A Review of Armond White's Review of Toy Story 3

Toy Story 3 is one of the best-reviewed films of all time. With all good things, there is bound to be that Shoulder Devil whispering, "Naw, dude, it sucked." That voice is Armond White, who has thus far written the only negative review of Toy Story 3, which can be found here. Some thoughts on his review (SPOILERS abound)...

Armond White has now written one review explicitly about Toy Story 3, yet the best depiction of how wrong Armond White is about most things is his review of Jonah Hex. In it, he writes of how great Jonah Hex is while for some reason still mentioning how shitty he thinks Toy Story 3 is. Claiming TS3 strictly celebrates consumerism because it contains recognizable toys like Ken and Barbie, Armond White's review strictly celebrates his inability to watch movies.

I feel like an adult having to explain that Armond White for some reason feels like a 6-year-old when describing the plot of a movie, but he does. His claim that none of the characters reflect human experience is almost as incorrect as his claim that one of the main villains is Hamm the Piggy Bank. "The toys wage battle with the daycare centers cynical veteran cast-offs: Hamm the Piggy Bank pig, Lotsa Hugs and Big Baby." Hamm the Piggy Bank has actually been a supporting player since the trilogy's first installment. It should also be noted that Lotsa's name is actually Lotso. Dear Armond White: Watch movies better. He goes on to say, "Besides, Transformers 2 already explored the same plot to greater thrill and opulence." Dear Armond White again: Watch better movies.

Look at the Armond-scribed paragraph where the intellectually dubious film critic claims a 30-second sequence featuring Barbie and Ken was pointless to the movie: "Look at the Barbie and Ken sequence where the sexually dubious male doll struts a chick-flick fashion show. Since it serves the same time-keeping purpose as a chick-flick digression, its not satirical. Were meant to enjoy our susceptibility, not question it..." The purpose of the sequence actually pertained to the plot, Armond. It was not a time-keeper for the audience; it was a time-keeper for the characters, meant to distract Ken while the toys escaped. I can not stress enough how poor you are at watching movies.

When Armond's review emulates his distaste for Wall-E and Up, it becomes fitfully ignorable: "When Toy Story 3 emulates the suspense of prison break and horror films, it becomes fitfully amusing (more than can be said for Wall-E or Up) but this humor depends on the recognition of worn-out toys which is no different from those lousy Shrek gags." If you gave an example of this, Armond, I could potentially agree with you, but I can't recall a moment in the film when I pointed at the screen and thought, "Hahaha! It's funny because I remember Legos!"

Armond closes his review by essentially calling you a moron: "The Toy Story franchise isnt for children and adults, its for non-thinking children and adults. When a movie is this formulaic, its no longer a toy because it does all the work for you. Its a saps story." In reference to the movie doing all of the work for us, I'd like to mention the final moments of the film when Andy introduces Bonnie to all of his toys. The toys do not move or emote, yet we the audience know that this is one of the happiest moments of the toys' non-lives. All they wanted was to be played with and loved by their original owner, and with each introduction we see the joy in their plastic, lifeless eyes. Maybe Armond saw a different version, though, where each toy shouts "Yay! I'm getting played with!"

Armond's review does all the work for us, because we non-thinking adults don't really need to use our brains to figure out that it was written by a sad man who simply wants to be contradictory. It is a sad story, just like Toy Story 3, because SPOILER ALERT all of the toys die at the end.

So does Andy.