Inside Out 2 | June 14, 2024 | Biggest animated movie of all time! We aren’t Pixover but Pixulling Back!

[harrisonisdead]

This reception is pretty solidly average for Pixar. Their overall average Metacritic score is 78, and their average for the past 5 years is 72. This one currently has a 74, so there would be 17 Pixar movies above it and 10 below it.

[cannastop]

2 minutes ago, Porthos said:

Also FWIW, I expect the RT to rise a bit into the low 90s as less snobbish/less demanding critics continue to weigh in.

Kind of what happened to Elemental.

[HummingLemon496]

1 hour ago, Porthos said:

Also FWIW, I expect the RT to rise a bit into the low 90s as less snobbish/less demanding critics continue to weigh in.

And also audience word of mouth matters more than critic reviews

 

For example, last year when the GOTG 3 review embargo came out people who kinda freaking out about how "mid" the reviews were (it was like 75-80% at first), but then audience reception/WOM was absolutely amazing. 

Edited June 12 by HummingLemon496

[Block-Busted]

1 hour ago, PNF2187 said:

Reviews seem good here, certainly not where the first film was... but literally no other mainstream animated movie since has quite been able to get there, even if some of them come close. And it's certainly not bad enough to hurt the movie in any meaningful way.

 

I will say, seeing Pixar movies score in the 80% range on RT always throws me. It's usually either 90%+ or somewhere in the 70% range.

 

 

Yeah, strangely enough, the only Pixar film that is blatantly in 80% range on RottenTomatoes is Onward as of today. Maybe we'll end up seeing more of those eventually, but it's still kind of a weird thing to witness.

[MysteryMovieMogul]

For what its worth I don't expect any Pixar film to ever reach the critical levels of their Golden Age. There's just too much Disney and Pixar baggage these days, and it's impossible to come into any Disney or Pixar film without a personal opinion on both companies. 

59 minutes ago, ThomasNicole said:

Good reviews, slightly under what i expected but in the the same ballpark, it’s all fine. 
 

The interesting thing for me is that it seems to have some sort of pushback against Pixar new rule of “no personal shit” in the reviews. Lots of complains over the movie lacking some sense of personal heart, being way more worried with intelectual in order to find something that would please everyone. 
 

This complain are present in most of the reviews without context, but there’s quite some connecting it with Pixar recent outspoken new idea of “universal” movies. 
 

And to be fair this was the worrisome part about this new plan for me since they started talking about it, that the movies would lose their sense of personality, that feeling that human beings put themselves into the animation, turning the movies into just another somewhat soulless enterprise affair, too afraid of increasing polarizing audiences. 
 

Not saying this will make bad movies, but certainly less interesting ones. Curious to see if it’s the case with this one. Still, the reviews are solid, clearly it’s well made and does everything to not piss anyone, i’m fully expecting great audience reception and finally a huge hit for box office this year.

This is the kind of shit I find interesting. It's like some of these reviews are critiquing more than just the movie itself, but the Pixar culture and what they've claimed in interviews. That's not what I read reviews for. I want to know if a film is good or bad relative to its script or its imagery.

 

Some critics still review films for what they are, but its getting less and less common. Now, so many critics bring in outside baggage.

[cannastop]

5 minutes ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

For what its worth I don't expect any Pixar film to ever reach the critical levels of their Golden Age. There's just too much Disney and Pixar baggage these days, and it's impossible to come into any Disney or Pixar film without a personal opinion on both companies. 

I think there definitely could be another 95%+ movie in the works. Just depends on who makes it.

 

EDIT: Actually kind of curious how Toy Story 5 will turn out, as all four of the previous movies have 97%+

Edited June 12 by cannastop

[AniNate]

I suspect people would've had that criticism even without those articles. It's another "cashgrab" sequel and they haven't really denied it, especially since it has a different director with no prior resume it was inevitably gonna have some people accusing it of being too corporate or lacking personality.

[ThomasNicole]

1 minute ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

For what its worth I don't expect any Pixar film to ever reach the critical levels of their Golden Age. There's just too much Disney and Pixar baggage these days, and it's impossible to come into any Disney or Pixar film without a personal opinion on both companies. 

This is the kind of shit I find interesting. It's like some of these reviews are critiquing more than just the movie itself, but the Pixar culture and what they've claimed in interviews. That's not what I read reviews for. I want to know if a film is good or bad relative to its script or its imagery.

 

Some critics still review films for what they are, but its getting less and less common. Now, so many critics bring in outside baggage.

Curious pov, i’m always inclined to reviews that think about the movie in the context of the industry, in the culture etc.

 

Maybe because i write reviews myself, i find very hard to objectively like or dislike something in a vacuum knowing many things about this form of art and the industry around it. For example, if someone feels there’s some emotional distance in the movie like many said, it’s cool that the writer think about how the industry demands for the studio maybe are causing this and how. 
 

Not saying you’re wrong, i definitely think they’re reviewing more than just the movie, it’s just natural to me which is why i like to read reviews even from movies i dislike, but i understand many people prefer to read reviews as some guide to watch it or not.
 

 

[rihrey]

It's up to 75 on Metacritic with 36 reviews and bounced back to 90% on Rotten Tomatoes with 88 reviews.

[Insomnia]

23 minutes ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

For what its worth I don't expect any Pixar film to ever reach the critical levels of their Golden Age. There's just too much Disney and Pixar baggage these days, and it's impossible to come into any Disney or Pixar film without a personal opinion on both companies. 

This is the kind of shit I find interesting. It's like some of these reviews are critiquing more than just the movie itself, but the Pixar culture and what they've claimed in interviews. That's not what I read reviews for. I want to know if a film is good or bad relative to its script or its imagery.

 

Some critics still review films for what they are, but its getting less and less common. Now, so many critics bring in outside baggage.

1000%. Their reviews reflect their mood and it's lame.

[Speedorito]

24 minutes ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

For what its worth I don't expect any Pixar film to ever reach the critical levels of their Golden Age. There's just too much Disney and Pixar baggage these days, and it's impossible to come into any Disney or Pixar film without a personal opinion on both companies. 

This is the kind of shit I find interesting. It's like some of these reviews are critiquing more than just the movie itself, but the Pixar culture and what they've claimed in interviews. That's not what I read reviews for. I want to know if a film is good or bad relative to its script or its imagery.

 

Some critics still review films for what they are, but its getting less and less common. Now, so many critics bring in outside baggage.

It is sort of annoying, but since audiences don’t care about critics’ gripes with Disney and Pixar culture, the slightly lower yet still good reviews probably bode well for audience reception.

[Insomnia]

21 minutes ago, ThomasNicole said:

Curious pov, i’m always inclined to reviews that think about the movie in the context of the industry, in the culture etc.

 

Maybe because i write reviews myself, i find very hard to objectively like or dislike something in a vacuum knowing many things about this form of art and the industry around it. For example, if someone feels there’s some emotional distance in the movie like many said, it’s cool that the writer think about how the industry demands for the studio maybe are causing this and how. 
 

Not saying you’re wrong, i definitely think they’re reviewing more than just the movie, it’s just natural to me which is why i like to read reviews even from movies i dislike, but i understand many people prefer to read reviews as some guide to watch it or not.
 

 

I see what you're saying but when these reviews have a score attached to it then it has to be just about a movie, otherwise the score becomes tainted if you will. When the audience sees a score they expect that score to be a reflection of the quality of the film (I'm that critic's mind anyway) and only the quality of the film, not something that takes into account other circumstances.

Edited June 12 by Insomnia

[Block-Busted]

2 minutes ago, HummingLemon496 said:

And also audience word of mouth matters more than critic reviews

 

For example, last year when the GOTG 3 review embargo came out people who kinda freaking out about how "mid" the reviews were (it was like 75-80% at first), but then audience reception/WOM was absolutely amazing. 

To be fair, it's widely suspected that Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 got its points taken off due to depiction of animal felony - in a film that belongs in one of the more lighthearted series in MCU.

[Block-Busted]

29 minutes ago, cannastop said:

I think there definitely could be another 95%+ movie in the works. Just depends on who makes it.

 

EDIT: Actually kind of curious how Toy Story 5 will turn out, as all four of the previous movies have 97%+

Considering that Andrew Stanton might be directing this, I could picture 98% on RottenTomatoes with 8.6/10 average and 86/100 on Metacritic.

[ChipDerby]

3 hours ago, Eric S'ennui said:

Movie critics have zero obligation to pretend to like a movie in order to "hype" people to go to theaters. That's just terrible, unprofessional journalism.

 

Gonna disagree here. Not every critic is Anton Ego. If a movie critic is biased one way or another for a movie they want to succeed, that doesn't make them terrible or unprofessional. Also, they're not all journalists.

[Block-Busted]

29 minutes ago, AniNate said:

I suspect people would've had that criticism even without those articles. It's another "cashgrab" sequel and they haven't really denied it, especially since it has a different director with no prior resume it was inevitably gonna have some people accusing it of being too corporate or lacking personality.

Also, the first film set an extremely high standard already. In fact, that thing has 98% on RottenTomatoes with 8.9/10 average and 94/100 on Metacritic.

[Insomnia]

1 hour ago, Block-Busted said:

Also, the first film set an extremely high standard already. In fact, that thing has 98% on RottenTomatoes with 8.9/10 average and 94/100 on Metacritic.

Oh really? You haven't mentioned that before!

[MysteryMovieMogul]

2 hours ago, ThomasNicole said:

Curious pov, i’m always inclined to reviews that think about the movie in the context of the industry, in the culture etc.

 

Maybe because i write reviews myself, i find very hard to objectively like or dislike something in a vacuum knowing many things about this form of art and the industry around it. For example, if someone feels there’s some emotional distance in the movie like many said, it’s cool that the writer think about how the industry demands for the studio maybe are causing this and how. 
 

Not saying you’re wrong, i definitely think they’re reviewing more than just the movie, it’s just natural to me which is why i like to read reviews even from movies i dislike, but i understand many people prefer to read reviews as some guide to watch it or not.

 

I mean, I think a review needs to engage with the film more than just "see this film" or "don't see this film." I want to know if the story works or doesn't work, if there's something that makes the film stick out from others of the same type, etc.

 

As for what I don't think reviews should contain, I don't believe a review should comment on the film's marketing, interviews with the studio, anything outside the scope of the filmmaking. That's for a separate article.

 

When Pixar says "we're going to make more films with universal appeal," that's a marketing statement. I would argue Turning Red is as much a universal story as Toy Story. They're saying what they have to, to try to get people back in theaters watching their films. So if a critic is going into Inside Out 2 buying the marketing hook, line, and sinker, I don't trust them, because a film critic should be well-versed in how movie's need to market themselves to attract audiences.

[AniNate]

People who complain about critics not being "objective" enough typically have zero desire for them to actually be objective

[cannastop]

10 minutes ago, MysteryMovieMogul said:

When Pixar says "we're going to make more films with universal appeal," that's a marketing statement. I would argue Turning Red is as much a universal story as Toy Story. They're saying what they have to, to try to get people back in theaters watching their films. So if a critic is going into Inside Out 2 buying the marketing hook, line, and sinker, I don't trust them, because a film critic should be well-versed in how movie's need to market themselves to attract audiences.

But that's just your interpretation of what was said. I get what you're saying about focusing on the movie itself but outside information can be relevant. If a reviewer like David Ehrlich wants to synthesize news about Pixar with the content of the movie, I don't see any way that's wrong. For that matter, information about how a movie is made is also welcome in reviews.

 

9 minutes ago, AniNate said:

People who complain about critics not being "objective" enough typically have zero desire for them to actually be objective

I thought the whole point of reviews was to be subjective.