"Up"*** 1\2 (out of ****)
When I was younger I wasn't much of a fan of animation. Even as a young child animation never really caught my attention. Of course, just like any child, I knew who Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse were but I preferred to watch live action movies particularly from the 1920s-1940s. I was a big fan of silent comedy but also liked musicals and dramas.
I remember when the first Pixar film was released "Toy Story" (1995). I wasn't a big fan of the movie. At that time I still wasn't a fan of animation. It wasn't until I got much older, into my late teens I started to watch animated films. After watching "Toy Story 2" (1999) I became a fan. Though of course it was aimed at children I felt the movie also had an adult appeal with some of the jokes. Then I started to watch Pixar movies but only Pixar. Eventually I became aware of the great Japanese animator Hayao Miyazaki. His work really impressed me.
Miyazaki's work, unlike Disney I would argue, was much more adult. The characters faced larger dilemma's. They were part of our world. Disney was cute, Miyazaki seemed real. He has made two of the greatest animated films I have ever seen; "Spirited Away" (2002) and "Howl's Moving Castle" (2005), probably my all time favorite.
I've also just attributed this interest in animation at this point in my life as my way of going back to my childhood. To sort of make up for time lost. But I've started to shift away from animation again. I still see the Pixar movies but no longer with the excitement I once did. Now I'll wait for video. Ever since "Finding Nemo" (2003) Pixar hasn't made anything which really caught my attention. I've seen their last two movies "Ratatouille" (2007) and "WALL.E" (2008) but didn't like them as much as the public or critics did. They were OK. They didn't deserve all the attention which was thrown at them. And then came "Up" (2009).
I really didn't want to see "Up", but after reading all the great reviews, as is usual for a Pixar film, something about it caught my attention. I was now looking forward to it.
"Up" focuses on Carl Fredericksen (voiced by Ed Asner). Carl is now 78 years old. He has lived a good life but of course has felt unhappiness. His beloved wife, Ellie (voiced by Elie Docter when she was young) has passed away after many years of marriage. They were childhood friends who both looked up to famous explorer Charles Muntz (Christopher Plummer). Together they planned on going on their own adventures. One day they would have liked to live where Muntz made his reputation, Paradise Falls. But after Elie's death, so went Carl's joy for living.
After watching the first half hour of "Up" I was ready to call it a masterpiece. Maybe even the best movie of the year. There is a montage early in the film, showing Carl and Ellie over the years. Their marriage, their sad discovery that Ellie can't have children to them growing old and eventually her death. It is the most touching, heartfelt sequence I have seen all year. I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I had to fight back a tear.
For some reason I've always been able to relate to older characters in movies well pasted the prime of their lives. Whether it is Isak Borg in Bergman's "Wild Strawberries" (1957), Andrew Crocker-Harris in Anthony Asquith's "The Browning Version" (1951) or Carl in "Up". I can understand the disappointment in growing older in realizing life has not worked out the way you expect. Unfulfilled dreams, faded hopes and faded memories. It is the stuff of great tragedy and what personally touches my heart most.
I was able to relate to Carl at the beginning of "Up". It seemed to be a story about growing older. About wanting to achieve old goals. Wanting to be young again, to have a second chance at life. In our current state, society has little respect for tradition. We no longer have a core set of values. We have no interest in the past. Everything must be new. We are a "modern" people. The past is for the dead. Carl sadly has no place in this world. People are waiting for him to go away. And I mean that literally. A construction company is waiting to buy Carl's house. It is the only thing standing in their way.
After a misunderstanding Carl is ordered by the courts to give up his house and move into a retirement home. But Carl's remembers the promise he had to Ellie. They were going to go to Paradise Falls. So Carl decides to attach several hundred balloons to his home and float away. Unfortunately what Carl doesn't realize is a young boy scout, Russel (Jordan Nagai) was on his porch at the time and now Carl must bring him along for the adventure.
At this point "Up" was starting to lose me. Once they land in Paradise Falls, an adventure begins. They are caught in a trap of a hunter trying to catch a rare bird.
"Up" actually shares a few things in common with the work of Miyazaki. It deals with flying and has a small boy along on the adventure.
But "Up" turns into a different film than what I was expecting. I was hoping for an "Around the World in 80 Days" kind of film. With Carl and Russell going from place to place as they reach their destination with Carl discovering the passion of life he hasn't felt since Ellie's death. But "Up" isn't that movie. It has a similar message but goes about it in a much different way. I still prefer my way but in this film the message is we cannot hold on to the past. We must go on so we can find new adventures. Life in itself is an adventure and we shouldn't let it pass us by. Thrill in every moment. Look around you.
It is a sweet message and is quite common in a Pixar film; simply follow your heart and dreams. But "Up" is a very emotional film. I've never forget that first half hour and how I felt. I would say "Up" is my third favorite Pixar film behind "Toy Story 2" and "Finding Nemo".
There are however a few things I don't like. The Dug character (voiced by Bob Peterson, one of the film's directors) is a talking dog, which quite honestly got on my nerves. But he draws some of the biggest laughs I heard from the children in the audience.
And speaking of children that leads me to another point. I don't know if children will understand all of the film's implications. Will they understand that Ellie cannot have children? The montage I spoke of is silent. So the parents will have to explain it. Children also may not be as moved as I was by the montage.
Still "Up" is a film I'm glad I saw. It actually gave me a different outlook on life. Only the best films do that.
EASY VIRTUE ** 1\2 (out of ****)
At first Stephan Elliott's adaptation of Noel Coward's play seemed to be the kind of film made for people like me. A good old-fashion comedy of manners with a pleasant film score, the credits are done to the tune of Coward's "Mad About the Boy", and nice visual eye candy in this 1920s setting.
I like the 1920s. I wasn't born during that time but as I have explained already in my "Up" review, I grew up on those movies. So I understand the period quite well.
"Easy Virtue" which was filmmed before in 1928 by Alfred Hitchcock, I have seen that movie, starts off promising. The silent version doesn't work as well. Coward had a wonderful wit to him. He was a very clever man. Nicknamed "the wonder boy" Coward did many things but did them all exceptionally well. A singer, songwriter, playwright, actor, painter, director and TV personality he was a true master. I've been a very big Noel Coward fan for many years. Mostly of his songs, he is often compared to Cole Porter. But I would also eagerly watch film adaptations of his plays.
This new version of "Easy Virtue" (2009) in the end doesn't work. The material has been changed to the point that it becomes typical sit-com material. None of the characters seem real. The situations seem trite and predictable. The film is a waste of the talent involved. Kristen Scott Thomas, who just came off such praise last year for her performance in "I've Loved You So Long" has nothing to work with. Her character is the cliched mean mother-in-law. Only Colin Firth, as her husband, seems like a real person. We don't get much information about him but what we do discover is he is the only character that has any life in him. He has loved, felt pain and desires to live again. He has a soul. He fought in the great war and has seen men died. We sense he and his wife are in a loveless marriage.
The plot for the film has Ben Whittaker (Ben Barnes) marry an American race car driver, Larita Whittaker (Jessica Biel). They arrive together to drop the bomb on Ben's parents (Thomas and Firth) and his sisters; Hilda (Kimberly Nixon) and Marion (Katherine Parkinson). The family is played as the cliche stuck up British family. They all, except the father, disapprove of Larita. She is American after all and we all know all Americans are loud and vulgar. She simply wouldn't be suitable for the Whittakers and their British ways.
This set-up actually sounds similar to Coward's "Relative Values" which was made into a film as recently as 2000 with Firth again and Julie Andrews.
One thing the film does that I simply hate when movies set in a time period does is screw up the music. Only Woody Allen ever seems to get this right. One of the daughters reads in the paper that the famous Hungarian magician Harry Houdini has died. Houdini died in 1926, meaning that is the setting when the story takes place. Every song in this movie was written after 1926.I remember hearing four Noel Coward songs; "Mad About the Boy" (written for the play Words & Music in 1932), "I'll See You Again" (written for the play Bitter Sweet in 1929, which was made into two films), "Mad Dogs & Englishmen" (written for The Third Little Show in 1931) and "A Room With A View" (written for This Year of Grace in 1928). Other songs heard are by Cole Porter, another one of my favorite composers, probably my favorite. And his songs are out of the time period as well. Directors need to learn I'll be in the audience and I know about these things. They better stop it! I'll point it out every time I notice it. They should hire people to correct these things. Perhaps I'll have to volunteer my services.
Regardless, using the wrong music is the least of this film's problems. Better characters were strongly needed. These are not real people on-screen. They have no soul beyond the page. It isn't even a passable diversion. That is a shame. I was so looking forward to this and it couldn't live up to any of its promise.
Posts
