"Up," up and away-ish

Let's not get hysterical.

As of this writing, the new animated 3-D movie "Up" is ranked the 12th best movie ever made by the notoriously fickle voters on the Web site IMDb. That puts it just behind "Casablanca" and just ahead of "Star Wars."

Can we all agree that "Up" is not in the same universe as "Casablanca" and "Star Wars"? You have to know that the makers of the film, talented though they may be, did not slap their hands together in satisfaction and say, "Yep, we got us another 'Casablanca.'"


"Up" is reasonably pleasant and well animated, with a couple of moments of emotional satisfaction. It made me laugh out loud a grand total of once (at an image of dogs playing poker), though a couple of other semi-funny scenes had already been shown in the inescapable trailer. In other words, it's good, but it's nothing special.

The filmmakers wisely decided to skip the hackneyed idea of a surrogate father learning to bond with a surrogate son, and jumped all the way to a surrogate grandfather learning to bond with a surrogate grandson. That's much better because, you know, there's a greater difference in their ages. Otherwise, it's the same old story that has been done (and done and done) so many times before.

Ed Asner provides the voice of the old man, who looks like a bobblehead version of Spencer Tracy in his "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" days. When he was a youth, Carl wanted to be an explorer like his Lindberghesque hero Charles Muntz. But he met and married a fellow explorer wannabe, Ellie, and life got in the way of their dreams.

Then Ellie died, and Carl was left to sit home alone and grow cantankerous. I'll say that again: Then Ellie died. "Up" is a children's film, and some children are not ready for the reality of the death of a beloved character.

Carl decides to fulfill their mutual dream of going to South America, where Charles Muntz had gone, by hooking up his house to a thousand colorful balloons and floating southward. Along for the ride is a stowaway boy, Russell. Give the writers credit for this: Russell may be sweet-natured, but he is dimwitted. There is plenty of comic potential to be mined in a stupid child, and the filmmakers excavate some of it.

But it is in South America that the film begins pinballing violently between tones. Three writers are credited with the script, and one wonders if each one was charged with creating a different tone, with no one available to meld their sections together. It is as if one writer was responsible for the truly heartwarming scenes involving Carl's bonding with Russell, one was responsible for the action scenes and one was responsible for the silly scenes, such as the talking dogs who can fix gourmet dinners.

It is the silly scenes that are so wrong for this film and throw it out of kilter. But the film is otherwise enjoyable, though not spectacular. "Casablanca," it ain't.