Just got back from Toy Story 3…and it didn’t live up to my expectations. This despite loving the hell out of the first two, which are among my favorite movies ever. So what went wrong?
I thought the first few minutes were good, before I realized it covered almost identical themes and territory to that of the second movie. The fictitious opening scene (video game/flashback), toys getting mistakenly thrown away/sold, a rescue effort to save them, a seemingly good-guy turned bad, Woody getting pissy and abandoning his friends, a final action sequence that takes place on conveyor belts around large machinery, and the entire running theme of what it’s like to no longer be loved by someone.
I also found the first 2/3 to be slow (and lacking in locations) and not nearly as funny as the previous two–though I did laugh now and then. Luckily, the movie really picked in the final third, and the Mr. Potato head sequence was hilarious. I also found the final near-demise of the toys to be quite moving. I just wish the first two-thirds could have come close to matching that energy/intensity.
Still a decent movie, but a far cry from the brilliance of the first two–particularly as the second movie covered very similar material in a superior fashion.
I guess I gotta disagree, in that I found it far superior to the overrated TS2 (which had way too much cheap meta-humor). The original is still my favorite Pixar movie of them all, but this one had an emphasis on heart and genuine crisis. I never for a second was concerned about their collective fate in the sequel, but this one had moments of real and imminent danger that made it more exciting and moving. I still don’t really buy the whole “I’m leaving for college but still need my toy cowboy” conceit, but there are a lot more interesting toy characters in this one (again, something 2 didn’t have, save for Jesse), and some truly creepy and unnerving moment (both the baby and the monkey are the stuff of true nightmares). TS2 still has the best song of all 3 films, but I find the rest fairly dispensable, while this one has some really terrific and memorable moments–plus, it’s rare to see a kid’s film that’s honest about how monstrous those tykes can be sometimes! Overall, an excellent effort, and I’d say in the top half of all the Pixar features.
I’m with ArchiveGuy. TS3 was better than TS2, and almost as good (even just on first viewing) as TS1.
Here’s what I posted on the other TS3 thread:
*50 years from now they’ll look back at the whole Toy Story trilogy as one of the finest achievements of American cinema. I’m certain of it.
Toy Story 3 is wonderful. It’s just as good as the first two, equal parts hilarious and poignant. I’m someone who’s basically grown up with the Pixar films - Toy Story came out when I was eleven, and it’s still one of my favorite movies, a treasured classic that works as well for my adult self today as it did for my kid self in 1995.
Woody, Buzz, and the rest are characters as dear to my heart as Luke Skywalker or Jim Kirk were for folks older than my generation. And Toy Story 3 completes their story - everyone’s story - in the most perfect way imaginable.
It’s a little embarrassing to admit, but I feel like a part of my childhood has finally closed the door, and I’m both happy and sad about it.
I guess I don’t think the Toy Story movies ever needed one to be afraid of their collective fates in order to be a good movie. The first one certainly lacked that element as well.
They don’t “need” them, no. And I also tend to get annoyed when a movie shoehorns in a “save the world” or “everyone is going to die” plotline when it isn’t necessary. What made Toy Story 3’s story so great was that the peril the characters find themselves in made sense, both plot-wise and thematically.
[spoiler]The toys were talking about the trash the entire movie - being trash, being thrown in the trash, being lost or discarded or forgotten. So it fits that the big climax would happen in the dump, because that place represents what Woody and his friends fear the most.
And crucially, their big moment isn’t the exciting action sequence in the trash compactor or the last-second rescue from the incinerator. It’s the sequence in which they accept their fates and decide that if they’re going to go, they’re going to go together. The moment when the toys clasp hands and bravely face their inevitable doom was, to me, every bit as powerful as Andy’s beautiful homage to his beloved toys at the end. Both sequences reinforce the central theme of the movie, which is that of friendship overcoming all obstacles.[/spoiler]
Exactly. For me, TS2 was fun, but the conflict they set up for the main story never had any real tension or suspense because I knew everything would work out. For 3, the conflict and danger were far more believable, while the resolution (their escape) was equally satisfying and wholly consistent with the tenor of the films without feeling like a cheat. Also, 2 emphasized the jokey and inside-Hollywood type of humor which I find often dated and tiresome (which is why I hate Shrek). But there’s a string of real darkness and creepiness in 3 that reprises the sequence at Syd’s in the original, which I find more authentic to childhood fears and anxities while also being, IMHO, more creative and tonally balanced.
Yep. Toy Story 1 is a lot darker than people tend to remember. In many ways, it’s actually the darkest of the Pixar films. It certainly has the most “adult” (as opposed to both “kid” and “teenager”) sense of humor - there are very few “hilarious reveal” moments, and the pop culture references are limited to classic items that have been around for decades, like Mr. Potato Head and Etch-a-Sketch. It trucks in wry, dialogue-driven humor that would probably fly right over most kids’ heads (it certainly did for me Way Back When). And the introduction to Sid’s room was and remains one of the most frightening sequences I’ve ever seen in what is ostensibly a movie for children.
Speaking of Sid, was it just me, or was the manic dude driving the garbage truck supposed to be a grown-up Sid? He was wearing that iconic black skull t-shirt.
Saw it, liked it very much. I honestly don’t remember the other two films that well, but I get the overall impression that I liked this one better. For one thing, it had freakin’ Totoro, and the cute wrinkly peas in a pod. That little girl, Bonnie, was about the most precious thing I’ve ever seen. I’m not easily moved by children, but she was so believably cute.
My husband’s reaction was that this was one of the best films he’d ever seen. I’m not sure I’d go that far, but it was damned good, didn’t really drag in anyplace.
And how many kids’ movies really deal with the inevitability of death? That scene where they all held hands and waited for their fiery doom was kind of refreshing. But really the entire film had a more mature feel, and I think, as Tanbarkie points out, the filmmakers seemed acutely aware of their original fanbase, knowing many of us who grew up on this stuff have or will soon become parents ourselves. And if ‘‘we must be loyal to Andy even though he no longer needs us’’ isn’t a metaphor for parenthood, I don’t know what is. It felt like a secret whispered in our ear.
Damn, I honestly never thought of it that way until I wrote it out like that. Cool.
The movie is polling 100% Fresh among the Top Critics at Rotten Tomatoes. I saw it this afternoon and it did not suck. Anyone could go see it and have a great time.
It’s as much of a tear jerker as Up!
My preference is for TS2, (but I haven’t seen it for a long time.)
An observation: the films have gotten progressively more relaxed about the toys risking discovery. If toys were that casual about hiding their sentience/mobility, the big secret would be discovered in every city every day of the year.
I am very happy that there was no “Talking to Humans” in this film. That was one of the weak points of TS1. There’s this big secret that apparently toys have hiding from humans for thousands of years, but hey, let’s let them talk to Sid to resolve a plot problem.
I took my kids to this yesterday. I don’t much care for cartoons or kids’ movies in general, and have never really gotten the Pixar thing, but this wasn’t as horrible as most of them are. It’s nothing I ever would have chosen to see on my own, or would choose to see again (not that I WILL have a choice), but it’s minimally tolerable for adults.
The one thing that bugs me about these movies is the abject worship of the kids by the toys. It’s kind of skeevey the way they obsess over this sticky, smelly little kid and elevate him above everything else in the universe.
Plus, the ending was kind of a copout. The next kid is just going to grow up too, and they’ll be in the same boat. They’re still going to end up as landfill. They’re just delaying the inevitable. The pathos of that still lies over the ending.
Having said that, some of the jokes and little details were amusing. Metrosexual Ken made made me chuckle, and Barbie’s first words to him:
“Nice ascot”
The “Big Baby” character looked a lot like the baby on one of the early Pixar shorts (I don’t remember the title, it’s on a DVD I bought for my kids) which was about a baby brutalizing scared toys.
Speaking of shorts, that “Day and Night” short before this movie was gorgeous.
He was strangely effective in this movie as the muscle for the bear, yet the part where he mournfully says “mommy” about his lost owner is heartbreaking.
The child is their God. As the Claw was the God of the three-eyed aliens.
“Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child” - Heinlein
The point is, I think, aren’t we all?
Toy Story 2 was even deeper in that regard. Woody was presented with an existential dilemma - a choice between a short life being loved, or living forever without love. Which would you choose?
Besides, Andy passed these toys to a sweet, imaginative child, she might well pass them onto another when she outgrows them. Remember, Woody was already on his second owner, being produced back in the 1950s.
I think it’s unfair to describe these films as “kids movies”. I’m a 49 year old man with no kids, and this film was the one I have most anticipated all year. Pixar just makes great movies.
Part of the problem with sequels (particular fantasy sequels) is that plot assumptions generally become more and more explicit.
The first time around a creator can tell a simple tale and leave out distracting complications. But once you accept the premise (Toys Are Alive! or We’re All Just Muggles!) the sequels either have to stay superficial or have to subject the central conceit to more weight than it can bear.
Generally speaking.
So how do these thinking, talking, plastic perpetual motion machines actually relate to children? Like Dio I was put off by the devotion once or twice.
–There’s some parent/child dynamic (like Olive said). It was intentionally suggested in the film. The toys are the parent figures.
–There has to be some human/dog dynamics in there too, since dogs are the archetype for submissive unquestioning love and endless play.
–I’d put the god/human relationship as Number 3.
Many of you have said more eloquently what I felt about the film, but we took our kids to see it yesterday and we loved it. I think my wife and I loved it more than the kids did. It was funny, it was heartbreaking, and I frequently found I had something in my eyes. There was as much humor in it that was just directed at the adults as there was for the kids.
Last night while flipping channels I came across a two-hour collection of Pixar Shorts. I came in nearly at the end but one of the last shorts was Tin Toy, which I believe was the original Pixar short, or at least one of the very early ones. The difference in computer rendering between that short and* TS3* is night and day. There was even a sequence in it that they borrowed for TS3- the toys huddling, shaking in fear, under the couch. You could even see the difference in image quality between TS1 and TS3. The fur on Lotso looked incredible.
It’s a tricky question, isn’t it? The movies do suggest that only good kids deserve the kind of loyalty from their toys as we see Woody give Andy. Sid’s toys certainly didn’t show any devotion to Sid. If it’s a God metaphor, it’s one that I can live with - if we know that God exists, because we see and interact with him on a daily basis, then he is still only worthy of our devotion if he earns it. And importantly, it’s not “worship” that the toys give Andy. It’s support (“We have to be there for Andy, no matter what”). As far as Woody and his friends are concerned, Andy needs them as much as they need him. And we can see from TS1 and TS2, as well as the prologue and ending of TS3, that this is true.
It’s a reciprocal relationship, not a Judeo-Christian God/worshipper relationship. Coming from an Asian cultural background, I find that touching and thoughtful rather than skeevey, despite my personal lack of religious belief.
You don’t think the toys know that? The whole point of Toy Story 2’s ending was that they’ve accepted their impermanence and have made the choice to fulfill the task for which they were created - again, unlike humans, toys have no existential ambiguity, although they can still choose to leave their intended path. To misquote Woody himself… HE. IS. A. TOYYYY!!! He’s an action figuuuureeee. He… is a CHILD’s PLAYTHING!
Toy Story 3 starts with that assumption, but then makes the point that making a decision is one thing, but living through its consequences is another. Woody chose to return to Andy in TS2, and that was a fine, mature decision for a toy to make. Andy is a good owner, and a good kid. But he’s grown up, just as the toys knew he would, but so much faster than they’d expected (as it always is for parental figures - and to great extent, the toys are that as well).
TS3 isn’t about finding a new home, or rebelling against a crazy dictator, or even escaping the landfill forever. Like all Pixar movies, the crux of the film lies in the arc of the characters. The characters come into TS3 having at one point made the decision to become impermanent, without really ever grasping exactly what that means. How could they, without having experienced being thrown away? TS3 is the story of how they confront that event, initially (with the exception of Woody) reject it and its implications, and then realize that their greatest gifts are in each other. That’s why the incinerator scene is so powerful.
But it’s not just about friendship between the toys. The ending shows that Andy is an active participant in the friendship. But he’s a human. And they’re toys. It’s in his nature to grow up and move on, and in their nature to remain forever the same. Passing them on to Bonnie is Andy’s way of honoring his toys, even though he doesn’t know they’re sentient. And this time, the toys have been through the pain of rejection and discard, and know that when the time comes for Bonnie to move on as well, that they’ll always have each other.