“Reach for the sky.”
That’s how it all began, 15 years ago: A laconic, drawling challenge from an intrepid pull-string sheriff in a tense bedroom standoff with a tuberous one-eyed desperado. There was swagger and panache in this self-assured proclamation that a new power had entered the fray, that the rules of the game had changed.
From Day One, John Lasseter and Co. reached for the sky. Their heads were in the clouds from the get-go — from the first shot, in fact. Toy Story wasn’t just the first fully computer-animated feature-length film. It was practically a manifesto: The industry was on notice.
Coming in the early days of decline of the Disney renaissance formulas, Toy Story broke rules and took risks. There was no boy-meets-girl / coming-of-age drama; no yearning hero or heroine with assorted sidekicks; no song-and-dance show-tune production numbers. The hero, Woody, was sympathetic but flawed — jealous, vain, insecure and not above ignoble acts — and in need of comeuppance and redemption.
At the same time, despite undercurrents of snark and cynicism among the rank and file of Andy’s toys, Toy Story wore its heart on its sleeve with disarming sincerity. Overtly sentimental and nostalgic, it was a celebration of imagination and play, of childhood innocence, of friendship and devotion. Despite the now-dated computer animation, there was a tactile familiarity to Andy’s toys: Behind the scenes, one sensed animators playing with Etch A Sketches and Slinkies.
The tension between Woody and Buzz Lightyear was emblematic of the film’s blend of old and new. Woody was vintage and old-school, evoking the swashbuckling poetry and moral heritage of the Western as well as the traditionalism and values of his 1950s’ pull-string milieu. Buzz was all bells and whistles, exciting and futuristic in a retro way, like Tomorrowland at Disney World. He was Star Wars to Woody’s Hopalong Cassidy — and, like Andy, Pixar embraced them both, combining cutting-edge animation technology with narrative traditionalism. It was about both the toys and the story, and it set the tone for Pixar’s subsequent work.
Four years later, Pixar amazingly topped this dazzling first achievement with one of the finest sequels ever made, conquering new storytelling heights even as it mined deeper emotional territory. Where the original cut Buzz down to size with the revelation that he was a toy and not a real space ranger, Toy Story 2 drew Woody into a head-turningly larger world of franchise collectability, at the same time confronting him with mortality and especially with the inevitability of Andy growing up and leaving childish things behind.
Toy Story 2 was The Empire Strikes Back to the original’s Star Wars, with one glaring difference: Where The Empire Strikes Back ended on a transitional note that cried out for a third chapter, Toy Story 2 cross-examined and revealed its characters’ relationships and destinies with such utter finality that there would seem to be nothing left to say about them. Eleven years later, Pixar’s track record of excellence makes it hard to imagine them messing up Toy Story 3. On the other hand, is Toy Story 2 too tough an act for any conceivable threequel to follow?
Well, almost. The bar isn’t set quite as high, but Toy Story 3 finds ways to turn some of its challenges into strengths. For Woody especially, it’s a welcome opportunity for a victory lap. Where both previous outings explored his frailties as well as his better qualities, the third chapter gives him a chance to be the hero Andy always knew he was. An inspired opening sequence somehow honors the openings of both previous films at once, revisiting Woody’s glory days in Andy’s fantasies in a new cinematic idiom. This is Woody’s true self, and in Toy Story 3 he stays gratifyingly true to form.
As for Buzz, his character development arc may be more or less complete, but sometimes you don’t have to develop a character to do new things with him. Toy Story 3 is more gag-driven than its predecessors, but the gags are funny, and the characters ride high on the audience good will they’ve earned twice over.
In part, Toy Story 3 plays out the scenario that Woody and Buzz knew was coming, and more or less accepted: Andy is a young man now — and college-bound. Whether the toys wind up in the attic or the garbage, or passed on to other children, their defining relationship with Andy is coming to an end. Already some old faces are missing (even Woody’s sweetheart, Bo Peep), and the toys have been left in the toy box for who knows how long; to play with Andy one last time is almost too much to hope for. And then what?
However it plays out, these characters know by now who they are, and so do we. At times, we know them better than some of them seem to know one another. At one point, though Woody knows otherwise, the other toys mistakenly think that Andy has thrown them out — and they refuse to believe Woody. Sooner or later someone will say, “Woody was telling the truth after all!” Shouldn’t they know him better than that by now? For that matter, while the initial mistake is certainly understandable, it might have been nice if the toys knew Andy better than that.
For Woody, all that matters is being there for Andy, even if “there” means “in the attic.” The other toys aren’t sure that getting donated to Sunnyside Day Care doesn’t sound like more fun, but Woody is grimly emphatic: “Day care is a sad, lonely place for washed-up toys with no owner.” Sunnyside for Woody has the same emptiness for Woody that Shady Oaks holds for Carl in Up; it’s the end of the road.
When the toys do wind up at Sunnyside, Rex brightens at the sight of a rainbow on the door, and the new faces — an avuncular, well-worn purple teddy named Lots-O’-Huggin’ Bear (Ned Beatty), a slightly creepy Big Baby doll with one droopy eyelid, a large plush Totoro (woo hoo!), and (much to Barbie’s wide-eyed astonishment) a fabulous Ken doll — couldn’t be more welcoming. But Woody remains stoic. Day care might not be a bad end, but the bond with Andy hasn’t been severed. Their relationship with Andy must end — but not like this.
At times Toy Story 3 feels a bit less fleet-footed than its predecessors, though there’s nothing that doesn’t work. Lee Unkrich, who co-directed Toy Story 2, Monsters, Inc. and Finding Nemo, directs with a sure hand. The story is stuffed with wit and invention, such as a couple of premise-bending applications of the Potato Heads’ modular body parts and some hilarious riffing on Ken and Barbie.
The second half picks up the pace, combining goofily inspired prison-break tropes with an Indiana Jones-style gauntlet of terror (a juxtaposition inviting comparisons to Chicken Run). Toward the action climax comes a moment of unexpected poignancy as old friends stare into the face of infinity and beyond with a simple gesture of solidarity.
And then, in the end, one last surprise. Woody and Buzz have long known that losing Andy was inevitable, but there’s someone else who hasn’t: Andy himself. It is Andy, poised on the threshold of adulthood, who shows a new side.
It’s here that Toy Story 3 offers one of the most emotionally powerful moments in the series, ending the trilogy on a lump-in-the-throat high note and sealing the deal on one of the most satisfying third chapters to one of the best trilogies of all time. Toy Story 2 remains the high-water mark, but in this finale, Pixar once again reaches for the sky.
P.S. Toy Story 3 is preceded by “Night & Day,” a surreal six-minute short that’s as experimental and daring as anything Pixar has produced. Their coming feature output may be sequel-heavy for a while, but if this short is any indication, the spirit of discovery is alive and well at Pixar.
Steven D. Greydanus is editor and chief critic at Decent Films. He also blogs at NCRegister.com.
Content advisory: Some scary scenes and menace; occasional bathroom humor and mild innuendo. Fine family viewing for all but the most sensitive children.
Dan Burke: The Truth About Movies and Les Miserables
SDG: In 60 Seconds: ALL THREE Iron Man Movies! Pain & Gain! More!
Comments
Post a Comment
Glad to see that your preconceived notions regarding the film’s potential and the need for its production did not lead yours to become the first negative review on Rotten Tomatoes. While I’ve long felt lukewarm about this sequel’s promise, I should’ve known better, given how many times Pixar has proven my doubt regarding their next film in line profoundly wrong. (For the record, every single time.) Perhaps, in their obvious film-making wisdom, the folks at Pixar know even how to make a good trailer, giving away just enough to make the prospective audience curious if even a bit skeptical, without betraying all of the plot points and revealing every humorous moment. Just wondering: Your review is uniformly strong and your summary suggests no real weaknesses beyond a general sense that the movie is not quite as good or as “necessary” as the first sequel. Is three stars really a fair rating that reflects your opinion and the movie’s quality versus anything that been releasted in the past year, or is it, in fact, just a reflection of your prejudices based on previously discussed concerns regarding the overall direction of the studio?
Do you recommend in 3-D Steven, or don’t worry? Not a big fan of 3-D myself. But the only advance screening (I can get here in Australia) until next week is in 3-D. I prefer to watch Pixar films without the distractions of 3-D, unless you think it’s TOTALLY WORTH IT!
I’ll skip Toy Story 3 just as I did it’s predecessors and anything else Pixar as done. Despite the hype they are a second rate animation comapny and have done nothing to distinguish themselves from the rest of the pack.
LOL @ Kevin’s comment. That is the BEST ironically sarcastic comment I’ve read all day. Good one (but you didn’t fool me!) :-)
From Day One, John Lasseter and Co. reached for the sky.
Ack! Mixed metaphor alert! To my knowledge, John Lasseter and Co. have never compromised and “reached for the sky” (ie. surrendered completely) their artistic vision.
Also, it might have been better if you’d left out the “Totoro” mention. Obviously I’m geeked to know Lasster put in a nod to Miyazaki, but I would have been even more geeked if I saw it without knowing it was coming. Otherwise, it’s an excellent review and I’ll definitely bring some tissues with me to the movie theater, because I won’t be seeing it in 3-D and therefore won’t have the dark glasses to hide the tears. But ugh, there’s a snake in my boot, and it is the fact that the earliest possible free day I have to see this is a week from Monday (the snake being my schedule and my boot being my desire to see this film).
And I think I’m probably EVEN MORE excited about seeing “Night & Day” now, though.
If you thought I was at all likely to post a negative review, you didn’t read my “preconceived notions” very carefully! Did you miss the “welcome” part in “welcome but nonessential”?
I was always looking forward to Toy Story 3 as one of the best bets of the summer. I was hoping, a little, to be surprised in a good way. I had no real fear of being surprised in a bad way. I went in with an open mind. The movie turned out to be just about exactly what I was expecting, pretty much until the last scene, where they raised their game a bit.
“Prejudices”? “Preconceived notions”? Those are kind of fighting words! FWIW, I think a careful reading of my review shows where the three stars comes from. The story is gag-driven rather than focusing on character development; in fact, Woody and Buzz don’t really develop at all, and some other characters actually “un-develop” some (hence “Woody was telling the truth!” coming as a surprise, just as if Woody hadn’t already proved himself enough for them to trust him now!). The pacing is a little slack, too. For the most part, I was warmly amused watching Toy Story 3. Not delighted, as I was with the first two. My expression was an affectionate smile, not a wide-open grin.
Could I have rated it 3.5 stars? Maybe. In my mind I compared it to Cars (3 stars / B+) versus Up (3.5 stars / A-). In my book, Toy Story 3 is better than Cars, but not as good as Up. I don’t have a 3.25 star rating. I decided to split the difference by pairing 3 stars / A-. I think that’s just about right: I can recommend it pretty warmly to just about everyone (hence the A-), but its artistic achievement is modest compared to the first two films (hence the 3 stars).
Having said that, though, I make a point of not sweating ratings. A rating is a blunt instrument. It’s just not that useful a critical tool. If you want to know what I thought of the film, read the review. That’s where the critical action is.
I saw it in 3D. I can’t say it really affected my experience that much. I didn’t find it distracting, but I also didn’t think
Ha! Are you deliberately trolling, or does it just come naturally? I assume you mean you skipped Pixar’s work in the theater, since obviously if you’d skipped it altogether your opinion of their work would be meaningless, instead of just crashingly wrong. :)
Darn, posted prematurely. Ben, that was supposed to say “I didn’t find it distracting, but I also didn’t think it was a huge benefit either.”
Thanks for the encapsulating review—it was nice to stroll down memory lane when you recalled how blazingly new Toy Story was when it appeared in 1995. Most of the folks in the theatre last night were under the age of 5 when Woody and Buzz kicked Disney in its PC Pocahontas pants.
I agree that the Day & Night short was, as you say, fresh and inventive. I wonder if you would comment on the—well, lust. The prolonged fixation on bikini and its occupants was surprising and disorienting to me and my evangelical buddy. Pixar has seemed to steer clear of Jesus’ condemnation of lustful thought (cf. Mt 5:27) up to this point, even in its more romantic moments. Do you think this is a sign of a secular humanist philosophy inevitably succumbing to the culture of death, or a mere aberration in pursuit of invention? Or something else?
Thanks,
MB
Yeah, I should have mentioned that, even though I’m reviewing TS3 and not “Day & Night.” Pixar is reaching here for inspiration to Chuck Jones and other classic animated shorts, especially surreal stuff like “Duck Amuck” and “The Dot and the Line.” Neither of those examples is libidinous, but that kind of risque humor does crop up in lots of Looney Tunes and shorts of that ilk. Partly I think that’s because in short works the simplest, broadest characterizations and motivations work best, and there’s nothing complicated about the appeal of a girl in a bikini. I didn’t mind the joke being there, but I agree the short lingered on it too long. It was one aspect of envelope-pushing that I didn’t need to see.
We went today and our boys loved it. I know you don’t want to give anything away but how could you not touch on the justice and Christological implications?
Victor, sorry, I missed your post earlier!
1. No mixed metaphor! It’s a phrasal pun: I used “reaching for the sky” in a different sense.
2. Re. Totoro, point taken. I’m generally one of the more reactionary anti-spoiler critics out there, but in this case I opted for sharing the coolness—and hopefully tipping off the less Miyazaki-savvy on something to look out for. Next time I’ll try to think three times instead of twice!
@SDG: I’ll forgive your lack of a spoiler alert this time :-) Or, as my neighbor Totoro might say, “TOOOO-TOOOO-RAAARGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!” But as penance, you really should review “My Neighbors The Yamadas”.
Our eight-year-old saw this tonight with friends… didn’t have much to say about it… he did call out the bear, though. Maybe this one is for the Grups (somewhat obscure Star Trek refernce)?
I loved TS3 & it’s my favorite of the trilogy.
I thought it had quite a lot to say about our *disposable* culture in that Andy’s toys practically represent real people to the viewer & to Andy, in his imagination. Sunnyside could just as well be a rest home for the aged (& I’m glad you mentioned UP! here, SGD) where loved ones are aware that, though it may be nice in some ways, it’s not home. The adventures Andy had with his toys were important bot to him & to the toys but, ultimately, to us. The poignant moment you refer to, SGD, is so very effective because of this.
Is it as good as UP! or Wall-e? Yes, but not better - except that it has stayed with me emotionally more than either of those films. I only have to think of the ending & I’m a mess 3 days later, as I was reading your review a moment ago! I think, perhaps, that’s because I’m familiar with these characters & really like them. A very, very impactful & a very appropriate close to the trilogy.
I know Pixar has a number of sequels in the pipeline & I’m now extremely excited to see what they’ll do with them. I trust Pixar & can’t wait to see what they do when they revisit other familiar characters in Cars 2 & Incredibles 2!
Having said that . . . I’m also really looking forward to John Carter of Mars!
As powerful as the ending was, I think the climactic scene you describe as “unexpectedly poignant” was even more a case of Pixar “raising their game.” I can’t remember a scene like that in any animated American movie since Secret of Nimh. The level of emotional content that the animators were able to get into Buzz and Jessie’s faces in particular was devastating. The nobility and love each character showed to each other in the face of “infinity and beyond,” as you so well put it, was to me a different kind of moral high note though one just as high as Andy’s—maybe an even more important one considering where the world seems to be heading.
“Night & Day” was a disturbing propaganda piece advocating homosexuality. It was actually offensive to me. It starts by taking an overblown, but accepted, male/female view and twists it into a male/male “encounter” and ends with these two male characters looking googly-eyed at each other while a monologue is read about how people should not be afraid of being different and the “scary feeling actually being fun”...
They basically take an already overt sexually related scene of a man and woman and slowly turn it to man and man & then comment about it. Crazy! Disney would be rolling in his grave right now… Way to indoctrinate children Pixar!
I’m not sure that’s what the short was about, but I was wondering if anyone could knew who that long quote was from.
Eric, almost everything in your argument about “Night & Day” being “a propaganda piece advocating homosexuality” could equally well apply to the Toy Story movies. The message about not being afraid of different things just because they’re different was not applied to different kinds of human relationships, but to different kinds of worlds. It was not about turning from a parochial and small-minded focus on conventional heterosexism to a “fun” homosexual relationship, it was about learning to appreciate both the bright, teeming life of the countryside by day and its serene beauty at night, and both the impressive, bustling spectacle of avarice that is Vegas by day and the ringing, jangling fairyland of sin and decadence (my take) that it is by night. You’ll notice that the pointy-nosed character, once he has become Day, goes right back to admiring the woman in the bikini. As for the radio message, you might do well to listen to what it said instead of allowing it to push buzzword buttons in your brain. Tolerance is too little practiced by people no matter what their opinions on heteronormativity. Rather than taking offense at yet another nonexistent gay pride reference, we might appreciate the reminder that small-mindedness is not Catholic.
That climax was certainly powerful, but I’m not sure “poignant” is the right word. During that scene, I didn’t have an affectionate smile, I was almost literally struggling for consciousness as my heart was pounding like a jackhammer and I was hyperventilating like I never have before during a movie. I hadn’t had too much Coke. I was simply receiving a not-so-gentle reminder of how much I care about these characters, and also of something I sometimes forget now that childhood is over: being a toy is serious business. And so is life. What a world we live in. It may not have been note-perfect, but Toy Story 3 was not at all a disappointment.
SPOILER ALERT: Your characterization of the toys looking down at an incinerator as “staring into the face of infinity and beyond” raises the question of whether toys have immortal souls. I’ve never really thought about it before, but I always thought that toys were objects of this earth only, and that is precisely why a toy being thrown out is such a tragedy: it is final as a human story (of this life) never is. On the other hand, since their purpose is to “be there for” humans, they could be compared to guardian angels, who exist eternally. I think the point bears further thought.
I wrote a long-winded comment that got deleted when my browser was refreshed, and all the better—- brevity is wit and all that. </p>
Aside from the beginning and end of Toy Story 3, this victory lap was more a lazy trot than another record-breaking sprint I had hoped for. Maybe what really irks me is that the ancillary toys—- Slinky Dog, Hamm, Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head—- turned their back on Andy so abruptly when their characters in the previous films had been so steadfast, faithful to Andy. </p>
There’s more than that, too, because this movie is redundant with the Toy Story 2, thematically and at too many plot points. The hard choice between immortality and retaining faith in the status quo; selfless rescue through colorful action sequences; contrivance creating a simple misunderstanding which propels the plot.</p>
It was a sad day when I realized that Pixar didn’t make the best animated film this year.</p>
—-</p>
Another reviewer mentioned he thought this was a very Christian film, by far more so than other Pixar films. Thoughts? Personally, I thought Wall-E had at least stewardship at heart.
So far no one has commented on the dreaded prospect of being stuck in daycare center with out-of-control kids. It was a subtle dig at parent(s) who leave child-rearing to others while they pursue their so-called self-fulfillment.
The missus and I watched this much-anticipated three-quel in a sultry, under-air-conditioned theater. I made it all the way through laughing, but without a poignant scene like “When Somebody Loved Me” of Toy Story 2.
And then the final scene of Andy leaving his toys to Bonnie turned on the faucet. It reminded me exactly of the day I left my daughter behind to pursue higher education an eight-hours’ drive from home.
Children cry when they get hurt. Parents cry when their children get hurt - or grow up.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.