silly and didn’t make much sense. That’s all I ever said on the subject.
Now the two of you are on some misguided quest to prove that it’s a fact that everyone believed watchmen was unfilmable. I guess it’s on of those things “everyone knows” even though Gilliam, Greengrass and Snyder all worked on actual Watchmen productions. Maybe everyone new except them.
Comment by Rusty James — June 3, 2009
But calling an opinion “common knowledge” doesn’t seem correct to me, isn’t it simply “common opinion”? My whole nitpicking all along is that the only reason for listing off a zillion other people holding the same opinion is to say “Well at least I’m not the only person who thinks X”, which I see now that Andrew probably meant.
But I don’t accept showing the existence of it being common opinion as anything therefore being true. I’m arguing from a “Debate Nerd” standpoint regarding fallacies.
Comment by Goon — June 3, 2009
I don’t understand you Andrew. clearly this issue is about something very different to you than it is to me. To me it has nothing to do with how many people happen to believe the book is unfilmible.
You probably aren’t interested in my opinion as I’ve actually read the book (probably more than 10 times) and seen the movie. But I’ve always considered the book a difficult job to adapt for reasons that go far beyond length, pirates and squid vaginas.
I may not have liked the movie that much but I was impressed some of the choices they made and a lot of the stuff they at least attempted to adapt.
For all its faults it’s at least ambitious.
Comment by Rusty James — June 3, 2009
Comment by Matt Gamble — June 3, 2009
For the unfilmable thing, I think the problem here is that you guys are confusing opinion with fact. Watchmen being unfilmable is an opinion. Many many people claiming that the film is unfilmable is a fact. Which is all I said. I NEVER said Watchmen is unfilmable. I said that the general populous opinion was that it is unfilmable and if that is the case, it may explain why the movie didn’t work for some people.
Comment by Andrew James — June 3, 2009
A Confederacy of Dunces (and at one point this was a Wil Ferrell starring film directed by David Gordon Green; at an even earlier point, Harold Ramis Directed starring John Candy and Richard Pryor)…Neither made it thru the production process, but I would have loved to see both of ‘em.
The other would be Robert Coover’s Pinocchio In Venice. Heck, just about any Coover novel would never be properly adapted to the screen due to his odd writing styles, subject matter and overall novel construction.
…I’d still love to see some filmmaker have the balls to try though.
Comment by Kurt — June 3, 2009
Did these people succeed or fail?
Comment by Andrew James — June 3, 2009
Comment by Rusty James — June 3, 2009
sigh
@ It’s because it’s an unfilmable movie and should never have been made. By all accounts from EVERYONE so far on this site talking about it, it is mediocre at absolute best and shitty shitty bang bang at worst.
http://www.rowthree.com/2009/03/10/cinecast-episode-114-the-major-league-solution/#comment-26991
When you said rot’s the only person who gets what your saying, were you counting yourself? Because it doesn’t even seem like you read your own posts.
Just write more carefully and stuff like this won’t happen.
Comment by Rusty James — June 4, 2009
Insofar as you are going to stay loyal to the literary source material there are a lot of things you could say are unfilmable, I don’t see that as lazy, just an acknowledgement of the limitations of both mediums. Hell the creator of Watchmen has been saying this as well, he made Watchmen specifically to do all the stuff that serves the medium it is being told in.
Comment by rot — June 4, 2009
Comment by Ian Muttoo — June 4, 2009
/curious.
Comment by Andrew James — June 4, 2009
I may be stupid, but all of these people are stupid as well! We will be stupid and happy together, and guess what? THEY GET PAID! So stay in your smart-box and be smart, and we’ll be stupid and happy and rich together. I won.
I think it was Terry Gilliam who called Watchmen unfilmable. I guess maybe lazy writers all over the internet has just taken that term to a valid stance on Watchmen in general, especially when the movie was about to be released.
I do agree that Andrew tends to be an idiot. Shortsighted, narrowminded and lacking in insight. It just sucks that he doesn’t agree, and it ends up being a witchhunt.
Comment by Henrik — June 4, 2009
Comment by Andrew James — June 4, 2009
Maybe I’m incorrectly reading what you’re trying to say here, Henrik, but I do believe I too am part of the “stupid” community of which you speak based on what this thread is regarding.
Comment by Andrew James — June 4, 2009
It’s mainly your pathetic political stance, like when you say that people without health insurance weren’t raised right. But the Signs debate definitely exposes your inability to understand the limits of you as an individual, and human beings as a species. Which is shortsightedness.
I wish all of these emails would be sent to me, so that I could defend myself properly. Seems pretty underhanded to just throw in my face that email after email complain about me, how am I supposed to take that? They may be valid complaints, they may be youtube comment-style complaints. But I guess if that many people think it, it must be the truth, right?
Comment by Henrik — June 4, 2009
You understand what I said. Sorry to be so unclear, I was trying to be humourous.
Comment by Henrik — June 4, 2009
lol
http://www.rowthree.com/2009/02/13/rewatched-and-reconsidered-crash/comment-page-4/#comment-24800
Comment by Andrew James — June 4, 2009
Comment by Andrew James — June 4, 2009
Andrew, you’re a simpleton. If only you were cute and lovable, but you’re constantly trying to talk about stuff that you don’t understand. Can you see how that is frustrating to people?
Comment by Henrik — June 4, 2009
Comment by Henrik — June 4, 2009
I was an astronomy major at University. And aside from the math, did pretty well at it too. So I think I have a better grasp on the Universe at large than you do.
Comment by Andrew James — June 4, 2009
Comment by Andrew James — June 4, 2009
Whenever you receive an email, ask the sender if he minds sending it to me instead? If they do, then nothing I can do, but I can’t do much about it when I don’t even know about it.
Comment by Henrik — June 4, 2009