Comment

Comment by Red Troll on June 14, 2009 at 11:27pm

Nice review. I enjoy this movie for its pathos and themes. Many people like this film, though others seem to be fixated on "technical" details. Well, movies require suspension of belief, except supposedly non-fictional documentary movies which requires "faith" that details presented are true.

"Up" is well done. Any negative critics of the movie seem to expect a documentary, it can't do that or this; a bird or dogs or a scout wouldn't do that. If the only criticism is that this animation didn' t adhere to the letter of the law of physics or animal behavioural rules....then I am sad for these critics who lost the inner child. They lost the feelings, tone and emotional impact of the movie. I wouldn't want to watch a movie with someone like that. Fortunately, I fully enjoyed it without any person putting a damper on things. I've watched movies with someone like that. He needed to explain his opinion is correct to feel superior, to teach the inferior what is good or bad; usually by nitpicking or silly pseudo-techno babble, trying to suck the life out of things.

Some people doesn't get it which is fine since it is there right to hold an opinion, but just don't try to obsessively convince others to validate there failings to get it.

Again a good review. I agree with most of your views (I like Star Trek even with the lens flare). ;)

A definite high FULL PRICE feature.

Comment by C.H. Gorog on June 14, 2009 at 9:32pm

The balloons are the part in the movie where you either accept the situation or not. I'm no mathmatician but I guess that it takes about 20 seconds to fill a single balloon and Carl had many hours to do so. I really don't know the math, but I accepted the fact then and so I could accept the rest of the strangeness in the film.

1. My mistake: It wasn't a sun, it was a supernova destroyed by the 'red matter'. But if that was the case, then why didn't it destroy Nero and Old Spock?

2. Nero found out what date it was when he asked the Captain of the USS Kelvin before killing him. Old Spock did not destroy the Romulan homeworld; the supernova destroyed the Romulan homeworld. Nero's anger at Spock is unjustified since Spock was the one to attempt to save the Romulan homeworld.

Comment by Fordman2539 on June 14, 2009 at 5:56pm

you obviously didnt read the part where I said that I was aware it was unrealistic, its a damn kids movie. but within the storyline, Carl's one night bazillion balloon marathon makes no sense at all, it really doesnt even within the movie's context. it was stupid.

your supposed star trek plotholes?

1. there was never a sun destroyed by a black hole... what movie were you watching? Spock and Nero both went through a black hole and were teleported to the same place only at different times.
2. Nero murdered people because he didn't know where he was or what was happening. even if he was aware that he was in the past and his planet was not destroyed yet, he was not from a different timeline, he was from ANOTHER DEMENSION ENTIRELY, thats why old spock and young spock were able to coexist and talk to one another. I thought about that for a minute too, but it makes sense. the old spock and Nero are from their reality, in which spock, Old Spock, killed him planet. no matter where they chased each other, Nero was going to get revenge on spock.
3. Touche

Comment by C.H. Gorog on June 14, 2009 at 12:13am

BIG plot hole here, When Carl realizes that Muntz is after Kevin.... why doesn't Carl just go '...ok...' ?

That's not a plot hole. Carl, even though he doesn't want Kevin to bug them, still doesn't want to see him get locked away in Muntz's clutches.

this guy has spent his entire life being an honest explorer only to be called a liar by the scientific world. all he wants is to bring a single bird back to america, so that his entire life isn't a waste.
They did focus a great deal on Muntz, he's a sympathetic character who only wanted to be respected. Much like Syndrome in The Incredibles, Muntz took his obsession too far, even though he wasn't all 'nefarious'.

SOMEHOW he manage to pull a thousand balloons out of nowhere
Up is not realistic and it's not supposed to be. The desperation of Carl having one day was a plot point to make him do something drastic in order to accelerate the story along. In a story where Dogs have the ability to pilot airplanes through the usage of chew toy looking controls, I could suspend my disbelief more so than a movie that attempted to film in a more realistic style.

You want me to name some PLOTHOLES in Star Trek? Okay:
1. The black hole that 'Old' Spock creates using the red matter supposedly destroys the sun, yet it just teleports Nero and Spock to the 'new' dimension. So was the Sun destroyed or teleported to the past like Spock and Nero?
2. Nero murders people in the past for things they didn't do and wants to kill a person who tried to save his homeworld. None of it makes sense.
3. (Not really a plot hole) The Space drill: Why didn't the enterprise just shoot it instead of just sending 3 people to disarm it?

I see more flaws in Star Trek than I did in Up, and that's why I give this movie a better rating.

...

Comment by Fordman2539 on June 13, 2009 at 9:53pm

there were a bunch of problems with Up, man. like when Carl was in 'the spirit of adventure' on the island with the Muntz. BIG plot hole here, When Carl realizes that Muntz is after Kevin.... why doesn't Carl just go '...ok...' ?

Instead he randomly gets all suspicious when he sees Kevin outside, which brings attention to the fact that Kevin IS outside. PLUS this movie gives no thought to Charles Muntz at all. this guy has spent his entire life being an honest explorer only to be called a liar by the scientific world. all he wants is to bring a single bird back to america, so that his entire life isn't a waste.

Also, and before I make this point let me be perfectly clear. I am aware that this is a childrens movie, and it not meant to be completely realistic. we have a flying house and talking dogs. I know this is not realistic. BUT the movie does give valid reasoning behind every fantastical move it makes, except for the balloons in the house. He doesn't even get the idea until the NIGHT before he has to go to the retirement home. yet SOMEHOW he manage to pull a thousand balloons out of nowhere, manages to get enough helium to fill every one, and somehow stores them INSIDE his small house until morning. the preperation for his flying house took like an hour at best.

There is a difference between saying that a scientist made a collar for a dog that allows it to talk being unrealistic, and the scene i just described. Carl's balloon dilemma was such an unbeliveable part of this movie that it took me out of the story, especially when it could have been completely avoided by the Shady Oaks guys simply giving Carl a week instead of a day to get ready.

I dare you, sir, I dare you to find me a plot hole in Star Trek, or an aspect of the movie (within the story's own physics and reality) that makes absolutly no sense like Carl's one night thousand balloon marathon.

Comment by C.H. Gorog on June 13, 2009 at 6:28pm

Fordman, Star Trek was an action film, and a good one at that. However, it did not move me at all emotionally (save for the Spock and his mother's last meeting) nor make me think that hard. It was a 'shut up and watch the screen' event. Up was able to make me think and feel more than Star Trek could; Star Trek could entertain, though, no question, in fact, you might want to take a gander at my Star Trek review blog to see what I thought of it. However, Up was a great tale and allegory for completing your life's dream and coming to terms with old age, Star Trek was about running around planets and pretty explosions.

"you, sir, or sadly misinformed."
None of logic explains why. Just because I have different opinion from you doesn't make me wrong.

Better Than Sex is just the name of a rating, not an actual act. It's a rating after Full Price. Better Than Sex would be like saying "Full Price times 3". What's wrong with believing a family film is better than a sci-fi action film? Just because it doesn't have the same amount of blood, explosions, and partial nudity doesn't mean that it's a worse movie.

"i refuse to read any more"
Why? Because somehow my opinions will completely change how you view the world? It's a review, not a commandment from an overlord. And if you hadn't read the rest of it, how do you not know whether or not I qualify my reasoning? Just explain your point of view.

Enough said.

Comment by Fordman2539 on June 13, 2009 at 1:12pm

I would read the rest of your review, but that first part about star trek made me stop reading. you, sir, or sadly misinformed.

I just recently saw Up, and, as I'm sure you say in the review i refuse to read any more of, it was pretty good. but Star Trek is the best movie of the summer, and the only upcoming film that has the potential to be better than it is Public Enemies.

by the way, As I sit here, writing this comment I notice that you have rated Up 'Better Than Sex.' like it said, it was pretty good, but be aware that you just said you'd rather watch a children's movie than have sex

nuff said