On Mars, they encounter Viking I the satellite, and a Christmas angel who's never seen a tree. Also, the colony of rebel Wunderluxe appliances have a serious vendetta against man, and plan to destroy earth with a missile launch; they might remind one of the pokemon Mewtwo, created by humans but resentful of them and with a free will, wishing freedom, and to rebel against their former 'Masters' and creators.
This movie raises the dubious question of what's alive and what's not, as has been rightly pointed out. I don't want to say this a goof that wrecks an otherwise satisfying film, however, it's worth considering. The Christmas ornament, clearly not an electrical appliance, but rather a little doll with organic hair and robes, is alive. But the garbage can she's placed in at the end is not. Okay, chalk it up to enchantment. Christmas is supposed to be magical. The kitchen faucet can also speak, but that's even acceptable. It's those balloons in space that make one wonder; a balloon is also, in this film and clearly not the other two, is to be extended the privilege of possessing a soul? In the other two this was reserved for all humans, all animals, and all electrical devices alone. What separates a balloon from a sofa? Sure, it was the obvious object that would be living out in space due to the unsteady grip of a child. Yet still...
If one simply listens to their song and appreciates it for what it is, and doesn't analyze it, it's easier. In the end, peace comes to the reconciled appliances, the baby returns home, and essentially everyone is content, perhaps except Viking I...but even he will remain in contact with Angelina, the ornament. The songs are weakest in this film. The plot is utterly weird. But the song Chris sings to Little Master, "I see a new you," is actually very pretty when you hear it multiple times. And overall the movie is not a huge disappointment.
When I first watched this very convoluted movie, it brought every "what were they smoking" cliche to mind about the screenwriters and director. Seriously, it was hard to imagine that people whose brains weren't chemically fried could POSSIBLY think that some of the nonsense and downright creepiness in this flick was a good idea. Then I finally read the Brave Little Toaster books by Thomas M. Disch (which are excellent, by the way, and I highly recommend them.) A large part of the awfulness of the "Mars" movie sequel seems to result from the unfortunate collision of the Disney- and Disch-authored plots. Disney pretty much took Disch's concept of anthropomorphic appliances and ran with it, adding their own human characters and greatly altering the plot. The "master" of the appliances Rob McGroarty, his girlfriend/wife Chris, the veterinary school thing --all 100% Disney.
Not that I have a problem with Disney re-writing the storyline; as I've said I enjoy both the movies and the books which inspired them. But in the "Mars" movie, Disney seems to have decided to include every bizarre element of the Disch book (appliances travelling to Mars under their own power, gigantic talking refrigerators, talking toy balloons surrounding the Earth, "Christmas Angels" on Mars etc.), failed to integrate said bizarre elements into the Disney storyline or explain them, and then they added MORE convoluted nonsense of their own. The Disch story is a lighthearted fantasy with a sci-fi edge; the Disney adaptation never gets off the ground.
Anyway, enough about how the plot of this mess is, well, a mess, and onto to the creepiness! One of the constants of the first two Toaster movies, and a feature of most "inanimate objects coming to life" movies (think Toy Story), is that the talking appliance characters only come to life when people are NOT around. But in "Mars" we watch a truly terrifying musical number with the McGroarty's new baby and the appliances... something about how Rob's appliances are watching out for the kid while they dance around and cuddle. And for the rest of the film, appliances can "come to life" around the baby. (That kid is REALLY going to need some therapy when he grows up.)
Perhaps the creepiest aspect of "Mars" is the fuzzy boundary about what can and cannot "come to life" with human speech and sentience. Usually in Disney films, this includes people and non-human animals. The Toaster films extended this to electrical devices, which was charming and unique since we tend to think of our favorite and least favorite appliances and electronics as having personalities anyway. In "Mars," not only do animals and appliances talk to one another, the kitchen sink talks! And toy balloons can talk! Christmas ornaments can talk! It's a regular talking extravaganza, and it raises eerie metaphysical questions about what ISN'T alive in this whacko movie.
As other reviewers have noted, "The Brave Little Toaster Goes to Mars" has some serious plausibility problems as well. That may sound like a funny complaint about a film whose title character is a talking toaster, but believe me, you'll be scratching your head too. The plot (such that it has one) revolves around the McGroarty's infant son being kidnapped by a rebellious band of appliances who have somehow relocated themselves to Mars. It's not too well explained how the baby is transported to Mars, but once he's there, he floats around in some kind of impervious air bubble (which can survive re-entry into Earth's atmosphere, of course.) Thomas M. Disch may have written some far-out stuff, but at least in the book he made a point of explaining how ONLY machines could survive the extreme temperatures of Mars and the vacuum of space. (I mean the absence of air, not Kirby:))
I could cite many comparable examples about how this movie was very poorly adapted and put together, but already my brain is cramping up from too much thinking about it. Bottom line: Watch the OTHER Toaster movies and read the books, just avoid this one!!!