Table of Contents
Nostalgia misses mark as fifth Toy Story instalment feels too safe, unmemorable
AFTER four films, a spin-off and nearly three decades of cultural weight, Toy Story 5 arrives with the same question that hung over Toy Story 4: Did this series need another chapter?
The answer is still no, though this fifth entry is not without merit. Directed by Andrew Stanton, Toy Story 5 is one of Pixar’s better recent sequels, but that bar is no longer very high.
Compared with newer Pixar titles such as Hoppers, Elio (2025) and Elemental (2023), it has more emotional pull and a stronger connection to the studio’s past. Even then, it still feels too safe, too polished and too forgettable to justify reopening a series that already had more than one natural ending.
Jessie takes lead
Set two years after Toy Story 4, the film follows Bonnie (Scarlett Spears) as she becomes attached to Lilypad (Greta Lee), a frog-themed tablet that begins replacing her toys as her favourite source of play. Jessie (Joan Cusack), now the sheriff after Woody’s (Tom Hanks) departure, tries to cheer Bonnie up and protect the old idea of imaginative play, only to find herself separated from the group and forced to confront memories of abandonment.
– ALL HANDOUT PICS
That focus on Jessie is easily the film’s strongest decision. Cusack gives one of her best performances in the franchise, bringing real sadness, fear and determination to a character whose Toy Story 2 backstory remains one of Pixar’s most painful emotional moments.
Toy Story 5 wisely returns to that trauma, especially when Jessie is brought back to the farmhouse connected to her old owner Emily. These are the moments where the film feels closest to the emotional intelligence that once defined Pixar.
Three plots, uneven results
The film is split into three main threads. The A-story follows Jessie’s attempt to help Bonnie while being stranded with Blaze (Mykal-Michelle Harris) and the tech-like toys. This is the emotional centre of the movie and the only part that consistently feels necessary.
The B-plot, involving Woody and Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen) trying to rescue Jessie while competing over who gets to be her deputy, is the weakest and least interesting. It gives Hanks and Allen plenty to do but the rivalry feels thin, repetitive and mostly there to keep the two most recognisable characters in motion.
The C-plot, which follows a group of stranded Buzz Lightyear toys trying to find Star Command, is surprisingly fun. It is more interesting and entertaining than much of Lightyear (2022) – and its sillier energy gives the film some needed momentum. The problem is that the original supporting toys are left with too little to contribute. Rex, Hamm, Slinky, Dolly and the others often feel like background figures in their own franchise.
Soft take on screen time
Lilypad is an interesting idea for a villain but not a very strong one. The film raises a good question about what happens when a toy is also a device. Lilypad is alive in the same strange way the toys are alive, which makes the film’s own rules more confusing. If a tablet can have sentience, what about a laptop, a smartphone or a gaming console? The movie never explores this deeply, though perhaps the franchise falls apart if you overthink it.
The bigger issue is the message. Toy Story 5 clearly wants to talk about children, tablets and the loss of imaginative play. It suggests excessive screen use is harmful, toys encourage healthier creativity and childhood should not be surrendered to devices. Then the ending softens the point into a neat middle ground.
The film seems afraid to fully commit to its own argument, which makes the whole thing feel corporately cautious. It wants to criticise tech addiction without sounding too harsh and the result is a message with very little impact.
Nostalgia over risk
There are still heartwarming scenes and some tearjerking ones. The film also knowingly revisits classic Toy Story imagery, including a sequence that recalls Buzz and Woody hanging from a moving vehicle.
For longtime viewers, those references carry some nostalgic charge but they also underline how much the franchise is now relying on echoes of its former self.
Pixar’s animation remains the highlight. The craft is immaculate, though the visual evolution of the series is noticeable. The toys look glossier and more plasticky than before, which makes sense materially, but they also feel less worn and lived-in than they did in the earlier films.
Polished but forgettable sequel
Woody’s return also slightly weakens the poignancy of his departure in Toy Story 4. A joke about his balding makes sense for an old toy with a plastic head, but a joke about his bigger belly does not. How would a toy even gain weight?
The film’s screen time angle is timely enough but it also feels like the safest version of a modern Toy Story. If Pixar wanted to say something more relevant about children, play and addiction, it could have looked beyond tablets and addressed the blind box craze, where toys are tied to impulse buying, scarcity and the thrill of not knowing what is inside.
That would have made for a more interesting conflict about the way toys themselves have changed. Toy Story 5 is not bad. It is touching in places, funny in others and held together by a strong Jessie arc.
But it also feels like content more than meaningful art.
That, unfortunately, is where Disney and Pixar often seem to be now: Extending brands, reviving endings and producing safe stories that will likely still make a fortune because the name is already beloved.
The toys are charming. Their film is much less memorable.
READ MORE:
The Sheep Detectives review: Truly wooly whodunit
The Mandalorian and Grogu review: This is not the way
Hoppers review: Middle-tier Pixar at best
