Toy Story 3

BUZZ--BUZZ--BUZZ LIGHTYEAR TO THE RESCUE

  • 5/5 To infinity and beyond...!

    Votes: 105 86.8%

  • 4/5 You've got a friend in me.

    Votes: 14 11.6%

  • 3/5 I've packed your angry eyes, just in case.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 2/5 There's a snake in my boot...

    Votes: 1 0.8%

  • 1/5 You are a sad, strange little movie.

    Votes: 1 0.8%
  • Total voters
    121
what really bugs me about Armond White is that he is a legitimately intelligent film critic who actually knows his stuff, but exerts all his critical energies to being a forced contrarian and cares more about pissing people off than actually contributing to film discourse. even if you can argue that all of his opinions are sincere, that he turns every review into manufactured oppositions between a beloved film that he hates and a hated film that he loves with only an extremely facile, meaningless similarity to tie them together is proof that he cares more about looking like some asshole who hates the public than anything else. really pisses me off.
 
Last edited:
DOOOOOOOOONUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!! :(

1276256035998.jpg
 
holy shit holy shit somebody just pointed this out to me:

toy story: sid "where's the rebel base? talk!" (a new hope)
toy story 2: zurg "I am your father" (empire strikes back)
toy story 3: big baby throwing lotso in the dumpster (return of the jedi)

:facemelt:
 
To: Film Critic Armond White

Toy Story 3's weekend box office: $109 million

Jonah Hex: $5 million

To quote Nelson Muntz: "HAW! HAW!"
 
It hasn't been released oer here yet but I'm hoping it will live up to the first 2.
 
ryan o said:
holy shit holy shit somebody just pointed this out to me:

toy story: sid "where's the rebel base? talk!" (a new hope)
toy story 2: zurg "I am your father" (empire strikes back)
toy story 3: big baby throwing lotso in the dumpster (return of the jedi)

:facemelt:
Click to expand...

An don't forget that Buzz's whole mission in most of the first movie is a big Star Wars reference. Gettin plans to an evil spaceship that can blow up a planet or somethin...but its definitely a Star Wars reference.
 
i don't get why the tomatometer actually matters anyway. also the people who decide whether a review is supposed to be fresh or rotten often don't even do their jobs correctly. out of curiosity i recently went back over my favorite critic's reviews as they are represented on rotten tomatoes and many of his extremely negative reviews were marked as fresh, so you never really know if the tomatometers are accurate.
 
also who the fuck wouldn't see toy story 3 because it has 99% instead of 100%? they must go to see movies, um, never.
 
rottentomatoes is one of the worst things about internet film culture/criticism these days. people no longer evaluate critics by their writing but by what black-or-white fresh/rotten stamp the site's staff hastily weens out of their reviews and the text-bite that accompanies it.
 
Honestly, I don't know many people who read movie reviews before seeing a movie anyway. A lot of my friends will read particular critics opinions later on to compare their conclusions... but hardly anyone I know decides to see something based on reviews.

I'm dying to see Toy Story 3. Hopefully this weekend
 
I don't read reviews before seeing movies but I'll check out rotten tomatoes to see what critics and users thought just as I would come here out of curiosity. Some people on the internet treat it as the bible of what is definitively "good" or "bad" though. The kind of person who will counter your opinion of a movie being great with "uh but it only got 76.183% on RT, so yeah it's really not that great. nice try though"
 
The thing is, in my experience Rotten Tomatoes has been really really accurate with the percentage. I usually leave the theater acknowledging the percentage as matching up pretty well with how the movie was.
 
I actually watch Rotten Tomatoes on Current every Thursady night...athough I can do w/o the lame comedy by Ellen Fox and that guy.
 
http://www.toonzone.net/forums/showpost.php?p=3629584&postcount=26

well-written mixed/negative review by my favorite toonzone critic (manages the best B:TAS site ever). sort of mirrors what i think of the film's structure, though he has slightly more problems with it, and his complaints about Lots-O and the daycare center especially make sense, which is why i don't think this movie is impervious to criticism simply for being really fun and having a tear-jerker ending.
 
ugh, of course even when maxie loves something he has to lean highly on the negative. I don't mind positive reviews focusing on weaknesses (that's one of the signs of a good critic), but there has to be balance.

it's sad that he really is the most polished critic on toonzone, too.
 
jordan said:
The thing is, in my experience Rotten Tomatoes has been really really accurate with the percentage. I usually leave the theater acknowledging the percentage as matching up pretty well with how the movie was.
Click to expand...

ah yes the objective quality of this entertainment as well as my satisfaction levels derived from said entertainment correspond directly with the number assigned to it by the internet. i am a robot with no human emotions. beep boop click whir
 
ryan o said:
ugh, of course even when maxie loves something he has to lean highly on the negative. I don't mind positive reviews focusing on weaknesses (that's one of the signs of a good critic), but there has to be balance.

it's sad that he really is the most polished critic on toonzone, too.
Click to expand...
i think since his pros were more about the fun and cleverness and animation, they were far less necessary to explicate, especially since his cons were more about the film's philosophical questions (not to mention that most of the film's good points have been recapitulated a million times in the overwhelmingly positive reviews) and therefore deserved far more of an explanation.

the writing quality he exhibits on his B:TAS site surpasses just about anything i've read from Ebert and many professional critics.
 
my dad determines things by the tomatometer, and usually refuses to see movies under 85%. he also thinks pixar gets 90%+ scores because critics are less harsh on those movies. yeah, not because they're actually great films with terrific storytelling, surprisingly mature themes and wonderfully deep characters.

I find RT interesting to track, mostly in the cream of the crop, but I never let it determine my theater going experience. I don't give a shit if it has 09% or 90% good reviews, if I want to see it, I'll see it.

edit:

TheForbiddenDonut said:
i think since his pros were more about the fun and cleverness and animation, they were far less necessary to explicate, especially since his cons were more about the film's philosophical questions (not to mention that most of the film's good points have been recapitulated a million times in the overwhelmingly positive reviews) and therefore deserved far more of an explanation.

the writing quality he exhibits on his B:TAS site surpasses just about anything i've read from Ebert and many professional critics.
Click to expand...

still, a good review should be one that fully extrapolates your thoughts and feelings on a film to leave an impression onto others, for them to agree or disagree. therefore, if you liked it, there should be a steady balance of positive and negative remarks. I don't care if this was a "musing thoughts on Toy Story 3" from his blog, but this is being presented by Toon Zone as a legitimate review on Toy Story 3. therefore it should have the merits of an actual review. I find that maxie, while a terrific writer, often uses his reviewing position to nitpick constantly, shining a light on the negative when there should be a balance. any movie that's assigned to him is a bit unfair, since he obviously has a different perspective on what a review should cover.
 
Last edited:
i disagree; i don't think reviews, even legitimate ones, need to conform to a set pattern/structure that dictates that every thought you have been explained in-depth and that if you have a positive reaction your review should be mostly positive remarks or if you have a mixed reaction your review should be equally both. Ebert, for example, will often start reviews of films he had a negative reaction to by detailing what he liked about them in several opening paragraphs, before spending maybe one or two closing paragraphs brusquely and concisely stating how the film falls apart and/or doesn't end up sustaining the positive elements so verbosely detailed earlier, ultimately achieving a particular effect . i say that whatever reads/feels the best while still providing substantial discourse on the film is reasonable, whether or not the reviewer strikes some quantitative balance between pros and cons.

i also don't think that Maxie nitpicks at all in that Toy Story 3 review, and that nitpicking isn't synonymous with pointing out perceived flaws.
 
Last edited:
ryan o said:
he also thinks pixar gets 90%+ scores because critics are less harsh on those movies. yeah, not because they're actually great films with terrific storytelling, surprisingly mature themes and wonderfully deep characters.
Click to expand...

I think critics tend to be less harsh on animated movies in general, though. I think Pixar is a great studio and I like a majority of their output, but if you were to compared a bunch of reviews for a Pixar movie to an equally great live action movie, you would find more divisions in the reviews of the live action movie. Critics don't always take the medium seriously and it's pretty unfair, all things considered.
 
TheForbiddenDonut said:
i disagree; i don't think reviews, even legitimate ones, need to conform to a set pattern/structure that dictates that every thought you have been explained in-depth and that if you have a positive reaction your review should be mostly positive remarks or if you have a mixed reaction your review should be equally both. Ebert, for example, will often start reviews of films he had a negative reaction to by detailing what he liked about them in several opening paragraphs, before spending maybe one or two by brusquely and concisely stating how the film falls apart and/or doesn't end up sustaining the positive elements so verbosely detailed earlier. i say that whatever reads/feels the best while still providing substantial discourse on the film is reasonable, whether or not the reviewer strikes some quantitative balance between pros and cons.
Click to expand...

even ebert muses on positive elements for a substantial period, maxie tosses them aside and almost always focuses on what went wrong. he's a highly negative person and reviewer, that much is obvious. he's not armond white, and is justified in his opinion, I just find his style tiring and one-note despite the well-written nature of the reviews.

I'm not saying that a positive review has to be all positive, and otherwise, but I would expect it to be mostly positive, if it highly focuses on the negative with a coda saying "nevertheless, it was a great film!", then your audience is left confused, befuddled. and that's what legitimate reviewing is all about: conveying a clear, substantial message to your audience about your opinion. maxie rants, and barely praises even if he loves it. sorry, that's just not clear.

edit:

i also don't think that Maxie nitpicks at all in that Toy Story 3 review, and that nitpicking isn't synonymous with pointing out perceived flaws.
Click to expand...

re-reading the review, it's not as nitpicky (still a bit highly negative for a so-called positive review), but his past reviews beg to differ.
 
give me some examples of past reviews where he nit-picks or is one-note, because i've read everything he's ever written about Timm cartoons (which is probably at least a few hundred reviews) in addition to a ton of other stuff, and if anything he's an extremely positive person. on the rare instances where he is negative, he never resorts to petty nitpicks and always supports his opinion with eloquence.

if you've ever read him interact with anyone, he comes across as a nice, congenial fellow and i think your assertion that he's a negative person in general, however you arrived at it, is extremely unfounded.

and furthermore i was not remotely confused by Maxie's review, because i don't primarily think of reviews in terms of an expectation of a synchronization between the quantity of positive/negative comments and critic's positive/negative response, and Maxie never even said that it was a great film anyhow; you're really exaggerating by saying that 'he rants' before calling it a great film. all he did was offer his eloquently expressed thoughts, which is all that a critic is required to do.
 
Last edited:
to contrast what I said: I don't think maxie one-note in the terms of always negative, I just think he embellishes upon the negative a little more than he should be in his movie reviews. television, however, seems to be more of his liking, so that explains some things.

searching into maxie's history is needle-in-a-haystack-esque, since he does much, much more than just reviewing and I have little time on my hands, my his reviews on How To Train Your Dragon and Fantastic Mr. Fox showcase this well.
 
i just read his Fantastic Mr. Fox review (which i didn't know he ever reviewed and which was a treat for me to read) and it was pretty much overwhelmingly positive. he had no qualms or criticisms i could detect, and only observed that it's a more cerebrally adult film than most children are used to.

i'm still at a loss for how he could be perceived as a remotely negative person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top