Lightyear puts a finite dimension on a space toy’s story
Pixar's handsomely made yet inconsequential Toy Story spin-off lacks the lean accessibility of the originals
Film Reviews Lightyear
A Toy Story origin story about kiddo Andy’s beloved space ranger, Lightyear mystified this critic when it was officially announced a few years ago. The beginnings of a talking toy who thinks he’s real? What is the premise going to be; an existential, animated, making-of mockumentary set on a factory floor, with aisles of Buzz Lightyear pieces waiting to be assembled and boxed? Turns out, this Angus MacLane-directed spin-off (from a busy screenplay by MacLane and Jason Headley) has a more straightforward explanation. As revealed in an early title card, this is apparently the movie that made 6-year-old Andy fall in love with Buzz Lightyear in 1995.
Fine, except very few moments throughout Lightyear’s drawn-out running time (the film feels longer than its actual 100 minutes) plausibly validate a small child’s instant affection for the titular hero. Or more accurately, his affection only for the titular hero. This free-standing and ambitious space adventure is packed to the gills with vibrant characters and creepy villains, most of which are sadly more interesting than Buzz himself—a cute kitty, a brave team of space misfits and a mean-spirited alternate Buzz among them—but Lightyear both struggles to justify the proposition it suggests in its opening and feels like an irrelevant oddity within the beloved Pixar series it claims to expand upon.
Why not just make a unique space film without the Toy Story connection, you might rightfully ask Pixar. The wretched marketing phrase “existing IP” is the answer you’re looking for there, and it seems to be an indispensable concept to narrow-minded studios in a theatrical release climate unfriendly to original stories not based on proven moneymakers. After all, Soul, Luca, and Turning Red—three of Pixar’s most recent original, and far superior pictures—were all sent straight to Disney+ without a theatrical release (admittedly, due to pandemic-related reasons at first). In that regard, Lightyear might possess the laser-focused pull to make Toy Story fans flock to the theaters, despite lacking the franchise’s lean and thoroughly accessible creative essence at its core.
There is nevertheless some fun to be had with this handsomely outfitted space adventure that hits some sweet spots through its creators’ evident love of sci-fi, with frequent nods to the likes of Star Wars, Alien, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and even Gravity. We meet the eminent Space Ranger Buzz Lightyear (Chris Evans, honorably taking the duties from Tim Allen) on his way back to Planet Earth after a mission beyond the atmosphere, alongside hundreds of crew members and his bestie/commander Alisha Hawthorne (Uzo Aduba). But when Buzz’s lapse in judgment lands their spacecraft (treasured for its shape that resembles a root vegetable) on a boggy planet bustling with hostile conditions, deadly bugs and snaky vines, the ranger pledges to complete the mission at all costs and return everyone safely back home.
As if the task itself wasn’t intricate enough already, Buzz’s trial-and-error flights put the hero on a different timeline than everyone else on the new planet, as they age four years each time Buzz takes another test mission. Keeping him company throughout this isolating process is his darling feline Sox (Peter Sohn), an emotional support pet assigned to Buzz while the lonely ranger watches his friends age and pass away. Meanwhile, in one lovely storyline the openly gay Alisha raises a family with her wife—even sharing a rare on-screen kiss with her—exceeding the studio’s earlier coy attempts at LGBTQ+ inclusivity in Finding Dory, Toy Story 4, and Onward.
After what already feels like a whole film, the increasingly convoluted Lightyear introduces new characters far too late into the plot: a genuinely likable ragtag team of underdogs called the Junior Zap Patrol. Joining the reluctant Buzz in his never-ending mission, the trio consists of Alisha’s space-shy granddaughter Izzy Hawthorne (Keke Palmer), Taika Waititi’s affable slacker Mo Morrison, and Dale Soules’ grumpy Darby Steel. Along with Buzz, they stand their ground against the evil robots of Captain Zurg, a character you might vaguely recall from Toy Story 2. Also in the garbled mix is mind-bending time travel more confusing than in Back To The Future Part II, an overelaborate survival mission, and a tired message better taught in Monsters University: never underestimate the hard work, determination and loyalty of your allies.
Still, there is a worthier lesson at the heart of Lightyear, one that embraces the unexpected turns that life takes when you’re “busy making other plans.” But it sadly lands like an afterthought in a movie that suffers from an excess of plot. What ultimately waters down Lightyear, an otherwise polished, gorgeous-looking entry into the Pixar oeuvre, is an absence of the excitement and disciplined storytelling spirit that made Toy Story such a pioneering hit. Even Michael Giacchino’s splendid score goes only so far towards insinuating a grand adventure that ultimately feels a little trite and bloated. Aiming for infinity and beyond, Lightyear frustratingly feels trapped on earth.
49 Comments
I am shocked, shocked! That a cynical and completely unnecessary attempt to try and wring more money out of a beloved film franchise is not very good
Sadly as the father of a 7 year old who has seen trailers for this for months, I am still going to have to see it this weekend
Right there with you and my five year old
Honestly it doesn’t look like it’ll be bad, just not very good. A 6 or 7 instead of a 10. And if you’re a parent I’m sure you’ve sat through worse than a 6.
I sat through Gnomeo and Juliet 2: Sherlock Gnome so I’m sure this will be fine. Pixar movies are usually at least watchable
I feel you. I have what are now teenage kids who look back with very fond nostalgia at the Gnomio and Juliet films. I will never understand it.
I’m personally shocked that this presumably 30-something reviewer doesn’t get the same level of excitement out of this that a 6-year-old would, and doesn’t seem to understand why that might be.
Yeah they should hire a 6 year old for these reviews.
Probably thinks the kid would be better off at a drag queen story hour.
So it is the opinion of this review, but “not very good” seems a little strong for a film neither of us has seen. I know rotten tomatoes is not a popular site here, but the rating there says 84% of 74 reviews have liked the film, which is pretty strong overall.
Then take the gumption from the old A. V. Club. When you’ve watched it, please post your reaction!
I think outside of cars 2, Pixar hasn’t made a “bad” movie. Some are below the expectation of quality has set for yourself, but even their worst is better than at least 75% of all animated content that comes out every year
> outside of *Cars 2*, Pixar hasn’t made a “bad” movie*The Good Dinosaur* is, without question, the worst Pixar movie. *Cars 2* is an obvious toyetic cash grab, sure, but it’s also a perfectly watchable kiddie version of “The Man with One Red Shoe” or other ‘doofus mistaken for super secret agent’ films and perfectly fine if you’re 12 or under and think Mater is hilarious.
*The Good Dinosaur*, by contrast, was a nightmare of a production, with huge rewrites that occurred quite far along into production, so big that it required a TOTAL RECASTING of the film, throwing away already completed voice work.
The story doesn’t work, the characters are barely sketches, there’s no memorable dialogue or big emotional moments. The only thing it has in its favor is absolutely EXQUISITELY rendered landscapes. Leaves, water, soil, grass are all chef-kiss perfect. And then these awful, clunky cartoon dinos come trudging throuh and spoil the view.
I’ll never argue that The Good Dinosaur is a good movie, but I also don’t think it’s bad. I think most of the individual moments are even entertaining, it just never coalesced into something meaningful. If that is Pixar’s worst movie then they really are unassailable.
I completely agree. It’s sad that such a wonderfully rendered environment was wasted on such an awful movie.
“Why not just make a unique space film without the Toy Story connection, you might rightfully ask Pixar.”Because that would be basically the same thing with the serial numbers filed off?I don’t understand the pervasive notion that using existing characters makes a work less original, especially since “new, original” ips tend to just rehash the same old tropes anyway.Plus, in this case it sounds like they’re framing this as a play-within-a-play, which would be lost if the film was completely stand-alone.
Not to mention they’ve already made a unique space story in the past. I think it’s fun that we get to see the inspiration for the Lightyear toy, since we got to see the tv show Woody is from in the second movie.
Because when studios use existing IP they become focused on spotlighting the familiar, and the end product often groans under the dueling pursuits of presenting people with the familiarly beloved and giving them a unique experience that stands on its own. When the movie is filled with merchandisable characters and seems to run down a plot/character checklist of studio-mandated appealing elements, a movie can feel less like a piece of entertainment and more like the central spoke of a marketing push. It’s entirely possible to create an original story that’s over-focus-grouped, over-merchandised, and overstuffed, but when you make those mistakes while mining existing IP, those foibles really stand out as callous and mercenary.I think it’s totally possible to make a fun, zippy Buzz Lightyear movie, and I don’t quite see what’s wrong with the version with its serial numbers filed off (consider the appeal of Star Wars being that it’s Kurosawa and Flash Gordon with their serial numbers filed off, and there seems to be a cart-horse thing going on with the premise “all stories are derivative of other stories, so what’s the big deal about just telling one story over and over?”), but I think the thrust of the review is that this is more the creaky, groany thing than the fun romp in a familiar world thing.
When the movie is filled with merchandisable characters and seems to run down a plot/character checklist of studio-mandated appealing elements, a movie can feel less like a piece of entertainment and more like the central spoke of a marketing push. Welcome to Bob Chapek’s Walt Disney Company.
Also I think it’s very worth noting that when we (this includes me) talk about “ip,” we’re very specifically talking about copywrited stories, characters and franchises, and not public domain stories such as myths, plays, or classic lit. We’re not discussing whether it’s worth making an Iliad movie, staging a Shakespeare adaptation, or telling Peter Pan once more; we’re very specifically talking about whether we should embrace or criticize corporations mining existing, pre owned work for profit via public recognition.
I don’t understand the pervasive notion that using existing characters
makes a work less original, especially since “new, original” ips tend to just rehash the same old tropes anyway.
I mean, because that’s just a fact? Using existing characters means they already have established character. It means you can’t have them do some things that are radically out of step with the character. So even if the “real” Buzz Lightyear does a lot of different stuff, we know certain things about him from the toy he inspired in Toy Story. We know he’s a hero that clearly kids will think is cool, we know he fights Zurg. And of course, God do we know his catchphrase.
So yes, a kids’ movie about a generic space ranger could probably be very similar to this one and use the same tropes. Hell it might have the same plot. But it will be more original because I won’t know some the character’s names and I won’t know at least one line of dialogue from the start.And that’s not a knock against IP. If you like it that’s fine. I still watch superhero movies. But any new superhero movie (especially if, impossibly, it’s actually an original property instead of Marvel or DC joint) is going to be more original than Spider-Man because I know Spider-Man pretty well by now.
I remember what superhero movies were like pre-MCU. They were all the same goddamn origin story (that spent most of the film on setup), maybe a darker sequel with two villains, and a third film that was shit.Again, and again, and again.If that felt fresher to you than new stories with existing characters, then we’ll just have to agree to disagree 😛
i mean neither of what you’re describing is fresh, it’s just two different versions of reheated. a generic story with new characters is no more or less fresh than a generic story with old characters. the ‘new’ isn’t really the problem, the generic is.the issue with lightyear, specifically, is that it’s such a long walk. if pixar had just gone ‘hey we want to make a space blockbuster, too!’ i think that’s a lot more interesting and clean than ‘well, we reverse engineered a space blockbuster by adapting the idea of taking a cartoon character seriously in the real world, but not the actual real world, the real world of the fake movie world’. y’know what i’m saying? that dilutes my ability to enjoy the movie on its own. plus, i can tell this is gonna be another ‘hunt the easter egg’ type thing where they’re gonna say some off-hand shit like ‘you’ve got a friend in me’ and pause for applause.
Oh, totally. The possibility space for any work is limited by the imagination and ambition of the creators more than anything else, and studios love formula.I can’t comment on Lightyear specifically as I haven’t seen it, I’m just speaking in generalities because it’s a take that tends to irk me. That said, I kinda like the meta, play-within-a-play framing device as a concept, but that seems to be a very YMMV thing.
In the Toy Story movies, Buzz Lightyear isn’t a space adventurer, he’s a toy. A movie about an actual space adventurer wouldn’t be Buzz Lightyear with the serial number filed off, it would be an unrelated movie. The issue is that they made an unrelated space-adventure movie and named the main character after a Toy Story character. It’s not so much lack of originality (people love the Toy Story series), it’s the self-consciously mercenary nature of the movie. (It doesn’t help that they’re inviting comparison to the Toy Story movies, which are pretty good.)
Given that Buzz and Zurg were the only characters to get a toyline in-universe, it would not surprise me if this was a ROM Spaceknight situation, where one company held the trademarks/copyrights to the main character and villain, but another company held the rights to the movie and all characters created within. But that’s likely too clever for this movie.
And that would also go for the cartoon series back in the 90’s.
ok but buzz is hot.
Bonk
No one fucking cares what you fucking thought when it was announced. And a movie doesn’t have to justify its existence and whoever coined that phrase for film criticism should be fired into the sun, anus-first.
I still don’t understand the premise of this movie at all.Are we supposed to believe that this “actually happened” in the universe of the Toy Story movies?That, despite taking place in a largely realistic world (aside, of course, from the presence of sentient toys) that there also is highly-advanced space travel centuries beyond our own, robotic cats and aliens and whatnot? And that, despite being just a very goofy, cartoonish sci-fi character, with his own animated show, the “Buzz Lightyear” toy is based on a real dude? My head is spinning. It just makes no sense.
As revealed in an early title card, this is apparently the movie that made 6-year-old Andy fall in love with Buzz Lightyear in 1995.First paragraph.
So, I’m supposed to actually read the review before commenting? Ugh. (In my defense, it’s at the very END of that first lengthy paragraph…)
My apologies, this is the AV Club. I forgot to comment before reading as well.
I don’t need to read if I have helpful folks like you. So thanks for the head’s up. Still don’t know how to make that very spiffy “quote” that you did here.
For future reference: -Type out your text-Highlight it-Press the Aa^-Select the quote symbol; each press rotates through a different type
Man, Pixar-verse movies in 1995 looked amazing! :O
Yeah, it’s a movie that exists within the Toy Story world. It’s stupid.
As someone who loved Toy Story 3 to bits and disliked Toy Story 4 in its entirety (I disliked the idea as it was announced, but I didn’t expect to hate the finished product), I really fucking hope they allow this franchise to die peacefully. Who wants this? Who is this for, at this point?
Kids whose parents will take them to see it and buy the toys. And also me, because I plan to fall in love with that cat.
People who enjoy the franchise and wish to see more of the universe explored?!
Who wants this? Who is this for, at this point? Kids.The most brilliant thing about the Toy Story franchise is that it’s about toys and Disney sells those toys. I have a 4yo and he was gifted Woody and Buzz toys before he was even old enough to sit through a movie.So, you’ve got this ingenious feedback loop where my son wants to see this movie because his toy is in it.Oh, and P.S., Woody’s going to get one too.
Oh, and P.S., Woody’s going to get one too.Think a Woody’s Roundup movie might be more fun than this since the show Woody was from was intentionally Campy. Instead of making a takes-itself-too-seriously movie Pixar should challenge themselves by making a so bad its good movie.
I don’t know why they didn’t make this an in-Toy-Story-universe gritty movie adaption of children’s toy Buzz Lightyear, ala the recent TMNT movies. They could have played around with the genre a bit and maybe do some cutesy credits stings of the TS toys watching the movie.Retconning this as the reason Andy liked Buzz and not because he was 6 and Buzz was just a cool toy that made noises is pretty dumb.
i have to review this for a podcast, so i’m not looking forward to actually having to look at it ‘critically’, but this makes me wish they could just let pixar do a star wars movie or two. what’s the harm?
But does Buzz save the cat?
What is it about critics and commentators who get mad if a movie is self serious and tedious as people put it by taking a silly premise and making it with a twist ie serious, and not ignorable garbage like they expect vs critics who also hate when movies a stuffed and have a lot of moving pieces ie busy…do they also get mad if a movie is super simple ABC plot that’s predictable. Where is the key to making a film they enjoy. Overall i’ve heard alot online that people hate convoluted stories as they say. But equate simple to low fruit on the masterpiece films list. Complex seems to equate to good for them. Is it only execution that matters, so a simple film wins because it has deep character study/drama. Overall i find that just as boring since i can just read a book on personalities and a news article about the saddest stuff this week and get my fill. I like an entertaining story predictable or not. Just give me a nice 2 hours. It doesn’t have to surpass Shakespeare but sometimes it can, those should be outliers as much as bad films are outliers, but overall most should fall in the 5-7/10 range yet so many comments and reviews seem to tell me otherwise. Sigh.
So how did 1995 space tech get to another planet when in 2022 we haven’t gotten humans going past the Moon?
Lightyear is “ Stop Me If You’ve Heard This One; The Movie “. Buzz Lightyear is a socially awkward everyman is forced to become a Hero after a series of unusual events. He is accompanied by a ragtag group of misfits and sent on a seemingly impossible mission. Since this a prequel and our everyman is the protagonist they are successful and all of the crimes they commit along the way are forgiven. Since this is a movie about Time Travel of course the villain is someone we’ve met before. What are the odds? In a movie like this? 100%
Maybe it’s because I went in with low expectations but I really enjoyed this. They packed in a bunch of high concept sci-fi stuff and most of the fan service is done well enough that it’s actually somewhat affecting. Not Pixar’s best but definitely up with Turning Red for best of their pandemic films, which have all been a little sub par in my opinion.