Up deflated by pandering plot, unoriginal visuals

In Up, set for nationwide release today, Pixar delivers what is easily its worst film. 

Russell (voiced by Jordan Nagai, left) gets caught by Carl Fredericksen (voiced by Edward Asner, right) in a game of ding dong ditch. It seems they got carried away. Courtesy of Pixar Animation Studios

Russell (voiced by Jordan Nagai, left) gets caught by Carl Fredericksen (voiced by Edward Asner, right) in a game of ding dong ditch. It seems they got carried away. Courtesy of Pixar Animation Studios / Pixar Animation Studios (Click image to enlarge)

Since the release of Toy Story a decade and a half ago, Pixar has delivered heartfelt stories of personal discovery and growth cleverly wrapped in Hollywood’s most cutting edge visual effects almost every year. The company has enjoyed wild critical, as well as popular, success. Coming off Wall-E, the studio’s best film to date, expectations were running high. In Up, set for nationwide release today, Pixar delivers what is easily its worst film.

Up is a simple enough story. After being forced to move from his home by a development company, Carl Fredricksen, 78-year-old widower, plans to fly the house to South America with the aid of 10,000 balloons. Halfway to Venezuela, Fredericksen finds Russell, a wilderness explorer 70 years his junior, sitting on his porch. Naturally Mr. Fredricksen tries to get the boy back home, which proves to be difficult after the pair runs into a pack of talking dogs and a large tropical bird by the name of Kevin.

The problem with the story is the lack of faith in children it reveals on the part of the film’s producers. An eight-year-old child and 78-year-old man trying to get a house on top of the Andes should be enough; there’s adventure and comedy to satisfy any child right there. Instead, the producers thought it necessary to include a mountain of really, really annoying supporting characters, essentially making it so that you have to be six to enjoy this movie.

What is most upsetting is that the story has flashes of brilliance. The lack of attention Russell gets from his family, the grief that Mr. Fredricksen feels for the loss of his wife, the home sickness and fear that Russell suffers sleeping in the jungle—these were all elements of the story that touch both child and adult. But the producers’ assumption that children can only empathize with a child or an obnoxious animal is absurd. The cries from children at the screening I attended during the montage showing Ellie, Mr. Fredricksen’s late wife, prove the absurdity of this line of thinking. Up is a few misguided additions away from being an emotionally captivating story on the level of Monsters, Inc. or Finding Nemo.

In Up, the quality of the visual effects stays fairly high throughout. This is especially true of the film’s captivating opening flight, which left me desperately wanting more. But as crisp as these effects are, for the most part they lack the imagination that was found in other Pixar films. For instance, Up features a chase sequence that takes place in the jungle, the exact location of the nearly identical scene in The Incredibles. In The Incredibles, the scene is a thrilling chase that calls to mind the brilliant forest chase in The Return of the Jedi. In Up, the chase is relatively dull, which is especially sad given the richness of the movie’s jungle setting.

In both Up’s story and its visual effects, the characters and situations typically found in the upper echelon Pixar features are, unfortunately, mixed with those found in straight-to-video Disney sequels. The story certainly had a lot of potential, especially in the interactions between Russell and Mr. Fredricksen. It is sad to see what could have been another great Pixar marriage of story and visual effects be torn down by cheap gimmicks and lazy writing.

Read this article and others relevant to places near you with the Chicago Maroon iPhone App. Also view upcoming campus events and find free food within walking distance.



Discussion

NOAH

This has to be the single most cynical review I have ever read in the Maroon. This film was loaded not only with heart and emotion, but also creativity and wonder. It is a shame that not everyone can enjoy this film and that some feel compelled to suggest that is somehow the worst offering of the entire Pixar studio's history. The 98% rating on rotten tomatoes thankfully reassures us that this opinion is firmly in the minority.

MICHAEL LIPKIN

First, I'd like to say that this is a technically well-written piece, and I mean that as a compliment. But I think you may have missed some of the movie's wonder.

You are right, however, that the visuals are not as brilliant as they were in wall-E or the Incredibles. The greens and browns of the jungle and the gray mist are somewhat dull throughout. But what you don't mention is the animation itself, which was superb, better than any other Pixar film to date. Just remember the montage you reference, which even you admit drove the audience to tears (myself included). It's a testament to Pixar's skill at animation that these wordless five minutes are so emotional--they are able to convey their character's essences so perfectly just in the exuberant and sweet actions of this aging married couple. Perhaps not visually striking, but just as wonderful.

Also, please name a Pixar film that doesn't have a "mountain of really, really annoying supporting characters." You mention wall-E as their best film to date; I recall at least a half dozen relatively annoying robot sidekicks following wall-E and Eve. Toy Story had all the toys that arent Woody and Buzz. Bug's Life had the flea circus. Nemo had Dorie (and that was enough). The list goes on, but the point is that Up isn't the odd-man-out you paint it to be. If you take issue with the idea of sidekicks, fine, but it's been a part of Pixar movies since their very beginning. (Also, a mountain, really? By my count there's Kevin and three dogs.)

I agree that this movie was not as witty or erudite in its references, but it was so much more emotionally captivating. I disagree that the pairing of Russell and Carl fell victim to lazy writing. Have you ever been around a 10-year-old? The depiction was not only accurate (which is actually not that important in the end) but incredibly touching. I hope you watch this film again and come away with the sense of sadness and hope I did.

DANIEL

Mr.Nahas does not like the film because of the additional cast of characters, which he finds "really, really annoying." However, it seems to me that the true problem is that Mr.Nahas lacks the imagination to appreciate the film and its joy-filled, silly twists and turns. I too am comforted that such an insipid viewpoint is in the minority.

LIAM KE

It's good to find some critical review, thanks.

AL

This seems to be an overly critical and cynical review towards a film that is great and includes great animation and writing, I am very disappointed at the attitude the reviewer has taken towards it, and hope his reviews don't stop any one from enjoying this film.


Terms of use

Advertisement

Advertisement

Right Now

Student arrested in Reg

UCPD and witness reports are at odds over the arresting officer’s actions, which witnesses say were unwarranted excessively violent.

University puts reading lists on Time Schedules Web site

The University now links course listings on the Time Schedules Web site to course reading lists at Barnes and Noble and the Seminary Co-op, as mandated by a law to go into effect in summer.

Former Treasury secretary describes first days after crisis

“We have an outmoded, outdated regulatory system in this country that needs to be fixed,” former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said Tuesday

Job Board