On the Greatest Trilogy in Toy Story 3

Film history dictates that there will always be one weak link to a trilogy; Return of the Jedi (1983), The Bourne Identity (2002), The Godfather Part 3 (1990), Return of the King (2003) and so on. Yet Pixar have been building their own film history and in addition to creating a string of critically and financially successful feature animation films and imbuing in animation a depth and emotion that many live action films cannot achieve, have now decided it’s time to create a great film trilogy.

Trilogies’ weaker acts usually come in the final third (although not always, see The Bourne Identity), whether it is through over ambition, too much money, hubris or simply, as in the case of The Matrix Revolutions (2003), the revelation that your story was only 180 minutes long. Yet Toy Story 3 acknowledges what made the first two so special (story and character) as well as introducing new characters without ever detracting from the principal, much loved toys. The introduction of Ken brings a great comedic element that an older audience will appreciate, while Lotso’s story of abandonment ensures Pixar’s dark elements remain.

The film mirrors the breakout/break-in structure of Toy Story 2 (1999), but never rests on its laurels by refusing to progress its characters. Woody, Buzz et al, like Andy have moved on since we left them reunited at the end of Toy Story 2. Desperate to be played with after years of neglect from a growing Andy, the toys devise a plan to grab his attention. The look of heartbreak on Woody’s face when Andy throws him back in the chest shows how hard these past years have been on the cowboy. And that’s just the first ten minutes.

By keeping the same great elements that make all Pixar films so successful and combining this with a story that can appeal across the age groups, in addition to a 3D effect that is maybe the most complementary to the story a film has been to date, Toy Story 3 is the perfect end to a trilogy; exciting, funny, able to stand alone and with a poignant, satisfying ending.

It’s now up to Christopher Nolan and the rest on the Batman team to try and do better.

On Hunting for a Good Predator Film

"Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter". This ridiculous quote from a great author (Hemingway) remains, in Predators, a ridiculous quote, but now in a terrible film rather than in an otherwise impressive body of work. Being dropped from a plane unconscious and landing in an unknown, hostile environment as the latest prey for a team of alien predators is a good set-up, yet producer Robert Rodriguez and director Nimrod Antal have seemingly achieved the near impossible and created an action sci-fi without one pulse-raising moment.

The predator is a good alien invention but has never had a film worthy of its creation, unlike its peer and sometimes enemy, the alien of Alien (1979), Aliens (1986) and Alien 3 (1992) etc. The exception, it could be argued, is Predator (1987), yet since then the ultimate hunters, who offer, through their humanistic characteristics something recognizable, have never been allowed to develop in a manner which will allow them to be the feature of a predator film. Here, the predators barely feature and we are instead stuck with a frustrating group of stereotypes who utter cliched dialogue and meaningless quotes (see above) in an attempt to add gravitas to what is complete trash. Casting Adrien Brody against type is a good idea, as is Lawrence Fishburne's schizophrenic survivor, but both positives are negated by bad dialogue. Unfortunately, a sequel is a distinct possibility.

On Casey Affleck's Performance in The Killer Inside Me

Lou Ford is a complicated man. In addition to being a sheriff in a small, oil rich Texas town he’s also a sexually tortured psychopathic killer. Channelling his work in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford with hints of Travis Bickle and Down in the Valley’s Harlan, Casey Affleck produces an memorising performance as The Killer Inside Me’s protagonist. Over the space of three films (Jesse James, Gone, Baby Gone and now The Killer Inside Me) Affleck is increasingly proving himself to be one of America’s finest actors.

Here, Affleck must convey the external and internal emotions of man who is trusted by his fellow Texans while repressing a childhood of sexual deviancy and hiding a murderous present. This is achieved with what appears to be remarkable ease, although surely it isn’t. Affleck’s preternatural ingenuousness on film brings with it his skill in conveying an active mind behind calm, unnerving eyes. Psychopathic, sexually deviant killers are hard to indentify with; normal rules that apply to almost the entire population disappear in the presence of a warped mind. Yet, Ford is completely relatable; his sense of entitlement, developed through a hidden intelligence he feels uncomfortable revealing is a relatable frustration. As is the mollifying manner that other residents treat him with. Therefore Lou Ford becomes as real and as memorable as Robert Ford and the far more contemporary Patrick Kenzie. The reality of the performance (complimented by Winterbottom’s direction) makes the character all the more terrifying. Therefore, rather than the violence (which is shocking in its suddenness) becoming the focal point of the film it instead evolves as another disturbing layer of Lou Ford.

In less competent hands The Killer Inside Me could have become a misogynistic, exploitative experience, but with the skill behind and in front of the camera, it is instead an engrossing, ontological study of an unbalanced mind.