Subscribe to
Posts
Comments
NSLog(); Header Image

Up

Saw "Up" today (the Pixar movie). Paid the extra $2.25 per person to watch it in 3D, too!

Some general comments… and bear in mind, I've only seen it once. Like an R.E.M. album, Pixar movies tend to grow on you with time as you peel through their onion-like layers:

- Best 3D movie I've ever seen. Of course, it's the only full-length 3D movie I believe I've ever seen. But really, in 3D, they do a great job. It's not the hokey "whoa!" 3D that makes you feel like things are going to hit you, but rather a subtle one that adds to rather than distracts from the action.

- The humor was a bit sparser than in previous Pixar movies. There weren't nearly as many "hardy har" moments and there were less of the more subtle jokes that Pixar movies tend to have embedded throughout.

- The basic premise for the movie is perhaps one of the most mature ones out there. Pixar movies have always had relatively mature themes, but this struck me as one of the "oldest." For adults, the pace of the story was good, and the story itself was fine (though how the heck is Muntz still alive and in better shape than Carl?).

- Given what I feel is a decreased level of "funny," though, I worry that this movie won't be as well-liked by kids as Wall-E. Adults seem to like it just fine - it's got a 98% rating at Rotten Tomatoes - but the central theme is a bit more important in this story than the central theme(s) in Wall-E, and the movie might be more tightly tied to that story.

- Then again, perhaps I'm under-estimating kids. The one near me seemed to understand everything just fine.

- Again, the 3D. Wow. If you have the chance to see it in 3D, do so.

5 Responses to "Up"

  1. I don't know about little kids, but my 10 year old loved it and totally got it. She laughed and cried in all the same places I did. Afterwards, she said one of her favorite parts was when he realized his wife's greatest adventure was the one he lived with her.

  2. Was the 3D technique anaglyph or polarization?

  3. Aaron Linville said on May 31, 2009:

    Was the 3D technique anaglyph or polarization?

    Must have been polarization. They weren't red/cyan.

    I wasn't sure at first because I thought the glasses themselves would show polarization, but they don't seem to show them in the standard fashion. My LCD in my car goes black with my polarized sunglasses at some angles, but I couldn't get the 3D glasses they gave us to create the same effect.

  4. Erik J. Barzeski said on May 31, 2009:

    Aaron Linville said on May 31, 2009:

    Was the 3D technique anaglyph or polarization?

    Must have been polarization. They weren't red/cyan.

    I wasn't sure at first because I thought the glasses themselves would show polarization, but they don't seem to show them in the standard fashion. My LCD in my car goes black with my polarized sunglasses at some angles, but I couldn't get the 3D glasses they gave us to create the same effect.

    Cool. Ah okay, looks like they used RealD (and RealD's homepage confirms) which uses circular polarization. Right-hand (clockwise) polarization for the right eye and left-hand (counterclockwise) for the left eye. Linear polarized stuff (LCDs) will make it through no matter what the angle (just at a constant slightly dimmer intensity).

    G/f and I are going to check it out this weekend. She spends a lot of time looking at molecules in 3D using eclipsing googles so hopefully she'll like the polarization technique.

  5. I think Avatar movie changes a lot the 3D movie industry. I've seen these days a movie called "Tangled". The movie use new 3D technologies and it is amazing. The effects are very well done. Impressive !


Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Please abide by the comment policy. Valid HTML includes: <blockquote><p>, <em>, <strong>, <ul>, <ol>, and <a href>. Please use the "Quote Me" functionality to quote comments.