I hate to say it . . . But I'm going to say it anyway . . . This movie bored me.
Okay, okay, don't throw anything just yet!
I went in with no foreknowledge of this character except that he's based on yet another comic book and can shrink. Right? And I saw the film (in 3D) on a cruise ship, because Disney can show its own first-run films on its ships. So venue could have played a part, and mood, etc.
But still. I was bored.
There were a few funny moments. A few. But most of the movie was just very plot-plot-plodding. I mean, I love Michael Douglas, so glad to see him back on the screen. And I generally like Paul Rudd, too. And I think they had pretty good screen chemistry. I just wish they'd had more interesting things to do.
It sort of felt like the first Iron Man again in that there were rival inventors with rival suits, etc. And there was that forced Falcon fight thing. Felt like a desperate move to tie this film in with the others. But Ant-Man is only a second-tier hero, so he gets Falcon instead of, say, Captain America or one of those.
At least, it feels like Ant-Man is second tier. While technically there's nothing really wrong with it, the film comes across as rote and colorless. There's no flavor. (Does that mean it's tasteless? Hmm.) It's as if someone followed a recipe but couldn't be bothered to add any spice. Sort of a "get it done and out" thing with no investment in detail.
I realize it was a hit. And that a lot of people liked it. And maybe on another viewing, under different circumstances, I'd find more to like about it, too. But my initial impression? Meh.
Showing posts with label 3D. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 3D. Show all posts
8.12.2015
5.07.2015
Movies: Avengers: Age of Ultron
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Mark Ruffalo, Scarlett Johansson, Jeremy Renner, James Spader, Paul Bettany
Directed By: Joss Whedon
Written By: Joss Whedon, based on the comics by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby
Marvel, 2015
PG-13; 141 minutes
3.25 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
If you're wondering why I haven't blogged about this week's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., it's because I wasn't sure if I needed to see this movie first. So I haven't watched S.H.I.E.L.D. yet.
I can officially say I'm no longer impressed with 20+-minute long action sequences. They all look alike, and we've become so used to them they no longer wow. What would wow? Oh, some actual character development and plot.
Can't say they didn't try. This installment in the ever-growing franchise reveals [spoiler alert!] Hawkeye's (aka Clint Barton's) hidden family, namely a wife and two kids with a third on the way, living on a secluded farm. Also, there was an attempt to create some kind of relationship between Dr. Banner and Natasha. But it's all done so perfunctorily that one gleans no actual emotional gratification from it. It isn't organic or made believable through any growth; it's merely dumped in front of the viewers like a lazy waitress drops your meal in front of you, tells you to "enjoy" in a cigarette-scarred voice, and wanders off without any further interest in you.
Thing is, Joss Whedon is usually very good with character, so I suspect this is a classic tug-of-war between meeting the studio demands and doing what he loves and does best. Unfortunately, this compromise doesn't really work for me. All these movies look and sound the same, and there is little to no progress made from one to the next. Same ol' problems. Same ol' solutions.
It's a wonder the Avengers are allowed to operate at all given the amount of damage they do. It's almost a case of the cure being worse than the disease. A protracted fight between Iron Man and Hulk in the middle of Ultron underscores the point. They weren't even fighting a bad guy, just each other. And I don't see why Iron Man didn't just knock Hulk out in the first place (since that seems to have been what settled things some billions of dollars of damage later).
If you're wondering about the story, well, okay . . . We start, of course, mid-action, with the Avengers raiding a bunker in Sokovia. They're looking for the Chitauri Scepter, and they find it, along with theWonder Twins Maximoff twins Pietro (Quicksilver) and Wanda (Scarlet Witch). The get the scepter; the Maximoffs go free.
By analyzing and using the scepter's power—which is apparently some kind of code or program?—Tony convinces Bruce to attempt to create an A.I. that will work to defend the world so the Avengers won't have to. But of course that goes pretty damn wrong, and we end up with Ultron (Spader), whose solution for making the world safe is to eliminate the humans. By convincing the Maximoffs that his mission is to end the Avengers, Ultron get them on his side. But (in a completely foreseeable flip), once the Maximoffs understand Ultron's true goal, they side with the Avengers. More fighting . . . And ever more fighting . . . And a little more for good measure . . .
One of Scarlet Witch's powers is mental manipulation. Basically, she gives people nightmarish hallucinations by playing on their fears or past pain. I couldn't help but be reminded of Young Sherlock Holmes and the series of hallucination sequences in that film. Sure, it's one of my favorite movies from when I was a kid, but it's pretty bad when a 2015 movie is reminding me of one from 1985. Maybe that says more about my age than anything else, but it also says something about a lack of fresh ideas. Or at least a lack of fresh ways to implement old ideas.
Meanwhile, you'll notice I didn't even list Chris Hemsworth (Thor) on the header. He's conspicuously absent for a large portion of the film, goes off to take some vision bath . . . A truly bizarre subplot that detracts rather than adds to the movie. We get as much or more of Paul Bettany as a physical incarnation of Jarvis known as Vision (thanks to the Mind Stone or whatever . . . I wonder how excited Bettany was to actually be in the movie? Did he call his mom and say, "I actually get screen time!"?)
In the end, what we seem to be left with is turnover. Captain America and Natasha are still there at Avengers HQ, but Banner has gone AWOL, Tony and Thor have taken off, and Barton has gone home to the farm to redo his dining room. Instead we're left with Vision, Scarlet Witch, Falcon, and War Machine filling the gaps.
I give Ultron a slightly more than middling score because it is still entertaining and well produced. I mean, it does what it's meant to do, I guess. And has lovely Whedonesque moments of humor. Could have used more of those and fewer fight sequences.
Directed By: Joss Whedon
Written By: Joss Whedon, based on the comics by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby
Marvel, 2015
PG-13; 141 minutes
3.25 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
If you're wondering why I haven't blogged about this week's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., it's because I wasn't sure if I needed to see this movie first. So I haven't watched S.H.I.E.L.D. yet.
I can officially say I'm no longer impressed with 20+-minute long action sequences. They all look alike, and we've become so used to them they no longer wow. What would wow? Oh, some actual character development and plot.
Can't say they didn't try. This installment in the ever-growing franchise reveals [spoiler alert!] Hawkeye's (aka Clint Barton's) hidden family, namely a wife and two kids with a third on the way, living on a secluded farm. Also, there was an attempt to create some kind of relationship between Dr. Banner and Natasha. But it's all done so perfunctorily that one gleans no actual emotional gratification from it. It isn't organic or made believable through any growth; it's merely dumped in front of the viewers like a lazy waitress drops your meal in front of you, tells you to "enjoy" in a cigarette-scarred voice, and wanders off without any further interest in you.
Thing is, Joss Whedon is usually very good with character, so I suspect this is a classic tug-of-war between meeting the studio demands and doing what he loves and does best. Unfortunately, this compromise doesn't really work for me. All these movies look and sound the same, and there is little to no progress made from one to the next. Same ol' problems. Same ol' solutions.
It's a wonder the Avengers are allowed to operate at all given the amount of damage they do. It's almost a case of the cure being worse than the disease. A protracted fight between Iron Man and Hulk in the middle of Ultron underscores the point. They weren't even fighting a bad guy, just each other. And I don't see why Iron Man didn't just knock Hulk out in the first place (since that seems to have been what settled things some billions of dollars of damage later).
If you're wondering about the story, well, okay . . . We start, of course, mid-action, with the Avengers raiding a bunker in Sokovia. They're looking for the Chitauri Scepter, and they find it, along with the
By analyzing and using the scepter's power—which is apparently some kind of code or program?—Tony convinces Bruce to attempt to create an A.I. that will work to defend the world so the Avengers won't have to. But of course that goes pretty damn wrong, and we end up with Ultron (Spader), whose solution for making the world safe is to eliminate the humans. By convincing the Maximoffs that his mission is to end the Avengers, Ultron get them on his side. But (in a completely foreseeable flip), once the Maximoffs understand Ultron's true goal, they side with the Avengers. More fighting . . . And ever more fighting . . . And a little more for good measure . . .
One of Scarlet Witch's powers is mental manipulation. Basically, she gives people nightmarish hallucinations by playing on their fears or past pain. I couldn't help but be reminded of Young Sherlock Holmes and the series of hallucination sequences in that film. Sure, it's one of my favorite movies from when I was a kid, but it's pretty bad when a 2015 movie is reminding me of one from 1985. Maybe that says more about my age than anything else, but it also says something about a lack of fresh ideas. Or at least a lack of fresh ways to implement old ideas.
Meanwhile, you'll notice I didn't even list Chris Hemsworth (Thor) on the header. He's conspicuously absent for a large portion of the film, goes off to take some vision bath . . . A truly bizarre subplot that detracts rather than adds to the movie. We get as much or more of Paul Bettany as a physical incarnation of Jarvis known as Vision (thanks to the Mind Stone or whatever . . . I wonder how excited Bettany was to actually be in the movie? Did he call his mom and say, "I actually get screen time!"?)
In the end, what we seem to be left with is turnover. Captain America and Natasha are still there at Avengers HQ, but Banner has gone AWOL, Tony and Thor have taken off, and Barton has gone home to the farm to redo his dining room. Instead we're left with Vision, Scarlet Witch, Falcon, and War Machine filling the gaps.
I give Ultron a slightly more than middling score because it is still entertaining and well produced. I mean, it does what it's meant to do, I guess. And has lovely Whedonesque moments of humor. Could have used more of those and fewer fight sequences.
11.17.2013
Movies: Man of Steel
So this is the result of Warner Bros. saying to Chris Nolan, "Do for Superman what you did for Batman." (Nolan is credited with the story and also as a producer.)
But then they let Zack Snyder direct it.
Look, I get the desire to go with a gritty, "realistic" (if there is such a thing) angle on Superman. But while Batman is a human, Superman is an alien. So you can't really expect to be too down-to-earth with his story. And then, by choosing the General Zod plot, you've made it all even less real.
Also more boring.
Because, Jesus, this movie was long. Fight after fight after fight, and each of those battle sequences went on forever. I got bored and began fiddling with my iPhone.
And the long sequence at the beginning? With the destruction of Krypton and all that? Bleh.
Man of Steel also jumped around from flashback to present without bothering to give visual cues. You were just sort of expected to figure it out. Which is fine; I'm smart enough for that. But I still found it annoying. And if my son had been watching, he'd definitely have been confused.
Was there anything good about it? Well, though I didn't love Amy Adams as Lois Lane, I think Henry Cavill did a really good job as Clark Kent/Superman. Spot on casting there. Russell Crowe did okay in that I found it easy to believe his character and motivations. And I enjoyed Laurence Fishburne as Perry White, too.
Also, I enjoyed that this movie gave me the chance to test out the Active 3D function on my new telly. So much better than Passive 3D. No headaches here. Very cool.
Other than that, no. Can't say much for Man of Steel. Here's hoping they give Cavill something better to work with next time.
But then they let Zack Snyder direct it.
Look, I get the desire to go with a gritty, "realistic" (if there is such a thing) angle on Superman. But while Batman is a human, Superman is an alien. So you can't really expect to be too down-to-earth with his story. And then, by choosing the General Zod plot, you've made it all even less real.
Also more boring.
Because, Jesus, this movie was long. Fight after fight after fight, and each of those battle sequences went on forever. I got bored and began fiddling with my iPhone.
And the long sequence at the beginning? With the destruction of Krypton and all that? Bleh.
Man of Steel also jumped around from flashback to present without bothering to give visual cues. You were just sort of expected to figure it out. Which is fine; I'm smart enough for that. But I still found it annoying. And if my son had been watching, he'd definitely have been confused.
Was there anything good about it? Well, though I didn't love Amy Adams as Lois Lane, I think Henry Cavill did a really good job as Clark Kent/Superman. Spot on casting there. Russell Crowe did okay in that I found it easy to believe his character and motivations. And I enjoyed Laurence Fishburne as Perry White, too.
Also, I enjoyed that this movie gave me the chance to test out the Active 3D function on my new telly. So much better than Passive 3D. No headaches here. Very cool.
Other than that, no. Can't say much for Man of Steel. Here's hoping they give Cavill something better to work with next time.
4.13.2013
Movies: Jurassic Park in IMAX 3D
Jurassic Park is one of my all-time favorite movies. It holds my personal record for films I've seen most often in the cinema at 10 11 times. It's hard for me to believe it's 20 years old, because that means I'm way older than I think or feel.
Actually, the movie came out when I was in high school. I was such a fan that my friends got a kick out of giving me JP gear. Even my journalism teacher gave me a JP coloring book and some die-cast dinos for my birthday that year. (She was the coolest; we went to Star Trek conventions together.) I had shirts, hats, toys, posters, coloring books, puzzles, bedding . . . A little weird for a high school girl, probably, but then I always was unusual. And my kids are now benefitting from my collector's mentality by having lots of awesome toys to play with, stuff you can't find any more.
There's also the fact that I was known as "The Raptor" . . . But that's another story.
Okay, so the movie. Well, it looks its age; not much one can do about that. But it has aged relatively well, too, in that Stan Winston's effects work holds up. And Spielberg, well, he's always been a personal hero of mine, so . . .
You definitely see the hand of the man who made Indiana Jones movies in Jurassic Park. That moment of finding and holding up the amber-encased mosquito. The musical score, particularly in scenes like when the jeeps first pull in to the Visitor Center. Some of the punches are a bit too obvious, like the way they show the besmirched JP logo several times as things go terribly wrong. Yes, we get it: It's a disaster.
But then some of the stuff is just so much fun, too, like "Space Aliens Stole My Face" on the trailer fridge at the Badlands dig. I love the scene with the car in the tree. And the movie is just so damn quotable. A lot of Spielberg movies seem to be, so I don't think it's so much the writing as the directing. Spielberg gets great work out of his actors, and he knows how to use film as a medium to make memories. Because that's what a film quote is: Something memorable that you not only carry away from the film but eventually incorporate into your everyday life. How amazing is that, when you think about it? That a well-delivered line can become part of a person's personal shorthand?
I don't know that the movie needed the 3D treatment. You'd think something like Jurassic Park would be awesome in 3D, and some scenes were, but the rest . . . ::shrug:: Of course, as regular readers know, I'm no big fan of the 3D push. But this one gave me less of a headache than some others have done. And if you're going to see it in 3D, you might as well see it in IMAX. Pretty awesome to see Waldo (the T-Rex) lording it on the really big screen.
Look, my love for this film clearly biases me from being able to make an objective review. But let's just say that, if I was a little worried I'd walk away disillusioned, I needn't have been. Seeing it in the cinema again only reaffirmed my love for Jurassic Park. It is a classic.
Actually, the movie came out when I was in high school. I was such a fan that my friends got a kick out of giving me JP gear. Even my journalism teacher gave me a JP coloring book and some die-cast dinos for my birthday that year. (She was the coolest; we went to Star Trek conventions together.) I had shirts, hats, toys, posters, coloring books, puzzles, bedding . . . A little weird for a high school girl, probably, but then I always was unusual. And my kids are now benefitting from my collector's mentality by having lots of awesome toys to play with, stuff you can't find any more.
There's also the fact that I was known as "The Raptor" . . . But that's another story.
Okay, so the movie. Well, it looks its age; not much one can do about that. But it has aged relatively well, too, in that Stan Winston's effects work holds up. And Spielberg, well, he's always been a personal hero of mine, so . . .
You definitely see the hand of the man who made Indiana Jones movies in Jurassic Park. That moment of finding and holding up the amber-encased mosquito. The musical score, particularly in scenes like when the jeeps first pull in to the Visitor Center. Some of the punches are a bit too obvious, like the way they show the besmirched JP logo several times as things go terribly wrong. Yes, we get it: It's a disaster.
But then some of the stuff is just so much fun, too, like "Space Aliens Stole My Face" on the trailer fridge at the Badlands dig. I love the scene with the car in the tree. And the movie is just so damn quotable. A lot of Spielberg movies seem to be, so I don't think it's so much the writing as the directing. Spielberg gets great work out of his actors, and he knows how to use film as a medium to make memories. Because that's what a film quote is: Something memorable that you not only carry away from the film but eventually incorporate into your everyday life. How amazing is that, when you think about it? That a well-delivered line can become part of a person's personal shorthand?
I don't know that the movie needed the 3D treatment. You'd think something like Jurassic Park would be awesome in 3D, and some scenes were, but the rest . . . ::shrug:: Of course, as regular readers know, I'm no big fan of the 3D push. But this one gave me less of a headache than some others have done. And if you're going to see it in 3D, you might as well see it in IMAX. Pretty awesome to see Waldo (the T-Rex) lording it on the really big screen.
Look, my love for this film clearly biases me from being able to make an objective review. But let's just say that, if I was a little worried I'd walk away disillusioned, I needn't have been. Seeing it in the cinema again only reaffirmed my love for Jurassic Park. It is a classic.
8.24.2011
Movie Review: Fright Night
Starring: Anton Yelchin, Colin Farrell, Toni Collette, David Tennant, Imogen Poots
Directed By: Craig Gillespie
Written By: Marti Noxon (screenplay), Tom Holland (story)
Albuquerque Studios/Dreamworks SKG, 2011
R; 106 minutes
2.5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
I went into Fright Night wanting to like it, and I did, but not as much as I hoped.
The story itself is pretty rote: high school nerd-turned-cool kid Charlie (Yelchin) discovers the new neighbor Jerry (Farrell) is a vampire. Hilarity ensues. Except not really because the movie wasn't very funny. At least, not in any intentional way.
Marti Noxon, best known for her work on Buffy: The Vampire Slayer, does a fair job of delivering an even-handed script for this remake (and to be clear, I never saw the original and know nothing about the original, so I have nothing to compare this to in that sense). But the jumps are minimal; viewers can see what's coming from a mile away, so there are few surprises.
It seems like the movie isn't sure how seriously it wants to be taken, so it skimps on both horror and humor and instead ends up rather flat. Farrell does an amusing job of vamping it up, Collette is great as Charlie's mom, and Tennant is underutilized (way to throw in a quick backstory and then drop the ball, guys). Meanwhile, Charlie and his girlfriend Amy (Poots) get the most screen time but are the weakest links. Yelchin does a so-so job of portraying someone whose whole life has been turned upside down by a horrific revelation--he even sees a neighbor burst into flame after he rescues her from Jerry's house and brings her out into dawn's early light--and while Poots is believable as the sweet girlfriend, she's mostly a plot device. In fact, all of Fright Night is so carefully plotted one can pretty much recreate the beat sheet from memory.
However. Because I went in with little or no expectations—just a desire to have fun—I did enjoy the movie. Fright Night flies on autopilot, sure, but it's a smooth enough ride. It entertains, though it could have taken me farther in any direction without my protesting too much. It functions mostly as an extremely diluted R or a trumped-up PG-13. (In fact, I thought it was PG-13 while watching it and found out later it was R, more likely due to all the swearing rather than any excess of gore.)
As for the 3D aspect, this movie, like so many others, really didn't benefit from the added dimension. But at least it didn't give me a headache either.
Fright Night is solidly middle-of-the-road fare, more a rental than a big screen flick.
Directed By: Craig Gillespie
Written By: Marti Noxon (screenplay), Tom Holland (story)
Albuquerque Studios/Dreamworks SKG, 2011
R; 106 minutes
2.5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
I went into Fright Night wanting to like it, and I did, but not as much as I hoped.
The story itself is pretty rote: high school nerd-turned-cool kid Charlie (Yelchin) discovers the new neighbor Jerry (Farrell) is a vampire. Hilarity ensues. Except not really because the movie wasn't very funny. At least, not in any intentional way.
Marti Noxon, best known for her work on Buffy: The Vampire Slayer, does a fair job of delivering an even-handed script for this remake (and to be clear, I never saw the original and know nothing about the original, so I have nothing to compare this to in that sense). But the jumps are minimal; viewers can see what's coming from a mile away, so there are few surprises.
It seems like the movie isn't sure how seriously it wants to be taken, so it skimps on both horror and humor and instead ends up rather flat. Farrell does an amusing job of vamping it up, Collette is great as Charlie's mom, and Tennant is underutilized (way to throw in a quick backstory and then drop the ball, guys). Meanwhile, Charlie and his girlfriend Amy (Poots) get the most screen time but are the weakest links. Yelchin does a so-so job of portraying someone whose whole life has been turned upside down by a horrific revelation--he even sees a neighbor burst into flame after he rescues her from Jerry's house and brings her out into dawn's early light--and while Poots is believable as the sweet girlfriend, she's mostly a plot device. In fact, all of Fright Night is so carefully plotted one can pretty much recreate the beat sheet from memory.
However. Because I went in with little or no expectations—just a desire to have fun—I did enjoy the movie. Fright Night flies on autopilot, sure, but it's a smooth enough ride. It entertains, though it could have taken me farther in any direction without my protesting too much. It functions mostly as an extremely diluted R or a trumped-up PG-13. (In fact, I thought it was PG-13 while watching it and found out later it was R, more likely due to all the swearing rather than any excess of gore.)
As for the 3D aspect, this movie, like so many others, really didn't benefit from the added dimension. But at least it didn't give me a headache either.
Fright Night is solidly middle-of-the-road fare, more a rental than a big screen flick.
6.27.2010
Movie Review: Toy Story 3
Featuring the Voice Talents of: Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Joan Cusack, Ned Beatty, Michael Keaton, Timothy Dalton
Directed By: Lee Unkrich
Written By: Michael Arndt, John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton, Lee Unkrich
Pixar Animation, 2010
G; 103 minutes
5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
No one does nostalgia quite like Pixar. The team there--writers, animators, directors, producers--all seem to understand the process of looking over one's shoulder at the past and the warm feelings that can engender. Perhaps it's part of being in the animation business, which itself has a long history and by nature builds on what came before. Pixar has looked back at "Main Street U.S.A." in Cars and it's done revisited childhood repeatedly in the first two Toy Story movies as well as Monsters, Inc. And in Toy Story 3 they do it again.
For all that, it never gets old.
Being that I have a 5-year-old son, a 2-year-old daughter, and a 10-month-old baby boy, I am perhaps primed for the emotional overdrive that Pixar serves up in the third Toy Story installment. The opening moments feature a young Andy and his little sister Molly playing with their beloved toys in home video footage. This hits so close to home in my current experiences that I could not help but tear up a bit. And then it is revealed that Andy is now 17 and going away to college. Those beloved toys--the ones we the audience have become so fond of over previous films--have been whittled down to a core few that haven't been played with in years. They sit unused in a toy chest in Andy's room, plotting ways to get Andy's attention in the hopes of being played with again, or maybe just held for a few moments.
As Andy readies himself for college, he begins to empty out his room, and the toy story really begins. Will they be consigned to the attic or (*gulp*) the trash bin? Mishaps occur and the toys end up donated to a day care center, thus setting off on new adventures.
I won't give anything else away, but while I didn't 100% understand the day care center toys' motivations for doing some of what they do in the film, I did 100% enjoy the movie. And I did cry some more at the end.
As for my 5-year-old (who saw the movie with my husband and I), he says he liked it, but he "likes the other numbers better" (meaning the first two films). This may only be because of the 3D element involved in this one, though, since my son says he didn't like things "going in his eyes." I could have done without the 3D myself, as I didn't find it necessary to the story or even particularly amazing in design. Mostly it gave me a headache.
But the movie itself was touching and fun, which is what I've come to expect from Pixar. Like Peter Pan in Never Never Land, the animation studio roots itself in a refusal to grow up (in heart, though its technique only gets better with time), and in turn the audience keeps coming back if only to feel young again themselves.
Directed By: Lee Unkrich
Written By: Michael Arndt, John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton, Lee Unkrich
Pixar Animation, 2010
G; 103 minutes
5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
No one does nostalgia quite like Pixar. The team there--writers, animators, directors, producers--all seem to understand the process of looking over one's shoulder at the past and the warm feelings that can engender. Perhaps it's part of being in the animation business, which itself has a long history and by nature builds on what came before. Pixar has looked back at "Main Street U.S.A." in Cars and it's done revisited childhood repeatedly in the first two Toy Story movies as well as Monsters, Inc. And in Toy Story 3 they do it again.
For all that, it never gets old.
Being that I have a 5-year-old son, a 2-year-old daughter, and a 10-month-old baby boy, I am perhaps primed for the emotional overdrive that Pixar serves up in the third Toy Story installment. The opening moments feature a young Andy and his little sister Molly playing with their beloved toys in home video footage. This hits so close to home in my current experiences that I could not help but tear up a bit. And then it is revealed that Andy is now 17 and going away to college. Those beloved toys--the ones we the audience have become so fond of over previous films--have been whittled down to a core few that haven't been played with in years. They sit unused in a toy chest in Andy's room, plotting ways to get Andy's attention in the hopes of being played with again, or maybe just held for a few moments.
As Andy readies himself for college, he begins to empty out his room, and the toy story really begins. Will they be consigned to the attic or (*gulp*) the trash bin? Mishaps occur and the toys end up donated to a day care center, thus setting off on new adventures.
I won't give anything else away, but while I didn't 100% understand the day care center toys' motivations for doing some of what they do in the film, I did 100% enjoy the movie. And I did cry some more at the end.
As for my 5-year-old (who saw the movie with my husband and I), he says he liked it, but he "likes the other numbers better" (meaning the first two films). This may only be because of the 3D element involved in this one, though, since my son says he didn't like things "going in his eyes." I could have done without the 3D myself, as I didn't find it necessary to the story or even particularly amazing in design. Mostly it gave me a headache.
But the movie itself was touching and fun, which is what I've come to expect from Pixar. Like Peter Pan in Never Never Land, the animation studio roots itself in a refusal to grow up (in heart, though its technique only gets better with time), and in turn the audience keeps coming back if only to feel young again themselves.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)