Docket ending 8083912: 313 v. "Toy Story 3" critics

Today, I am holding court (figuratively, not literally) against the three critics who gave a negative review to one of the best of the year thus far, "Toy Story 3." I know, I can also go after anybody who gave "How to Train Your Dragon" or "Inception" a bad review, but "Toy Story 3" holds a special place to me. It is one of those movies that I will remember until the day I die, or at least until I get a degenerative brain disease. Yet, out of the 234 critics who reviewed the movie, three of them gave "Toy Story 3" a negative critique. And those reviews came in when the movie still had a 100% approval rating. What's worse, THEY PREVENTED THE WHOLE TRILOGY FROM GETTING A PERFECT SCORE ("Toy Story" and "Toy Story 2" both have 100% ratings)! So enough back story, it's time to send in the defendants, each to be tried separately, and each are charged with one count of cinematic blasphemy.

Defendant 1: John Heilman
Source: MovieMartyr.com
Score: 44/100
Critique given: "At best, Toy Story 3 stands as a refinement, a movie which was an unnecessary to begin with."
313's Ruling: *stammers uncontrollably* Refinement?! Unnecessary? Mr. Heilman, were we watching the same movie? OK, maybe "Toy Story 2" was unneeded, given that there was no sequel hook or cliff hanger, but what "Toy Story 2" did was take Woody, Buzz, and the rest of the gang on a fun, adventurous journey that showed true character development. People wanted to see that Buzz really past the fact he wasn't a real spaceman. Anyways, in the case of "Toy Story 3," there really isn't a need to fix what ain't broke. And I think people in the majority wanted to know what would happen to Andy's toys when he had to finally let them go. So maybe there was more reason to make "Toy Story 3" than "Toy Story 2," but they are both perfect films in my book.
Verdict: Mr. Heilman has made a deal with the district attorney to plead guilty. Upon reading his review, which gives a summary on theme of rejection that is well-noted, though I do not agree with it, I accept Mr. Heilman's plea.
Sentence: 90 days community service and a $4,000.00 fine

Defendant 2: Cole Smithey
Source: ColeSmithey.com
Score: C+
Critique given: "Once you get past paying the inflated price for an animated "3-D" movie where nothing floats in front of your eyes as with quality 3-D films, the story unfolds more sad than joyful."
313's Ruling: I cannot say much about the 3-D except that I heard it was better than that in "Avatar," a movie that I loved (I saw "Avatar" in 3-D and "Toy Story 3" in a standard viewing setting). Nevertheless, that's hearsay, so strike that last statement from the record. I have the feeling that Mr. Smithey completely missed the point of the movie's ending. I can't say what happens for fear of spoiling the ending, but he is as wrong about the ending as Kevin Federline receiving a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame (Lord, forbid). Nevertheless, because of Mr. Smithey's idiotic family, from whom he is mercifully estranged from, I might consider leniency with him. For example (thanks to the CWCiki for all this), he gave this statement in his review: "Andy's careless mom--whose sense of parental responsibility is nonexistent, 'accidentally' tosses out the trash bag filled with Woody's pals on the curb." Uhhh, Mr. Smithey, IT WAS AN ACCIDENT! SHE PICKED UP THE WRONG BAG BY MISTAKE! It may be that he is thinking of his own mother here, who is known to have abused Mr. Smithey and has refused to this day to give him the identity of his biological father. Frankly Mr. Smithey would have been better off with Andy's mom than than his Mommy Dearest. And then there is this statement: "As the story goes, human boy Andy (voiced by John Morris) is off to college, and must finally put away childish things--something most boys do before junior high. Talk about arrested development--this kid isn't getting any dates." Sound familiar? If not, let me give you a brief reason why it should without scarring you. Mr. Smithey's half-brother is Christian Weston Chandler, infamous on the Internet for being a plagiarizing, lazy, racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, psychotic, "autistic" (and I use that term lightly), narcissistic, overweight man child who sponges off our tax dollars to play with toys and video games. Oh, and he's a TWENTY-NINE-YEAR-OLD VIRGIN who uses the most ridiculous and doomed-to-fail methods to get laid (that's all I'll say because the less you know, the better off your life is, trust me). It's for good reason Mr. Chandler keeps getting trolled. Basically, Mr. Smithey has (incorrectly) confused Andy with his half-brother. Sure, the toys aren't put away, but Woody says in the movie it's been years since Andy played with any of them. Sounds to me like Mr. Smithey has some family dilemmas that kept him from enjoying this masterpiece.
Verdict: The prosecution and defense have come to an agreement that Mr. Smithey plead not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect and accept the sentence I am about to give.
Sentence: 90 days in a state-operated rehabilitation center

Defendant 3: Armond White
Source: New York Press
Score: N/A
Critique given: "Toy Story 3 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."
313's ruling: Oh. Dear. God. Why is this asshat still among us? If there was a reason to sign the petition to remove Mr. White from Rotten Tomatoes, this is it. Hell, this man is just so awful as a critic, the God amongst all movie critics, Roger Ebert, has called Mr. White a troll. Can't blame him. Mr. White has said that there are better options to seeing "Toy Story 3," and explicitly names two movies that he gave good reviews to, "Jonah Hex" and "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen." I have yet to see "Jonah Hex" myself, but I have heard it is down right terrible. As for "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen," I know I am in the minority of people who liked this movie a lot, but I would sooner cut myself than to call it an alternative viewing option for "Toy Story 3." It's the other way around. This is nothing new from Mr. White. He constantly bashes films that are hits among audiences and critics (i.e., "The Dark Knight" and "There Will Be Blood") while singing the praises of commercial and reviewer bombs (i.e., "Confessions of a Shopaholic" and "Norbit"). Anyways, back to the "Toy Story 3" review. Only a handful of the toys are actual brand name toys, most, if not all, manufactured by Mattel. Even then, you can associate Barbie, Ken, Slinky Dog, and the rolling telephone with the face as characters you feel emotions towards, not some corporate sell-out. The film is about the love of your toys and the knowledge that one day, you will inevitably part with them. Mr. White's contention that "Toy Story 3" is nothing more but a cash-cow for Mattel is moot and without basis to support his claims. Quite frankly, I have two schools of thought concerning Mr. White. Mr. Ebert is right and he is a troll, or the one I believe, that we need to weep for humanity because Mr. White represents the fall of Western civilization. If he gives a good review to "Vampires Suck," I will see you all in the fallout bunker.
Verdict: After Mr. White pleaded not guilty, the jury has found him guilty.
Sentence: 25 years at the ADX Florence prison (aka, Supermax) with no shot at parole

Court is adjourned. *bangs gavel*

And now for something the Disney/Pixar vault, the best scene from this production combination that became a Sparta Remix.