web
counter
 

Played Out

By Daniel Carlson | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (123)



Toy_story_3.JPG

With each successive film, Pixar Animation Studios pushes the limits of computer animation to create increasingly dazzling worlds of texture and light, but not until Toy Story 3 have those talents felt so squandered. Granted, the film isn’t exactly terrible, and it does have moments of genuine suspense and terror, one of which is freighted with such dark and awful and adult emotions that the characters are left with no words for what they’re experiencing. But it was in that riveting moment that I realized just how flat and uninvolving the rest of the film had been. What once felt natural now felt forced; what once seemed effortless now groaned under the weight of just a few too many characters, too many twists, too many missed opportunities. No film exists in a vacuum, and Toy Story 3 has the unfortunate task of being judged with the rest of Pixar’s body of work, against which it feels too much like a half-baked spin-off.

The problem comes with the fact that the third film in the Toy Story franchise feels so obviously cobbled together from fragments of the first two films, only here they lack the gleam of inspiration and originality that brought the earlier films to life. For lack of a better word, the film often feels too pedestrian to have sprung from the creative well that’s made some of the best animated films of all time. For instance, one montage, intended to be comical, shows a Ken doll (Michael Keaton) trying on a variety of outfits to the tune of Chic’s “Le Freak.” It’s such a rote and predictable moment, especially considering how careful the earlier films were to create a real world that wasn’t our own and that didn’t rely on bad pop music stings to convey easy points. The same thing happens in the moment Ken and Barbie (Jodi Benson) lock eyes to the tune of Gary Wright’s “Dream Weaver.” On one hand, of course they do, but on the other, how could a Pixar film feel so predictable? The earlier Toy Story films relied on original compositions and used them to great effect; this film reaches for the easiest joke and runs with it. It’s as if random scenes were shipped over from DreamWorks Animation and spliced into the final print. Too often the film manages to try too hard and be lazy at the same time, which results in a frantic and often unmoving experience.

The premise of the film is that Andy (John Morris), no longer a little boy, is heading off to college and will have to leave his toys behind. He initially opts to take Woody (Tom Hanks) to school as a keepsake and toss the other toys up in the attic, but the sack of toys is accidentally taken out to the curb to be thrown away. Only Woody and we the viewers know Andy was going to keep his old playthings, but that doesn’t stop the other toys from ganging up on Woody and assuming that Andy meant to throw them out. This, by the way, is lifeless plotting in which misunderstandings are meant to carry the same weight as intentional acts by characters. It’d be one thing if Andy or his mom (Laurie Metcalf) tossed the toys but then reconsidered, or just donated them to charity in the first place before having a change of heart. But Andy clearly wanted to keep his toys, and the “Three’s Company”-level misunderstanding that ensues just feels too broad, like it’s just another excuse to let Hamm (John Ratzneberger) and Mr. Potato Head (Don Rickles) be their fickle, prickish selves. Pixar movies have ably demonstrated depth of character before; why start sliding back now?

After saving Buzz (Tim Allen), Jessie (Joan Cusack), and the rest of the toys from the trash heap, Woody and the gang are taken to a daycare and donated. Woody promptly escapes and attempts to return to Andy, only to wind up being taken in by a young girl from the daycare with a small toy collection of her own that warns Woody that the daycare group is actually run by a dictatorial leader intent on destroying newcomers. It’s true: Over at the daycare, Buzz and the rest meet Lotso Huggin Bear (Ned Beatty), a superficially charming toy who turns out to have a wicked mean streak and a penchant for torturing toys that don’t behave and pay their dues, which at the daycare means doing time in the preschool room and suffering at the hands of snot-filled toddlers. The main action of the film involves Woody’s return to the daycare to break out his friends and their subsequent attempts to find freedom and get back to some kind of good life.

The best sequence of the film is the prolonged prison break, and it’s here that director Lee Unkrich, who co-directed Toy Story 2 and edited the first two films and A Bug’s Life, does his best work. The suspense and pacing are great, and the prolonged chase scene that eventually leads to some pretty dark places is relentless and often breathtaking. He also winds up getting the characters into one of the darker moments a family film has ever done, in which they believably confront not just their danger but their own mortality. It’s a shocking sequence that totally earns its pathos and resolution, and it’s only here that the film succeeds in achieving the nuance and resonance for which the studio is rightfully known.

The problem is that most of the rest of the film feels unconnected from this centerpiece. Staging The Great Escape with toys is a fun idea, but the script from Michael Arndt (from a story outlined by Pixar big guns John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton, and Pete Docter with Unkrich) jams in a few too many characters for any of the new faces to have even a fraction of the impact of the established cast. The new toys Woody meets at the little girl’s house are wonderfully realized and given life by a fantastic group including Timothy Dalton, Bonnie Hunt, Kristen Schaal, and Jeff Garlin, but we’re given so little time with them it’s tragic. In a weird twist, the flipside is also true: The remaining central cast is smaller than it used to be, with the absence of characters like Bo Peep, Weezy, and Etch-a-Sketch explained expositionally as Woody laments the passage of time that brings garage sales and trips to the dump. It’s a clunky way to back into a story that as a result never quite rings as true as the earlier ones.

Are there moments in Toy Story 3 that work? Yes, and when they hit, they’re very good, which is what makes the film’s overall mediocrity so much harder to take. Seeing glimpses of something bracing and riveting lurking beneath a sodden exterior is sadder than just watching a forgettable movie. Instead of a new chapter in an ongoing tale, the film mostly feels like a tired retread, one step too far for a story that once hit great heights. When Lotso’s backstory is laid out for the viewer (narrated by a hilariously depressed clown toy named Chuckles), it’s meant to highlight his abandonment issues and show the darker side of the loving bond between child and plaything. But for anyone who’s seen Toy Story 2, the sequence feels like a copied and pasted version of the history of Jessie the Cowgirl, only stripped of the power and poignancy by its repetition. With their latest film, Pixar has indeed done something new: They’ve gone backward.

Daniel Carlson is the managing editor of Pajiba and a member of the Houston Film Critics Society, as well as a TV blogger for the Houston Press. You can visit his blog, Slowly Going Bald.









Jonah Hex Review | Look Away, Look Away, Look Away, Dixie Land | Promising Actors Under 25 and the Hottest Actresses Over 40 | The Weekly Murdertank













Comments

I thought Keaton was the Ken Doll, yes?

Posted by: Tammy at June 18, 2010 11:06 AM

D'oh! Caught and corrected. Never write with Superman Returns on in the background. -- D.

Posted by: Daniel CarlsonAuthor Profile Page at June 18, 2010 11:09 AM

Baahahaha, yeah, I find Brandon Routh's pretty eyes distracting, too. ;)

All in all, I will probably still see this. Can't help myself. I thought Cars was generally mediocre but, similarly, had enough moments that "click" to make it a worthwhile experience.

Posted by: Tammy at June 18, 2010 11:10 AM

Um, I'm seeing 112 positive reviews out of 112 possible reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Not to say that the masses should influence the few, but we're talking movie criticism here; bringing out a movie's good and bad points and then picking a side and either recommending it or condemning it. Maybe you should just say that you don't happen to like it rather than it's not that good.

Granted, I haven't seen it, so I don't really have two cents to even throw in here. Just trying to get my ducks in a row before I do see it. Or rather, get everyone else's ducks in a row.

Posted by: Kefka Palazzo at June 18, 2010 11:11 AM

Joan Allen? Or Joan Cusack? If it's Allen, that's an interesting recast.

Posted by: dAvid at June 18, 2010 11:13 AM

I don't care if a Jesus statue rapes a (censored) Mohammad plushie in the opening credits, I'm seeing this movie and you can't goddamn stop me!

Posted by: annoyingmouse at June 18, 2010 11:15 AM

@dAvid: Cusack; accidental repeat from typing "Allen" in Tim Allen. All apologies for the sloppy copy. I'm usually better about that.

Posted by: Daniel Carlson at June 18, 2010 11:29 AM

Well, I suppose it was bound to happen sometime: Pixar has made a film that was less than perfect. It's a little disappointing, but I still plan to see it.

Can we blame it on the 3-D? I want to blame everything on 3-D.

Posted by: Jelinas at June 18, 2010 11:41 AM

Um, I'm seeing 112 positive reviews out of 112 possible reviews on Rotten Tomatoes.

Kefka Palazzo you actually buy that? There is no way in hell everyone likes a movie. I'm going to thank Dan here for saying it wasn't good.

Personally, I thought Toy Story 2 sucked. So I never even had any desire to see a third one.

Posted by: DeistBrawler at June 18, 2010 11:49 AM

A thoughtful review, Dan, I was wondering if this was the path they would take. I'll still see it as I don't have any choice given the youthful Estro-tatership in my household.

Posted by: admin at June 18, 2010 11:51 AM

Hey, don't look at me. I personally don't get what people see in these things. I thought the first Toy Story sucked ass. The only other Pixar movie I've seen from beginning to end was Up, which I also thought was a big dose of mediocrity, so...

Posted by: Case at June 18, 2010 11:57 AM

It’s as if random scenes were shipped over from DreamWorks Animation and spliced into the final print

*sigh*

That's what the trailers felt like. Dammit. DAMMIT.

I'll watch it eventually, because I have to. But a bit sad nonetheless.

Posted by: figgy at June 18, 2010 12:00 PM

They were doomed from the start. Any time an animated film has a sequel made that many years after it's predecessor, it is bound to fail. Look at every single Disney sequel released since the mid 90s. You have to strike while the animating board is hot, not wait till a decade has passed to press on! Regardless, I'll probably watch this someday on Netflix. Cause I am a sucker like that.

Posted by: KatSings at June 18, 2010 12:17 PM

@ Kefka Palazzo

"Maybe you should just say that you don't happen to like it rather than it's not that good."

Your criticism makes no sense. In a movie review, those two statements are synonymous. Reviews are opinion pieces. If Daniel Carlson writes "it's not good" (which he didn't, in this piece), any reasonable reader will understand the implied "... in my opinion."

Posted by: marya at June 18, 2010 12:23 PM

I'm almost certain Dan watched Shrek Forever After by accident instead and just glossed through the synopsis of this.

Because this movie was absolutely wonderful and reminded me why I love movies -- something that grows continually difficult with each new remake or lazily pasted together would-be blockbuster.

It validates the very notion of sequels, that's how good this was. I'm absolutely baffled that the most moving -- hell, the most HUMAN -- movie I've seen all year was created entirely with pixels.

Posted by: Otis at June 18, 2010 12:30 PM

So the film's greatest sins are that certain device elements of Shrek franchise have found their way into a Pixar movie? And that they're also rehashing similar plot elements and character reactions from the prior films? And then when the story was expanded, you didn't like how it meshed with what came before?

Come. The. Fuck. On. It's a sequel, Carlson. About personified toys (or machines).

Maybe - just maybe - you're expecting a bit much. Or you want the movie to be a certain way. Especially since this site has repeatedly remarked that this summer's release list looks like a menu in a dog shit bistro. Could it be our prejudicial feelings colored our expectations?

Turan, A.O. Scott, & Ebert all highly recommended it. The clip Turan posted was hysterically funny - and I'm not going to spoil it because it's funniest without foreknowledge.

Eat it and choke, Dan. I'm still going. If it sucks, I'll do you a good turn in apology.

Posted by: idiosynchronic at June 18, 2010 12:33 PM

Interesting, I've heard nothing but perfection from anybody else up to this point.

Posted by: ChristianH at June 18, 2010 12:34 PM

Well I'm seeing this tonight. I loved the first two movies, and I think they're very neatly done. In my college film major days we even had to write a midterm paper on the first Toy Story for my script analysis class.

Posted by: Cree83 at June 18, 2010 12:39 PM

Really, people, really? Dan writes a thoughtful review, explaining why this movie is not as good as its predecessors, pointing out its strong points, and a few of you go intensely ranty on his ass? Really?!

You complain because other reviewers have liked it, but he's disappointed? As if he's not entitled to his own opinion? Which review site did you think you were visiting? This is exactly what we come here for: A different perspective. You don't have to agree with him; you are equally entitled to your opinion, but simply say that, without getting vicious or personal.

Thanks for the review, Dan; I was afraid this might be the case. I'll see it, but I'll be waiting for it to come out on DVD.

Posted by: tamatha at June 18, 2010 12:43 PM

i usually trust you pajiba but i think you missed the point on this one..it was genuinely ENJOYABLE..and actually age appropriate for its "target" audience while appealing to all ages...which i think (in this case) is enough and even manages to be great.

Posted by: justvisiting at June 18, 2010 12:44 PM

Oh and admin, "Estro-tatership" makes it sound like you live in a house filled with eggs and potatoes. I just picture a lot of hearty breakfasts.

Posted by: tamatha at June 18, 2010 12:46 PM

Honestly, I'm not surprised. 10 years after the last one came out? I'm just getting the feeling that with Disney at the reins, more sequels are going to be coming out. Disney's video library is full of examples of going back to the well for another drink.

But if anything, we see that Pixar is human and we can only hope their next project will be reminiscent of their earlier, more memorable works. But not Monsters Inc. 2. I'm not expecting anything good from that movie.

Posted by: Doric at June 18, 2010 1:14 PM

Tamatha, I laid out my problems with Dan's review in fair & exact terms. It seems that Dan's anger at modern storytelling conventions over-colored his perceptions and written review.

Vicious and personal is a trademark of the site's comment section - it makes me wonder where the hell you've been. ;-P

Posted by: idiosynchronic at June 18, 2010 1:26 PM

I love Tamatha's comment about everyone should have an open mind about Carlson's review, before quickly stating that they will not have an open mind about the movie itself and will skip it based on the review.

Love the hypocrisy.

Posted by: Tank at June 18, 2010 1:26 PM

Also, I love how people dismiss the film based on ONE review, despite the 100% positive reviews from Rotten Tomatoes which consists mostly of raves. Bitches be crazy up in here.

Posted by: Tank at June 18, 2010 1:29 PM

Mayra,

I'm sorry for not making any sense. I guess when we esteem things, there's not a chance in hell that our admiration for a thing could be congruous or incongruous with nature. "The sky is big" is a point of view. "I don't like the sky" is an opinion. "The sky is beautiful" is the truth. Whether you choose to see it as such is another matter.
The reason it's the truth is because it houses our atmosphere, provides inspiration, gives us rain, etc. Beauty, not in a sense of vision but of true wonder and excellence. We use its oxygen to take us into the deep and into outer space. But without its paradigm, where would we be?

It's a long-winded way of saying that, whether my previous comment was on the mark or not, there are such things that can be good without our like or dislike.

So, no, you're comment didn't make any sense.

Also, DeistBrawler,

I don't buy anything from Rotten Tomatoes. At least not to infer that because 100 some odd critics liked a movie that this somehow means everyone likes it. Of course not everyone can like it. But the problem with modern reviews is that they are increasingly becoming solely opinionated and not factual. As hipster as this sounds, film is art first and entertainment second. I think that as someone who's seen a crap-ton of movies in my life, it's no unfair thing to ask that reviewers offer their reviews in that context.

All in all, what I posted earlier may have been an opinion, but it was in defense of something more concrete than how people feel about a thing.

Posted by: Kefka Palazzo at June 18, 2010 1:47 PM

The genius of the film for me is that this story could only be told well as a third film in a series, when the audience already has residual understanding and love for the central characters, and as a film that came eleven years after the second, with its story about Andy going off to college.

I'll submit that there are a few narrative stumbles along the way (the middle sags and is overlong, I think - additionally, Lotso's motivation for holding everyone in cells like a prison is never really all that clear, and his backstory is pretty much stolen from Jessie [a little on the nose when Jessie exclaims "this is like Emily all over again!!" at one point]), but I think any third film in a series that can justify its existence and necessity resoundingly by the credits is a success in my book.

Of the last four films Pixar's done, I think Ratatouille and WALL•E are unmitigated successes, while Up stumbled a bit, but they were all pretty lousy children's films (especially WALL•E, as much as I love it). Toy Story 3 seems to finally mesh the gorgeous animation Pixar is capable of with the gorgeous storytelling its become just as well known for.

And Ken's dress-up montage? Plot-driven! Barbie has to distract Ken so she can eventually hold his wardrobe hostage for information about the toys' whereabouts! In a lesser film, the montage would simply exist for the sake of existing, probably scored to some Miranda Cosgrove song or something (I'm looking at you, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs).

Finally: what of Day & Night, the short that's playing before Toy Story 3? I thought it was just about the best use of computer animation we've seen in years.

Posted by: whatBENwatches at June 18, 2010 1:55 PM

It seems that every time Pixar has to conjunct with Disney, the film will contain a version of the ridiculously heart-wrenching Jessie the Cowgirl sequence from Toy Story 2. There was that attempt in Cars and seems there's one here too. It's a bit infuriating. (The one from Up doesn't count because it's too artfully presented and placed to be in quite the same device category.)

Well, at least I'm warned. Thanks.

Posted by: kiyo-chan at June 18, 2010 2:09 PM

I had a feeling that sequelitis would soon set in. That said, I'll still see it.

Posted by: Aislinn at June 18, 2010 2:20 PM

What's the point in blasting the reviewer before actually seeing the film based on what you hope it to be? You just look like an asshole....

"Well, given the fact that you saw the film and have criticized it, I choose to invalidate your opinion based on my own subjective projection of what the film could possibly be. After all, if I remotely consider that this film could not be anything but amazing, I would be compromising the illusion I have constructed in my feeble little head, wasting time, energy, and possibly money on the movie ticket."

/End Rant

Posted by: Drew Morton at June 18, 2010 2:32 PM

125 out of 125 on Rotten Tomatoes. 8.8 out of 10. Now those are numbers.

Posted by: Mick J at June 18, 2010 2:32 PM

Was going to make some counter arguments but WhatBENWatches said it better than I could have.

The two or three moments when the film seems to slip into "Dreamworks-dom" are done well, serves the characters and actually work in context, as opposed to, say, characters singing "I Like To Move It" or "Living La Vida Loca".

I was completely unprepared for how much this movie wrecked me. WRECKED me. The sillier aspects are the candy-coating on a very meditative and solemn tale on growing old and death that this movie contemplates.

And my I also add, this is the best action movie of the year as well. A completely wonderful diamond of a film amongst the drivel tht has been pumped out these past 6 months.

Posted by: Ricardo at June 18, 2010 3:08 PM

Y'all take your kiddy movies SERIOUS up in here.

Posted by: logan at June 18, 2010 4:11 PM

You, sir, are made of stone.

Toy Story 3 was nothing short of perfection.

Posted by: Paul Southworth at June 18, 2010 4:26 PM

Hmmm...I forgot to ask, did you watch it in 3-D, Dan? Because they keep hammering that in in the trailers, and I'm curious as to how Pixar did.

Posted by: figgy at June 18, 2010 4:26 PM

3-D was completely superfluous, and even distracting in my opinion.

Posted by: Paul Southworth at June 18, 2010 4:31 PM

And I don't know about trusting really great numbers on Rotten Tomatoes. Don't they count any review that doesn't actually BASH the movie as a positive? So you could say "it was OK" and it'd be counted as positive. Negative numbers are a different things, but I think it doesn't take a lot to get a 'fresh' review.

I could be wrong though, I didn't exactly do research or anything. I'm lazy.

Posted by: figgy at June 18, 2010 4:31 PM

figgy: I tend to like Metacritic more than Rotten Tomatoes because there isn't that dichotomous LIKE or DISLIKE brand placed on a review, simply a number assigned to it and then an average taken. You get more of a range between "flat-out masterpiece" and "pretty good, I guess."

For what it's worth, Metacritic has it at 91/100: "Universal Acclaim," they say. And it is pretty remarkable that 134 reviews in, there aren't at least 1 or 2 deemed "rotten" over at RT.

Posted by: whatBENwatches at June 18, 2010 4:48 PM

I remember reading on Facebook a few months ago a somewhat loaded question posed by Dan and I'll paraphrase it because, like Figgy, I too am to lazy to actually do any research around here. Anyway it was something like, "Which Pixar movie do you think should've gotten a sequel other than Toy Story, example The Incredibles." After reading this review, it reads to me like Dan went into the theater with his own biased agenda, that is to say this was not the sequel he wanted to see, therefore he was purposely and deliberately not going to enjoy the film. And since rottentomatoes.com has been frequently cited in the comments, there is an excellent interview over there with Toy Story 3 director Lee Unkrich explaining the genesis of this project and how a third toy story movie was being developed by the Michael Eisner controlled Disney Studios, behind the backs of the original creative team at Pixar before the infamous merger of the two.

Posted by: Wiley at June 18, 2010 5:22 PM

one montage, intended to be comical, shows a Ken doll (Michael Keaton) trying on a variety of outfits to the tune of Chic’s “Le Freak.”

Ugh, that sounds like something out of the Shrek sequels!

Pixar, you're better than that!

Posted by: Fredo at June 18, 2010 5:27 PM

Wiley: Finding Nemo or Ratatouille could both sustain pretty awesome sequels, I think. Cars 2 will sell a ton of merchandise, but invariably suck, I fear.

Posted by: whatBENwatches at June 18, 2010 5:31 PM

After being blown away by the quality of this movie, and hearing that it's inspired by 60s-style spy capers, I'm suddenly very interested in Cars 2. We may be getting a Wrath of Khan to Cars' The Motion(less) Picture.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 18, 2010 5:45 PM

Huh. Here and I thought I had read a well-thought-out fair and honest review that had a negative title but was actually generally positive with some legitimate-sounding quibbles. I didn't realize it had been an all-out trashing of a sacred work of art.

Not for nothing, but the only other review I've read of Toy Story 3 also indicated that, while enjoyable, it fell somewhat short of expectations.

Posted by: meaux at June 18, 2010 5:50 PM

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

SAY IT ISN'T SO!

Posted by: Mr. Patches at June 18, 2010 6:45 PM

wow, someone must have been peeing in everyone's cornflakes. I had no idea toy story was a sacred cow.

Posted by: idleprimate at June 18, 2010 7:14 PM

1. The reviewers job is to state his/her opinion as if it were fact, while tacitly acknowleging that it is not. There is no need to preface every sentence of quality with, "In my opinion..." Besides being a waste of time, it is a moronic practice and attrocious grammar.

2. Adversely, it is height of arogance to actually believe that your opinion is truth. I'm certain that almost everyone will agree that "pizza is tasty" but that hardly makes it universally factual. The sky isn't NECESSARILY beautiful just because you believe it is (the sky isn't even consistently beautiful throughout any given day). Certainly, you're free to emotively list why you have your beliefs, but to insist that those beliefs are truth is ego-centric lunacy. And insulting.

3. I'm tired of hearing about Rotton Tomatoes from commenters. Who cares? I utterly reject the idea that the collective opinion of many is somehow more valuable than that of one trusted individual.

4. To imply that the reviewer of any movie is biased prior to walking into the theater is likewise insulting (I'm not a reviewer but that's some shit that would piss me off if I were). Obviously, the reviewer is still a person who is capable of being influenced and swayed prior to the screening, but to claim that they were predetermined not to like the movie based on a silly question posed months earlier (which probably spawned from a love of the franchise and the studio in general, more than anything else) is foolish and shortsighted. Dan's reviews are the tops; he's always very thoughtful and fair. He would not give a movie a less than sterling response unless he believed it was a less than sterling delivery.

5. No review should supplant the formation of your own opinions and ideas. If you want to see the movie then go see it.

6. Contrary to polite conventions (which do not exist on the internet anywhere that I have been) Pajiba promotes bitching. This site's tag-line is (in part) "Bitchy People." Say what you want, but that line is an encouragement for people to strap in and get sassy. I get fucking exhausted with people saying, "Ooohhh, why can't people just be nice." Suck it up. You don't like something, fight back. But whining is pathetic, especially around a group as intelligent, well-spoken and aggressivly opinionated as The Eloquents.

*drops drumsticks*
*throws hands in the air and walks off*

Posted by: superasente at June 18, 2010 8:05 PM

What does it say about this movie summer when even Pixar has dropped the ball?

Posted by: Leftylad at June 18, 2010 9:12 PM

I really, really enjoyed it - so did my kids, but if I may say - I wasn't looking at it in any critical sense, or actively evaluating it or assessing its place in the overall Pixar rankings - I just thought it was wonderful. My son (7) bawled his eyes out in sympathy, my daughter (4) was excited and enthused the whole time, and I laughed my ass off because Ken...well, he was perfect.

They have a fantastic schmaltz detector in those studios...they always know when to stop before your taste of honey becomes saccharine.

But Dan is also a fantastic reviewer whose opinion I'd take over a hundred others...combined. If I applied his qualms to the film I think I'd agree on some of his points. But while I was in the seat, I was literally swept up in the story and didn't take too much time to present a coherent article's worth of observations. Obviously.

Posted by: replica at June 18, 2010 10:48 PM

Okay, I've just gotten back from it. First thought - Bonnie is my daughter. Absolutely no joke about it. Haunted Bakery, tutu, and all. Her hair was too neat - it should have been a blonde tangled mess.

About the review: Y'know how Daily Kos and other political websites rip Obama a new one every other day even though they're more or less in the same ideological neighborhood?

This was Dan's attempt to rip Pixar a new one for their ideological bends and breaks with the Savvy Film Snobs. "He did a pointless pop music montage like Shrek! TWICE!" "The movie was mediocre, without conviction, without any real spirit!" All he needs are a pack of Ain't It Cool dweebish assholes chanting that Pixar is the way of the antichrist to complete the scene.

The movie was good, even by Pixar standards. Pixar fans will piss on about A Bug's Life or Cars, but the truth is both movies are pretty enjoyable, even on repeat viewings. This was pissing on perceived mediocrity in a slum full of the destitute and corrupt.

OTOH - The short, Night & Day, while cute, was probably one of the worst shorts they've ever produced. Creative, but not very engaging.

Posted by: idiosynchronic at June 18, 2010 11:30 PM

Daniel is just flat out wrong. I just saw the movie. It was wonderful - sweet and funny and sad and sentimental and clever. Don't let his review prevent you from seeing it.

Posted by: Suzeet at June 19, 2010 12:26 AM

Man, I never understand the lemmings that say things on here like "thanks for the review, now I know I can wait for it on tv/redbox or skip it entirely.". If it's something that interests you, go see it and make up your own mind.

And quit white knighting Dan. He's fine. This site is for bitchy people, and sometimes the reviewers become the target. Take the tampon about.

And really, Deistbrawler? Pixar sucks? I guess there's always someone who wants to be the cool guy that hates stuff. It's only a matter of time before hipsters and punk rockers start dissing Obama, not for any conservative leanings but in a desire to be the first to say, "I hated him when..."

Posted by: Asshole McGee at June 19, 2010 2:22 AM

I liked this movie

..and I liked this review

ISN'T THAT FUCKING CRAZY?!

Posted by: podface at June 19, 2010 9:45 AM

Yeah...why wouldn't I at least partly base my decision to spend $10 or more in going or not going to a movie I wasn't so sure about anyway on a review by someone I trust after a long history of agreeing with him.

Why would I ever do that! it's madness! I don't want to be a mad sheep! baaah! baaaaah!

Every time this shit comes up. Every time no one gets it. I don't even know why I bother, other than I haven't had my coffee yet.

Posted by: figgy at June 19, 2010 10:10 AM

Didn't we just have a comment diversion about the importance of critics in getting you to see a movie you otherwise wouldn't have? This discussion provides an interesting corollary: do you negatively pre-judge a movie or skip it in the theatrical run based on a bad review? I agree with Asshole McGee that it is jarring to see people put so much stock in this review that they are concluding the movie must be bad (because Dan said so), and maybe Pixar will do better next time.

I stopped by to read the Pajiba review only after I heard from several friends that it is "a nearly perfect movie". I was a little surprised that Dan's review was so negative, and that it is apparently the only negative review in existence.

That makes me question Dan but it doesn't invalidate his point. You can't go so far as to say "Dan is flat out wrong" but you probably should look for other opinions to consider. The ratings at Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes are certainly relevant to the discussion, as are responses from commenters here (some of which I, personally, would put more stock in that Dan's when making my own decision. No offense, DC.)

I assume you come to Pajiba because you trust the voices here a little more than the average tomato submission or IMDB message board but the Pajiba authority isn't absolute. Movies affect is in deeply personal and highly subjective ways. Arguing over how good/bad a movie is stupid, all you can do is discuss the meaning you found in it (or hope to find in it, since 95% of us haven't seen the film yet).

Posted by: Yossarian at June 19, 2010 10:45 AM

As hipster as this sounds, film is art first and entertainment second.

Yes. I'm fairly certain that Toy Story 3 was about art, and not about making money off a guaranteed franchise at all.

I think that as someone who's seen a crap-ton of movies in my life, it's no unfair thing to ask that reviewers offer their reviews in that context.

What? What the hell does this mean? Because as written, it sounds like you're saying that every reviewer should pander to you specifically in their reviews. Or, alternately, that they should assume that everyone who might be part of the target audience for this movie has also seen "a crap-ton of movies" (is that metric, by the way?) and wants them reviewed as art first, entertainment second. While some may agree with you on that, some will find it patently ridiculous.

And really, Deistbrawler? Pixar sucks?

Deist didn't say "Pixar sucks." He said "Toy Story 2 sucked." Pay attention.

My intentions regarding seeing this movie (or, upon seeing it, whether or not I agree with the review) completely aside, this is a beautiful and thoughtful piece of writing. And before you people start with your pandering/lemming bullshit, what's in it for me? What, exactly, do I get out of telling someone I admire their writing? I'm not getting paid for it. I'm not getting a column out of it, or a new BFF (although, DC, if you're in the market, call me!). I simply appreciate the writing of the piece itself. Because, as hipster as this sounds, criticism is art first and influence second. (See what I did there?)

Posted by: Anna von Beaverplatz at June 19, 2010 10:48 AM

It was Case who I thought was making the stretch to be the hippest one on the 'Net, not DeistBrawler. When you're on the Internet on your phone and you visit many a pop-culture site that should be an entry on StuffWhitePeopleLike (this one, AVClub, etc) things get confusing. Apologies to Deist.

Furthermore, sure, factoring in a reviewer is always a possibility. Some people just connect with that one, and find a surrogate for themselves. However, I've seen borderline creepy, automaton comments such as "I was hoping this would be good" or "Thanks! Now I don't have to see it now!".

I mean, if it at all interested you... I would think that there's no substitute for first-hand experience. Particularly when a review is mixed versus universally one way or the other. To write off a movie solely on the words of another seems a little cult of personality-ish. I understand this is a cult site, though, and as far as I know not a lot of people here crossover to other sites, so the devotion might be a little too real for me.

For the record, this was a good piece of writing. There are a couple of good reviewers on this site, Dan being one of the better ones as he doesn't curse for shock value or attempt to be too twee. He's pretty straightforward, in a good way.

Posted by: Asshole McGee at June 19, 2010 11:18 AM

You're right as usual, Yoss. While I never base my decision entirely on one reviewer's opinion, I think Dan stated his case perfectly well and just because we don't agree with him doesn't mean his opinion isn't valid. I didn't read that he thought it was a BAD movie, just that he was disappointed, and I can perfectly understand that because he was his usual eloquent self and I understood why he didn't like it so much. And, based on his argument, I can see myself being disappointed in it as well, though I'm perfectly willing to be surprised and disagree with him.

Truth is I was probably never gonna see this in the theater--maybe the cheapo theater in a couple of months. I just don't go to the movies that much, and definitely can't afford it right now. I'd rather just wait for it anyway.

Posted by: figgy at June 19, 2010 11:47 AM

I love you, AvB.

Posted by: figgy at June 19, 2010 11:50 AM

Dan,

I hear, understand and agree with your frustrations regarding the film. Thanks to their ridiculously amazing track record I think it's possible that, among critics, a certain level of 'group think' has taken hold. I've even come across a number of "Cars" apologists as of late. I was surprised too. Regardless of any group think or not, Pixar has reached the status of being more than just an animated studio. Their studio, arguably, has consistently produced more modern classics than any other studio out there, animated or not. Consequently, they should now be held at the same level of American film critique. Because of their own established quality, they aren't allowed to float by, sans criticism, with the lazy defense of, "It's an animated film!! What did you expect?? Loosen up!"

Like yourself, I'm not saying this is a bad film (or even one you should wait for Netflix to see). From my experience the narrative felt jarring for the reasons you mentioned. 'The Great Escape' did feel like it was a part of the wrong movie. I found the sequence greatly entertaining, but didn't find it particularly smooth with the narrative. One of Pixar's greatest attributes (in addition to being gifted storytellers) rests in their ability to often hover and reach the level of something sublime. 'Toy Story 3', easily had a couple of these same, high quality moments. Yet because their standard has a history of meeting and surpassing that standard, it makes it stand out all the more when it doesn't happen.

Posted by: Barnes78 at June 19, 2010 1:29 PM

I just wanted to add that I don't particularly feel that I should have 'experienced' a movie like, say, Garfeild for myself...because the reviewer might have a slight mis-alignment with my personal set of values and tastes.

I rarely have enough money to see one or two films, never mind most films - and wouldn't that be rather lemming like too? To see it all in search of some form of ...know-it-allness? How internet of me!

I seek out the reviews here as advice on what to see (dur!)- it is what led me here in the first place. The quality of work is what keeps me here. What's wrong with that?

I know Dan's work well enough now to know that his dislike of something is maybe not a deal-breaker for me, but I sure as hell have a lot more nuanced ideas to explore when I do get the chance to talk about film with my friends. I often discuss a concept or an angle about a movie that I've read about here - and I'd say a lot of my friends have benefited from some spot-on recommendations I'd never have come up with on my own.

Tomato not enrich my life. Pajiba enrich my life. Not love Tomato, devoted to Pajiba!
*falls on knees, crying, ingests koolaid.*

Posted by: replica at June 19, 2010 1:41 PM

ok. i have had just about enough. toy story 2 was awse. that is all. ALL!

bunch of bitches.

Posted by: gp at June 19, 2010 1:52 PM

Having just seen it .... yea, it was phenomenal. Best trilogy ever.

Posted by: Mick J at June 19, 2010 4:56 PM

Okay, I am sorry, but some of the comments on here really upset me. How could you skip a movie based on one review. I know that the Pajiba always has a tendency to be very pretentious, but how could you skip a movie that so many people see has heart-warming, beautiful, and enjoyable simply based on the fact that one precocious reviewer thought that it didn't achieve its ultimate PIXAR potential?

I myself just saw the movie today and I can honestly say it is one of my favourite Pixar movies. The movie was beautifully rendered, and from my perspective did not feel like an add-on WHATSOEVER. The story felt very natural as Andy had to grow up, and the toys' reactions to their child's progression made much sense. The ending itself was absolutely beautiful and touching, and I can't say that there was one dry eye left in the house. Another Pixar masterpiece in my mind.

Posted by: Elena at June 19, 2010 7:59 PM

For the record:

Tammy: I will probably still see this.
Kefka Palazzo: Just trying to get my ducks in a row before I do see it.
Annoyingmouse: I'm seeing this movie and you can't goddamn stop me!
Jelinas: ...but I still plan to see it.
Admin: I'll still see it...
Katsings: I'll probably watch this someday on Netflix. Cause I am a sucker like that.
Idiosynchronic: I'm still going.
Cree83: Well I'm seeing this tonight.

Two of the people who expressed no desire to see the movie (Deistbrawler and Case) didn't site the review as the reason why; the sited a general dislike for Pixar.

Of all the people who commented that they would not see it, only Kiyo-Chan directly sited the review (one could argue that Figgy also sited the review when she wrote "I'll watch it eventually..." But as she later states that she rarely watches movies in the theater and probably wouldn't have seen it anyway, I'm not including her.)

And for every negative comment, there were even more positive comments from the likes of Otis, Justvisiting, WhatBenWatches, Ricardo, Paul Southworth, Replica, Suzeet; who all expressed deep disagreement with Dan's review and all of whom gave the movie high praise.

So Elena, Tank and anyone else who has implied that the readership is following Dan's review like lemmings -- I ask you:
What comments are you reading?

Posted by: superasente at June 19, 2010 9:16 PM

As someone who always thought that the toy story movies were the weakest of the pixar bunch, regardless of a few sterling moments, I have to say that the prison break and garbage dump scenes, by themselves, are worth the price of admission. Just describing the incinerator scene was enough to put my girlfriend in tears. Just as the review says, just that scene alone puts the rest of the movie to shame. However, I don't think that it's neccessarily because the rest of the movie was mediocre, but because that scene is so goddamned perfect. It's a tough Scene to live up to, even within the same movie. I, for one, say that the director and animators should be nominated for that scene alone. A moment is the most you can ever expect of perfection. There's something to be said for that and TS3 should be praised for it, not condemned. I know exactly what he meant, but I just interpret my feelings about it a little differently. He hits much closer to the mark than many other reviews and I still count this as a positive review. Still a great movie and a must see.

Posted by: Smatt584 at June 20, 2010 12:46 AM

Lots of people being sensitive about being implied lemmings. Are people protesting too much? You either are or you're not.

This is the problem with criticism. There's no line. Should the critic be criticized? Should criticism be submitted for critical reviews? Why can't people criticize a critic, or be critical of a critical evaluation?

I think the universe just exploded.

Posted by: Asshole McGee at June 20, 2010 1:11 AM

This movie was fantastic. It was funny, clever, exciting, and even heart-wrenchingly/achingly sad at times. It struck all the right chords for me just like it's predecessors did. I remember being 8 years old and being incredibly excited to see Toy Story, and this movie brought me straight back to that while still playing to my adult sensibilities. Pixar just manages to remind me exactly why I love them every time I take a seat in a movie theater. All I need to see is little Luxo Jr. and I know I am seeing something exceptional.

Posted by: Ken Hart at June 20, 2010 2:27 AM

Oooh, I completely disagree with the criticism of this film. I found it incredibly affecting - as did my 14 year old (who grew up on the first 2) and my 7 year old. All for very different reasons. The 7 year old just thought the movie was hilarious; the 14 year old got misty over the toys she has already packed away - AND thought it was hilarious - and I saw the shadow of Andy's mom's (and the toys') empty-nest syndrome in myself, remembering when I bought Ava her Jesse the Cowgirl doll all those years ago. And I thought it was hilarious, too. It's about knowing when to let go, and finding a way to remain true to yourself and your own needs even through all the changes around you. The toys are so bound in their identity as ANDY'S - when that seems to fail them, they are lost and hurt. When they realize he still cares, they are first perfectly content to wait for him in the attic, as was the original plan - but the denouement is so much richer. We aren't supposed to just wait to be remembered - we have our own worth and have to find ways to live in that.

I thought "Day & Night" was phenomenal. It took a little time for me to warm up to it, but I really want to see it again, asap.

Posted by: Edith at June 20, 2010 2:45 AM

Lots of people being sensitive about being implied lemmings. Are people protesting too much? You either are or you're not.

So being called a lemming (which, despite proof to the contrary, is still considered an insult to one's intelligence) SHOULDN'T be taken personally? That is...well, stupid. Really stupid. I mean, really stupid.

But don't take it personally.

I know it is way too late, but it seems we have another much-needed banned word: "lemming". People around here have about as much understanding of its meaning as they do "hipster" and "ironic", which is fuck all.

It amazes me that people would rather believe that there is some cult mentality afoot. It is the INTERNET, people. Our words, our thoughts, are the only things that link us together here, instead of race, or country, or gender. So there will be some overlap, some perceived groupthink. But it isn't because the reviewers are nefarious mindkings, it is simply a natural synthesis of similar views, hobbies, tastes, and so on. It is a COMMUNITY.

There is a difference between slavish devotion and mere communal influence. The way I see it, review are supposed to influence your decision. They are another form of advertising, as well as a stimulant for critical thinking. So to be upset with a review for doing it's intended purpose is laughable. If you want to see the film, review or no, you are just as free to do so as anyone else. And like fellow riddle enthusiast superasente pointed out, the consensus is on the movie's side. If you really wanted to field a "lemming" comparison, well....

So here is the big $100,000 Question: can any of you "lemming"-spouters honestly say you made it through your whole life without a single decision being influence by another person? If not, what makes you situation so much different from this?

Posted by: Vermillion at June 20, 2010 12:44 PM

I thought this film was wonderful. I questioned this review before I saw it. Now, I am completely baffled. Did the reviewer and I see the same film? This was the perfect end to the Toy Story tale. It was closure. See my review of the movie on my YouTube channel if you wish.

Posted by: Tetsubo at June 20, 2010 12:52 PM

Well put Vermillion.

Has it occurred to anyone that Dan may be the smartest hype man on the internet?

Like, how many people are going to catch wind of the ONE review containing razor sharp criticism (which is all quite true, although not at all to the degree he presents it, as far as I'm concerned) of the new wicked Pixar movie?

haha on all eyeballs.

Posted by: replica at June 20, 2010 1:29 PM

I appreciate the fact that Dan DID write a fairly critical piece on this film. I start to give a hairy eyeball to any flick that gets UNIVERSAL acclaim.

That being said, I suspect if you go into Toy Story 3 (as we might this week) just wanting to enjoy a decent story and be entertained for a bit, you'll love it.

I further suspect if you put the level of thought into it that Dan has, you'd probably come up with the same criticisms. I can see myself also rolling my eyes at the Ken doll trying on different outfits to "Le Freak." Dan's point about original compositions in the first Toy Story is a good one, and one that gives me pause. It's one of the things I loved the most about it. If TS3 has more cheap laughs due to pop songs, then yeah, it will feel a bit different to me.

I bet I'll still be entertained.

Anyway, I think you can probably like TS3 AND like this review of it. And I want to repeat that it almost makes me sigh with relief when I find a review that goes against the grain. It's creepy when 100% of people agree on something.

Posted by: Snuggiepants at June 20, 2010 4:12 PM

Unlike the other "Case", I enjoyed it. Much like I enjoyed the first two.

Posted by: Case at June 20, 2010 5:47 PM

Easy Verm, easy. I've yet to call out any particular people as lemmings. I'm far, far too lazy to go back through the archives to try and find comments that seem to cross the line from informing and out-and-out thinking for the person, but I assure you they're out there.

And if you don't want to take my word for it, just google up some fan fiction about different celebrities in various lesbian encounters and wank yourself to ecstatic oblivion...

Posted by: Asshole McGee at June 20, 2010 6:44 PM

Just saw the movie and although it pains me to say this, it's now glaringly obvious how desperately deficient and lost at sea this review is. Just tripe. But wordy...I have to give you wordy.

Fortunately, word count does not equal thoughfulness or insight.

Posted by: Barry at June 20, 2010 6:59 PM

I thoroughly enjoyed Toy Story 3, and I may have been steeped with apprehension had I read this review first, but granted, I wanted most of the pertinent bits left to their own devices. I happened to find that yes, it's not perfect, and I still think Up was a better film, but Toy Story 3 was my kind of movie because I felt like I had grown up with the film itself. Sure, there were a lot of characters, and yes, some moments were kind of obvious jokes, but to call it a complete failure, I will not.
I am, however, pleased to find a film that is unanimously lauded, only to have Pajiba give it a drudging. Don't see that often.

Posted by: Kamikaze Feminist at June 20, 2010 7:16 PM

I've yet to call out any particular people as lemmings. I'm far, far too lazy to go back through the archives to try and find comments that seem to cross the line from informing and out-and-out thinking for the person, but I assure you they're out there.

You didn't have to. The lemming talk already started (of course, you are self-admittedly too lazy to notice). I just thought that you saying that people are too sensitive to being insulted was stupid. It still is. Regardless if they are one or not, nobody likes being called a lemming. So of course they are not going to take it lightly.

If it makes you feel any better, you are certainly living up to the screen name. Although I would appreciate it if you didn't concern yourself with my personal affairs. I could not give less of a shit if you got your rocks off in whatever manner you employ; it would be nice for you to return the favor.

Posted by: Vermillion at June 20, 2010 8:23 PM

I like Dan Carlson's reviews though I may sometimes disagree with them.

If I decide to skip a movie because of a negative review I've read on Pajiba, then so be it. It will not be the end of the world.

If I decide to watch a movie because of a positive review I've read on Pajiba, then good for me. Since I usually like the same stuff that the reviewers here like, I can hardly see myself losing out on anything.

I hate it when people try to start a rant by saying, "I'm sorry, but..." You are not sorry - why are you apologizing? You're just trying to seem like you really are trying to be understanding but are completely failing to comprehend whatever you disagree with. It's patronizing and stupid.

Ratatouille was the best Pixar film.

That is all.

Posted by: dene at June 20, 2010 8:24 PM

Man, having seen this movie yesterday, I completely disagree with your review. I think this might be the most emotionally resonant Pixar movie to date. And I thought the humor and story worked really well! I don't recall a single moment of eye-rolling on my part, which is saying a lot for a family film, and I thought the pace was quite consistent. Honestly, I don't see how anyone could not love this movie.

Posted by: ChristianH at June 20, 2010 8:31 PM

What the hell is going on over here?

What do people not understand about having an opinion?

And what do people not understand about forming a community with people who share similar opinions?

Had Dan lauded it, then would he not just be one of the lemmings giving this movie a reach around on Rotten Tomatoes?

These are some of the dumbest comments I've ever seen. What is your stake in this movie that would make you defend it so vociferously and actually claim to be "upset" about the comments? What do you care if people don't see a movie whether upon the advice of a reviewer whom they respect, or because they lost their eyes in a horrible "I lost my eyes" accident.

Who gives a shit? Do you not have enough people on your I Heart Toy Story 3 Team? Do you need some converts?

I have no interest in seeing Toy Story 3 because I didn't really care for Toy Stories 1 and 2. Now, I'm definitely not going to see it just to rub it in your stupid faces.

Posted by: stopthemadness at June 20, 2010 8:38 PM

God damn it, I never thought I'd get sick of reading discussions about art criticism, but this thread makes me fucking sick. Both sides are using the most absurd arguments to make their points (which are then repeated by others later on who didn't read all of the comments before posting their own responses). Everyone is too sensitive about their opinion, everyone is too sensitive about Dan's feelings. Basically, everyone is too sensitive, except for the people who are not sensitive at all to the feelings of others and are trying to be dickish.

I honestly don't care about your grand treatise on film criticism or your deep analysis of this review. I thought that I, of all people, would never say anything to that effect, but you people broke me. I don't want to fucking deal with this anymore.

I loved this movie. I went with a group of six people, and all of us were crying by the end of it. The kids in the packed theater didn't act up; there didn't look to be a dry eye in the house, and there was character nuance and subtlety that was far above any other film I've seen so far this year (I personally thought of Lotso as sort of the antithesis of the Jessy story, what would have happened had she grown cold as he had, which made him a more interesting character, in my opinion). It may be my favorite Pixar film; definitely in the top 3.

That's my opinion of the movie, which I saw. If you saw it, and have a concurrent or differing opinion, by all means voice it. If you haven't seen it or you just want to quibble over what "bias" means or whether RottenTomatoes is relevant or whether "lemmings" is a personal attack, please, if you'll forgive me for saying so, shut the fuck up.

Posted by: ChristianH at June 20, 2010 9:04 PM

Nooooooooo!!! stopthemadness refuses to see Toy Story 3! My Disney stock is worthless! Worthless, l tells ya!

Posted by: Asshole McGee at June 20, 2010 9:07 PM

exactly my point. who gives a crap?

Posted by: stopthemadness at June 20, 2010 9:54 PM

Almost this whole damn thread reminds of "I can't go to bed yet. Someone is WRONG on the Internet!"

As the cliche goes, opinions are like assholes, and should you find yourself blindly following one, you're probably part of a Human Centipede.

Posted by: branded at June 20, 2010 10:01 PM

Eh, one and three liked it, but I was unmoved. And not just because one's tears taste like regret and failure. Wait, wait am I a retired meme? Shit, I'm lucky this is pretty far down the thread.

Posted by: Centipede-section two at June 20, 2010 10:15 PM

*snerk*, exactly stopthemadness. It's like because I decided to wait to catch it on Netflix so I can cry in the privacy of my own home, it'll make less money and Pixar will go bankrupt. Or my comment will convince more people to not watch it! Pixar is doooooomed!

I HAVE THE POWAH.

Hmm. I just now realized that I've never seen a Pixar movie in theaters. I've loved all their movies, but always caught them on DVD. I just don't go to the movies at ALL these days. Last thing I saw was Sherlock Holmes and it didn't make me want to go to movies again any time soon.

Posted by: figgy at June 20, 2010 10:17 PM

It's great. Pixar has done it again. I felt everything was solid, I thought it was dark in spots. Overall a well-balanced story and good emotion. I liked it, as did my 4-year-old son. Go watch Shrek 2, 3 or 4, then watch this, and get some perspective Dan.

Still much better than Cars.

Posted by: Doom70 at June 20, 2010 10:31 PM

*hyuk*. If we can take discussing this to an extreme, we're all arguing over giant conglomerates and famous people we'll never meet.

Although, some people seem to be making an emotional connection with this movie and are daring to criticize a critic, which apparently is bad. Criticizing a movie is good. *snort*

Hey, even Danny says he struggles with making a living criticizing original works of art others labor on, which is what a lot of movies are, be they Human Centipedes or Godtopus: The Movie starring Nathan Fillion and Christina Hendricks, written by Joss Whedon and scored by Arcade Fire.

*snurgle*

Posted by: Asshole McGee at June 20, 2010 11:21 PM

Godtopus: The Movie starring Nathan Fillion and Christina Hendricks, written by Joss Whedon and scored by Arcade Fire.

Fuck this, I want that movie on my DVD shelf right now.

Posted by: ChristianH at June 20, 2010 11:55 PM

Hey, look everybody -- BOOBS!

Posted by: Rykker at June 21, 2010 6:03 AM

Branded, that's some funny shit right there. (That's what Segment Three said! Ohhh!)

Posted by: meaux at June 21, 2010 6:43 AM

This review actually convinced me to see it, because I was curious to see how dark they made it. I enjoyed it and it moved me (though that isn't difficult, I'm practically on emotional skates). I saw it in Disney Digital 3D because the regular one was sold out when I got there. I can't imagine it was better that way, but whatev.

And yes, the digital short, Night and Day, was SO fascinating! The animation was so brilliant and thoughtful, and the sound direction was genius.

Posted by: Patty O'Green at June 21, 2010 10:08 AM

Oh, goodness. This is what I miss because of a really bad Friday that's had me off my rocker and still leaves me very edgy? But I wanted to play with the "Google bad reviews to bitch" visitors, too. No fair.

For what it's worth, I didn't care for the first Toy Story film. It just wasn't my thing. Which means I haven't seen the second film, and have no intentions of seeing the third. They did spawn two very fun rides in Disney World, though. Love those 3-D arcade shooting rides.

I can also say I've been on the opposing end of the argument before and been really piled on by the regulars at Pajiba. That's ok. I now that my taste in, say, horror films doesn't align with the general tastes of the site. I tend to, for example, give Dustin a lot of crap about his horror film reviews before I see the film because I know he really doesn't like a lot of the so-called "torture" aspects of the modern low budget studio pictures. I don't either, but I'm not as quick to dismiss a film because it falls into that sub-genre. Many times, I'll see the film and provide my own thoughts afterward. If I get ranty, it's because he (or someone else) was bandying about very nasty terms that have become standard no-brainer criticisms of the genre. I expect more in the reviews here and am very rarely let down.

The point of the digression is this: I didn't see a lazy, contrarian review here from Dan. I saw a smart piece of film criticism that pointed out the flaws he saw in the picture with a good amount of objectivity and justification for his opinions. If he saw a parallel to a Dreamworks film as a fault, he explained why. Drudging up crap about how he asked what Pixar film would you rather a sequel for (um...none of them warrant one because the stories work very well compared to most big studio pictures as stand alone narratives? Was that a choice? I missed that poll) is ridiculous.

And a note for those crawling out of the woodwork: it's very rare on this site for commenters to personally attack each other. If there's a fight going on, it's about the issues in the film. It's not an excuse to bandy about insults about a person because you disagree with their opinion. When it gets to that level, it's not fun for anyone and really brings the site down. Thankfully, most of the regulars know how to approach these kind of baseless attacks with humor and logic to do their best to steer the comments on course most of the time.

Posted by: Robert at June 21, 2010 11:09 AM

When did Toy Story start to share a fanbase with Twilight?

Posted by: Craig at June 21, 2010 11:52 AM

you, sir, are wrong...

this is yet another in the long list of 5 star Pixar movies...

absolute perfection

Posted by: coologuy1957 at June 21, 2010 12:40 PM

I absolutely loved it! Compared to all the other drek coming from the studios nowadays, this was actually the most ORIGINAL and enjoyable story I've seen in a long, long time. I liked this way more than the first two and I liked those well enough. I laughed, I cried and I loved the 3D (ne'er saw that before). Loved the opening short too. Seemed almost like a pro-gay marriage PSA -- kinda surprised Disney would put out something like that -- way to go. Go see this movie -- you will not be disappointed!

Posted by: ChinaCat at June 21, 2010 4:09 PM

The reason I come to Pajiba is I can usually count on the people inside the snark factory to keep it real and to tell the truth. Dustin has put up ads for movies he's later articulately (and seemingly happily) eviscerated, proving his loyalty lies not with studios and PR firms but with his readers. I put it out there that Dan, in his facebook stream, floated the question about Pixar, sequels and wishful thinking after reading his review. I'm assuming a lot, and I agree with the stated sentiments of those who believe it is insulting and ridiculous to infer that an often venerated and generally respected reviewer on pajiba would have a concealed bias about a movie prior to his or her watching it. However, when a reviewer writes, "No film exists in a vacuum, and Toy Story 3 has the unfortunate task of being judged with the rest of Pixar’s body of work, against which it feels too much like a half-baked spin-off," it immediately struck a chord as the review of this specific, singular film seemed hypercritical and disingenuous. I, for one, would love to see The Incredibles 2, but Brad Birds priorities are foremost to direct the crazy flats wearing midget in some other sequel. I have no doubt that someone as erudite and savvy as Dan knows sequels to movies have been around almost as long as the movies itself. And any film makers attempting to navigate desolate waters in the third film of a franchise is both kept simultaneously buoyed and anchored by the story and the characters that came before it, and to make a satisfying film within that conceit is a challenge very few filmmakers attempt, much less succeed at. After reading the review, which is the epitome of negativity - "isn't exactly terrible... flat and uninvolving... the film mostly feels like a tired retread, one step too far for a story that once hit great heights... How could a Pixar film feel so predictable?" Could the answer possibly be this is not a film you felt should have gotten the green light? That's ok but I don't think a reviewer should omit that fact or obscure it by highlighting the tiny faults in an otherwise solid film. I saw an Alvin Ailey dance performance as part of a school assignment and I didn't dig it. Everything about it was superb; the dancer's technique, choreography, music, all of it. Just not my thing, and I admitted that up front as part of a written assessment. The teacher understood that, and I still got a pretty decent grade. I think that's where this review fails - it's presented as being objective when its actually subjective to the reviewers preconcieved disappointment. Can't wait for those reviews of Cars 2 AND Monsters Inc. 2 though, and based on this critical analysis, might as well go ahead and get started.

Posted by: Wiley at June 22, 2010 1:20 AM

I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. As did my 8 year old son. I completely disagree with this review.

Posted by: bob at June 22, 2010 9:57 AM

I don't know. I seriously don't understand why Toy Story 2 was so magical and fappable for everyone. I though 3 was superb and the perfect lid on my childhood. And I thought Lotso's story was much better than Jesse's.

Seriously, what am I missing vis-a-vis Jesse? Did everyone else have a cowgirl doll that they feel bad about chucking? Or was it the Sarah McLachlan thing? I DON'T UNDERSTAND. The only think I ever liked about Jesse was that she and Buzz got together. That's IT.

The only thing that could have made the movie better for me would be if they magically found Bo Peep at the end... maybe the dog buried her in the back yard... and then Woody could have nursed her back to health and BANG BANG BANG. Mmmm.

Also, Gypsy Kings covering You Got A Friend In Me made me hysterical in a good way.

Also, they really should have talked to Andy at the end just to make me cry harder.

Posted by: Ling at June 22, 2010 1:27 PM

you silly fucks want to be taken so seriously that you can't appreciate a good cartoon. i belly laughed more at this movie than any other pixar offering. it was great. fuck off.

Posted by: jimmy at June 22, 2010 3:45 PM

It's reasons like this why you're my least favorite movie critic, Daniel. You even gave a bad review to the best movie to come out last year, what the fuck is wrong with you?

Posted by: Voodoo Lounger at June 22, 2010 7:29 PM

Wow, you almost need a hose and shovel to make it through all the pretension in here. It's a goddamn shit-don't-stinkfest.

Posted by: pisser at June 22, 2010 11:09 PM

Big Baby creeped me the hell out! Loved the movie.

Posted by: Kitty2000 at June 24, 2010 7:41 AM

Who cares...........if he liked it or not and voodoo the title does say Scathing reviews. that should tell ya if the retard doesn't like it than it must be pretty good.

Posted by: Jimmy Love at June 24, 2010 3:33 PM

Wow. Yours is the first and only negative review I have seen of this movie. Maybe they shouldn't be sending you to kid movies?

Posted by: Mee Mee at June 24, 2010 4:30 PM

toy story is American computer-animated family film.
they are vary intersating story.as well as the first feature film in history to be made entirely with CGI
Smile Travel Insurance
sophia

Posted by: Smile Travel Insurance at June 25, 2010 4:31 AM

toy story is American computer-animated family film.
they are vary intersating story.as well as the first feature film in history to be made entirely with CGI
Smile Travel Insurance
sophia

Posted by: Smile Travel Insurance at June 25, 2010 4:33 AM

It's a sad day for Earth when I have to actually SEARCH the internet for a review with a different opinion.

Other than that, I see the internet is working correctly from the comments section. There may still be hope.

Posted by: email at June 25, 2010 6:52 AM

please eat shit and die...

Posted by: coologuy1957 at June 25, 2010 12:19 PM

toy story 3 sucks!!!!!!!!!!!! The director pushes the scary scenes way too far for kids. They needed to lighten up this movie alot. Very disappointing.

Posted by: Julie at June 27, 2010 6:22 PM

Finally - someone has the guts to come out and criticize a Pixar film. The film is mediocre. The reason everyone loves it is for the same reason they loved Up - because of one sequence that made them cry.

No one remembers how stupid the rest of Up was (flying dogs, weak villain) and no one remembers how boring Toy Story 3 was (ken fashion show, weak villain). They just remember how much it made them cry.

It's the cult of personality. Everyone automatically loves Pixar because everyone else does - that's why everyone keeps pointing to RottenTomatoes to defend mob rule.

The film wasn't that great, thanks for saying so.

Posted by: not-fazed at July 2, 2010 2:40 PM

I loved the movie and cried for the first time in roughly 6-7 years. If someone doesn't understand that, they probably had shitty parents.

Posted by: Allen at July 3, 2010 4:13 AM

Wow, you must be one of the only people on the planet who didn't think this was an amazing film. For me it's the best Toy Story yet, and probably will be the best film of the year.

I know your tagline is about being bitchy, but do you guys give every movie a negative review, no matter what?

Posted by: Storm at July 6, 2010 12:45 AM

Now THIS is how you write a "negative" review! 100% of the points you made were valid (the Lot-so, Jessie thing bugged the shit out of me!), and 80% of them I agreed with. I don't understand the flamers on this one. While Armond White's negative review is a obvious cry for page views and nothing more, this I can actually see where you're coming from.

Still, even with all that, I enjoyed this film. I can't help but love this film and can't wait to watch it again. The last third of the movie was incredible, rivaling Up's "Family Life" sequence with the pure emotion and heart Pixar can put into an animated movie. The opening sequence was also fantastic. Even though it seemed like the opening to Toy Story 2, this one was better, more funny and fit into the actual story much more easily. I do about the "stale" jokes though. The whole audience was laughing at them, including me, so you can't say they were worthless. Also, they were so quick and can easily be forgotten withen such gems as tortilla-Mr.Potato head and Spanish-mode Buzz.

Thank you for the review, it provided a nice counter-point to all the raving critics. I hope people still go to see this movie, it's probably the best film we'll get over the summer. Surely the best kids movie.

Posted by: Luke at July 11, 2010 6:09 PM

Look, all I'm gonna say is that several times during the film (most notably during the hand-holding scene referenced in the review) I cried honest-to-god mantears. (They're like regular tears, except it's OK for men to cry them) It's not as good as the first two films - anyone expecting any sequel *ever* to be better is on a bit of a hiding to nothing, a very few exceptions aside - but it's still better than 95% of the movies that have come out in the past while, so I enjoyed the hell out of it, as did everyone else I know who's seen it.

Posted by: Shay at August 6, 2010 5:48 AM

The Toy Story movies have always been impossible not to love thanks to their mixture of heart, humour and action, but this last goodbye is the best yet.

Posted by: ringtones at September 7, 2010 5:50 AM

i'd have to say.!!! stats are a discomfort within the arse. i suggest most stat web-sites do not even display you whatever you seriously have coming into you unless you by some means do you personal code and every single sole web page of your respective own web site. personally i have more than 100k pages on my internet site so you see the problem proper..
. right.

Posted by: Floy Dagata at September 26, 2010 2:51 PM

I am underemployed in excess of 2 years. I lost the house, my cars and I've been struggling to find work anywhere, not for minimum wage. I did lots of digging and research for online jobs and located most of them didn't pay very well. Then I discovered this site advertising Looking for a Teaching Job? and wow it has changed playing. I now make more money than I did before and collect a cheque every couple weeks. I just thought I'd share this with anyone who might be inside a similar situation. All the best.

Posted by: Vera Polley at December 4, 2010 2:12 AM

I like when you talk about this type of stuff in your blog. Perhaps could you continue to do this?

Posted by: Tales of Pirates Crusader Leveling Guide at December 16, 2010 8:06 AM

Found your blog in the AOL how to flatten abs directory, very nice job, thanks. My positive reinforcement is based on self expectations. I have goals and expectations like anyone else. These goals or expectations keep me focused, in the sense that if I don’t live up to them, there will be a greater consequence. So, I’ll do my best to keep up, that way I don’t have to suffer whatever the consequence is.

Posted by: Iluminada Ogaz at December 22, 2010 1:53 PM

continue with the the good work on the blog. I love it. Could use some more frequent updates, but i am sure you got better stuff to do like we all do. :)

Posted by: bangkok at January 26, 2011 5:46 AM

keep up the good work on the site. I like it. Could maybe use some more updates more often, but i'm quite sure you have got better or other stuff to do like we all have to do unfortunately. =)

Posted by: phuket at January 26, 2011 9:35 AM

You completed some fine points there. I did a search on the topic and found a good number of people will agree with your blog.

Posted by: zero friction marketing at February 14, 2011 5:41 AM


















Viral Hits

>> Pajiba Movie Posters

>> Pop Culture's 20 Greatest Dancing GIFs

>> Mindhole Blowers

>> The 100 Greatest Insults of All Time

>> The "Other" 100 Greatest Movie Quotes

>> The 100 Greatest Movie Threats of All Time

>> The Sean Bean Death Reel

>> Chicks Dig Beards: It's Science

>> The Coolest TV Show Title Sequences

>> The Most Rewatchable Movies

>> The Most Expensive Movies of All Time