Originally Posted By Dabob2 If they can cook dinner and pick out just the right Bordeaux, they can take themselves for a walk a little ways away.
Originally Posted By crazycroc I think Carl and his wife would have been wise to listen to some Dave Ramsey. It would have taught them how to meet their financial goals. I'm sorry, I"m still stuck on the trying to take a rainbow falls vacation on a balloon vendor's salary.
Originally Posted By MissCandice This is completely off-topic but I would just like to say I strongly dislike The Goonies. Loved UP though!
Originally Posted By basil fan The dogs know you dig the hole first. Disney Role-Playing <a href="http://disneyglobe.proboards.com" target="_blank">http://disneyglobe.proboards.com</a>
Originally Posted By mawnck >>...the movie jumped the shark when the house got caught in the storm and started being knocked around so violently.<< >>Why, exactly?<< Cause that's when the credibility started getting stretched. Remember, I was having a problem with this elderly man being so indestructible. No way he came through that without getting injured. >>We've already established that Carl can break his arm...<< >>As a child...<< But not as an 80-year-old dude. Sorry, no sale. >>Russell can get hurt once if a gag calls for it but heals up instantly.<< >>It was a little welt that went away.<< ... right across his eye and covering half his face. It disappeared completely in about 4 seconds. >>I don't recall Muntz having lunch with Teddy Roosevelt. TR was President before World War I. Muntz's era is clearly the 1930s (era of air travel, filmed newsreels, Carl's childhood). Franklin D. Roosevelt was President then. I'm only sayin'...<< Nope, you're wrong on this one. Go see it again. Muntz told Carl about having lunch (or maybe it was dinner) with TR. Which makes him a minimum of 108 years old. This review mentions it too: <a href="http://mayersononanimation.blogspot.com/2009/05/up.html" target="_blank">http://mayersononanimation.blo.../up.html</a> And the fountain of youth story explains a lot, but since it didn't make it into the movie, the movie doesn't get any points for it. >>>>If a character takes a ridiculous beating and doesn't get the least bit hurt...<< But the characters did get hurt, and did get fatigued. There's even a major gag that works only because of this.<< What, the throwing their backs out thing? There was no point in the movie that better demonstrated what I'm talking about. These guys are unstoppable until we need a gag, then we pretend for a few seconds that they really are old guys again. Feh. >>(It's like asking how Santa, as magical as he may be, can climb up and down all those chimneys in one night!)<< Santa did the balloons!
Originally Posted By lady_tramp I have to start out by saying I LOVED this movie; it moved me more consistently than any other Disney-Pixar effort in the last decade. That's probably because my mother died in 2005 and my father eighteen months later, so UP's motifs of loss and grief really resonated with me. I didn't have any problems with what others see as "plot holes." To me, Paradise Falls was just what its name implied... Paradise. I kinda viewed it like the island in Lost ... a place with its own history and its own "rules." And a place that might not always be what it seems. To me, Kevin is the key. She is the eptiome of playfulness and self-abandonment (reflected in her musical theme), which is why I think Muntz could never find her and why she was so drawn to the youthful Russell. Protecting that playfulness and self-abandonment causes Dug to switch allegiances and Carl to rediscover joy in life. I think the climax in the film comes when Carl shouts, "I DIDN'T ASK FOR ANY OF THIS!" That's one of the most poignant lines in the movie. Life hasn't been fair. Maybe I'm looking for more than what's there, but I found UP's overall theme to be that we can only really soar when we let go of the things that weigh us down ... for Carl, it is loss and grief and the guilt of not being able to keep his promise to Ellie ... for Muntz, it is resentment at being laughed at and his homicidal need for control and vindication ... for Russell, it is the need to earn the scouting badge so he can make his dad proud (as well as perhaps the fear/guilt that he caused his parents' separation) ... and for Dug, it's low self-esteem. They all learn to let go and as a result they soar ... except for Muntz who keeps his bitterness to the end ... and appropriately is dragged down to his demise. That's my take on it, at any rate. Did I mention I LOVE this movie?
Originally Posted By dizkid With all of the sad moments and bits of violence I have come up with a good pun. The best of movies break you down before they bring you "Up!" Sincerely, The kid of diz
Originally Posted By basil fan Y'know, moping around and feeling sorry for yourself is a sure way to be old before your time. I know someone just like that, but when he suddenly found himself a grandfather, he turned (figuratively speaking) thirty years younger. Also, my Mom is 76 this year, and she can work harder than any of the teen-agers at my job. She could drag that flying house on a rope all over South America, and I'm not exaggerating. Did anybody but me get an Arthur Conan Doyle feeling when seeing that plateau? The tiny spire of rock next to it gave me such a Lost World feeling... So You Wanna Be a Collector... <a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/disney/collector.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/...tor.html</a>
Originally Posted By basil fan After seeing Up for the second time, I'd just like to point out a couple of things. Carl doesn't get bumped around or messed up at all during the storm. He runs around trying to save his stuff, but nothing hits him, nor does he slam into anything. After he's tied everything securely down, he falls asleep. It's plainly shown more than once that Carl is not infirm. Only boredom and loneliness make him feel feeble. As soon as he starts the adventure, he doesn't need the cane at all. Also, it was easier to accept the loss of Carl's house when I realized something that slipped past me the first time: he now gets to live in the blimp. It's a dream come true for Carl, so that makes the rest okay. Sherlock Holmes <a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/sherlock/less.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/...ess.html</a>
Originally Posted By Anatole69 OK I finally saw this and I know I am going against the common opinion, but I really didn't like it. It had a tremendous amount of creativity and imagination to it, the world it presented was fully realized, it had tropes that had never been seen before, in other words it was a quality film. My beef with it was in the storytelling, too much contrivance to move the plot forward. I am not a fan of Peter Doctor's storytelling instincts. I think he is a better gag man than storyteller. Some of the jokes and one liners are really funny, but he relies on thin storytelling to move the plot forward. Like when Carl hits the construction worker in the head, making it bloody enough that the police are called... which of course results in him losing the house and forcing his exodous to South America. It felt like something the plot maker needed to happen to advance the story, and not something that really would happen if the characters were acting of their own accord. Anyways I don't expect most people to agree with me on this one, just as I felt Ratatouille was a weak movie for similar storytelling deficiencies. - Anatole
