I remember we watched Born on the 4th of July in high school and the teacher covered the screen to go past the sex scene and my one friend asked "can we at least hear it?"
Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched
- Thread starter Th3Ch33s3Cak3
- Start date
Robin Hood (Ridley Scott, 2010) - 6/10
There's a lot of strong elements here; the cast are all really good - Crowe and Blanchett have great chemistry as Robin and Marion, Mark Strong is as ever a wonderful villain character actor, Oscar Isaac gets a good bit of ham going as John and the guys playing Little John, Will Scarlet, Allan-A-Dayle and Friar Tuck are all great. And Matthew McFayden made a suitably snide Sheriff. Visually its also pretty great in terms of costuming and cinematography.
The problem is, that the movie goes its entire almost two and a half hour runtime to get to the point of being Robin Hood. Like, this isn't some obscure guy people have forgotten about: Robin Hood is one of the most recognisable characters in fiction. We know what his game is; rob rich, give poor. Kick the Sheriff and Guy of Gisborne in the bollocks, and make Prince John look like a twat until King Richard returns.
So like, why is this movie so not interested in doing all that bar one - really great - scene and instead fixated on this bullshit about an invasion by the king of France and a case of assumed identity? I don't get it, its not an interesting new take on the character in the way the original pitched 'Nottingham' script was. Like this movie takes over two hours to do what most Robin Hood movies breeze through in maybe the first forty five minutes. If that.
There's a lot of strong elements here; the cast are all really good - Crowe and Blanchett have great chemistry as Robin and Marion, Mark Strong is as ever a wonderful villain character actor, Oscar Isaac gets a good bit of ham going as John and the guys playing Little John, Will Scarlet, Allan-A-Dayle and Friar Tuck are all great. And Matthew McFayden made a suitably snide Sheriff. Visually its also pretty great in terms of costuming and cinematography.
The problem is, that the movie goes its entire almost two and a half hour runtime to get to the point of being Robin Hood. Like, this isn't some obscure guy people have forgotten about: Robin Hood is one of the most recognisable characters in fiction. We know what his game is; rob rich, give poor. Kick the Sheriff and Guy of Gisborne in the bollocks, and make Prince John look like a twat until King Richard returns.
So like, why is this movie so not interested in doing all that bar one - really great - scene and instead fixated on this bullshit about an invasion by the king of France and a case of assumed identity? I don't get it, its not an interesting new take on the character in the way the original pitched 'Nottingham' script was. Like this movie takes over two hours to do what most Robin Hood movies breeze through in maybe the first forty five minutes. If that.
Yeah, it's a prequel/origin story. And sticking Magna Carta and reverse D-Day in it isn't great. Also, the villain is playing almost the same character he does in John Carter of Mars, so if I squint my brain I can say he's an alien.
But, yeah, weird take on it, though with some good bits.
But, yeah, weird take on it, though with some good bits.
Men, 7/10
This is the latest from Alex Garland of Annihilation and Ex Machina fame. It's a very small scale, very strange horror thriller about a woman who rents out a manor in the english countryside to recuperate after a traumatic experience. She goes around town a bit and has some... let's say less than pleasant encounters with the local male populace. The big conceit here is that every male role except one is played by the same actor, Rory Kinnear. So it's very abstract and artsy and ooh what does it all mean. It's definitely the most abstract of Garland's work that I've seen, and I daresay most of it is non-literal. The movie goes whole hog with this, and as a result produces some spectacularly unnerving imagery that won't leave my mind's eye for quite some time. Sometimes it does feel a bit like overkill and self-indulgence, but there's always a purpose behind it all. It's just some of the more avant garde sequences go on for maybe a tad longer than they need to.
Kinnear is the big draw here, and just nails it. With some characters I legit couldn't tell it was him, and he manages to embody such a varied set of characters perfectly that I'd say his performances are worth it alone. It's also a film you can really think about if you want to, with themes of guilt, shame, trauma, gender dynamics and male domination. It's very atmospheric and tense, looks great, and like mentioned before, there's some high caliber squick imagery present. Sometimes it gets a bit too artsy for its own good, but I enjoyed it. I think it'd make for an interesting double bill with X.
This is the latest from Alex Garland of Annihilation and Ex Machina fame. It's a very small scale, very strange horror thriller about a woman who rents out a manor in the english countryside to recuperate after a traumatic experience. She goes around town a bit and has some... let's say less than pleasant encounters with the local male populace. The big conceit here is that every male role except one is played by the same actor, Rory Kinnear. So it's very abstract and artsy and ooh what does it all mean. It's definitely the most abstract of Garland's work that I've seen, and I daresay most of it is non-literal. The movie goes whole hog with this, and as a result produces some spectacularly unnerving imagery that won't leave my mind's eye for quite some time. Sometimes it does feel a bit like overkill and self-indulgence, but there's always a purpose behind it all. It's just some of the more avant garde sequences go on for maybe a tad longer than they need to.
Kinnear is the big draw here, and just nails it. With some characters I legit couldn't tell it was him, and he manages to embody such a varied set of characters perfectly that I'd say his performances are worth it alone. It's also a film you can really think about if you want to, with themes of guilt, shame, trauma, gender dynamics and male domination. It's very atmospheric and tense, looks great, and like mentioned before, there's some high caliber squick imagery present. Sometimes it gets a bit too artsy for its own good, but I enjoyed it. I think it'd make for an interesting double bill with X.
Last edited:
Primer (Freevee - free? Vee?)
Nice, low-key sci-fi affair about a small group of nerdy friends messing about with circuit boards and accidentally causing trouble but nerd-mumbling their way through it. Seems like a low-budget endeavor, yet one that may have inspired Nolan's Tenet in a couple of ways too. While the cast is already quite small, there's just one woman, who is less 'character for plot' and appears more to be background decoration intended as one of those "not-gay" devices so the (certain) audience(s) won't suspect the two main friendo characters might be 'unsettlingly' homosexual. Looks older than the year it was released in (2008), very grainy old school camera quality. Other than that, If quiet, nerdy low-budget sci-fi sounds appealing, then it's worth a go.
Nice, low-key sci-fi affair about a small group of nerdy friends messing about with circuit boards and accidentally causing trouble but nerd-mumbling their way through it. Seems like a low-budget endeavor, yet one that may have inspired Nolan's Tenet in a couple of ways too. While the cast is already quite small, there's just one woman, who is less 'character for plot' and appears more to be background decoration intended as one of those "not-gay" devices so the (certain) audience(s) won't suspect the two main friendo characters might be 'unsettlingly' homosexual. Looks older than the year it was released in (2008), very grainy old school camera quality. Other than that, If quiet, nerdy low-budget sci-fi sounds appealing, then it's worth a go.
Last edited:
Prince of Thieves and Men in Tights are still my gold standard for Robin Hood. Rewatched Prince of Thieves about a year ago after not watching it for years and it was even better than I remembered it. I also hadn't remembered how often it would not take itself seriously and just have fun and loved that too.
Last edited:
My cousin (Jason) told me about this movie when I went home a few week ago. Apparently our female cousin's (Jenni) new boyfriend is a great guy with horrible taste in movies, and he'd taken the three of them to see it. Jason said it was the weirdest shit he'd ever seen as he went on to graphically describe some of the imagery. After the movie, seeing both Jason and Jenni's obvious confusion, the boyfriend insisted that they just needed to "think about it!" to which Jason replied, "I never want to think about that movie ever again."
A part of me wants to see it out of morbid curiosity; the larger part of me wants no part of it.
Now I'm pissed, apparently this came out and I totally missed it while recovering from surgery. I thought it wasn't out yet. Alex Garland is the type of film maker where I'd go see whatever he's getting into, regardless of whether or not it's good or bad. I hope this shows up on streaming soon.
I'd say go see it then. Whether you like them or not, Alex Garland's movies are never derivative or forgettable. But I'll be the first to say that Men is definitely not something you can just casually recommend or take someone to see. It's more in the realm of abstract horror like Under the Skin or It Comes at Night than anything conventional, and therefore absolutely not for everyone. And that's before you get to the nuclear-grade nightmare fuel I'm guessing you already had described to you. If that kind of thing appeals to you, give Men a shot.
What was described to me certainly doesn't sound like my thing, so I'll likely pass for now. Maybe when it comes to streaming services, but I won't be going to a theater.
Lol! Naw, I'll stick to women; I'm about 20-years removed from that kind of sexual experimentation.
Nah, I think you should see Men. Go out there and see Men. I think you would love seeing Men.
Well, with THAT resounding recommendation...
Is there a specific call or whistle to see Men? Or do I just stand around in public talking about sports, steak, cars and penis until Men finds me?
Just watched a movie called Def by Temptation. It's basically about a succubus out to seduce a minister because he's the last in his line, and pure, and apparently that combination will just ramp up her power if she corrupts him. She does take some time to bump off other people along the way, of course.
For a Troma Productions film, this was surprisingly legitimate. Pretty decent gore effects, and while the acting individually isn't great, I did like the chemistry between the minister and his New York actor friend. I could really believe they were two old friends catching up when they were together, and the parts of the film with the friend trying to protect/guide his out of town naive friend hit pretty decently. Maybe not the best horror movie I've seen recently, but I had a good time with it. It also has one of the earlier film appearances by Samuel L. Jackson, which the box cover tries to play up a lot more than is warranted for what is essentially an extended cameo.
For a Troma Productions film, this was surprisingly legitimate. Pretty decent gore effects, and while the acting individually isn't great, I did like the chemistry between the minister and his New York actor friend. I could really believe they were two old friends catching up when they were together, and the parts of the film with the friend trying to protect/guide his out of town naive friend hit pretty decently. Maybe not the best horror movie I've seen recently, but I had a good time with it. It also has one of the earlier film appearances by Samuel L. Jackson, which the box cover tries to play up a lot more than is warranted for what is essentially an extended cameo.
Thor: Love and Thunder (6/10)
Really mixed on this. I smiled a lot, laughed a lot, there's a few moments where I had "the feels," but at the end of the day, it's popcorn entertainment, and pretty stale popcorn at that.
TL, DR, it's not as good as Ragnarok, but better than the first two Thor films. The problem is that I feel LAT struggles to balance between the humour and gravitas, and while my above comment still stands, there were many times when I wished the characters would just shut up. I like Waititi's humour, but it's the same style he's used in every film of his I've seen bar arguably Jojo Rabbit. Also, there's a sense of artificiality in a lot of places (e.g. when they visit the 'god city'), and while there's some interesting visual effects as well (e.g. when the film is in black and white due to being in "the Shadow Realm"), it's got a feeling of fakeness in a lot of areas.
Also, concerning characters, let's start with Jane. So, a person who's been a scientist all her life is able to wield Mjolnir expertly instantly after picking it up. Um...yeah, Jane kind of belongs in the same category as Rey from Star Wars, only Rey at least had to earn some of her power, what does Jane do? I know, I know, the conciet in the film is that this is Jane's last hurrah, that Mjolnir is 'treating' her to the best days of her life (which are also her last days), but even so, you really have to suspend your disbelief in a film that already requires large suspense of disbelief.
As for Gorr...well, he's one of the better MCU villains, but "better" doesn't mean "good." He's got a sympathetic backstory, he's arguably a sympathetic character, that doesn't inherently make him an interesting character. Also, I'm not sure who counts as a god in this setting or not. Like, are all asgardians 'gods,' or are only characters like Thor 'gods?' Are 'gods' a single universal species, or is this a case of convergent evolution. How does Valhalla even work anyway? Why do the laws of the universe operate as such that you need to die in battle to get into Valhalla, whereas if you die in your sleep, you don't? I know, overanalyzing, but, well, meh.
So, yeah. Had fun, but it's not a film that's going to stick with me. And for shits and giggles, current MCU ranking is below:
Really mixed on this. I smiled a lot, laughed a lot, there's a few moments where I had "the feels," but at the end of the day, it's popcorn entertainment, and pretty stale popcorn at that.
TL, DR, it's not as good as Ragnarok, but better than the first two Thor films. The problem is that I feel LAT struggles to balance between the humour and gravitas, and while my above comment still stands, there were many times when I wished the characters would just shut up. I like Waititi's humour, but it's the same style he's used in every film of his I've seen bar arguably Jojo Rabbit. Also, there's a sense of artificiality in a lot of places (e.g. when they visit the 'god city'), and while there's some interesting visual effects as well (e.g. when the film is in black and white due to being in "the Shadow Realm"), it's got a feeling of fakeness in a lot of areas.
Also, concerning characters, let's start with Jane. So, a person who's been a scientist all her life is able to wield Mjolnir expertly instantly after picking it up. Um...yeah, Jane kind of belongs in the same category as Rey from Star Wars, only Rey at least had to earn some of her power, what does Jane do? I know, I know, the conciet in the film is that this is Jane's last hurrah, that Mjolnir is 'treating' her to the best days of her life (which are also her last days), but even so, you really have to suspend your disbelief in a film that already requires large suspense of disbelief.
As for Gorr...well, he's one of the better MCU villains, but "better" doesn't mean "good." He's got a sympathetic backstory, he's arguably a sympathetic character, that doesn't inherently make him an interesting character. Also, I'm not sure who counts as a god in this setting or not. Like, are all asgardians 'gods,' or are only characters like Thor 'gods?' Are 'gods' a single universal species, or is this a case of convergent evolution. How does Valhalla even work anyway? Why do the laws of the universe operate as such that you need to die in battle to get into Valhalla, whereas if you die in your sleep, you don't? I know, overanalyzing, but, well, meh.
So, yeah. Had fun, but it's not a film that's going to stick with me. And for shits and giggles, current MCU ranking is below:
24) The Avengers: Endgame
23) Iron Man 2
22) Thor
21) Thor: The Dark World
20) Captain America: The First Avenger
19) Ant-Man
18) The Incredible Hulk
17) The Avengers: Age of Ultron
16) The Avengers
15) The Avengers: Infinity War
14) Thor: Love and Thunder
13) Captain Marvel
12) Captain America: Civil War
11) Guardians of the Galaxy
10) Thor: Ragnarok
9) Guardians of the Galaxy: Volume 2
8) Iron Man
7) Iron Man 3
6) Doctor Strange
5) Black Panther
4) Captain America: The Winter Soldier
3) Ant-Man and the Wasp
2) Spider-Man: Homecoming
1) Spider-Man: Far From Home
23) Iron Man 2
22) Thor
21) Thor: The Dark World
20) Captain America: The First Avenger
19) Ant-Man
18) The Incredible Hulk
17) The Avengers: Age of Ultron
16) The Avengers
15) The Avengers: Infinity War
14) Thor: Love and Thunder
13) Captain Marvel
12) Captain America: Civil War
11) Guardians of the Galaxy
10) Thor: Ragnarok
9) Guardians of the Galaxy: Volume 2
8) Iron Man
7) Iron Man 3
6) Doctor Strange
5) Black Panther
4) Captain America: The Winter Soldier
3) Ant-Man and the Wasp
2) Spider-Man: Homecoming
1) Spider-Man: Far From Home
Lightyear (7/10)
Lightyear is a "good" film, but by no means is it a "great" film. Which is a shame, because I feel it could have easily been one. There's not really much that the film does that's outright "wrong," but it lacks the 'spark' that most Pixar films have.
Anyway, random thoughts (with spoilers):
-So, the film lays out its cards in its opening text, that this is the movie that Andy saw in 1995 that led to him getting Buzz Lightyear, and became his favourite movie of all time. That Andy has low standards aside, the thing is that this doesn't really make much sense when you consider how this is meant to tie in with the Toy Story universe.
-What kind of sucks is that I'd argue the film peaks in its first act in a number of ways. We have the most emotional moments (think the Up montage - not as impactful, but it's the same style), and good science (e.g. Buzz travels close to lightspeed over and over, which means that while minutes pass for him, years pass by on the planet they're stranded on). This culminates in a heartfelt hologram goodbye scene that yes, did get me in "the feels," plus how it takes Sox over 60 years to crack the science. Feel free to draw parallels to Interstellar if you want, but all of this stuff is solid from both a character and scientific point of view.
-Speaking of Sox, Sox is awesome. He could have easily been annoying, but he's one of the best characters in the film.
-The second act though is where the film starts to lose steam. Buzz achieves hyperspeed, but lands back on the planet 22 years after he left. If I'm interpreting this correctly, the implication is that if you achieve hyperspeed, relativity no longer applies (and is presumably meant to be instantaneous), whereas in the tech he's forced to use, it requires acceleration, so therefore, him travelling at 90% of the speed of light slows down things even further. If that's the case, I'll give the film more credit for its science. However, upon landing, it's at this point that any sense of plausability is lost, and the film becomes action first, story second.
-Which is...fine, I guess. The cadets Buzz works with are...fine, really. There's nothing wrong with them, Izzy especially is a a sound character with a good arc, but I just don't have much to talk about over this period, as the film falls into sequence of "characters get McGuffin, bad guys ruin their McGuffin, they go get a new McGuffin, lose McGuffin, pew-pew, rinse, repeat, etc. Again, it's...fine, and it's actually weird to see so much gunplay in a Pixar film, but that's also part of my point. Pixar films have generally been story/character first, Lightyear, for a large portion, is action first, and even in action heavy Pixar films such as The Incredibles, the plot/characters/story have remained sound. In Lightyear? It's...fine, really, but just...fine.
-So, Zurg ends up abducting Buzz (heavy spoilers), and the revelations that follow are simultaniously really smart and really dumb. So, Zurg is Buzz from the future, called Zurg because the robots he found can't pronounce Buzz (how does that mispronounce into Zurg?). In the original timeline, he completed the test flight, landed, and was nearly arrested (since by this point the colony had given up on escaping the planet, having lived three generations). In grief, he used the technology to travel 200 years into the future, finding insanely advanced tech, reverse engineered the device to travel back in time (that's not how relativity works, but okay), but could only go as far as one week before he returned initially. Therefore, had to wait for his past self to return, to seize the same fuel source, to travel back even further in time, to prevent the crash happening at all.
That's...actually pretty neat in regards to how time travel works. It would have a paradox, but by the rules the film has set, the plan actually works, and has grounding, and you can see why future!Buzz (still called Zurg) is acting the way he has throughout the movie (trying to capture Buzz and the fuel source rather than kill him, and being uncaring of anyone on the colony because if he changes the timeline, he'll never exist). The problem, however, is that if we're running with the conciet that Zurg is what Buzz could have been if not for the friends he made along the way, not enough time is given to this. When future!Sox helps past!Buzz, and does so because "I like this old Buzz more," and dies for it, it rings hollow because we've barely spent any time with Zurg proper.
(Also, isn't Zurg meant to be Buzz's father? More on that later.)
-So, more action stuff with little character. Izzy at least has a neat moment of conquering her fear of space in a scene reminiscent of 2001 (I'll reiterate that I think Izzy is one of the best three characters in the film alongside Buzz and Sox - she's endearing, and has one of the best character arcs), but, anyway, Zurg is destroyed, at the cost of the fuel supply that would have got them off the planet. Day is saved, but they're stranded.
...or not, because Buzz is placed in charge of the Universe Protection Unit, as part of the Galactic Alliance, and assigned to an FTL ship to patrol the Gamma Quadrant of Sector 4. If that sounds familiar, it's ripped straight from his ship in Toy Story, and in a totally-not-ripoff off the cartoon, he chooses his companions to form his team. So, while it's nice to reference Toy Story lines (again), I have to ask where the heck this Galactic Alliance came from, and why is FTL travel now achievable when the entire point of the movie has been that Buzz couldn't crack FTL travel, hence the time dilation aspects.
-I may as well comment on the Toy Story stuff, because if this is indeed the film Andy saw, then it makes no sense in regards to how the Toy Story Buzz and associated aspects are portrayed. First, TS!Buzz and Lightyear!Buzz are very different characters, Zurg isn't Buzz's father, why are there no Sox toys alongside Buzz (or for Izzy, or Moe, or anyone else), and why, in the Toy Story universe, did The Adventures of Buzz Lightyear not follow the film's continuity? And why, in the film, does reality apparently shift so that Toy Story references can be made that break the setting ("oh yeah, there's a Galactic Alliance now, thought you should know...what?!") I know this is arguably nitpicking, but the link with Toy Story makes little sense in the Toy Story universe, and the attempts to link the film to Toy Story end up undermining the film's plot at the end, so, yeah, I think it's valid. I've heard it suggested that Pixar could have got around this if they'd framed Lightyear as a reboot of the 1995 film, one that Andy would take his own kids to see or something, but nup, this is it.
But of course, this is all irrelevant, because there's a gay pairing in act 1 that's totally pushing the LGBT agenda y'know, so, therefore, 0/10 for indoctrination or something...
Anyway, yeah. Good, but not great. Ranking for Pixar films is below.
Lightyear is a "good" film, but by no means is it a "great" film. Which is a shame, because I feel it could have easily been one. There's not really much that the film does that's outright "wrong," but it lacks the 'spark' that most Pixar films have.
Anyway, random thoughts (with spoilers):
-So, the film lays out its cards in its opening text, that this is the movie that Andy saw in 1995 that led to him getting Buzz Lightyear, and became his favourite movie of all time. That Andy has low standards aside, the thing is that this doesn't really make much sense when you consider how this is meant to tie in with the Toy Story universe.
-What kind of sucks is that I'd argue the film peaks in its first act in a number of ways. We have the most emotional moments (think the Up montage - not as impactful, but it's the same style), and good science (e.g. Buzz travels close to lightspeed over and over, which means that while minutes pass for him, years pass by on the planet they're stranded on). This culminates in a heartfelt hologram goodbye scene that yes, did get me in "the feels," plus how it takes Sox over 60 years to crack the science. Feel free to draw parallels to Interstellar if you want, but all of this stuff is solid from both a character and scientific point of view.
-Speaking of Sox, Sox is awesome. He could have easily been annoying, but he's one of the best characters in the film.
-The second act though is where the film starts to lose steam. Buzz achieves hyperspeed, but lands back on the planet 22 years after he left. If I'm interpreting this correctly, the implication is that if you achieve hyperspeed, relativity no longer applies (and is presumably meant to be instantaneous), whereas in the tech he's forced to use, it requires acceleration, so therefore, him travelling at 90% of the speed of light slows down things even further. If that's the case, I'll give the film more credit for its science. However, upon landing, it's at this point that any sense of plausability is lost, and the film becomes action first, story second.
-Which is...fine, I guess. The cadets Buzz works with are...fine, really. There's nothing wrong with them, Izzy especially is a a sound character with a good arc, but I just don't have much to talk about over this period, as the film falls into sequence of "characters get McGuffin, bad guys ruin their McGuffin, they go get a new McGuffin, lose McGuffin, pew-pew, rinse, repeat, etc. Again, it's...fine, and it's actually weird to see so much gunplay in a Pixar film, but that's also part of my point. Pixar films have generally been story/character first, Lightyear, for a large portion, is action first, and even in action heavy Pixar films such as The Incredibles, the plot/characters/story have remained sound. In Lightyear? It's...fine, really, but just...fine.
-So, Zurg ends up abducting Buzz (heavy spoilers), and the revelations that follow are simultaniously really smart and really dumb. So, Zurg is Buzz from the future, called Zurg because the robots he found can't pronounce Buzz (how does that mispronounce into Zurg?). In the original timeline, he completed the test flight, landed, and was nearly arrested (since by this point the colony had given up on escaping the planet, having lived three generations). In grief, he used the technology to travel 200 years into the future, finding insanely advanced tech, reverse engineered the device to travel back in time (that's not how relativity works, but okay), but could only go as far as one week before he returned initially. Therefore, had to wait for his past self to return, to seize the same fuel source, to travel back even further in time, to prevent the crash happening at all.
That's...actually pretty neat in regards to how time travel works. It would have a paradox, but by the rules the film has set, the plan actually works, and has grounding, and you can see why future!Buzz (still called Zurg) is acting the way he has throughout the movie (trying to capture Buzz and the fuel source rather than kill him, and being uncaring of anyone on the colony because if he changes the timeline, he'll never exist). The problem, however, is that if we're running with the conciet that Zurg is what Buzz could have been if not for the friends he made along the way, not enough time is given to this. When future!Sox helps past!Buzz, and does so because "I like this old Buzz more," and dies for it, it rings hollow because we've barely spent any time with Zurg proper.
(Also, isn't Zurg meant to be Buzz's father? More on that later.)
-So, more action stuff with little character. Izzy at least has a neat moment of conquering her fear of space in a scene reminiscent of 2001 (I'll reiterate that I think Izzy is one of the best three characters in the film alongside Buzz and Sox - she's endearing, and has one of the best character arcs), but, anyway, Zurg is destroyed, at the cost of the fuel supply that would have got them off the planet. Day is saved, but they're stranded.
...or not, because Buzz is placed in charge of the Universe Protection Unit, as part of the Galactic Alliance, and assigned to an FTL ship to patrol the Gamma Quadrant of Sector 4. If that sounds familiar, it's ripped straight from his ship in Toy Story, and in a totally-not-ripoff off the cartoon, he chooses his companions to form his team. So, while it's nice to reference Toy Story lines (again), I have to ask where the heck this Galactic Alliance came from, and why is FTL travel now achievable when the entire point of the movie has been that Buzz couldn't crack FTL travel, hence the time dilation aspects.
-I may as well comment on the Toy Story stuff, because if this is indeed the film Andy saw, then it makes no sense in regards to how the Toy Story Buzz and associated aspects are portrayed. First, TS!Buzz and Lightyear!Buzz are very different characters, Zurg isn't Buzz's father, why are there no Sox toys alongside Buzz (or for Izzy, or Moe, or anyone else), and why, in the Toy Story universe, did The Adventures of Buzz Lightyear not follow the film's continuity? And why, in the film, does reality apparently shift so that Toy Story references can be made that break the setting ("oh yeah, there's a Galactic Alliance now, thought you should know...what?!") I know this is arguably nitpicking, but the link with Toy Story makes little sense in the Toy Story universe, and the attempts to link the film to Toy Story end up undermining the film's plot at the end, so, yeah, I think it's valid. I've heard it suggested that Pixar could have got around this if they'd framed Lightyear as a reboot of the 1995 film, one that Andy would take his own kids to see or something, but nup, this is it.
But of course, this is all irrelevant, because there's a gay pairing in act 1 that's totally pushing the LGBT agenda y'know, so, therefore, 0/10 for indoctrination or something...
Anyway, yeah. Good, but not great. Ranking for Pixar films is below.
17) Cars 2
16) Brave
15) Ratatouille
14) Lightyear
13) Toy Story 4
12) Toy Story 2
11) Up
10) Cars
9) The Incredibles
8) A Bug’s Life
7) Finding Dory
6) Toy Story 3
5) Monsters Inc.
4) The Incredibles 2
3) Finding Nemo
2) Toy Story
1) WALL-E
16) Brave
15) Ratatouille
14) Lightyear
13) Toy Story 4
12) Toy Story 2
11) Up
10) Cars
9) The Incredibles
8) A Bug’s Life
7) Finding Dory
6) Toy Story 3
5) Monsters Inc.
4) The Incredibles 2
3) Finding Nemo
2) Toy Story
1) WALL-E
Spaceballs - ah, I missed this, the classic sci-fi parody. So quotable.
My recommendation is to head to the nearest movie theater and express yourself as simply and succinctly as possible. Just go to the counter and say "I want see Men. Want see Men." Adopt a grug the caveman voice if nevessary. I'm sure you'll get to see Men.