I understand the mirror image aspect, SDG, which you explained very well... it makes sense, but I guess I was looking for some glimmer of moral conflict (that is, humanity) in the villain, as we got to see in Carl.
It's not a huge point, and I know every film has limitations of time and that not every avenue can be explored... I just felt like the villain's character arc was underdeveloped and so I found his actions a little inexplicable.

Tim J,
The dogs are a Rubicon -- you either go with them or you don't, and I have no trouble with anyone not going with them. They won me over with the sheer dogginess of their thought processes ("I hid under your porch, because I love you"; "I do not like the cone of shame"), but I respect the misgivings of those who feel the story would be better without them.
W/r/t Muntz, I contend that bitter, twisted evil is utterly organic to the story and its themes.
Both Carl and Muntz spent their lives in unfulfilled hopes of an elusive dream. But Carl spent those years of unfulfilled dreams in a state of a far deeper fulfillment, and when the dream died for good, he had still lived with his best beloved to a ripe old age.
Muntz is Carl's tragic mirror image: He spent that same time frame -- over a half a century -- single-mindedly seeking to vindicate himself to a world that scorned him, cut off from all human society, and had long since become consumed by bitterness, psychotically obsessed with his own agenda above all.
Thus, where one grumpy old man overcomes his initial resistance to the unexpected intrusion of Russell into his life plans to take quasi-paternal responsibility for the boy, the other has gone too far down the path of narcissism and spite. The latter is outraged that Russell has inadvertently discovered what he, Muntz, spent his life pursuing; he's the man who has spent his life chasing the butterfly of happiness, only to see it alight on the shoulder of someone who wasn't even looking for it. The unhappy seeker hates that serendipitous non-seeker.
Anyway, that's how I see it.

We saw UP last night, and it is the same typically wonderful film making we have come to expect from Pixar... but...
I agree with the criticisms above (about the whole talking dogs, thing, especially).
This is the first Pixar movie I can remember during which I thought to myself, "I would have done that differently". The talking dogs reminded me of a great deal of less worthy fare from Pixar's competitors... a rather hackneyed convention in the middle of a marvelously original film. The movie's concept deserves better.
I also didn't care so much for Carl's childhood hero turning out to be such a thoroughly nasty villain. He is almost chemically pure evil, in the end, and it just didn't mesh, somehow. There was no plausible explanation for it, in my view.
Like others, the idea of a house floating thousands of miles under a bunch of party balloons I had no problem with... but the talking dogs and the unadulterated evil of Charles Muntz I found out of place and difficult to believe.
Still... great all around, which says something about Pixar's storytelling magic.

Up is the best Pixar movie yet.

Jeff, I'm happy someone couldn't agree more. :) On the other hand, I personally would apply it to Up, for two reasons.
First, it's such a vastly overused plot device, and so I don't really care if it makes sense in a given film or is appropriate as you say. Basically, I'd like to see some films that don't use it in any form at all.
Second, the idea that the character who hurts the other one might start off with a goal in mind is another variation that I forgot to mention in my original post, and one that's used just as much as any of the other variations. How many times have we seen a movie where the person starts of with one goal in mind, only to be transformed in the process of their journey, until finally the other folks find out what his goal is in the first place and he has to prove himself? The only example I can think of right now is Mr. Deeds, where the girl's original plan is to pretend to like Adam Sandler's character to get a news story. In the process, she really does fall in love with him, but when he discovers her original goal he leaves her until she proves her love was real.
God bless,
Shane

Shane,
Regarding your second point, I couldn't agree more. Too many movies have a conflict that is caused by nothing more than what could be described as an unwillingness to talk things through or explain one's feelings.
However, I don't think that can be fairly applied to Up. Carl didn't just make a mistake or temporarily wrong Russell. His wrong-doing was more than just temporary because from the beginning he had one goal in mind. However, once he gets there he learns that this initial goal isn't truly what he needed (something he could learn _only_ once he got there), and that following Russell could provide the something that he needs (something that Russell is absolutely necessary for).
I'm trying to be vague here for those who haven't seen the movie, but I believe that the change in Carl is much deeper and more profound than simply correcting a mistake or temporary wrong-doing.
Just my $.02 ....

I saw Up last night and really enjoyed it; I thought it was one of the better movies I've seen. I did have two problems with it, to one degree or another minor ones.
Note that if you've not seen the film yet, I am going to be talking about it here, albeit in vague terms for the sake of trying to not give anything away. Just a warning.
First, I really didn't like the collars and all that went with them. The film was good enough that after a few moments, I was able to just accept them and enjoy the rest of the film, both when they were and when they weren't doing their thing. That said, they did really take me out of the movie for a few minutes from when we first see what they do until about the first escape scene, and I thought that the same story could easily have been told without them. Their only real function plot wise was to give an explanation of Kevin's situation, and I'm sure that that could have been explained by some other means. Maybe it's just me, but I was able to accept the "great conceit" that SDG talks about in his review, but the collars somehow took me out of the film for a moment.
Second is hardly something that can be lumped onto Up, because it's present in virtually every film I've ever seen, which is consequently why I don't like it. Here I'm referring to that "convention" by which the penultimate plot development always consists of one of the heroes doing something mean to or betraying one of the others - or at least, in some cases, one of the heroes mistakenly thinking that this has been the case - only for the mistake to be cleared up or temporarily wrong-doing hero to see his sin and to return to help his friend achieve whatever victory is sought in that particular film, be-it something as serious the defeat of some enemy or as relatively tame as winning a girl's heart. I just think that this type of plot movement is wildly overused, and I was dissapointed to see it in what I thought was an otherwise great movie.

I think he meant that Pixar does some good for a change, as in, compared to the general work that comes from Hollyweird.
Oh, I guess the comment can be taken that way as well. Sorry, I do tend to get defensive of the studio that I consider to be one of America's last cultural treasures. I guess it's the fanboy in me showing through.

As in, you think Pixar wasn't good any time in the past?

Take it easy, Randolph :)
I think he meant that Pixar does some good for a change, as in, compared to the general work that comes from Hollyweird.

Agree with all the enthusiasm above. Fantastic spirit to their work. Some GOOD for once.
For once? As in, you think Pixar wasn't good any time in the past?

Agree with all the enthusiasm above. Fantastic spirit to their work. Some GOOD for once.

I didn't remember that I'd never changed it. I've lived with my slightly downgraded opinion long enough that I should change it … and now I have.

"Hey, thanks. It's very gratifying to hear that my work is appreciated"
You're welcome.
Hey I just noticed that you still have a 4-star rating for Monster's Inc. from your original review. I'm guessing your perspective has changed on subsequent viewings. Will that rating change, or do you think you'll just leave it intact so people can understand you're first reaction to the film?

Maureen: Exactly. Well said.
Benchwarmer: Hey, thanks. It's very gratifying to hear that my work is appreciated!
Giacinto: Well, I don't know if I can rigorously rank them all, but I put Pixar films into three broad categories:
a) 4-star masterpieces: Toy Story and TS2, Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, WALL-E (within this group, The Incredibles is probably my favorite, but I'd find it hard to rank the rest).
b) 3½-star achievements: Monsters, Inc., Ratatouille (no preference here).
c) 3-star solid entertainments: A Bug's Life, Cars (but Cars > A Bugs Life).
On first blush, I'm ranking Up in the middle category (3½ stars), although I also gave Up the highest moral-spiritual value of any Pixar film to date, +3, so it still gets an A. At this point I don't know whether subsequent viewings will confirm its 3½ star status or possibly warrant elevating it to 4 stars. (No chance of going the other way, I think.) It is possible that The Incredibles really deserves a +3 too. (I try not to get hung up on ratings, though. At the end of the day, what matters isn't a number.)

Steven, FWIW I always look forward to your reviews whether they are films you love or loathe. It's always great to read about all the positive and wonderful things you see in a movie like "The Incredible's." But it can also be lots of fun to laugh at your sarcastic remarks about films like "Man on Fire" with their ridiculous moralizing and ludicrous world views.

SDG, I'd be interested in seeing your ranking from best to worst (or least best as it were)of all the pixar movies.
The Incredibles was my favourite by far and it makes the most sense storywise for many many sequels.

We live in a society where some parents literally never let their kids out of their sight, except at school, and where some kids live totally programmed lives with no true free time. We live in a society where people called for a columnist's head because she let her kid ride the subway in daylight alone.
So yeah, Finding Nemo had a good message.
The flipside, of course, is that many of these overprotective "helicopter parents" decide to be un-protective about the very points they should be paranoid about, like drugs and dating.

Finding Nemo offers one of the most touching and wrenching father-son relationships in animation history, if not all of cinema. It is rich in devastating insights into parental anxieties.
Marlin is not presented as a "loser." The film presents Marlin in a profoundly sympathetic light.
What is more affecting than Marlin's slow and painful journey of learning to let Nemo go, of allowing him to succeed or fail on his own? What is more poignant than those two wide-eyed moments of realization -- Marlin on the whale’s tongue, Nemo listening to the pelican -- the beleagured dad grasping the extent of his protectiveness, the disillusioned son beginning to see his father in a new light? ("You think you can do these things, but you can’t, Nemo!" "My dad took on a shark?!") Sometimes I cry just thinking about that scene. I dunno, maybe it's a father thing.

I never have seen what all the adulation over Finding Nemo was and is all about. The theme that jumped out at me was that adults are over-protective losers that need to loosen up. If adults would just become more like adolescents, everyone would be better off. I don't care about the cinematic wonder. If the message is a poor message, the medium can be all the more dangerous because we can't see the trees for the forest. Give me Cars any day.

I just got back from seeing UP 3-D. It was fantastic! Everyone (my wife, and my 13-year-old daughter & neice) loved it.
I haven't read SDG's review yet; I'm heading there now.
I just wanted to encourage anyone who's not sure about going to see it: GO.
And, pay for the 3-D experience, even if you have to give up the popcorn. It has been a.long.time since I've seen a 3-D movie; they've sure improved it from what I remember. Now, I want all my movies in 3-D.

Count me in not only among Pixar admirers (all movies they made from Toy Story to Monster's Inc., except A Bug's Life, perhaps, are great children's movies and all the ones from Finding Nemo to WALL-E are great movies, period), but also as a big fan of Cars, which in my humble opinion is definitely from every point of view on the same level of the Pixar classics. Even if it didn't have a very compelling story and great characters, which I'm sure it has, it's a movie about cars, which, taking Rachel's comment above a little bit further, are something that not only children, but pretty much every person on the planet knows and/or is very fond of, regardless of economic condition, political and religious beliefs. That would make the movie's subject a much more universal one than talking robots/toys/monsters/bugs. Not to mention, as Tim J. said, the artistically stunning visuals and the opening sequence that uses every cinematic resource a movie can use; a delight for the senses.
..."turning with the land" is part of what earned treacherous stretches of that road the moniker "Bloody 66." Straight roads are good roads.

Hey SDG, I had that same concern seeing the movie, but thinking better there are only cars and no humans in that world, so Oily 66 would be better :) Anyway, that was certainly far less annoying for me than environmental alarmism in WALL-E.

At one point, PIXAR's goodness starts to feel like the kid at school who does everything extremely well: You know they earned it, but you still wonder why they have to be so darn good. ;-) Anyway, I can't wait to see it!

I'd love a sequel to The Incredibles, too.
However, Cars happens to be one of my favorite Pixar films, and I'm happy to see a sequel for it. In fact, I like Cars better than both Ratatouille and WALL-E.
Oh, well: Digustibus non disputem est, or something like that.

"What in the world do you have against "Cars"? I guess we are rednecks because our whole family loves it, plus it does have a good message."

I don't think I necessarily have anything against a movie I rate as a B-plus.
Cars does have some good messages. (Speed/winning isn't everything; the quiet life is worth living; people living in obscurity have the same dignity as anyone else and may well have more wisdom than people in the spotlight; respect for the accomplished is good; brash self-confidence is bad; etc.)
It also has some half-baked messages. (An interstate is a bad thing because towns on the old road fade away, and because it doesn't "turn with the land." Never mind that Route 66 itself diverted traffic from communities which then suffered, or that "turning with the land" is part of what earned treacherous stretches of that road the moniker "Bloody 66." Straight roads are good roads.)
All in all, I enjoy Cars a good bit. I just regard it, along with A Bug's Life, as a lesser Pixar effort, not up to the same superior standards as their other films.
If I had to pick one Pixar film for a sequel, it would not be Cars (or A Bug's Life). The obvious pick is The Incredibles.)

I'm so very stoked for UP! I'll see it Monday in 3D (when the prices are cheaper during the week.) Can't wait.
I love how Pixar uses talents like Ed Asner & Paul Newman in their films. There's just a classy element to them that so many other animated films are lacking these days.

My family also liked Cars a lot.
I like that running through movies like Toy Story, Cars and Wall-E there is a theme of looking back at something very important that is being (or has been left) behind.
Cars' affectionate look back at Route 66 America (even through rose-tinted glasses) is moving and profound, especially with the subtle and beautifully rendered CG art.

What in the world do you have against "Cars"? I guess we are rednecks because our whole family loves it, plus it does have a good message.

Me, too. Wall-E is my absolute favorite. I think. maybe.
Cars may not be a grown up favorite, but kids LOVE it. Talking cars, come on! Hence the sequel.