![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tealinOne of the many perks of working at Disney is advance screenings of Pixar films!
I was going to wait until a more general release but the movie is rapidly slipping from my mind so I thought I should write this down before it was gone completely...
No spoilers, but it might influence your viewing:
Okay, I'm sure this is going to be a big hit and everyone's going to love it – consensus after the screening I went to was generally positive, as far as I could gather, and that was from fairly critical people. But it didn't do much for me. There isn't really anything I can point to to say why, but it just felt mildly diverting for an hour and a half, and then it was over. Despite persistently tearing up whenever anything had to do with Ellie, I was never really invested in it, an odd paradox I still can't explain. Overall there were a lot of good ideas but they were either not thought through or not incorporated/utilized to the extent they could have been ... I have been so spoiled on Pratchett. Again, the characters had exactly enough development to service the plot, but if I were given a writing assignment with them I wouldn't know where to go, past 'grumpy old man,' 'enthusiastic but naive boy,' and 'bitter villain.' There were little logic gaps and continuity problems that probably wouldn't have bugged me if the movie had been more fun, but in failing to sweep me up it left me to think too much. There were a number of things that I wouldn't have had trouble believing if the world had been set up as more fantastic in the first place, but which really bothered me the way it was. I keep wanting to compare it to Laputa/Castle in the Sky on that regard but I don't really know how to pin it down. It felt to me as though a lot of the gags were cheap and/or overwrought, and there was so much talking (though the talking may have been more annoying than usual because the speakers in the theatre were turned up so loud). Then, finally, the movie realized it was an adventure movie and it was FUN for a little bit without having to stop and explain everything, but that inevitably ended and we were back to ... being cute. The whole thing just seemed to kind of lack focus and drive, and everything was so deliberately spoonfed to me that I don't feel like I'd get anything out of watching it again (except maybe to jot down specific grievances).
The animation was spectacular, though. I think my favourite thing about it was how the bird looked and moved and felt like a bird; it wasn't anthropomorphised at all. It used bird body language, even keeping that bird-like blind stare in its eyes, but was still perfectly intelligible. The dogs were very doggy too, even though I wasn't too crazy about their rigging at first. Humans were great, of course, though they seem to be getting into a bit of a rut with female character designs and the way they do mouths. They're great mouths, don't get me wrong, but it might not hurt to explore different ways of doing things. You're Pixar, that's practically your job. Art direction was much of a muchness, very pastelly and ... tame ... there were a couple neat shots but generally it felt ... very ... Pixar. The 3D was probably the best 3D I've seen in a CG movie (not that I've seen much); it wasn't in-your-face (I forgot it was in 3D after a while) but it made for some nice atmospheric flying shots tinged with panic at being up so high.
The fact it was rated PG came up in Frog dailies one day, which led to amusing speculation on what contents of our movie could get us a PG. The official word is that Up is rated PG for 'some peril and action' (meaning, basically, 'stuff happens'). It didn't feel any more dangerous than, say, Finding Nemo, which somehow got a G despite sharks, exploding sea mines, near-death-by-jellyfish, child endangerment, and a score by Thomas Newman. Perhaps this is because there were humans involved? My cynical theory is that Up actually got tipped over into PG because there is BLOOD in it. Just a little bit, but it is definitely blood. The ratings board doesn't like the blood.
Having said all that and possibly lowered your expectations, you will now enjoy the movie even more! You're welcome.
I was going to wait until a more general release but the movie is rapidly slipping from my mind so I thought I should write this down before it was gone completely...
No spoilers, but it might influence your viewing:
Okay, I'm sure this is going to be a big hit and everyone's going to love it – consensus after the screening I went to was generally positive, as far as I could gather, and that was from fairly critical people. But it didn't do much for me. There isn't really anything I can point to to say why, but it just felt mildly diverting for an hour and a half, and then it was over. Despite persistently tearing up whenever anything had to do with Ellie, I was never really invested in it, an odd paradox I still can't explain. Overall there were a lot of good ideas but they were either not thought through or not incorporated/utilized to the extent they could have been ... I have been so spoiled on Pratchett. Again, the characters had exactly enough development to service the plot, but if I were given a writing assignment with them I wouldn't know where to go, past 'grumpy old man,' 'enthusiastic but naive boy,' and 'bitter villain.' There were little logic gaps and continuity problems that probably wouldn't have bugged me if the movie had been more fun, but in failing to sweep me up it left me to think too much. There were a number of things that I wouldn't have had trouble believing if the world had been set up as more fantastic in the first place, but which really bothered me the way it was. I keep wanting to compare it to Laputa/Castle in the Sky on that regard but I don't really know how to pin it down. It felt to me as though a lot of the gags were cheap and/or overwrought, and there was so much talking (though the talking may have been more annoying than usual because the speakers in the theatre were turned up so loud). Then, finally, the movie realized it was an adventure movie and it was FUN for a little bit without having to stop and explain everything, but that inevitably ended and we were back to ... being cute. The whole thing just seemed to kind of lack focus and drive, and everything was so deliberately spoonfed to me that I don't feel like I'd get anything out of watching it again (except maybe to jot down specific grievances).
The animation was spectacular, though. I think my favourite thing about it was how the bird looked and moved and felt like a bird; it wasn't anthropomorphised at all. It used bird body language, even keeping that bird-like blind stare in its eyes, but was still perfectly intelligible. The dogs were very doggy too, even though I wasn't too crazy about their rigging at first. Humans were great, of course, though they seem to be getting into a bit of a rut with female character designs and the way they do mouths. They're great mouths, don't get me wrong, but it might not hurt to explore different ways of doing things. You're Pixar, that's practically your job. Art direction was much of a muchness, very pastelly and ... tame ... there were a couple neat shots but generally it felt ... very ... Pixar. The 3D was probably the best 3D I've seen in a CG movie (not that I've seen much); it wasn't in-your-face (I forgot it was in 3D after a while) but it made for some nice atmospheric flying shots tinged with panic at being up so high.
The fact it was rated PG came up in Frog dailies one day, which led to amusing speculation on what contents of our movie could get us a PG. The official word is that Up is rated PG for 'some peril and action' (meaning, basically, 'stuff happens'). It didn't feel any more dangerous than, say, Finding Nemo, which somehow got a G despite sharks, exploding sea mines, near-death-by-jellyfish, child endangerment, and a score by Thomas Newman. Perhaps this is because there were humans involved? My cynical theory is that Up actually got tipped over into PG because there is BLOOD in it. Just a little bit, but it is definitely blood. The ratings board doesn't like the blood.
Having said all that and possibly lowered your expectations, you will now enjoy the movie even more! You're welcome.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-05-17 05:53 pm (UTC)1. Animal blood, again
2. The fish don't have noses, nor is there any visible wound from which the blood is, well, bleeding. It's just >poof< magic blood! We know what happened because it's pretty clearly implied and anthropomorphise the fish enough that we can apply human experience to their actions, but ratings appear to be designated by Auditors who are absolutely incapable of reading between the lines.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-17 10:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-17 10:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-17 10:46 pm (UTC)