TOY STORY 3

Written by Michael Arndt

Directed by Lee Unkrich

Voices by Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Joan Cusack, Ned Beatty and Michael Keaton

Hamm: C’mon, let’s go see how much we’re going for on EBay. 

There comes a point in every boy’s life when he has to grow up.  Ok, fine.  There are many points in a boy’s life when he must do this but going off to college is certainly an undeniable turning point.  You leave behind your family, your friends and the only home you know, including a chunk of everything you own.  For young Andy, a boy we first met when he was just eight years old, leaving for college means putting away all the toys that brought him so many hours of enjoyment back in his day.  And so he throws Buzz, Rex, Slink and the rest of them in a bag destined for the attic.  Some have said that after sitting in their own attic, the people at Pixar should have left their very first success, TOY STORY, exactly where they left it eleven years ago.  Fortunately for all of us though, the people at Pixar will never fully grow up.  The toys are out of the attic and they’re better than ever!

Letting go, dealing with new realities, distancing yourself so as to avoid ever getting hurt – these are just a few of the touching themes that are subtly told in TOY STORY 3.  The Academy Award winning writer of LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE, Michael Arndt, follows up his first success with what could very likely net him another trophy.  Arndt understands that adventure can be subjective – that what might seem small and unimportant to some is the biggest challenge others will ever face.  He also understands that adventure is made perilous when those involved have much to lose.  For our favourite toys, the loss is particularly significant – they are about to lose their reason for being.  Being relegated to the attic means that these toys will no longer be played with, that they will no longer be able to bring joy to their favourite guy, Andy.  So as Andy lets go of them, they must learn to let go of him as well.

Toys passing the time in the attic might not make for a very exciting film though.  (Mind you, if anyone could make it exciting, it would be these guys.)  Instead, the toys find themselves donated to a nursery school.  Well, most of them anyway; our man Woody (Tom Hanks) was selected to go off to college with Andy but, as luck would have it, Woody seems to have found himself lost and on the loose once again.  While Woody tries to make his way home alone, his pals are stuck in nursery hell, where kids play with you for hours, sure, but they also have no regard for these toys because they just aren’t their own.  First time full-fledged Pixar director, Lee Unkrich (Unkrich previously co-directed FINDING NEMO, MONSTERS INC., and the second TOY STORY film), ties these two storylines together seamlessly and charges the entire picture with an intensity that never lets up and culminates in a climax so dire that it catches the viewer off guard and triggers an emotional response that cannot be contained.  Just ask the guy sitting next to me.

TOY STORY 3 is triumphant!  It carries the depth and hilarity that one has come to expect from Pixar and then carries it even further still.  Even though I say it again and again when I review their films, they are constantly outdoing themselves.  Here, they’ve achieved the extremely rare feat of making threequel a decade after the last installment that actually surpasses both films that came before it.  Even though they’re playing with toys, their maturity continues to expand and their visual mastery continues to break their own barriers.  Their films work because they have soul.  The spirit of TOY STORY lives in that special bond between a boy and his toys.  Back when life was simple, they were all we needed and, according to Pixar, we were all they needed too.  And by taking these toys out of the attic and doing right by them one more time, Pixar incites that rare and wonderful feeling of nostalgic warmth that one gets all over their body when find themselves unexpectedly playing again with their favourite toys.

ANGELS & DEMONS

Written by David Koepp and Akiva Goldsman
Directed by Ron Howard
Starring Tom Hanks, Ayelet Zurer, Ewan McGregor and Armin Mueller-Stahl

Camerlengo Patrick McKenna: Science and religion are not enemies. There are simply some things that science is too young to understand.

It all appropriately starts out of focus. If there are secrets that have remained elusively intact throughout history, they belong to the Roman Catholic church, buried somewhere deep within the Vatican archives. And if there is one fictional character capable of deciphering these cryptically encoded secrets, it is Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks). While originally written as a prequel to THE DA VINCI CODE, author, Dan Brown’s ANGELS & DEMONS has been translated to film as a sequel to the controversial counterpart. Last time out, the general consensus was that the book was better than the movie and, from what I gather, most Brown fans consider ANGELS & DEMONS to be a better book. Ron Howard, the director of both projects, has got a lot to live up to. As the film comes into focus though, it becomes clear that Howard has ignored the fans prayers and this film in the likeness of the first.


The two uncredited stars of ANGELS & DEMONS are introduced in the first few scenes. They are science and religion. Howard gives us religion by inundating the viewer with extreme close-up’s of was seals on parchment and incense burners. The iconography is meant to be grandiose and looming but actually comes across as dated and cliché. Science comes in the form of anti-matter. A team of scientists is about to whipe opposing protons and atoms at each at an incredible speed inside a great big tube underground that could potentially devastate most of Europe if the experiment were to go awry. Needless to say, it does not and subsequently, science and religion meet in the experiment’s success with what is called the God particle. It also just so happens that a pope has just died and the process has begun to choose a new one. Someone on the inside of the Vatican walls decides that this period of transition is the perfect time to use this God particle to bring down God’s representation here on earth.


THE DA VINCI CODE, initially book and inevitably the film, were decidedly controversial. Brown presented theories about Jesus’ lineage that would essentially question a serious chunk of Catholic history. ANGELS & DEMONS however, is certainly more violent but also much less an attack on the religion itself and much more just a mystery that takes place in religious settings. Hanks returns as Langdon. He is not surprisingly solid in the role but he doesn’t bring anything new at the same time. Langdon must solve a series of puzzles that were created centuries prior in order to map out a course that will lead to four cardinals that have been kidnapped and threatened with murder. What makes ANGELS & DEMONS distinctly more gripping than its predecessor is Langdon’s time limit. He must figure out the puzzles and hit certain points in Vatican City at certain hours and he seems to be constantly playing catch-up. In this regard, the new Langdon is sharp but human after all.


It is fashionable if not just facile these days to base a premise on the promise that the end days are coming. Given its religious context, ANGELS & DEMONS is one of the few films to deal with the subject that actually seems justified in doing so. It asks the question whether the end will come at the hand of God or the hand of man but goes even further to suggest that the hand of man is just an extension of the hand of God. Unfortunately, Howard’s hand lacks the gravitas of the Creator’s.

THE DA VINCI CODE

Written by Akiva Goldsman
Directed by Ron Howard

Writer's Note: I don't bother masking the conspiracy theory at the root of this film. Read at your own risk.

Ordinarily, I would think it grossly unfair to criticize a work directly regarding its translation from book to film. The literary medium offers its readers the opportunity to imagine the events unfolding any way they would like while the cinematic medium does all the imagining for you. In the case of Ron Howard’s adaptation of author Dan Brown’s international phenomenon, THE DAVINCI CODE, there isn’t much imagination happening on the filmmaker’s part though. Avoiding comparison here would actually be the great injustice as the immense anticipation that preceded the release of this film was all to do with the ultra-wide popularity of the book. Brown’s novel is easily digested. It’s lead characters, Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu, are being chased by numerous parties throughout lavish and romantic European settings. The chase and threat of capture keeps people turning the pages and the international flavour makes people feel as if in the presence of culture. For likely many others, and myself, these were the least intriguing elements of the book. What kept me coming back and barreling through hundreds of pages at a time was the book’s unapologetic and relentless blasphemy against the Christian faith. Brown immerses the viewer amidst characters and settings that exist to varying degrees in real life, thus blurring the lines between fiction and non. Somewhere in between the facts and the fabrications, Brown drops his theoretical bomb – that the ever-elusive Holy Grail, the cup of Jesus Christ, is in fact not a cup at all but rather a person, a woman. The woman in question is the infamous Mary Magdalene and the chalice is her womb, the carrier of the bloodline of Jesus Christ. Yes, you heard right, folks! Jesus got it on with the prostitute and she went on to have his child and their descendants are still here on earth today. I am not for attacks on Christians without purpose but this is not an attack so much as an alternate theory to the foundation their shaky religion rests upon.

I can understand why the Vatican is concerned about the impact this film could have. If you forget for a second, it’s easy to get sucked into all this lore and accept it as fact or at least as potentially true. That being said, it is borderline insulting of the Vatican to presume the film-going public is not intelligent enough to know the difference between history and plain story. Their concern is not for the entire film-going public though, it is more so for the middle of the road viewer who just passively absorbs images without thinking. When I think of these filmgoers, I think of the ideal Ron Howard fan. Howard doesn’t make bad movies (OK, HOW THE GRINCH STOLE CHRISTMAS was bad) but he also doesn’t make spectacular movies (and no, I don’t have an example to refute that). THE DAVINCI CODE has all the elements one would expect from a large-scale Howard production, from big names to big locations. But what it attempts to mask with size is not a lack of substance but rather a lack of control over that substance. Howard coaxes performances from the cast that are inconsistent and hollow. As Langdon, Tom Hanks is sensible, curious and introspective. Ian McKellan plays Leigh Teabing, a Holy Grail expert as playful and cheeky. On the other hand, the usually deep Alfred Molina is farcical and Audrey Tautou looks lost and confused as Neveu; at times she barely seems to know where to stand.


One of the book’s major criticisms, aside from it relying too heavily on conspiracy theories and barely bothering with style, is that it reads like a high-spirited Hollywood blockbuster. Ironically, Howard’s film interpretation plays out nothing like one. It is tiring at times and stale at others. The hackneyed script by frequent Howard collaborator, Akiva Goldsman, cuts out numerous Grail factoids from the book that lend to the theory’s credibility but yet still manages to get frequently bogged down in Grail history throughout the film. The result is slowed pacing during scenes that are meant to be suspenseful. Lengthy background explanations take place during car chases and moments when killers are waiting to attack in the next room but the danger never presents itself until the explaining is all done (leading me to wonder if perhaps the attacker took a bathroom break). With the action forced to wait its turn, the viewer feels the flaws and loses their patience. Howard has taken a book that seemed to have been written with a film deal in mind and made a mess of the already carefully laid plans. As cheap as it is to say this, I must. You’re better off reading the book.