Inside Out

[Semaj]

It's still a long ways away and I haven't personally seen the film yet, but I wonder if the real question this Oscars season will be whether or not this can hold up enough to slip into the Best Picture race like Up and Toy Story 3 did with the expanded number of nominees. Probably not but you never know.

I would really love to believe this.

[Mooky]

The movie was just fine. I wouldn't call it a masterpiece; as entertaining and smart as it was, I'd still describe it as mostly harmless and tame. There was nothing special or ground-breaking (other than three main characters being female), but it's miles above Pixar's last three films so there's that I guess. I actually found the end credits to be the funniest part of the movie...

Lava short was super cute; it felt like a long-lost segment of Make Mine Music or Melody Time, albeit in CGI.

[disneyprincess11]

Whoops, now it's 99% on RT

[ce1ticmoon]

Saw this tonight. A welcome return to form for Pixar, and one of their finest films yet. It really had the perfect mix of drama and comedy (this was seriously probably Pixar's funniest film), and the world-building was some of the most imaginative of all of Pixar's films. By now, we have all seen that some people are really eager to proclaim that the whole "personified emotions inside the mind" idea isn't so original, but that really is beside the point. The way they have the entire inner workings of the brain set up is just so meticulously well thought-out--that is where the real creativity lies.

Aside from that, Joy and Sadness had really great arcs, the score was probably one of Michael Giacchino's best (if not the best), and the visuals, in usual pixar fashion, were great. Though beautifully rendered, the visuals in the real world could be criticized for being a bit bland and uninteresting, but I think that was a great choice, as that made for great contrast with the world inside the mind. I was especially enamored by what they did with the abstract thought scene. They really played with the visuals in that scene, and I really hope we see more stuff like that from Pixar in the future.

Bingbong's goodbye was super heartbreaking, and the end of the film definitely brought some tears to my eyes. Among Pete Docter's films, I've always felt that Up is a bit overpraised and isn't among Pixar's greatest films--but this really deserves all of the praise it's getting. It could very well be Docter's magnum opus. (I definitely see it being my favorite of his, that's for sure.)

[DisneyFan09]

Among Pete Docter's films, I've always felt that Up is a bit overpraised and isn't among Pixar's greatest films--but this really deserves all of the praise it's getting.

Really? I find it to be the opposite; I find "Up" to be one of the rare Pixar films who deserved it's praise. I considered most of Pixar's golden age films to be overrated (not bad, just overrated), but I thought "Up" really deserved it's praise.

[DisneyJedi]

I saw it last night with my family and it was phenomenal. A perfect mix of laughter and tears. No, seriously. I actually teared up towards the end, something no Pixar movie (not even Up or Toy Story 3) has ever done before for me.

Too bad my youngest brother had to be a bit of a brat by getting on me for caring about fictional characters. But that's the point of some fictional films, they're supposed to make you care about the characters!

In all seriousness, I loved it. It was Pixar's best to date.

PS, just in case, bring some Kleenex with you when you see this, especially if you're very sensitive. Because there's a good chance that you will cry.

[Semaj]

My girlfriend and I saw it at the local IMAX theatre.

The last time I was THIS excited for a new movie was probably when Pixar came out with UP. I purposely stayed away from anything that might've spoiled the movie, just to keep the suspense going in.

While this is NOT the first idea of its kind, Inside Out does give a much broader take of the personification of emotions than any previous example I can recall. It gives a lot of insightful ideas of how we feel things as kids, how our memories fade, just to name a few things.

Very well done, and easily towards the upper part of my Top Favorite Pixar Films list. I definitely plan on seeing this again this summer.

[The_Iceflash]

The movie was just fine. I wouldn't call it a masterpiece; as entertaining and smart as it was, I'd still describe it as mostly harmless and tame. There was nothing special or ground-breaking (other than three main characters being female), but it's miles above Pixar's last three films so there's that I guess. I actually found the end credits to be the funniest part of the movie...

Lava short was super cute; it felt like a long-lost segment of Make Mine Music or Melody Time, albeit in CGI.

Why does a movie have to be "groundbreaking" to be a masterpiece? What happens when we use up all the things that make future movie "groundbreaking"? Will there be no more masterpieces? To me, films today that are "groundbreaking" are so because of a gimmick. Gimmicks don't make a film a masterpiece. Gimmicks have in fact hurt films.

[Mooky]

The movie was just fine. I wouldn't call it a masterpiece; as entertaining and smart as it was, I'd still describe it as mostly harmless and tame. There was nothing special or ground-breaking (other than three main characters being female), but it's miles above Pixar's last three films so there's that I guess. I actually found the end credits to be the funniest part of the movie...

Lava short was super cute; it felt like a long-lost segment of Make Mine Music or Melody Time, albeit in CGI.

Why does a movie have to be "groundbreaking" to be a masterpiece? What happens when we use up all the things that make future movie "groundbreaking"? Will there be no more masterpieces? To me, films today that are "groundbreaking" are so because of a gimmick. Gimmicks don't make a film a masterpiece. Gimmicks have in fact hurt films.

First of all, the movie is obviously being built up as a masterpiece, what with a high RT score and raving reviews. Films with a score that high have it for a reason, either technical/technological or historical one, or they simply impact people on an emotional level.

Second, Inside Out is a gimmicky movie in itself, with a premise that involves personification of different emotions and the entire thought/memory process re-imagined as a world they live in. It has been done before (Disney's own Reason and Emotion, or Herman's Head, or -- although they were about human body, cells and bacteria -- Osmosis Jones and anime Once Upon a Time... Life), but not at this level of mainstream exposure so I guess that's why it feels new to people.

Finally, you have put in bold and compared two different, independent sentences of mine. The first one is my response to point No. 1. Aside from a touching ending and a couple of funny gags, the movie didn't elicit much emotion or awe out of me. Not a bad movie by any means, but it's just... there. I just fail to see what makes it worthy of such unanimous praise. The second one is about the groundbreaking aspect; as I have explained in point No. 2, this type of gimmick has been done before. Other than that, it was same old, same old 'two characters who dislike each other on a road-trip' shtick that we have seen countless times before and that Pixar has run into the ground by now. I give the movie credit for subverting at least two tropes associated with Bing Bong character (and, as mentioned before, for featuring three female characters), but that's the most it gets from me.

[ce1ticmoon]

I don't understand how the premise/setting makes it a gimmick though? By that definition, any setting that isn't conventional would be considered a gimmick. I really think that word gets thrown around way too much these days.

And as I said in my own thoughts, it really is beside the point that the premise isn't "original" or "new." I mean, with the Pixar staff constantly looking up to Disney, I'm sure they were heavily inspired by Reason and Emotion,, plus it seems that Pete Docter himself was involved with the Epcot attraction Cranium Command, which also explored a similar premise. It's not about what the premise is, but how they use it. Not that I think it is revolutionary (very few things in any form of art these days is), but just how elaborately well-built the the whole world is set up in the movie is what makes it special.

[Disney's Divinity]

Other than that, it was same old, same old 'two characters who dislike each other on a road-trip' shtick that we have seen countless times before and that Pixar has run into the ground by now.

Oh, jeez. And here I thought we'd finally be free of it with this movie. But I guess if they managed to do it with robots, they can repeat it with any and everything.

Is there a running-back-and-forth between point A and point B aspect to the climax, too? What's worse are these same features are in Disney films now, as well as Pixar. You'd think Dreamworks would join in to go ahead and make everything in American animation as same-y and repetitive as possible.

[Mooky]

I don't understand how the premise/setting makes it a gimmick though? By that definition, any setting that isn't conventional would be considered a gimmick. I really think that word gets thrown around way too much these days.

And as I said in my own thoughts, it really is beside the point that the premise isn't "original" or "new." I mean, with the Pixar staff constantly looking up to Disney, I'm sure they were heavily inspired by Reason and Emotion,, plus it seems that Pete Docter himself was involved with the Epcot attraction Cranium Command, which also explored a similar premise. It's not about what the premise is, but how they use it. Not that I think it is revolutionary (very few things in any form of art these days is), but just how elaborately well-built the the whole world is set up in the movie is what makes it special.

A movie about a tween girl going through rough times exploring her emotions would be a story played straight or non-gimmicky. When that same movie is enhanced (and sold to audiences) by giving personalities and a world to inhabit to those emotions of hers, I'd call that gimmicky. Wreck-It Ralph is another example of this. It doesn't matter how ingeniously their world may be built (and it is), my main complaints are still about the story and characters, which practically left me cold.

Other than that, it was same old, same old 'two characters who dislike each other on a road-trip' shtick that we have seen countless times before and that Pixar has run into the ground by now.

Oh, jeez. And here I thought we'd finally be free of it with this movie. But I guess if they managed to do it with robots, they can repeat it with any and everything.

Well, if it's of any consolation, it's more like Finding Nemo in regard to character dynamics than Toy Story.

[TheSequelOfDisney]

Honestly, if I want to see a buddy/road trip movie, I'd rather it be a Pixar film.

I'm hoping to see this on Tuesday when the ticket will be $6. Now I just need to decide when to see it so I won't be barraged with the screams of young children...

[Semaj]

Well, if it's of any consolation, it's more like Finding Nemo in regard to character dynamics than Toy Story.

It's true. Joy could be thought of as Riley's internal "parent", who only wants what's best for her "daughter".

[ce1ticmoon]

A movie about a tween girl going through rough times exploring her emotions would be a story played straight or non-gimmicky. When that same movie is enhanced (and sold to audiences) by giving personalities and a world to inhabit to those emotions of hers, I'd call that gimmicky. Wreck-It Ralph is another example of this. It doesn't matter how ingeniously their world may be built (and it is), my main complaints are still about the story and characters, which practically left me cold.

But the movie isn't really about Riley at its core, though. As in, she is not the protagonist. Joy and Sadness are the focus, first and foremost, and it is about how they, as personified emotions--characters in and of them selves--affect her actions and the realizations that they come to. I don't see it as a gimmick, because the focus of the story would be entirely different if they played it straight as simply a story about "a tween girl going through rough times exploring her emotions."

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, since I also don't understand what makes Wreck-It Ralph gimmicky. (I can see how somewhat might see the video game cameos to be somewhat of a gimmick, but those are in no way a focus in the story.)

Oh, jeez. And here I thought we'd finally be free of it with this movie. But I guess if they managed to do it with robots, they can repeat it with any and everything.

Is there a running-back-and-forth between point A and point B aspect to the climax, too? What's worse are these same features are in Disney films now, as well as Pixar. You'd think Dreamworks would join in to go ahead and make everything in American animation as same-y and repetitive as possible.

It's true that the buddy-comedy-esque roadtrip is the main focus of the story, but honestly, I felt like there was enough going on with the other characters, that it feels less so like one than some of the other Pixar films, between the three emotions that remain in headquarters and how they try to deal with what is going on on the outside with Riley.

I also felt it was refreshing to finally get another film without a villain.

There is so much more to films and storytelling than basic plot structure. While I also have a few criticisms of my own regarding Pixar, I don't think that following the same basic structure as their past films is that much of a strike against them, considering how they bring enough other things to the table to make them their own films. (Though I know you feel differently and I'm not trying to convince you.)

[Musical Master]

Just got back from the movie a few hours ago and I am on team loved it. As I was watching (and being enthralled with) the movie, I noticed somethings that were very noteworthy.

1. This is the first Pixar film in a long time that has absolutely no villains or antagonistic characters (Sid could count as the latter) which made the film feel different.

2. Bing Bong was an "Olaf Sidekick" which he wasn't annoying or pointless, he served as a big part of Riley's life (plus the film's story) and when he said his final goodbye, that moment made me get stabbed in the feels. It made a kid in the audience cry from what I heard.

3. Yes it's a road-trip film, but I wouldn't say that Joy hates Sadness in the same way Woody was with Buzz, I think it's more tolerable annoyance than anything else.

4. The art direction seems to be inspired by a lot of set designs from Broadway's Golden Age of Musicals which, for a Broadway nerd like me, made me happy.

5. Joy isn't as one note as I feared when she remembers Riley's memories in the Memory Dump and when she broke down, that made me want to cry with her which is something that never happen to me in ANY of Pixar's films ever.

6. The other emotions were a lot of fun to, my personal two favorites were Disgust and Anger, they both made me laugh several times with Fear's Bob Clampett like animation getting a few good ones as well.

Overall this is a true welcome to form for Pixar after three of the biggest duds ever for the studio (Monsters University was okay). Inside Out should be seen now and not wait for it to come out on DVD/Blu-Ray, it really is what critics say it is.

[DisneyFan09]

Overall this is a true welcome to form for Pixar after three of the biggest duds ever for the studio (Monsters University was okay). Inside Out should be seen now and not wait for it to come out on DVD/Blu-Ray, it really is what critics say it is.

Although "Brave" belongs to the dud-category, it still gained better word and more fans than "Cars 2". And although the thinly-written storyline irked me when I saw the film, I still thought it's strenghts made it good. "Monsters University" seems to be in the middle.

[Maerj]

Just saw this movie yesterday and it was phenomenal! Best Pixar flick in years and really, really well done. My wife was crying by the end. It shows that an animated film doesn't just have to be an over the top goofball comedy. Adding in a good dose of drama can raise the stakes and it make a very powerful, emotional experience. See it!

[ce1ticmoon]

Inside Out scored an estimated $91.1m at the box office this weekend, which is the second highest Pixar opening after Toy Story 3, and nearly on par with the adjusted openings of Finding Nemo and The Incredibles.

Unfortunately, Pixar lost their #1 opening streak thanks to the super impressive breakout of Jurassic World, but on the other hand, it became the highest opening ever for an original film, besting Avatar's $77m. (And it also became the highest grossing #2 opening, besting Day After Tomorrow's $68m. I'm actually surprised that that record has stood for so long.)

[Sorcerer Mickey]

I see some of the media are making too much of a deal over the whole, "Oh, my goodness, Jurassic World ended Pixar's consecutive streak of movies debuting #1 in the box office." Oh, yeah, I'm pretty sure that Pixar is going to be so emotionally devastated (no pun intended) that their film didn't debut on top of the box office, even when it set a new record for highest grossing debut for an original film, including AVATAR. Oh, woe is them, indeed.

By the way, Inside Out was projected to debut around $65 million. To make at least $21 million more than expected, especially when going up against a box office powerhouse like Jurassic World, that's impressive.