Toy Story 4 (2019)

“Toy Story 4” (2019) wasn’t bad, per se, but it was entirely unnecessary to the story arc of the series.
“Toy Story 3” (2010) finished what “Toy Story” (1995) started: Andy grew up and went to college, his toys given away to a new kid, Bonnie, so she could enjoy them. Plenty of #3 was devoted to the toys getting a chance to say their goodbyes to their original owner while getting used to the idea of having a new kid to play with.

Somehow, Pixar looked at that and thought “Nah, that’s not enough. What if Woody had an existential crisis, we revealed some bizarre rules to our universe, and dropped in some disturbing horror elements too?”
I realize that the first movie had Sid and his mutant toys, and some references to “The Shining” (1980), but Sid’s toys were just kinda weird and “The Shining” bit was entirely limited to the carpet at Sid’s house.

In #4, the studio decided to add a quartet of those nightmarish mid-century ventriloquism dummies. You know - the kind that always look like they’re ready to steal your soul. 
They were included in more than one drop-scare, which was unpleasant, and their heads rotated 360 degrees, which was an unappreciated level of creepy.
But they weren’t alone, they were goons for the villain: Gabby Gabby (Christina Hendricks), an equally mid-century ceramic doll that had, somehow, spent roughly 60 years living in an antiques store and had never found/bought/adopted.
This actually opened up a weird issue: at one point while talking to Gabby Gabby, Woody admitted that he he was made somewhere in the 1950s, though he repeatedly stated that Andy was his first kid. Since the first movie came out in 1995 and took place on Andy’s 9th (maybe 10th) birthday, putting him solidly as a mid-80s baby, it means that Woody sat in a box somewhere for roughly 35 years. 
While it’s clear that toys don’t age, I feel like Woody being almost 40 should have come up... somewhere previously; it was a strange and unnecessary piece of backstory to add during the fourth installment of a series.
Also: who gives a young kid a toy that old?!

The major plot point of #4 revolved around the new kid, Bonnie, having a very rough time starting kindergarten.
I don’t have a kid yet, so I don’t have a frame of reference, but watching Bonnie panic-stress about starting school was grating, and the focus on her emotional distress lasted far too long.
Part of Bonnie’s adaptation was a Frankenstein’s monster creation called “Forkie” (Tony Hale); a spork with pipe-cleaner arms and googly-eyes.
This was where the rules of the Toy Story universe became both more clear and truly bizarre: the inclusion of googly-eyes are apparently what turned Forkie from a simple collection of trash into a sentient toy, and implied that any “toy” with eyes was alive and any toy without eyes wasn’t, as was shown with a few non-eyed toys.
Model trucks with eyes: alive. 
Model trucks without eyes: not alive. 
A large plastic chair with eyes: alive. 
Punch-bugs with eyelashes: not alive. Maybe.
It’s also not clear what do/don’t qualify as “eyes” - can a cyclops toy be alive? Does it need pupils? Do buttons count the same as drawn dots? What happens if you pull eyes off a toy that has them? Why was the fishingpole with legs in #1 alive?

Our supporting cast of lovable toys returned: Bo Peep (who got her own sub-plot), Rex, Jessie, Buzz, Slinky Dog, and others that you remember from the previous three, along with a host of new characters who were entirely unnecessary: Duke Caboom (Keanu Reeves), Ducky and Bunny (Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele, respectively), and Giggle McDimples (Ally Maki), all of whom solidly fit the “annoying side characters who were supposed to be some form of comedic relief.”
Had it been any one or two of them, it would have been fine. But all four, in conjunction with the addition of Bo Peep’s massive role and the new kid Bonnie, was just too much: too many new characters and too much development that we the audience had to see.

I remember that in the first movie, Buzz refused to accept that he was a toy, but that was entirely part of his character arc and resolved before the end credits and he was always pretty sharp in his own way. For some reason, here in #4, the studio decided that Buzz should just be kinda derpy. I don’t know why and I didn’t appreciate the change.

As to be expected, the special effects were Pixar-perfect, built on the progress they’ve been making in CGI space for the last two decades. 

The soundtrack was entirely unmemorable.

I thought #3 was a solid ending to the series, so the fact that #4 got made gives me reason to be concerned that there will be a #5, and maybe even a #6.

We didn’t need to spend 90 minutes watching Woody question his existence in a post-Andy world, and this didn’t feel like a relevant progression of the toys’ world. It was an ending to Woody’s story (no, he didn’t die), so that was an alternate way to “end” it.
These last two movies almost parallel “Avengers Endgame” and “SpiderMan: Far From Home” as two endings to the same story, focusing on ending different components of the same overarching tale, just not done as well.

I saw it in theaters with Megan and it wasn’t really worth it. I realize I’m technically no longer the target audience, but Disney and Pixar are also now relying on my nostalgia from growing up with the series to take any potential kids with me. If this is where the series is going, I’m not going to be inclined to bring future children to see them.
Unfortunately, it’s really only worth watching while you’re stuck on an airplane; don’t use real-life time or money on it.