“Braveheart” – Mel Gibson’s stirring epic would take home a slew of Oscars, including Best Picture and Best Director, perhaps deservedly. I know I’ll get crushed, but I don’t love it. Just my $.02; these types of historical epic action dramas aren’t my thing. I appreciate the movie more than I enjoy it. I never got the whole controversy, which painted the movie and Mel Gibson as homophobic. The supposed outrage felt completely inorganic, manufactured, and just plain phony.

—–

“Sense & Sensibility” – Never seen it. Look, there are people who don’t go see “Fast Five” one time, much less three times, and there are people like me who do. The people in the latter camp typically don’t watch movies like “Sense & Sensibility.”

“Apollo 13″ – Good movie that spawned the lamest catchphrase of the decade and made “Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon” a wee bit less challenging.

“Il Postino: The Postman” – I seem to recall it was the dark horse favorite to win Best Picture and the odds on favorite to make me throw up in my mouth. It didn’t win. And, whoa, I kinda liked it.

“Babe” – Seriously. No, really, seriously? A talking pig movie?

What should have been nominated:

“The Usual Suspects” – I’m still baffled that this ended up here. I can see not liking it. But c’mon, Roger.

“Casino” – I remember dragging my wife to see this. She resisted. Something about it not being appropriate viewing for our honeymoon. Oh, yeah. We had just gotten married. We argued about it — playfully — and I reminded her that she was the one who picked a wedding date that coincided with the opening of the new Scorsese movie. The playful tone vanished as she hissed, “I chose this weekend because you made me move it from the previous weekend so you could go to the Georgia-Auburn football game!” How is it I’m still married?

“Get Shorty” – When Travolta is on, as he is in Sonnenfeld’s fantastic adaptation of Elmore Leonard’s novel, he is so very on. Everyone in the movie is great, and the dialogue, true to its source, is perfect. Gene Hackman seems miscast, but once you warm to the idea of him playing a chump, he wins you over.

“Toy Story” – Changed movies, ushering out the classic 2D animation and ushering in the dominance of computer animated movies. Before “Toy Story,” Disney produced the vast majority of animated movies. And most of the non-Disney animated movies were underwhelming at best. Pixar has made everyone step up. No one can top Pixar still, but “Kung Fu Panda” beats the hound dog out of “Rock-A-Doodle.”

“Babe” – That’s right. A talking pig movie. And it’s totally awesome.

And the winner is…

In all fairness, for me this is pretty much a four way tie between “Babe,” “Toy Story,” “The Usual Suspects,” and “Get Shorty.”

I actually saw “Babe” pretty early on, and was one of its defenders when people said, “Seriously? A talking pig movie? No really. Seriously?”

But has there ever been more of an underdog than the runt Farmer Hoggett won at the fair ? Sure, Rocky was a million to one shot against the Master of Disaster. And Daniel LaRusso faced long odds against defending All Valley champ Johnny Lawrence. But they were men against men. Babe transcends his place on the food chain to achieve victory in a game he’s never meant to play.

By being nice.

From the sun-dappled cinematography and the subtly funny dialogue to the total feel-good vibe, “Babe” is pretty much a masterpiece. The movie grabbed me about a minute in, when Farmer Hoggett (Best Supporting Actor Nominee James Cromwell) holds up the runt pig, gazes into its eyes as the Narrator observes, “The pig and the farmer regarded each other. And for a fleeting moment, something passed between them. A faint sense of some common destiny.”

As the film opens, the narrator tells us, “This is a tale about an unprejudiced heart.” When Babe first arrives at Hoggett’s farm, he quickly learns the hierarchy, meets his neighbors, and encounters prejudice at every turn. Everyone on the farm is resigned to the way things are simply because, “The way things are is the way things are.” Even Ferdinand, who refuses to eat lest he become Christmas dinner, woefully reasons, “I suppose the life of an anorexic duck doesn’t mean much in the grand scheme of things.”

When he observes Babe herding hens, he gets an idea: he gives the pig a shot at herding sheep. Babe fails miserably because the Sheep don’t take him seriously. It’s not his place to herd sheep. They laugh at him. His surrogate mother, Fly, a Border Collie, suggests he play rough with the sheep. Fail. Finally, the sheep themselves suggest he try just asking nicely.

Babe’s aspirations upset Fly’s mate, Rex, a proud champion.  The movie is ultimately about “The way things are,” and observes that things are the way they are because of everyone’s preconceived notions about everyone else. Rex’s career as a champion sheep dog was cut short, Fly explains, because of the undeniable stupidity of sheep, who refused his help during a storm. They drowned and even after a couple of days of recovering by the fire inside Hoggett’s house, Rex was left partially deaf. Late in the movie, it’s revealed that the sheep find the dogs as ignorant as the dogs find them stupid. If Rex had been nice to the sheep, they would have been saved and he would be a champion.

Babe’s ascension irks Rex. When Babe falls ill, he’s the one by the fire, inside the house, a turn that stuns the barnyard community — a pig in the house? Who could imagine such a thing?

Babe never whines about his place in the hierarchy. He has doubts about his ability to perform. He overcomes the prejudice around him by being true to himself. When he learns that Hoggett will probably one day eat him, he suffers a crisis of faith. But Hoggett pulls him through.

It takes a lot of work, but Babe’s actions and determination convince the other barnyard animals that the way things are doesn’t have to be set in stone. Which leads to the sheep trials, a sheep herding contest, where Hoggett and Babe face angry judges and a mocking crowd. With his mortified wife watching at home, Hoggett stands firm in his decision to let Babe herd sheep. Babe wins the crowd over, leaving them speechless, leading to one of my favorite closing lines in movie history:

Narrator: And though every single human in the stands or in the commentary boxes was at a complete loss for words, the man who in his life had uttered fewer words than any of them knew exactly what to say.

Farmer Hoggett: That’ll do, pig. That’ll do.

Synopsis via Collider where you can see stills from the film — which debuts next summer:

Brave is set in the mystical Scottish Highlands, where Merida is the princess of a kingdom ruled by King Fergus (Billy Connolly) and Queen Elinor (Emma Thompson). An unruly daughter and an accomplished archer, Merida one day defies a sacred custom of the land and inadvertently brings turmoil to the kingdom. In an attempt to set things right, Merida seeks out an eccentric old Wise Woman (Julie Walters) and is granted an ill-fated wish. Also figuring into Merida’s quest — and serving as comic relief — are the kingdom’s three lords: the enormous Lord MacGuffin (Kevin McKidd), the surly Lord Macintosh (Craig Ferguson), and the disagreeable Lord Dingwall (Robbie Coltrane).

Huffpo is all excited over the element that means the least; the protagonist’s gender:

But there’s one place the fearless studio hasn’t gone: for all their strong female characters, the studio has never had a lead female protagonist. That’s about to change.

Pixar has released the poster for their next film, “Brave,” the tale of a warrior princess from Scotland. First appearing at Entertainment Weekly, the film is about a tough Scottish princess who eschews royalty for her dream to become an archer. Voiced by Kelly MacDonald, the film is due to hit theaters June 22, 2012.

No doubt the movie will be better thanks to the lead not having a penis. And if she were an American Indian lesbian paraplegic with a learning disability, the film might be an outright masterpiece!

ADDED: I’ve just been informed “Toy Story’s” Woody  had no penis. I think my point still stands.

There’s a lesson in Toy Story for James Cameron: cool technology does not a story make. It is the story that makes a legacy and Toy Story tells the story of Andy’s toys. And what a story it is! Jealousy! Betrayal! Redemption! It’s heady stuff, but it’s the stuff of great stories. (I hope Hollywood took notes.)

As every child can tell you, the story of toys is as limitless as the imagination, but all children wonder, “just what sorts of lives do the toys lead when I’m not around?”

Pixar’s real genius, then, was to depict the toys in a novel way. They couldn’t lie flat like the cartoons (or is it ghosts?) of Disney past. They had to appear entirely real. They had to create the world anew and populate it with souls.

One of those souls is Woody (Tom Hanks), who is equal parts sheriff and cowboy. He corrals a community of toys – a neurotic dinosaur Rex, a cynical Piggy Bank, Bo Beep and her sheep, a barrel of monkeys – into a real community where he is their uncontested leader, strong and true.

The genius of Toy Story’s writing is that the toys don’t conform to the stereotypes you would expect. Mr. Potato Head is a villain; the T-Rex is neurotic and the cowboy, while honest and true, harbors a darker nature. While there may be a snake in his boot, there’s a green-eyed monster in his heart. Woody fears being replaced by Andy’s new toy, Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen). Buzz’s catchphrase “To infinity and beyond” represents the extent to which Woody would like Buzz removed from his life. He hatches a plan to leave Buzz behind before Andy’s family moves across town.  Alas, his plan is botched and he knocks Buzz out the window.

Like any leader, Woody learns that when he loses his morals, he loses his flock. Branded a murderer, he sets about trying to bring Buzz back. It’s a rescue mission, but it’s also a redemption tale. The silent question asked is, “Are you your brother’s keeper?”

Toy Story, to its credit, answers quickly in the affirmative, but Woody still doesn’t take the blame for his actions.

Woody: This is a perfect time to panic! I’m lost, Andy is gone, they’re gonna move to their new house in two days, AND IT’S ALL YOUR FAULT!

Laying the blame on Buzz is too easy. Buzz’s character doesn’t change. By trying to pull him down, Woody makes himself look petty and endangers them both. Thanks to Woody, they find themselves at the home of Sid Phillips, a toy torturer.

This psycho is everything that Andy is not. Indeed, Sid Phillips isn’t just a villain; he’s a nihilist on par with the Joker. While Andy loves his toys, Sid destroys and mutilates them. He proves that in every suburban neighborhood there lurks a sadist. Sid wasn’t raised poorly. Sid’s sister, Hannah, has none of his pathologies, and he seems to be raised by two parents – something that seems to elude Andy. Nature, not nurture, explains his evil – a subtle dig, perhaps, at the Hollywood establishment that would have us believe that

Woody, then, is savable because his fundamental nature is good, but his relationships with others need nurturing and cultivation. His foibles are serious, but human. Who hasn’t felt rejected or spurned? Who hasn’t wanted more attention from others?

We know this, and we understand this, but we still can’t bring ourselves to be second place. That way lies disappointment. Only by accepting Buzz as a friend and relinquishing his insecurity can he lead the two of them back to Andy.

It is obvious the studio honchos can’t quite fancy what gives Pixar the upper hand in churning out hit after hit, otherwise they would have bottled and sold it in mass quantities.  Here’s a hunch — Pixar’s success might have something to do with respect for the audience.

Toy Story 3 was again the week’s #1 movie topping new fare from Adam Sandler, Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz.  For well over a decade, Pixar has single-handedly delivered a new golden-age of animated film-making.  Just like it was thrilling to be a teenager growing up with Luke Skywalker, E.T. and Marty McFly, it is easy to see why today’s kids are electrified by Buzz Lightyear, The Incredibles and Wall-e.

But it’s worth considering that the original Toy Story never should have worked under the Hollywood studio executive orthodoxy.  In the early 1990’s, computer animated feature films did not exist, yet Disney took a risk to fund a group of PhD’s who swore they could make it work.  It wasn’t just the technology they believed in, but in the stories they could tell.  The animation was futuristic, but Pixar leader John Lasseter envisioned using it to tell a home-spun tale of a typical American boy and his best pal Woody, who happened to be a 1950’s era toy cowboy.  But…

…Jeffrey Katzenberg, then Chairman of the struggling Disney Animation Studios, pressured Lasseter and the budding geniuses of Pixar to steer away from family entertainment.  In the documentary “A Pixar Story,”  Disney’s Tom Schumacher recounts, “Jeffrey would always be pushing for what he called ‘the edge… snappy, adult, on the edge of inappropriate, and not too young.’  In fact, Katzenberg even suggested they lose the word “toy” from the title so as not to scare away teens.

Under Katzenberg’s charge, Toy Story became an irreverent, mean-spirited muddled mess.  It was only when Lasseter, Pete Docter, Andrew Stanton and others returned to the old-fashioned idea of staying true to their vision that Toy Story came alive.  The ‘edgy’ storyboards were thrown on the scrapheap, and the characters were re-drawn from the heart of the writers. The rest is history: Toy Story became a family-oriented, masterfully told hit film and one of the most beloved franchises in modern cinema. But it is worth mentioning the film’s allure came when the budding filmmakers stopped making what they thought the studio wanted, and instead made the film they would want their kids to watch.

Could it be that the boring old concept of quality, unoffensive  family entertainment could be something that makes good box office?  Fact is, Katzenberg, and much of the Hollywood establishment, seem to hold a cynical view of American audiences.  It is one reason the LA Times called Katzenberg an “indefatigable huckster” for his obsession with driving box office revenue through gimmicks like 3-D (often at the expense of quality storytelling).

Pixar happily chugs along making thoughtful, even wholesome, blockbuster pictures like Toy Story 3, Up and Finding Nemo, while Katzenberg working on his latest indellible contribution to American cinema: Kung Fu Panda: The Kaboom of Doom.  Fear not, it is sure to be offered in eye-popping 3-D.

I’ll save my money for whatever Pixar comes out with next.

We’re in this fight and we’re either gonna win it or go down swinging.

The Big Hollywood contributors are, however, very, very good at swarming with all kinds of love over the rare pop cultural oasis that manages to somehow get through the leftist propaganda machine that is Tinseltown. And over the course of the last fifteen years it’s become quite obvious that Pixar Animation Studios is far and away the largest oasis of them all.

Starting in 1995 with the first “Toy Story,” this incredible team of storytellers has consistently dazzled, enchanted, entertained and moved us in ways no other studio has since Hollywood’s Golden Age. Pixar’s track record of quality is nothing less than remarkable and that they’ve accomplished this with a series of films that only ever aim to elevate the human spirit is something we should all be grateful for. Especially parents.

15 years Pixar has been with us now — long enough for many to have grown up or to have watched their children grow up with them. And what a gift they’ve been…and still are.

And so next week many a Big Hollywood contributor will be sharing their thoughts and appreciations for a part of the pop culture landscape that does everything right. You’ll hear from those who grew up with Woody and Buzz, those who wish they had, and parents who appreciate the one brand they know they can always count on.

And there will be much, much more.

So stay tuned, sign up with Intense Debate so you can join in, and be sure to take the whole family to see “Toy Story 3” this weekend.

And no, Pixar is not paying us. But they know how to reach me.

Andy, the boy who owns this now iconic set of toys, is all grown up. 17 and leaving for college, Andy has to decide what to do with the playthings of his childhood. Built to be loved and played with and already feeling neglected by an owner whose outgrown them, a series of simple and not-so-simple mix ups lands the increasingly neurotic and insecure contents of Andy’s toy box at a daycare center that at first glance appears to be a kind of Toy Heaven — a never-ending supply of children who will forever love and play with them.

But is it all too good to be true?

What gives this refreshingly simple, perfectly paced, and absolutely flawless story the kind of emotional depth that creeps up and catches you off guard, is a richly complicated theme that explores the struggle between the loyalty and faith required to slug ones way through the ups and downs of any relationship and the universal need and understandable desire for constant validation and affection. The toys feel, for lack of a better term, jilted. Andy’s moved on, grown a little bored with them, and now they live in that awful in-between world filled with the artificial highs that come with any sign things might go back to the way they were and the unavoidable lows that are a natural part of the insecurity that comes with the fear of being discarded.

Essentially, “Toy Story 3” is about the consequences of disloyalty, of losing faith and giving up on an imperfect relationship to go off in search of something better. But what consequences! Through an immersion into wondrous detail that boggles the mind and Pixar’s uncanny ability to effortlessly and fully exploit any concept – in this case, a world where toys come to life when humans aren’t around – the adventure and, yes, the humanity makes for the best time you’ll have at the movies since, well, Pixar’s last go-round, “Up.”

And your kids will enjoy themselves even more.  The action set-pieces rival the best of the Indiana Jones’ films and this is easily the funniest of the three thanks to a cast of well-rounded characters whose relationships continue to develop realistically and with honest warmth and clever humor.

The only thing better than the film itself is the voice work courtesy of a perfectly cast group of actors. Once again, Tom Hanks is marvelous voicing Woody, a character we’ve seen grow into the brave conscience and leader of his toy tribe. But it’s Tim Allen’s Buzz who steals the last half of the show with a comic performance that had everyone at my screening practically rolling on the floor. 

Though Bo, Etch, and Wheezy don’t return, not only is everyone else on hand, but each is given a number of individual moments to shine.  John Ratzenberger (Pixar’s good luck charm who has appeared in every one of their films) lets loose with some terrific one-liners as Hamm – as does Wallace Shawn as Rex, Joan Cusack is as spirited as ever as cowgirl Jesse, and Estelle Harris and Don Rickles as Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head are both used in the most creative ways imaginable. All the newcomers fit right in, as well, especially Michael Keaton’s hilariously insecure Ken and an absolutely terrific Ned Beatty as Lotso, a stuffed bear who smells of strawberries and is never what he appears to be.

I’m an old guy and therefore not a big fan of 3D, but other than those heavy glasses, this latest gimmick — which needs to go the way of the shaky-cam — doesn’t interfere (or enhance, in my opinion) the story in the least. Obviously the technology available to Pixar these days has grown by leaps and bounds since the first “Toy Story,” but the trilogy remains visually seamless (I watched all three the same day — I know, tough job, right?) thanks to a flawless production design.

So go! And then go again. This has been a brutal decade year for movie-lovers and once again Pixar delivers the perfect oasis.

MONSTERS VS. ALIENS tore up the box office this weekend - especially in 3-D

That means that the Per Screen Average for the movie in 3-D was about $11,700, while the 4,800 or so traditional 35MM 2-D engagements had a Per Theatre of just an estimated $4,780. Exhibitors who figured out a way to overcome the credit crunch and pay the estimated $100,000 to convert a traditional theatre into one that can show Digital 3-D made a killing this weekend.

Unlike the hokey 3-D of past generations, Real-D technology is nothing short of astonishing. We’ve come a long way from 50’s chestnuts like Bwana Devil starring Robert Stack (“A Lion in Your Lap, A Lover in Your Arms” was the tagline for those that remember. 3-D moviemaking was discovered accidentally as doctors were experimenting with polarized lenses to treat kids with a “lazy eye.” Then came trioptiscopic photographt that allowed images to float off of the screen. Industry pioneers like Arch Oboler tried to make a go with 3-D under the clunky moniker Space-Vision, but couldn’t make it work. There was some success with that same Space-Vision system with movies like Jaws 3-D, Friday the 13th: Part 3-D and Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over, but nothing like today’s state-of-the-art technology.

Disney/Pixar will soon follow the technological path paved by Dreamworks

Hollywood is 40+ major 3-D releases in the pipeline, and there are still only 2,218 individual screens where those movies can play, so the race is on. Digital conversion and Real-D installation will be on the march for exhibitors who can figure out a way to finance the extraordinary expense.

Here are trailers for some of the 3-D features coming soon.

May 1 - BATTLE FOR TERRA (Lionsgate/Roadside Attractions)
What’s left of the human race invades a peaceful alien planet called Terra. A Terrian teen, voiced by Evan Rachel Wood from The Wrestler, tries to ward off the humans. Voice cast includes Brian Cox (Running with Scissors), Luke Wilson (3:10 to Yuma), David Cross (Arrested Development), Justin Long (He’s Just Not That Into You) and Amanda Peet (Syriana).

May 29 - UP (Disney/Pixar)
As always, it’s an odd premise with Pixar. In this one, a cranky old guy decides it’s time to see the wilds of South America, so he ties a bunch of balloons to his house. But after Ratatouille, Wall-E, Cars, Toy Story, I’ve learned to reserve judgment and prepare to be amazed. Featuring the voices of TV legend Ed Asner (The Mary Tyler Moore Show), Pixar vet John Ratzenberger (Cheers), Golden Globe nominee Christopher Plummer (The Insider) and Delroy Lindo (Heist).

July 1 – ICE AGE: DAWN OF THE DINOSAURS (Fox)
The third in the Ice Age series and, possibly, the #1 grossing movie of the summer. Dinosaurs in 3-D is box office gold. Seann William Scott (Dude, Where’s My Car), Oscar nominee Queen Latifah (Hairspray), Golden Globe nominee John Leguizamo (Nothing Like the Holidays), Emmy winner Ray Romano (Everybody Loves Raymond) and Denis Leary (Rescue Me) are all featured.

Then comes Harry Potter & the Half-Blood Prince in IMAX 3-D only on July 17, followed by G-Force on July 24, Final Destination: Death Trip 3-D on August 14, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs on September 18, the reworking of Toy Story in the 3-D format October 2, Astro Boy on October 23, Disney’s A Christmas Carol on November 6, Planet 51 for Thanksgiving and, finally, James Cameron’s long-awaited Avatar. Here’s the teaser trailer (that gives nothing away).

When it comes to Toy Story and WALL-E, the Guardian has a point. After all, any movie that preaches the evils of consumerism and, at the same time, expects its audience to snap up Buzz Lightyear and EVE dolls, has a serious case of split personality.

The problem is, the article lumped all Pixar films together. But there are notable exceptions: the movies of Brad Bird. He wrote and directed such classics of free expression as The Incredibles and Ratatouille. These movies celebrate individualism and, dare I say it, free markets.

I would argue, morever, that Bird’s creations are the most successful, philosophically speaking, of Pixar’s movies. The Guardian critic is right: movies like WALL-E ultimately make no logical sense. They sell merchandise (WALL-E condoms, anyone?) while decrying the very notion of merchandise.

Bird’s movies are different. They celebrate free thought. They celebrate free enterprise. They celebrate free soft pretzels.

Ultimately, however, Bird’s movies zero in on the innate human drive to improve oneself. And they don’t see it as something to be ashamed of. Instead, that’s what his characters are about.