Skip to main content

Lightyear


What I liked: The laser shield. It really shouldn't have taken them 60 years to come up with that plan. The moment Buzz realizes his elite team is not quite who he thought they were. The zap squad. The best I can tell is they are the special forces unit that does nothing besides run around yelling zap. That seems like exactly my level of military service. The tranquilizer dart. The seemingly correct use of time dilation, including "C." That Buzz was a stereotypical '50-'60s test pilot, complete with the deep distrust of computer calculated trajectories. The music accompanying Buzz's stirring speech. That Buzz and Cmd Hawthorne were just friends. The demolitions expert who was generally crotchety and disappointed to not get to blow everything up. 

What I didn't: The fundamental take home message of the movie is that it is better to work with other people than to insist on doing everything yourself. The message is itself sound. However, almost every example I side with the do it yourself Buzz. In the event of a military emergency probably a highly trained military person should not include untrained, unqualified civilians in the strike force. If you are piloting a spacecraft with the only helm, what conceivable job would you give someone who offered to help? The rookie does seem to get in the way and jeopardize everyone on the space ship. Also, I think there is a case to be made for Zurg's plan. Clearly it shouldn't be a unilateral decision, but their society could potentially be greatly benefited by that course. The movie used a lot of Buzz's lines from the original Toy Story. It was fun to hear the quotes but I like them better out of context. Similarly, many of the sound effects are the kinds of sounds kids would make if they were playing with toys like beep beep beep, or meow meow, and yes sadly zap zap zap zap. I acknowledge this ties it more closely to the Toy Story movie, but it is called Lightyear, so I don't know how much more explicit of a tie in you really need. Speaking of things we may not really need, do we actually need the backstory of the fictional history of an action figure in an already fictional movie? Since it is a play within a play essentially, do we treat it like there is an unreliable narrator? That could be more fun. They make a very big deal about losing the formula for their crystal solution. The thing has 4 ingredients and one of you is a computer, I'm pretty sure with minimal effort you could remember the formula. Finally, the cat. Why did we need the cat? Who designed that cat? what was the original purpose of the cat? Why did they think it needed all those random functions but not an extended battery life or enough memory to permanently store a 4 ingredient formula?

Who should watch this? The kids in the theater seemed to like it a lot. They also inexplicably liked the cat. So, I guess children inclined to like robotic cats. 

Would I watch it again? Once was enough. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Titanic

What I liked: Liked is definitely the wrong word for it but the scenes of the sinking of the Titanic were masterful. They were technologically impressive, apparently remarkably accurate, and emotionally gripping. The variety of ways in which different people dealt with a completely hopeless situation was both touching and thought provoking. Especially beautiful was the string quartet. In isolation from the love story, the sinking of the Titanic is a tragic reminder of the cost of hubris and the necessity of regulating emergency procedures and capacities. It carries similar gravitas as a war film. At the 25th anniversary of the film, I can appreciate how Titanic has impacted movies made later.  What I didn't: So here's the thing. I feel very bad for you if you died in the sinking of the Titanic. I feel less bad for you if you managed to get on a lifeboat on the Titanic and then decided to get off. I question all of your decision making and priorities if you decide to get off a...

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them Reveiw

What I liked: For a movie based on what is in essence a fictional encyclopedia, this movie has a surprising amount of plot. Not great plot, but more than I usually get from reading an alphabetical reference book. I liked the dopey sidekick, his facial expressions were great and he was the only one who acknowledged that what happening on screen was not actually normal. I liked that the president led the tiny army of US wizards to their tiny battle in a subway. So as military victories go, this was not one for the history books, for many reasons. But it did lend more meaning to the phrase Commander in Chief. I felt like Dr Who was once again a bow tie wearing socially awkward guy who lives in a box that is bigger on the inside. Some of the creatures were cool but the CGI didn't quite make them alive. I liked the sloth monkey, I don't really know who it was or what it was doing but I would support a slothmonkey planet of the apes crossover. I like that the guy from SWAT has fina...

Free Guy

What I liked: I liked Guy. That is in fact the point but I like how happy, carefree, and wholesome he is in what is essentially Grand Theft Auto. I like what the NPCs decide to focus on as they achieve consciousness. I liked the ridiculous YouTubers getting all philosophical about Guy and how he radically changed game play. I liked that so much of the game economy was about silly skins, just like a real game, and how that completely confused the NPCs. I liked the fight between Dude and Guy and its resolution, it managed to stay very on theme. The item cameos were fun, like seeing the Portal gun, or the Fortnite piƱata. I liked guy finding the med kit and building up an inventory.  What I didn't: I am not be a lawyer but I am suspicious that there maybe more efficient ways of obtaining evidence of copyright violation than playing 12 hours of a computer game every day. With that in mind I think the evidence points to the heroine enjoying the game far more than she lets on. On the top...