Skip to main content

I despise that chicken.

Toy Story 2
(1999)

(SPOILERS) Acclaimed as the Pixar high-water mark by many (a high accolade indeed) and one of the best sequels ever made, I’m afraid my response is more along the lines of “Well, yes, it is good, but…” Rotten Tomatoes can’t be wrong, though, with 100% fresh and an average rating of 8.67 out of 10. There’s not much nuance to a straight positive, however, and Toy Story 2, while raved over for its thematic depth and nuance, is basically more of the same, just more polished.

Of course, more of the same is nothing to be sneezed at. In the sequel world, it’s practically de rigueur, with just enough that’s fresh to content audiences seeking the recognisable and familiar. And Toy Story 2 is arguably – since we’re talking toys, commercially available items eliciting child covetousness and selfishness – a superior product to the first one, both technically and in terms of storytelling (if a little less sleek in the latter respect; this is the point where even animations begin getting longer and longer).

Perhaps part of the reason I’m resistant to these movies to a degree is the character of Woody, an essentially sentimental, nostalgic creation, and an unlikely one at that; the idea that a kid should be attached to a crappy old toy from the ‘50s/60s is very much an adult one, making that adult a formerly rare child, possibly the kind who grows up to become an animator and is shamed for acting creepily towards his female co-workers. Even the pictures’ recognition of the need to face up to passing time and built-in-obsolescence is basically mawkish (yet, antithetically, eventually everything turns out fine for Woody, when he’d obviously have been thrown out or abandoned long ago for a much cooler toy).

This was, famously, originally going to be direct-to-video affair (Disney exerting a sequel right they had in the original deal) and one not involving Pixar’s main team, who were busy with A Bug’s Life; Lasseter wasn’t happy with the results and committed to a retooled movie, embarking on an accelerated production schedule to meet the release date (Disney had already decided on a theatrical run by that point).

Which may explain – although perhaps not, since Toy Story 3 does almost the same thing – why the plot is pretty much the first one reduxed, but instead of Buzz ending up in the clutches of an evil child, Woody is purloined by Wayne Knight’s Al McWhiggin, of Al’s Toy Barn, intent on adding him to his valuable Woody’s Roundup Collection and shipping him off to Japan to be put in a toy museum. Cue much, slightly rancid, discussion of a toy’s ideal lot (to be played with, rather than left on the shelf, possibly a metaphor for leading an ephemerally productive, purposeful life as a good hardworking citizen who knows their place; notably, Stinky Pete’s vision of decadently living for ever – the toy equivalent of the elite? – is to be ultimately spurned).

Certainly, this plotline is both the emotional core of Toy Story 2 and very slightly a chore. Cowgirl Jessie (Joan Cusack) is introduced – at the behest of Mrs Lasseter, telling John he needed a strong female character – and is unfortunately on the annoying side (which might be the first time I’ve found Cusack annoying in anything), and the picture stops dead in its tracks for the latest Randy Newman composition (poor Jessie was given away by her former owner).

On the other hand, almost everything involving Buzz and the gang tracking down Woody is gleefully inventive, inspiring an avalanche of gags, from Buzz encountering his oblivious-to-his-artifice double (with added utility belt) to his (their) pursuit by Emperor Zurg. Hamm (“Boy, I seriously doubt he’s getting this kind of mileage” he comments of an appropriated automobile) and Rex are the highlight supporting toys again, while Estelle Harris (like Knight, then appearing in Seinfeld) is a welcome and distinctive vocal presence as Mrs Potato Head.

And the grand climax is undeniably superb, Buzz and co first attempting to locate Woody’s suitcase in a maze of airport conveyor belts and followed by the freed Woody executing a daring rescue of Jessie on a plane barrelling towards take-off. Toy Story 2 is superior to Toy Story, then, but it’s also very much a variation on the same. Indeed, I know I’m not their principle audience, but the trilogy rather blended into one before this revisit, which is surely a sign that they’re doing something not quite right somewhere.


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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I think I’m Pablo Picasso!

Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) (SPOILERS) I get the impression that, whatever it is stalwart Venom fans want from a Venom movie, this iteration isn’t it. The highlight here for me is absolutely the wacky, love-hate, buddy-movie antics of Tom Hardy and his symbiote alter. That was the best part of the original, before it locked into plot “progression” and teetered towards a climax where one CGI monster with gnarly teeth had at another CGI monster with gnarly teeth. And so it is for Venom: Let There Be Carnage . But cutting quicker to the chase.

Are you, by any chance, in a trance now, Mr Morrison?

The Doors (1991) (SPOILERS) Oliver Stone’s mammoth, mythologising paean to Jim Morrison is as much about seeing himself in the self-styled, self-destructive rebel figurehead, and I suspect it’s this lack of distance that rather quickly leads to The Doors becoming a turgid bore. It’s strange – people are , you know, films equally so – but I’d hitherto considered the epic opus patchy but worthwhile, a take that disintegrated on this viewing. The picture’s populated with all the stars it could possibly wish for, tremendous visuals (courtesy of DP Robert Richardson) and its director operating at the height of his powers, but his vision, or the incoherence thereof, is the movie’s undoing. The Doors is an indulgent, sprawling mess, with no internal glue to hold it together dramatically. “Jim gets fat and dies” isn’t really a riveting narrative through line.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.

Fifty medications didn’t work because I’m really a reincarnated Russian blacksmith?

Infinite (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s as if Mark Wahlberg, his lined visage increasingly resembling a perplexed potato, learned nothing from the blank ignominy of his “performances” in previous big-budget sci-fi spectacles Planet of the Apes and, er, Max Payne . And maybe include The Happening in that too ( Transformers doesn’t count, since even all-round reprobate Shia La Boeuf made no visible dent on their appeal either way). As such, pairing him with the blandest of journeyman action directors on Infinite was never going to seem like a sterling idea, particularly with a concept so far removed from of either’s wheelhouse.

I can do in two weeks what you can only wish to do in twenty years.

Wrath of Man (2021) (SPOILERS) Guy Ritchie’s stripped-down remake of Le Convoyeur (or Cash Truck , also the working title for this movie) feels like an intentional acceleration in the opposite direction to 2019’s return-to-form The Gentleman , his best movie in years. Ritchie seems to want to prove he can make a straight thriller, devoid of his characteristic winks, nods, playfulness and outright broad (read: often extremely crude) sense of humour. Even King Arthur: Legend of the Sword has its fair share of laughs. Wrath of Man is determinedly grim, though, almost Jacobean in its doom-laden trajectory, and Ritchie casts his movie accordingly, opting for more restrained performers, less likely to summon more flamboyant reflexes.

Five people make a conspiracy, right?

Snake Eyes (1998) (SPOILERS) The best De Palma movies offer a synthesis of plot and aesthetic, such that the director’s meticulously crafted shots and set pieces are underpinned by a solid foundation. That isn’t to say, however, that there isn’t a sheer pleasure to be had from the simple act of observing, from De Palma movies where there isn’t really a whole lot more than the seduction of sound, image and movement. Snake Eyes has the intention to be both scrupulously written and beautifully composed, coming after a decade when the director was – mostly – exploring his oeuvre more commercially than before, which most often meant working from others’ material. If it ultimately collapses in upon itself, then, it nevertheless delivers a ream of positives in both departments along the way.

Madam, the chances of bagging an elephant on the Moon are remote.

First Men in the Moon (1964) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen swaps fantasy for science fiction and stumbles somewhat. The problem with his adaptation of popular eugenicist HG Wells’ 1901 novel isn’t so much that it opts for a quirky storytelling approach over an overtly dramatic one, but that it’s insufficiently dedicated to pursuing that choice. Which means First Men in the Moon , despite a Nigel Kneale screenplay, rather squanders its potential. It does have Lionel Jeffries, though.

I’ll look in Bostock’s pocket.

Doctor Who Revelation of the Daleks Lovely, lovely, lovely. I can quite see why Revelation of the Daleks doesn’t receive the same acclaim as the absurdly – absurdly, because it’s terrible – overrated Remembrance of the Daleks . It is, after all, grim, grisly and exemplifies most of the virtues for which the Saward era is commonly decried. I’d suggest it’s an all-time classic, however, one of the few times 1980s Who gets everything, or nearly everything, right. If it has a fault, besides Eric’s self-prescribed “Kill everyone” remit, it’s that it tries too much. It’s rich, layered and very funny. It has enough material and ideas to go off in about a dozen different directions, which may be why it always felt to me like it was waiting for a trilogy capper.

Beer is for breakfast around here. Drink or begone.

Cocktail (1988) (SPOILERS) When Tarantino claims the 1980s (and 1950s) as the worst movie decade, I’m inclined to invite him to shut his butt down. But should he then flourish Cocktail as Exhibit A, I’d be forced to admit he has a point. Cocktail is a horrifying, malignant piece of dreck, a testament to the efficacy of persuasive star power on a blithely rapt and undiscerning audience. Not only is it morally vacuous, it’s dramatically inert. And it relies on Tom’s toothy charms to a degree that would have any sensitive soul rushed to the A&E suffering from toxic shock (Tom’s most recently displayed toothy charms will likely have even his staunchest devotees less than sure of themselves, however, as he metamorphoses into your favourite grandma). And it was a huge box office hit.