[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 The Good Dinosaur 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]
[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]