Up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClosetRTWatcher;3485368;

We saw the movie in 3D and I thought it was really unnecessary. I was so caught up in the story that I stopped noticing the 3D-ness completely. Whereas Monsters vs. Aliens had "in your face" 3D effects, this really did not. Not saying whether that is bad or good, but if I was going to watch it again I probably would not bother with the 3D.

---

That was the director's intention. Doctor and Peterson did not want the "in your face" 3D effects because they felt it was waaaaaaaaay too gimmicky and cliche, so they intended the 3D to add depth to the picture and enhance it rather than distract and bring the quality down. So since you stopped noticing it, I'm sure that it worked the way they wanted, and the story was just THAT good :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ionan;3485757;

That was the director's intention. Doctor and Peterson did not want the "in your face" 3D effects because they felt it was waaaaaaaaay too gimmicky and cliche, so they intended the 3D to add depth to the picture and enhance it rather than distract and bring the quality down. So since you stopped noticing it, I'm sure that it worked the way they wanted, and the story was just THAT good :D

---

I had heard the same thing, so I probably should have taken that as a "warning". I guess I would argue that if it isn't going to be "in my face" then I would rather not sit thru the movie with the 3D glasses on, they are rather annoying. JMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pfeifferdcat;3485230;

We saw it last weekend. Without the 3D since the 3 year old came. I liked the movie & totally would have cried like a baby at the first 15 minutes and the last 5. I wouldn't say it's my fave Pixar film (I still think Monsters Inc is great) but it was what you expect from Pixar.
My husband wanted to know what happened to the kids'

Click to see Spoiler:

dad

? does anyone know? He thought he had

Click to see Spoiler:

died, I just thoght he wasn't around

.
BTW, I hated the short at the beginning. Sorry!

---

My speculation was that the

Click to see Spoiler:

dad was the businessman.

But that's just speculation; I haven't read that in any summaries I've read (granted, I've only read one, but still :lol).

I have concluded that

Click to see Spoiler:

Russell's mother and dad are divorced, and that his dad lives with another woman now, and doesn't make the effort to spend a lot, if any, time with Russell, which is why he was so determined to become a Senior Wilderness Explorer as an effort to impress his dad, because when he first talked to Carl on the porch, he mentioned that all the dads would be there(hoping his own would come) at the badge ceremony. But it was a happy ending anyway, since Russell found a father figure in Carl, and Russell ended up being like the child that Carl and Ellie were never able to have.

I saw Up last night. The positive I can say about it is the action scenes were fun and I loved the dogs. I've been dog-sitting for a friend this weekend, and that was spot-on. But overall, I found it to be a bit of emotionally-manipulative ridiculousness. The score, especially, was demanding of "Cry here NOW!" and I don't want that in a movie. I want the emotions to be natural, not dictated.

I didn't feel that about the score at all. I thought Michael Giacchino did a wonderful of matching the music to the scene perfectly -->Sad scene = Sad music. and pretty much it was the same main melody just played slower and with a solo piano or something. For it to be emotionally manipulative, it would have had to go into the cliche territory of having the entire string section play it, making it totally overwhelming. That didn't happen, whenever a sad scene came up, it had only simple music accompanying it, like in WALL-E.

Click to see Spoiler:

Also, when Carl was looking through the Adventure book right before the climax of the movie, the score was practically non-existent, and that was probably the most emotional part of the whole movie-plus the fact that it was a turning point for Carl in the story.

I enjoyed this movie. I thought that it was a very cute movie.

Went to see this last night. Very enjoyable. Definite sniffles at the beginning and end. I agree that opening section with almost no words was just perfect.

Re the issue of where

Click to see Spoiler:

the kid's dad is

, thanks to the discussion here I really paid attention to hints.

Click to see Spoiler:

Clearly his parents split and the new wife/girlfriend is trying (successfully) to separate the dad from the kid. When the child calls the dad "Phyllis" tells him he's bothering his dad too much. It didn't sound like the boy had seen the dad in ages, hence pinning so much hope on a long ago promise that he'd come to the badge pinning "graduation" ceremony.

Don't be afraid to read the spoiler above unless you are a total purist. It is a minor part of the "action" although one could say a major underlying issue.

Great movie! I enjoyed it more than Wall-E. I had one question though: how was

Click to see Spoiler:

"the explorer" (I can't remember his name) still alive when Carl idolized him as a kid then grew old with Ellie? I suppose it could get explained the same way was the "talking" dogs and strange bird and floating house, but I was just wondering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spoose;3541304;

Great movie! I enjoyed it more than Wall-E. I had one question though: how was

Click to see Spoiler:

"the explorer" (I can't remember his name) still alive when Carl idolized him as a kid then grew old with Ellie? I suppose it could get explained the same way was the "talking" dogs and strange bird and floating house, but I was just wondering.

---

Maybe this island is like the one in LOST, very healthy! :)