The “Toy Story” films, once an almost perfect trilogy, were already stretching toward infinity and beyond with “Toy Story 4,” a nine-years-later-sequel that was perhaps propelled less by a need for narrative closure than it was box-office imperatives. So should “Lightyear“ have been a feature film or a Pixar short? The answer, I think, is very much the latter. ![]() Who hasn’t watched “Seinfeld” and been curious to actually see “Rochelle, Rochelle” or “Sack Lunch"? Or those pseudo Adam Sandler movies like “Mer-man” in Judd Apatow’s “Funny People”? I’ve seen the “Home Alone” movies enough to almost convince myself that “Angels With Even Filthier Souls” is a real gangster flick.īut the truth is, the appeal of all these faux-film cameos - like those that adorn Quentin Tarantino’s “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” - is predicated on their brevity. It’s honestly a gambit - taking a fictional movie-within-a-movie and making it real - that I’ve wanted to see attempted before. We aren’t exactly through the looking glass, but we may be through the Happy Meal. It’s a potentially clever bit of reverse engineering by the Walt Disney Co., which, after decades of growing merchandizing out of its films, has reversed course. ![]() It isn’t a prequel to “Toy Story,“ exactly, but instead presents the movie that inspired Buzz Lightyear toys in the first place. So begins “Lightyear,” a new Pixar release that takes a meta approach to the animation studio’s flagship franchise. ![]() “In 1995, Andy got a toy from his favorite movie.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |