Search
Search results
YoungMuslim Yasin, Tahlil & Ayat Al-Kursi
Reference and Book
App
#Top 10 Singapore! #Top 10 Malaysia! -------------------------------------- Excellent - 5 stars! ...
Tapatalk - 200,000+ Forums
Social Networking and News
App
Tapatalk connects to over 100,000 online forums worldwide. Post easily with unlimited Photo and...
Hungry Babies Mania
Games and Entertainment
App
Throw on your sunglasses and head to puzzle paradise full of baby animals from around the world!...
City Island 4: Sim Town Tycoon (SD)
Games and Entertainment
6.0
Rate It
App
Play the most popular city building simulation game series on mobile! In this new City Island sim,...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Alien: Covenant (2017) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Bigger isn't always better
Ridley Scott’s Alien prequel Prometheus wasn’t as warmly received as the veteran director had hoped for upon its release in 2012. In pitching the film for the coveted 12A market, Scott lost the majority of what made his 1979 masterpiece, rated 18, such an epic adventure.
So, five years on, Scott returns with a follow-up that aims to answer those irritating questions that Prometheus left us with. But is Alien: Covenant a return to form for the series? Or yet another damp squib?
Bound for a remote planet on the far side of the galaxy, crew members (Katherine Waterston, Billy Crudup, Danny McBride) of the colony ship Covenant discover a distress signal from what they believe to be an uncharted paradise. While there, they meet David (Michael Fassbender), the synthetic survivor of the doomed Prometheus expedition. However, this new mysterious world soon turns dangerous when a hostile alien life-form forces the crew into a deadly fight for survival.
In Covenant, Scott has tried to take the series back to its horror roots. This is a gory and at times difficult film to stomach, but it just isn’t scary. Despite gaining a 15 certification from the BBFC, Covenant feels like Prometheus on steroids – it’s certainly bigger and in many ways better than its predecessor, but it fails to move this ailing franchise in any new direction.
Naturally, character development takes a backseat here, as it does with many films in the genre, but Scott cleverly casts his characters as loving couples, which raises the emotion once the inevitable bloodshed starts to occur.
That cast is most definitely Covenant’s strongest suit. Prometheus had a distinctly unlikeable roster of characters that didn’t gel together. Here, the way they interact is believable and each of the couplings has a degree of chemistry that helps give their deaths some emotional heft.
Katherine Waterston channels Sigourney Weaver to some extent and makes a good leading lady and Danny McBride’s Tennessee is an excellent presence in an against-type performance from the comedian. However, Michael Fassbender’s portrayal of androids Walter and David is exceptional.
To look at, this is by far the best film in the series. Scott has crafted a detailed, haunting world that emits a damp, grey colour palate. The action is expertly shot, but this is to be expected from a director with decades in the industry. Even the Covenant ship itself feels more grounded in reality when compared to the technology of the Prometheus.
Unfortunately, once the remaining crew arrive ‘safely’ back onboard the Mother ship, things start to unravel rapidly. The film takes far too long to land on the uncharted planet meaning that the final act is rushed and this is a real shame considering the middle 45 minutes feature some of the best sequences in the entire series.
It is nice to see our favourite movie extra-terrestrial’s back in the confines of a spaceship, and the CGI used to bring them to life means they move with a fluidity like never before, but there just isn’t enough of it. It needs more Xenomorph.
Elsewhere, Jed Kurzel’s beautiful score lifts the film in its first half, becoming deeply unnerving and claustrophobic in its second. The change in tone is obvious and helps signify the optimism of the crew as they land, compared with the terror as those that remain leave the planet.
Overall, Alien: Covenant improves on Prometheus in the sense that it feels like a true Alien film, rather than a half-baked idea to cash in on the franchise. Unfortunately, a poor final act, a lack of new direction and yet another frustratingly open story means we still may not get the answers we so desperately want until the inevitable sequel arrives in a few years time.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/12/bigger-isnt-always-better-alien-covenant-review/
So, five years on, Scott returns with a follow-up that aims to answer those irritating questions that Prometheus left us with. But is Alien: Covenant a return to form for the series? Or yet another damp squib?
Bound for a remote planet on the far side of the galaxy, crew members (Katherine Waterston, Billy Crudup, Danny McBride) of the colony ship Covenant discover a distress signal from what they believe to be an uncharted paradise. While there, they meet David (Michael Fassbender), the synthetic survivor of the doomed Prometheus expedition. However, this new mysterious world soon turns dangerous when a hostile alien life-form forces the crew into a deadly fight for survival.
In Covenant, Scott has tried to take the series back to its horror roots. This is a gory and at times difficult film to stomach, but it just isn’t scary. Despite gaining a 15 certification from the BBFC, Covenant feels like Prometheus on steroids – it’s certainly bigger and in many ways better than its predecessor, but it fails to move this ailing franchise in any new direction.
Naturally, character development takes a backseat here, as it does with many films in the genre, but Scott cleverly casts his characters as loving couples, which raises the emotion once the inevitable bloodshed starts to occur.
That cast is most definitely Covenant’s strongest suit. Prometheus had a distinctly unlikeable roster of characters that didn’t gel together. Here, the way they interact is believable and each of the couplings has a degree of chemistry that helps give their deaths some emotional heft.
Katherine Waterston channels Sigourney Weaver to some extent and makes a good leading lady and Danny McBride’s Tennessee is an excellent presence in an against-type performance from the comedian. However, Michael Fassbender’s portrayal of androids Walter and David is exceptional.
To look at, this is by far the best film in the series. Scott has crafted a detailed, haunting world that emits a damp, grey colour palate. The action is expertly shot, but this is to be expected from a director with decades in the industry. Even the Covenant ship itself feels more grounded in reality when compared to the technology of the Prometheus.
Unfortunately, once the remaining crew arrive ‘safely’ back onboard the Mother ship, things start to unravel rapidly. The film takes far too long to land on the uncharted planet meaning that the final act is rushed and this is a real shame considering the middle 45 minutes feature some of the best sequences in the entire series.
It is nice to see our favourite movie extra-terrestrial’s back in the confines of a spaceship, and the CGI used to bring them to life means they move with a fluidity like never before, but there just isn’t enough of it. It needs more Xenomorph.
Elsewhere, Jed Kurzel’s beautiful score lifts the film in its first half, becoming deeply unnerving and claustrophobic in its second. The change in tone is obvious and helps signify the optimism of the crew as they land, compared with the terror as those that remain leave the planet.
Overall, Alien: Covenant improves on Prometheus in the sense that it feels like a true Alien film, rather than a half-baked idea to cash in on the franchise. Unfortunately, a poor final act, a lack of new direction and yet another frustratingly open story means we still may not get the answers we so desperately want until the inevitable sequel arrives in a few years time.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/12/bigger-isnt-always-better-alien-covenant-review/
Club Penguin Island
Entertainment and Games
App
Hi Penguins! Are you READY FOR ADVENTURES? There’s a whole, amazing community of penguins...
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Ethereal Custody: Anthologies in Books
Aug 3, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Book-Review-Banner-60.png"/>;
Ethereal Custody: Anthologies is a story about a young man, who was born in an underground slum and decides to risk his life for a chance to reach the surface. During his pursuit, he discovers that he is part of a much larger scheme of a supernatural nature, in an alternate reality. To escape his world, he grasps the opportunity to create utopia. But paradise has a dark side too.
While we follow this main character, we also follow different characters, who are part of the alternative world that this man created in his dreams - with their own stories of supernatural nature, Angels and people with animalistic tendencies involved as well.
<b><i>“We don’t hold grudges against Angels who didn’t save us. Our self-held grudges stem from the idea that we should have been able to save ourselves.”</i></b>
The story follows a few different planets, with a lot of different characters.
The book is written in the form of a journal. For me, it was very difficult to keep track of the planets and characters. I was losing interest very quickly, re-reading the same page a few times, seeking for adventures and plot twists, when all I could see were descriptions of places and objects. Sometimes there were good parts, where the story was really intriguing. Other times, I had to put the book down and read something else.
<b><i>“I don’t know if it’s forgiveness or love or grieving. But life feels like this slow and heartbroken process of learning to live without something we wanted so badly that we cannot have. To go on without those loved people we miss so much and all the precious moments we could have shared and knowing those futures will never be. It’s having to learn how to trek forward in a new life without a part of yourself; that missing fragment of a loving heart we surrendered and gave away as a gift to someone who’s no longer here with us.”</i></b>
There were many descriptions of places being repeated with the exact words. This made me wonder and question myself whether I’ve read this before. I then needed to go back in the book and reassure myself. It was very irritating to go back and find the same paragraph a few chapters earlier, with the same description of a place.
<b><i>“If there’s anything I learned tonight, it is this: I want to die with a smile on my face.”</i></b>
I am sad to say I didn’t enjoy this book.
Honestly, I liked the idea and where it was intended to go. I also liked the way it was written in the form of a journal. However, the writing was bad. Not only from a grammar and editing point of view, but also the skill to keep the reader intrigued. This book put me through a big reading slump. I am not a fan of DNFing books, but I was close with this one. I recommend Ethereal Custody: Anthologies, if you enjoy multiple planets, a lot of characters and a bit of supernatural sprinkles on top, but this book wasn’t for me.
<b><i>“We are afraid to be silent, yet afraid to speak. We fear to be alone with our demons in the dark, yet we are terrified of those demons being seen in the light among friends. Afraid to be powerless; afraid to be influential. I don’t understand it. I just don’t want to be afraid of myself anymore.”</i></b>
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Book-Review-Banner-60.png"/>;
Ethereal Custody: Anthologies is a story about a young man, who was born in an underground slum and decides to risk his life for a chance to reach the surface. During his pursuit, he discovers that he is part of a much larger scheme of a supernatural nature, in an alternate reality. To escape his world, he grasps the opportunity to create utopia. But paradise has a dark side too.
While we follow this main character, we also follow different characters, who are part of the alternative world that this man created in his dreams - with their own stories of supernatural nature, Angels and people with animalistic tendencies involved as well.
<b><i>“We don’t hold grudges against Angels who didn’t save us. Our self-held grudges stem from the idea that we should have been able to save ourselves.”</i></b>
The story follows a few different planets, with a lot of different characters.
The book is written in the form of a journal. For me, it was very difficult to keep track of the planets and characters. I was losing interest very quickly, re-reading the same page a few times, seeking for adventures and plot twists, when all I could see were descriptions of places and objects. Sometimes there were good parts, where the story was really intriguing. Other times, I had to put the book down and read something else.
<b><i>“I don’t know if it’s forgiveness or love or grieving. But life feels like this slow and heartbroken process of learning to live without something we wanted so badly that we cannot have. To go on without those loved people we miss so much and all the precious moments we could have shared and knowing those futures will never be. It’s having to learn how to trek forward in a new life without a part of yourself; that missing fragment of a loving heart we surrendered and gave away as a gift to someone who’s no longer here with us.”</i></b>
There were many descriptions of places being repeated with the exact words. This made me wonder and question myself whether I’ve read this before. I then needed to go back in the book and reassure myself. It was very irritating to go back and find the same paragraph a few chapters earlier, with the same description of a place.
<b><i>“If there’s anything I learned tonight, it is this: I want to die with a smile on my face.”</i></b>
I am sad to say I didn’t enjoy this book.
Honestly, I liked the idea and where it was intended to go. I also liked the way it was written in the form of a journal. However, the writing was bad. Not only from a grammar and editing point of view, but also the skill to keep the reader intrigued. This book put me through a big reading slump. I am not a fan of DNFing books, but I was close with this one. I recommend Ethereal Custody: Anthologies, if you enjoy multiple planets, a lot of characters and a bit of supernatural sprinkles on top, but this book wasn’t for me.
<b><i>“We are afraid to be silent, yet afraid to speak. We fear to be alone with our demons in the dark, yet we are terrified of those demons being seen in the light among friends. Afraid to be powerless; afraid to be influential. I don’t understand it. I just don’t want to be afraid of myself anymore.”</i></b>
Radio Greece
Music and Social Networking
App
The best radio application Radio Greece is the simplest and most powerful application. Features: ...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mother! (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Welcome to the Crystal Maze.
Darren Aronosfsky’s mother! is like no other film you’ll see this year: guaranteed. As a film lover, an Aronosfsky film is a bit like root canal at the dentist: you know you really need to go ahead and do it, but you know you’re not going to be very comfortable in the process.
Jennifer Lawrence (“Passengers“, “Joy“) plays “mother!” doing up a dilapidated old house in the middle of nowhere with her much older husband “Him” (Javier Bardem, “Skyfall”). he (sorry…. He) is a world-famous poet struggling to overcome a massive writing block. The situation is making things tense between the couple, and things get worse when He inexplicably invites a homeless couple “man” (Ed Harris, “Westworld”, “The Truman Show”) and “woman” (Michelle Pfeiffer, “Stardust”) to stay at the house. As things go progressively downhill, is mother losing her mind or is all the crazy stuff going on actually happening?
Jennifer Lawrence can do no wrong at the moment, and her complexion in the film is flawless: it needs to be, since she has the camera constantly about 3 inches from her face for large chunks of the movie: I sat in the very back row, and I still wasn’t far enough away! Her portrayal of a house-proud woman getting progressively more and more irritated by her guests’ inconsiderate acts – a glass? without a table mat??! – is a joy to watch. As her DIY ‘paradise’ is progressively sullied my ‘man’ and ‘woman’, so her distress grows exponentially.
Some of the supporting acting is also superb, with Ed Harris and particularly Michelle Pfeiffer enjoying themselves immensely. Also worthy of note are the brothers played by real-life brothers Brian Gleeson and Domhnall Gleeson: the latter must never sleep since he must be *constantly* on set at the moment. One of these guys in particular is very abel! (sic).
Whereas the trailer depicts this as a kind of normal haunted house spookfest, it is actually nothing of the sort: much of the action (although far-fetched) has a reasonably rational explanation (a continuation of my theme of the “physics of horror” from my last two reviews). The film is largely seen through mother!’s eyes, and the skillful cinematographer Matthew Libatique – an Aronosfsky-regular – oppressively and relentlessly delivers a uniquely tense cinematic experience. For me, for the first two thirds of the film at least, it succeeds brilliantly.
Aronosfsky is no shirker of film controversy: having Natalie Portman perform oral sex on Natalie Portman in “Black Swan” was enough to teach you that. But in the final reels of this film, Aronosfsky doesn’t just wind the dial past 10 to the Spinal Tap 11…. he keeps going right on up to 20. There are a few scenes in movies over the years that I wish I could go back and “unsee”, and this film has one of those: a truly upsetting slice of horror, playing to your worst nightmares of loss and despair. While the religious allegory in these scenes is splatted on as heavily as the splodges of mother!’s decorative plaster, they are nonetheless extremely disturbing and bound to massively divide the cinema audience. I think it’s fair to say that this DVD is not going to have “The Perfect Gift for Mother’s Day” as its marketing strapline.
Which all leaves me… where exactly? For the first time in a long time I actually have no idea! This is a film that I was willing to give an “FF” to while I was watching it, but as time has passed and I have thought more on the environmental and religious allegories, and the portrayal of the cult worship prevalent in popular X-factor celebrity, I am warming to it despite my best instincts not to. I’m not religious, but I would love to compare notes on this one with someone with strongly Christian views.
So, I’m actually going to break all the rules (a snake told me to) and not provide any rating below at this time. I might revisit it again at Christmas* to see if I can resolve it in my mind as either a movie masterpiece or over-indulgent codswallop.
* I have, and have decided to give it 4 Fads… its a film I’ve thought about a lot over the last few months.
Jennifer Lawrence (“Passengers“, “Joy“) plays “mother!” doing up a dilapidated old house in the middle of nowhere with her much older husband “Him” (Javier Bardem, “Skyfall”). he (sorry…. He) is a world-famous poet struggling to overcome a massive writing block. The situation is making things tense between the couple, and things get worse when He inexplicably invites a homeless couple “man” (Ed Harris, “Westworld”, “The Truman Show”) and “woman” (Michelle Pfeiffer, “Stardust”) to stay at the house. As things go progressively downhill, is mother losing her mind or is all the crazy stuff going on actually happening?
Jennifer Lawrence can do no wrong at the moment, and her complexion in the film is flawless: it needs to be, since she has the camera constantly about 3 inches from her face for large chunks of the movie: I sat in the very back row, and I still wasn’t far enough away! Her portrayal of a house-proud woman getting progressively more and more irritated by her guests’ inconsiderate acts – a glass? without a table mat??! – is a joy to watch. As her DIY ‘paradise’ is progressively sullied my ‘man’ and ‘woman’, so her distress grows exponentially.
Some of the supporting acting is also superb, with Ed Harris and particularly Michelle Pfeiffer enjoying themselves immensely. Also worthy of note are the brothers played by real-life brothers Brian Gleeson and Domhnall Gleeson: the latter must never sleep since he must be *constantly* on set at the moment. One of these guys in particular is very abel! (sic).
Whereas the trailer depicts this as a kind of normal haunted house spookfest, it is actually nothing of the sort: much of the action (although far-fetched) has a reasonably rational explanation (a continuation of my theme of the “physics of horror” from my last two reviews). The film is largely seen through mother!’s eyes, and the skillful cinematographer Matthew Libatique – an Aronosfsky-regular – oppressively and relentlessly delivers a uniquely tense cinematic experience. For me, for the first two thirds of the film at least, it succeeds brilliantly.
Aronosfsky is no shirker of film controversy: having Natalie Portman perform oral sex on Natalie Portman in “Black Swan” was enough to teach you that. But in the final reels of this film, Aronosfsky doesn’t just wind the dial past 10 to the Spinal Tap 11…. he keeps going right on up to 20. There are a few scenes in movies over the years that I wish I could go back and “unsee”, and this film has one of those: a truly upsetting slice of horror, playing to your worst nightmares of loss and despair. While the religious allegory in these scenes is splatted on as heavily as the splodges of mother!’s decorative plaster, they are nonetheless extremely disturbing and bound to massively divide the cinema audience. I think it’s fair to say that this DVD is not going to have “The Perfect Gift for Mother’s Day” as its marketing strapline.
Which all leaves me… where exactly? For the first time in a long time I actually have no idea! This is a film that I was willing to give an “FF” to while I was watching it, but as time has passed and I have thought more on the environmental and religious allegories, and the portrayal of the cult worship prevalent in popular X-factor celebrity, I am warming to it despite my best instincts not to. I’m not religious, but I would love to compare notes on this one with someone with strongly Christian views.
So, I’m actually going to break all the rules (a snake told me to) and not provide any rating below at this time. I might revisit it again at Christmas* to see if I can resolve it in my mind as either a movie masterpiece or over-indulgent codswallop.
* I have, and have decided to give it 4 Fads… its a film I’ve thought about a lot over the last few months.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Up (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
Carl Fredricksen is a balloon salesman who has always wanted to have that one big adventure ever since he was a little boy. As a boy, he idolized the then famous explorer, Charles Muntz. He's now 78-years-old and the odds are against him in having that adventure this late in his life until one fateful day. When Carl is left with no other option than to leave his home, he ties thousands of balloons to his house and literally floats away. He heads to South America just like a certain special someone who used to be in Carl's life would've wanted it. A wilderness explorer named Russell who's looking to get his "helping the elderly" badge is accidentally brought along on Carl's adventure. Carl soon figures out that even though keeping his word and going on an adventure he promised to take (crossed his heart) is something to be proud of, that particular adventure will eventually end and he'll have to rummage out on his own.
Pixar always seems to release one of the best films each and every year. This year is no exception. Up is able to take its audience through so many ups and downs throughout its running time. It makes your heart heavy in the first ten to fifteen minutes before the actual story begins, then the rest of the film seems to juggle its audience between humor, excitement, and being genuinely heartfelt. Pixar films seem to have this ability to accomplish more than other films. The writing is always extremely solid and the film is always built around an incredibly creative idea. It's like a Pixar film holds your emotions in the palm of its hand. Every emotion you have is a labeled button on the remote in this imaginary hand and Pixar can access these emotions at the simple push of a button. In fact, Pixar is at its strongest when there is no dialogue at all. The first half of WALL-E is a perfect example, but the short shown before Up (Partly Cloudy) is another great example. There's no dialogue at all, but my eyes were welling up before it was all said and done. When the credits roll to a Pixar film, a sense of fulfillment washes over its viewers. They're left with that warm fuzzy feeling that many films only dream of leaving their audience with.
There's nothing else that can really be said about the animation in this film that people aren't already expecting. It's top notch as the animation is fluid, character features (such as hair) look realistic (Carl grows a five o'clock shadow by the time the third day in Paradise Falls rolls around), and everything is just so colorful and vibrant. While knowing full well it's an animated feature, characters seem to jump off the screen and scenery looks like what would be found in actual wildlife. The 3-D was a nice touch, but isn't necessary to enjoying the film to its full extent. Although seeing 3-D animated characters in a 3-D world in actual 3-D really seemed to fit like a glove.
Each character is given just the right amount of screen time in the film to make its audience really care about them. Russell has this whole back story as to why he wants his "helping the elderly" badge, "Kevin" (the giant, colorful snipe) really just squawks and makes weird noises but is actually just trying to get home to serve its real purpose, and Dug (the dog with the collar that enables it to talk) is the outcast of his pack but pretty much steals whatever scene he is in. The whole story is built around Carl, so caring about him is pretty much a given after that heartbreaking opening that was mentioned earlier. The whole film is filled with oddball characters that all have their own quirks and gags (SQUIRREL!) that you really want nothing more than to see more of each and every one of them.
Up is one of the year's best films and will more than likely be on most best of lists by the time this year comes to a close. It is a family film, but it generally has something to offer for everybody. It is definitely the type of film to see to put anyone in a better mood and put a smile on your face. Up is a whimsical and heartwarming animated feature that's incredibly fun for anyone.
Pixar always seems to release one of the best films each and every year. This year is no exception. Up is able to take its audience through so many ups and downs throughout its running time. It makes your heart heavy in the first ten to fifteen minutes before the actual story begins, then the rest of the film seems to juggle its audience between humor, excitement, and being genuinely heartfelt. Pixar films seem to have this ability to accomplish more than other films. The writing is always extremely solid and the film is always built around an incredibly creative idea. It's like a Pixar film holds your emotions in the palm of its hand. Every emotion you have is a labeled button on the remote in this imaginary hand and Pixar can access these emotions at the simple push of a button. In fact, Pixar is at its strongest when there is no dialogue at all. The first half of WALL-E is a perfect example, but the short shown before Up (Partly Cloudy) is another great example. There's no dialogue at all, but my eyes were welling up before it was all said and done. When the credits roll to a Pixar film, a sense of fulfillment washes over its viewers. They're left with that warm fuzzy feeling that many films only dream of leaving their audience with.
There's nothing else that can really be said about the animation in this film that people aren't already expecting. It's top notch as the animation is fluid, character features (such as hair) look realistic (Carl grows a five o'clock shadow by the time the third day in Paradise Falls rolls around), and everything is just so colorful and vibrant. While knowing full well it's an animated feature, characters seem to jump off the screen and scenery looks like what would be found in actual wildlife. The 3-D was a nice touch, but isn't necessary to enjoying the film to its full extent. Although seeing 3-D animated characters in a 3-D world in actual 3-D really seemed to fit like a glove.
Each character is given just the right amount of screen time in the film to make its audience really care about them. Russell has this whole back story as to why he wants his "helping the elderly" badge, "Kevin" (the giant, colorful snipe) really just squawks and makes weird noises but is actually just trying to get home to serve its real purpose, and Dug (the dog with the collar that enables it to talk) is the outcast of his pack but pretty much steals whatever scene he is in. The whole story is built around Carl, so caring about him is pretty much a given after that heartbreaking opening that was mentioned earlier. The whole film is filled with oddball characters that all have their own quirks and gags (SQUIRREL!) that you really want nothing more than to see more of each and every one of them.
Up is one of the year's best films and will more than likely be on most best of lists by the time this year comes to a close. It is a family film, but it generally has something to offer for everybody. It is definitely the type of film to see to put anyone in a better mood and put a smile on your face. Up is a whimsical and heartwarming animated feature that's incredibly fun for anyone.