Sunday, August 09, 2009


What a film. I hadn't heard much talk about this one, and I was feeling poor, so I put off seeing it until now (I think I saw almost every other pixar movie opening weekend). But don't you make that mistake. If you haven't seen it yet, head on over to the Wynnsong and check out the best film of the year (so far). I wanted to watch it again as soon as it was over. So charming, laugh out loud funny, stunning visuals (I love the texture on his ties and uphostery), and I got all teared up on three separate occaisions.

This was also the first film I've seen in 3D. I was sceptical at first (I purposefully chose the non-3D version of Coraline), but now I'm a convert. At least for this film is added a lot. All those balloon shots, the clouds, the buildings and mountains.

So chalk one up to Pete Doctor and the pixar masterpiece factory. It's wierd, but now I've got to say that John Lassetter is probably my least favorite of the pixar directors. The Toy Story movies rock, but Cars was a little weak. Actually, I think the only problem with it was the music. Lassetter just has lame taste in music. And like that "when somebody loves you" song in Toy Story 2. Please, no. Thankfully, UP doesn't have anyone singing in it.


Blogger Jarmon said...

I need to give this one another try. I took my boys to see it one afternoon when I was very tired. I loved the beginning of the film - the set up was great and his initial take off and everything. But when they got to the cliff and started walking toward the falls I couldn't stay awake. I woke up probably after 20 or 30 minutes and had no idea what was going on and I could never really get back into it.

Also I want to see it in 3-D I think that would be fun.

Visually it was pretty amazing. I also really liked the short at the beginning.

8:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Brandon, I really liked this film as well but I had trouble with how whimsical it got. Whimsical in the sense that it kind of just went where ever it wanted to go. For example, it just seemed odd to me that they would bother inventing a device to translate the dogs barks into English if they are dogs that can fly planes anyway. I think whimsy can be used within the rules of the world. Once the house lifts up with balloons, we know that this is a whimsical world where imaginative things can happen but I think it still has to have some discipline to prevent the writer from just putting anything he wants to on screen. I think many children's stories and movies start off in the real world and then venture into some magical place but generally there is a portal, or a wall or a line that separates the two worlds. This movie chose not to do that, maybe to it's credit, but there were moments that took me out of it because it felt undisciplined and wandering. I think Monster House is a great example of how to dissolve that line. There were moments in the latter half that smacked of the screen writer saying, "and then...what if we do this...and then this happens...yeah yeah that's good without nesting it in the world that's been established.
Like Wall E, I thought the first 30-40 minutes were masterful and then it loses me a little but finishes strong. I really loved the humor and the dialogue and the fact that Karl was old. The animation and the 3D and textures were fantastic but did anybody else have this small problem with the movie? What do you think?

8:47 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home