[YMS] So I just saw an advanced 3D
screening of Pixar's new movie, "Inside Out", And it was really "ehhhhh". To anybody new to my channel,
I should mention that I don't think this is a bad movie. So even though it may seem as
though I'm talking about it as though it's the worst movie ever made,
the most accurate way to describe my feelings on this movie would
be that it's alright. It's also important to understand that this review
is not addressed towards children. In fact, the only real reason I'm reviewing
this in the first place is because the Pixar circlejerk is perpetuated by adults. Now I got a few things to say about Pixar
before I start talking about this movie, so if you don't really care about context, then sure
skip to this point in the video. But, I think that context matters,
so here it goes. Now, Pixar has had a pretty good track record in the past. But as of late, I'm not so sure. It's times like these where I think back to the
original trailer for "WALL-E". [John Lasseter] In the summer of 1994, there was a lunch. So at that lunch, we knocked around
a bunch of ideas that eventually became "Bugs Life", " Monsters Incorporated", "Finding Nemo", And the last one we talked about that
day was the story of a robot, named WALL-E. [YMS] It was pretty good marketing for the time. I mean, it reminded everyone of the classic
kids' movies they're associated with. But looking at it now, it kinda
unintentionally implies that everything that came after "WALL-E" was
more of an afterthought? Alright, so let's see: We got "Up", which is
probably my favorite out of the post-"WALL-E" movies. Granted, the high point of the film is in
the first 10 minutes, and the rest of it's just alright. But, it's not as much of a
drop-off as everything that came after. Even if you really loved "Toy Story 3",
it's important to recognize that what you really love is "Toy Story 2", because "Toy Story 3"
is an exact fucking carbon copy. If you don't know what I'm talking about, let me just
list off the similarities real quick: Open up the movie with a large scale action sequence that is later revealed to be an exaggeration
of a game being played by other characters. Introduce ideas and images reflecting change,
and ultimately the idea that toys don't last forever. Unwanted toys are then gathered, and a mistake
is made wherein one or more of the main characters end up where the unwanted toys are supposed to be. Toys get placed in new environment, meeting
new characters, wherein one of them is a plump and seemingly kind toy,
with a deep voice and a cane. This toy is later revealed to be an antagonist,
fueled by the traumatization of feeling unloved and unwanted, taking their anger out on others. This seemingly inviting toy tempts the main
characters to stay, with promises of being loved for generations, and getting
repairs when needed. A delusional factory setting Buzz Lightyear
locks up one or more of the protagonists. Overexposure flashback sequence of
characters new to the series being abandoned out in the
countryside by their previous owners. Protagonists enter a large-scale industrial
contraption wherein the antagonist is disposed of in the process. The antagonist is then ultimately left to the care
of an owner with no care for their well-being. There's nothing really wrong with liking "Toy Story 3",
but it's important to remember to give credit to pre-"WALL-E" Pixar, and not post-"WALL-E" Pixar. Well, even if "Toy Story 3"'s a complete rehash of
"Toy Story 2", at least it served a different purpose by adding closure to the se-Oh, wait. Hey, look. A movie that nobody wanted,
but they made anyway, because of the billions of dollars in merchandising. Really, Pixar? I guess that reminds me that the film they made
after "Toy Story 3" was "Cars 2" A movie that nobody wanted, but they made anyway,
because of the billions of dollars in merchandising. Then came "Brave", which even the most die hard
of Pixar fans found to be a little "ehhhh." Then we got "Monsters University", a movie that
nobody wanted, but they made anyway, because of the billions of dollars in merchandising. Later this year, we got "The Good Dinosaur", which,
from what I can tell, looks like it's just gonna be a mix between Disney's
"Dinosaur", and"Ice Age 3". Who knows? Maybe the next trailer
they'll release will look amazing. And their other projects currently in production,
other than "Toy Story 4", are: "Finding Dory", "The Incredibles 2", and "Cars 3". [Vomiting noise] Say what you want, but it seems to me
like Pixar has reinvested their efforts into selling merchandise, rather than
selling their creativity. And now that we have all that context,
let's talk about "Inside Out"'s creativity. Many people are holding this up as
one of Pixar's most creative movies ever. [Voiceover] "Wildly original, and inventive!" "One of Pixar's most creative films ever!" [YMS] And while I'll agree the concept itself is a
little unconventional compared to Pixar's other films, the concept isn't really all that original. The characters are not all that original. The
sequence of events is well beyond predictable. But, for now, let's just start with the concept. Now, some people watching the trailers might think
that it's a little similar to "Osmosis Jones". And although it is kind of like "Osmosis Jones",
it A.) Never leaves the brain, and B.) Never really pretends as though
it's teaching you anything about human biology. A more accurate comparison would be with a really
shitty early 90's TV show called "Herman's Head". [Narrator] Every day, he has to make all kinds of decisions. Like, what to wear. Who to date. And when to panic. [Intellect] I'm Herman's intellect. Without me, he
couldn't hold his job, pay his rent, or tie his shoes. [Sensitivity] I'm Herman's sensitivity. Without me, he wouldn't
feel tenderness, honesty, or love. The good things in life. [Anxiety] I'm Herman's anxiety, and I keep him out of trouble.
And believe me, there's trouble everywhere! [Lust] I'm Herman's lust. Without me, he'd miss out on
all the good stuff. You know: Fun, food, babes. [YMS] I mean, obviously both of these things have
quite different approaches. But even ignoring "Herman's Head", hasn't this concept
kinda been done to death already? That doesn't make the movie bad,
and that doesn't mean you shouldn't enjoy it, but maybe you should take it into consideration before
you start praising this movie for its originality. Or maybe when people say that, they're not really talking
about the concept, but the all new original merchandi- I mean, characters. Like, Panic. Eeyore. Kelly. J. Jonah Jameson. Andy. I mean, all the other characters only exist to look out
for her well-being, but at the same time she's not aware of their sentience. And the entire plot is affected by her moving to a different city. And there's the whole theme about her growing up and
leaving her childhood in the past. To the movie's credit, our main character wasn't exactly
as cut-and-paste as she could've been. There are plenty of enthusiastically happy and optimistic
characters out there. But, as she is basically our main character, I'm glad they
didn't make her as flat as the rest of them. I mean, if she never showed any other emotion in the entire film,
then there wouldn't be any relatability, and there wouldn't be any character arc. And when I say "relatability," I mean "bare-minimum," because quite honestly, there aren't really any characters in the film
that I could find myself caring about. Kind of a problem in a movie all about emotions. I mean, right from the concept, you're saying that the
majority of the characters will act one way, and one way only, the entire film. You already know the exact way they're going to
react to every situation. It does make it simple for a child to understand, but let me again mention that this review is
not directed towards children. If I were at a younger age where my brain was less developed, then I
definitely would've enjoyed this movie more. But I'm not. So seeing an incredibly unoriginal movie that's
predictable at every turn just doesn't do it for me. The only characters they could've fleshed out
are the ones that they spent no time on. WALL-E the robot, who could only say two words the entire movie,
had more character than any of these characters. Hey, a dad who doesn't pay as much attention
to his child anymore because of his job? If we knew anything else about his character, then he
wouldn't be solely defined as an overused trope. [YMS] Mmmmmm, little girl. [Laughter] I'm not saying you have to flesh out every single character
that appears on screen, But it wouldn't hurt to develop, maybe, one? Even the main girl you're supposed to sympathize with
doesn't have any real character. Especially when you consider that everything she does
is being controlled by other characters? Nothing she does feels like it's her doing it. It's just five different flat characters choosing
her actions for her, in the exact way you'd expect each one of them to do. The way she winds up being controlled, she might as
well have extreme bipolar disorder. I mean, I get that for a majority of the scenes, her emotions
aren't functioning in the way that they normally would, but the tone of those scenes imply that I'm supposed to
take them seriously, and feel bad for her, but I can't help but find it funny when I see her at the top
of a staircase, getting excited to slide down the railing, And then half a second later, she's like,
"Wait, no, I'm sad right now." And then after walking down three steps,
she decides "Wait a minute! No, I'm fuckin' happy! I'm gonna slide down this
railing right now! Hell yeah!" I mean, it's a kids' movie, so I wasn't ever expecting them to
be able to deal with complex emotions, but even when the main characters were operating her brain
properly, it just got really boring and repetitive. Like someone would say something, and each of the characters
in her brain would react to what they said. And then they'd each suggest actions to perform in response. And then those actions would be performed in response. I dunno, it really felt like A.) It was really stretching out
the plot, and B.) It felt like I was watching really shitty Let's Play commentators just blatantly
pointing out things that I was already seeing. I wonder if this is Disney's response to the overwhelming popularity
of those types of Lets Players among young children. This is basically like "Reaction Videos: The Movie." It was kind of testing my patience, to watch something happen,
and then wait for five other characters to just reaffirm that what happened, happened. But I guess it's what sells now, so I guess we all asked for it. [Anger] These are my kind of people. [Explosion] [Yelling] [Cheering] [Tony Stark] We tried to create a suit of armor around the world. But I created something terrible. [Character] Artificial intelligence. [Joy] What! [YMS] Now I'm about to start talking about the sequence of events, So if you don't want those spoiled, please click
to this point in the video. There's your warning! 3, 2, 1. Now the trailers of the film did a pretty good job at
not showing what the main conflict of the story was. Ever though trailer two kind of gives a lot away,
most of the trailers released had enough restraint not to. I mean, they did pull the whole, "Hey, remember all
those other movies we made?" thing? Again? And some of the viral marketing was a bit obnoxious? [Dad] Our new little bundle of joy. [Voiceover] Congratulations to the royal family on their new arrival! [YMS] Anyway, it's cool that most of the ads I saw
didn't absolutely spoil everything. And I kind of appreciate it, considering how many trailers
nowadays spoil the entire movie, but unfortunately, it wound up being pointless, because as
soon as the main conflict actually started, you could predict the entire movie from that point on. So to give you a brief summary, you got a little girl,
and she has things in her head that control her emotions. Every sentient being on the planet has similar
things controlling their emotions. And the only emotions that anyone can ever experience are
joy, sadness, fear, disgust, and anger. The emotions get imprinted onto memories, and the
memories go to other parts of her brain, where they form islands of character traits, that
define who she is as a person. She winds up moving to San Francisco with her parents,
and because of this change, her emotions start acting weird. [Fear] Dad just left us. [Sadness] He doesn't love us anymore, that's sad. [YMS] Then Joy's like "Let's give her the idea to get some pizza!" [Riley] Hey, I saw a pizza place down the street! Maybe, we could try that! [Mom] Pizza sounds delicious! [Fear] Pizza!
[Disgust] Yes, pizza! [Fear] What the heck is that?! [Joy] Who puts broccoli on pizza?! [Disgust] That's it. I'm done. [Anger] Congratulations, San Francisco! You've ruined pizza!
First the Hawaiians, and now you! [YMS] Get it? 'Cuz San Francisco's full of hipsters? Why is there suddenly a conflict between how the
characters in her brain are feeling, and how she's feeling? Why would she order broccoli pizza
if everyone in her brain finds it disgusting? Why not just order plain cheese? I guess her mom forced her to get that topping as punishment
for feeling sad that her dad's not spending any time with her. This was clearly all just to set-up that punchline,
and it wasn't funny. So then it's her first day at school in a new city. As she
leaves her house, her parents say goodbye. And she walks to school by herself. She's like 11 years old and you're not gonna walk with her,
on the first day to a new school, in a new city? It felt kind of weird, especially considering it didn't really
seem like the parents were doing anything? And it definitely wasn't trying to play it off as
though they didn't care about her. It was just a little weird. So she gets to school, and the teacher tells her
to introduce herself. At which point, Joy takes over and the girl's got a
happy disposition and no issues speaking. But then Sadness decides to touch the emotion
ball for absolutely no reason, and she instantly starts crying in class. If this wasn't a kid's movie, then a lot more people would've
found it as funny as I did. So over the next however many days, Sadness just keeps
touching all of these emotion balls. And nobody else can find a way to change them back. [Fear] Change it back, Joy!
[Joy] I'm trying! [Sadness] Joy, no!
[Joy] Let go! [Fear] The core memories!
[Yelling] [Joy] No, no no no no! [Yelling] [YMS] So now both our main character, and the newest addition to the group that our main character
doesn't like as much as the other character's character, are both suddenly thrust out of their usual environment. And now they've got to adventure through different themed
settings to get back to where they want to be. [Joy] This place is huge! Imagination Land?! [Stan] What is this place? [Mayor] This, is Imaginationland! [YMS] Meanwhile, the characters back at home try to fill the
void of our missing main characters, But they don't seem to be doing a very good job. [Riley, sarcastically] Oh, yeah. That sounds fantastic. [Fear] What was that?! That wasn't anything like Joy! [Disgust] Uh, because I'm not Joy? [YMS] And somehow, she completely forgets how to play hockey. Maybe she should see a doctor. So they have to walk around to one of these islands to get back, but because of how poorly her remaining
emotions are managing her brain, she stars acting like a total brat to everybody. So one by one, these islands fall apart, and it just so happens to be
in order of which ones are closest to our main characters. So every time they get to one, they're like
"Oh no, we just missed it!" Pretty much the instant the very first island falls apart, you
already know that all of the other ones are going to do that exact same thing. Which is weird, because they all fall apart.
So does that imply that the girl now has no personality traits? Like, apparently there's points in the film where there's
absolutely nothing that makes up who she is? Maybe they could've replaced them with like, really
negative traits or something? Anyway, before all of the islands get destroyed,
they try another option. They come across a dopey comic relief character who will
help them catch the Train of Thought back to management. And as soon as that character introduces himself as the girl's
imaginary friend from when she was younger, it was impossible not to immediately realize that
he was going to sacrifice himself for the main character later. And sure enough, he does exactly that. But not before our main character tried to
escape back without Sadness, and then have it accidentally screw herself over, and then later realize that her sidekick character isn't
as useless as she previously thought. Pretty fuckin' standard formula. There was one part in the film that caught me a little off-guard. Mostly because it was the cheapest fucking plot device ever. So the characters finally catch the Train of Thought, but one
of the islands crumbles down as they're going past it, and the crumbling island destroys the Train of Thought. So she can't have a train of thought while her
personality is changing? Oh how convenient that the train happened to be
going by, at that exact moment. It kinda just came out of fuckin' nowhere. As if the writers didn't really give a shit. There was one or two punchlines that gave me a little chuckle,
but nothing was really all that funny. Which was made worse by the laughing audience in the theater. One of the characters said something along the lines of, "This is the subconscious, and this is
where we send all the troublemakers." And everybody started laughing. A lot. Leaving me to wonder, where was the joke? Now normally, I'd be praising Pixar for
standing out with its animation, and don't get me wrong, the animation's pretty great. In the opening short, the cloud and water effects
were pretty fucking impressive. But now that Pixar's got some serious competition
from other animation studios, I don't really feel as though they really stand out in
that category as much as they used to. Like, everybody else seems to have caught up by this point. They're still really amazing with their hyper-realistic textures, but I kinda wish they put a bit more realism
into their character designs, rather than just their environments. I mean, how many people saw the trailer for <i>The Good Dinosaur </i>
and got super stoked with the silhouette shot? Only to lose interest as soon as the cartoony
designs for the dinosaurs were revealed? I should also mention that the 3D was unnoticeable. I think my biggest problem with the film is that
even though it felt a little different for a Pixar movie, it didn't really feel new at all. The concept's been done a million times,
the characters have been done a million times, and the sequence of events has been done a million times. So it being kind of different from Pixar movies, but not
being different from movies in general, only winds up making it not really feel
like a Pixar movie at all. Part of the reason why Pixar got so famous
in the first place is because they were able to stand out from other animated features. But now that other animation studies have improved,
and Pixar movies have gotten worse, it's difficult to see where they stand out anymore. It's no surprise they pulled the whole "Hey, remember
we're Pixar" thing in the trailer. Because if the trailer had to stand on its own without
that label, then this movie would not be nearly as hyped. They could've easily released a trailer saying it was Dreamworks,
and I don't think anyone would've noticed. Writing characters that have as much depth as any one of the
Seven Dwarves is something that anyone can do. I want Pixar to succeed, I want them to experiment,
and I want to see them try new things. Because watching characters go on an adventure isn't
really much of an adventure if all you can see is a predetermined path from Point A to Point B. Anyway, that's about all I have to say about this movie. Please try your best to remember that this
video is not addressed towards children. The reason why I'm being so defensive about this point
is because people often use it as an argument, without realizing that I actually agree with them. You're right. It IS just a kid's movie. Which is why we should stop pretending as though
it's anything more than that. Anyone who feels as if you shouldn't be able to
criticize a kid's movie because it's a kid's movie I'm sure you apply that same standard to "Foodfight",
and "Cool Cat Saves the Kids", right? Every single kid's movie ever made is 10 out of 10, flawless. [Bully] You heard me! You might look like a cat,
but you stinks like a dog! [Cool Cat] Dogs are my friends! Identify yourself! [YMS] If you have a child and are looking for a
movie to take them to, by all means, take them to this movie,
and they will likely enjoy it. Although, I'd kind of recommend maybe giving them a talk? You know, just make sure that they're not leaving the
movie thinking that they're emotions are completely out of their own control? Maybe just make sure that this movie doesn't encourage
any kind of schizophrenic behavior? Anyway, if I had to give this movie a rating,
it would be either be a 5 or 6 out of 10. I have long passed accepted that this is
not really my type of movie. So don't let me stop you from watching it, because chances are,
many of you will love it a lot more than I did. And I guess we'll see how Pixar's next films
turn out in the future. I'm not really sure I blame them much at all
for recycling old formulas, because, quite honestly, if they wanted to make a different movie,
Disney wouldn't let them. Just ask Joss Whedon. Or Edgar Wright. And hopefully we won't be saying the same thing about J. J. Abrams. [Mark] I would like to die. [Blubbering noise] [Blubbering noise] [Laughter] [YMS] Come on, Dodie. Come on, Dodie, you owe me 50 bucks. [Mark] No, she's gone. Time to slip it in for a quickie. [Laughter] [Blubbering noise]
Wall-E was pretty cool.
Mother fuckin Wonder Showzen reference, yeah!
Good review. I recon it would be a nicer movie to watch without the pixar circlejerk and massive over hype it had.
Going to have to get back to the spoiler section of the review after I see it.
Also while there is no real reason for Toy Story 4 and Cars 3, I think the original Incredibles absolutely lended itself to a sequel, so I'm pretty excited for it (finally) being a thing.
I've also gotten to see the movie early, and I feel like he's missing the bigger picture of why all these plot-points are happening. I personally loved the movie and think it's one of the most nuanced films that Pixar has made, and where I think the movie really shines is that it does a great job of taking really abstract ideas of emotions and creating vivid and practical situations out of them, being able to show instead of tell, which I don't think Adam noticed at all.
(WARNING: SPOILERS)
For instance, I disagree that "sadness decides to touch the emotion ball for absolutely no reason", because one of the main themes of the movie is the danger of repressing emotions, and that's exactly what is happening with sadness. While to us, it may seem like she has no reason for interfering with the memory spheres, if you think about it in the abstract sense, it's meant to symbolize how we deny and repress negative emotions to give the illusion that we're ok, even though that emotion needs to express itself. The entire rest of the movie is about Joy's realization that Sadness is one of the most important emotions, and that she needs to be able to express it unrestrained. On the human level, this is further reinforced when, early on, Riley's mom tells Riley she appreciates Riley's ability to keep a happy face during such a difficult time, then at the end, Riley finally lets herself embrace her sadness about the move and her family comes to her aid. What I think is so great about this portrayal is that the movie doesn't spoonfeed the audience by having Sadness say "I have to do this no matter what, because Riley needs to feel sad". It just shows Sadness interfering, and we as the audience get annoyed alongside Joy that Sadness is not staying in her circle (because that is how we as a society view sadness). I think that's far more true to how real emotions feel. You don't logically think "this is a sad situation, I'm going to feel sad now"; you'll just be doing something and you'll all of a sudden get a lump in the throat, then you'll either let it happen, or another part of your brain will shove it away and say "this isn't going to happen right now, we're in class or whatever".
Another thing that I felt he misunderstood was with his pondering if having all the islands fall down meant she had no personality traits. I think it does mean that, but while Adam may have thought of it as "she is now a blank slate" it's more meant to be "she is hollow and numb", which still fits with the turmoil that is going on in her head with all the struggles of moving to a new place. It would have been trite to have the islands placed with opposites, because she's withdrawing emotionally, not just becoming a bad girl or whatever.
(SPOILERS OVER)
There's a lot more like this to analyze in the movie, but I just wanted to give my two cents because I think this really is one of Pixar's most creative movies, not because of the concept, but because of the subtleties of its execution, and I really hope that people don't get turned off of it by the review.
P.S. In the Bay Area, there actually are pizza places where you don't get to customize the pizza you want. They just make one or two types of really hipster-y pizzas and that's what you get. I also thought the joke wasn't really great, but not because it was unrealistic.
EDIT: Replaced "with" with "alongside" to clarify
Kinda how I guessed it would be from the various trailers/clips on YouTube.
It's kinda a weird concept, too. Like, obviously it's a kid's movie and this is reading too much into it, but does Pixar believe we live in this weird world where all of our actions are chalked up 100% to biological determinism/hormones/instincts? Do the characters in this film ever interact w/ their head voices because if not that's a pretty freaky world to live in, like IIRC in Osmosis Jones it was more like people had agency, and the people inside the people just tried to guide them/manage as best they could.
Tvtropes: Mobile-Suit Human
I immediately thought of the Numskulls, who first appeared in The Beezer in 1962.
I never realized two of the simpsons major voice actors were on Herman's head until I saw them in the opening credits in the clip Adam showed. Really interesting. I also love how his lust is wearing an OSU shirt. I feel like a lot what Adam said about the predictability of the movie and the lack of fleshed out characters is also relevant to the movie Big Hero Six, another childrens movie which is pretty ehhh. Spot on about the comment on the let's play, I thought the age of ultron trailer was a clip you edited until you pointed it out. I've been in the dark about this movie and the footage yms showed was all that I've seen and I can say that I like the style of the characters in the brain, but the rest of the world just seems average, nothing spectacular or anything that stands out.
You had a segment, where you compared TS2 vs TS3, which was similar to this youtube channel you may like, Couch Tomato.
His shtick is nearly identical to your segment, except he plays it a bit more for humor than your segment.
The Matrix = The Lego Movie
The Lost World = The Incredibles
Star Wars = Guardians of the Galaxy
I don't know about you, but the green one is kinda hot