Review: Toy Story 4, or Ugh I Hope This Is the Last

YouTube

Strangely, Duke Caboom looks a lot like Keanu Reeves.

I've said this over and over again: I am not a fan of sequels for profit's sake.

That said, Toy Story 4 should not have been made. Toy Story 3 would have been the perfect closer, as the entire Toy Story franchise would've focused on Andy and his relationship with his toys. We began with Andy as a young boy, and ended with Andy going off to college and passing on his toys to someone worthy of playing with these magical mischief-makers. Toy Story 3 was the perfect ending we all needed.

But that's that. Toy Story 4 did get made. So we're gonna have to deal with it.

The good thing about this fourth film is that it wasn't terrible. It wasn't bad at all. Well, it wasn't perfect, and neither was it great. It was just... good.

The rest of the cast, I believe, reprised their roles, led by Tom Hanks and Tim Allen as Woody and Buzz, Annie Potts as Bo Peep, Joan Cusack as Jessie, Wallace Shawn as the slightly neurotic Rex, John Ratzenberger as Hamm, and Don Rickles as Mr. Potato Head. But the best thing about this ensemble would be the new additions. Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele of Key and Peele fame play the amusement park stuffed toys Ducky and Bunny, Christina Hendricks plays the creepy doll Gabby Gabby, Tony Hale plays Forky, while the Internet's boyfriend Keanu Reeves plays Duke Caboom, the Canadian daredevil with a penchant for motorbikes. If only a ten-movie deal were in order, these new guys definitely need to be back.

The thing that ties the whole four-film series together would be Randy Newman's music, which has Toy Story written all over it. Newman's country-like drawl set to the soothing sounds of acoustic steel guitars has been the series's signature sound since Toy Story's debut in 1995, and to deviate from that now would be alienating to the fans, especially those who didn't want a fourth movie in the first place.

All in all, Toy Story 4 feels like an epilogue. But not just your usual epilogue – it feels like an epilogue that forces its nostalgia on its viewers, sort of like having a completely wrapped trilogy and then going, "Hey, wait! We still have more little anecdotes to share! Don't leave!" Honestly, though, I hope this is the end of the series. New and original films are what's missing in Hollywood right now, and it seems that even the pre-movie Pixar short film, the last great venue of original animated storytelling, was taken out of the equation. Bring it back, please.

YouTube

"Nah, I don't think we're getting our own spin-off."

Toy Story 4. USA. 2019.



Original rating: 8.0/10
Rashida Jones as one of the story writers: +0.1
Badass Bo Peep: +0.1
No Pixar short: -0.3
Final rating: 7.9/10

Cloud Atlas

YouTube

Once in a while, a film comes along that creates a division between critics and filmmakers. In 2012, that film was Cloud Atlas─there was no middle ground; you either loved it or you hated it. I, for one, belong to the former, and I think that all the love and hate for the film can be boiled down to one reason: Cloud Atlas is just way ahead of its time. And here are four reasons why.

Cloud Atlas/X Filme/Anarchos

The special effects isn't even one of those reasons.

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

Based on the novel by Jonathan Safran Foer, Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close is a movie about a nine-year-old New Yorker on the hunt for clues about a key that might help him make sense of why his dad died in 9/11.

I love Sandra Bullock in this movie because I didn't even know she was Sandra Bullock. And as the kid's mom, she was, at some point, painted as an auxiliary parent, next to Tom Hanks' character. Father of the year award goes to him.

Thomas Horn stars as Oskar Schell, the kid and the main protagonist. (He looks like Piolo Pascual sometimes.)

Oskar Schell can be very annoying. He's intelligent for his age, and if not, he pretends he is. He has many phobias, too. But he says that he was indefinitely diagnosed with Asperger's. That explains why his dad, Thomas Schell, sends him on these "expeditions" to talk to people.

I wonder, though, why there was a need for said expeditions when the kid is shown to have school friends.

Also, given all that, some of what Oskar does or says seems off for a nine-year-old like that. The title of the movie, for one, is what he ends up calling his scrapbook, short of yelling it out somewhere in the dialogue. It would have been more believable if he went for "Things That Used To Make Me Panicky," or "The Case of the Black Key."

Some aspects of Stephen Daldry's direction and Foer's storytelling seem laborious too. (Foer had a hand in the script.) The bit about his grandfather only raised more questions like "Why does his grandmother not want him to know about his grandfather?" "Why did his grandmother let her ex-husband in only after their son died?"

I asked why all those people in New York with the surname Black were so friendly with Oskar, but the answer to that is his mom.

The movie has its heartwarming and funny moments, and the story is sweet. There are shots and details that would make hipsters go "Oooh!" for sure. "Oooh, a Nokia 5110. Nostalgia." "Oooh! Children in New York remind me of Hey Arnold!" (I did, except for that last scene. That was just too predictable.)

I give this movie a 6.5/10. Watch it at home with your emo friends.

Oh look, I highlighted clues.



You might also want to read Sting Lacson's review.

Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close Review, or Extremely Boring and Incredibly Zzzzz

YouTube

Wait... this seems like a movie about 9-11. Which means this is a drama. Boring!

YouTube

That's obviously CGI.

But wait... this doesn't tackle the terrorist angle that 9-11 films usually go for. This tackles the journey of a young boy as he tries to make ends meet after his father's death. Which still means this is a drama. Boring!

Q: What should the filmmakers do to make this more interesting and less boring?
A: Throw in two Academy award-winners. One Best Actress winner by the name of Sandra Bullock, and another back-to-back Best Actor winner by the name of Tom Hanks.

All Movie Photo

"My... what a boring script!"

Okay, Sandra Bullock's part was a bit tear-jerky. But Tom Hanks part was... boring!

All Movie Photo

"You watch your mouth, young man."

Q: What else should the filmmakers do to appease the fans who are annoyed by the mere presence of Sandra Bullock and Tom Hanks?
A: Throw in a lot of familiar faces with decent acting abilities.

1. Viola Davis

All Movie Photo

"I don't care if this film blows. I'm nominated
for The Help, anyway."

2. John Goodman

YouTube

"I don't care if this film blows. I'm in The Artist, anyway."

3. Jeffrey Wright

Covering Media

"I don't care if this film blows.
I'm in The Ides of March, anyway."

4. Max Von Sydow

All Movie Photo

"It's von-see-dough, not von-sigh-dough."

Q: What should the filmmakers do to guarantee that this film doesn't win Best Picture?
A: Cast an annoying kid in the lead role.

YouTube

The eyes should be a dead giveaway.

Don't get me wrong. This film has a lot of touching moments. But they've been successfully negated by the mere presence of this kid named Thomas Horn.

Okay, before we go, here's the trailer, along with one good and one bad thing about it.

The Good: The use of my favorite U2 song ever, "Where the Streets Have No Name".
The Bad: The false promise that James Gandolfini would be in it.

YouTube

Thou shalt not falsely advertise Tony Soprano.

Wait, one last thing before we go.

Tumblr

And yes, I just had to put this in here. 

Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close. USA. 2011.



Rating: Six and a half out of ten.



You might also want to read mumblingmaya's review.

The Pacific

When people ask me what The Pacific is all about, I just tell them, "It's like Band of Brothers, only in the Pacific. Duh." I'm not really sure if Dale Dye was the same military adviser for this series. Anyway, who gives a damn about military advisers in war films? World War II geeks, that's who.

Part One

"Stick 'em up, Jap."

Oh wow. Hanks and Spielberg teamed up again. Those World War II junkies really need their fix. You really can't help but compare it to Band of Brothers. Because they really are similar. Although the Pacific war came first. Just can't help thinking that the Pacific vets approached Spielberg and Hanks and told them, "Hey, do a series about us!"

Band of Brothers. Part 5: Crossroads

This episode was directed by Tom Hanks. Okay, so Tom Hanks can direct. A little. I mean, how hard is it, if Mel Gibson can win a Best Director Oscar for Braveheart? But somehow, this episode tries too hard to be fancy, when straight-up storytelling will do just fine.

*pic from hbo.com

The Pacific. Part One

Oh wow. Hanks and Spielberg teamed up again. Those World War II junkies really need their fix. You really can't help but compare it to Band of Brothers. Because they really are similar. Although the Pacific war came first. Just can't help thinking that the Pacific vets approached Spielberg and Hanks and told them, "Hey, do a series about us!"


*pic from reddirtkings.com

Angels and Demons

Angels and Demons (for those who read the book)

Watching a movie based on a book is always tricky. Going in, you already seem to think that the movie will probably be not up to par with the book. A lot also depends on whether you read the book or not beforehand and try as you might, you cannot change the fact that you did read the book and know the story already.

So I will not pretend as if I did not know the story or that even though I did read the book, I can totally disregard it. I can't. So I won't.

Angels and Demons was one of the most highly anticipated movies for me this summer. Everybody thought that The DaVinci Code didn't turn out as good as they expected and thought that this one could be an improvement. Is it?

In a way, yes. Angels and Demons is the book prequel to TDVC. Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) runs around the Vatican trying to catch the elusive group Illuminati who is out to destroy the Catholic Church. It is a much more exciting story, pace-wise, than TDVC and it is a little less preachy than its predecessor, which sometimes felt like an indoctrination to a cult.

Acting remains excellent, especially by Ewan McGregor who played the Camerlengo. (By the way, Ewan McGregor and Paul Bettany could have exchanged roles in the two movies and it still would've worked). Stellan Skarsgård on the other hand acts as if he is a Tony award-winning actor stuck in a children's school play. I'm sure that's exactly how he felt.

Ayelet Zurer nails the part of a hottie smart girl which is really quite difficult if you look at all the failed examples in Hollywood (Denise Richards in that James Bond flick, Elisabeth Shue in The Saint). Hanks is always believable because he plays within range every time and never fails in a performance.

So was it good? Yes.

Did I like it? As a guy who read the book and was blown away by the key plot near the end?

No.

Like I said, translating a book into a movie is tricky. Understandably, there will be some elements that will be lost as things just may not fit the time constraints of a movie. For example, Tom Bombadil (if I'm right) completely got written off in Lord of the Rings. Was it okay? Yes, because he did not figure in prominently in the story. Characters can be lost if they are minor ones. Plots however should not be. Especially if it's the key plot of the entire story and it is what elevates the story beyond a regular suspense thriller.

That plot left out in the movie blew me away in the book. It was great, it was painful, it was jarring. I loved it. It was the part that I loved the most in the story and since they left it out of the movie, I now hate the latter.

Is it still a good movie? Yes. Just don't read the book before. Or after.

Six out of ten stars.