Toy Story...4

Pixar stands tall next to Studio Ghibli as the best two animation studios their have ever been, with the former producing countless greats from Bugs life to Wall-E to Ratatouille etc. etc. etc. Yes they've had their downfalls with Cars and Cars 2, their blatant cash grabs, but overall they've been loyal to their morals- producing thoughtful and imaginative animations for the whole family. Despite both of their films coming out next year being totally original they do have a slate of upcoming films which include a few sequels, Incredibles 2 and 'Finding Dory' included, both of which, though arguably unnecessary, do hold purpose as necessary sequels to a world we will willingly be transcended back into. But yesterday Pixar did something nobody was hoping for, something I never thought they would have to the heart to do, yesterday Pixar effectively put a middle finger up to their morals and were hypnotised by the green legal tender, announcing to the world, 'Toy Story 4'.

Here's why this is the biggest disappointment since Indiana Jones 4.

The Perfect trilogy

One fact of cinema I believe you can say without debate is that Toy Story is one of the best, if not the best trilogy of all time. Not only does it follow the imaginative and fun adventures of a young lads toys when he's out the house, but it overplays this narrative with a back-story of growing-up that is so brutally real that it puts most coming of age films to shame.

To go into more detail about this, the Toy Story trilogy follows three crucial stages of growing up, from the early stages of development seen in the first film to the departure to university seen in the 3rd, and this story is neatly wrapped within the trilogy through these bookends. It's been strongly rumoured that the story will have nothing to do with Andy, and therefore I really don't care about the story. This announcement of the 4th film feels like throwing a boulder into a ball pit, it doesn't fit, it doesn't mesh, ultimately it doesn't work on any level. Why the heck would I want to see a story about Woody, Buzz etc. without the strong story of Andy backing it up, if they want to do a whole new Toy Story film, give me a whole new roster of Toys and I'll be happy. 

I mean the end of Toy Story 3 literally has most viewers in tears! In tears you hear! The legacy and power that those three films hold is immense and every viewer sees something unique in it, be it the story of acceptance seen in Jesse's tale in the 2nd film, the story of a battling friendship in the 1st or simply the whole notion of change and 'moving on' seen throughout the trilogy. 

We know, Woody, Buzz and the rest of the gang, in the fictional world of the film, have moved on and have accepted change (something which as previously mentioned is integral to the whole theme of the trilogy) we don't need to see them carrying on their lives. In fact its nicer to make it up ourselves, just like you do when you're young playing with toys, you make up crazy stories in which your characters act out.

The fact is, I couldn't care less about Toy Story 4, even if it's is amazing, a fourth film tarnishes the rest of the trilogy and will make us see them differently whether we like it or not.


Cash-Grab 101

It's wildly obvious that the Toy Story trilogy was and is Pixars biggest achievement both critically and commercially. The fact that they are continuing on past the 'perfect trilogy' despite it ending so well is a blatant cash-grab in my eyes and also a shame as it truly shows Pixar abandoning their artistic intentions for the temptation of extra cash.

We know Pixar have loads of original ideas flouting about, all you have to do is look at their next two coming movies as well as their extensive and highly regarded writing team. BUT, of course original films don't make as much money as sequels so instead of trying to create art, Pixar has now made the leap to create cash instead.

Speaking of the writing team, perhaps the worst news is yet to come. In the past three Toy Story films Pixar has been very good in using their in house talent as well as quality external writers in cohesive harmony to create fantastic screenplays. The first film used Andrew Stanton and Joss Wheadon, the second used Andrew Stanton and Rita Hsiao, the writer of the original (and great) Mulan, and the final film after setting the grounds of a fantastic story hired Michael Arndt to work on the screenplay alone after writing the amazing, Little Miss Sunshine.

So what exciting new talent has Pixar hired this time!... Rashida Jones of course!!!

This might be a personal problem, and perhaps fans of the TV comedy Parks and Recreation will disagree, but personally this choice is woeful and just another example of Pixar trying to milk the cash cow.

This name is by far the most well known external talent that they have ever hired for any of their Toy Story releases, she's pretty much a well-known celebrity, which subsequently means even more publicity, which means even more cash!!! For us however this will most likely mean a worse movie overall. The only film she's ever written was the wildly average Celeste and Jesse Forever, which shares little narrative relevance to the films of Toy Story in terms of imagination, fun and heart. At least both previous external writers had great and relevant films under their belt, with Little miss sunshine being an amazingly fun and sweet film and Mulan being one of Disney's many master-classes in animation.


Ultimately I feel let down and hugely disappointed in Pixars recent decision to release a fourth Toy Story film, in my eyes this decision is just as bad as their past announcement of Cars 2, which is inadvertently their worst film to date. This fourth film is evidence to the world that Pixar just doesn't care about the art any more, and if their not careful this fourth addition to their beloved trilogy could destroy their reputation forever.

Nightcrawler

Blimey, I haven't been to the cinema for a while, the last film I saw was blooming Guardians of the Galaxy back in August, which is pretty shameful. That said I went to see Nightcrawler on Friday night in wild anticipation after watching the crazy good trailer back in whenever it came out. That was pretty much all that was making me go and see the film, I mean I'd heard the reviews were good but if you IMDB the writer/director (Dan Gilroy) you'll see his last two films were The Bourne Legacy and Real Steel...just bare in mind whilst I tell you how bloody amazing this film is.

The story concerns Lou Bloom (Jake Gyllenhaal) an unemployed man who feels empowered to get involved in the world of crime journalism after seeing a roadside crash, from here he becomes obsessed with getting to the top. I know this is the talking point of the whole film, and I know this isn't all the films about but when I think about Nightcrawler it's very hard not to immediately scream the praises of Gyllenhaal's performance. The best thing I can say about him is that throughout the film I never saw the character as Gyllenhaal, I saw him as Lou Bloom, an man driven to insanity through his own broken psychology. I mean seriously, more than any horror film I've seen all year (so far) Gyllenhaals performance is truly terrifying, as his overwhelming screen presence grabs you by the neck and heaves you into the film.

As said previously his performance is of course not the only positive of the film, by no means, the fantastic screenplay makes the events of the film both constantly gripping but also hugely detestable. The plot itself, once certain facts are uncovered and the film comes to a conclusion, is truly disturbing, discussing the ethics of showing such acts on TV news, and the subsequent state of a modern society who would watch such footage. Perhaps the screenplays most impressive achievement however it's relationship with the protagonist, working to manipulate the audiences feelings in order to make us like such a disgusting man, something that we feel empowered to do, despite the fact that we knowingly hate him. This only disperses further talking points in how our good relationship with the bad protagonist affects our sanity as viewers who perhaps 'only want to see the gory stuff'. The screenplays only downfall is a minor one, as after such a big climactic crescendo, it doens't know hwo to calm down and conclude on a good note, as a result it flatlines a little before ending sufficiently

Working in conjunction with the screenplay is the cinematography, making the streets of LA look dark and uninviting but also glamorous and beautiful, so much effort has gone into the framing of shots and it seriously pays off. The ultimate product is a film which honestly makes you see TV news in a new light, now seeming tasteless and untrustworthy after the harrowing and dramatically gripping events of Nightcrawler, which proves hard to shake from your mind.

9.5/10- Gyllenhaal's best performance from the director who brought you Hugh Jackman as a boxing robot's coach (I still can't believe it)

Shocktober Days 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 & 31

#26- Event horizon (1997)

 I never even really saw this as a horror film when I saw it on Netflix, but the many recommendations from various forums showed me otherwise, with many claiming it to be truly terrifying. Whilst it may be more of a thriller than anything else it certainly has some creepy horror elements.

The film surrounds a group of astronauts who are sent to investigate the mysterious event horizon- a spaceship in which all of its passengers mysteriously disappear. Event Horizons problem is, being a thriller, it doesn’t really know where to start and finish with its horror elements. Grand, mysterious theories on how the passengers disappeared are deeply unsettling on their own- the mystery surrounding them only making it all the more freaky. But when the film should’ve stopped there, it instead continued to show us nearly exactly what happened to them- whereby little was left to the imagination. That said the films raw horror element in the form of a machine which creates black holes letting anything through from another dimension comes into its own in the films finale to truly terrifying effects.

The performances are pretty standard but some are just outright unenthusiastic- most notably that of the films mysterious passenger Mr Weir, played by Sam Neil. His performance is however good enough to see the film through. A film which ultimately proves to be a lot of fun, even if it isn’t all horror centred.

6.5/10- A fun fun space adventure, both bleak and unsettling.

#27- Zombie flesh eaters (1979)

So this is one of those video nasty movies of the *date* including some lovely gruesome scene of zombies being ripped apart etc. That is however pretty much all the movie has to offer.

The stories pretty generic following the daughter of a mysteriously murdered father and an intrigued scientist as they travel to a faraway island to investigate the recent discovery of zombies. The film takes a long while to get going, with horror elements included in this, not truly becoming anything scary until around the halfway mark. There are however some classic scenes in the film in which the video nasty genre is truly encapsulated. The most notable of which shows a woman’s eye being shoved through a wooden splint, shown through goofy practical effects of the time, despite looking quite unrealistic however this scene showed to encapsulate all which is fun and gruesome about the genre.

Zombie flesh eaters is unfortunately not as exciting as it sounds with bland performances and a plot which takes a while to truly begin.

6/10- Standard fun zombie affair once the film finally begins to start.

#28- The Bay (2012)

Made on a shoestring budget, the bay is a small film set in Maryland concerning the invasion of bug-like parasites hiding in the water

Unlike Zombie flesh eaters the bay is actually a lot more interesting than it sounds, and certainly a lot more unsettling. Filmed in a found footage/documentary type style the film chronicles the invasion from the outbreak to the conclusion, focusing in on no real constant protagonist. Instead the films main character is the town itself and humanity in general, giving a very realistic overview of what such an event would cause. The creatures themselves are truly unsettling, small round and generally revolting, especially when considering that they enter a person’s body through an open orifice. This, as one can imagine, creates for some utterly disgusting body horror moments as the parasites invade the human body.

The Bay is a neat little horror which works on primal fears of humanity, and thus has a similar effect to jaws, don’t think about the bay when you’re anywhere near the sea.

8/10- A creepy horror which slides under your skin

#29- Carrie (2013)

The original Carrie’s is a classic for multiple reasons, the characterisation of the terrifying daughter /mother relationship, the fantastic performances of both, the list goes on. The remake of Carrie is exactly the same in nearly every way and thus is utterly pointless.

Certain plot points in the film are arguably dated so a remake isn’t necessarily a terrible idea but it is when you don’t intend to change anything. Chloe Grace Moretz is a great actor in the right role, here as a result of the story she is horribly miscast, supposed to be playing a timid and lonely girl but her looks are just too strong to think in such a way. Julianne Moore is much the same, she’s better in the role but looks pitiful in comparison to the original performance of Piper Laurie.

I think some of the only things they changed from the original is the use of cell phones in the opening shower scene and the larger use of special effects, the former of which a pitiful attempt at making the story ‘contemporary’ the latter totally irrelevant when considering the larger story of the character of Carrie at the films heart.

4/10- Just watch the original

#30- Children of the corn (1984)

There are certain film titles that for whatever reason carry a certain amount of prestige, and for some reason I thought children of the corn was supposed to be good. It isn’t. It’s good awful.

So a city couple looking for a retreat fall upon a strange town where the kids have become possessed and rule the town. Here, an obvious arises, this plot subsequently means that a large majority of the cast must be children, and are children good actors…no…no there all shit. One standout performance comes from child antagonist Isaac played by John Franklin, providing perhaps the best worst performance of all time as the little shit who for some reason all these kids obey.

There are one or two moments which are pretty neat and eerie but the scene really isn’t worth the 90 minutes of hurt. But above all, apart from the fact that the film isn’t scary, is poorly acted and is paced unbelievably poorly, not once does it explain why the adults don’t just overpower the little shits and charge them down. One kick to issac’s fat head would flatten him.

3/10- Truly terrible, character of Isaac makes it watchable due to how laughably bad he is

#31- Annabelle (2014)

Alright, so I was supposed to finish this Shocktober thing with a grand cinema trip to see the latest (good) horror, all signs were pointing to me watching the Babadook and to put a long story short I didn’t. I watched Anabelle instead…sigh.

So Annabelle is a spin-off from last year’s successful horror the Conjuring, following the creepy doll which made people squirm in their seats. Now they’ve drawn out a huge unnecessary story for the porcelain character and her many victims, a story which is as boring as it is totally not scary. The story is pretty simple following a man and wife, who receive a gift of an old doll, and instead of stamping on it and burning it like many others would do, instead they keep it on display in their kids bedroom…wha?!

I feel as though Amnabelle is just a prime example of the state of modern horror films, less interested in the story but far more interested in giving the audience a momentary fright in the form of a plethora of jump scares, each one as ineffective as the last. These scares aren’t even well integrated any more, you can tell them from a mile off, any moment when the sound is turned right down and the camera lingers on a certain spot you can be certain a jump scare is on their way therefore it doesn’t make you jump, therefore the most simple of scares becomes useless.

Annabelle’s only good features come as references to its better older brother, ‘the Conjuring’ in which the creepy music box tune is cleverly placed in the film, as well as one or two appreciated nods. There are also some unique intelligent scares thrown in occasionally such as when the protagonist follows a trail of mysterious drawings falling in order from the top if the staircase, this wasn’t terrifying, but it was a refreshing break from the constant jump scares that bog the film down so much.

4/10- Defines modern horrors- just fecking stupid.