By Marc Bauer
I was seventeen years old when the first Toy Story movie came out, (the same age Andy is in the latest installment). I went to a high school for Science and Technology, so the fact that this film was computer generated was something uniquely interesting. I went for the novelty of the film, not thinking anything much of it at the time. I walked out with many new friends; Woody, Buzz, Hamm, Slinky, Rex, Bo Peep and so many more. Toy Story quickly became a favorite film of mine, becoming the first film I saw more than three times in the theatre; a distinction that few films have received.
I was twenty-one when Toy Story 2 came out, and I was amongst the first in line to see the sequel. The first film was so groundbreaking, breathtaking and heartwarming; I couldn’t imagine what they could even do to top the first film. I sat in an afternoon showing, in a theatre filled with children; some younger, some older, but many the same age as I was. We all sat in this room, strangers united by a common theme; childhood nostalgia.
Now I am 32, but I still carry the war wounds of youth. My bedroom has toys from Where the Wild Things Are, Sesame Street and The Muppets on shelves on the wall. My childhood home still has the old games and toys in the closets, and try as I might; I just can’t part with the rag doll that I received the day my parents brought me home from the hospital.
My rag doll isn’t named Woody, his name is Charlie. He sits in the corner of my bed, often buried under the pillows. Sometimes when he falls to the floor his absence isn’t noticed until the next time I change my sheets. I may have grown older, but I have never grown up. I do not believe that there is ever a time to put away childish things. It is only through these vestiges of our past that we can define who we are currently.
Now, at 32, I ventured again to the theatre to see Toy Story 3. I was apprehensive of seeing this movie in the theatre, since I knew it would be filled with loud children. I’ve been waiting to see another installment of Toy Story for longer than most of these kids have been alive, why should I have to share it with them? But, if I wanted to see it, I would need to endure the tears, the screams and the kids talking to everyone and no one all at once. When I was a child, my mother would walk me out of the theatre if I made noise, so as not to ruin the experience for everyone else in the auditorium, and it seemed the normal reaction at the time. These days, if a child starts crying, the parents continue watching the film, ignoring the child until it cries itself to sleep, the audience makes enough fuzz about it, or an usher makes them take the child outside. Not so at Toy Story 3. Every sob, scream or cry was immediately met with a parent walking the child into the lobby. Every parent in the room was more interested in the film than the kids. Sometimes, the biggest kids are the ones hidden deep inside of ourselves.
But, before I get gushing on the positives, there are a few negatives that I need to get out of my system. Several of the toys from the earlier films did not return; they had to slim the herd a little if they planned on introducing new characters. Slinky Dog originally voiced by Jim Varney is now voiced by Blake Clark. Now, with the bad out of my system, let’s get to the good. And boy howdy is there a lot of good to talk about.
Everyone is all grown up; Andy is off to college, Molly is reading Tween magazines, and even Buster, the family dog, has gotten grey and fat. It is an undeniable fact of life that everything ages; except for toys. Woody, Buzz, Slinky, Jesse, Hamm and the crew look just as they did in the past films. Woody’s damaged arm from TS2 was repaired, and even the fixed stitching looks as good as it did originally. I could add something ponderous about the immutable quality of toys and how their inability to age is a metaphor for the innate childhood whimsy that exists inside every one of us; but I’ll refrain from the heavy-handed.
The film starts in another world, one created entirely in the imagination of a young boy, alone in a room full of toys. You’re never alone as long as you have your favorite toy at your side, and a bedroom is never a bedroom as long as you have imagination. An elaborate scene, created out of pieces of all the great genres, unfolds. The scene dissolves into Andy, alone in his room playing while his mother films him with a camcorder. This segues into Andy’s room today, new posters adorn the walls, a computer sits on the desk, and the toys stay hidden away in the toy chest. For a toy, the only purpose is your life is playtime, and when your owner is too old to play, all that remains is the darkness of the toy chest. Worse than the toy chest, however, is what awaits the toys once Andy leaves for college; if they aren’t taken to the attic, they will be tossed in the trash.
I opted for the 3D version of the film, despite my misgivings on the technology. Computer generated imagery lends itself well to the conversion, and honestly, I wanted as much of the film as I could get, and an added dimension means 50% more than standard 2D, right? The 3D is not gimmicky, there are no items flying at your face or swinging out of the screen. 3D when used properly, adds to the realism of a film, allowing you to see the texture of these toys. When the little kids squeeze a teddy bear to their face, you too can feel the little hairs tickling your nose. (By the way, the bear in question, the Ned Beatty voiced Lot’s-o-Huggin’ Bear aka Lotso, has over 1 million individual hairs; how’s that for texture?) The 3D is well worth the additional dollars.
Speaking of Ned Beatty, he is just one of many new voices to join the already impressive cast list; joining the ranks this film are Michael Keaton, Jeff Garlin, Bonnie Hunt, Timothy Dalton, Whoopi Goldberg and Richard Kind. Like any great animated film, you don’t even notice the voices until you see the names in the credits, and each of the new characters work so well because of they don’t stand out.
That which makes the film work so well is simple. Toys don’t cry. They feel the same emotions we do; love and loss, hope and despair, envy, anger, spite, fear and compassion. You look in their faces and see the emotions you are feeling, because these playthings are extensions of whom you are and who you’ve grown to become. The stoic plastic eyes are somehow able to mirror the emotions you feel, but they are never able to water up. Just as they are there when you are playing and having a great time, so too are they there when you are broken, sad and miserable. Those stoic plastic eyes WANT to cry, they just can’t.
If you have kids that have already seen the first 2 parts, you should make it a point to see this movie as soon as you can. If you don’t have kids, don’t hesitate to see the movie, idly dismissing it as a children’s film. It is deep, warm, richly engrossing and ultimately fulfilling. I’ve liked many movies, but this is the first film I’ve stood up and cheered for in a long while. There is not a single wasted moment, nor a shot that isn’t filled with beauty in the entire film. As long as you have the childish wonderment inside you, you will never grow old, and you will never die out.







Marc, unlike you, I didn’t see the film in 3D, as I am growing wearisome of this technology, which is obviously designed to bill as much money as possible from the consumers. Plus, I always need 7 pairs of glasses, which is a formidable capital outlay.
I saw this film with my brood on Friday afternoon, and I am still thinking about it. I was pondering a review over the next few days, though I am very happy you have penned this moving and magnificent appreciation, which I know goes deep into your heart. I can now concentrate on my review of HAIR, the Broadway show. It’s a five-star film, one of the year’s best in any category, and I dare say the best of the three TOY STORY films, and the one that made me cry in the theatre. I am tearing up in fact just writing this response to you.
The overwhelminf, UNANIMOUS critical response is well deserved, and I am preparing my amunition for the devil’s advocate killjoys who will come here to try and crash the party. I am waiting. Ha!
Marc, this is truly a review from the heart. It’s really wonderful.
You crashed it too late, not realising how good the original 2 were.
This third film is the best of the three, Sir.
I was hoping to see this myself over the weekend, but I couldn’t quite fit it in. I know that just about everybody is counting this release as more important than the birth of Christ, so it’s nice to see it isn’t all hyperbole. This is as Sam says, a review from the heart. Your love for this series is well established.
Wonderful review of a deep and abiding passion for one of animation’s glories. I’m in full accord Mr. Bauer.
I watched the 2D version over the weekend.
I’m reminded of the same feeling I had when watching The Polar Express. There’s a initial sense of deja vu, which eventually turns into acute loss. Years from now this franchise will be seen as one of the greatest accomplishments in animation history. Marc Bauer has accurately caught what one thinks while watching these films, which is a far cry from a repetitious “report.” Very well-done.
Andy’s final surrender is the most moving coda in the annals of animation.
..I opted for the 3D version of the film, despite my misgivings on the technology. Computer generated imagery lends itself well to the conversion, and honestly, I wanted as much of the film as I could get, and an added dimension means 50% more than standard 2D, right?..
You know, I never thought of it that way. Now THAT is commitment.
Honestly, the 3D was best used during the spectacular short that ran before the film. Day & Night was as good as any of the previous Pixar shorts, but here the 3D truly shone. The worlds that existed within the characters, surrounded by so much solid black, seemed to stretch for miles.
I mentioned my rag doll, Charlie in the article. When I was 4 or 5 years old, I remember leaving him behind at Macy’s. My mother loaded my sister and I into the car and we were most of the way home before I realized my loss. Reluctantly, my mother turned the car around and we returned to Macy’s to search for my lost friend. We looked everywhere, only to find him curled up under a chair in the shoe department. I’m sure that isn’t where I left him, but I as a young child always imagined him crawling out of the path of strollers and feet to avoid being trampled, hiding until he saw me again. Toy Story resonated for me because I believed my toys were alive every time I played with them. Seeing that belief become the premise of a film only served to vindicate that type of thinking as I got older. I hit the age where using my imagination, and making believe, became something rife for mockery. Toy Story told me I didn’t need to be embarrassed by my imagination, I should embrace it and encourage it to flourish.
Interesting additional looks at TS3 I found elsewhere, including one that parallels the Holocaust.
http://www.ugo.com/movies/toy-story-3-interpretations
“Toy Story” never really hit me quite as much as others, perhaps, because I was already familiar with its premise of toys coming to life and being jealous of newcomers thanks to “The Christmas Toy”, this mostly forgotten television special from Jim Henson’s studio, starring none of the Muppets themselves (except for Kermit, in a brief intro) but a lot of the puppeteers. So while I’ve always been impressed with Buzz & Woody, this one wasn’t the big emotional connection it was for everyone else. Sorry, but until they can steady their output of Stanton/Bird caliber work, Pixar is trumped by the Muppets (as is most everything).
Well, the first film is pretty tough to beat on a whole. It blazed trails in so many ways. What I do find interesting, though, is that some are still so blind to the idea that animation is probably the purest of the filmic art form. From screenwriter to conceptual and character designers to the actual animators to the voice cast, each character, setting, backdrop and detail is crreated from a think tank of people who love what they do and feed off each others creativity, lending one mind to another. I think its terrific that PIXAR keeps knocking em out of the park. These guys are, simply, the most creative and original film-makers out there.
“These guys are, simply, the most creative and original film-makers out there.”
This is a tad hyperbolic. If I was you I’d be blushing because I put this out there.
I think they’re definitely the most creative and original BLOCKBUSTER filmmakers out there, for whatever that’s worth. (And no, admittedly, the competition’s not very tough, but even if it were, I think they’d hold up.) They do seem to be the only mainstream films tapping into the Golden Age magic that used to characterize Hollywood (which can basically be summed up as classical but creative storytelling + visual imagination within a framework, though the old studio pics were also powered by dynamic star appeal which is missing from Pixar for obvious reasons…). Not the only form of filmmaking, nor the highest (if such things can be ascertained), but a vital aspect of the medium and one that has been sorely lacking in live-action terms in recent years, methinks (I can think of a number of adventurous art films, loosely defined, which can stand with the giants of the past, but few big hits/popular entertainments aside from the Pixar flicks).
FURTHERMORE-I just don’t get those that feel that any emotion derived from an animated film is false emotion. Why? If the story touches you, or perhaps a character, isn’t that as genuine as the emotions derived from a live action film? Frankly, PIXAR is one of the few houses out there that honestly goes for the heart in far more ernest ways than almost 99% of the others. They earn their reactions through originality, hard work, attention to detail and pure guts. THE INCREDIBLES, for instance, wasn’t just about superhero people. It was about PEOPLE. People looking for a new place when they’re no longer appreciated. It spoke, as well, on kids with ADD, spousal infidelity, joblessness, marital and family woes and jealous hero worship to name a few. How many live action films can take on a roster like that and deliver completely? I get a sour stomach every time one of these films comes out, and basically floors the critics, and find some deliberately looking to bash or disent just because its animated. GROW UP!
BOB-Please, there isn’t even a contest. If you like the Muppets, and it all works for you, then great, I’m jealous. I’ve been an admirer and fan of Jim Henson’s stuff since I was a kid and still marel at some of it. But, and I know and have seen the piece you refer to, there isn’t half the ingenuity and heartfelt threads that run through TOY STORY. On a short list of films in 1994 only Kieslowski’s RED was better. TOY STORY not only introduced computer animation in the feature film world with its almost 3D texture and depth. It also was, easily, one of the best written, performed and realized films of the decade. Like your own favorite STAR WARS of 77, it not only paved paths for technology in the creation of films but introduced a world like no other we have ever seen. I’m sorry, but Henson and the Muppets have never come close to that kind of achievement. I think your way off here. IMO.
Hey, I’m not necessarily saying that “A Christmas Story” is better than “Toy Story”, just that the Pixar story didn’t really impress me as much because of how similar it felt to the Henson project. And granted, some of Pixar’s stuff has been really quite good– “Monsters Inc”, “The Incredibles”, “Ratatouille” and “Wall-E” are all high-marks for modern animation and children’s filmmaking. But there’s also so much generic fluff they generate that I don’t care for– the “Toy Story” movies are fine, but a bit too rudimentary for my tastes; “A Bug’s Life” was way too safe and unthreatening; “Finding Nemo” was cute, but not nearly good enough for the massive popularity it won; “Cars” is just plain stupid. You already know how I feel about “Up” (good first act squandered by meandering, pedestrian second and third), but despite my misgivings, I actually think it’s signs that they’re slowly moving into the right directions. Like Studio Ghibli, they’re trying to balance a sense of childlike wonder with adult maturity that’s very effective and commendable, but soon enough they’re going to have to focus a bit more on the latter if they really want to get anywhere. Sadly, with their strong ties to Disney, I doubt we’ll ever get anything as dark as “Grave of the Fireflies” from them, but with their growing audiences, there’s more chance we might see them adopt more truly challenging fare.
At any rate, Henson and his associates have lodged their creative footholds on mass-culture far more than I think people tend to give them credit. Beyond the ubiquitous and enduring popularity of stuff like “Sesame Street” and “The Muppet Show”, you’ve got Frank Oz expanding the dramatic capability of puppet-work as Yoda and Henson expanding his own horizons in his fantasy-film work. Granted, nowadays they’re mostly a puppet-tech workshop, but they’ve still got places to go.
Also, “Toy Story” was from ’95, not ’94. Just so we’re all on the same page.
No JAMIE, Not blushing nor will I retract what I said. With the exception of CARS, PIXAR has grand slammed their films into favorable reviews, huge box office, slews of awards and nominations and, most important, the admiration of billions of kids and adults alike. Voice actors kill to work with them, critics go nuts every time they put out a film and the reviews tend to lean on the creativity and not just the stories. Lasseter, Bird, Stanton etc. are just the kind of geeks that live and breath movies. The combination of guys like that and technology they keep improving to make movies is a one-two punch for success and without a question on their merits as artists. Animation is no easy form and they make it look effortless. Naysayers are out numbered here and they are the ones that should look sheepish in the end. Frankly, most arguments against PIXAR look trite and jealous. The films made since TOY STORY have ALL taken classic status. Why? Cause they suck. No. Because the are consummate works of art.
All of them? Really? Even “A Bug’s Life”? Or “Finding Nemo”? I remember when that movie came out, critics were starting to doubt Pixar for their overly simplistic stories, their easygoing jokey cartoonish sensibilities, their constantly casting easily recognized celebrity voices. It took Brad Bird’s homerun hit movies and Stanton’s follow-up to reaffirm faith in the studio, after which even “Cars” could be forgiven. Don’t get me wrong, they’ve created more modern classics of animation than any other American company in the past twenty years, but saying they’re ALL classics is a bit much. Hell, even Ghibli’s output isn’t uniformally flawless.
Bob, while Dennis might be over-the-top I’m not sure Finding Nemo is a good example of a misstep from them. Prior to Wall-E, it was probably their most popularly beloved movie and while it did not received the same level of ear-to-ear-grinning raves from critics as The Incredibles (since it was less clever) I do recall almost entirely positive reviews. Indeed, from a public perception standpoint (because I didn’t see the film itself until a year or two later, as is invariably the case with Pixar films for some reason I can’t quite fathom) I remember my reaction to Finding Nemo being, “Wow, these guys can do no wrong…”
And Bug’s Life was early enough in their output that the general response was more of a “Wow, these guys can do more than just Toy Story” rather than a “Oops, they blew their load…”
I see above you mentioned the “massive popularity” of Finding Nemo so I guess you are zeroing in more on the critical reaction. But was the response you mention more indicative of broad critical consensus or more under-the-radar murmurings (say, of the blogosphere, which I’ll confess I was mostly unaware of at the time)…?
I’m not sure why I even care except that for some reason I’m in the mood to deposit random and long-winded comments on the Wonders boards tonight; thought I’d gotten it out of my system…
Man, if popular success were a real measuring stick for quality on this site, then Allan and I would be civil to each other sometimes (maybe). “Finding Nemo” was popular, but its lack of acclaim was telling, arriving also around the time when studios like DreamWorks started offering some solid domestic competition. Granted, aside from the occasional surprise hit like “Kung Fu Panda” or “How To Train Your Dragon”, most of their stuff has either been milked-out franchise fluff like “Shrek” and “Madagascar”, or inconsequential triffles like “Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs”. I’m not trying to bring Pixar down a peg or anything, I’m just reminding everyone that they’re mere mortals, shouldn’t be burdened with the unrealistic expectations of unrestrained hype. After all, we all know what happens when THAT goes out of control…
NEMO? Think not. Pretty superlative reviews down the board. An Oscar for best Animated film and a nomination for BEST SCREENPLAY? C L A S S I C…. BUGS LIFE? Same pretty glowing reviws and, without a doubt, the FUNNIEST one they ever pulled. I agree that the Bird films are the cream of the crop and WALL-E goes beyond even that. But, you gotta start somewhere. And as far as cartoony looks, even the ones critical of that admit that PIXARS technology wouls improve to correct that. Then again, the bugs were meant to look like that. The fish in NEMO? Well, you tell me how you’d make a fish’s face expressive and keep it real. Exception of CARS, they’re all Classics.