Skip to main content

Ages three and up. It's on my box.

Toy Story
(1995)

(SPOILERS) Pixar has a lot to answer for. Killing off traditional animation, for starters. And Randy Newman (well, in Pixar films at least). Indeed, one of the reasons I’m immune to the unconditional worship of the animation house’s crown jewel franchise is that I simply cannot stomach his anodyne, twee songs and lightly-sandpapered crooning. He does not have a friend in me (I’m sure he’s a very nice chap). The first Toy Story profoundly changed the industry (and won a special achievement Oscar for its troubles) and has paved the way for both the plentiful very good computer-animated movies since as well as the multitudinous ones that aren’t, but at what cost? And is it really that good?

It’s well observed, undoubtedly. And the assembled voice cast, including Tom Hanks doing the comedy-exasperated voice he does so well (did: this is very nearly the last remnant of comedy Hanks) and Tim Allen playing commendably straight (Wallace Shawn as Rex – a character added when Joss Whedon did a rewrite – and John Ratzenberger as Hamm are my favourites, though).

But for all its pockets of “edgy” adult humour (at Jeffrey Katzenberg’s behest, with an eye to as broad a demographic as possible) – “laser envy”; “The word I’m searching for, I can’t say, because there’s preschool toys present”– and humorous asides – “I’m not actually from Mattel. I’m actually from a smaller company that was purchased by Mattel in a leveraged buyout” intones Rex – Toy Story is shot through with a mile-wide streak of sentimentality hideously compounded by Newman. I find this eminently resistible, and it’s something that put me off Monsters, Inc. even more. As such, going against the grain, my favourite Pixar until Finding Nemo came along was probably the unloved A Bug’s Life, (although, that itself is inferior to Antz).

There’s also the not inconsiderable issue that, in some areas, Toy Story has not aged well. The human children are seriously disturbing distillations, spawn of hell itself, not so much uncanny valley as ghoulish gorge. This works, to an extent, you might suggest, for devil-child-from-next-door Sid, a shoe-in for Will Poulter to play when the live-action version comes around, but it’s generally distractingly crude. On the other hand, there are sequences that still seem just as fresh and masterfully assembled as ever, notably the climactic dog/van/radio-controlled car road chase, complete with the kind of escalating problems thrown into the mix that would have made peak Spielberg proud.

And, as is the nature of animation, the sheer amount of time spent crafting the picture means its littered with little details and asides. For me, it dips somewhat once Woody and Buzz are trapped in Sid’s house, but Buzz forced to take afternoon tea still tickles, and if Joe Dante did the mutilated toys better in Small Soldiers a few years later, Sid’s sick creations still have a twisted, Tim Burton Beetlejuice/ Frankenweenie vibe about them (“I don’t believe that man’s ever been to medical school”).

There have, of course, been lots of theories about the world of Toy Story, and what precisely the animators are trying to achieve (ranging from the fate of Andy’s dad, to an Illuminati exposé included in the third instalment), even if the intended premise is as unfussy as doing what it says on the tin: “Toys deeply want children to play with them, and… this drives their hopes, fears, and actions”. Naturally, however, this lends itself to various opportunities for creator-created plays/ parodies and musings.

Most famously and endearingly, the key embodiment of this is found in the alien toys at Pizza Planet, paralleling Buzz in their hermetic understanding of the world, believing in the great claw as God (“I have been chosen”) and speaking in the coded language of a cult (“A stranger from the outside”); Woody even accuses them of religious extremism (“Stop it, you zealots!”) One might accordingly contrast this with the – on the surface – rational, knowledgeable Woody, who knows the way things are and has certainty about the tangible world, that they are the products of a very nuts-and-bolts master-and-servant system that is easily explainable; his scientific matter-of-factness could be considered equivalent to taking stock in evolutionary theory. Which would make delusional Buzz a fantasist convinced of a fake reality, one written on his box, tantamount to a belief in God, complete with his calling on fake miracles (his ability to fly). But Woody’s scoffing at Buzz in turn exposes his own unquestioning faith in the value of the owner-toy bond, and the requirement to accept a false god as their sovereign (their true creator remains unseen, naturally).

The chief reason Toy Story works is that it fully services the buddy comedy template, though (again, a Katzenberg suggestion, made when the development process was hitting bumps), with jealous Woody learning to appreciate and get along with interloper (for Andy’s affections) Buzz. Does that justify three sequels? For me, not really, as despite The Godfather Part II-esque praise aimed at the second in the series for improving on what went before, I’ve generally found the upgrades cosmetic, rather than truly expanding on what is essentially a stir-and-repeat formula. But then, I’m not one of the chosen.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

If a rat were to walk in here right now as I'm talking, would you treat it to a saucer of your delicious milk?

Inglourious Basterds (2009)
(SPOILERS) His staunchest fans would doubtless claim Tarantino has never taken a wrong step, but for me, his post-Pulp Fiction output had been either not quite as satisfying (Jackie Brown), empty spectacle (the Kill Bills) or wretched (Death Proof). It wasn’t until Inglourious Basterds that he recovered his mojo, revelling in an alternate World War II where Adolf didn’t just lose but also got machine gunned to death in a movie theatre showing a warmly received Goebbels-produced propaganda film. It may not be his masterpiece – as Aldo Raines refers to the swastika engraved on “Jew hunter” Hans Landa’s forehead, and as Tarantino actually saw the potential of his script – but it’s brimming with ideas and energy.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Just because you are a character doesn't mean that you have character.

Pulp Fiction (1994)
(SPOILERS) From a UK perspective, Pulp Fiction’s success seemed like a fait accompli; Reservoir Dogs had gone beyond the mere cult item it was Stateside and impacted mainstream culture itself (hard to believe now that it was once banned on home video); it was a case of Tarantino filling a gap in the market no one knew was there until he drew attention to it (and which quickly became over-saturated with pale imitators subsequently). Where his debut was a grower, Pulp Fiction hit the ground running, an instant critical and commercial success (it won the Palme d’Or four months before its release), only made cooler by being robbed of the Best Picture Oscar by Forrest Gump. And unlike some famously-cited should-have-beens, Tarantino’s masterpiece really did deserve it.

Hey, everybody. The bellboy's here.

Four Rooms (1995)
(SPOILERS) I had an idea that I’d only seen part of Four Rooms previously, and having now definitively watched the entire thing, I can see where that notion sprang from. It’s a picture that actively encourages you to think it never existed. Much of it isn’t even actively terrible – although, at the same time, it couldn’t be labelled remotely good– but it’s so utterly lethargic, so lacking in the energy, enthusiasm and inventiveness that characterises these filmmakers at their best – and yes, I’m including Rodriguez, although it’s a very limited corner for him – that it’s very easy to banish the entire misbegotten enterprise from your mind.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

I am forever driven on this quest.

Ad Astra (2019)
(SPOILERS) Would Apocalypse Now have finished up as a classic if Captain Willard had been ordered on a mission to exterminate his mad dad with extreme prejudice, rather than a mysterious and off-reservation colonel? Ad Astra features many stunning elements. It’s an undeniably classy piece of filmmaking from James Gray, who establishes his tone from the get-go and keeps it consistent, even through various showy set pieces. But the decision to give its lead character an existential crisis entirely revolving around his absent father is its reductive, fatal flaw, ultimately deflating much of the air from Gray’s space balloon.

Our very strength incites challenge. Challenge incites conflict. And conflict... breeds catastrophe.

The MCU Ranked Worst to Best

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

The adversary oft comes in the shape of a he-goat.

The Witch (2015)
(SPOILERS) I’m not the biggest of horror buffs, so Stephen King commenting that The Witchscared the hell out of me” might have given me pause for what was in store. Fortunately, he’s the same author extraordinaire who referred to Crimson Peak as “just fucking terrifying” (it isn’t). That, and that general reactions to Robert Eggers’ film have fluctuated across the scale, from the King-type response on one end of the spectrum to accounts of unrelieved boredom on the other. The latter response may also contextualise the former, depending on just what King is referring to, because what’s scary about The Witch isn’t, for the most part, scary in the classically understood horror sense. It’s scary in the way The Wicker Man is scary, existentially gnawing away at one through judicious martialling of atmosphere, setting and theme.


Indeed, this is far more impressive a work than Ben Wheatley’s Kill List, which had hitherto been compared to The Wicker Man, succeeding admirably …