by Heath Lynch, Contributing Writer
“Pixar’s most emotionally powerful movie of the past 15 years,” praises Tasha Robinson at Polygon. “This is not the innovative, cutting-edge filmmaking that Pixar built its name on,” derides Barry Hertz of The Globe and Mail. Owen Gleiberman over at Variety emphatically states that, “Inside Out 2 marks a triumphant creative return for Pixar.”
While you will certainly find a wide array of opinions and thoughts on Pixar’s newest offering, a surprising number of critics, let alone your everyday moviegoers on a site like Letterboxd, have tied the conversation around this film to the standing of Pixar as a studio. Many are claiming that Inside Out 2 is proof that Pixar has rediscovered their roots, and a vocal minority are claiming that it is nothing more than a continuation of the studio’s recent trend of poorly thought-out cash grabs.
The truth? Somewhere in the middle.
Inside Out 2 is a good movie that falls short of Pixar’s greatness, but it is still more than endearing enough. But why are critics, fans, and even me, myself, and I, comparing it to their original efforts? We don’t do this to new offerings from Warner Bros., Paramount, or Columbia Pictures. The conversation has evolved into a larger probe about Pixar at large; we’ve reached a fulcrum point. A moment in time at which, it appears, we can no longer talk about a new Pixar movie in isolation. For better or worse, we have to address Pixar first.
I hope you like stats and number crunching as a means of analyzing art. We are about to go full Moneyball. Let’s roll out the chalkboard and start schooling…
From 1995 to 2010 Pixar Animation Studios was the undisputed king of child and family film entertainment. Over the course of those 15 years, they released 11 feature films. Adjusted for inflation, those films earned a whopping $10.929 billion at the worldwide box office. That’s an astounding average of $993.58 million per film. To say these were commercially successful would be a massive understatement. But even more impressive than the dump trucks full of cash that these movies brought in was the critical acclaim and awards recognition they received.
Of those first 11 films, nine of them were original intellectual properties. The only two sequels were to the studio’s original film, Toy Story. Collectively, these 11 flicks hold an average Rotten Tomatoes score of 95%, the lowest score of which is Cars at 75%. Astoundingly, though, outside of the Cars outlier, all other films scored at least 92%. Additionally, this era has not one, but two, perfect 100% ratings from RT in Toy Story and Toy Story 2. Pixar garnered 10 Oscar wins, and one additional Special Achievement Oscar for Toy Story, against 30 nominations during this time. Of these wins, six of them were for Best Animated Feature. In fact, it’s worth noting that the Best Animated Feature category didn’t even exist through Pixar’s early years. The first time one of their films was eligible was in 2001, when Monsters, Inc. was nominated. To go a step further, Pixar was nominated in this category every single year during this run that the category existed, and only lost twice. This included winning six times in a seven year span.
The sole loser in that run being, of course, Cars.
Even in their losses, Pixar had a lot to be proud of due to the other nominations they received. These nominees included such honors as seven screenplay nominations and two for the biggest prize of them all, Best Picture. They released creative, unique, and entertaining works of art. Films that challenged audiences thematically and emotionally, while providing tons of popcorn laughter and fun for kids and adults alike. It was a golden era. In hindsight, one which we might have taken for granted.
Since 2011, the studio has plateaued, if not languished.
In the 13 years since Toy Story 3, beginning with 2011’s Cars 2, the studio has focused on quantity over quality, as well as established IP versus original stories. Instead of carefully crafting 11 films over 15 years like they did in their golden era, they rushed out 16 films (not counting the newly released Inside Out 2 in any of this analysis) in just 13 years. Of those 16 films, only nine have been original IPs, while the other seven have been sequels, prequels, and spinoffs. They’ve made an adjusted $11.003 billion at the global box office. While that’s technically more than they made with their golden era run, the difference in total box office between the two eras is minimal when talking about dollar amounts this high. What isn’t minimal is that their per film average dropped to $687.70 million. A respectable number in a vacuum, but one that only accounts for two-thirds of the previous era’s average. A noticeable decline.
Though, to be fair, they did have a pandemic to deal with during this time. But, to be critical, Disney continued to release their Pixar films on Disney+ years after the pandemic restrictions had been lifted, impacting their potential revenue gains and training their audience to sit at home and wait for streaming. The self-inflicted wound stings the most, and a lot of these losses are their own damn fault.
The 16 films of this current era hold an 84% critics score on RT, the lowest of which being the studio’s sole rotten score of 40%, Cars 2. Only seven of these 16 films scored above 92%. So while the golden age saw 90% of its films scoring above this threshold, only 43% of the films from this era achieved the same. We went from straight A’s to a failing grade.
Even more noteworthy, the studio has only captured seven Oscars against 16 nominations in this timespan. There was not a single Pixar film from the golden era that didn’t receive at least one Oscar nomination. There have been six films in this new era that have not been recognized by the Academy whatsoever. And while five of the seven wins have been for Best Animated Feature, four of those five were original stories, with the singular established IP winner being Toy Story 4. In the quest to create sequels and farm more money, the studio has seemingly gone against all of the creative pillars they once stood for. When they have had fresh and unique films, they’ve been commercially and critically rewarded, but they’ve been hesitant to consistently do this, repeatedly diving into their well of established characters and formulas. The golden era has ended, and it has left many of us clamoring for a return to the artistry that made it so great.
Why is all of this relevant? Why break out the pocket protector and calculator to go into all of this? Was this necessary?!
No.
But yes.
It’s important to keep this in context, because with Inside Out 2, Pixar is making a sequel to one of its creative, original IPs from this dreaded second era, and trying to capitalize on their audience’s nostalgia for that long lost golden age…
No, go away, nostalgia! You’re not supposed to be here yet!
That’s right, Inside Out 2 is the almost decade-in-the-making sequel to the much beloved Inside Out, one of the few films since 2011 to feel like classic Pixar. It was a unique, new story, told with colorful characters, and it pulled us into a creative new world. It made $1.136 billion, adjusted for inflation, at the worldwide box office, scored a certified fresh 98% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and was nominated for multiple Academy Awards, taking home the coveted win for Best Animated Feature. In every way, it evoked all of the trademarks of what we loved about the studio. So here we are getting a sequel, something this studio has a rocky history with, and we’re left to ponder: Is this a return to form by Pixar, or yet another mundane and uninspired, cash grab sequel?
Inside Out 2 is a solid addition to the Pixar stable. It’s a vibrant and fun film which even has its heartfelt moments that both kiddos and adults alike will be able to enjoy. In fact, I would even go one step further to say that it is the best, non-Toy Story, sequel, prequel, or spinoff that we’ve ever seen from Pixar. That’s awesome!
However, this new film blatantly copies the exact narrative of the classic Inside Out. Additionally, baffling world building choices and inconsistencies, in conjunction with some lackluster dramatic tension, as our characters seemingly go through the motions of their adventure, leave a sour sequel-y taste in my mouth that only showcases how Pixar has gone astray.
The question then becomes, is there enough good here to outweigh the bad? Can this movie overcome its deficiencies? I believe it does… but barely.
It is quite obvious that Inside Out 2 is a beautifully animated film. Colors are vivid and glowing. Even though it is very cartoonish in terms of its stylization, the film has a more refined and high-def look than the previous film from nine years earlier. Flecks of light that fall off our emotions and distinct designs of how our brain works add great levels of visual detail to the experience. And that’s just describing how things look inside Riley’s head. When she’s outside in the real world, things look just as beautiful. Watching her skate on ice as she’s playing hockey, or the level of detail and the expression on her face, looks gorgeous.
The animation alone will be enough to draw you in; the laughs certainly will. While the first film focused on Riley as a preteen, Inside Out 2 dives into puberty and her early teenage years. This allows for more mature storytelling and humor. Whether it’s just relatable jokes about how we all embarrass ourselves when we get anxious in front of friends or strangers, or how we idealize childhood fantasies in our head, there’s a lot of laughs to be had. In fact, there’s a mind prison scene where we get to visit Riley’s Vault of Secrets that might just be my favorite part of the movie. Beyond the fact that it was inventive in terms of animation, with its blending of computer animation with graphics made to look like a PlayStation One video game and 2D animation resembling characters from something like Dora the Explorer, it features a lot of jokes that made me laugh my butt off. Though I will say I’m more than a bit disappointed that we never got the resolution of Chekhov’s Deep Dark Secret…. Unless you stay around for the post-credit scene, that is. *Wink*
Additionally, Inside Out 2 certainly has heart. It has a message that it’s attempting to convey, and it does a decent job of pulling it off. Life throws curveballs, things happen that you can’t expect, and it’s how we adapt to these new situations that define who we are. Millions of people struggle with anxiety and depression, and this film does a good job at visualizing what that struggle can look like. From the representation of a panic attack taking over the control panel of your mind so that no other emotion can intervene, to the creative way in which anxiety can turn your own imagination against you, this film is a deconstruction of how we grow and develop as human beings. It represents universal truths that everyone can relate to and appreciate how well it makes them feel seen.
The downside is… this heart is the exact same heart as the first film, with no narrative or emotional difference. Don’t believe me? Fair enough, let’s put this to the test. Tell me which movie I’m describing…
Our story follows Riley (Kensington Tallman), a young girl going through a slightly tumultuous time in her life where things around her are changing that she has no control over. While the story is about Riley, the majority of the runtime is spent inside her head, following the emotions that control her life. The primary emotion we follow, as our main protagonist, is Joy (Amy Poehler), the first emotion that Riley ever experienced. Joy struggles with allowing other emotions to affect Riley’s actions and memories, even going so far as to suppress emotions and memories that she finds bad for Riley. This leads to conflict, as she ends up shunning another emotion, which in turn leads to an unfortunate mishap, sending Joy and another emotion(s) from the control room of Riley’s mind. Joy is left to explore the recesses of Riley’s brain, coming across some high concept ideas such as longterm memory, imagination land, and the core of her subconscious, in the quest to get back to Riley’s control room to help her through this tumultuous time. This existential journey culminates when Joy returns to the controls, accepts that other emotions are valuable, and all the emotions come together in realizing that they are all necessary to lead Riley forward in life and help her grow as an individual.
If you said I described Inside Out, you are correct. But I also described Inside Out 2.
We’ve changed out Core Memories and Islands of Personality for Belief Threads and a Sense of Self. Instead of rejecting Sadness, now we are rejecting Anxiety and other new emotions. We aren’t finding a scary clown buried deep in our subconscious to help us return to the control board, we’re finding a video game character locked away in our secrets. Even when it comes to modes of transportation, it’s not a Train of Thought, we are floating in a Stream of Consciousness. In the end, it’s the same. Same journey, narrative arcs, and emotional conclusion. What’s frustrating, though, is how messy things are this time around, seeing as we are accomplishing the same objective. Pixar overcomplicates and clutters the narrative with a bunch of unnecessary and useless new emotions that have no reason for being in this film…. outside of merchandising opportunities.
Part of the beauty of Inside Out was the way in which it took the complexities of human life and emotion and simplified them in a minimalistic way that would allow for kids and adults alike to understand the depths of the narrative, and not overly complicate things with too many characters and concepts. Director Pete Docter distilled the entirety of the emotional spectrum and human existence into just five core emotions, and it was astounding. It felt authentic.
But Kelsey Mann, who takes over directing duties, added four new emotions, which feels like a marketing gimmick to sell a new movie, instead of a genuine creative epiphany to tell a better story. This only feels more poignant when you consider only one of the new emotions exists as a fleshed-out character, and the other three might as well not be here. To add to the frustration, all of these new emotions were already covered under Docter’s original five emotional characters.
Anxiety doesn’t need to exist when it’s already a derivative of Fear. Envy is a product of Disgust, with tidbits of Anger and Sadness. Embarrassment is Fear and Sadness. Ennui is just Disgust incarnate. To go a step further, we see Fear portraying anxiety as part of its spectrum in the original film as he projects fear about the possibilities of the future. That already happened. Speaking of what already happened, in Inside Out we saw the complexities of not just Riley’s brain, but of others too. We saw inside Riley’s mom’s brain, her dad’s, her teacher, a boy that had a crush on her… I mean, hell, we even saw the inside of a dog and a cat’s brain! At no point in any of these brains did we see any other emotions outside of the five that Riley was experiencing. It didn’t matter whether they were kids, or adults, or even human beings — it was established within the world building that there were only, exclusively, five emotions, and that everyone experienced them the same way.
This isn’t full-on, “Somehow, Palpatine returned” levels of stupid retconning, but when we are taking already existing emotions and changing them so that we can account for new emotions just to create new conflict, it’s truly disappointing. Not just from an artistic text standpoint, but also from a commercial standpoint.
Joy already had conflict with Sadness in the first movie, so why not have Fear be the antagonist this time around? It certainly would’ve given you the chance to flesh out a character who was wildly underserved in the original film, stuck with the established world building of the first movie, and shown how different emotions take center stage at different points in your life. Can we even name one thing that we gained narratively by actually adding Anxiety as a separate character? Does Ennui add anything outside of a joke about being lazy and teenagers doing stuff on their tablets/phones? What did Envy ever do other than puppet the exact desires of Anxiety? And as adorable as Paul Walter Hauser’s squeaks might have been, did he accomplish anything outside of being a model for $27 plushies? These were not necessary characters and only served to clog up the narrative. But they were necessary toys.
I will say, though, a ton of credit needs to be given to Maya Hawke, as she is doing tremendous work as Anxiety. She is undeniably the vocal performance that grabs your attention the most. Don’t get me wrong, it’s great seeing Poehler do some solid work once again, and I enjoyed Louis Black as Anger, but Hawke steals the show. The expression and range that she’s displaying in such a deliberately one-dimensional character is quite impressive. With that said, I did find myself missing Bill Hader and Mindy Kaling. Not that these new performances by Tony Hale and Liza Lapira are terrible by any means, but there is definitely an energy missing. Plus, learning that the main reason we lost Hader and Kaling was due to money, when Disney has all the money in the world, feels cheap. If I was to go full conspiracy, I almost wonder if this is another reason why the new emotions were brought into the fold. If you can’t get Hader back to portray Fear as the main antagonist in this plot, and you’re not confident enough in Hale, why not make entirely new merchandise? *Ahem* I mean, characters?
I’m not naïve. I understand sequels will retread elements of what came before. But there is a threshold in which things can feel egregious, and Inside Out 2 reaches that threshold. So in the end, I’m left asking myself if it was at all necessary. Did they actually have something new to say creatively and emotionally, or did they just deliver the same thing with a fresh coat of paint because Pixar is in desperate need of commercial and critical success? Are these critics right? Is this is the beginning of Pixar’s renaissance, or is it just more of the same thing that we’ve been getting for the last decade plus?
When all is said and done, I don’t feel as though Pixar is out of their slump, and it doesn’t seem like they’ve truly gone back to their original creative roots, but it does feel as though Inside Out 2 is a critical step in the right direction. While my jaded self may feel a tinge of disappointment, overall I walk away from this new trip through Riley’s brain feeling fulfilled. I was entranced by the visuals, I liked the vocal performances, I laughed at many of the jokes, and the movie got me in the feels… even if it was the same exact feels as the last time around. Though I would never choose to watch it over the original masterpiece if I had a choice between the two, Inside Out 2 is an entertaining flick. Just don’t expect it to be the revitalization of a once-great studio that so many are proclaiming it to be.
Rating: Liked It
Inside Out 2 is currently playing in theaters
You can read more from Heath Lynch, and follow him on Letterboxd