This is a review of the 2D version of the film. I have yet to see the 3D version, but the movie will look very impressive I’m sure in either format.

Pixar has done it yet again! They have delivered another great piece of entertainment with their latest film, “Up.” While it is not quite the masterpiece that last year’s “Wall-E” was, it is heads and tails above just about any other movie that has come out so far in 2009. It is also one of the few movies of this summer season so far (“Star Trek” being the other) that made me smile as I walked out of the theater. Pixar continues to amaze not just with what they come up with visually, but in terms of story and characters as well. Other studios would do themselves and moviegoers a big favor by looking at the Pixar formula so that they could make something that is much more than just a product.

“Up” follows the character of Carl Fredricksen from when he was a young boy to the present where is a 78-year old senior citizen. We first see Carl as a child completely idolizing the adventurer Charles Muntz (voiced by Christopher Plummer), and he runs around the neighborhood with his helmet and goggles, lost in his own fantasies. During his neighborhood explorations, he ends running into a girl his age named Ellie who shares the same passions he does, and they soon become the best of friends. This leads to a truly amazing 10-minute sequence that is silent except for Michael Giacchino’s fantastic score as we watch as Carl and Ellie grow old together. Each image tells an amazing story that makes these characters seem all the more real to us, and they are infinitely fascinating as they allow us to experience the happiness and sadness of each character. It is the best piece filmmaking that I have seen in any movie so far this year, and it has been a fairly lackluster year so far.

After that sequence concludes, we catch up with Carl who is now a widower and grumpy as ever. With Ellie gone, Carl spends his days in the house the two of them bought together, and it is now the only symbol of the past as the modern age of construction lays waste to what his neighborhood once was. Carl’s house is next on the demolition derby list, and he ends up inadvertently putting himself on the path to a retirement community, something we look forward to as much as paying our taxes. But Carl ends up pulling a big trick on everyone as he has attached hundreds upon hundreds of helium filled balloons to his home, and they succeed in lifting the his house into the air and away to the adventure he and his late wife always wanted to experience. His destination? South America!

I actually wondered about that flying house in terms of the complications that would soon arise. What if Carl had to go to the bathroom? With this home no longer tied to a septic system, it would be advisable for people staring at the house as it flies by them to have an umbrella handy. A really really big umbrella! Because if Carl really took the time to “drop the kids in the pool,” surely some people would have been unfortunate targets whenever and wherever he would have done his business. Anyway, that’s just a thought I had.

But then an even bigger complication comes when Carl, his house already high up in the air, gets an unexpected knock at the door. It turns out that a young boy, an overeager Wilderness Explorer named Russell, has accidentally stowed away on the house that no mere mortgage can now contain. Carl tries to forget the little boy is there, but it is clear that he will end up having no choice but to let him inside. From there, the two of them go on adventure like no other I have seen in a long time, if ever.

“Up” functions as both a road movie as well as an odd couple story. The idea of a 78 year old octogenarian teaming up with a 7 or 8 year old boy was genius, and it makes for one of the most original pairings that I have ever withnessed at the movies. In a lot of ways, Carl could be seen as the animated version of Clint Eastwood’s character from “Gran Torino,” but who is thankfully not a racist. I loved the fact that the movie embraced an older character as Hollywood has always been ridiculously youth obsessed and continues to be. I’m sure Pixar got a lot of pressure to come up with a younger character, but I’m so glad that they didn’t. There is no reason why this character wouldn’t appeal to not only kids, but adults as well. This is proof that we need to give older actors their due. Paying attention Hollywood??

The casting of Ed Asner as the voice of Carl Fredricksen shows how Pixar doesn’t just go with big names just because of their bankability. Time after time, they always seem to find the right actors for each of their movies, and this one is no exception. Ed Asner, perhaps best known for his role on the TV show “Lou Grant,” brings a wonderful humanity to this character that more than compliments the incredible animation that captures his every facial expression. Carl could have been a stereotypical grumpy old man, but Asner’s work here (along with that amazing prologue) makes him sympathetic throughout as well as someone you root for. We know that the pain he suffers now fuels his hopes and dreams that he wanted to experience with Ellie, and Ed makes us want to see Carl succeed achieving his dreams of adventure.

The character of Russell, the Wilderness Explorer who is desperately trying to obtain his “Assisting the Elderly” badge, could have been horrendously annoying like a lot of kids I saw this movie with (they could have been worse actually). But Russell turns out to be an a very engaging character, so sincere in his efforts, and who also wants to explore adventures that would mean more if his father were a part of it. Coming from a fractured family makes Russell all the more realistic to the film’s intended audience (that would be everybody), and he thankfully does not have a high pitched voiced like all those crazy characters from Saturday morning cartoons these days. Russell is voiced by Jordan Nagai, and he has not done any movies before this one. Talk about a natural!

The great Christopher Plummer is also on hand to play his favorite kind of role: the villain. His character of the great explorer Charles Munz is a man corrupted by greed and his own delusions of grandeur. They end up becoming so great that he has exiled himself from all other humans. Muntz’s only real companions are the various dogs he has to protect him. Plummer gives the movie its strongest antagonist while also giving it some dimension you wouldn’t expect to see in a movie like this.

“Up” also features some lovable characters that are bound to sell a lot of stuffed animals. Heck, I might even buy one (yes, I am that kind of adult). One of the most memorable is Dug, a Golden Retriever voiced by the movie’s co-director Bob Peterson. Along with a dog collar that allows him to talk, Dug is really the movie’s comic highlight, and he acts the way you would expect a dog like him to act. So attentive to his master’s needs, Dug is a fantastic creation whose only chief distraction is an approaching squirrel (balls of different kinds affect his attention span too).

“Up” was directed by Pete Docter (and co-directed by Bob Peterson) who also directed one of my all time favorite Pixar movies, “Monsters, Inc.” On top of the incredible digital animation on display here, Pete takes a conventional story and keeps pulling the rug out from under us. There is one surprise after another in “Up,” and I am not about to spoil them for you in this review. Pete also gives us a movie that is as exciting as it is heartwarming. Just when you think you know where the story is going or what is going to happen, Docter pulls the rug out from under you.

This is not your typical animated universe where Wile E. Coyote can keep falling from obscenely great heights and impossibly survive them to pursue the Road Runner one more time. Pete makes you feel the danger these characters get themselves into, and of the incredible heights Carl and Russell travel to in the floating house. “Up” may exist in a heightened reality, but there is still an element of reality to it in the situations and the way the characters interact with each other.

But what I love most about “Up” most (as well as all the other Pixar movies) is the wealth of imagination that is on display. In a time where movie studios rely heavily on the same formulaic crap, Pixar dares to challenge itself with different stories and characters, and they keep taking risks they didn’t take previously. This is a studio that dares to make really great movies as opposed to just making a product (DreamWorks Animation should learn from this). That is one of the reasons why their movies reach such a wide audience; there is so much for both children and adults to take in. While other movies seriously lack creativity, Pixar continues to come up with it in spades, and “Up” is the latest example of that.

We are now halfway through 2009, and the fact that “Up” can and should be considered one of the year’s best films should give one idea of how weak a year it has been so far for motion pictures. “Up,” like many a Pixar feature before it, raises the bar high for all kinds of films, and it will be interesting to see if any of them can compare with this one. Hopefully, movies will get better and better before the year’s end.

Additional note: I saw this movie in the same theater (the AMC in Century City) where I saw “Wall-E.” For those of you who remember my review of it, I talked about those kids who were standing right over my shoulder and of how they wouldn’t shut up. While watching “Up,” I was happy to see that the parents were doing a better job in controlling their children. I guess I was a little more prepared this time to deal with those young cretins who are so very inquisitive to the point where they seem like cell phones people forgot to turn off. At the very least, none of these kids were hanging over my shoulder (thank god).

**** out of ****

“Ratatouille”
2007
**** out of ****
Director: Brad Bird
Cast: Patton Oswald, Ian Holm, Lou Romano


Last time I saw a movie that made me stand up and cheer was “V For Vendetta.” It was a full year and a quarter after that I had the pleasure of seeing “Ratatouille.” Looking back, I kind of feel like a douchebag when I wrote a column on my MySpace blog last Summer that was called “Summer 007 – The Ones Everyone Will See and the Ones That I Will Hate.” I was still mad over “Cars,” which was bland and mediocre to say the least. But I failed to look at one name in the credits before writing that very article…

His name is Brad Bird.

Bird was originally a consultant of the hit animated sitcom “The Simpsons” before coming to the film industry. After that, he did “The Iron Giant,” or the movie that I still haven’t gotten around to see. Five years later, he put out the very Pixar film that owned you and everyone around you – “The Incredibles.” It had EVERYTHING – superheroes that we all wanted to be, villains that were threatening for once, and Samuel L. Jackson. It is still one of the best animated movies that I’ve seen since “South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut.”

His next project was a movie called “Ratatouille,” an animated Pixar film that takes on the risky subject of a rat working on food in the kitchen. Lord knows how much rats make one frightened, but I can’t begin to say how much one of my biggest fears are to eat a bowl of pasta with a rat walking out with a little bit of sauce on the cheek of it’s ass-crack. I said “Ratatouille” couldn’t be done, and Bird proved me wrong. I have nothing to say but nice work… oh, and everything else in the review.

Remy the Rat (Patton Oswald) has a keen sense of smell, unlike the other rats. Most rats would dig through trash and be pleased with it, but Remy likes the taste of a good meal. His hero is Gusteau (Brad Garrett), a professional chef who owns his own restaurant in the heart of Paris. Gusteau’s famous line, “Anyone Can Cook,” helps Remy understand what he wants to be – a professional chef. There’s only one problem – he’s in the middle of country-lands where there is a gun-swinging old lady who will blow fucking heads off. Did I just use the f-word in a review for a children’s movie? Shame on me…

Anyway, Remy’s dream kind of comes true when he is separated by his family during a flood. He ends up in the sewers located in Paris, and walks right through the door of his hero’s restaurant. Apparently, Gusteau died after reading a review by the vicious food critic Anton Ego (Peter O’Toole). The restaurant, now ran by Skinner (Ian Holm), has been going through the shits. Skinner is doing frozen dinner meals and it seems like that none of the cooks are in positive moods anymore. Linguini (Lou Romano) comes walking in one day with a note saying asking for work. And he gets work, but as a janitor. When Remy messes around with some spices, Linguini receives the credit and is now works as a chef. But when Ego finds out about this, he comes knocking on the door, asking for some food.

We watch Remy and Linguini’s relationship evolve through the movie. Linguini is credited as a great chef as Remy does the cooking. It seems like Remy doesn’t even care about not being crediting half the time, because he’s living his dream. He’s introduced to all of these new spices while working at the restaurant and since Linguini doesn’t know how to do shit, they form a team. It’s a partnership that cannot be broken.

The plot of “Ratatouille” is much more complicated as it seems, especially for a children’s film. I sat there mesmerized how I could be so wide-eyed with the story of “Ratatouille.” It’s a film that should be for kids, but I’m glad that older people would get much more out of it. Out of the many scenes, I feel that the one scene that every adult will like is the scene as Anton Ego walks into the restaurant. These few moments didn’t only signal the reason why I liked the movie so damn much, but Anton Ego ended up to have the same look on his face after his meal ended as I had when the movie ended.

But the critic of Anton Ego is the most complex character here. A man like Ego was obviously inspired by the single greatest film critic of all-time, Roger Ebert. He plays around with words so that only the brightest can understand where he is coming from, which makes me stand up and applause. Only unlike Ebert, Anton Ego can be described as a critic who is respected by no one, which only adds to his personality. Restaurant owners cringe at the name whenever they hear it, and as he walks into the room of the restaurant, we cringe at the thought of what Ego will be thinking of the food.

Still, “Ratatouille” makes my heart warm the most out of all the films released in 2007, 2006, and 2005 put together. I watched “Ratatouille” thinking that I would come out as mad as I would have if I came out of a Tom Cruise flick that didn’t have him strapped to a chair with dental tools sitting next to him. But I was relatively surprised with one of the biggest aspects of the film. The Academy nominated “Ratatouille” for best screenplay, best score, best animation, best sound mixing, and best sound editing, and does it deserve in each of those categories.

I really can’t add onto anything else that has been said by others about the animation taking place in “Ratatouille,” but boy it sure looks fine. For much of the time, you don’t even realize that the film is animation and you begin to think that you’re looking at a photograph of Paris. Best part about it? They got everything right, including the Eiffel Tower.

“Ratatouille” was nominated for best animated film of 2007, but as typing this review, could it have easily been nominated for Best Picture? I left “Ratatouille,” surprised and happy, but nothing sums the movie up better than the quote used by Anton Ego at the end of the film…

“In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations, the new needs friends.”