Reviews WesternAnimation / Up

Good review, even if I don't agree. However, you will be ridiculed mercilessly for that title. Just a head's up.

Thanks. I've actually don't like the title myself! Know a better one?

• He did track its smell; that's what the dogs were for. As for the lack of birds, we can simply assume a low number and population density; perhaps there were more birds other than the mother and its chicks that Muntz has tried and failed to catch, but we didn't see those in the movie.
• Muntz was obsessed about the bird. Besides, those other animals are fossils if I recall correctly.
• No real answer for that. I'd say this is more of a suspension of disbelief thing (Consider how Tony Stark built his suit IN A CAVE! WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS!)
• They already knew the bird has chicks it was taking care of; taking Kevin would have definitely adversely affected the children. Other than that, Muntz was a frothing lunatic; you don't trust a man like that to act rationally.
  • Muntz would not have trusted them. That's pretty obvious considering his mindset ("Oh, so you're just trying to get me to let my guard down, eh?"). Also, moving the chicks would have probably killed them; consider how hard it is to raise wild animals to adulthood in captivity in optimal conditions, let alone putting them through the ordeal of altitude changes and some dramatic changes in diet.

Just trying to answer what you think are plotholes. I agree about the dog thing, but not about the others. I also don't think Up really needed to focus on the jungle, but you're right that it would have been nice to see Finding Nemo levels of detail in the scenery.

Regarding the dinosaur-esque beasts, I think I recall him saying how he had to fight one of them. Unfortunately, both Youtube and IMDB don't have the clip or the quote and I don't own the movie so I can't verify. (I totally wanted to include the Tony Stark joke, though, but sadly the review hit the word limit!) We don't know why smell didn't work, though, the dogs were tracking Kevin, but it seems they never found its nest, for some reason. As for Muntz, it's true that you can't really predict a lunatic, but it feels like manipulative writing to make him utterly crazy just so he can make only Jumping Off The Slippery Slope decisions. That was another aspect I didn't like, that the conflict in the plot is fueled solely by "a guy went crazy and began attacking these guys." It felt like Motive Decay.

If he fought one of the dinosaur beasts, then I was wrong, although he may have been talking about before the first voyage to South America when he picked up the bird skeleton.

I agree that insanity never is a good reason for something a character does, and I'd also agree that Muntz and his dogs are the weak link in the movie.

Strangely enough, I found the dog collars a bit of a breaker too. I guess the felt a bit unnecessary and kinda doesn't fit the jungle/explorer theme, especially since this is Pixar kings of the silent characters. Heck the first part of the film shows you how no dialogue is done.

The first part of the film was definitely the best part, though I actually really enjoyed Dug and the other dogs since they were funny and it was interesting for once to get a talking dog that actually sounds like what a dog would say. Honestly, I could have suspended my disbelief on the dog collars plot hole if the film had covered the other ones sufficiently. But they didn't, so I am disappointed.

I think the film is more than good enough to justify any such plot holes, if you can even call them that. You can justify a lot in a film if its for something. There's a lot of payoff with the dogs and the great hunter.

The dogs are there to add to the overall sense of strangeness. After a lifetime of living a routine and extremely mundane life, he's going out into the wild in more ways than one. The dogs are the answer to the unspoken question "how much weirder will this get?" And of course they're funny and help to pick up the second act.

Muntz justifies himself by being Asner's opposite and by settling part of the question "did I waste my life?" Muntz is the hero Asner and his wife looked up to and Asner finally gets to see first hand that while he could have taken more chances in life, a life of adventure can consume you too. What has come of Muntz's time and talent? Nothing. Even the talking dog invention is wasted in his pursuit of the hunt. Asner in the meantime may not have lived an exciting life but it was a meaningful one (as he learns when he finally looks in his wife's adventure book.) Muntz is half of what Asner's character needs to make peace with his last great regret and for that, I can forgive the plot holes.

I disagree. I think the dogs are there as Funny Talking Animal fanservice for little kids.

The Muntz-as-foil is a good analysis though.

Nitpicking slightly: they did not go through a jungle; it's an unusual environment called a tepui. Great little documentary on Pixar's trip there on the full DVD if you have access to a copy.

That said, this is a well-written review and you have some valid arguments about Muntz. I think in his rage, shame, and bitterness, he just wasn't capable of thinking things through all the way. Or perhaps there was a deleted scene that might have made his actions more valid in the finished film.

And I think the title is hilarious myself, but I'll admit I'm easily amused.

Yeah, I'm noticing that the film holds up better when it's interpreted as more of a symbolic character development story for Carl, rather than a literal adventure story. The first analysis holds up better, such as with Muntz as a villain and Carl's promise to Russel, the latter adventure one doesn't hold them up as well. But the two interpretations don't have to be mutually exclusive, and I mostly came to watch the latter kind of story, not the former.