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 never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds . Juno and the Paycock , set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.