Toy Story 4.

Review #1238: Toy Story 4.

Cast: 
Tom Hanks (Woody), Tim Allen (Buzz Lightyear), Annie Potts (Bo Peep), Tony Hale (Forky), Keegan-Michael Key (Ducky), Jordan Peele (Bunny), Madeleine McGraw (Bonnie), Christina Hendricks (Gabby Gabby), Keanu Reeves (Duke Caboom), Ally Maki (Giggle McDimples), Jay Hernandez (Bonnie's dad), Lori Alan (Bonnie's mom), Joan Cusack (Jessie), Bonnie Hunt (Dolly), Kristen Schaal (Trixie), Emily Davis (Billy, Goat and Gruff), Wallace Shawn (Rex), John Ratzenberger (Hamm), Blake Clark (Slinky Dog), June Squibb (Margaret the Store Owner), and Carl Weathers (Combat Carl) Directed by Josh Cooley.

Review: 
I do admit to having feelings of trepidation when I heard that this film was announced. The first three films are great movies, filled with plenty of entertainment, charm, wonderful animation with a solid foundation that would be expected from Pixar. Next year will be the 25th anniversary of the release of the first film, so one would wonder exactly how long can a saga like this can really last, particularly one about sentient toys and the actors that accompany them (there are even cameos from Mel Brooks and Carol Burnett at one point). One would've thought it would've ceased after the last one nine years ago, and one could even make the case that it could've just ended with the second one with no hesitation. Each of those films close themselves out leaving the audiences (and corporate overlords, if one is to be cynical here) satisfied for the time - these films are accessible for everyone, young and old. With this film, the best thing that can be said is that I can't really fault the filmmakers for wanting to make another story with these characters - the result is not a disturbing cashgrab (unlike certain productions of the past decade), but it is a compromise that works hard at trying to justify its existence with quality cast, animation, and a fairly competent foundation to make it mostly worth it. After all, there are plenty of writing credits to go around, such as a screenplay by Stephany Folsom and Andrew Stanton but eight credited for story (John Lasseter, Rashida Jones, Will McCormack, Josh Cooley, Valerie LaPointe, Martin Hynes, Folsom, and Stanton), so that sure makes for plenty of hands to go around.

It isn't so much the worst of the Toy Story films as it happens to be the one that doesn't have as many flawless features - this makes it harder to say it is entirely necessary to view, which reminds me more of Pixar's recent sequels such as Finding Dory (2016) or Incredibles 2 (2018) - both fine follow-ups that don't soil the memory of the original, and this likely falls in the middle between those in scale of quality (the less said about Pixar's other certain sequel in the decade, the better). As before, there certainly are interesting new characters to view upon the ones we know and appreciate - the existential crisis of a utensil toy sure does make for an intriguing one, with Hanks and Hale being up to the task of playing off each other with purpose and charm. The cast sure does pull plenty of charm and fairly timed laughs, even if it has to split them into segments just to try and keep things threaded - at least until its climax, anyway. Hanks of course does just as well anyone can do with a role he fits perfectly for, full of passion and leadership that is easy to follow with as before, such as when trying to help a newly created utensil toy find himself as more than just "trash". Allen has his moments to shine when its wants to be on him (with one recurring gag to follow along with, much like the last one), handily fitting into the role and its final sequence without hesitation. Potts, last in the role two decades (and two films) ago, is just as able to jump right back into things with relish, capable as can be with what the film wants to do with her role without making it like a fractured portrayal, and the chemistry between her and Hanks goes seamlessly enough. Hale is quirky yet fairly amusing enough to hold the ranks as the resident new toy on the block with his own interesting personality and design that keeps up with the others without becoming just another gag on the wall. Key and Peele make for a few laughs when the light needs to shine on them, and Reeves is just as charming (who can resist a toy stuntman of Canada?). Hendricks makes for an engaging part of the film, offbeat in sinister nature yet fairly capable of being vulnerable that falls alongside the lines of other character types from the previous films without being a complete copy. The others of the cast don't have as much to really do, but they make their time count just fine. A 100 minute run-time makes for a finely paced film that doesn't linger too much of stringing all its threads to a complete stop nor leave the viewer hanging for too much time, even if its finish is just fine with where it closes as opposed to simply just great. Its outcome may prove a bit more fit for a discussion than a real out-pour of emotions (if that's your sort of thing from animated movies, I guess), but at least its character arcs do make it all fairly worthwhile. The animation is wonderful as to be expected, capable at holding to standards one would expect from before that has evolved with the times in the past decades, holding balance with when it needs to be light or darkly-lit as such. On the whole, I do appreciate that the people who crafted this film tried their hardest to make a story worth viewing one again through these characters without trashing what made them so compelling in the first place all those years ago; it may not be the most necessary film of the saga, but it surely will prove just as well in entertainment for people that yearn to seek out where it lands itself this time. Whether there is another one of these films or not, it sure has been quite a fun time to see these films play out beside the toybox over the years.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Strangers: Prey at Night.

Review #1062: The Strangers: Prey at Night.

Cast: 
Christina Hendricks (Cindy), Martin Henderson (Mike), Bailee Madison (Kinsey), Lewis Pullman (Luke), Emma Bellomy (Dollface), Damian Maffei (Man in the Mask), and Lea Enslin (Pin-Up Girl) Directed by Johannes Roberts.

Review: 
I will admit, this came out of left field. Spring Break means that random things can happen, such as friends deciding to want to see some scary - how can I get in the way of seeing some entertainment? This is likely the first ever time of having two consecutive reviews being part of the Theater Saga - hence why I try to make sure and watch new (interesting) films with a bit of space between them. I hope you enjoy this review. 

I knew nothing of this film nor the fact that it is a sequel to a film named (obviously) The Strangers (2008), with the director/writer of that film serving as writer for this movie. For what I looked up, that film was inspired by the Tate murders along with a series of break-ins that happened in Bertino's neighborhood as a kid, with the same inspirations applying to this film. Admittedly, the idea of random strangers committing crimes without much reason could make for an interesting film, and I imagine that the first film likely had at least some sort of success with that idea, because I didn't find too much to really enjoy with this movie. It is not so much that the film is exactly terrible or anything, but I didn't find it too particularly scary. Perhaps it is easy to admit that the story is thinner than a cracker when the film has a 85 minute run-time and a small cast, which makes for a relatively small body count, with the film not having much in terms of energy to respond with. The fact that there are a few dumb moments (that you might expect for horror or slasher films) doesn't help too much with getting the film to click. The killers are what they are, strangers with masks, which is somewhat creepy but not enough to really carry the movie to pure fright. The secluded setting is fine and quiet for what the movie wants, and the way it is shot is also alright (with no real resorting of jump scares or anything too ridiculous), but it never seems to really click to make something that I can get with. It doesn't feel like a cash-grab or something cynical (I was surprised to note that it was made for $5 million, however), which I suppose gives the film some sort of credit.

The fact that the first half of the film feels a tad dull doesn't particularly help; it isn't that the actors are terrible, it just seems that the material doesn't spark much, with Hendricks being a decent standout with her material. Madison isn't too terrible, but the material isn't too helpful. That's not to say that there aren't other films with exposition that isn't particularly interesting (along with the fact that a film doesn't need to have much in terms of story to work), but the half that follows doesn't make up for it. At times it can be a bit creepy, but it isn't anything that could also be made fun of (and at least one or two cliche action in the middle of the pursuit), with a climax that feels a bit too stretched and an ending that just feels like it is taunting you. The fact that the film is an R helps make sure the violence doesn't get washed out, so there's that at least. The film utilizes music that you might call "ironic" for what you might expect in a horror flick, such as "Kids in America" for the opening and other music choices - which I suppose will have an effect for some, although I didn't really get much from it in terms of chills. If you like slasher/horror flicks, you could like the film. If you were a fan of the original film, chances are you might get a kick out of seeing another film with these strangers. In any case, it's up to you to decide. This is the kind of movie that I can't hate nor give much credit to, falling in the middle that will find a place in some people's minds but will likely go down for me as something that just passes through in the annals of middle-of-the-road horror flicks.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Drive.

Review #652: Drive.

Cast
Ryan Gosling (The Driver), Carey Mulligan (Irene), Bryan Cranston (Shannon), Albert Brooks (Bernie Rose), Oscar Isaac (Standard Gabriel), Ron Perlman (Nino "Izzy" Paolozzi), and Christina Hendricks (Blanche) Directed by Nicolas Winding Refn.

Review
Drive is a strange film in the sense that it feels so retrofitted and could seemingly work in another era. Is it a bad thing to be compared to other eras and their films? No, not really. This is at heart a movie that gives you time to just watch it and not just listen to dialogue. Whether that's an aspect that makes the movie exciting/boring depends on the viewer's patience. Honestly the movie was fine for me, though I imagine it works best if watched at midnight, or a late time, as it just heightens the mood. The actors don't exactly have many lines to go by, but they do make the most of it, especially Albert Brooks. It's actually a bit surprising on how effective he is as a villain. He's a chilling character to watch at times, and he makes the movie his own for his scenes. Gosling and Mulligan do share a good bond with each other, Gosling is pretty effective playing a (mostly silent) character who looks like he'd fit into a 60's movie, seemingly inspired by Steve McQueen or even Clint Eastwood, which is a pretty good compliment. I like how he uses his expressions sometimes to help convey his emotions without dialogue. The supporting cast such as Bryan Cranston and Ron Perlman are fun to watch, along with Oscar Issac (in the brief scenes he has) and Christina Hendricks. Are the characters easy or hard to like? That all depends on the viewer, though Mulligan is probably the only character without blood on her hands. The action and violence is subdued, but when it happens it is a good payoff. I like how the driving sequences are shown, it feels so natural and the lack of dialogue actually helps make it better. This is a strange movie, it shouldn't work, but it works so well at being a movie of its own.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.