Pixar’s success is nothing short of amazing. Out of the eleven films they have produced, all eleven films generated significant box office revenue and unprecedented amounts of critical and viewer acclaim.
On its opening weekend, “Toy Story 3” made $108 million dollars. Which obviously puts the movie right at the top of the earners list for Father’s Day weekend. It also did very well in the overseas market, grossing over $44 million dollars.
Care to guess which film came in at number eight? That honor belongs to “Jonah Hex”— it made only $5.1 million.
I mention this simply because of one man— Armond White, film critic for the New York Press. White is one of three critics in America to give “Toy Story 3” a terrible review, claiming the film 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.
I think that is a bold claim. I have to wonder, did White have an issue with Ken and Barbie being in the film? If Pixar truly was guilty of product placement, Ken and Barbie wouldn’t look like they’re from the 1980s. It would be disingenuous to the audience if Pixar created a movie about toys and not use famous toy brands that everyone can identify with. One of the best aspects of the Toy Story franchise is its considerable nostalgia factor.
Here is another bold claim from White’s review:
The toys wage battle with the daycare center’s cynical veteran cast-offs: Hamm the Piggy Bank pig, Lotsa Hugs and Big Baby. But none of these digital-cartoon characters reflect human experience; it’s essentially a bored game that only the brainwashed will buy into. Besides, Transformers 2 already explored the same plot to greater thrill and opulence.
That is an insult to the considerable amount of care and detail Pixar puts into every single frame of its movies.
I was never one to judge a movie critic; they are certainly entitled to their views on a film. But, I do take issue with critics hating on films just so they can get more readers to their articles. And this is what White seems to be doing.
Compared to Toy Story’s astounding 98% (for a while there, it was at 100%) rating on Rotten Tomatoes, “Jonah Hex” is rated at an abysmal 14%. Certainly, not the lowest rating on Rotten Tomatoes that I’ve seen— that honor belongs to quite a few films— but it definitely falls into the category of one of the worst films ever made.
Armond White has a different view:
It reexamines assumptions of good and evil—morality tale vs, trite entertainment—by confronting the hideous compromises people make with social conventions and their own desperation
I doubt I’ll ever watch “Jonah Hex”, but I somehow I don’t see this movie being one that examines good vs evil any differently than the countless number of other films that tackle the same moral questions.
I’m sure you’re thinking, “If White felt this way, other critics probably did as well.” Well, you’d be wrong. However, there were other critics that gave “Jonah Hex” a “positive” review. I place positive in quotes because all of them were reluctant to call Hex a good film. Instead, they stated that if you’re the type of person that enjoys bad movies or campy action, then you’ll most likely enjoy the “Jonah Hex”.
The film was overwhelming panned from critics all over the world. Movies.com critic Jen Yamato states that Hex is “The most chopped up, stitched together Frankenstein job in recent history.” Peter Travers of Rolling Stone writes “Director Jimmy Hayward fails to establish a viable reason for this movie to exist.” But, my favorite review comes from Nick Pinkerton of L.A. Weekly who simply states, “Bracingly inept.”
I have to wonder… was a better, less “bracingly inept” cut of the film shown to Mr. White?
For a complete rundown of this weekend’s box office, visit BoxOfficeMojo.
