Cars (2006)

There is a significant age gap between me and the oldest of my cousins. I remember several of them and their parents absolutely adoring this movie for years after it came out. Having finally seen Cars, I am left wondering what all the fuss is about. Sure, it looks fantastic but this film feels a little too much like style over not enough substance with a bloated runtime and a story that suggests the writers put this one on cruise control.

Lightning McQueen is the hottest up-and-coming racecar in the Piston Cup circuit. He can back up all of his cocky swagger on the track but he has a hard time looking past his own greatness. After insulting his pit crew and pushing his hauler to the limit to reach Los Angeles first for a tie-breaking race for the Piston Cup championship, McQueen finds himself alone in a washed-up town called Radiator Springs. His arrival tears up the town’s street, for which the local authority sentences him to community service. While he works off his debt to the town, McQueen gets to know the colorful locals and learns a thing or two about the importance of teamwork as he preps for the big race.

From the glossy shine of Lightning McQueen to the dust and dirt of Radiator Springs, the animation in this movie represents another step forward by Pixar. At times, certain environments look almost photorealistic. The racing scenes in particular are exciting and they capture the energy and danger of the sport. The anthropomorphic characters all look good, even if they do play into stereotypes. The animators do a great job with how light reflects and bends off certain cars, while Mater really does look like he is made out of rusting metal. While most of the cars have the same textures, the filmmakers make up for it with the environments of the film.

The story, however, disappointed me. To me, the cocky-hotshot-gets-a-lesson-on-teamwork plot has been done enough times before that you can predict a lot of what’s coming. I’m okay with the winning-isn’t-everything message conveyed here because it is a valuable lesson for kids to learn. Otherwise, the overall message of Cars is be nice and work together. That’s a surprisingly simple and bland message for a Pixar film.

One serious problem with the film is its length. For a story about a racecar, Cars is anything but speedy. At almost two hours long, this is still the second-longest Disney and/or Pixar film ever made. Only Fantasia is longer. Most Disney films keep within the 80-90 minute range, though several have pushed the 100-minute mark lately. The Incredibles is only a minute shorter than Cars, but at least The Incredibles has more plot behind it and an antagonist. Cars is long on story and short on plot. There is no external antagonist. McQueen wants to get to the race and he needs to learn to get over himself. That could work in an 86-minute film. I think the lack of a true antagonist left the filmmakers to meander a little in order to bring all the story elements together in the end and that is a substantial problem.

Stories don’t always need a villain (case in point- Finding Nemo) but it is advisable to include one when your story is on the simple side. Cars could have used an active villain role, not just the other racecars he wants to beat for the championship. Introspection has worked well as an ingredient in Pixar films before but perhaps this film boasts too large a dose of it. Conflict is necessary, so making nice with the locals to get to the big race comes up very short. Several scenes are fun and exciting, and the whole film looks great but improved animation can’t save Cars from being the weakest Pixar film I’ve seen so far.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

SECOND HELPINGS: The Incredibles (2004)

When this film came out, I was irked by the number of people who thought that describing this film as ‘incredible’ was witty. I was still in college when I got around to watching it and, rather than seeing it as an homage to comic book teams, I viewed this film as a rip-off fusion of the Fantastic Four and the X-Men. Had I known anything about Watchmen at the time, I probably would have been screaming rip-off of that too. Now that I’m older and wiser, my opinion of this film has improved significantly. Still though, I can’t help but feel that this film is just a smidge overrated.

I still have no reason to complain about the quality of Pixar’s animation. The textures and environments that they create really make you wonder at times if all action-oriented films will be done exclusively with CGI someday. Nothing seems impossible anymore with this production company. I’m not convinced yet that Pixar is very good at animating human characters in a realistic way, but The Incredibles gets a pass because it’s a faux-comic book movie. Anyone who’s looked at a comic book knows that most take at least a few liberties with dimensions and proportions.

Teams of superheroes are nothing new and three of the four members of the Parr family suiting up have powers just like three of the Fantastic Four. The filmmakers do throw freshness into the mix pretty well through juxtaposing our main characters’ abilities and their impact on a real-world setting. Thwarting bad guys causes some very real wear and tear on the people and buildings caught in the crossfire. Some of this juxtaposition is pretty subtle while some of it is used for immediate sight gags.

Overall, I can see now how The Incredibles pays homage to comic book superheroes but there is also a lot of satire involved. It’s got to be a pretty fine tightrope walk to poke fun at comic book conventions while including a number of them in your film. The balance may be uneven at different times but this film never gets too cynical nor too fanboy rah-rah on us. Syndrome, the film’s antagonist, has a few moments where he gets very mean-spirited and dark but he is usually yanked out of full-blown maniacal villain mode in a humorous way. Whether this makes that momentary intensity acceptable is up to you.

While The Incredibles looks great and is a lot of fun to watch, it is remarkably violent for a family film. I recall docking The Black Cauldron quite a bit for being very un-Disney with its darkness and creepy imagery but I think level of violence, peril, and intensity in this film surpasses even The Black Cauldron. You can try to argue that this is a Pixar film and that my Disney branding is inaccurate, or that the nature of the film’s subject, comic book superheroes, requires a higher level of violence. The tell-tale mark that justifies my criticism is this film’s PG rating. That tells you that this film is not appropriate for the entire family.

If you have little ones, particularly boys, what will they retain from this film? What will they reenact? Will it be the wholesome lesson of family togetherness and teamwork or will it be the high-flying kicks, punches, and action sequences? I’m not condemning this film for the violence but I do think a little less of it. It’s still a fun, feel-good kind of movie but it is one that I’ll have to think long and hard about sharing with my daughter. Putting all that danger and violence in context is a tricky thing.

ORIGINAL RATING: 3 out of 5

NEW RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Finding Nemo (2003)

This is one of those films that everyone assumes you saw. Dozens of jaws dropped over the years when friends and acquaintances found out I had not, in fact, seen this yet. Go ahead and tell me that it’s about time so you get it out of your system. I’ll wait. Ready? Okay. While a decade of hype might normally leave me feeling underwhelmed, Finding Nemo actually lives up to its reputation as a beloved and entertaining film.

After losing his wife, Marlin (Albert Brooks) grows exceedingly protective of their son Nemo (Alexander Gould). After an act of rebellion results in Nemo being taken away by humans, Marlin takes what few clues he has and sets off on a journey to rescue his son. While Nemo gets to know his new tankmates in Sidney, Australia, Marlin enlists the help of Dori (Ellen DeGeneres), a cheerful fish with short-term memory issues.

The animation in this film is just gorgeous. Pixar’s artists go to great length to capture the subtleties of aquatic environments, not to mention their mesmerizing color palettes. Very little of the underwater action looks like it defies physics. Rather than hold the various sea creatures in static positions, you see their fins moving to keep them relatively still or they bob up and down as they shift their bodies to navigate the ebb and flow of underwater currents. This attention to detail does not go unnoticed by the subconscious mind or to those of us who pay attention to that sort of thing.

Storywise, Finding Nemo is pretty simple but effective. A father’s unfailing love causes him to risk it all to find and rescue his child. What good, loving parent wouldn’t do the same? While working out father-son issues on film can easily turn cheesy, schmaltzy, and/or preachy, the writers find a way to avoid most of the pitfalls. The split storylines of Marlin’s determination and Nemo developing self-confidence show each character growing individually, which makes their relationship at the end of the film work. There’s no one-sided revelation to the resolution and that is appreciable.

Since Pixar films are not musicals, it really forces the animation, story, and characters to be that much better. Marlin starts out overprotective to the extreme, which is wince-inducing but also comical. Dori’s memory issues help jazz up her archetypal sidekick role. Marlin appreciates her eagerness (which is usually the annoying thing about sidekicks) but her constant amnesia frustrates him to no end. His loyalty and conscience prevent him from abandoning her. Nemo, on the other hand, is just a kid trying to cut the apron strings, so both father and son work really well. The misfits Nemo meets in Sidney are all very entertaining which prevents Nemo’s side of the story from growing too depressing.

I had a very difficult time rating this film. The story is very strong and the characters are all very engaging but there are a few minor quibbles with content that goes way over the heads of children. Reformed sharks holding an intervention to prevent a peer from falling off the wagon and eating a fish? That’s a bit much. Also, while it blows my mind how Pixar manages to improve their animation quality film after film, I felt as though I couldn’t rate this film higher than Toy Story. Sure, Nemo looks better and nails all the other ingredients but should Toy Story hold a higher place for coming first? It’s a similar struggle that I have with Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back. Perhaps additional viewings will help me sort it out.

RATING: 4 out of 5

Monsters University (2013)

Every successful movie leads to a film studio at least entertaining the notion of a sequel, but what do you do when the first film wrapped things up so well that a new adventure just doesn’t seem possible? Why, you make a prequel of course! As fun and enjoyable as it is to revisit the colorful and unique monster world, Monster’s University falls victim to a number of issues that should have been apparent from the get-go.

Ever since he was a little boy, Mike Wazowski (Billy Crystal) has dreamed of being a scarer for Monsters, Inc. Entering his freshman year at Monsters University, however, places several obstacles in his path. Few, if any, of his scare major peers think Mike is even scary and, while Mike studies his heart out, a cocky slacker named James P. “Sulley” Sullivan (John Goodman) coasts his way through classes on his family name and natural but raw talent. When an argument between Mike and Sulley breaks a professor’s prized Scream Container, they are initially kicked out of the Scare program. Then, a chance at redemption- if Mike and Sulley can help the team from the über-nerd fraternity Oozma Kappa win the annual Scare Games, they will be readmitted to the program.

There are three key roadblocks to this film matching the success of Monsters, Inc. First, its nature as a prequel automatically eliminates any lasting concern for Mike and Sulley, because we already know that they turn out to be a successful Scare Team later on in life. An event late in the film took me by surprise because it smashes the assumed cookie cutter ending to pieces. A pre-credits montage clues audiences in to Mike and Sulley’s rise to prominence within Monsters, Inc., showing that their hard work did not end with the Scare Games.

As with most films that are the second in a series, audience familiarity with returning characters presents a major problem. How do you make the same characters feel fresh all over again? Half the fun of watching a movie is getting to know the characters. If you don’t try new things, you’re just rehashing the same characters. If you try too many new things, you risk audiences not going along with your new direction for a character.

In Monsters University, Mike is still Mike but we are treated to a different Sulley. It takes a while to get used to rude, slacker Sulley but you see him start to grow into the character we met in the original film. Most of the supporting characters are throwaways that are funny while you’re watching but fail to stick in your memory later on. Our characters never branch out beyond what we saw from them in Monsters, Inc. because they have to grow into those characters. Because of this, character development is stifled. Starting in a new place and ending in a familiar one rather than the other way around leaves the film feeling inessential in the grand scheme of things.

The third and final aspect of Monsters University lacking freshness is the college setting. While college movies seem to have been around forever, I had the misfortune of growing up in the 90s and early 2000s, when most college movies were pretty lame. MU offers a few cute moments of spoofing college stereotypes in the monster world but the film feels confined by its attempt to pump as many references and spoofs as possible. Besides, a fair number of the scenes, gags, and lines alluded to are from films that little kids should never be allowed to see until they’ve outgrown Disney flicks.

Despite being held back conceptually, Monsters University is still a pretty fun movie to watch. Kids will love the crazy character antics while adults will snicker at the college movie references. Pixar’s animators continue to wow me in how much more detail they can put into their work. The group setting treats us to even more unique monsters of all shapes and sizes. The problem lies in the fact that this film tries to answer a question that nobody asked very seriously. Perhaps seeing how Mike and Sulley met as the first film in this series would make this film feel more essential. It’s certainly better than a number of other Disney films but if given a choice between the two, I would watch the first one again in a heartbeat.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

The Blue Umbrella (2013)

This computer animated short ran before Monster’s University when I saw it at the drive-in. Pixar has a solid track record with their full-length and short films, so I was surprised to feel very neutral about this one. It looks great but due to my film journey of watching every Disney (and thereby Pixar) animated film ever made, I quickly noticed that this short is lacking in originality storywise.

A blue umbrella and his owner are walking down a bustling city street on what seems to be a rainy evening. When they stop to wait at a crosswalk, the blue umbrella notices a pretty, red, female umbrella next to him and they trade awkward but interested glances. Presumably, the umbrellas’ owners are doing the same thing. A change of direction leaves the blue umbrella struggling against his owner to follow the object of his affection.

The fact that everything in this short film is computer generated speaks volumes for the commitment that Pixar’s programmers and animators have for their craft. You could swear that many parts of this film look real. This is not just blurring the lines between CGI and live action; here CGI completely supplants live action. Does this mean we’re heading toward the end of live action cinema? No. Many of the shots in Umbrella look so good because they are largely static shots of inanimate objects. Seeing faces on familiar objects is cute but there are no humans on display. Pixar, in my opinion, has struggled up to this point with making human characters look convincing. This short enables them to sidestep the issues completely.

So as amazing as this short looks, why do I rate it so low? Because it is little more than an update of Johnny Fedora and Alice Bluebonnet, an animated short from Disney’s Make Mine Music about a men’s hat who goes to great lengths to meet up with a women’s hat that he is smitten with. No credit is given to what precedes Umbrella by almost 60 years. You would think that someone under the Disney umbrella (pardon the pun) would have said something about this.

RATING: 3 out of 5

SECOND HELPINGS: Monsters, Inc. (2001)

The first time I saw this film, when it got its original rating, I was in college and did not appreciate the finer points of Disney and Pixar films. I liked what I grew up watching and cast a cynical gaze upon everything that came after the point at which I stopped watching kid flicks. As a parent, and as someone who better understands how movies are made, I now have a completely different viewpoint on this film.

The concept alone is brilliant. Pixar gets back to thinking outside the box and it pays off big time. The writers had to have had a firm outline in mind before pitching this film to the Disney execs because I can’t imagine anyone jumping right on board with a movie about monsters, creatures that have scared children silly for ages. The monster world is created so fully and carefully that you have no problem suspending disbelief. The story quickly gives a purpose for scaring children and provides a world of personalities that mirrors our own. All this, along with the fact that monsters are actually terrified of making physical contact with humans, softens the monster characters and makes it easy to slip into their world.

Just like the toys in Toy Story, Monsters, Inc. puts forth the illusion that monsters are just as quirky and flaky as we are. In true buddy flick fashion, Mike and Sulley are very different from each other but those differences help them complement and supplement each other. The film wouldn’t be as enjoyable if our protagonists were both like Sulley or both like Mike. The interplay between them and the way they interact with the supporting cast feels so effortless and right.

The animation in this film is gorgeous. Pixar continues to expand the possibilities of CGI animation with lush details and, in this films case, new and realistic looking textures. Somebody had a lot of fun designing all the monsters in this film and everyone in the animation department should be proud of the final product. Sulley’s fur is one of the standouts of the animation. Instead of matted down hair, each strand seems to have volume and life. I don’t know what kind of programming it takes to make all of Sulley’s fur look and behave like it does but the fact that Pixar can do it at all is a marvel.

I only have two minor quibbles with this film, neither of which are deal breakers. Both concern the film’s villain, Randall Boggs. First, Randall gets pretty creepy at times and that might scare younger viewers but that’s really only a concern for parents with kids four and under. Second, even though Randall’s secret scaring device is the very thing that necessitates the entire story, it’s easy to forget about. All I remembered from my first viewing was that Randall left the door on the scaring floor and was trying to cover his tracks for his role in letting a human through. Despite this, Monsters, Inc. is really about Mike and Sulley trying to do the right thing and get Boo home. Randall’s plot may be forgettable, but his character is antagonistic enough to make up for this minor story fault.

Disney may have the market on princesses and fairy tales but Monsters, Inc. cements Pixar as one of the most original and creative production companies in the business. Think about it- four films in and A Bug’s Life is your low point? That’s not bad at all. My original rating was way too low and future viewings may reveal that even this revised rating is a notch or two too low. Pixar’s story department may need to retool every now and again to tighten up the details but the animation department shows no signs of slacking off.

ORIGINAL RATING: 3.25 out of 5

NEW RATING: 3.75 out of 5

Toy Story 2 (1999)

Up to this point, sequels were a rarity for Disney. The only true sequel on the books was The Rescuers Down Under, which underperformed, and who honestly counts Fantasia 2000 as a sequel? Ordering a Toy Story sequel from Pixar must have been a very carefully calculated risk. It paid off handsomely though, as Toy Story 2 brings back everything audiences loved about the original and added even more things to love. Its status as a sequel prevents it from feeling as fresh as its predecessor, but our second romp with Buzz and Woody has plenty of pop and sizzle.

While rescuing a fellow toy from the yard sale pile, Woody is snatched up by a toy collector. Buzz and the gang set out on a rescue mission that takes them across town. Meanwhile, Woody meets new faces in the collector’s apartment and learns that he is an extremely rare and valuable toy. As a complete set, the Woody’s Roundup team will be on display for toy collectors to appreciate for years to come. Without Woody, they will be put back into storage potentially forever. This leaves Woody to wrestle with the decision to stay loyal to Andy or join his new friends on their quest for immortality.

Unlike a lot of sequels, Toy Story 2 is very good. Some people believe that this film is better than the original. They are entitled to their opinion but I disagree. The animation certainly has improved, with more detail, higher quality, and the incorporation of camera pans, zooms, and tricks found in non-animated films. The story is fresh, but it’s a little too heavy at times. Half of it is (if your honest) a retread of the first film, only this time Buzz saves Woody. The other half deals with issues that are going to go way over children’s heads.

The filmmakers don’t get nailed for the recycled rescue story because Buzz brings along a number of the other toys. This gives the supporting characters and voice actors plenty of time to shine as they struggle to work together as a group. Buzz encountering another Buzz Lightyear action figure that is not yet aware that he is just a toy is amusing. Woody’s arc, however, is substantially less fun. The new characters of Jessie, Bullseye, and Stinky Pete provide an interesting perspective as collectibles but they deal with and discuss issues that are very adult. Immortality, rejection, duty- all of these are heavyweight philosophical concepts that kids can only scratch the surface of understanding.

It certainly looks better but Toy Story 2 is not the feel-good tale that the original was. At times it is a steady gut-puncher that makes older kids and sappy, nostalgic adults feel guilty about giving up on their beloved childhood toys. Or is it really an allegory for how we treat other people? If so, Toy Story 2 is perhaps the darkest kids’ flick of all time. Therein rests the kicker. When I watch a movie billed as family-friendly entertainment and targets hard towards children, I don’t want to watch something designed to make me feel bad. That’s what European cinema is for.

Pixar delivers a fun, albeit outlandish, adventure that straddles the line between kids’ and grown-up entertainment. The development of Toy Story 2 was rushed, which might explain why there is a lot of polish overtop of a slightly weaker story. This review may sound very negative but I did indeed enjoy this film. If you loved the original Toy Story, this sequel is like an old pair of shoes that you can slip right into without any adjustment period. Sit back and enjoy.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

A Bug's Life (1998)

This is the kind of film you get when you combine groundbreaking technology with a story that’s been told a few too many times. There is nothing wrong with A Bug’s Life, really. In fact, it stands tall as one of the better non-musical films in Disney’s arsenal of family entertainment. And yet, in only Pixar’s second full-length computer-animated film, enough of the freshness we felt in Toy Story seems to have disappeared.

Flik is tired of being a follower, which is difficult for a member of an ant colony. His creativity, inventiveness, and unfortunate clumsiness make him stand out from his peers in a bad way. When his latest invention draws the ire of greedy and hostile grasshoppers, the colony is threatened with extinction. Flik sets off to assemble a team of warriors to defend his colony, but his creativity is put to the test when all he can recruit is a team of misfit circus bugs.

A Bug’s Life has plenty of beautiful animation to its credit. It also boasts a bunch of amusing and colorful characters. The story, however, is weak. A group of misfits band together to accomplish amazing feats? Yeah, I’ve seen about a dozen or more films with the exact same plot, especially with children’s films. Because the whole story structure is recycled, it’s not hard to predict most of how this film plays out.

As many authors will tell you, however, it is not about the destination, but the journey itself. Fortunately, this film has plenty of easily-digested ingredients. What the story lacks in freshness, Pixar makes up for with another dose of visual wonder. Toy Story gave us a look at what our homes look to our toys. A Bug’s Life takes us outside and even closer to the ground. The attention to detail and exaggeration of such micro details reminds me of Honey, I Shrunk the Kids. It is clear that Pixar was not about to rest on their laurels in this department, which is very encouraging.

Flik and the rest of the ants are pretty bland. The grasshoppers are mindless drones, save for their leader, Hopper (voiced by Kevin Spacey). He is intimidating at times but is understandably over-the-top with his rage. The real gems are the circus bugs. Each one has their own unique personality and that personality shows through in their physical appearance. While over-anthropomorphizing non-human characters became a problem in several computer-animated films released in the past decade, Pixar does it right here. Characters retain enough of their insect nature to be believable as bugs.

The story may leave you wanting more if you focus on it too much but if you pull back your magnifying glass just a little bit, there is no reason not to enjoy this film. Its quirks and jokes are good fun for all ages. It lacks the wow actor of Toy Story and some later Pixar films, but A Bug’s Life is certainly no sophomore slump.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Toy Story (1995)

A lot of times, animated films are either popular or high in quality. Heck, that can be said about a lot of live-action films too. Disney has been lucky over the years to repeatedly create animated flicks that are both high in quality and popularity. Toy Story continues that magic, be it luck or something else. The first full-length feature computer animated film is not only a crowd-pleaser, but it is also a technical marvel.

Sheriff Woody is Andy’s favorite toy. When his owner is out of the room, Woody and his fellow toys come to life. Being a toy and playing with children is serious business for these toys and every year brings new challenges. On Andy’s birthday, a new toy arrives. Buzz Lightyear is bold, flashy, and quickly replaces Woody as Andy’s favorite. Jealous of being relegated to the toy box instead of Andy’s bedside, Woody takes drastic measures to regain his position in the pecking order. His actions, however, lead Woody on a quest for rescue, survival, and redemption.

Some of you may already be harping on me about how this is a Pixar movie, not a Disney movie. Let me address this first and foremost. Yes, Pixar handled the computer animation, which means they were responsible for all the technical details- animation (colors and textures), direction (“camera” movement and cinematography), and all the special effects (audio and visual). Pixar did a fantastic job in all of these arenas. But, to me, it’s still a Disney film because Disney commissioned it and they held strict supervisory rights over the story. So now, I don’t and will not discuss the Pixar movies as if they exist in their own realm. They are a Disney product.

Let’s heap some love on this film, shall we? The computer animation shows its age only because Pixar and other animation studios have made massive amounts of progress in adding more intricate textures, patterns, and camera techniques to their arsenal over the years. This takes away none of Toy Story’s magic or beauty.

For a film marketed primarily toward children, this is a remarkably deep and mature story. Jealousy, replacement, and fear of abandonment are heavyweight issues to throw at kids. Presenting these themes through the actions and emotions of toys makes it approachable for kids and palatable for adults. Think about it- would you or your kids want to line up to see a movie about kids dealing with these issues? They tried that with Where the Wild Things Are and audiences were split over it.

Essentially, the filmmakers found a way to transmit these ideas to children and families so as to not overwhelm them with a case of the heavies. It’s brilliant, even though Toy Story’s success ruined animated films for a while. Everyone tried to pump kid flicks with moral lessons for all ages, albeit less effectively. To my knowledge, they’re still doing it.

The characters are flat-out terrific. Tom Hanks gives Woody exactly the right maturity and straight-man factor. Tim Allen’s funny-man shtick works flawlessly when it’s played seriously by Buzz Lightyear. The combination of these two characters alone is comedy gold. Buzz and Woody are surrounded by one of the all-time greatest group of supporting characters for an animated film. A sarcastic piggy bank, an abrasive Mr. Potato Head, a loyal Slinky Dog, a neurotic T-Rex, and a troop of super-serious plastic Army men round out a supporting cast that makes this film a treat for all ages. Is there some non-contextual humor? Yes. Does it bug me this go around? Not so much. The toy characters have an adult-like seriousness that makes it acceptable.

Toy Story is a breezy tale full of sentimentality, heart, and fun. It never lingers over certain themes and never spins the tires on pace. While many imitators followed in its wake, none so far have managed to tell their story with such effortless ease as this film. Clichéd as it sounds, Toy Story is the real deal and has something for the whole family to enjoy.

RATING: 4 out of 5

Toy Story 3 (2010)

Leave it to a family gathering with my in-laws to derail my mission of watching every single Disney animated film in uninterrupted, chronological order! Then again, most of you probably didn’t even realize that I have been working towards this goal and it has been taking me longer than it ought to in the first place. Coupled with the fact that this is one heck of a fun movie, I don’t mind going off on a tangent just this once.

First and foremost, I must warn you that this is going to be something of an incomplete assessment of the film. It has been years since I last saw the original Toy Story and I have only ever seen bits and pieces of Toy Story 2. I have been assured by several people familiar with the whole series that the events of Toy Story 3 don’t hinge upon the events of Toy Story 2. If this is true, then it is already a good thing that Disney managed to make each film with a self-contained story. After being brought up to speed on a few of the carry-over characters from the sequel, our journey commenced.

Andy, the child to whom the toys belong, is all grown up and heading off to college. After all these years, Andy is still hanging on to some of his all-time favorites. Andy’s mom tells him that he needs to put whatever he is not taking with him in either the attic, the trash, or donate it to Sunnyside Daycare. Surprisingly, Andy elects to take Woody to college with him and puts the rest of the toys in the attic. The only problem is that he packs the toys in a trash bag, which his mother mistakenly puts out for collection. They narrowly escape but do not realize what Andy had intended.

Having seen the mix-up, Woody tries to convince the gang that Andy really still wants them. Not believing him, Buzz takes command of the dejected toys and they sneak into the box headed for Sunnyside. Woody gets taken along for the ride and they discover a brand new world. The leader of the Sunnyside toys, Lots-O’-Huggin’ Bear welcomes them with open arms and introduces them to a paradise of endless play. Woody leaves, determined not to let his original owner down. The rest of the toys soon discover that Sunnyside has a dark side. Word of this gets back to Woody, who plots a daring break-out attempt.

While the story isn’t chronologically consistent (it’s been 15 years since the first and Andy definitely was not a toddler!) that doesn’t really matter. Nobody ever said that time has to pass at the same speed within this story world and that of the real world. All that matters is the story that’s being told. Said story is definitely not what I was expecting. While I recall the original Toy Story having a few dark moments, it was nothing compared to what’s in store for you here.

Toy Story and its sequel (from what I’ve seen of it) are about Woody saving Buzz or Buzz saving Woody. Those films were all about finding a sense of belonging. These themes are still at play here, only Woody is now trying to save everybody, but the sense of belonging plays second fiddle to the toys learning to cope with the fact that they are no longer needed like they used to be. They have to transition into a new role and it is difficult for them to accept their fate. These are far more adult concepts than the first film (and probably the second too) dealt with.

There is no question in my mind that this film was made for the generation that grew up with the first two Toy Story films. Sure, it exists to entertain the new generation that was born in the past 11 years but the Pixar team was wise to give the original devotees a little more than just another rescue to watch. While I usually despise adult humor making its way into children’s movies, none of the double-entendres go too far and there is still plenty of innocent humor for the kids.

Sad as it is that some of the amusing background characters from the first installment are no more, it’s a smart move. Had Andy held on to all of his toys, there would have been too much going on. Toy attrition opens up the door for a bunch of great new characters. Some of them only have seconds to shine, but shine they do! From a melodramatic, premium plush hedgehog to a flamboyantly metrosexual Ken doll, it’s clear that the filmmakers and actors had fun pulling out all the stops.

The animators even pull out a few stops of their own, adding to the Toy Story legacy. The first installment of the series was the first full-length feature film entirely created with CGI. It was bold new territory that looked amazing. The animators take full advantage of the advancements in CGI over the past 15 years and elevate their game even further. The toys have always looked spot on but what floored me scene after scene was the richness of the textures. Some of the materials the toys are ‘made’ out of look real enough to touch. I can only imagine how real it must have looked in a good 3-D showing.

Even though I haven’t seen Toy Story 2, I have to say that I was very impressed with this film. It doesn’t feel recycled or needless. The story is sharp and has something for every age demographic. There is plenty of humor for kids and grown-ups alike and the balance between the two is as good as it gets. The animation still wows and the action will keep you interested start to finish. The fact that, after 15 years, Disney is still capable of making us care about these toys is something special.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5