Up Review

No time to blog properly today, but I didn’t want you few dedicated readers to feel neglected, so here’s a review of “Up” that I wrote for Issue 31 of Pugwash News:

Disney-Pixar films are something that I always anticipate highly, with the first trailers a year or more in advance showing great promise and inspiring speculation; and most of them live up to the gradual hype that surrounds them. I’ve seen every one in the cinema - no waiting apathetically for the DVD release here. So, when I went to see Wall-E with my sister and the teaser for Up was played, we both knew we couldn’t wait to see it. Her first visit to Portsmouth last weekend was a perfect opportunity to hit the cinema, pig out on popcorn, and see what all the fuss was about.

And I liked it. It was hilarious. But it didn’t quite meet my expectations. Firstly, it failed to inspire me visually as much as, for example, Cars or Wall-E had done in the past. Granted, it was the first time I’d seen it so I was focussing on the story, but the characters were blocky and awkwardly designed and the backgrounds were bog standard. The animation is clever, detailed and pretty, but it’s very obviously a cartoon, and it’s not stunning - at least not on the surface to the untrained eye. Pixar can do better, and I don’t know why they didn’t.

As for the story - well that didn’t meet my high standards either if I’m honest. Maybe it’s because I really couldn’t get past the illogical physics of the whole thing (an old man flies his house to South America by attaching it to thousands of helium balloons, and then spends the rest of the film dragging it along behind him...) Or maybe it was the fact that they had typical ‘bad guy’ dogs of a Rottweiler, a Doberman and a Bulldog, which is a massive pet peeve of mine (pardon the pun) and that bothered me every time they appeared. But for whatever reason, I couldn’t get as behind the story or the writing as much as I would have liked to. It started out promisingly, seemingly building to a spectacular climax, then it sort of, well, deflated.

This is the production company that brought us the likes of Buzz Lightyear, Mike Wazowski and Dory; but while Russell was endearingly chubby and eager and Carl was curmudgeonly and adventurous, I just couldn’t love them. They were funny and served their purpose, but I won’t be running to MacDonald’s for the free cuddly toy in the happy meal, if you know what I mean. (And I was astonished at just how fit a seemingly very elderly character was at times!) Meanwhile, the daft multi-coloured bird was amusing, but I couldn’t relate to why everyone made such a big effort to protect him.

The one exception to all this negativity is Dug, the literal shaggy dog character, who made the film for me. Whichever geniuses wrote his dialogue and animated his movements both got it spot on perfect in my humble opinion. He IS a Golden Retriever; a bit dim but well meaning, keen in every single thing he does, bouncy, bright and brave and totally devoted to making his masters happy. He’s the best canine character I’ve seen on the screen since Pongo and Shadow, and the people responsible clearly did their research and spent a lot of time around dogs while developing him. If only they were aware of the distance between small town USA and the heart of South America, and just how many balloons it would actually take to lift a house...

Don’t get me wrong - it’s a good film. It’s got an interesting plot, side-splitting humour both clever and slapstick-y and a heart warming depiction of an old man trying to finally live his dreams. If it were Dreamworks I would be giving it rave reviews. But I expect certain things from the Pixar studios, and I didn’t get them. I’m disappointed, and am now waiting for Toy Story 3...