Toy Story

Not rated yet!
Director
John LasseterJohn Lasseter
Runtime
1 h 21 min
Release Date
30 October 1995
Genres
Animation, Comedy, FamilyAnimation, Animation, Comedy, FamilyComedy, Animation, Comedy, FamilyFamily
Overview
Led by Woody, Andy's toys live happily in his room until Andy's birthday brings Buzz Lightyear onto the scene. Afraid of losing his place in Andy's heart, Woody plots against Buzz. But when circumstances separate Buzz and Woody from their owner, the duo eventually learns to put aside their differences.
Staff ReviewsAround the Web ReviewsAudience Reviews

Check back soon when the reviews are out!

Or why not join our mailing list to stay up to date?

 

SIGN UP!

Box office recaps sent twice a month (maximum). 

    ( ̄^ ̄)ゞ 
(☞゚ヮ゚)☞  No spam! ☜(゚ヮ゚☜)




 ✍🏻  > 🗡️   Want to join our team? Email us!  
PJ Media Staff8
PJ Media



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Pixar's Alternate Universe?
    (”Toy Story” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Lifestyle Everybody's a geek about something culturally. For some it's science fiction, while others may geek out over sports. For me, it's Disney culture (don't act so shocked), college sports, and Star Wars. But everybody has something that they're a geek about.Some geeks -- and I'm using the term in a cultural light, rather than referring to nerds or dorks -- go too far in their obsession. Some dress in elaborate costume for events like Comic Con or DragonCon, or even renaissance fairs. (Yes, I realize I'm stepping on some toes here.) Others show it off on their skin. Still others devote months of their time to devising theories on how a certain studio's movies are interconnected. Meet Jon Negroni.By day, Negroni manages social media and SEO for a non-profit organization, and he writes a blog for young professionals. And -- bless his heart -- he's apparently a Pixar fan. Negroni has developed an elaborate theory explaining how all the features in the Pixar canon are related.Several months ago, I watched a fun-filled video on Cracked.com that introduced the idea (at least to me) that all of the Pixar movies actually exist within the same universe. Since then, I’ve obsessed over this concept, working to complete what I call “The Pixar Theory,” a working narrative that ties all of the Pixar movies into one cohesive timeline with a main theme.Negroni's timeline runs as follows:Brave: 14-15th centuriesThe Incredibles: 1950s-60s (...thought that's up for debate, as we'll see...)Toy Story: 1997-1998Toy Story 2: 1999Finding Nemo: 2003Ratatouille: 2007Toy Story 3: 2010Up: 2011-2016Cars, Cars 2: ~2100-2200Wall-E, ~2800-2900A Bug's Life, ~2898-3000Monsters University, Monsters Inc., ~4500-5000...and all of it cycles back to Brave.class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/7/26/pixars-alternate-universe/ previous Page 1 of 6 next   ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

Steve Sailer2
Taki Mag



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • With Toy Story 3, Pixar Wins Disney Divorce Battle
    In 1965, Gordon Moore of Intel noted that silicon chips had been quickly doubling in transistor density, and forecasted that computers would continue to get twice as powerful every 18 months to infinity and beyond! (Or words to roughly that effect—”Moore’s Law” soon entered the realm of urban legend.) Pixar’s computer animated Toy Story 3, released 15 years after the first mature computer animation movie, 1995’s landmark Toy Story about a little boy’s playthings who come to life when he’s not looking, has thus benefited from about ten subsequent doublings in computer firepower. So, is the latest sequel 1024 times better than the original? Advances in technology eventually call forth artistic geniuses, but the lag time is unpredictable. The first commercial electric guitar, for example, went on sale in 1932, but it was initially used mostly to just make louder plinking sounds. It was 35 years until Jimi Hendrix’s performance at the Monterey Pop Festival in 1967. Arts apparently progress in S-shaped curves. At first, nothing publicly notable happens (for instance, the electric guitar’s 1930-1940s). Then there’s a rapid takeoff (rock music in the 1950s-1970s). And finally a period of diminishing marginal returns (the 1980s-2000s). Unlike the surprising ascent of the electric guitar, the potential of computer animated movies was relentlessly foretold. By 1982, computer graphics mania had built to such a peak that Disney’s Tron was both the first heavily computer animated blockbuster and the first film whose preview was reviewed on the financial pages. (The Wall Street analyst’s verdict on Disney’s stock: Sell!) “It established Pixar as the guy alternative to Disney’s gay pandering to the daddy’s little princess market. Pixar movies are made by men who have managed to extend their childhoods into fatherhood.” Thus, 1982 turned out to be too early for computer-dependent movies. Yet, 24-year-old Disney cartoonist John Lasseter was electrified by Tron. He pitched to his bosses a computerized version of the nerdy kids’ book The Brave Little Toaster about five household appliances at a summer cottage who feel lonely when their beloved young master departs. Disney immediately fired him. Lasseter wound up at a Lucasfilm spinoff called Pixar. Their hit movies (Toy Story 3 will be the eleventh straight to make at least $162 million domestically) always remind me of what Pixar’s oldest employees must have endured in the 1980s: heroic boredom. I began writing two decades ago because my attention had been permanently distracted from corporate work by the tedium of waiting for early personal computers to recalculate spreadsheets. While my computer labored, I’d sneak a look at the newspaper op-ed page, and soon become engrossed in the logical flaws in some poor pundit’s essay. Lasseter, I presume, is a man of steelier concentration. By 1984, Lasseter’s team showed they could achieve a fuzzy sort of 3D solidity in the short Andre and Wally B. In 1986, Pixar delivered 90 seconds of perfection with Luxo Jr., a father-son tale about table lamps playing catch. In retrospect, it established Pixar as the guy alternative to Disney’s gay pandering to the daddy’s little princess market. Pixar movies are made by men who have managed to extend their childhoods (Lasseter says, “Every animator is a child at heart”) into fatherhood. Lasseter, for instance, has five sons, now ages 10 to 29. It took nine years from Luxo Jr. until Toy Story, a period in which computers became, according to the most popular version of Moore’s Law, 64 times faster. Over that decade, everybody in show biz knew that eventually somebody was going to figure out what to do with computer animation. As I was walking my kids down the theatre aisle to see Toy Story on Thanksgiving weekend 1995, I could see—before we had even sat down—that Pixar had pulled it off. Toy Story was an ideal match of subject (cheap plastic toys) to the computer technology of the mid 1990s, meaning that the exquisite effects available now barely matter. So, no, Toy Story 3 isn’t 1024 times better. Still, Toy Story 3 is awfully good. Andy is going off to college, so Woody (voiced by Tom Hanks), Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen), and the gang get reluctantly donated to a daycare center. They’re welcomed to the idyllic Butterfly Room by a seemingly grandfatherly teddy bear (Ned Beatty) and his right hand man, Barbie’s beau Ken (Michael Keaton). But the old con-boss shunts them off to the Caterpillar Room to be pounded on by toddlers. The prison escape plot mostly exists to give the toys something to do before the gorgeously sentimental conclusion has the audience sniffling. Yet, Pixar’s mastery of storytelling is now so confident that they show off by making a memorably complex character out of Ken. Still, is it necessary for every Pixar film to strive to be a poignant masterpiece of mature wisdom? Yes, it’s churlish of me to complain, since they succeed so often, but wouldn’t it be fun if you didn’t know walking in that lately every Pixar film ends up bittersweet? googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1456852648633-0');}); if(display_ads_server){document.write('');}; SIGN UPDaily updates with TM’s latest // delete this script tag and use a "div.mce_inline_error{ XXX !important}" selector // or fill this in and it will be inlined when errors are generated var mc_custom_error_style = ''; var fnames = new Array();var ftypes = new Array();fnames[0]='EMAIL';ftypes[0]='email';fnames[1]='FNAME';ftypes[1]='text';fnames[2]='LNAME';ftypes[2]='text';var err_style = ''; try{ err_style = mc_custom_error_style; } catch(e){ err_style = 'margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 1em 0.5em 0.5em 0.5em; background: ERROR_BGCOLOR none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-weight: bold; float: left; z-index: 1; width: 80%; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial; color: ERROR_COLOR;'; } var mce_jQuery = jQuery.noConflict(); mce_jQuery(document).ready( function($) { var options = { errorClass: 'mce_inline_error', errorElement: 'div', errorStyle: err_style, onkeyup: function(){}, onfocusout:function(){}, onblur:function(){} }; var mce_validator = mce_jQuery("#mc-embedded-subscribe-form").validate(options); options = { url: 'http://takimag.us1.list-manage1.com/subscribe/post-json?u=0ba7696a8a378946b7e688500&id=f7706afea2&c=?', type: 'GET', dataType: 'json', contentType: "application/json; charset=utf-8", beforeSubmit: function(){ mce_jQuery('#mce_tmp_error_msg').remove(); mce_jQuery('.datefield','#mc_embed_signup').each( function(){ var txt = 'filled'; var fields = new Array(); var i = 0; mce_jQuery(':text', this).each( function(){ fields[i] = this; i++; }); mce_jQuery(':hidden', this).each( function(){ if ( fields[0].value=='MM' && fields[1].value=='DD' && fields[2].value=='YYYY' ){ this.value = ''; } else if ( fields[0].value=='' && fields[1].value=='' && fields[2].value=='' ){ this.value = ''; } else { this.value = fields[0].value+'/'+fields[1].value+'/'+fields[2].value; } }); }); return mce_validator.form(); }, success: mce_success_cb }; mce_jQuery('#mc-embedded-subscribe-form').ajaxForm(options); }); function mce_success_cb(resp){ mce_jQuery('#mce-success-response').hide(); mce_jQuery('#mce-error-response').hide(); if (resp.result=="success"){ mce_jQuery('#mce-'+resp.result+'-response').show(); mce_jQuery('#mce-'+resp.result+'-response').html(resp.msg); mce_jQuery('#mc-embedded-subscribe-form').each(function(){ this.reset(); }); } else { var index = -1; var msg; try { var parts = resp.msg.split(' - ',2); if (parts[1]==undefined){ msg = resp.msg; } else { i = parseInt(parts[0]); if (i.toString() == parts[0]){ index = parts[0]; msg = parts[1]; } else { index = -1; msg = resp.msg; } } } catch(e){ index = -1; msg = resp.msg; } try{ if (index== -1){ mce_jQuery('#mce-'+resp.result+'-response').show(); mce_jQuery('#mce-'+resp.result+'-response').html(msg); } else { err_id = 'mce_tmp_error_msg'; html = '
    '+msg+''; var input_id = '#mc_embed_signup'; var f = mce_jQuery(input_id); if (ftypes[index]=='address'){ input_id = '#mce-'+fnames[index]+'-addr1'; f = mce_jQuery(input_id).parent().parent().get(0); } else if (ftypes[index]=='date'){ input_id = '#mce-'+fnames[index]+'-month'; f = mce_jQuery(input_id).parent().parent().get(0); } else { input_id = '#mce-'+fnames[index]; f = mce_jQuery().parent(input_id).get(0); } if (f){ mce_jQuery(f).append(html); mce_jQuery(input_id).focus(); } else { mce_jQuery('#mce-'+resp.result+'-response').show(); mce_jQuery('#mce-'+resp.result+'-response').html(msg); } } } catch(e){ mce_jQuery('#mce-'+resp.result+'-response').show(); mce_jQuery('#mce-'+resp.result+'-response').html(msg); } } } ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

VJ Morton3
Right Wing Film Geek



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)
  • Top 10 of 1995
    (”Toy Story” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    The best films commercial-released in the US in 1995, I Hath Spake

    1. Babe
    2. Toy Story
    3. Safe
    4. Se7en
    5. Crumb
    6. Clueless
    7. Exotica
    8. Kicking and Screaming
    9. Good Men, Good Women
    10. The White Balloon
    ...
    (Review Source)

Counter Currents Staff1
Counter Currents Publishing



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

⚠️ EDGY 🔥 CONTENT 🔥 WARNING 🔥 (NSFW?) ⚠️

🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻


  • The Incredibles 2
    (”Toy Story” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    [1]2,167 words

    Appreciating Pixar’s The Incredibles 2 really is all about perspective, and that perspective comes only after experiencing the giddy nirvana of watching the first Incredibles movie. Going into the sequel, I was prepared to forgive it for not quite living up to the original, but would not forgive if it did not remain true to the spirit of the original. I’m fairly easy to please in this regard given that the spirit of the original was such a unique and wonderful thing. 

    The Incredibles, in my mind, is a perfect gem of a film which transcends the artifice of merely excellent film making and enters the realm of timeless art. Yes, the plot is tight, the dialogue deft, the characters distinct, the action thrilling yet believable, and the story unpredictable yet satisfying. We expect these things in all great movies. The Incredibles however moves beyond this by creating a singular world which is both familiar and eerie, like the first ten minutes of any Twilight Zone episode. Retro-future might be a good way to describe it, and the distinctive soundtrack, with its emphasis on horns and percussion (Sinatra swing meets Batman camp?) underscores this beautifully. The multifaceted humor ranges from irony to slapstick, from the subtle to the ridiculous, and reveals a sophisticated—perhaps even meta—understanding of the superhero genre in its various incarnations. And writer/director Brad Bird never gets so full of himself not to fold what’s funny into the essence of the story. (The “No capes!” routine and how it played out in the end will always get a laugh out of me.)

    The Incredibles also imbues life into drab-yet-true hetero-normative stereotypes which, in the time since the movie’s release, have suffered a beating from the cultural Marxist bullies who have pretty much taken over the schoolyard of mainstream America. You have Bob Parr/Mr. Incredible (Craig T. Nelson), a middle-aged man who’s getting a bit wide in the waist and constantly reliving his glory years. You have Helen Parr/Elastagirl (Holly Hunter), the wife and mother who’s being stretched too thin. You have Violet (Sarah Vowell), the shy girl who wishes she could just disappear. You have Dash (Spencer Fox), the hyperactive boy who’s always getting into trouble. And you have Lucious Best/Frozone (Samuel L. Jackson), the black man who’s as cool as ice. These stereotypes endear because we have seen them many times in life, not just in the movies. But when placed within The Incredibles universe, they take off, becoming avatars of type and bristling with life and energy.

    Each Incredible acts as an individual, but as a group they conform to a family unit, with all the bickering and emotional issues that families must deal with in order to survive. As much as anything, The Incredibles celebrates the sanctity of family and the love that keeps it all together.

    Such unabashed traditionalism was certainly edgy back in 2004 for a mainstream movie. What made it more so was how normatively white The Incredibles is. Aside from the very black yet non-threatening Frozone and the racially ambiguous Mirage (who seems to belong on the exotic island to which she lures Bob), pretty much everyone in movie is white. Among the heroes, villains, victims, authority figures, police, newscasters, bystanders, there is only a smattering of blacks (and, curiously, no one who is neither white nor black). The supporting characters are also white, for example, the family’s g-man contact Rick Dicker, Bob’s diminutive Boss Gilbert Huph, Violet’s love interest Tony, and Dash’s school principal. The only exceptions are Dash’s peevish homeroom teacher Bernie, who is quite obviously Jewish, and the stroke-of-genius costume designer Edna Mode (played by Brad Bird), who is based on mid-century Jewish fashion designer Edith Head. But Edna’s unquestioned loyalty to the Parr family enables Bird to utilize positive—or at least neutral—Jewish stereotypes (such as cloying familiarity, good-natured pushiness, arcane sophistication, and a thick urban accent) while eschewing all the negative ones. Basically, it’s a white world, and the non-whites in it really like white people.

    Another edgy aspect of The Incredibles is the movie’s since-oft-repeated leitmotif: when you say everyone is special that means no one is. This is political incorrectness incarnate and flies in the face of radical egalitarianism which is the primary weapon of the Left. Indeed, The Incredibles not only accepts that people are born with unequal abilities but it champions the few who are truly excellent. When Helen wants Dash to hide his abilities and fit in with his classmates so the family would not incur the wrath of the surrounding normies, Bob—who is the main character and heart of the movie—wants him to stand out as a ‘super.’ It’s the riskier road, yes, but it is also the only road which leads to greatness. I’m sure the ‘fit in’ versus ‘be great’ dichotomy has characterized many individuals and families throughout history and will continue to do so indefinitely.

    Then toss in a deliciously diabolical villain in Syndrome (Jason Lee), an unstoppable robot monster which brings true menace to the story, and a real slobberknocker of a climactic fight scene, and you have one of the greatest animated films of all time. I will go on to say that that fight scene, all six glorious minutes of it, is the greatest action sequence ever filmed.

    Whether the film makers realized it or not, The Incredibles struck a blow for the Right in the culture wars, and a brilliant one at that.

    Of the Pixar franchises so far, we have a mixed bag of sequels. Only Toy Story has managed so far to live up to each preceding movie while keeping the magic which made the original so great. Finding Dory, while charming in its own right, was thin gruel compared to the original, Finding Nemo, which for my money is the Citizen Kane of family movies. But at least Finding Dory basked in its predecessor’s shadow and continued the franchise’s odyssey of friendship, family, and loyalty. The same cannot be said for Cars which turned its exhaust pipes on the magic of the original as soon as it could. Cars 2 became the Mater show in the Far East with a lot of cheap gags and hackneyed action sequences, and Cars 3 was a converged mess with Lightning McQueen absurdly giving up control of his own career to a Scrappy-Doo chatterbox substitute which was as female and Hispanic as she was annoying. Absolutely none of this had anything to do with a holier-than-thou hotshot finding love in a forgotten little town off of Highway 66.

    Based on the Incredibles 2 trailers, I was hoping for Finding Dory but was bracing myself for another Cars 3.

    Well, with The Incredibles 2, I’m happy to report we get the former, more or less. This movie shares many of the technical virtues of the original (tight plot, deft dialogue, distinct characters, thrilling action, etc.). The laugh-out-loud humor is there. The retro-future world is there. The soundtrack is there. So is Edna Mode. It even surpasses the original in its use of the Parr’s infant son Jack-Jack who becomes a major player in the story despite never being seen out of diapers (his kick-down, drag-out war with a mischievous raccoon is utter genius, by the way).

    Thankfully, the sequel also retains much of the normative whiteness of the first film. The sequel’s two new major characters, billionaire Winston Devear (Bob Odenkirk) and his inventor sister Evelyn (Catherine Keener) are white. And the new non-white characters make sense, such as a vaguely Hispanic ambassador and various black and brown superheroes from around the world. None of these characters are American and so threaten the normative whiteness of the film as much as a tourist would.

    While the sequel adheres to the spirit of the original, what it lacks however is the magic. And it lacks it utterly. Brad Bird, who directed this film as well, decided to retool his story to put Helen at the center rather than Bob. By placing no direct threats to the Parrs as a family like he did in the first film, he dropped any pro-family themes. By having his characters behave so often against type (Helen losing all interest in playing it safe for her family, Bob accepting his role as second banana, Violet becoming extroverted and bossy), he strayed from his earlier hetero-normative stereotyping. He also decided to drop the everyone’s-special-then-no-one-is theme and replace it with . . . nothing. Really, beyond the story’s well-crafted beginning, middle, and end, The Incredibles 2 is about nothing.

    Or, I should say, it’s about nothing that isn’t trivial. The entire film can be summed up with the following sentence:

    “Wife and mother comes into her own outside the home.”

    Whoop-dee-doo. Apparently, Bird and whoever helped him write the script didn’t realize that such lazy-boy feminism is, well, trite. I’d even call it dorky, a beta male’s dreamy idea of an alpha female. It’s ‘You’ve come a long way, baby’ but without the ‘baby.’ Where’s the fun in that?

    When Helen has a heart-to-heart with Evelyn, they talk about what it means for a woman to take on a man’s role in a man’s world. Only, Helen forgets that when she was taking on the woman’s role as a housewife in the previous film, she had it better than Bob who was enduring soul-crushing tedium working for an insurance company. She was the happy one who resisted change, not Bob. Furthermore, when Helen became Elstagirl in the original, she pulled her weight as much as Bob did. She rescued him on Syndrome’s island, and it was her quick thinking which helped do in the killer robot as well as save Jack-Jack from Syndrome’s clutches in the end. So what’s all this business about it being a “man’s world?” This just seems like feminism for feminism’s sake, and it’s not even interesting feminism.

    So, here’s the plot (with minor spoilers). The Incredibles and Frozone make such a mess of things taking on the Underminer (the villain who appears at the end of the first film) that the government shuts down its super-hero relocation program. The Parrs are stuck in a motel for two weeks, which was the best Rick Dicker could do for them. Then, out of the blue, the Devears appear with a plan to save all supers. They plan to recruit a hero to perform some well-documented acts of heroism to get public opinion back on their side. They choose Helen since Elastagirl causes less destruction than the guys.

    From there the story writes itself. Helen has some initial successes. She encounters the film’s villain (a secret entity called the Screenslaver). She defeats the Screenslaver. She finds something weird about the Screenslaver. She gets captured by the film’s real villain. Then it is up to Bob and ‘Zone to save her, only they get captured too. Then it’s up to the kids. And Jack-Jack. Apparently, Jack-Jack is the Incredibles’ ace in the hole since up till that point the bad guys didn’t know that Jack-Jack has powers.

    Minus the part about Jack-Jack (who was hilariously terrorizing his babysitter throughout most of the first film), this resembles the story arc in the original. But where in the first film, each of the characters have their moments of strength and insight, in the sequel only Helen and Violet make any real decisions. Yes, Bob and Frozone take their marching orders from the women and are totally fine with that. When the real villain is about to escape in the end, Bob and Frozone don’t even try to do something about it. Instead, they absurdly encourage Helen to, as if The Incredibles franchise has now become nothing but a feminist coming-of-age story. In the first film Dash cleverly defeats two helicopter-like aircraft while running on water and plays an important role in defeating the robot monster. Here, other than struggling with his common core math assignments and beating up one whole bad guy, he does nothing but what he is told. In the first film, it was Bob who first conceived of how to defeat the robot monster. In the second, the only thing he manages to defeat by himself is common core.

    It should be clear to all who watch The Incredibles 2 that when the man was the center of the story the women were treated realistically and with respect. But now that the woman is the center of the story, the men get nowhere near the same level of respect and behave quite unrealistically. Furthermore, the plot is predictable. Clever audience members should be able to pick out the film’s true villain long before the official reveal. And from there, The Incredibles 2 becomes just a spirited re-hash of a thousand other super hero stories. If it’s your first superhero or Pixar film, you could do a lot worse. But if you have a few under your belt, you might as well skip it.

    Appropriately enough, The Incredibles 2 is about as much fun as kissing your sister.

    ...
    (Review Source)

The Federalist Staff3
The Federalist



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Why Does Disney Hate Boys So Much? All Their Male Characters Are Losers
    (”Toy Story” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    I was a Disney child, raised on it all. I fell hook, line, and sinker for “The Little Mermaid,” “Lion King,” “Aladdin,” “Beauty and the Beast,” and even “Toy Story.” When Pixar started making movies, I was even more enthralled. I even watched all the Disney shows. Many people don’t remember their show in the evening called “Avonlea,” but I do. It caused me to read all the Anne of Green Gables series and cultivated my love of reading. So I’m always so excited when the next Disney movie pops up. While I’m entranced by the beauty of the gowns and music, my husband is a little more cynical about all this Disney stuff. He was also raised on the Disney movies of the ’90s, yet he’s seen a downward trend that I have just picked up on. Disney has been trying to push that girls, or rather princesses, can do anything they set their mind to. The “Dream Big Princess” ad campaign is huge on their channels right now. They’ve gotten a huge backlash from the Left saying they don’t want girls dreaming of being princesses and longing for a prince to set them free. They don’t need a man to make them happy. So, Disney now focuses on having girls “Dream Big.” Pretty good, right? But in their scurry to make girls feel empowered and valued, Disney has left out the other sex: boys. On Disney, Boys Get No Love I have only boys. We watch the Disney Channel. But they have noticed that there is no commercial for them. There is no encouragement for boys to have big goals. Boys are completely left out of the equation. There isn’t even a picture of a boy in any of their videos or ads. In a world that is pushing gender inclusivity, this seems like a big oversight. It got me miffed and made me look at everything under a microscope. Who are the male role models in the Disney movies? Why do we have to push men to the side in order to encourage women? Non-Disney movies participate in the same trend. In “Bad Moms” you have the unappreciated man-child, the sex symbol, and the overbearing husband who never wants his wife out of the house. Feminism has produced a hatred and overgeneralization of men. Where are all the John Wayne figures? Gone are the men who can be funny, sensitive, and yet virile and able to save the day. In their place are whiny babies, bumbling idiots, or mean, hurtful men. Here, Let’s Run Through the Princess Movies Let’s look at the princes from the 1990s Disney films. Start with Eric from “Little Mermaid.” He’s strong, funny, charming, a little easy to persuade (as Ursula shows), but caring and loyal. He sacrifices himself for the woman he loves. This is someone I’d want my boys to emulate. Now, let’s look at the Beast. He’s mean, quick to lose his temper, and yet he’s lived a life that’s showed him true inner beauty. He learns how to love, and defends not just his castle but Belle from villagers set on destroying everything. He figuratively and literally turns from a Beast into an amazing, strong, caring man who yet again gives his life for those he loves. My boys would probably pretend to be the Beast, but they’d see what he chooses to be instead of what he had turned into, and hopefully that gets ingrained in them. Now check Aladdin. He’s stinky, smelly, has lice, and steals. But it’s okay, because he’s an orphan and lives with a monkey in a hovel. While not the worst male character in this film, the stealing and overall behavior leaves much to be desired. But he tries to better himself and is intensely loyal and selfless to Jasmine, once again intent on giving up his life to save his love. Those are the princes of the ’90s Disney movies. They’re the only male characters that you’d want your sons to want to be like. They’re the only role models from Disney worth their snuff. The other male characters are the villains or overbearing, clueless fathers who bumble around or break all the girls’ things. Even in this era, male role models leave a lot to be desired. Compare to the Latest Disney Movies When “Brave” came out I thought it was an instant classic. The mother-daughter dynamic was really poignant. But this movie had no strong male characters, no one for my sons to look to. There’s the bumbling dad again, who loves much and yet is easily distracted into fighting and other ambitions that usually hold precedence over his family. He doesn’t do much as king except let his wife lead while he follows. The suitors and their fathers are pretty much equally disgusting. Then there’s the villain who became a bear because he wanted the whole kingdom for himself. The brothers are rambunctious and unruly. So, nothing there for my boys to do except say “Feast your eyes” several times. Thank you, Disney. “Frozen” was next on my list. It enchanted me with amazing scenes and music. My son wanted to be Elsa for Halloween and watched it many, many times because of her. Yet in this film the men were just background noise. The villain, Hans, is the charming man who wants to marry Anna but only for selfish reasons and then kill her. The other man in the story is an Aladdin look-alike, Kristoff. He’s smelly, dirty, eats food with his reindeer, and has no other friends. But unlike Aladdin, trolls love him and are his family. They want him to bathe and look nice, yet he still chooses to smell and be dirty. He’s street-smart, but still lets Anna take the lead. When Kristoff finally realizes he loves Anna, he tries to rescue her but can’t. Opposite to the Beast, he doesn’t sacrifice himself but watches her sacrifice for her sister. In the end, he’s just comedic fodder to two charismatic princesses. While Kristoff is not a bad role model, Anna walks all over him, and I’m not sure that’s something I want for my sons. Strong women, yes, but weak men who in the end don’t do anything? No. Now for “Moana.” As someone who lived in Hawaii for a short time, I was really interested in what Disney would do with this. The only male characters in the movie are the father and Maui. The father again, is the overbearing, controlling dad who will not let Moana get in the ocean water or go past a certain part. He wants her to stay in the safety of his wings. As an adult now, I can understand his point of view and would do the same with my children. But it’s not at all attractive to a boy, and ultimately Moana proves that her father is wrong and she knows better. Maui, the demigod, of course is impulsive, crazy, initially mean, and thinks only of himself and how others can praise him. He slowly comes around to trying to sacrifice for humanity, but he doesn’t save the world, Moana does. His actions are just a small help to her and she could probably have done it all without him. His only contribution is to show her how to sail. Then he leaves and sometimes flies over her as she sails with her family. The males take a backseat again to this strong, female character. Where Have All the Good Men Gone? Disney writes no decent male characters for my sons to look up to anymore. If we want to look for male characters, we must look at inanimate objects like toys, planes, and cars. Even in the ’90s that was the case, when a lion was the lead male character. On TV it’s more of the same. “Lion Guard” offers another impulsive boy, but at least he’s the lead character. But there’s no prince to Princess Sofia or Elena. Boys have lower, supporting roles, but no lead. One could argue that Jake from “Jake and the Neverland Pirates” is a strong, male lead character, but he’s a pirate. He steals and plays all day. And Izzy is close to being the lead in that story. It’s also an older show with rarely new episodes created. My boys are of value, and they need to be told they are special too. Even the new Star Wars movies offer strong women and very few strong men. Finn is the closest we get, and he still is a coward who doesn’t save people, the girl does. Po could be an option, but he’s missing throughout most of the movie. In “Rogue One” there’s another female lead and I’d bet money that the male characters are not worth even mentioning. I don’t know the damage this ad campaign will do to boys’ psyches. I’m saddened that Disney can’t offer anyone for boys to look up to in human form. I’m saddened that they desperately look for boy characters and can’t find a decent one among the bunch. My nine-year-old has expressed his displeasure about this. He wants to pretend with his brothers but they must argue about who to be and my four-year-old usually becomes a girl because there are no characters they would like to be but the villain. Who wants to be the overbearing dad? I wish Disney would see how they are treating boys. Their stories suggest boys are supposed to take a backseat to girls and let them do whatever they want. Boys’ dreams just aren’t considered as important. They don’t need to be cultivated and encouraged because they just don’t matter as much. Is this the message we want to send to our boys who will soon become men? Sit down, shut up, and listen to the women? Women and men should be alarmed at this ongoing trend and take a stand. My boys are of value, and they need to be told they are special too. They also need to be told that they can save the day, just like the women. Disney, listen up: I’m watching you. Give my boys something tangible, something for them to emulate that’s real. Don’t push boys to the side to build up the girls. Why can’t we build and strengthen both? ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

Kyle Smith2
National Review



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • "Despicable Me" and Blockbuster Budgeting
    (”Toy Story” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    If I ran a movie studio….it’s astonishing how much studios spend on animated fare. The results are often spectacular — I recall how gobsmacked I was to see “Kung Fu Panda,” in which individual hairs on the title character’s fur were distinguishable. But these movies have skyrocketed in cost — the original “Toy Story” reportedly cost $30 million, the second $90 million, the third $180 million. Unbelievable. Do little kids really need that kind of obsessive attention to detail? Do adults? Don’t we really just want a story that works, some characters that are interesting enough to spend time with and some funny jokes? Just because you can animate every single bubble in the wave doesn’t mean it’s a wise use of your money. It turns out “Despicable Me” cut some corners in animation. I didn’t notice this, and neither will you. But this means, says the Wall Street Journal, that the movie cost only $69 million, which is more or less a laughably small sum. (“Date Night” reportedly cost more than that, and it was basically a Thursday night sitcom with a couple of chase scenes thrown in.) It’s hard to imagine how “Despicable Me” could possibly lose money given its budget — and now it turns out to be a big hit, with lots of possibilities for sequels and merchandising. Hollywood economics is really about one thing–cost control. It’s mystifying to me that the honchos never learn this lesson. Instead they seem to operate on the rule that it’s okay to spend any amount of money as long as you’re sure the thing is going to be a hit….then you wind up with “Robin Hood” or “Sex and the City 2.”]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

Plugged In2
Focus on the Family



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Inside Out: Will It Be One of Pixar's Best?
    (”Toy Story” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Inside Out, Pixar’s newest film, is coming out tomorrow. You can read our full review later today, but the other reviews I’ve seen have been, safe to say, glowing. Not that we expect anything less of Pixar, Disney’s wildly inventive animation adjunct. Ever since the studio blasted to prominence with 1995’s Toy Story, Pixar has churned out classic after classic. And here’s the interesting thing: Almost everyone seems to have a favorite Pixar movie. During the screening of Inside Out, I asked some folks sitting around me what theirs was. “Toy Story,” one mother said. “Finding Nemo!” her daughter chimed in. I heard Cars and The Incredibles and Toy Story 3 and Up. The main takeaway, of course, is that Pixar makes some pretty good movies. They take on ticklish themes like loss and grief and turn them into compelling, freakishly enjoyable works of art. And their messages are so responsible that they even make the crankiest of Plugged In reviewers smile. Nothing lasts forever, of course, and Pixar will eventually crank out something that doesn’t engender universal squeals of glee. (Some would say Cars 2 might’ve been Pixar’s first clunker, actually.) But today—just for fun—I thought I’d give you my own Top Five list of my favorite Pixar flicks. Up. With all due respect to Brave, this might be Pixar’s bravest flick. It’s a rare studio indeed that would feature a grouchy old man as a hero for its animated “kid” flick. Or that it would try to make its audience cry in the first 15 minutes. But that’s what Up does, and it does so beautifully. (Plus, the dog Doug is a hoot.) Finding Nemo. Even after watching it a half-dozen times, this movie just doesn’t get old. This charming father-son story is taut, touching and—mainly thanks to the antics of the blue tang fish Dory—laugh-out-loud funny. When I was at Walt Disney World recently, I regularly walked past a hotel decorated with the seagulls from Nemo, and every now and then they’d all break into a cacophony of “mine!” I giggled every single time. WALL-E. Only Pixar, I think, could take a musical clip from Hello Dolly!, an overcooked and emotionless musical from 1969, and infuse it with genuine heart and melancholy—courtesy a vocabularily-impaired robot, of all things. I’ve only seen this flick once, but just writing this paragraph makes me want to watch it again. Toy Story. Some people say that its two sequels are superior, and they are both great in their own ways. But I have a soft spot for the original. This was Pixar’s introduction to most of us, I think, and it still feels pretty magical. The interplay between Woody and Buzz is priceless, and the message is surprisingly deep: Buzz’s realization that he’s “just a toy” is something that many of us can feel when we realize we might not land in the NFL or on Broadway—but can still can have a pretty awesome, and even heroic, life. Monsters, Inc. Surprised? Me too, actually. I was pretty sure I was going to wind this list with The Incredibles (being the superhero geek I am). But remembering fearsome beastie Sulley learning to care for and even love the “dangerous” little girl Boo, and thinking over the (semi-cliched but very biblical) message that love and laughter is more powerful than fear, I had to give the last slot to the blue-haired guy and his one-eyed wise-cracking pal. Will Inside Out land in this Top 5 list someday? I can’t answer that just yet. For now, I just hope I didn’t miss any of your favorites. But if I did, let me know below. ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

Conservative Film Buff1
Letterboxd



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)
  • Pixar Ranked
    (”Toy Story” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    1. The Incredibles

      This is one of the best animated films ever made, one of the best superhero films ever made, and I'm putting it at the top of the list of Pixar animated features. The action is great, but it's the family moments that feel so right. This one gets better as you age, and can relate more to the relationship moments. It's full of ideas, genuine emotion, great characters, amazing art direction, and fabulously efficient filmmaking. Truly a stellar film.

    2. Toy Story

      Neck-and-neck with The Incredibles, I ultimately and reluctantly decided I had to put Toy Story at no. 2. I can't find any fault with this groundbreaking, genre defining, world-changing film, so in the end, I decided it lost to The Incredibles by a smidge because The Incredibles's plot plays out a little less formulaic. Sure, Toy Story gets extra points for defining the Pixar formula, but the formula is felt more in retrospect than it is for Incredibles. This is very subjective stuff, but that's all I got.

    3. Ratatouille

      Also neck-and-neck with the nos. 1 and 2, Ratatouille is a close third. It's a great and original story, and told expertly by Bird, whose direction here is really something. Every beat of the story hits home, leading up to a glorious finish that has the hard-of-heart food critic finding love in his work again through the least-expected, and lowliest, of means.

    4. Monsters, Inc.

      A simple but ingenious concept executed with humor and heart. Also, it put Billy Crystal and John Goodman together in starring roles, with Steve Buscemi as the villain. And the door chase sequence! What more could you want?

    5. Incredibles 2

      Not your typical Pixar sequel, this is very much a Brad Bird film first and foremost. The action scenes are extraordinarily staged and executed to the extent that this is the best action film in years. The comedy feels like Chuck Jones at parts (the raccoon and Jack-Jack). Even so, character remains at the forefront as we see Mr. Incredible and Elastigirl learning to master their new roles.  Bird builds and improvises on themes in a what like an improvisatory way, the same way that Giacchino’s jazzy score does. It’s a ride from start to finish.

    6. A Bug's Life

      Pixar's second feature film is underrated and simply not talked about enough. It takes its story beats from Kurosawa's Seven Samurai, which had already been retold by The Magnificent Seven and in other places. But what Pixar does with it is fresh, full of some of Pixar's best humor, and does an amazing job of establishing each of the characters in ways that cause us to easily relate to them. Randy Newman's score is pure Americana and adds a grand feel. As far as I'm concerned, this is the best remake of Seven Samurai.

    7. Cars

      A charming, small movie that tackles great subjects. You can feel director Lasseter's love of cars and his feeling of nostalgia for a golden age gone by. It feels personal and real.

    8. WALL·E

      Wall-E, like Ratatouille, is a strange idea for a film that I can imagine caused some discomfort among studio execs. Just think, they put big money into a movie that stars two robots that can't really talk, and don't have faces with which to emote or relate, and basically the first half of the movie is a silent film. Sounds like a great idea for a kids' movie, right? I appreciate the guts and vision that went into this, and I find myself deeply involved with the two main characters when I watch it, which is a great feat of filmmaking. Even so, the films does lose points for getting preachy and political.

    9. Coco

      The best example of world-building in the Pixar canon and a wonderful and unique story. Too predictable, but the music is fantastic and you have to love the themes of the importance of remembering family.

    10. Monsters University

      A really fun movie and an enjoyable sequel whose only major fault is its predictability, that is until the very end, which allows the main characters to experience failure. Instead of abandoning arcs from the first like other Pixar sequels, this expands on them. The best Pixar sequel after Incredibles 2.

    ...plus 10 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.

    ...
    (Review Source)

The American Conservative Staff1
The American Conservative



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • 100 Movies to See Again in 2014
    (”Toy Story” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    This is the time of year people start making New Year’s lists, and if you’re in any respect a culture vulture that means making lists of works of art to “take in” that you haven’t managed to get to yet. But a bucket list is an almost comically awful way to approach art. You’re not just reducing art to a signifier (of taste, class, whatever) rather than letting it be the thing itself; you’re not just turning it into a commodity (something to be accumulated rather than experienced) and reducing it to its cash value; you’re actually turning it into something akin to cash itself, into a featureless line in a ledger. But . . . I like lists. I find that a physical list of, say, places I’ve been actually jogs my memory, breathes life back into the experience of the place. Ditto with cultural experiences – ditto even with people I don’t see regularly enough. Of course, flipping through names on Facebook isn’t the same as seeing somebody again. So: here’s a list of a different character. Not a list to make you feel bad about all the experiences you haven’t accumulated yet, nor to make you feel virtuous once you’ve checked them off. But a list of old friends to revisit. It’s a list of movies to see again. Not because there are no new movies coming down the pike worth seeing – there will be piles of them – any more than because there are new places to see you should never sleep in your own bed. Not because 2014 is the right year to see this or that film, but because any year would be a good year. They’re just films you’ll enjoy seeing again. And again. Some movies repay repeat viewing because the experience changes materially – and for the better – the second time around. “Fight Club” is a good example – seeing it again once you know the big “twist” is a different and more even more enjoyable experience than seeing it for the first time. For others, you really have to marinate yourself in the film before you’ve truly experienced it. “The Big Lebowski” is probably the template for that kind of film: the jokes get funnier once you know them, but also subtle acting and directing choices stand out that you might not have noticed before. Try watching the entire film paying closest attention to Donnie; it’s a whole new movie. Sometimes you were just the right age. Like, the way I saw “Star Wars” fourteen times the year it came out. Because I was seven and, you know, that’s what seven year olds do. I’m sure “Toy Story” had a similar trajectory – I’ve certainly seen it over a dozen times, and I can tell you, existential crisis really doesn’t get old. Nor does Miyazaki’s perfect tale of maturation, “Spirited Away.” The old television networks understood the importance of repetition. That’s why they aired “It’s a Wonderful Life” every Christmas. And why they aired “The Wizard of Oz” every . . . actually, I don’t remember when they aired it – but I understand it was very confusing for people back when most everybody had a black-and-white television. Anyway: they knew what they were doing. See them again, even though you don’t have to. And then of course there’s “Groundhog Day,” which is in a class by itself in terms of demanding re-screening. “The Shining,” on the other hand, I would not recommend seeing over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Or you’ll wind up making a silly movie like this one. Or, you know, chopping your family to bits. Ah, heck – it’s worth the risk. That’s a bunch already. I’m going to list a few more, but I’m not going to get to 100. Not without your help anyway. So please – submit your additions to the list in the comments. “Withnail and I” – legitimate contender for best buddy movie ever, certainly one of the best conjurations of the spirit of the late ’60s, British variant, and if nothing else, definitely a movie that will do something to your brain. And once it has done so, why would you want to do anything else to it? Why trust one movie more than another? A tale of city boys in the country needs to be mated with a story of country boys in the big city. “On the Town” – no, it isn’t as iconic as “Singin’ In the Rain,” but it’s equally perfect as a movie, and it wears its perfection more lightly – and for that reason, becomes even more thoroughly enjoyable the more familiar it is. And the ending basically announces that you’re supposed to see it again. Come up to my place, and we’ll put it on. And then, when it gets late, we’ll put on “After Hours,” a very different tale of the city. Martin Scorsese’s only “indie,” and his only film (I believe) to feature a cameo by Tommy Chong, it’s another film that announces the necessity of repetition with the ending, but it’s also so dense with visual jokes that it’s really impossible to absorb them all in one viewing. More comedy! Everybody’s seen “The Princess Bride” a hundred times – and with good reason. But how many times have you seen “The Court Jester,” Danny Kaye’s triumph of a mock-swashbucker? However many it is, it isn’t enough. Similarly, everybody’s seen “Some Like It Hot” and “The Apartment” – two Billy Wilder films that certainly merit re-watching. But his less-heralded Cold War comedy, “One, Two, Three,” has an ever greater density of jokes that never stop being funny. And the third act, lifted wholesale from Ferenc Molnar’s play, The President, only gets more outrageously unbelievable with each viewing. The classic “comedy of remarriage” films from the 1940s are all ideal for perpetual revisiting – as someone smarter than me pointed out, they’re like Shakespeare. For my money, the two best are “The Lady Eve” and “The Philadelphia Story.” And they make an excellent double-feature to boot; watching Barbara Stanwyck run rings around Henry Fonda is the perfect antidote to watching Kate Hepburn get pummeled emotionally by pretty much every male in the film. Meanwhile, a more modern film very much in the spirit of the ’40s classics is “Flirting With Disaster,” David O. Russell’s sophomore effort and a personal touchstone. See, this is the kind of movie you make when you watch great movies over and over again until they sink into you. (Tarantino films, by contrast, are what you make when you watch junk movies over and over again until they sink into you.) But you know, they don’t all have to be great movies. And a personal fave in the “not great but wonderful to see over and over” category is the ’80s Richard Pryor comedy, “Brewster’s Millions,” about a down-on-his-luck minor-league ballplayer who unexpectedly inherits $30 million dollars – with a catch: he has to spend it all in 30 days. It’s as funny now as it was when I was a kid – I’d say I don’t know why they haven’t remade it (again – the ’80s version is based on a Depression-era film, which is based on an even older novel) except I know they’d only ruin it. Speaking of the Depression – one of the strangest musicals ever made is a disastrous love story set in the Depression. I’m talking about “Pennies From Heaven,” which, as a story of mental colonization by over-familiar popular art, is also a great one for revisiting over and over. And then you can visit the television miniseries on which the movie is based – both are excellent, and quite different from one another. Speaking of series: when a new movie in a series comes out, sometimes it’s a good idea to see the previous installments, just to refresh your memory. But sometimes, it’s just a good excuse to revisit beautiful films, and experience how your relationship with them changes with age. Or maybe I’m just talking about one series in particular: Richard Linklater’s continuing “Before” saga, currently a trilogy: “Before Sunrise,” “Before Sunset,” and “Before Midnight.” May they keep coming, and keep providing me with excuses to watch them all. (And because we have to watch them all, we’ll count them as one entry in the list.) With Linklater’s trilogy, a reason to revisit is to learn how our perspective on the films changes as we age. With Akira Kurosawa’s “Rashomon,” shifting perspective is substantially what the film is about. Which is an excellent reason to see it again and again – to experience how our understanding of each version of the story shifts the more familiar we are with the other versions. If you’re Akira Kurosawa, you make great samurai films partly inspired by American westerns, and then what do the Americans do? They turn around and make American westerns inspired by your samurai films. So what’s a Japanese filmmaker to do but, as the late lamented Juzo Itami did, make a modern Japanese picaresque with all of these mutual borrowings hovering in the background. The result: “Tampopo,” one of the sweetest films I know, and one you’ll want to see again and again just to recall the taste of it. Some meals are harder to swallow – acquired tastes, let’s say – but once acquired they can become addictive. “The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover” gets its primal energy from a political fury that is no longer relevant, but it endures as a stunning visual realization of its central metaphors of carnality. “La Grande Bouffe” is, in its way, equally political, though much less overt about it, and is a much more terrible journey. But somehow it compels return visits. There are terrible journeys, and then there are terrible journeys. One of the most harrowing I know is Charlie Kaufman’s magnum opus, “Synechdoche, New York,” a film which explicitly tries to contain all of life, and just about does so. It’s so painful, it’s almost unbearable to watch, but you have to watch it again, both to absorb all the details and because the memory of it will otherwise fade, and this film has something to teach us that we need not to forget. That’s 25: “Fight Club” “The Big Lebowski” “Star Wars” “Toy Story” “Spirited Away” “It’s a Wonderful Life” “The Wizard of Oz” “Groundhog Day” “The Shining” “Withnail and I” “On the Town” “After Hours” “The Court Jester” “One, Two, Three” “The Lady Eve” “The Philadelphia Story” “Flirting With Disaster” “Brewster’s Millions” “Pennies From Heaven” “Before Sunrise”/”Before Sunset”/”Before Midnight” “Rashomon” “Tampopo” “The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover” “La Grande Bouffe” “Synecdoche, New York” Seems like a good start. Your turn. ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

Mark Steyn1
Fox News



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Antz
    (”Toy Story” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    When Labor Day/Labour Day looms in these parts, we often have songs or films about labor - Metropolis springs to mind. But this year I thought we'd have a formicidal version of Fritz Lang's futuristic dystopia, because, in essence, in Metropolis men are
    ...
    (Review Source)

Kelly Jane Torrance1
The Weekly Standard



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • MOVIE REVIEW: 'The Boys: The Sherman Brothers' Story'
    (”Toy Story” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    George Gershwin, Irving Berlin, Cole Porter — the names bandied around for Greatest American Songwriter are a familiar bunch. Less well-known are the handles of the Sherman Brothers, yet their songs are just as memorable. Published November 6, 2009

    ...
    (Review Source)

Crosswalk1
Cross Walk



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • 5 Questions with Writer-Director of The Pilgrim’s Progress Animated Feature
    (”Toy Story” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    The epic tale of a determined traveler and his quest for freedom plays out in The Pilgrim’s Progress, a feature-length animated film opening in theaters on April 18 and 20. Producers have spent five years reimagining one of the most popular and significant works of all time.
    ...
    (Review Source)

Want even more consensus?

Skip Rotten Tomatoes, they’re biased SJWs too afraid to criticize things like the Ghost Busters reboot. Avoid giving them ad revenue by using the minimalist alternative, Cinesift, for a quick aggregate:

 🗣️ Know of another conservative review that we’re missing?
Leave a link in the comments below or email us!  

What’d you think? Let us know with a video:

Record a webcam review!

Or anonymous text review:

Submit your review
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Submit
     
Cancel

Create your own review

Average rating:  
 0 reviews
Overall Hollywood Bs Average rating:  
 
Anti-patriotism Average rating:  
 
Misandry Average rating:  
 
Affirmative action Average rating:  
 
LGBTQ rstuvwxyz Average rating:  
 
Anti-God Average rating:  
 

Buy on Amazon:
⚠️  Comment freely, but please respect our young users.
👍🏻 Non PC comments/memes/vids/links 
👎🏻  Curse words / NSFW media / JQ stuff
👌🏻 Visit our 18+  free speech forum to avoid censorship.
⚠️ Keep your kids’ websurfing safe! Read this.

Share this page:

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail