Films

10° London Hi 14°C / Lo 8°C

First Night: Up, Cannes Film Festival

(Rated 3/ 5 )

It's not eye-popping, but Pixar gives thrills an extra dimension

By Kaleem Aftab

The highs and lows of Pixar are on show in Up, the celebrated animation company's first feature film made entirely in 3D. It's also the first cartoon to open the Cannes Film Festival and audiences were greeted with red 3D goggles to celebrate the occasion. But watching with tinted glasses cannot hide the deficiencies of this adventure. It is increasingly apparent that Pixar is a company that operates best when dealing with nostalgia. Like the outfit's previous film, WALL-E, Up is superb in setting up characters and a world that hankers over memories of yesteryear, but once the adventure moves into its obligatory action denouement, it enters a world of stereotypes that disappoints.

Indeed, action sequences have been Pixar's Achilles' heel, with overly long and tedious effects letting down Cars and The Incredibles. In Up, the blockbuster moments that should be of Around the World in 80 Days proportions are instead surprisingly uninventive.

Up hits the ground running with newsreel footage of a Baron Munchausen-type adventurer Charles Muntz (voiced by Christopher Plummer) discovering a lost world in a South American forest. This footage proves an inspiration for young Charles Fredericksen (Edward Asner), who bonds with his neighbour Ellie (Elie Docter) over a shared sense of adventure.

A superb montage sequence tells us everything we need to know about the couple: they fall in love; get married; want an army of children; she can't have kids so they choose to dedicate their lives to each other and dream of going to faraway places; this doesn't happen and after a long, happy life together, she dies, leaving Charles, 78, fulfiled with having spent his life with Ellie, if regretting that they never followed their hero Muntz and voyaged to the unknown.

The demise of the American dream is a favourite theme of Pixar films and it is picked up as we see the Fredericksen's home sitting in the middle of a building site, surrounded by emerging skyscrapers. When faced with eviction, Fredericksen decides he'll finally venture to South America.

He unwittingly picks up an eight-year-old do-gooder companion, Russell (Jordan Nagai), a young Junior Wilderness Explorer desperate to get a badge for helping the elderly. At this point, girls are locked out of the story and the nostalgia is supplanted in favour of a Boy's Own adventure. The last moment of unadulterated joy to match the highs of Toy Story and Finding Nemo comes upon arrival in South America, with the introduction of talking dogs and a huge colourful bird named Kevin that looks like the bizarre lovechild of a puffin, dodo, ostrich and peacock.

Apart from the kooky animals (nowhere near as endearing as The Jungle Book ones), the destination is a boring land of plateaus and uninspiring forests. Muntz pops up as a Wizard of Oz-inspired villain. The nostalgic past is replaced by a horrible sentimental present that lacks emotional punch.

The level of animation is superb. Of particular note in Pixar's move to 3D is a refusal to indulge in gimmicks, such as objects flying at the viewer to make them jump. Effort is concentrated on giving an added depth of field, especially when classic shots of cinema such as the camera zoom are mimicked.

The emphasis is on an optical reality rather than just an eye-popping spectacle; even the most spectacular shot, the Fredericksen home's conversion into a flying machine fuelled by thousands of balloons, has a realism not possible in D. It works because it serves the story experientially without being obtrusive and Pixar should be applauded for appreciating that the 3D audience is maturing.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Character's Names
[info]shane2010 wrote:
Thursday, 14 May 2009 at 02:20 pm (UTC)
The name of the main character is carl Frederickson, not Charles. If this small detail is incorrect, how can I trust the rest of the review?
Agenda
[info]henriw wrote:
Thursday, 14 May 2009 at 02:42 pm (UTC)
Wow, you really have an agenda against pixar. I don't remember action scenes in The Incredibles being tedious, but you state that like it was a fact everyone knows. Also, I don't remember wall-e playing to stereotypes. This review is a gigantic stretch and you kind of play into the stereotype of the reviewer who is out of touch with the mainstream and is overly critical of anything appealing to the mainstream.
[info]nick7333333 wrote:
Saturday, 16 May 2009 at 03:32 pm (UTC)
Yous say, "But watching with tinted glasses cannot hide the deficiencies of this adventure. It is increasingly apparent that Pixar is a company that operates best when dealing with nostalgia."


I don't know that that's true, first of all. But if so, is that ALWAYS a bad thing.

Your review is strange, not because you nit-pick the film or nit-pick the GIANT of modern-day animation, but it's strange because your reasons for not liking the film and Pixar seem arbituary and just kinda dumb.

Sure, pick the all-time best example of great animal characters. Is it such a big deal that Up may not have animal characters as great as the Jungel Book...maybe the all-time best movie when it comes to animal characters?!

I disagree 100% on your Incrdibles argument. Wall-e? OK. Yeah, the 2nd half isn't as perfect as the first half. But Pixar's trying to not only make great movies, but entertain all ages...including children.

Cars gets a bad rap. I've watched it at least 7 or 8 times, and it gets better with each viewing. And I'm in my 30's, so your nostalgia gripe doesn't fly with me. I can't relate to the 50's and 60's romanticizing in the film, but I AM drawn tremendously to the very well fleshed out characters.

I look forward to seeing Up, and am now anxious to see if in fact the new land Carl discovers is boring and if the animals are boring and if the final chases are "overly long and tedious".


Huh?
[info]jimfranklin wrote:
Sunday, 17 May 2009 at 02:13 pm (UTC)
I can't speak to 'Up'. Haven't seen it. But your criticisms are quite off the mark, dude.

- "Like the outfit's previous film, WALL-E, Up is superb in setting up characters and a world that hankers over memories of yesteryear,"

Wall-e's first half strength wasn't that it dwelled on memories of yesteryear. It was a jaw-droppingly great developing relationship between Wall-e and Eve. Watching them interract was beautiful and believable and real and charming and funny. THAT'S why it was superb.

- "Indeed, action sequences have been Pixar's Achilles' heel, with overly long and tedious effects letting down Cars and The Incredibles."

You do realize that Pixar is in the business of entertaining movie-goers and not jaded critics, no? I just disagree with your thoughts on 'The Incredibles'. I thought the action scenes were brilliantly creative and fun. Brad Bird got us to care about the characters early, so we were rooting like hell for them at the end. What "tedious" scenes to you refer to in 'Cars'? Lightening McQeen was a race car. Shouldn't there be some action racing scenes? Cars might the most under-rated Pixar film. It's characters and charm are SO strong.

- "The demise of the American dream is a favourite theme of Pixar films"

Really? Was that the case in Toy Story? Or Bug's Life? Or Monster's Inc.? Or Finding Nemo? Or Ratatouille? Or Wall-e. What on earth are you talking about? If character's have setbacks, THAT is considered the "demise of their American dream". I DO NOT understand your statement.

- "At this point, girls are locked out of the story and the nostalgia is supplanted in favour of a Boy's Own adventure"

Pixar could have chosen the scout to be a girl. They didn't. So what.

- "Apart from the kooky animals (nowhere near as endearing as The Jungle Book ones), the destination is a boring land of plateaus and uninspiring forests."

Maybe the animals are "kooky" to get some laughs from the kids in the audience...remember, Pixar is trying to entertain all ages. And a little unfair to expect 'Up's' animals to be as endearing as those in Jungle Book...maybe THE best use animals ever in animation.

- "The nostalgic past is replaced by a horrible sentimental present that lacks emotional punch."

I have NO idea what this means.

Most popular

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date