(I wrote this post last night when I got home, and offered Joel the night off of blog-crafting. CSI: Miami is a horrible show, by the way.)

I just watched Toy Story 3 yesterday evening, and it was just as perfect as all Pixar films are.

When I got home, I was curious as to what the Rotten Tomatoes rating was, assuming that if there was to be a 100% film, this was most certainly it.

It has a rating of 98% fresh. An incredible rating, to be certain, but I was immediately intrigued by the baby-eating 2% that had given negative reviews.

Three reviewers reviewed it poorly.

In response, I want to review the reviewers.

REVIEW #1

Let’s start off with Jeremy Heilman, AKA the “Movie Martyr.”

First off, the site’s tagline is “suffering for your cinema.” Ah yes, the true anguish of having to watch a bad movie. First world problems, anyone?

The site itself is coded in incredibly simple, hideous HTML. It looks like a site made in 2001, that hasn’t been updated. Not to mention the gorgeous Microsoft Word-created logo, plus beautiful, aliased clip art! The stunning, single-color grey background really livens up the page!

A helpful tip on the home page states:

… Best viewed in 1024×768 resolution …

Wow! What a great way to date your site! I don’t think I have seen such a useful tip since the beginning of the millenium! Probably shouldn’t access that wonderful site on my old CRT!

The actual review itself is written in times new roman, (do people even use that on the web anymore? Sans-serif for life, BRO) A still from the movie is crammed shoddily into the post. His text appears to double spaced (ugh), first sentence indented (UGH), with TWO returns between each paragraph. (KILL ME NOW).

As for content, the reviewer complains that the film feels too similar to the past films. Which is really weird, considering it is the SAME characters, with the SAME setting in the SAME franchise. Totally bizarre. I had feelings of déjà vu, and then I remembered it was a SEQUEL. It is the CONTINUATION of a story.

Finally, the reviewer says that the film is:

Technically well-crafted (with the significant exception of 3D effects that seem like an obvious afterthought) . . .

Dude, when you actually FORMAT TEXT in a way that is somewhat acceptable, then maybe, MAYBE you can criticize the aesthetics of a Pixar film.

REVIEW #2

Armond White, has it all figured out.

Armond states that the film is a “bored game,” which is a pretty lame pun. He must have been fairly proud of it, as he uses it again as his title. Keep tryin’, Armond!  A board game is kind of a toy! I guess you thought the movie was boring . . .?

Pun: 2/5

Besides, Transformers 2 already explored the same plot to greater thrill and opulence.

Ah jeez, Armond. You brought Transformers 2 into a conversation saying it did something better than any movie ever created? Trans-f***ing-FORMERS?!

Credibility: 0/5

The toys wage battle with the [spoiling spoiler's] cynical veteran cast-offs: Hamm the Piggy Bank pig

Wait, what? Hamm? The lovable piggy-bank from both of the films? He’s not a villain! Tip: when reviewing movies, pay attention to the minute details, such as, who is a protagonist and who is not.

Accuracy: 1.5/5

But Toy Story 3 is so besotted with brand names and product-placement that it stops being about the innocent pleasures of imagination—the usefulness of toys—and strictly celebrates consumerism.

Now Armond is looking for a conspiracy! The man is getting him down! Always! Product placement? As in, fictional products, right? I mean, there’s Ken and Barbie. Just, what? Product placement for existing Toy Story merchandise? I also thought it was against consumerism in most ways, showing that once toys lose their usefulness, they can be passed onto other who can use them. COMMUNISM.

Not looking for a non-existent agenda: 0/5

Overall score: Go eat a poop/5

REVIEW #3

Finally, we get a review from Cole Smithey, who claims to be “The Smartest Film Critic in the World.” History has shown us that, 10 times out of 10, when someone claims to be “the smartest,” they are typically polar opposite of that statement.

Once you get past paying the inflated price for an animated “3-D” movie where nothing floats in front of your eyes as with quality 3-D films.

To paraphrase: “The movie wasn’t gimmicky enough. I like more visual gimmicks.” Out of pure curiosity, I looked up his review of a movie that is the very definition of visual gimmicks distracting an audience: Avatar.

Lo and behold. He gave Avatar 3/5 stars. Toy Story 3? 2/5

Nice goin’ there, Simple Smithey.

. . . the film’s most egregious example of rendering a two-faced character . . . [shows] his determinedly dastardly intentions on Buzz Lightyear after buttering up the sometimes heroic astronaut.

THAT IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED AT ALL. DID YOU EVEN WATCH THE MOVIE?

In short, if you do not like Toy Story 3 (you don’t have to love it, I am flexible there), then you are a terrible person and you should drink antifreeze at your earliest possible convenience. Thank you.

-Nathan