Inside Out 2

Okay, I should probably warn you that this is going to be a bad review. Not because the movie was bad (although I truthfully didn't like it) but because, no, the review is legit NOT gonna be one of my better efforts. I have a feeling that I will be failing people who read my reviews. Why?

Basically, when I heard the scenario for the sequel, I had nothing but complaints in the back my head. Online I mentioned that the only new real emotion puberty entails is lust, and "Your Move, Disney". The very premise of the movie struck me not simply as ridiculous. But bullshit. I don't know about Ennui, but my very young childhood was FILLED with anxiety, embarrassment, and envy. And despite me being on the spectrum (which was undiagnosed in the 1980's) I know I was not alone in that. Whatever. The real reason the review is gonna suck is because I made myself a promise before watching the movie, and broke it instantly (and repeatedly): Don't be cynical. It's a kids cartoon. I'm not saying have low standards, but keep some perspective there. But hearing Disgust and Fear, both with character designs based around Mindy Kaling and Bill Hader, voiced by entirely different people, because Kaling and Hader (rightly) thought they deserved a bigger paycheck, made me instantly cynical.

And maybe Pixar and Disney Studios will say, "Well, the movie did just fine without them." But no, I think the actual lesson to it being this monster hit that brought back the animated film industry from the brink of destruction, means Disney and Pixar COULD have afforded to pay them their fair share instead of handing us "Wrong-Sounding Muppets". Wocka Wocka. Who wants to hear some funny-ass jokes?

So basically I promised myself to be kind and fair to my readers, but once they are listing the names of the emotions in the most blatantly merchandisable way possible, this review is already a failure. I can't do it. I can't pretend that this movie evokes ANY Disney or Pixar magic in me. It's not film, it's commerce. In an interview, Bone's Jeff Smith talked about the fact that Disney Comics and the rare animated specials on The Wonderful World Of Disney were actual magic, not like the "You WILL believe this is magic!!!!" b.s. Disney tried to shove down your throat repeatedly in the 1980's and 1990's. This is Shoved Down My Throat Magic. Not real magic. Disney doesn't seem to believe there's a difference, but I'm cynical, failing every inch of this review, and fucking know better.

And no, I'm never forgetting the fact that this entire franchise is a rip-off of the terrible Fox sitcom Herman's Head. I am not only shocked there has never been a lawsuit, but Disney ownership or not, that show starred both Yeardley Smith AND Hank Azaria. This is a pop culture note The Simpsons should have already made if Disney hadn't apparently defanged the show about shit like this. Basically the only Disney jokes The Simpsons are currently permitted to make is the toothless edge-free treacle from the sell-out Disney+ Shorts. But I'm man, I'm like, "When the FUCK is William Ragsdale gonna get his pop culture due?" For real?

This review seems to be revealing far more of my personal psychological hang-ups than I usually prefer, but considering the film's premise, it would be weird if it didn't.

Are there any things I liked? Well, yeah, I thought the direction and boarding near the end of the movie showing Riley's emotional dysfunction was cinematic. Yeah, I know it's actually CINEMA, but you'd be shocked how few cartoons remember to do that. Only Disney and Pixar are consistent there. I also loved the gag of Anger shoving his arm down the throat of the fanny pack. That felt a lot more hardcore than the rest of the movie was. Can I just say that outside of that moment Lewis Black was very much wasted? Anger was FAR too subdued in this sequel.

A lot of controversy has recently popped up in the cultural dialogue about Marvel films and whether they are actual cinema. Regardless of where you fall there, the main argument that they AREN'T cinema is that the films are made by committee, and have sort of all become homogenized, and all the same. Earlier on Ant-Man and Captain America: The Winter Soldier explored different genres from most superhero films, but the entire franchise at large stopped doing that, and it all turned into a giant messy blockbuster for every outing whether the premise lent itself to that or not (and Ant-Man And The Wasp: Quantumania most certainly did NOT).

But if folks are questioning Marvel's classification as serious cinema for refusing to vary the story and tone, shouldn't that exact complaint be leveled at almost EVERY recent Pixar film? Almost ALL Pixar films are premise-based, rather than story-based. Pixar comes up with a weird idea, often including objects or creatures that can't talk in real life talking, and builds an entire world around the premise.

It's true that for the longest time Disney Animated films went to the fairy tale well too often, but even if there much repetition there, at least each one of those classic films were story-driven, rather than Disney throwing an insane idea against the wall and seeing if it would stick. Of course, that definitely describes Fantasia, but if every fucking Disney cartoon had been Fantasia, I'd have lost interest pretty quickly too.

The bad news is that Zootopia, Wreck-It Ralph, and to a lesser extent Wish and Strange World are shifting Disney Animation Studio's focus to premise-based films. In fact Wish's biggest weakness is that it can't decide if it's a Disney Fairytale, or a Big Pixar Idea. And as far as Big Pixar Ideas go, I've had about enough of them.

I don't feel the magic. I don't feel the drama is sincere, and I think these films are more cash-grabs than they are, well, FILMS. If folks are gonna question the integrity of Marvel Studios, the same light ought to be held up to Pixar. And Dreamworks and Illumination while we're here. One of the reasons people refusing to call Marvel Studios movies cinema disturbs me is because if we only judged movies by the standards folks like Martin Scorsese describe, almost nothing fun and popular would count. I'm not saying people don't have a point that the way Marvel has taken over Hollywood isn't healthy for the industry. I'm saying that dragging on Marvel for that is not good because most other blockbusters from different Studios are far worse. Do you know why Marvel took over Hollywood to begin with? Because every single big budget blockbuster at the time sucked ass, Marvel said, "Hey, how about we make some GOOD popcorn flicks instead?", people loved them, and folks who make dreary films that people hate, resented them for their success.

But questioning Pixar's quality is fair game, I think. During Pixar's heyday, GOOD and GREAT animated films were out there. The CGI was a novelty back then, but as far as quality goes, as much as John Lasseter loved to brag about it, Pixar never reinvented the wheel there. Animated films were already fine. This opinion is only mine, and it may be wrong, and it's spoken by somebody who didn't like the original Toy Story all too much: But Pixar never filled an audience need that was actually missing. And maybe that's why its current repeated mediocrity flies so far under the radar. But I notice it, and I don't like it. And I don't love all of these glowing reviews of middling movies telling me I HAVE to like it.

One more bad note about the film: It's predictable. I have mentioned over and over again that I do not have the aversion to predictable entertainment most viewers and critics do. I believe there is something satisfying and wonderful about watching a great story go down the way it should (did I mention Marvel Studios filled an audience need? That was one of them.) The problem is this movie is predictable in the wrong ways. The moral is self-evidence to everyone in the audience, even the little kids. So watching the characters do the wrong thing when we already know the right one, and knowing that they'll come around in the end anyways, is not telling a story in the proper satisfying way it SHOULD go down, even if it's acting like that's what's happening. It seems on the surface like comfort food (like the best of popcorn fluff) but it's monotonous and frustrating instead. And it means there aren't any real stakes. Maybe that goes without saying in a movie simply being about a kid being worried about a weekend at hockey camp, but I think the ACTUAL low-stakes demanded higher NARRATIVE stakes. And this is not the best premise for that at all.

Part of me feels like the film at least deserves partial credit for acknowledging that Joy and the original emotions burying bad memories is actually damaging. But I think that was kind of the conceit of the first film. These emotions are basically zanily upending the world in this kid's brain with zero level of self-awareness of either the weight or consequences of doing so. I find that moral less a surprise and more of an "About damn time!" necessity.

The allegories in the film like the sar-chasm, and brain-storm are just so freaking heavy-handed and cutesy, and it's hard to take any pathos Riley is feeling while the film is engaging in SUCH broad shtick.

Sigh. So that was my terrible review of a mediocre movie. Probably says more for my poor writing and analytical skills than the actual film does Pixar. But just because I lost and gave into my cynicism doesn't mean I'm wrong. Maybe kids movies should be viewed a little less cynically. But, hey, I'm JUST as cynical when it comes to claptrap that is supposedly for adults, so at least there is no hypocrisy in the failing. But yeah, that review did NOT feel good to write, and I think it probably sucked, and said nothing emotionally important. Which is almost appropriate because neither did Inside Out 2. 2 stars.

Deleted Scenes

Messy film. Even messier deleted scenes. If you can believe it the first board of the film was even more cringe. They basically had to rework the entire film so it's a relatable kid problem, instead of Sweet Valley High relationship drama.

Am I dating myself there? Overall: 1 star.

Cold Open

Two things to note:

1. The scene is purely awful. There is no subtlety to the scene whatsoever. And this is fucking Inside Out! NOT a remotely subtle franchise. That's how overboard this is.

2. Director Kelsey Mann IS a man. Directing a movie about a teenage girl going through puberty. This strikes me as a classic Pixar mistake, and is probably one of the biggest reason women filmmakers don't trust the studio. John Lasseter was just the poster boy for the toxicity of the Old Boy Studio Network. Even with him gone, it's so freaking entrenched a dude directed this movie, and seems to be completely unaware about why that's actually inappropriate. 1 star.

Broken Joy

I still say the film should have been directed by a woman, but I'll give Mann this: He cut the scene for the right reason. 3 stars.

Pool Party

I mentioned this movie needed to be directed by a woman. And the fact that this cringe scene made it all the way to storyboard proves me right.

Mann very deliberately points out (on-camera) that a woman boarded the scene. But I think he does that less to cement the idea that she lent the scene actual feminine pathos, and more to give him coming up with a scene this horrible some plausible deniability after the fact. It's tone-deaf from a man. I think this deleted scene is where Mann KNEW people would judge him harshly for being a man exploring female puberty, and decided to pretend it was all down to the female boarder.

But yeah, this scene is awful too. On every level. 0 stars.

Puberty Park

The Good:

Mann again cut the scene for the right reason.

The Bad:

Another demonstration that these films throw ideas against the wall to see what sticks, rather than coming from a solid narrative or character place.

The What Da Fuck?

What the HELL are the little blob guys running about Riley's body? They aren't emotions, so what they are? I seem to recall the original five emotions and the elephant imaginary friend were kind of alone in Riley's body in the first movie. Where did all these blobs come from and what are they? 1 1/2 stars.

Shame Spiral

Basically the first draft / board of the movie involved Riley playing teenage sleepover games, and being embarrassed by boys, basically questioning not just her place among her friends, but her sexuality a little too. Big mistake, not just because Mann is a male director. But also because it's a children's film. Children can relate to peer pressure and wanting to have cool friends. Regardless of what the final film suggests, those things aren't puberty specific. But I think most of the challenges the original version gave Riley are frankly something an OLDER kid should go through. Not a 13 year old.

Good God, that was a mess. 1 star.