How "Toy Story 3" Blew Up in My Face
By Cole Smithey
Last Friday I did what I usually do on Friday mornings, I walked down to my local cineplex to pay to see a movie (in this case "Toy Story 3"). After lunch I wrote up my capsule review. At the end I gave it a "C+" grade. Between B- and C+ is where I draw the line amid good and bad to fit to Rottentomatoes' "fresh" or "rotten" rating system.
I posted the review on my website (ColeSmithey.com), and on Rottentomatoes. By Saturday morning I had a message from a website asking for a phone interview and the kind of hate-mail and death threats you'd expect for Joran van Der Sloot. The world wide web had turned into a tsunami of negative attention directed at myself and Armond White, the 146th and 147th critics to weigh in on "Toy Story 3." The problem was that I had dared to tarnish the film's sternly guarded "100%" rating on Rottentomatoes, which would have given the trilogy three perfect scores. White redoubled the insult by posting his even less favorable review 15-miniutes later.
Sites like Time Magazine, The Wall Street Journal, and AOL's PopEater were quick to lump White's and my reviews together as critics who "hated 'Toy Story 3'." How my C+ grade equaled "hate" mattered not for the frothing complicit public protectors of Disney•Pixar. As with everything else in the American media there's no room for nuance in today's court of public opinion; it's all or nothing. My review was being sniffed at like it was a box of Cracker Jacks with no prize. Although I'd made fifteen points about specific problems I had with the film, some readers seemed unable to grasp a single criticism. Did they even bother to read it, I wondered. The answer was painfully clear. All they needed to know was that I didn't like a movie that most of them hadn't even seen.
There isn't a film I can think of that doesn't have detractors, so why should "Toy Story 3" be any different? Yet the media's framing of me as an attention-hungry film critic, gaming the system at the expense of a movie franchise's place in history is a stretch editors were happy to make. On the face of it, you could surmise that hate-mongers like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have effectively opened the floodgates for a pervasive conscience-free mob mentality to breed like gangrene. Now it's on the menu at Time Magazine and The Wall Street Journal.
As the Staff Film Editor for "Kidsville News!," where I deal exclusively with G and PG-rated movies, I'm aware of ratings for children's films. I have young nieces and nephews with responsible parents who are sensitive to what their kids see. I could not in good conscience endorse "Toy Story 3" as a G-rated film that meets their criteria. As well, Hollywood is currently changing the game on what audiences can expect from a "3-D" movie so they can charge higher ticket prices for an inferior product. "Toy Story 3" is a poster child of this unsavory business practice.
By definition, being a critic means it is my job to "critique." I wrote my "Toy Story 3" review just as I write any piece of criticism--with honesty, sincerity, and a singular mission to express my ideas as clearly and briefly as possible. For the media and members of the public to feign indignation over such a trivial issue as an aggregate website's critical rating of a movie, as an excuse to unify groupthink at the cost of all independent thought, is a bellwether of where America is at these days. It's not a safe place for kids, but don't say it out loud.
HOW AOL's POPEATER SUCKS
A friend sent a link to AOL's PopEater (
http://www.popeater.com/2010/06/20/armo ... /#comments) where the lead line is 'Toy Story' Narrowly Misses Perfect Trilogy Marks (Thank's, Armond White)
Besides not knowing how to use quotation marks, AOL's writer misses the fact that White's review came after mine. PopEater's unreliable writer Zach Dionne (who, by the way, is not accredited to contribute film reviews on Rottentomatoes) takes issue with my primary "news outlet" as ColeSmithey.com. Dionne says, "No word on who he [Cole Smithey] actually, y'know, is, or why he sits alongside the likes of Ebert, A.O. Scott, Peter Travers and Owen Gleiberman."
If lazy Zach had done his research, a visit to the Online Film Critics Society site would have told him that I write for ColeSmithey.com, Film Slate Magazine, Lansing City Pulse, Monterey County Weekly, Shalom Life, appear opposite Rex Reed in Vegas Seven, and am the staff film editor for the largest circulation kid's print publication in the country, Kidsville News!--which might have some bearing on why kid's movies are of particular interest to me, Cole Smithey.
A Google search would have informed Zack Dionne about my extensive career as a 13-year veteran film critic who has written for over 60 national and international print publications, and half as many web sites as a paid columnist. A little tour of Rottentomatoes would have informed Zach about the 1400 reviews I have posted on Rottentomatoes against White's paltry "405."
But the real kicker came when I tried to comment in the PopEater comments section. I wrote a reply, which the PopEater screeners refused to post--it's not an automatic system, as their instructions lead you to believe. Unlike Time Magazine's site, PopEater doesn't much care for any response from the authors they slag. Forget about the fact that they stole from Time Magazine to create a similar article, at least they reference Time in the piece. Critics are professional arbiters of taste. Don't be shocked when we do our job. It's what we do; unlike AOL's PopEater and Zack Dionne.
In an e-mail, Ray from Georgia says:
"Mr. Smithey:
I had never heard of you before today, but I went to "Rotten Tomatoes" to see if anybody had seen the same "Toy Story 3" that I did. My wife and I were shocked at the dark and scary elements that should have bothered children (and their parents), but most reviewers blithely went on as if they couldn't see the "neglect," "betrayal," threat of a "fiery death," "suspense and panic" that you accurately identified.
Though there were moments of joy and humor, and although some conflict is necessary for a story to exist, I felt that "Toy Story 3" went way past what would be appropriate for children and, for that matter, for sensitive adults. "Stinky Pete" was at least a nonexistent villain--an antagonist dreamed up from within the Pixarverse, but "Lotso Hugs" was too similar to the teddy bear(s) most of us loved at some point in our lives, so having him become a duplicitous, sadistic traitor was just over the top emotionally.
I am truly sorry you were subjected to hate mail for daring to note that the emperor was wearing jackboots and carrying a riding crop, but I want to thank you for taking a stand on principle and for commenting on the movie that was, not the movie everybody else said it was."
Sincerely,
Ray
Douglas, GA
