Movie Musings: Up

[Muramasa]

Once in a while, I do like to think about the movies that I watch and try to break down what I thought was cool and what I thought was not cool, and what I thought was hilarious. So, I'm making a new section, as usual, for my personal amusement.

Yeah, I can certainly say that I enjoyed Up. The first part of the movie had a pretty bittersweet charm to it, and overall, the movie had some pretty touching moments. I think this one appealed to me more readily than most 3D animated movies because it seemed more "low key". I'm not quite sure how to define the feel exactly, but to me, a lot of 3D animated cartoons kinda almost approach their stories and their humor in a similar manner. Kinda fun, aesthetic appeal to children with humor that tends to appeal more to "adults" kinda feel. That doesn't make them any less enjoyable to watch, but it's kinda how I see a lot of 3D animated movies. It would be a lie to say that Up avoids this entirely.

I liked concept. I liked characters, it was certainly enjoyable to see Carl interact with the other characters. Also, throughout the movie, I had this feeling that I've heard his voice before, and quick look at IMDb confirmed that he was voiced by Edward Asner, who is also J. Jonah Jameson from the Mid-1990's Spiderman cartoon. The thought of having Carl shout at Russell to "get pictures! More pictures of Spiderman!" made the movie that much more enjoyable.

I did think that Muntz's character was kinda strange though. It seemed like they were really trying to force the character to be an antagonist. At the same time, I do understand that his character does go along with one of the themes of the movie, which is letting go, or putting something behind you, or maybe better phrased as "moving on". Or, I suppose, the consequences of not doing so.

In a way, it may seem like I'm trying really hard to break down and analyze it, but I do assure the good readers that this doesn't get in the way of me sitting back and enjoying the films. Overall, I thought it was a good watch, and certainly worth a rental, and not a bad waste of a ticket.

[Captain Galaxy]

Well, I'll happily respond, because I get angry when people don't respond to my movie ascertainments, although your review doesn't demand such a requisite but I like what you had to say and like hearing what other people think about movies. Sadly however I think my view of the film is more cynical.

I do have to agree that Muntz did indeed seem like he was made an unnecessary antagonist, but my main beef about it was that he should have been made a more misled villain rather than a straight out evil one.

Overall I enjoyed the movie, and I would give it 3 1/2 stars out of five, and being my second favorite movie of 2009 so far. There were just elements and aspects of the movie that quite polarized me while I was watching. Like that bird. That damn annoying bird, among other things. Actually, just the damn bird. I'm so glad the dogs were put in to balance its annoying ass out. To be honest I felt betrayed by the filmmakers when they put so much emotional investment in Carl and Ellie's dream only to have you care about the darn bird-- not that I didn't recognize the severity of both situations (and I kind of felt guilty for what David Lynch set out to prove in Eraserhead).

Story-wise, I do believe it was a bit flawed. Really, in my cynical view of the movie, I think the message of the movie was "look before you jump." But if he had opened the book before he went on his journey, there would've been no movie, but that's just an example to point out what I believe was a narrative flaw, although in the end I did appreciate the deeper meaning that their life together came to symbolize for Ellie, and that was what I believe is the strongest point of the movie, and thus (in my reiteration) the true message: that the adventure is about the person you are WITH and what you share with them, and not the journey itself or the destination. This is further proven, in my case, by the established relationship between Carl and Russell at the end of the film. Not to say that your interpretation of the movie is illegitimate, but just to show how truly good movies have different meanings to everyone.

[You probably can't touch this.]

I have a hard time getting over my accumulated apprehension to 3D animated films. Though I respect Anta's attempt to place it apart, the themes both you report still make it sound like it all dovetails into the same optimistic messages every other 3D animated film has covered. How is this journey adventure any more different than Ice Age? Finding Nemo? Hell, even Land Before Time (which will take me to my second point)?

Ultimately, for me, the 3D animated style has yet to be justified as an interesting film medium. It coasts along with it's endless pool of newer tech hype whenever people start getting bored of the formula (for instance, the hair on Sully in Monsters, Inc.). To really draw out my point, consider Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. It was terrible! And what purpose does it serve to be 3D? It might as well have been anime which is also my complaint with this one. Might as well be a 2D Disney animation style. The pixar thing contributes nothing. If it isn't for the formulaic storywriting, it's the pointless 3Dness and novelty of that has long gone.

[Captain Galaxy]

I would beg to differ that Pixar's contributions equal to nothing, after all they have offered very unique stories over the last decade. If anything, I'd say the art direction, and thus the quality of CG technologies used in the film, was a step back for Pixar, even Wall-E has graphics about 4 times more detailed than this movie, but such a detailed verisimilitude wouldn't be appropriate for "Up".

I believe that your point on formulaic writing is mute, considering how you went to see 2 exemplary examples this summer already, Star Trek and Terminator Salvation. Sure Terminator was good and Star Trek may very well be the best movie of the year, but the incredible execution didn't help the fact that it was all a predictable and has-been-done (storywise) before.

This isn't to say that you don't appreciate non-formulaic stories like No Country for Old Men, or The Godfather, with their horribly pessimistic yet wonderfully meaningful endings. The wonderful thing about stories, across any medium, is that there is no one way enjoy them, and something that should be recognized. There are stories that are meant to be enjoyed as nothing more than pop-corn flicks, and stories that require critical thinking; stories that are formulaic and rely on execution, and stories that are original, although those are hard to come by. And everything in between those, including the hybrids like The Dark Knight. Some films are meant to be pure fun, while others can dig a little deeper.


Furthermore, considering that cinematography is an essential and, hopefully, obvious artistic aspect of film-making, it would be safe to say that even CG itself is used to provide a different visual aesthetic, and thus a more veritable definer of its own mise-en-scene-- and thus the personality of a film. To say that CG provides nothing would be a serious misunderstanding of how important a visual medium of choice is to the auteur theory. Furthermore you can't say that a film shouldn't be done in a certain medium because of its quality, if that were the case, I would have to say that any crappy live-action movie should've been rotoscoped instead. A medium, film or not, is not responsible for the quality of a story.

But I do agree however, that 3D films should branch off from the whole "kid-friendly" overly optimistic attitude and move onto more mature stories. It's just like the video game revolution, it will eventually happen.

[You probably can't touch this.]

Ah, we're getting in to theory, eh? You misunderstand my point on formulaic writing. I didn't mean to suggest it is always bad, in fact you do a good job of clarifying what I intended. My point being, though, that resorting to CG is an unincredible execution. Certainly, the story doesn't have to be formulaic. CG is seems limited in comparison to more traditional animation styles. I can't imagine CG being as expressionistic as some anime I've seen. There have been full CG movies that have attempted more mature stories like Beowulf or Renaissance. Even though the latter had a great story, I was still pretty put off by the CG animation. It just when CG is even remotely obvious, for instance in the new Transformers movie, it is alienating. It's just a fact that CG has been used as more for its spectacle than as a legitimate medium. Perhaps it could be used well but citing those drama CG movies makes me doubt it. I'm just sick of CGI in movies in general (unless it is emulating another meduim) and even more so of the popular CG family genre.

No CGI movie has ever been more than okay. And that isn't good enough.

[Muramasa]

Incidentally, I have been reading these in case anyone is curious as to whether or not I just ignore subsequent responses.