Back in 2009, Pixar's then-latest film, "Up", achieved critical and commercial acclaim. It even got the honour to be nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars the following year. Some will even debate that "Up" is the best film from the studio to date. More than a decade later though, it appears that the film has somewhat aged and almost weakened compared to later works from Pixar, much like its protagonist is at a state of his life. I think it's best to dive into the story as that's where I feel the film has a challenge at comparing to better works from the studio. As a kid, Carl Fredricksen was a quiet and shy boy who bonded with a energetic tomboyish girl named Ellie over the two's love for acclaimed explorer, Charles Muntz, and to one day travel to Paradise Falls. The two get married and live a long life, despite never going to Paradise Falls nor ever having a child. When Ellie suddenly dies, the old and bitter Carl keeps an old childhood promise to take her to the falls by tying a million balloons to his house and flying it to South America. Along the way, Carl is bothered by a young Wilderness Explorer who gets stuck with him named Russell, a giant colourful bird who Russell calls Kevin, a dog who has a translating collar named Dug, and even a very old Charles Muntz, who has gone insane for his quest to capture the bird that cost him his legacy. The story is pretty original in the way that it constantly shifts focus and story beats, yet still feel fresh and engaging for the various twists and turns. The problem I have with the film though is the tone. This was during the age where Pixar still felt the need that an animated family film HAD to be a family film with kids in mind. It's not like today where the studio can put out much more mature films that don't try to dumb its concepts down for children too much like "Coco" or "Soul", it's when the studio tries to make a film with great themes that's in a silly adventure for kids. I of course love the moments of the film when it's just the human characters interacting with each other. When it focuses on the immature Russell and the talking dog's shenanigans, it really gets childish to the point of disinterest. The same case applies to the humour. I personally like some of the dark comedy and slapstick as well as Carl's bitterness to others before he opens up. As for the silly lines and bizarre scenarios surrounding the dogs, it really suffers at making anyone other than a kid laugh.
Carl, voiced by Ed Asner, is a very loveable and relatable character. At first, he just seems like the grouchy old-man archetype that's just bitter to anyone for personal reasons, but as he opens up, the themes and character journey start to reveal itself. Carl just wanted to take Ellie/his house to Paradise Falls as that was what the couple promised each other what they were going to do with their lives. However, upon reaching his destination, he doesn't really feel fulfilled nor happy. That's when he realizes that life isn't about achieving a single goal or dream. It's really about the relationships he has made over the years, which Ellie has already figured out before her death. The journey is not only great as a character arc, but Carl is just really entertaining as the old man who's out of his element and can't stand the absurdity he is seeing around, which is really thanks by Asner's great vocal performance. Russell is a necessary evil in the regards to the story and themes. As a character, he's kind of insufferable, which you might say it's because he's a kid, but he's extremely effective at making both Carl and the audience annoyed to death at first. However, much like Carl, the viewer begins to understand the purpose of Russell's character. Russell is mirrored as the child that Carl and Ellie never had, considering he harbours similar traits to the latter's personality as a kid. Russell is quirky, fast-talking, and obsessed with nature and his need to help out, much like Ellie. The scenes where both Carl and Russell bond as a father figure to the son he could never have are great in terms of the chemistry and themes around the film. Remove Carl out of the film though, Russell is pretty intolerable. Charles Muntz, voiced by Christopher Plummer, is a great late villain to the story, which is mainly due to how he represents a darker version of Carl. Charles never let go of his goal to capture the bird that Russell calls Kevin, which made him both extremely isolated by society and unhinged mentally. The obsession over achieving a goal can be toxic as it might not bring you fulfillment at all, which is what Carl learns. Even if Charles did regain his reputation by capturing the bird, it doesn't give him any excuse to kill innocent travellers who weren't out to get his bird. Plummer also does a great job in making both a despicable villain and a charming and excitable elder who was initially happy to see new people. While I would have preferred some of the original scrapped endings for his character, it doesn't diminish the purpose and execution of the character. While all of the three human characters are great in regards to their role in the story, the same can't be said for the animals. Kevin is a goofy bird that's just trying to get back home to her babies, which is fine for the characters of Carl and Russell to aid as they would help the animal in regards to their interests. Dug and the other dogs on the other hand really didn't need to be in the film. For one, they don't really offer a purpose to the themes, unless one says Dug is another relationship Carl has to accept. But the real problem is that whenever they show up onscreen, the film really gets childish. Dug is practically a goofy animal sidekick with the other dogs being bumbling goons for Charles, constantly using the squirrel line as comedy, or have a gag in relation to their chipmunk voice with Alpha. The dogs were just there to have kids laugh and be engaged, because they are looking at a cute, silly dog. Regardless, I still find the characters of Carl, Russell and Charles to be very good in terms of their representation to the story and themes, even if Russell can be annoying.
The animation is one of Pixar's more unique designs in their library since they have a more soft, cartoony approach. The textures aren't the most extremely polished, aside from the hair/fur/feathers on the characters, but considering the character designs, it's clearly not meant to be realistic. Carl has a great exaggerated appearance with his short, bent-over stature and his face that's just naturally meant to frown with gazes eyes with an almost cubical head. Russell is just a human-skin blob with small eyes, nose and mouth. In regards to the minor human characters that appear, they look like they came out of an Illumination film. I'm not super bothered by this, especially since the majority of the film only has two human characters. One thing that's very clear about the animation is that it's very vibrant and colourful. The film has a range of moods and hues to match the environments and scenes of emotional weight. Just looking at the design of Kevin alone exemplifies the use of colour in the film. The animation simply goes all out in the artistic department and foregoes realism and detail. On top of that, the music by Micheal Giacchino is one of the best the studio offers. The main theme/"Married Life" piece is one of the most memorable themes in relation to an animated film and it's a beautiful track on its own. The more extravagant/triumphant music such as Carl taking flight are also really good pieces of music that are simply overshadowed by the main theme. The use of classical music in select scenes such as Carl's morning routine is nicely implemented in terms of comedy and clever use of animation and music responding to one another. The only tracks from Giacchino's score that's not memorable are the action/comedic tracks as they tend to be quite generic. Despite this, "Up" might have Giacchino's best soundtrack to date.
"Up" is best described as an aged masterpiece. For its time, the strengths of the film managed to override the issues as the story proved to be original and engaging, the more mature aspects of the story and themes resonated with viewers, Carl is a fantastic protagonist in regards to story arc and entertainment value, Russell as a metaphor for the unborn child of Carl and Ellie makes the chemistry between him and Carl great to watch, Charles is a late, yet engaging, villain who mirrors the ideologies of obsessing over a goal, the animation is colourful and imaginatively designed by ditching any realism in textures and character design, and the music by Giacchino still proves to one of, if not, the best soundtrack the veteran composer worked on. However, as better films from the studio get released, the more the cracks begin to show on what was otherwise a no-doubt masterpiece. The tone and humour is extremely half-balanced with the studio trying to play more on the child-friendly side than the more mature one, Russell as a character by himself is pretty annoying, and the dogs in general completely ruin the film's chances to be the best from the studio as they were neither funny or representative of the film's themes. Despite these complaints, I still think that the film is a great entry from Pixar and is quality entertainment, but the more childish elements and absurdity hold it back from being exceptional.
Verdict: 8/10. Great movie, but could have been a masterpiece if it was a bit more mature. Still an achievement in regards to Pixar as a whole.
No comments:
Post a Comment