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
Movie laboratories are one of my favorite things ever. Metropolis,...
@Kurt
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.
As with all things Pixar, We disagree Andrew. Cars vs. Ratatouille.
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.
“I guess I’m a Down guy over an Up guy”
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.
This was my first time with the real D 3D and I really didn’t like it, I can’t imagine enjoying any film through this filter… is this what Avatar will be done with?
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.
I didn’t think much of Russell either. They never handled his absentee-ism very well. Mom is just sitting Idly by as her son is ‘disappeared’ for days. Then is happy to indulge his new surrogate Grand-Father Carl. Again, undercooked.
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.
I wisely saw this one in 2D. As Ebert mentioned, why have the colours (in such a colourful picture) muted by the light-lossy 3D technology. You get useless extreneous info and lose important info.
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.
I don’t give a crap if the dogs are lazy or not, and I don’t think the way they gave them voices is that lazy. I care if the character is entertaining, endearing or funny. And the dogs were both, and I howled when the squeak toy set off the weapons.
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.
Oh one more thing because there’s not a strong enough disagreement on this thread.
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.
I should also ask Kurt if he liked Igor better than this so I know if I should ever listen to his opinion of an animated movie again.
And just to keep being an ass, Up for all its faults is also way better than Paprika, which was seriously not that good.
Goon and I are not only on the same page here, but the same paragraph and sentence. I look to Pixar to simply entertain me because they do it so damn well. I want to laugh and smile and enjoy the characters and get a rush from the actiony sequences and just be in awe of the majesty of the worlds Pixar creates. I don’t need a heady life lesson or melodramatic family story. There are plenty of great films out there that do that already.
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.
As for 3D, I’m pretty much boycotting it.
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.
Up is better than iGor. I expected crap for iGor, I expected greatness for Up. It’s a simple matter of where the bar is set for each of those films.
So UP had a better opening than WallE with $68.1 million, while I feel I was wrong about the expectations about how good a film it would be, I am on the right side of the grosses guesses it would seem.
Paprika is bloody genius, it may be clunky in the exposition dept, but in the creativity/brains/looks dept it is so far beyond the norm in Japan or US or anywhere.
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!
I don’t plan to watch anymore 3d if I can help it, it added nothing and made the film dimmer.
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.
Definitely a character based film. If you don’t find the dogs and the bird fun, then it ain’t gonna work for you. I admit the villain could’ve been a little better, but for me the joy of this movie was the relationship with old man and Russell (stale I know, but that kind of thing still works for me) and the humorous moments with the animals.
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.
“If you can’t see the imagination on display in Paprika…”
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.
I wasn’t big on the bird until it became a plot device, because since that section of the film where he was introduced was dragging, the bird stuff seemed like a distraction. It was a little “When are they gonna get to the fireworks factory?” for me.
Or maybe I just didn’t like the bird because Russell liked him.
I think rot you’re getting a bit into critiquing based on what you wanted rather than what it is. Ironically I didn’t think of Up as much as a journey OR a destination movie.
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.
“Just sit back and watch the fireworks” describes most animated movies. Pixar was good because they were trying to do something more with the medium, trying to push it out of the sassy kiddie ghetto. Up still does that, but it is not quite at the same level as some of the better Pixar stuff. and Monsters Inc. has a lot of interesting thematic tidbits. Energy Crisis, fear of ‘contamination’ because that is what you are told. The “We Scare Because We Care” is brilliant in so many ways, and in terms of pure action-genius set-pieces, the door climax is unrivaled in all the pixar films, yes, that includes The Incredibles finale and anything on display in Up.
Sound off folks, did you go see it in 2D or 3D?
Rot: 3D
Kurt: 2D
anyone else?
I think you’re off base there, and I think thats the ‘Down’ Kurt showing. I think people want to write off the sentimental stuff, but to me it was those sentimental elements that really benefited the film and have more oomph than the subtle energy policy thing in Monsters Inc.
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.
2d, if i saw it again I’d go 3d, but only because I’m sure I’ll see Up enough times again that I may want to get this experience while I can. I just don’t think 3d is the best approach for the first viewing of a Pixar movie. If I’m going to be distracted by dimmed colors or those glasses or the layers, I’d rather it be AFTER I’m familiar with the material.
Which is why Nightmare Before Christmas was just fine for me in 3d.
Are you kidding me. The sentimental emotional manipulation was THE BEST PART of UP. I certainly do not disagree with you on that! I wish there was more of ‘choose to dwell on the past, or discover what awaits you in the future’ – That was indeed the best part of Up, and the message wasn’t subtle but it was a very ambitious one for a movie mainly marketed to kids.
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.
I thought it made it pretty clear. If not:
2D!!
““Just sit back and watch the fireworks” describes most animated movies.”
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.
I saw it in 2D, Marina in 3D, if you want to add to your list, Kurt. I think the only thing I’ve seen in 3D was Harry Potter 5, and only about ten minutes of it was 3D.
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.
Jandy’s got it. I had every intention of seeing it in 2D but when we showed up at the theatre, they’d stopped running the 2D version (apparently only available on the weekend). I would have waited but there was a big group and I gave in.
“Pixar has left the ‘kiddie-ghetto’ based on that screening.”
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.
I agree that a couple of anecdotes are lousy statistics for how the audience breaks down. I’d love to see the real stats if they exist.
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.
Anyone who claims WALL-E had a “heavy-handed message” immediately reveals themselves as an ignorant fool. The director’s comments on the idea alone is enough to combat that, but let’s not forget the story is ABOUT TWO ROBOTS FALLING IN LOVE! So what if it has a (very realistic) background where we’ve trashed the world? That’s just extrapolating the very realistic scenario of what could happen if we continue on our present course. Shut the “heavy-handed” rhetoric about WALL-E if you want people to take you seriously.
Right. Because the environment is never discussed anywhere else in pop culture. Thank God Wall-e was the first to bring it to our attention and it did in such a subtle way.
Also, robots don’t “fall in love” (except in Kubrick/Spielberg’s world – which is theoretical at best). They are programmed to act like they are in love. They are essentially toasters on wheels that can perform simple tasks.
Last thing I’ll say on this, do a Google search for “heavy handed + wall-e”. There sure are a lot of ignorant fools out there for film critics!
“toasters on wheels”
I’ve got a vision of a Cylon Mobile Unit, but sadly such a thing was never realized, not even on New Caprica.
@ Last thing I’ll say on this, do a Google search for “heavy handed + wall-e”.
also do a search for “unfilmable” + watchmen.
Get a new argument dude.
It’s not an argument, Rusty. It’s showing evidence of something. When someone makes an ignorant statement inferring that I’m the only idiot out there that thinks a certain way, I simply point to evidence to the contrary. In other words, when whoever it was said I was crazy for saying that Watchmen was generally considered “unfilmable,” using Google I showed evidence that not only was I not the only one who said it, it was an overwhelming generality that most people/critics/journalists were saying the same thing. As I did here with Wall-e being “heavy handed.”
Would you prefer if I (not so) simply listed out the hundreds of links attesting to my proclamation?
First of all, I love the innovation behind how they made the talking aspect “believable.”
Except Grant Morrisson did it better in We3 5 years ago. A comic bettering Pixar. Whatever shall Kurt do.
Also, robots don’t “fall in love” (except in Kubrick/Spielberg’s world – which is theoretical at best).
http://everythingandnothing.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/07/27/johnnyfive.jpeg
touché
@ Except Grant Morrisson did it better in We3 5 years ago. A comic bettering Pixar.
You make some asinine arguments Matt.
In three years when the We3 movie comes out and Kurt claims it ripped off Up I’ll graciously accept your apology.
That’d be pretty funny. I don’t see how it would prove your point. Up is pretty different than We3, which puts the animals in giant cyborg fighting suits and us their the intellegence up to the level of a retarded 12 year old.
We3 is not personally one of my favorite Morrison works. My favorite is his run on Doom Patrol.
We3. I think that was the comic Matt actually had me read. If anything, the movie with the assassin guinea pigs coming this summer looks more like that to me than Up did. Good news, Penelope Cruz plays one of the Guinea Pigs; the seductress I believe. Ha.
Matt’s circling himself in piles of arcane comic knowledge makes him better than the rest of us. You get the geek Championship Belt sir. Now the rest of us can go back to talking about movies.
We rued the day that religion took over morality, and comic books took over the film business.
“It’s not an argument, Rusty. It’s showing evidence of something.”
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.
Are you guys serious? Are Google searches really that offensive to you all?
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.
Remember when people were boycotting Happy Feet as being a ‘heavy handed atheistic message’? That was a laugh. I even remember March of the Penguins being trumpeted by intelligent design groups, which is even funnier.
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.
“Are Google searches really that offensive to you all? ”
“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.
Whatever Wall-E’s environmental was or was not supposed to be was kind of negated by all the cheap crap that was sold in that movie’s name. If either Disney or Pixar was serious about Wall-E being a child’s inconvenient truth, they would have been all over how “green” the merchandise was. Also, if I recall the film correctly, garbage wasn’t the issue so much as sloth was, and I don’t really see America giving that up any time soon.
But then, isn’t this topic so last year?
and again…
“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.
“if I recall the film correctly, garbage wasn’t the issue so much as sloth was, and I don’t really see America giving that up any time soon.”
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.
I love how every once in a while I see a kid and even adults wearing BNL t-shirts. I love people choosing to lay down dough to sport the logo of whats being made the target of the ruination of mankind. And yet its still not as absurd as when I walked through Zellers today and saw Mountain Dew t-shirts being sold for 30 dollars.
@ Are Google searches really that offensive to you all?
In the original context of the watchmen comments it was a complete non sequitor.
-Jesus Christ, it’s not a matter of right or wrong. For fucks sake, I stated an opinion that is generally regarded by many. Why is pointing that out such a bad thing?
-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.
It’s just a lame way of making a point. Show me the needle, not the haystack you found it in.
I agree with Rusty on this. How often is the ‘majority’ actually right? And if WallE was heavy handed, what the heck was Cars? I think I was Ah Shucks’d to death.
@Kurt – when did I ever say Cars was not heavy handed?
“How often is the ‘majority’ actually right?”
exactly, I mean look at Miller’s Crossing and how many people love that film despite it being certifiably bad.
but continue…
We are not disagreeing that you are agreeing with the majority Andrew, the disagreement is whether ‘stating you are with the majority’ is any sort of valid or cogent argument.
It’s not an argument about the film! It’s an argument defending a personal attack on myself. I don’t give a shit whether you think Wall-e is heavy handed or not. That is not the question here. The question is, am I an ignorant fool for thinking so. And if I am, than apparently hundreds of good writers out there are as well. So why does someone who has never commented on this site before (i.e. a troll) come along and personally attack me?
And now your position is that:
‘Heavy Handed in Cars is not a problem’
‘Heavy Handed in WallE is a deal-breaker’
/confused
‘Heavy Handed in Cars is not a problem’
‘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!”
actually I am on your side, Andrew, I think people are itching to have a fight for the sake of having a fight.
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.
“As for Walle, the writer claims no explicit intent to make an environmental issue out of its story”
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.
“I think people are itching to have a fight for the sake of having a fight.”
Rusty? Never.
“The question is, am I an ignorant fool for thinking so”
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.
Thinking I am wrong is one thing, and no I don’t take that as a personal attack. Of course, being “wrong” on an opinion is wrong in and of itself, but that’s another conversation. Point is, if you said, “Andrew I think you’re wrong,” then fine. I probably wouldn’t point to others for back up. Someone (who I don’t know) calling me an “ignorant fool” is another matter. I simply pointed out that there are hundreds of other ignorant fools out there on several high profile sites.
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.
“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.”
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.
I always assumed “Matt” was Gamble, just as Kurt often posts only by his first name.
No it was another Matt. Too many Matts here.
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.
We’ve got three “Matts” that contribute to the site in one way or another. Gamble, Brown, Price (the latter two are MAMO).
@Rot. Yes. Once the director has taken his hands of the work, he is just another viewer.
Exceptions to the Rule: Ridley Scott & George Lucas who never seem to stop playing around with their films.
“if a credible argument can be made by what is in it, it is just as valid as what the director says was intended.”
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.
Yeah but the arguments can be made for or against by pointing at what is in the film, you don’t need the context of authorial intent to validate anything.
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.
Which is why I said sometimes yes, sometimes no. Saying the issue is ‘heavy handed’ though implies to me some claim against the author being too preachy or attempting to convert others to a certain idea. I dont know how you take the term, bu to me its not really a film analysis as much as it is an accusation.
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.
@ The question is, am I an ignorant fool for thinking so. And if I am, than apparently hundreds of good writers out there are as well.
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”.
You’re talking about two different things Rusty. With Watchmen, it is generally regarded that Watchmen was “unfilmable”. Yes, I read that on the internet. I read that other people were saying that; lots of them – and not just idiot propaganda sites (as in your absurd Obama analogy), but many well-esteemed people. And this is an opinion, not a fact – or a notion if you will. 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? It’s not a critique of the movie. It was a commonly held notion well before the movie was even greenlit. Whether I had seen the movie or not is completely irrelevant in this case.
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.
In conclusion Rusty, you’re an idiot in this case and are looking to pick fights over stupid shit. Lucky for you it’s one of those days and I’m will to take the bait.
I don’t agree with your police work, Drew.
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.
Why are you calling me an idiot? You guys were fighting about this before I even showed up so I don’t see why I get blamed for “picking stupid fights”.
@ 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.
And I don’t see anywhere where anyone calls you an idiot in this thread.
So this is what you’re essentially saying:
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.
Andrew, it’s just not this complicated for those with ears to hear and eyes to see.
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.
This argument is only as silly as Andrew continues to argue only for the letter and not the spirit of using this as an argument to make his point.
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.
But isn’t Andrew’s argument that its ‘common knowledge’ that x is unfilmable? How else should he go about making that point then showing examples of where it would seem it is common knowledge?
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.
Its okay to source Rotten Tomatoes or some kind of internet consensus to argue the common knowledge of something, which I believe Andrew was doing.
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.
@ Anyone who says Watchmen was not thought to be unfilmable prior to the film coming out by a majority is playing Devil’s Advocate,
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.
I dont care if Watchmen was considered unfilmable or not and kind of have been ignoring whatever argument that’s about.
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.
@ But fine. I am the only one who ever said Watchmen was an unfilmable comic.
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.
Rot seems to be the only person understanding what I am saying. He seems to also be the only one differentiating the Wall-e thing and the unfilmable thing as two completely separate issues. We are on completely the same page.
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.
I have to agree with Rusty that the term “unfilmable” is applied far to liberally, not to mention the definition of it is subject to revisionism depending on the person saying it. Money, special effects, story structure, star power etc can all result in a film being considered “unfilmable”. I tend to see it as a pretty lazy label to use and essentially impossible to prove.
I understand that it is indeed impossible to prove, but I humbly suggest two novels that are most likely unfilmable (and I’m not liberally applying this, they just wouldn’t likely work on film from their strange sense of humour and unusual characters):
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.
“even though Gilliam, Greengrass and Snyder all worked on actual Watchmen productions.”
Did these people succeed or fail?
yer reachin’ andrew.
@ I NEVER said Watchmen is unfilmable
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.
Yeah your evidence about all these people ‘attempting’ to make Watchmen only further proves how potentially unfilmable it is. That it was attempted is because of the pedigree of the source material, the clamoring by comic fans, not because ‘boy this would really make a good movie’. I don’t think the film succeeded directly because it was too loyal to the source material and that made it lag and not to mention kind of lame in the third act (which makes more sense within the context of a graphic novel than on a big screen).
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.
I saw it in 3D!
Ian, how did you think the 3D fared? Did you enjoy it or was it a distraction? I’ve heard that it dims the brightness of the images, but I saw 2D so…
/curious.
“I simply pointed out that there are hundreds of other ignorant fools out there on several high profile sites.”
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.
Am I shortsighted because I find it improbable that aliens would not know what H2O is, or is it for other reasons? And how come it is that I (and other web masters I keep in touch with) get email after email about how much of an idiot and inwardly thinking Henrik is, yet I don’t generally see these complaints about me anywhere? Oh right, because pointing to evidence around the web based on what happens when the masses are involved is not actually evidence of anything.
“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.”
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.
“Am I shortsighted because I find it improbable that aliens would not know what H2O is, or is it for other reasons?”
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?
“…people without health insurance weren’t raised right.”
lol
http://www.rowthree.com/2009/02/13/rewatched-and-reconsidered-crash/comment-page-4/#comment-24800
Sorry Henrik, finding it improbable that aliens wouldn’t know what water is not an example of short-sightedness. I’m pretty sure somewhere in that thread I agreed with you that yes, it is possible this could be the case; but highly, highly unlikely. I think it’s more short-sighted of you to think that that is actually probable – i.e. ignoring pretty much everything we know scientifically about the visible universe.
“I do believe I too am part of the “stupid” community”
You understand what I said. Sorry to be so unclear, I was trying to be humourous.
Based on everything we know about humans, the visible universe, our ability to understand it and the way it is out together, the only logical conclusion is that it is as probable as it is improbably that things that make no sense to us exist in the universe.
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?
“constantly trying to talk about stuff that you don’t understand.”
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.
What makes it hard to have a conversation with you Henrik, and why I receive so many emails (not as many lately) is that you are unable or unwilling to discuss or debate in a civil manner. If it’s a statement or argument you don’t like, instead of stating why it’s a bad idea, you just call the other person a simpleton or an idiot (or you do both).
And yeah, I am being inhumanely harsh and an asshole towards you. I feel worse about it than I would have in the past, but fuck, some things you just don’t let slide.
I try, I am an emotional being though. But I have laid out arguments before. In this thread, the arguments had all been laid out, and I just joined the fray.
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.