When Woody is stolen by a toy collector, Buzz and his friends set out on a rescue mission to save Woody before he becomes a museum toy property with his roundup gang Jessie, Prospector, and Bullseye.
The toys are mistakenly delivered to a day-care center instead of the attic right before Andy leaves for college, and it's up to Woody to convince the other toys that they weren't abandoned and to return home.
In order to power the city, monsters have to scare children so that they scream. However, the children are toxic to the monsters, and after a child gets through, 2 monsters realize things may not be what they think.
A mean lord exiles fairytale creatures to the swamp of a grumpy ogre, who must go on a quest and rescue a princess for the lord in order to get his land back.
While Andy is away at summer camp Woody has been toynapped by Al McWiggin, a greedy collector and proprietor of "Al's Toy Barn"! In this all-out rescue mission, Buzz and his friends Mr. Potato Head, Slinky Dog, Rex and Hamm springs into action to rescue Woody from winding up as a museum piece. They must find a way to save him before he gets sold in Japan forever and they'll never see him again!Written by
Anthony Pereyra <hypersonic91@yahoo.com>
Hidden Mickey: on the clock in Andy's room. See more »
Goofs
Early in the movie, after Woody hits his head on the dresser and falls to the floor, Buzz jumps on the race car and rides it down the track. As he goes through the loop, his arm passes through the loop of the track. See more »
Quotes
[first lines]
Buzz Lightyear:
[landing on Zurg's planet in the Buzz Lightyear Video Game]
Buzz Lightyear to mission log: All signs point to this planet as location of Zurg's fortress, but there seems to be no signs of intelligent life anywhere...
See more »
Crazy Credits
Tour Guide Barbie does a little bit during the credits that is quite entertaining, such as suggesting to the audience that they throw away their trash, and asking for a break because she is tired from smiling so much. See more »
Alternate Versions
On ABC, due to the fact that ABC uses split-screen credits, they show the bloopers and credits separately. See more »
Shucks, my original comment for this was deleted. Here is a replacement.
My admiration for Pixar to date is significant, on the order of rat filmmakers that seem to care about ideas in film. There aren't enough of these, so if you find one (here a collective) that not only has intelligent notions of cinema but also make successful movies, you have to celebrate.
Overall, I think this is the weakest of the Pixar films, because it is the least visually adventuresome. What they did instead was explore what I call folding and did so in the written bits, following a pattern where films include the dynamics of other films in some way. "Blue Velvet" and "2001" are sort of landmark films along these lines, where film types become actual characters. Here the folding is just as radical, perhaps more so because the story overtly mirrors what they are doing.
Here's the setup. Buzz actually an army of Buzzes draws his existence from space movies, specifically "Star Wars." Woody draws his from cowboy movies (actually TeeVee shows) specifically "Howdy Doody." Each prototype "doll" gets pulled into his original cosmology. That's the background, what usually serves as the establishing world for a movie. Pixar even uses this in the first shots where other movies work to introduce us to a world.
Within this movie in the movie context is a foreground story: about the value of "play" which we are reminded is a re-enacting or borrowing of stories. Its what life is, I think and we are reminded in the script. They'd trade one day of human play (meaning recovered movies) for an eternity in a sterile heaven.
I know that there are many in Hollywood who talk about this sort of story dynamic. There are few that would dare to build a film around it, and very, very few who could do it, make it as visible, overt as it is here, and have audiences be happy for such immersion in reflective dynamics.
Interestingly, the original comment was tossed by IMDb along with a couple hundred others of mine because I failed in a similar enterprise. Someone complained because the original included an observation about religion being recovered narrative and increasingly recovered cinematic narrative. That reader at least did not like such baptism.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
7 of 11 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this
Shucks, my original comment for this was deleted. Here is a replacement.
My admiration for Pixar to date is significant, on the order of rat filmmakers that seem to care about ideas in film. There aren't enough of these, so if you find one (here a collective) that not only has intelligent notions of cinema but also make successful movies, you have to celebrate.
Overall, I think this is the weakest of the Pixar films, because it is the least visually adventuresome. What they did instead was explore what I call folding and did so in the written bits, following a pattern where films include the dynamics of other films in some way. "Blue Velvet" and "2001" are sort of landmark films along these lines, where film types become actual characters. Here the folding is just as radical, perhaps more so because the story overtly mirrors what they are doing.
Here's the setup. Buzz actually an army of Buzzes draws his existence from space movies, specifically "Star Wars." Woody draws his from cowboy movies (actually TeeVee shows) specifically "Howdy Doody." Each prototype "doll" gets pulled into his original cosmology. That's the background, what usually serves as the establishing world for a movie. Pixar even uses this in the first shots where other movies work to introduce us to a world.
Within this movie in the movie context is a foreground story: about the value of "play" which we are reminded is a re-enacting or borrowing of stories. Its what life is, I think and we are reminded in the script. They'd trade one day of human play (meaning recovered movies) for an eternity in a sterile heaven.
I know that there are many in Hollywood who talk about this sort of story dynamic. There are few that would dare to build a film around it, and very, very few who could do it, make it as visible, overt as it is here, and have audiences be happy for such immersion in reflective dynamics.
Interestingly, the original comment was tossed by IMDb along with a couple hundred others of mine because I failed in a similar enterprise. Someone complained because the original included an observation about religion being recovered narrative and increasingly recovered cinematic narrative. That reader at least did not like such baptism.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.