Which isn't to say that it's perfect: it's probably the least brilliant of the series, opening with a shameless rip off of its own predecessor's prologue and meandering wildly in its middle act while it tries to find the well-worn groove of the Rescue Mission Movie the prequels so successfully reinvented. Fortunately by the time it settles down to a structurally flawless finale that had me laughing and crying snot all over the woman in front of me, its minor faults are easily forgiven.
And while Big Baby and the cymbal-banging monkey would have scared the Lincoln Logs out of me as a kid and Mr Potato Head's new look was the funniest thing I've seen at the cinema since Toy Story 2, there was one criminally underused star of Toy Story 3:
What I don't need now, though, is any more sequels from Pixar. All their films are so carefully designed to take their characters in a perfect arc that it feels like a waste to go back to them, even though Toy Story 2 and 3 were so good. So while I look forward to 2012's Brave, I can't get excited about next year's sequel to the Pixar film of which we do not speak, or the following year's Monsters, Inc 2. A Mr Pricklepants movie, on the other hand...
I had to watch Toy Story 3 in 3D because I won the tickets in a competition at London's Barbican. Like every film in existence, there was no need whatsoever for it to be in 3D. Which meant that I sat there wearing what felt like a giant pair of swimming goggles which didn't fit over my glasses properly and cut out half the light from the screen so I could barely see anything in the gloomier scenes FOR NO REASON. In fact Mrs The Incredible Suit got so fed up she took them off altogether and watched it in perfectly bright fuzzyvision.
We thought we were being clever by taking along the 3D specs we were forced to buy at the Odeon the other week but guess what? They weren't compatible with the Barbican's projection system. Which makes Odeon's trumpeting of their green credentials by celebrating the fact that you can re-use their glasses pretty hollow when every other chain is cranking out more tons of plastic for their own systems.
I really, REALLY hate 3D.
Which Pixar film don't you speak of? I assume you can't say its name, but can you give me a clue please... Incredible Suit is still a new find for me
ReplyDeleteNever mind. Its C*rs isn't it
ReplyDeleteYou don't make any reference to the fantastic Pixar short Night & Day which preceedes the main feature which was a witty and entertaing animation and make good use of 3D. I'm with you though about 3D in general, it stinks.
ReplyDeleteI never gave Cars much credence until I had a son. He's going on 3, and he LOVES Cars. And you know what? He's right, it's great. Why can't all movie reviewers be less than a metre high?
ReplyDeleteTim, correct.
ReplyDeleteAnon, you're right, except the pedant in me feels it necessary to point out that it's Day & Night.
Tony, keep a very close eye on that boy.
"waste of a perfectly good dimension"
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/26/3d_films/
Tony: Your kid is wrong. Cars is dull, patronising bollocks. It wasn't worth making the first one, let alone a sequel.
ReplyDelete3D, particularly in this movie, is as pointless and unecessary as the remake of Let the Right One in.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't believe how much brightness and colour is lost by wearing the incredibly painful glasses. I won't be wasting any more money on 3D movies. 2D versions from now on and the occasional IMAX experience which is a far more immersive way to view a movie.
Marge x
Looking forward to this, but screens for 2D showings are already dropping like flys. :(
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, Monsters Inc. is the only one I would be happy watching a sequel of.
Perhaps the more ensemble-based nature of MI and TS lend themselves better to further adventures, whereas Wall-e and Up are ten-out-of-ten-perfect self-contained stories.
3-D glasses are my mortal enemies. Do I foregoe my regular glasses, or do I try to have a layering motif, or what?
ReplyDeleteTheUnwashedMass - no-one calls my son wrong. Outside, now!
ReplyDeleteBinocular vision is handy for close up work but not needed for middle to distant objects when we get spatial information by moving our whole head. One eyed folk get around just fine without bumping into the furniture. Watching a regular movie is fine because when the camera moves our brains can easily work out the depth in the scene and the relationships between objects. In a 3D movie our brains have extra work to do, because for close objects we see in binocular vision but if we move our whole head then the middle and distant objects do not change their relationships as they should in real binocular vision. This confusion is extra work and tires the brain and detracts from the enjoyment of the movie. So, reasons not to choose 3D -
ReplyDelete1) It is hard work for the brain
2) It is not true binocular vision
3) What you see is half as bright
4) You have to wear silly specs
5) It is more expensive
6) It has been tried years ago and failed.
What will they try next that did not work last time? Smelly Vision?
They tried that with Avatar. It stank of shit.
ReplyDeleteBlue Shit
ReplyDeleteBack to Mono!
ReplyDelete