Technically beautiful, great concept, great beginning...then question marks

Rating: 7/10 (16 October 2010)

This film is a marvelous technical achievement. The digital animation is outstanding, possibly the best ever achieved. And with a film budget exceeding $170 million, you would expect nothing less.
The basic plot is great and rich with pathos. The beginning of the film is wonderfully done, as we see a "highlight reel" of Carl's life journey with his lifelong love Ellie. It's an ordinary life, like so many, with ups and downs (mostly ups) and one great dream unfulfilled.
The adventure phase of the film then begins, and at first it's great. The characters are presented, the stage is set, the journey "up and away" begins.
Once Carl and Russell set sail and leave the city behind though, the story unravels. The pace, development and story arcs are problematic and, frankly, peculiar. I realize this is a children's tale with all the developmental liberties and assumptions that provides, but some of the gaps and story decisions are outlandish and just don't make sense, and leave you asking, "what" and "how" more than a few times.
A few examples:
In the span of an old man's exhausted nap, the two travel (at a drifting balloon pace) from somewhere in North America to directly above southern Venezuela. Huh? Even kids in the theater were asking their parents, what happened? How much time went by? Is the giant waterfall close to the house? I thought it was far away, but it must be really close, right?
Talking dogs? Advanced "canine interpretive technology" emerging from a remote landscape with no civilization or human presence? Wow. Where did that come from?
And the strangest decision of all, one that had kids (and adults) in the theater thoroughly puzzled --- the heroic adventurer is alive and well, with the agility and stamina of a 25 year old, and the advanced scientific capabilities of engineering genius? If Carl is pushing 80 years old (do the math, watch the beginning of the film, time it out), then the heroic adventurer has to be at least 100, and probably 110 years old or more.
The story arcs have to explain or justify these things. It can be done with just a few transitional scenes, fantastic as it may seem. But you can't just go from A to B to C with big gaps and unexplained progressions. That's basic. Any professional in this industry should understand this. When 8 year olds in the audience are scratching their heads and trying to understand the plausibility of the story, you have a problem.
7/10.