Moviephilia

Long time no talk

2010-07-07T18:55:00.001-07:00

Hello, boys and girls!

It's been awhile since I've been here, and I thought it was time to get back into the swing of things. For starters, I've published all of the back reviews that have been going up elsewhere on the world wide web. Sorry if they seem a bit late (since they're essentially all on DVD now).

So, stay tuned, as my attention will be geared towards you all very frequently, and I'll be placing more news and review worthy items down. In the meantime, let me know what you're must-see summer movie is, or if you even have one. These questions keep me up at night!

Until later, screen fiends!

~Ryan

Stealing Your Money: Avatar and the 3D Machine

2010-07-07T18:52:00.000-07:00

The film Avatar, now on DVD, has sparked a lot of conversation about its animation. The film implemented 3D into the film, forcing audiences everywhere to pay at least twelve dollars to wear sunglasses in order to experience the true nature of the film. But as other films attempt to follow the success of Avatar by implementing 3D into their own films, we need to ask the question: is it really worth it?

In the case of Avatar, yes it is. However, there is a very large difference between what James Cameron has created withAvatar, and what other directors are attempting to achieve with their own “3D” films. What we have is a clash between 3D as art, and 3D as a marketing gimmick.

It’s no wonder Avatar has become the highest grossing movie of all time, considering that it spent its entire run in 3D, and many weeks in IMAX theaters, all of which cost extra money to view. But in the film’s case, the 3D animation was not just for the money. Avatar was actually filmed in 3D, using high tech equipment and special technology that effectively leaps over theUncanny Valley (which states the more realistic something appears, the less realistic it will feel), and creates a CGI world that is practically reality. However, with the success of James Cameron’s ideas and ventures, other films have taken to 3D as well.

Unfortunately, these studios have different ideas. Since Avatar was filmed in 3D and was meant to revolutionize the film industry, it legitimately becomes a form of art, creating a realistic world in which we can become a part, as well as contributing to the industry as the technological world around us grows. Because of its monstrous success (due to high prices at theaters), other studios have decided to transpose their films into 3D as well. The difference here is that these new movies, including Clash of the Titans and Alice in Wonderland, all added 3D in post-production. So what exactly does this do to the film? For example: the 3D conversion process for Clash of the Titans was ten weeks. However, the studio only pushed the release date of the film by one week. When released, the 3D versions of the film were said to be choppy and ill-made, and that the 2D version was the superior version.

So then, what’s so great about 3D? It depends on who’s making it. 3D can be a legitimate form of art, seen in Avatar. Unfortunately, many studios see it as a marketing tool get more money. The new film Shrek Ever Afterwas “filmed” in 3D, but the previous threeShrek films did fine without the conversion. The reason for the conversion? More money for the studio. The creative integrity disappears once the studio starts focusing solely on how they can grab as much money as possible.

Many years ago, films were a vibrant art form. In recent years, it has turned into pure entertainment, and unfortunately those films that are meant as a form of art tend to be largely ignored. While the occasional indie film might make it into the spotlight, or a big-grossing movie such as The Dark Knight or District 9 may show its wings as a “thinking man’s movie,” the majority of films in theaters are those that require less thinking, and more explosions. When it comes to 3D,Avatar shows that the conversion itself can act in a way that propels the art of filmmaking, and can draw people to the theater for the same reason they go to an art museum. However, the majority of studios are misusing 3D and giving it a bad name. 3D is not a bad thing for the film industry. Instead of using it just to draw money, the studios should be looking back to when they stood as an institution of art, and rediscover just what it means to make a film.

...this is one of the moments where I actually reserve what I think about the film. Weird. Although, to be fair, the film is totally cliched. Just with amazing CGI.

Rating: 7.5/10

Extra: If I'm going to pay $3 extra to pay for cheap 3D glasses, I'm f*****g keeping them.

Alice in Wonderland: Hollywood vs. the Novel

2010-07-07T18:47:00.000-07:00

The collaboration of Tim Burton and Johnny Depp is nothing new. They’ve been together a total of nine times, and they’ve brought in some good money from the theaters. However, when Burton works with Depp, he has a tendency to remake a text, such as Alice in Wonderland, which is currently in theaters. At what point does this rewriting destroy or enhance the original text?

Movies based off of books have been happening since films first started, so this is not by any means a new concept to Hollywood. We must consider, though, that as movies are remade, so are the texts, and something new must be brought to the table to make the story seem fresh. The new version of Alice in Wonderland, starring Mia Wasikowska and Johnny Depp, treats the original textual script differently than many novel-to-movie treatments. In the end, it may end up enhancing the story.

First, let’s consider some of the films based off of novels that are ingrained in culture. To start with Tim Burton’s films, there’s the either fantastic or terrifically bad Sleepy Hollow, or the deservedly award-winning Big Fish.With the former film, we see an outlandish take on an old tale. With the latter, we see something very comparable to the original text. Arguably, we can say that the latter is better than the former because it is so close to the text. That’s the reason everyone liked Lord of the Rings, right? Other movies that are considered as greats are very similar to the original text: i.e. The Shawshank Redemption, The Godfather.

In 1980, Stanley Kubrick (arguably one of the greatest directors to ever live) adapted a Stephen King book called “The Shining.” Rewriting it for the screen, Kubrick reinvented the story. It stands as one of the greatest films of all time, but it vastly surpasses the book in style, mood, and effect. The script ending up being very different than the original text, and the ending itself (considered one of the greatest film endings) is nothing like the ending of the novel. So, how are we to respond to a film that is vastly different than its textual influence, especially if the film surpasses the strength and effect of the novel? Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland indicates a direction that filmmakers must take to redefine the texts that influence their films.

Expand the world of the story. It is as simple as that. In Steven Spielberg’s grossly underrated film, “Hook,” he expands the world of Peter Pan and Wendy Darling by basing it nearly seventy years into the future. While still including the elements of the original story, we are able to see what happens later in the characters’ lives, and how the original text affects all of them personally. It’s a story we all know, but are able to enjoy a new story with the same charactersbecause we all recognize the original text. Alice in Wonderland approaches the same concept, by using the original two texts by Lewis Carroll and creating a new story with a familiar world and familiar characters.

In modern filmmaking, people watch a movie, read the source it was based off, then decide which was better: the film or the novel. Neither one should be superior; each has its own merit and its own interpretation. By expanding the world of the story, the characters seem more real, rather than contained within a brief period in their lives. We are able to see the world open before our eyes. Unfortunately, this could spawn the ultimate “sequel-syndrome” that Hollywood is currently in love with, but as viewers we must oppose this. Instead, we must prove that each story is a self-contained universe, and each universe should be explored and portrayed to audience.

Whether or not Alice in Wonderland is a good movie is debatable. It has moments of epic adventure, while other times it has outlandish humor. If this fits into the original Alice in Wonderland however, is irrelevant. Tim Burton and the screenwriter, Linda Woolverton, created a new story, based off of a classic text. And a door should be opened. A door to familiar stories being revisited and continued. Let us see what happens to the Beast and Belle years after Gaston has been killed. Or what happens to Sherwood Forest as Robin Hood grows older. Let the characters flourish, spread, and create a world in which they can live. Hollywood has done enough rehashing of classic stories. It’s time to pay homage to these stories, and to open the doors to a new form of textual influence.

Alice in Wonderland is a fun adaptation of a classic, and interestingly continues the story that everyone is familiar with. However, Burton's is a tad overambitious in his use of the CGI, and it whittles down the story to a mass of colors and details. Fun to look at, but not fun to listen to.

Rating: 6.5/10

Extra: Tim Burton needs to get away from Disney. Only then can we have an adaptation on par with something as epically fantastic as Sleepy Hollow.

Sensitive Material: The Green Zone

2010-07-07T18:35:00.002-07:00

As the War in Iraq rages on in the Middle East, directors continue to flex their political muscles by portraying soldiers during American affairs. As director Paul Greengrass reunites with Matt Damon, in another action thriller collaboration, to create the film The Green Zone, he presents unintentional question to the American public: when will it be appropriate to create a film based on American political exploits?

Matt Damon plays Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller, who is in charge of the search for Weapons of Mass Destruction. However, after months of finding nothing, he begins to question their sources of intel. His questioning sparks the uncovering of a government conspiracy as American politicians fight to control the blooming democratic government in Iraq.

What makes the film so intriguing is not necessarily the plot of the film, or the political agenda it upholds. The current appeal this film holds is the public reaction. Touching upon a touchy subject such as the prolonged search for WMDs within the Middle East is a difficult task, and some people thought that the political agenda Paul Greengrass was interested in emphasizing was, in fact, Un-American.

Greengrass is not new to filming such sensitive material. In 2006, he directed United 93, a film about the exploits of flight United 93 on September 11, 2001, as the passengers overtook the terrorists, forcing it to crash in Pennsylvania. But, while United 93 was acclaimed for its poignancy and tenderness, The Green Zone was seen as an action film about Americans vs. Americans. As some reviewers wrote, the film is a slanderous piece of Hollywood that insults America.

However, the political agenda, whether it is overemphasized by the public or the filmmakers, is not the entire issue that the film presents. As people bring their political views to the film and let their right-wing or left-wing loyalties sway their opinions on The Green Zone, we see the true issue that Greengrass is presenting. The film portrays sensitive material, because it involves a bloody and political situation that the U.S. is still embroiled in.

At this point, we wonder: for how long must filmmakers ignore the world around them, and concentrate on films that don’t approach modern-day subjects? At what point would The Green Zone have been accepted as an action film with a nice twist on reality? Twenty years? Inglourious Basterds, Tarantino’s last film, which was shown in theaters a year ago, took reality and turned it into a piece of fiction. Yet, audiences worldwide accepted this altered reality. If this film were to have been released directly following World War II, would audiences have accepted it, or would they have labeled it as slanderous and insulting to veterans of the war?

The reviewers and critics who assaulted The Green Zone are indeed the minority, as many critics thought it to be a fun action film and a relatively realistic look into the War in Iraq (the film is based off of the book “Imperial Life in the Emerald City,” which documented life in the Green Zone, located in Baghdad). But the negative views of the film bring to light just how audiences view the world around them. The Green Zone is an honest approach to the War in Iraq simply because it involves a political agenda, and opinions from Paul Greengrass. Without the agenda or the opinions, the film would be useless fluff. Good, thought provoking films are what Hollywood needs, and they are what should be produced.

We have to wonder how sensitive we can allow ourselves to be when viewing a film like The Green Zone. How long must it take for the film to be accepted, and for it to not “insult” America? What the negative critics viewed in the film was an insubordinate Army officer fighting Americans. However, the film embodies humans, not Americans. It’s not about Americans vs. Americans, and it’s not supporting the Iraqi military, or even slandering American values. What Paul Greengrass creates is a film that discusses the values of right and wrong, and the consequences behind the decisions. And if we don’t open our minds and allow ourselves to view the film as an opinionated piece with meaning, then we have missed the point.

The film itself was well done, although if you got a little nauseas watching the shaky camera work (literally) in the last two Jason Bourne installments, then this won't fix anything. It should be noted, though, that to enjoy The Green Zone, you truly need to leave your political inhibitions at the door.

Rating: 7.5/10

Extra: I'm okay with Matt Damon becoming an action star, as long as he keeps being a badass, and the studios decide to give him a love interest...that they don't kill.

Repo-Men: Repossessing the American Dream

2010-04-13T06:29:00.000-07:00

"Repo Men" Jude Law and Forest Whitaker

Ever wanted an artificial limb or organ? They’re fairly expensive, but if you answered yes, you should hope you have good health insurance. Repo Men (in theaters now) approaches the subject of artificial transplantation by creating a dystopian world where a single private company, The Union, controls the market of artificial survival. The inability for transplant patients to afford payments, and how quickly and earnestly The Union takes back their artificial limbs (which in theory becomes legalized murder) creates a unique twist on contemporary privatized repossession.

Jude Law plays Remy, a “Repo Man,” sent from home to home to repossess artificial organs that their users can no longer afford. He must set an emotional distance during his job so he can adequately cut out mechanical lungs and hearts. Circumstances turn Remy upside down, as he is given his own artificial heart, and must fight the other Repo Men as his payments fail to turn up.

Through satisfying action scenes and a close friendship between Jude Law and Forest Whitaker that slowly weaves through a fairly predictable plot, the movie surprisingly shines above most modern action films. Although it falls victim to the over-used surprise twist ending, the dystopian fairy tale turns focus on many contemporary ideas of repossession.

Remy finds his life being taken from him, and it is almost surprisingly that his home isn’t physically repossessed. The current American economy has become a feeding ground for privatized repossession companies, and as cars are taken from the banks and mortgage companies repossess homes to replace them on the market, the destruction of the family life becomes relevant.

In Repo Men, Remy tries desperately to make a compromise with his wife and save his family, mainly for his younger son. It is clear, however, that this will not happen. The question then becomes clear: where do you draw the line between financial insecurity and financial destruction?

Some of the artificial organs in the film cost upwards of $600,000, and it’s easy to imagine this is how much financial weight some American families may have due to the escalating economic terror. We sympathize with Remy because his financial situation and the unemotional response from The Union is all too real. Does the bank send Repo Men to collect your car, and apologize profusely for having to do so? Of course not; these are hired guns without the ammunition. Cold, calculated, and hired for one purpose: to disconnect themselves from the emotion of reality, and to take back what someone else cannot pay for. And, as always, done in a legal manner that is beneficial to the private company.

There is no financial unrest for The Union in Repo Men. In fact, it is entirely plausible that this company controls vast quantities of the economy. It seems as though the normal citizenry, sitting under the eyes of The Union, are all forced to buy these artificial limbs and organs because there are no other choices. Break your foot? Artificial limb. Need a new kidney? Artificial organ. The people are pigeonholed into a catch-22, one that is only escapable by death.

As the film progresses, Remy’s chances for success and redemption become bleaker. Is this the same fate that Americans must face once repossession is set in motion? If their car or home is taken, and their credit takes a dive, with the financial burdens be too much to achieve future successes, causing them to deal with minimum wage amid the crumbled economy?

The film sets in motion the idea of paranoia and fear over family life. The provider of a family is dedicated to deliver the American Dream, which in any dystopian film is conveniently destroyed. As repossession becomes more and more of a privatized business, which is a concept Repo Men is presenting, the ability to conquer the American Dream and provide for the family is beyond grasp. And who is to blame? The individual or society? Repo Men argues the idea that an individual is not in control, and in their weakest and most vulnerable moments the companies strike to bring him/her down. Attempting to achieve the American Dream then causes extreme financial risks, with the Dream ready to crumble at any moment.

In Repo Men, these financial risks lead to demoralized individuals and destroyed family homes, making it nearly impossible to live a fruitful and undisturbed life without flawless health. While watching the film, it’s hard to differentiate between the Repo Men coming to collect your liver, and the Repo Men coming to collect your car.

All in all, the movie was fun. It didn't overstay it's welcome, and the middle lack-of-action didn't seem out of place. It was bloody, as it should have been, and the actors did a great job with what was most likely a mediocre plot. But we weren't expecting Citizen Kane II: the Return of Kane. It was a fun and cool action movie that delivered what it had proposed, and I walked out of the theaters happy.

Rating: 8/10

Extra: Jude Law (among others) needs to accept that he can be an awesome action hero

Check out the new bloggy, boys and girls! (http://cchronicle.com/author/ryan-deziel/)

REVIEW: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

2009-06-25T06:21:00.000-07:00

Okay, so I'm not really sure where I should start on this one. I guess I should start by saying that I really enjoyed the first one. I thought it was a lot of fun, it had action and humor and romance, and there was only one plot hole that bugs me ("we need to hide the Cube! Bring it to the city!").

So, that being said, the first one is exponentially better than the second one. I guess we can only expect so much since the screenplay was written before the writer's strike, but they also didn't clean it up or fix things that needed to be fixed. And, because of that, the movie felt rushed and unprepared with as a many gaping plotholes as swiss cheese. But it's the combnation of the rushed storyline, the gaping plotholes, the cheesy dialogue, the racist robots, and the photography that make this film far below sub-par.

So I'm a relative Michael Bay film. And when I say that, I mean to say that I like to see s**t get blown up, and Michael Bay provides this service. Never have I really expected any big, mindbending story coming out of him (think Armageddon, Pearl Harbor, The Rock). Just simple, dumb stories where lots of explosions happen and lots of people die. Fun times. But I at least assumed that Bay LOOKED at the screenplays before starting to film his movies, but the new Trasnformers movie proved me wrong.

One of the biggest problems I have with the movie is the random jump cuts. And to those who don't understand, let me explain. In one scene, we have the main characters searching for a lost key, and they're entering a tomb (during the day) where they think it might be hidden. In the next shot, Shia LaBeouf and Megan Fox are on top of a scaffold (at night), cuddling. Now, was it too hard to have 10 seconds where one of the characters could say, "Okay, let's bunker down for the night"? Setting up an establishing shot is one of the most important shots of a film, and Michael Bay is completely skipping (numerous times) in order to get to the action faster. And this happens all over the place. In another part, Megatron is holding down Shia's character (Sam), and then the Autobots burst in. The next shot is of Shia, but he's standing up, WITH MEGATRON GONE. Megatron just apparently vanished. What Bay is forgetting is that we can't see everything that's going on, which is why his camera needs to provide the windows for the action. However, we don't see Megatron leave shia, we just see him fighting Optimus Prime, but we don't know how he got there.

Okay, so I kinda got use to all that stuff, although it was pretty easy to make fun of. As for the gaping plotholes, there are just too many things missing in the story to think the film is anywhere near realistic. When Shia reaches college, there's a hot girl who starts hitting on him, and eventually turns into a Decepticon (SPOILER!!!). Yeah, whatever. So, my questions are these: how did she find Shia? Is she even a Decepticon (I assume she is, but you never find out). And, finally, since when could Transformers transform into effing humans? I'm sorry Michael, but you should've gone through this to make sure that it made sense. Becuase it really doesn't. I could go on for awhile about the plotholes, but it's easier just to stop here.

The dialogue is cheesy, but we all could've expected that. After all, we're here for the explosions and destruction, not the dialogue. As for the characters themselves, they all pretty much work. Shia actually does a pretty good job in the leading role. He just needs an action movie where he actually fights the enemy rather than running away. Maybe then I'll actually consider him the action star that Hollywood is so set on making him. As for Megan Fox. Well, she does a decent enough job. But her character is so damn annoying, spending the entire movie whining because her boyfriend won't tell her he loves her. Sorry, b***h, but he's being chased by killer alien robots. Get off his back for a few hours. How about a bj? Sooth the nerves? No? Well, then shut up.

As for robot characters, there's a slightly offensive humorous side to the movie that really isn't expected. That comes in the form of the two ghetto robots and the giant Destructicon that pops up at the end. The two ghetto robots fulfill every possible black stereotype aside from fried chicken. One has a gold tooth, they talk with a ghetto accent, they can't read, etc. I even thought for a moment one of them had a doo rag (sp). As for the Destructicon, he's made up of entirely construction vehicles, and yes, he in fact has two wrecking balls as his testicles. That you get a very vivid shot of. It's quite obvious. And I'd expect it from Family Guy. But, the first Transformers movie is pretty much all about the story (it just has very little, which is why it was easy). The humor in the first movie flows very nicely, but they never resort to semi-offensive or blatantly and unnecessarily sexual. The new one does. And it takes away from the film (as much as it can).

Okay, so I've sort of laid out the groundplan for what's wrong with the movie (and all of this continues for the 2 and half hours that it is). Constant questioning of "how?" or "why?" coupled with unrealistic story. You really need to shut off your brain and avoid all logic or realism to even try to enjoy the movie. Assuming you can. But the biggest thing that's wrong with the movie, and what ended up bringing it downhill in the end, is the rushed writing. Had Michael taken the time to look at the script before filming, it may have turned out pretty good. Maybe they would have changed the story, or the dialogue, or both. But the film was just too rushed that it seemed unfinished and unprepared, and ultimately didn't feel like a full movie.

Now, the Transformers movies are supposed to create a trilogy, so we can only hope that the third one is better than the second (cross your fingers, knock on wood, etc.)

SCORE: 3.5/10

PS The robots are cool.

A Real Mission to Mars?

2009-06-23T11:04:00.000-07:00

Famed astronaut Buzz Aldrin is getting his fingers into space again, and this time the whole "buzz" is about Mars. Apparently, Buzz was pretty depressed after his trip to the moon, and now he's thinking that we should start sending astronauts to Mars, and even start a human colony to Mars.

Honestly, I'm okay with it. The only problem? I'd prefer to see NASA send an inanimate object to Mars without it crashlanding before a human makes the attempt. I have nothing against sending humans to Mars and beyond. In fact, I'm quite into the whole idea, and would like to see NASA pursue the possibility more. It just seems unrealistic that we would be able to make a human colony on Mars a reality within the next ten years or so. If anything, we should focus on getting a colony on the Moon. It'll give us some practice, and it's a helluva a lot closer (think 3 days trip vs. 8 months = one hell of a road trip).

So, how about we say we look at the Moon for the time being, and then focus on Mars later. I'd feel more comfortable with that, considering we've had humans who have landed on the moond. All we've gotten from Mars is a $5 billion land rover crashlanding into the rocky sand. Check out Buzz's comments below.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/space/06/23/aldrin.mars/index.html

Shyamalan's new twist

2009-06-23T07:58:00.000-07:00

The last few movies from M. Night Shyamalan have been sub-par at best (and by last few, I mean since "The Sixth Sense"), and it seems he may have gotten the hint that the whole predictable horror-thriller with a "shocking" twist had worn itself out (unfortunately it took about 7 movies, including an R-rated attempt, to prove this). Now, it seems he's trying his hand at a new genre.

"The Last Airbender," which is based off of the kid's anime cartoon "Avatar," is planned on release for summer of 2010, and it looks as though Shyamalan is finally donning something other than his typical shocker horror. Will it give him new life in cinema? Quite possibly. We can only hope that he's trying something different and learning that making a good movie is different than making a movie with an insane twist (especially when everyone sees it coming). Although, part of me is still expecting the hero to end up being the villain, in some outrageous twist that only Shyamalan can provide. Check out the new trailer below.

Transformers vs. G.I. Joe: The Battle for our Childhood

2009-06-23T06:56:00.000-07:00

As Megan Fox prepares her deliciously curvy body to lead "Transformer: Revenge of the Fallen" into the summer's big blockbuster action movie, we're also drawn to the upcoming "G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra." Here's the difference. With "Transformers," we think "Oh, that'll be fun to see." With "G.I. Joe," it's "Oh, that'll be fun to see and make fun of." Now, what we're supposed to deal with is the fact the Hollywood has an obsession with making movies that exploit our childhood memories. Any kid born in the 80s has learned that the shows and toys they grew up with are now becoming huge Hollywood action movies, and in most cases, are doomed to fail right from the start.

It's unusual that "Transformers" fared so well when it came out, especially since Michael Bay is essentially the ADD director of action movies. Plus, it turned Shia LaBeouf into an action star (even though in all of the biggest action movies he's been in, i.e. "Transformers," "Disturbia," "Indy Jones 5," "Eagle Eye," he's actually RUNNING AWAY from the enemy). However, outside of Transformers, the only childhood memory to have emerged from the film industry successfully was "Clue." Now, since Hollywood is slowly fading out of the sequel and remake phase (although it's far from over) they're focusing their attention on what made us kids.

Think of the upcoming "Where the Wild Things Are" and "Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs." Either my adulthood will fuse with my childhood and make my life complete, or my childhood will be completely repressed from my memory because I can only associate it with mediocre kids movies made 15 years after I was a kid. Or, to briefly discuss boardgames, how about the in-works movie adaptations of "Ouija," "Monopoly," "Candy Land," and "Battleship" (which I really can't imagine anything besides two old people sitting at a table and yelling out "You sunk my battleship!" while their dentures chatter in the glass besides them...[shiver]).

As for "Transformers: RotF" and "G.I. Joe: tRoC," we're faced with the fact that Hollywood is trying to transform our childhood memories into serious pieces of film, while at the same time trying to blow up as much stuff as possible. The only solace we have is that Optimus Prime still has his original voice, and that Megan Fox has a smoking hot body in very little clothing. As far as I'm concerned, "G.I. Joe," lacks both of those. Although, there is Snake Eye. And seeing him fight may be the pinnacle of the film. Just remember: Stephen Sommers, the director, was fired because Paramount received the worst screen testing results EVER. Probably exaggerated, but still pretty brutal. Now I'm afraid of seeing my childhood memories with G.I. Joe action figures crumbling before my eyes. Sigh...

Just look at the pic of Megan Fox to make you feel better.

P.S. I'm expecting a movie on Hungry Hungry hippos. Ving Rhames as the Green Hippo, Queen Latifah as the Pink Hippo, John Goodman as the Blue Hippo, and Jack Black as the Yellow Hippo. Thoughts?

REVIEW: Up

2009-06-23T06:29:00.000-07:00

Another year, another Pixar movie. Last year, in "WALL-E," audiences were brought to a post-apocalyptic world vicarously through Disney, which is apparently inhabited by a sole robot, who spends his days cleaning up the rubble of our destroyed civilization accompanied by his pet cockroach. The opening of the movie is quite reminiscent of "2001: A Space Odyssey" with hardly a trace of dialogue. The film also manages to create an endearing and intelligent story with two characters who pretty much spew each others' names every time something happens. Nonetheless, it wowed audiences (as every Pixar movie has done to-date).

Now, a year after "WALL-E," Pixar releases their second movie based on humans (the other being "The Incredibles"). I'm not sure if it's intriguing or disappointing that Pixar tends to focus more on inanimate objets as main characters instead ofh umans, but it does make a good sales for the children. However, they decided to opt out of their inanimate object drama to focus on what we can sympathizer with a bit more: a real human. In "The Incredibles," Pixar took out some of the funny for some action, creating the only PG-rated Pixar movie until "Up." In "Up," some of the funny is also taken out, but this time it's replaced with realistic drama and adventure.

The first five minutes of the movie presents us with some of the high drama that Pixar is deciding to handle, as a montage of the main character's life fast forwards to present day, and his present predicament. Within five minutes of the movie, we are presented with innocent youth, family issues, love, lost love, urban renewal, and dealing with being part of a dying generation. Needless to say, this movie starts off as the heaviest Pixar movie to-date. But because of this, it may be perhaps the best one that Pixar has released.

The film is, for all intents and purposes, a coming of age story. The only catch: the main character is well into old age. Dreaming of being an adventurer early in his lifie, he got caught up in young love and spent the rest of his life with his wife, dreaming of adventuring, but preferring to stay at home with the love of his life. Cute? Absolutely. Realistic? Most likely; not many people go traveling off to a secret, forbidden area of South America just because they want to. Now living alone in old age, Karl Frederickson ends up leaving home (and we've all seen the trailers and commericals of him sailng away in his house). So what makes this a coming of age story? Karl is never looking for an adventure. He goes off in the hopes of finding this secret area of South America, but he never dreams of reaching it. Not only that, but the side characters presented in the story that aid Karl provide more than just a side story for him. The enduring youth, Russel, as well as Dug the dog, and the wonderfull bright foreign female bird, Kevin, help Karal realize the things about him he's missed since his wife died so many years ago.

The context of this personal drama is present amongst a fun and wonderful adventure story, full of wild villains not seen since Disney's heydey back in the 90s. What makes this movie so fun and enjoyable is how easily Pixar is able to meld the personal dramas of each individual person (or creature/animal) and fuse them together to make a stunningly realistic fantasy adventure. Even with all of its wild colors, "Up" is most definitely Pixar's darkest movie (even taking into account the post-apocalyptic nature of "WALL-E"). Why? Because the villain will stop at nothing to get what he wants (including killing animals and children), he has a pack of ravenous dogs that bow to his every whim, and the human characters add a sense of sympathy that is usually missing from Pixar movies (it's hard to sympathize with a toy, insect, car, robot, fish, rat, etc.)

However, even will all of this personal drama, Pixar is still able to make the movie extremely funny. Some moments are laugh-out-loud funny, while other moments are so subtle it's hard to notice them on the first watch. The movie shifts so seamlessly between drama and humo it's hard to say that it's still a Pixar movie. It's such a departure from their previous movies that it feels as thought it's na 80s or 90s Disney film (which is always a compliment...just don't touch the 00s).

Overall, the entire movie is enjoyable, even if it isn't as laughable as Pixar's previous films. However, it's their most personal and dramatic, and absolutely a must-see. Just be prepared for a rather dark kid's movie

Score: 9.5/10