Master Index of Archived Threads


Up (2009)

1/2

0 votes

*

0 votes

* 1/2

0 votes

* *

0 votes

* * 1/2

0 votes

* * *

1 votes

* * * 1/2

1 votes

* * * *

5 votes

* * * * 1/2

2 votes

* * * * *

5 votes

Edgy MD Jun 08 2009 09:18 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jun 12 2009 07:01 AM

Grumpy old man takes his house on a balloon trip. Available in 3-D, just not in Prince George's County, where, "Uh, we don't got those yet."

metsmarathon Jun 09 2009 11:37 AM

i'll give it a 4.5 as i said in the 6/6 igt, i'd hardly classify this particular pixar project as a "kiddie flick" there was some pretty mature subject matter in there. i'd say it was the most grown up movie disney has put out in a long, long time, if ever. i mean, there was enough for young kids to enjoy, but there was some heavy heavy shit in there which, if it doesn't fly over the tykes' heads, is going to make for a long and inquisitive car ride home. i mean, you've got dreams shattered by infertility, death of a loved, longtime spouse and the subsequent feelings of loneliness, the creeping dissociation of the elderly from modern society, and a frightening moment of sudden uncontrolled rage from an otherwise peaceful and kind old man. and that's all before house takes off for skies, in what i've gotta believe has to become a future episode of mythbusters! overall i really liked the movie. it was very well done, and (spoiler alert) also had a classic disney-esque villain' death by plummeting. dug was friggin hilarious, and, i think, accurately captured the canine thought process. the pixar short leading into the movie was also, characteristically, very good. i loved the shark. i should definitely try to see this movie in 3d, though i'm curious how much it would necessarily add.

Edgy MD Jun 09 2009 11:51 AM

I'm guessing it would add to the sweaty palm factor. You have to admit, the dogs added a jarringly surreal angle to the film. (Not that a flying house isn't surreal.) There were also overly cute Disney touches where scenes reference scenes from other films (and paintings). The villian had to be, what? Ninety-five? And they never really tried to explain their position to him. Most everything you said is true. The first third is best, I think.

metsmarathon Jun 09 2009 12:12 PM

yeah, i'm still trying to figure out how the guy could've built the dog translators and tracking scope given the technology of his day... i mean, if carl is 78, then muntz had to've taken off for south america back 70 years ago, right? so that means 1939ish... pretty darned impressive! though, if i can accept that hanging a pair of blankets out of windows on opposite sides of a house can steer said house south across the prevailing winds at both temperate and tropical latitudes, then i guess i can also accept that charles muntz was a steampunk genius before steampunk was even cool. i think once muntz established hisself as batshit crazy, there was really no point in trying to explain themselves...

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jun 12 2009 05:56 AM

We saw this last night instead of the Mets (good choice!) in that dumpy theatre on Queens Blvd in Sunnyside with 2 other people - 2 other people in the whole theatre, I mean. I thought it was good, but not nearly as good as some reviews said it was. I didn't really get why the villain was a villain or why or how he'd invent talking dog collars. I could definitely see an argument for watching in 3D on a gigantic screen instead of a shitty crud-covered screen like we did. But maybe seeing it sans effects exposes it for the kinda "eh" story it really was. Terrific buildup, then a dumb caper on top, ending exactly as you'd expected it to.

Edgy MD Jun 12 2009 07:05 AM

It's hard for me not to see Disney encroaching on Pixar's creative freedom a bit there.

Edgy MD Jun 12 2009 07:27 PM

Pretty big crack in the rocks to be hiding an airship in. From where was the steampunk harvesting the helium to keep that thing afloat?

metsmarathon Jun 12 2009 09:30 PM

i think he was using hydrogen.

Benjamin Grimm Jul 03 2009 03:39 PM

If the balloons were powerful enough to lift the house with the people in it, then how were the boy and the old guy able to keep the house from floating off when they were walking along on the ground?

Edgy MD Jul 03 2009 05:45 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 04 2009 06:50 AM

The balloons were no longer providng enough lift at that point. And the air was thinner there. So some sort of equilibrium had been achieved. I guess that's the general conceit we're asked to buy.

themetfairy Jul 03 2009 07:03 PM

I thought it was a nice film - very well done, and with an interesting storyline.

Rockin' Doc Jul 03 2009 09:54 PM

Our family enjoyed this film in an old (no 3D) theatre from the 1940's while on vacation in Chincoteague, Va. It was a fun movie. There were many details that required the viewer to suspend their belief in reality. I believe that some of you seem to think too much. It's just meant as entertainment, not rocket science.

Edgy MD Jul 04 2009 06:52 AM

I think I think I don't think too much.

Benjamin Grimm Jul 04 2009 08:11 AM

I've given it a lot of thought, and I too don't think that I think too much.

metirish Dec 21 2009 10:53 AM Re: Up (2009)

Liked it a lot, I'd agree with MM's first take above....

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Dec 21 2009 12:11 PM Re: Up (2009)

Almost unbearably lovely and sad, that first 20 minutes. But I didn't cry. (Not that I'll tell you about, anyway.)

Fman99 Dec 31 2009 07:57 PM Re: Up (2009)

Watched it with the kids on the big TV tonight, enjoyable family fare. Fboy loved it, Fgirl lost interest as I'd expect a youngin like herself to do.

Willets Point Sep 23 2010 10:06 PM Re: Up (2009)

I was hiding under your porch because I love you.