Review: Toy Story and Toy Story 2 in 3D
Filed under: Animation, Disney, Theatrical Reviews

As a cinephile and animation fan long before I became a professional critic, I have a couple of very specific memories associated with Toy Story and Toy Story 2: With the first film, I remember being unimpressed with its ad campaign and even its technological novelty – that is, until I actually saw the thing, and totally loved it. And with the second, I recall sitting in a theatre the opening weekend of its release, sobbing my eyes out to "Jessie's Song" as hundreds of pre-teens and their parents impatiently awaited the next set piece.
Unfortunately, I think few people who are already fans of the franchise will find much new or different to remember now that they're in 3D. Meanwhile, newcomers to the most important computer-animated series in movie history will also probably not find anything more profound than the stories themselves, since they were already multi-dimensional long before anyone made their experience technical in addition to already being an emotional one.
While the first one remains a landmark animated film primarily because of those technical merits, its story really seemed to tap into something that both children and adults could relate to – for kids, the idea that their toys have secret lives, and for grown-ups, the deeper and more subtle themes of kids outgrowing their childhoods, much less their caretakers and parents. The second further explored these themes, again in a context that seemed remarkably specific and yet undeniably universal, but its impact was far stronger, thanks to the introduction of new characters like Jessie and the Prospector, not to mention the general surprise that someone could make a sequel that was actually better than its predecessor.
That said, those films have been analyzed and deconstructed to death, which is probably why Pixar elected to reintroduce them to audiences in 3D. While adapting older computer-animated films to 3D makes sense because the filmmakers can control all aspects of the image and framing, including changing it if necessary, it doesn't necessarily mean that the end result will automatically be better, or even enhanced. And unfortunately, neither of these films are serviceably better works of art because they're in 3D, despite the understandable hope of Disney and the portion of the moviemaking community that hopes 3D becomes the next great technological leap.
At this summer's San Diego Comic-Con, I got my first glimpse at the footage when Disney screened the opening scene from Toy Story 2. While it was absolutely dynamic and beautiful to watch, I couldn't necessarily say that the 3D was what made the difference; more likely, the intervening years between seeing the film last had a stronger influence, so my lack of immediate familiarity with its concepts, images and storytelling made the viewing experience exciting and new. But once I saw all of both films, I felt no different: the 3D is interesting, understated, technically proficient (if not superlative), but it doesn't change the movies or make them better.Mind you, this might be Pixar's plan – namely, to introduce these films in this format as a modest stopgap before films like the upcoming Toy Story 3, which is being released initially in 3D, and subsequent movies both animated and live-action that intend to take advantage of 3D technology. But with films like these that are already so ingrained in the memories of their fans – even folks like me who remember the broader details but forget a few of the more specific ones – that a re-release seems redundant, and the 3D enhancement unnecessary. The movies work beautifully, if not perfectly already, so why change a good thing?
Let it be noted that I'm not afraid of the impending wave of 3D films, or the technology as a whole; for the filmmakers who see it merely as "another tool in the toolbox," I agree it can and should be used – albeit as a tool rather than an end unto itself. Truth be told, Pixar uses 3D "correctly," which is to say that watching their films looks more like the audience is peering through a window than recoiling at an attacking object; but the modesty with which they use 3D here doesn't improve upon what already existed – if in fact it could be improved. Ultimately, Toy Story and Toy Story 2 in 3D is a worthy experiment and a welcome reminder of the magnitude of the filmmakers' original accomplishments, but I'm not sure it's one that offers any new ones, which might leave some longtime fans feeling like they paid twice for the same Toy.











Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
10-03-2009 @ 2:00PM
nz said...
Interesting. I'm really hoping to make it to a showing sometime during this two week window. My big concerns are: A) managing to walk out of the theater without a migraine from the technology, B) being able to sit still for two full movies in a row and C) the movies living up to the pedestal I've put them on.
Thanks for the review. Sounds like the 3D isn't worth it, but seeing the gang together again on the big screen is all that's needed.
Reply
10-03-2009 @ 2:00PM
Joseph Finn said...
So, can you watch it without the glasses and ignore the fad? Seriously, I'll go and see them again if I don't have to wear the glasses, but not if it's unwatchable.
Reply
10-03-2009 @ 2:58PM
sa said...
sorry, you cannot watch these 3D movies without the glasses. the image is totally blurry - all object have a multi-colored halo around them...
10-03-2009 @ 3:03PM
Todd Gilchrist said...
Joseph, you definitely can't watch the movies without glasses, so beware if they typically are uncomfortable for you. But thanks for your comment!
10-03-2009 @ 12:47PM
Maria Stahl said...
Glad to see I'm not the only one who sobbed through Jessie's song.
Reply
10-03-2009 @ 1:16PM
Andy said...
I'm going in 3 hours and praying I can keep my shit together and not cry in front of my 8 year old little brother during 'Jessie's Song'.
Reply
10-03-2009 @ 1:21PM
WillTheSecond said...
Well, I thought it was awesome in 3D. It really adds to the sense of space in certain scenes, such as when Woody is trapped in Sid's room. Also, the sense of speed in the chase scene at the end of Toy Story 1 is fantastic in 3D.
I personally think it improved the experience.
Reply
10-04-2009 @ 6:48PM
Adam said...
I loved it. Mostly because I loved seeing my 4 year old daughter take in the movies in a theater. 3D was fine, great in some parts but it's more about seeing great movies in a theater. Even without the 3D the digital picture was the best I've seen for Toy Story. We went and got my daughter a Jessie doll after the movie and she hasn't put it down since.
Reply
10-05-2009 @ 2:27PM
Skeeter said...
I went to see Toy Story in 3D on Friday. What a rip off. I want my Money Back. There was no 3D effects. We left after the first movie.
Reply
10-09-2009 @ 9:57AM
K said...
You do realize the original movie was not in 3D right? They did not recreate those two classic movies to make it in 3D! Did you want them to ruin two great movies by adding some scenes just for the 3D effect? Seriously get out from under the rock and think!
10-16-2009 @ 1:23AM
Anim8me said...
In the final section the reviewer comments on Pixar using 3d correctly. They did nothing of the sort. The reason it looks like you are looking through a window is the 3d was applied as an effect in post production. They would have had to re-render all the animation from the entire two films from both camera angles to see the normal leap out of the screen 3d effect.
You can bet Toy Story3 will be real 3d and much less subtle. The 3d will be part of the production process and they will render two frames for every scene. The 3d will have depth like Coraline and Up and won't seem like you're looking down into a 3d box. Then I wonder what the reviewer will have to say about the 3d looking correct. I am sure it will be in your face 3d like we expect it to be.
Reply
10-15-2009 @ 4:35PM
Todd Gilchrist said...
sorry, anim8me, you're wrong: if you look at both up and coraline (not to mention last month's cloudy with a chance of meatballs), they were both produced in 3D utilizing the "window" approach, which is far more successful for average moviegoers than those who see stuff like final destination, where everything is flying at the screen. pixar could have produced 3D films in any way they wanted but chose to do that deliberately because that difference is literally a matter of choice, not of technology, age of the material, etc. the bottom line is that 3D presentation will always be a gimmick as long as things come jumping out of the screen because the world isn't experienced that way, and audiences (excepting those who enjoy that thrill) don't want to watch every drama or random film in a format that throws images in their faces.