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, it’s not satirical. We’re 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