“Brave,” the thirteenth movie from the animation juggernaut that is Pixar, will probably go down as one of the studio’s lesser efforts. Having said that, there is still much to appreciate about this production as it gives the studio an opportunity to make their first period piece, and they give a female hero the lead for the first time ever as well. And as always they offer us brilliant animation to look at, memorably funny characters, and a good dose of John Ratzenberger thrown in for good luck.

At the center of “Brave” is Princess Merida (voiced by Kelly Macdonald), the daughter of The Scottish King Fergus and his wife Elinor. Elinor is very strict about Merida being the perfect princess, but Fergus is enthusiastic about his daughter learning how to defend herself, and we get to see how good she becomes with a bow and arrow. It’s no surprise that she enjoys hitting a bullseye on a target far more than putting on a torturously tight corset.

“Brave” soon becomes very concerned with the relationship between mother and daughter, something I don’t feel I have seen much of in movies of recent years. Merida is at that age where the rest of her life is being prepared for regardless of whether she wants it to be a certain way or not. Her natural reaction is to rebel against any intention of setting her up for some arranged marriage, and that becomes the case when three Scottish clans visit Fergus’ kingdom to offer their first born sons as her future husband.

Looking more closely at this particular princess, she’s a combination of Belle from “Beauty and the Beast,” Jasmine from “Aladdin,” and Mulan from “Mulan.” Like all those lovely ladies, she is an heir or sorts but ever so eager to follow her own path in life; in other words she is the classic Disney princess of today.

After an emotional blowout with her mother, Merida rides her trusty horse Angus (sure to be a plush toy favorite) into the forest where she runs into an elderly witch (is there any other kind?) who appears to spend her time making wood carvings. Pay close attention to this particular scene as it is bound to have many “easter eggs” for Pixar fans to take in. The animation company always loves to put in nods to their previous movies, and the ones in “Brave” make their biggest appearances here.

Anyway, the witch makes Merida a cake to give to her mother which she says will change the princess’ fate; she will not have to marry one of the suitors from the Scottish clans visiting (not to mention wreaking havoc on) her kingdom. Now we all know that dealing with witches brings nothing but trouble, but so eager is Merida to control her destiny that she is unswerving in her attempts to make her dear mother eat that delicious looking cake. But after her mother eats it, she turns into the same kind of bear her husband King Fergus lost one of his legs to and, while we’re at it, one which looks similar to those in those Charmin toilet paper commercials.

From there, the race is on to transform Elinor back into human before this change becomes forever permanent.

Pixar again continues to outdo itself in the realm of computer animation, and Scotland serves as the perfect setting for this kind of story. Scotland has always been a grand setting for characters filled with honor and passion, and it makes sense that the studio behind “Toy Story” and “The Incredibles” would want to use it for a movie. The look of the land is extraordinary in its computer animated creation, and from a distance it becomes hard to tell at times what is real and what is animated. It has been said that Pixar ended up rewriting their animation system for the first time in 25 years when making “Brave,” and the results are remarkable to see.

While Merida may not be different from the average Disney princess, actress Kelly Mcdonald does give her an appealing personality that serves to make the character unique. Having left such a memorable impression in HBO’s “Boardwalk Empire” and the Coen Brothers’ Best Picture winner “No Country For Old Men,” Mcdonald is perfectly suited to give a strong voice to this wonderfully feisty character with beautiful red hair (I’m serious).

Mcdonald is also surrounded by a voice cast which enthusiastically rises to the occasion to create such wonderful characters. Billy Connolly (“X-Files: I Want To Believe”) is a complete hoot throughout as King Fergus, and he gives Fergus a big heart on top of serving as the movie’s comic foil. Emma Thompson proves to be a wonderful match for Mcdonald as she voices Merida’s mother, Queen Elinor, and she gives Elinor a strong vulnerability as she strictly prepares her daughter for her future life as a princess.

“Brave” also has some inspired vocal performances from Kevin McKidd as Lord MacGuffin and Young MacGuffin, Craig Ferguson as Lord Macintosh, Robbie Coltrane as Lord Dingwall, Julie Walters as The Witch, and John Ratzenberger’s turn as Gordon the guard is further proof that there are no small roles, only small actors (and Ratzenberger is no small actor).

While “Brave” might seem like a bit of a letdown compared to other “groundbreaking” Pixar productions, there is still a lot to appreciate about it. Whatever the case, your children will still be dragging you by force out to the nearest movie theater showing it, and the odds of you owning it on DVD or Blu-ray are very high. You may as well make peace with the fact that your family will end up watching this movie several hundred times at home in the near future, and you are sure to memorize all the dialogue even if it’s against your will.

But even if your kids end up enjoying “Brave” more than you do, there is still much for adults to like about it. Many wonder if Pixar is starting to lose its magic touch, but they haven’t when it comes to making movies for both kids and adults alike to enjoy. And once again, even the lesser of Pixar’s cinematic endeavors tends to be better than most other movies out there. “Brave” is no exception to that.

* * * out of * * * *

I’m a little befuddled at the critical notices being hurled at “Cars 2.” It’s the first Pixar movie to ever get a rotten score on the Rotten Tomatoes scale. Granted neither this sequel nor its predecessor represent Pixar at its best or most adventurous, but even the least of their movies are infinitely better than most of what Hollywood puts out. “Cars” was essentially an animated “Doc Hollywood,” but as predictable as the story was, it was still wonderfully entertaining and had many memorable characters. Its being made was also worth it just to hear my niece say:

“Ka-chow!”

But “Cars 2” is easily more fun because the story is not as formulaic and takes the characters in a refreshingly different direction. This one has Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) going with his best friend Mater (Larry The Cable Guy) to the World Grand Prix to race against arrogant Italian Formula One car named Francesco Bernoulli (John Turturro). During that time, Mater is suspected of being a spy by British Intelligence officers Finn McMissile (Michael Caine) and Holley Shiftwell (Emily Mortimer) whom he takes a liking to. What starts off as another racing movie turns into an espionage adventure that circles the globe in amazingly animated style.

Make no secret, “Cars 2” truly belongs to Mater more than anyone else. I’ve never been a huge fan of Larry The Cable Guy or his kind of humor (maybe because I don’t really listen to it), but he’s great fun here. Mater is not the brightest car in the world, but his heart shines through everything he does even as when it gets the best of him. Most of the movie’s funniest scenes come from him dealing with customs unlike those in his home country, and his mistaking wasabi for ice cream is funnier than anything I saw in “Bad Teacher.”

Pixar continues to outdo itself in the field of computer animation, and the visuals they come up with are brilliant in their design. I’ll go even further, there were times I stared at the screen wondering if certain things being shown were actually real instead of animated. Seriously, the resemblance between what’s real and what’s not disappeared for me at certain points,

Directing “Cars 2” is John Lassiter, and this marks the first full length Pixar film he’s directed since the original. His love of all things car is as evident here as it was previously. John also has race car drivers and announcers like Jeff Gordon, Lewis Hamilton, Darrell Waltrip, Brent Musburger, and David Hobbs voicing characters. You don’t even have to look (or hear) hard to discover which characters they voice as character names are not particularly subtle (Jeff Gorvette, Darrell Cartrip, Brent Mustangburger, David Hobbscap, and the most subtle of all, Lewis Hamilton).

I loved the addition of Michael Caine to this sequel as he makes Finn McMissile a cross between James Bond and the character he played in “Get Carter.” Years after his performance in that classic, Caine remains as cool as ever, and not just because his car has an endless number of gadgets that Bond could only dream of having in the real world. His cockney accent is welcome in any movie he does.

Other additions in this automotive universe include Emily Mortimer who makes Holley Shiftwell tough and sensitive in believable fashion. Emily is such a sweet presence in movies like this and “Lars and the Real Girl,” and I always look forward to seeing (let alone hearing) her in any movie she does. It’s also great to have Cheech Marin, Jenifer Lewis, Tony Shalhoub, Joe Mantegna, and Bruce Campbell among others on board, and listening to them made me believe they had a blast working on “Cars 2.”

If I had any issues with “Cars 2,” it’s in regards to the character of Fillmore. This really has to do with the fact George Carlin voiced him in the original, and he has since passed on, and that Fillmore has little to do other than to say:

“Wow man!”

Out of respect for the late Carlin (who I still miss), I wished they had retired the character for this one. This is nothing against Lloyd Sherr who has the unenviable task of replacing one of the great comedians ever, but this is one Pixar character that should have been put to rest. They retired Paul Newman’s character of Doc Hudson as he has since passed into the great beyond, and no one could have replaced him. I mean I can understand why Pixar kept Slinky Dog on board for “Toy Story 3” even though Jim Varney died long before filming started, but that character had more to do than Fillmore does here.

“Cars 2” does not equal Pixar’s artistic highs of “Up,” “Ratatouille,” or “Wall-E,” but so what? All that matters is that it’s fun, and it easily outdoes the original. While its messages like the importance of being true to yourself may seem cheesy from a distance, they are handled here with a lot of heart and genuine emotion. Whatever you thought of the first one, you have to admit that you cared about the characters, and you will care for them even more in this sequel.

You can waster your money on “Green Lantern,” or you can take the family out to this one. The kids will be restless and noisy whether we like it or not, but I’m used to that by now. I saw “Cars” at the El Capitan Theatre in Hollywood, and parents were incapable of shutting their children up there. That I did not make the same mistake with this sequel may be why it’s getting a particularly high rating.

* * * ½ out of * * * *

"The Lion King" is will be coming back into theaters. This time in 3D. Starting on September 16, for two weeks only "The Lion King 3D will hit theaters. After it's two week run in theaters, on October 4th the film will be re-released on DVD along with being released on Blu-Ray and Blu-Ray 3D for the very first time.

Press Release:

Simba, Mufasa, Nala, Timon and Pumbaa are back and better than ever this fall when Disney's "The Lion King" roars into theaters and homes in breathtaking 3D. A special two-week theatrical extravaganza kicks off Sept. 16, 2011, showcasing the Oscar®- and Golden Globe®-winning film on the big screen in Disney Digital 3D™ for the first time ever, and its highly anticipated home entertainment debut kicks off October 4, celebrating the Diamond Edition release of the epic movie "The Lion King" in high-definition Blu-ray™ and Blu-ray 3D™.

"'The Lion King' is the best-selling home entertainment release of all time—and this is 'The Lion King' like never before," said Bob Chapek, president of distribution, The Walt Disney Studios. "The all-new 3D format immerses viewers in the epic settings and puts them face-to-face with these beloved characters. We're showcasing one of the all-time favorite Disney movies in theaters and making it available in Blu-ray hi-def
and in Blu-ray 3D—it's the must-see, must-own title for everyone."

Nearly a decade since "The Lion King" last appeared on the big screen, the upcoming theatrical release invites new generations into the "Circle of Life." The two-week, 3D-only presentation is a planned wide domestic release—the biggest since the film's 1994 debut—and the film's first-ever 3D release.

The Blu-ray debut marks the first time "The Lion King" has been available in any form since 2004. Featuring pristine high definition picture and sound, the Blu-ray creates an incredible at-home experience with a host of picture and sound enhancements, interactive features and bonus content, including a new set of hilarious animated bloopers.

"The Lion King": Diamond Edition home entertainment release will be available from the Disney Vault for a limited time only beginning October 4 as follows:

4-Disc Blu-ray Combo Pack (for the suggested retail price of $49.99 U.S./ $56.99 Canada)
"The Lion King" = Blu-ray 3D + Blu-ray 2D + DVD + Digital Copy™

2-Disc Blu-ray Combo Pack (for the suggested retail price of $39.99 U.S./$46.99 Canada)
"The Lion King" = Blu-ray 2D + DVD

8-Disc Trilogy (for the suggested retail price of $100.00 U.S./ $115.00 Canada)
"The Lion King" = Blu-ray 3D + Blu-ray 2D + DVD + Digital Copy
"The Lion King 1 1/2" = Blu-ray 2D + DVD
"The Lion King II: Simba's Pride" = Blu-ray 2D + DVD

And the one-disc DVD Edition will be available on November 15.
"The Lion King," first released in 1994, won the Oscar® for Best Original Score (Hans Zimmer) and Best Original Song (Elton John/Tim Rice "Can You Feel the Love Tonight"), earning Golden Globes® in both categories, as well as for Best Motion Picture—Comedy or Musical.

The film inspired an immensely popular, Tony Award®-winning Broadway musical, which is currently featured on stages worldwide. It became the seventh longest-running musical in Broadway history in January 2011.

Disney continues to dig through their endlessly and enormously deep vaults for a redo of another one of their well-known classics, and this time it’s “Alice In Wonderland.” This new version once again brings together the creativity dynamic duo of director Tim Burton and acting demigod Johnny Depp who brings his own touches to the Mad Hatter. The end result however, is surprisingly disappointing. Throughout the running time, I kept thinking to myself:

“Where’s the wonder?”

Crispin Glover, who co-stars in the movie, said to Peter Travers who was interviewing him for his “Off The Cuff” podcast, said that Burton’s film is actually a sequel to the classic many of us grew up with. In the film’s page on Wikipedia, it says that the movie is an extension of Lewis Carroll's novels “Alice's Adventures in Wonderland” and “Through the Looking-Glass.” Looking at both, I think it is best to look at this version as a sequel. Whereas Alice was a little girl in the original, here she’s a nineteen year old who is about to be proposed to by a stuffy headed British guy who (of course) she doesn’t love. Like Princess Vespa from Mel Brooks’ “Spaceballs,” her choices are incredibly limited, and she’s stuck with the boring white guy.

Coming to her inadvertent rescue is the White Rabbit who of course is still looking at his watch constantly, but not because he’s late for a very important date. The rabbit catches her eye and leads her away from her snobby suitor, and she once again falls down that amazingly deep rabbit hole into Underland, which as it turns out is what Wonderland is really called (Alice misheard the name when it was first told to her). Underland is a place of beauty which is enhanced by a lot of clever special effects and some great art direction, but it has its dark side as well. Of course, this adventure of Alice’s also comes to us in 3D now that “Avatar” has made the evolving format seem beyond profitable. Actually, I’m glad they called this special place Underland instead of Wonderland because aside from its wondrous looks, there doesn’t feel like there is not that much inspiration or wonder abounding from it.

Alice herself is Burton’s version of a fairy tale female character, one who does not conform to society’s standards and does not care to. However, she threatens to fall under the pressures of meddling family members who say they have in mind only her best interests. That, and they don’t want to have to deal with “ugly grandchildren.” The one strong thing about Alice in this movie is that we watch her journey from being a simple girl fascinated by the wonderment of the world around her to someone who is more confident and strong willed in what she wants out of life. There is something to be said about that in regards to this classic character here.

This however brings me to the big problem I had with the movie though; Alice is seen as “the one” who will defeat the Jabberwocky, a vicious dragon that destroys everything in its path. When the White Rabbit shows Alice that this has been foretold by the Oraculum, a calendar-like scroll which details every day in Underland, we already know what will happen at the climax of this story. From there, I think the movie really lost me as we see Alice keep telling everyone that she is not the one and believes that this is all a dream. The audience unfortunately is way ahead of her on this, and we know that she will eventually come to accept that she is “the one,” so the ending has been telegraphed to us far in advance. The excitement and prospect of her victory is robbed of its suspense, and the obstacles she faces are ones we know she will conquer no matter how much effort she puts into it.

Now I don’t know about you guys, but I am now really sick and tired of seeing all these movies about characters that are chosen to be “the one,” and who then spend far too long bitching, moaning, and being whiny little babies about their pre-destinies. You have John Connor from the “Terminator” movies who takes forever to accept the fact that he will lead what’s left of the human race to victory over the machines. You have Peter Parker who through three “Spider-Man” movies sulked endlessly over the great responsibilities he got through a spider bite that left him with great powers. By the third movie, we were so burned out from watching act like a baby. Then there’s Neo from “The Matrix” movies who was told over and over by Morpheus that he is “the one.” Well, I’ll give him some credit because he didn’t wait until the movie was nearly over to accept that fact.

To all those characters in movies before this and after it, I can only tell you this in the only way I can: ACCEPT WHO YOU ARE AND GET ON WITH IT!!!! Stop telling us who you really are because like it or not, WE ACTUALLY DO KNOW YOU BETTER THAN YOU KNOW YOURSELF!

For the role of Alice, Burton ended up going with relative unknown Mia Wasikowska, an Australian actress whom you might remember from her acclaimed work on HBO’s “In Treatment.” Mia definitely has a strong presence on display here, but her performance most of the time feels very one-note. You find yourself not caring enough about her predicament, and her love of imagination never truly comes through her. I know her character is a 19 year old, but does Alice really have to be this sullen for the majority of the movie?

Of course, top billing for “Alice In Wonderland” goes to Johnny Depp who takes the Mad Hatter from having a cameo appearance to a much larger role. You can always tell that Depp is having a heck of a good time playing roles like these, and the little details he adds to each one makes his work all the more memorable. Still, this performance feels like it was taken from the spare parts that Depp had left over from “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” as well as “Ed Wood.” He’s fun to watch as always, but there seems to be something missing here as the Hatter doesn’t quite capture our attention in the way we want him to. It’s entertaining, but not the inspired creation we have come to expect from Depp.

Some other actors fare a bit better here like the always great Helena Bonham Carter who makes a wickedly spoiled creation out of the Red Queen. Her head gets digitally inserted on top of a body that is much too small for her, and she is a fiendish delight as she relentlessly orders beheadings without giving them much thought, all while she rests her feet on a pig. Indeed, the easily irritated are always on the lookout for the quick fix. Carter is a hoot throughout.

Anne Hathaway (“Rachel Getting Married”) is also a lot of fun to watch as the White Queen as she gleefully overdoes the character’s graceful movements throughout. Her character does come across as quietly crazed, but in a good way.

But for me, the most inspired piece of casting in “Alice In Wonderland” is Crispin Glover who portrays Ilosovic Stayne, the Knave of Hearts. Now Crispin has been portrayed for so many years as an extremely odd personality in the press, and probably more so than any human being deserves. Whether or not he is as bizarre as they say, Glover is a perfect addition to Burton’s strange universe, and he shakes up this wonderland with his own unique choices that make him unpredictable. Having him here makes this film feel less like your average family movie, and that was the one I was hoping to walk into when I paid my $14.50 (there was no student discount). Whether he is capturing the Red Queen’s attention or making a disturbing pass at young Alice, you constantly wait to see what Glover will do next.

Then there are actors who do the voices of the digitally animated characters on display, and all of them are perfectly cast. Alan Rickman brings his Snape-ish mannerisms from Harry Potter to Absolem, the blue hookah smoking caterpillar. Michael Sheen of “Frost/Nixon” fame voices the White Rabbit, and you can barely tell that it’s him doing it. Stephen Fry is a sly delight as the voice for the Cheshire Cat who appears as often as he disappears. Timothy Spall, also on loan from the Harry Potter film series, voices the bloodhound Bayard Hamar, and you feel for this dog as he is forced to work on both sides of the dueling queens. Barbara Windsor’s voice is perfect for the Mallymkun the Dormouse, Paul Whitehouse is great as the March Hare, and the great Christopher Lee perfectly voices the evil dragon, Jabberwocky.

In regards to Christopher Lee, this is yet another movie where he faces off with another opponent with a sword of some kind (“Star Wars Episode II and III”). Does he ever learn?

Tim Burton’s “Alice In Wonderland” has a number of things going for it, but in the end, I was not all that moved by what was onscreen. When it was all over, I felt it lacked the vivid inspiration and wonder that you can always find in Lewis Carroll’s work. Even the score by longtime Burton collaborator Danny Elfman doesn’t stand out in any way. There is certainly a lot of effort that was put into this movie, but not enough to make it more memorable than the average Disney movie. With Tim Burton, we come to expect anything other than your average movie going experience. I actually was in a play based on Carroll’s books back in high school (I was the March Hare), and that will probably stay with me much more than this movie will. It’s not terrible, but it is far from remarkable.

All this from the same filmmaker who gave us the brilliant “Edward Scissorhands” and the utterly inspired “Ed Wood.” Burton still has a lot of good movies in him I’m sure, but this will not go down as one of them no matter how much money it makes (it has made around $300 million as I write this review). Even if Burton had called this movie “Ed In Wonderland” or “Edward In Wonderland,” it still would not have worked.

The only thing that will stay with me after all this time will be the Mad Hatter’s endless question:

“Why is a raven like a writing desk?”

Like Alice, I’m still trying to figure that one out.

**½ out of ****

By the way, in regards to the use of 3D in this movie, it doesn’t really add a whole lot or draw you into the movie anymore than it would have without it. Unlike “Avatar,” “Beowulf” or even “The Polar Express,” it doesn’t make it any different of an experience than watching it in regular 2D.

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 ****