When it was released in 2015, Pete Docter’s “Inside Out” was a seminal moment for Pixar. Coming on the heels of a pair of films that didn’t connect with audiences or critics in the same way that much of the studio’s earlier work had (2012’s “Brave” and 2013’s “Monsters University”), “Inside Out” saw Pixar out to prove they still had it. And as it turned out, they absolutely did.
After some decidedly unflattering discourse discussing the studio’s new penchant for favoring sequels and prequels over original material, “Inside Out” was an original film that hit every possible benchmark for success: it became one of the best-reviewed films Pixar had ever made, grossed just shy of a billion dollars, and won an Oscar. “Inside Out” is a truly stunning film, one that builds upon a bedrock of remarkably nuanced emotional intelligence to deliver an animated feature just as engaging philosophically as it is as a piece of entertainment.
Now, in 2024, Pixar is in a very different position. Despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of Pixar’s recent output has been incredibly well-received original films, these films have not been released in theaters. This is partially due to COVID-related lockdowns and partially due to Disney’s insistence on betting every chip possible on their streaming service, Disney+. As a result, films like “Soul,” “Luca,” and “Turning Red” (all of which are absolutely wonderful and unique works that deserve to be acknowledged as modern classics within the Pixar oeuvre) were not released in theaters and in their place, the aggressively lackluster films “Lightyear” and “Elemental” were. Thus, Pixar has been pushed back into a very similar corner, one in which their artistic and commercial viability has been questioned from every side, including parent-company Disney most of all.
So Kelsey Mann’s “Inside Out 2” finds itself being released to a scrutinizing media environment, trying to hit every possible quadrant for success once more, just like its predecessor. But does “Inside Out 2” have what it takes to live up to the critical, commercial, and cultural juggernaut that was the first film?
5. Weak Spot: Commodity Over Character
One of the first things to strike this writer as strange in the lead-up to “Inside Out 2” was the lack of returning creatives, both in front of and behind the digital camera. While Amy Poehler is back, as are several others, there are numerous highly notable absences that one does not typically see in Pixar sequels. Neither Bill Hader nor Mindy Kaling have returned to their roles of Fear or Disgust, respectively, and even composer Michael Giacchino, whose score for the first film has become so indelibly ingrained in the minds and memories of audiences, is woefully missing here.
Advertisement
This is all strange, given the lengths Pixar has gone to actively preserve these kinds of creative teams in the past. All four Toy Story films have kept the core voice cast involved as much as possible, and you don’t see Randy Newman not returning to score one of those sequels. In and of itself, this observation is not a problem, but it’s indicative of a larger systemic issue. “Inside Out” was a film about characters, and “Inside Out 2” flattens those characters into commodities in practically every way.
Part of this has to do with the sheer number of characters in “Inside Out 2.” By introducing four new Emotions to the cast, “Inside Out 2” is a far more crowded film, one that feels ultimately unable to devote worthwhile time to properly defining or developing its characters.
As an easy example, in “Inside Out,” Bill Hader as Fear felt like a real character. We spent meaningful time with him, both with the rest of the Emotions and in solidarity, and came to understand his role within Riley’s emotional state on many levels. In “Inside Out 2,” Fear is a caricature of Hader’s original performance. New voice actor Tony Hale does a great job, but the character himself is defined by the broadest strokes imaginable here, and it’s to the overall detriment of the character and the film. In juggling so many more characters and moving pieces, “Inside Out 2” loses the stark clarity, focus, and impact of the first film and muddies the central metaphor at the series’ core.
4. Maya Hawke as Anxiety
The one new emotion who truly shines in “Inside Out 2” is Anxiety, voiced delightfully by Maya Hawke.
Without delving too deeply into specifics to preserve some of the film’s later surprises, Anxiety’s role in the story stands out as a highlight where the emotional intelligence of “Inside Out 2” matches that of the first film. The portrayal of Anxiety manages to convey with genuine subtlety and nuance the ways in which anxiety can impact someone, especially during adolescence.
Advertisement
Maya Hawke’s vocal performance is exceptional, effectively capturing the complexities of Anxiety’s motivations. Supported by the strong writing of the character in Meg LeFauve & Dave Holstein’s script and stunning animation, Anxiety emerges as one of the most skillfully crafted and impactful elements of “Inside Out 2.”
3. Weak Spot: Maintaining the Status Quo
There are several instances throughout the runtime of “Inside Out 2” where it feels like the filmmakers are yearning to break free from the confines of delivering ‘another Inside Out’ and instead offer something beyond that preconceived notion. Throughout the film, concepts such as Riley driving herself without the influence of any Emotions, delving into the emotions that constitute the Emotions themselves, and exploring how one’s primary emotions evolve over time are all hinted at. However, disappointingly, none of these ideas are explored with any real depth.
Instead, “Inside Out 2” appears determined to cling to the status quo established by its predecessor, often to its own detriment. While these ideas suggest potential avenues for a transformative story involving Riley and her emotions, the film fails to fully realize any of them. Instead, the overarching theme of the film feels like a slight variation on the deeper theme of the first film. Similarly, the narrative of “Inside Out 2” feels deliberately reminiscent of its predecessor, lacking the imagination in staging, settings, or character development that made the original so memorable.
2. Weak Spot: A Lack of Imagination
The first “Inside Out” feels bursting with creativity, imagination, and monumental stakes. While the external story is simply about Riley and her family moving to a new city and her contemplating running away from home, the narrative feels almost mythic due to the meticulous interweaving of a propulsive narrative and profound themes by Docter and his team.
In contrast, “Inside Out 2” often feels oddly insular and small-scale in the wrong ways. While using a weekend away at hockey camp as the narrative’s core is not a bad idea, as it serves as a microcosm of Riley’s impending adolescence, the film fails to emotionally convey the magnitude of this event as effectively as it does intellectually.
Advertisement
This is exacerbated by an in-brain adventure for the Emotions that feels more like a straightforward task than the grand odyssey of the first film. While the first film also revolved around retrieving a MacGuffin, it did so to facilitate character growth and thematic exploration. In “Inside Out 2,” this narrative structure remains, but the essential components feel far more scarce and less impactful.
1. The Vault
The true standout scene of “Inside Out 2” revolves around a vault within Riley’s head dedicated to safeguarding her secrets. Within this vault lies a plethora of hilariously clever gags, including a recurring one that parents of very young children will undoubtedly find immensely enjoyable. What sets this sequence apart is its utilization of a mixed-media style of animation, which deviates from Pixar’s typical aesthetic in unexpected ways, enhancing the scene’s impact. There’s a genuine exuberance and innovative energy to this moment, which the film could have benefited from incorporating more extensively.
(B-)
“Inside Out 2” is a very well-made film. It’s funny, charming, and compelling, but it doesn’t quite reach the same level of humor, charm, and emotional resonance as the first “Inside Out” film. While it represents an improvement over Pixar’s previous theatrical releases, “Lightyear” and “Elemental,” it falls short of the artistic fulfillment and singular vision found in recent works like “Soul” by Pete Docter and Kemp Powers, “Luca” by Enrico Casarosa, and “Turning Red” by Domee Shi.
Although “Inside Out 2” isn’t a disaster, it feels like a movie that prioritizes mass appeal and accessibility over passionate storytelling and creative vision at every turn.
The Snapshot: Pixar comes out swinging with an energetic and cuddly comedy that pairs big laughs with an earnest message about living alongside nature.
Hoppers
9 out of 10
G, 1hr 44mins. Animated Sci-Fi Family Comedy.
Directed by Daniel Chong.
Starring Piper Curda, Bobby Moynihan, Kathy Najimy, Jon Hamm, Dave Franco and Meryl Streep.
Now Playing at Galaxy Cinemas Sault Ste. Marie.
Advertisement
True all ages fun is increasingly hard to find, and hoping for great, original works out of Hollywood is only getting rarer from the major studios. Thankfully, Disney and Pixar’s Hoppers is making the search a little easier.
Director Daniel Chong (best known for the TV series We Bare Bears) has masterfully directed a frantic masterpiece that is worthy to stand among iconic greats in Pixar’s esteemed catalogue. Filled with bustling action, a brave moral standing, and an endless parade of cuddly animal heroes, Hoppers is a dam great time.
A beaver dam great time, that is.
The story is a bit unusual, set in the northwestern town of Beaverton, Oregon, where a local University student and nature activist named Mabel (Piper Curda) is in a constant fight with the town’s development-driven mayor (Jon Hamm) over a highway expansion over a local glade and nature preserve.
Things gets wild, however, when Mabel’s consciousness gets sucked into a beaver robot through a process called “hoppers” – and suddenly becomes a literal friend of the forest, setting off a chain of events I dare not spoil.
Advertisement
One of the strongest elements in Hoppers is Jesse Andrews’ terrific screenplay, built on a story structure that has made Pixar’s work stand out among family entertainment for the last 40 years. (Part of this film’s release, co-incidentally, marks the studio’s 40th anniversary this year.)
Not only has Andrews filled the plot with multiple organic surprises that repeatedly heighten the stakes of Mabel’s quest to save the glade, but the script also balances the peacefulness of nature to – anchor the story – with the frazzled panic of modern human life to develop the humour.
Getting these juxtaposing elements to work is done swiftly by Chong, Andrews and the talented voice ensemble bringing it altogether. The actors above are all commendable, but the scene stealer is Bobby Moynihan (of SNL fame) as beaver leader King George.
Moynihan’s George is smart, sincere, and socially aware that teaches Mabel some core lessons without making it overly obvious to the audience. Still, the film as a whole effectively gets its messages across about what a realistic plan for living in harmony across species actually looks like – and how to go about trying to do the right thing.
Advertisement
Pixar’s original works have struggled for several years, mainly upended by the COVID pandemic ruining the box office prospects of multiple great movies, including Soul, Turning Red and Onward.
Get ready now for Hoppers to take the spotlight both commercially and among repeat viewings for kids – the film is laugh out loud funny and filled with heart. This is the best original film from Pixar since Coco almost a decade ago.
Read more here: You can’t miss Pixar’s Coco (2017 review)
The only small critiques, in fact, is that the main conflict doesn’t fully emerge or develop until halfway through the film, and the pacing is a bit slow until we get to the actual animal “hopping” that comes at the end of the first act. What’s also missing is the ethereal discovery of poignancy that made Pixar’s earliest filmography seem truly special.
Still, don’t let these small quips deter you. Hoppers is the first great film of 2026 and an absolute blast watching at the cinema.
Advertisement
Children, parents, grandparents, neighbours, your mailman – everyone should see it this weekend. And seeing it sooner is a great way to encourage the development of more original, thoughtful and fun movies like this to be made.
Pankaj Kapur in ‘Jab Khuli Kitaab’
| Photo Credit: ZEE5
Cracks in conjugality constitute a common conflict device in Hindi cinema. Usually, the male commits the bhool and expects forgiveness. Most fissures appear early, but what if a grandmother reveals a long-buried truth? Can the man accept it as easily as he expects forgiveness? Seasoned actor and theatre practitioner Saurabh Shukla gives new meaning to a prescribed book, making us both chuckle and reflect.
Being a cinematic adaptation of his play, the constraints of the medium are not completely erased, but it shines as a heartfelt exploration of love’s endurance.
The film’s core premise revolves around a decades-old secret — Anusuya’s (Dimple Kapadia) confession of an indiscretion early in their marriage — that surfaces after she awakens from a coma. This revelation forces Gopal (Pankaj Kapur) to re-examine 50 years of trust through the lens of this buried truth as a forgotten ad hoc presence in his life threatens to become a permanent peeve. Enter Negi (Aparshakti Khurana), a young client-chasing lawyer who becomes an unlikely facilitator of tough conversations, legal proceedings, and emotional confrontations.
Synopsis: Gopal and Anusuya’s decades-long marriage is shaken by a revelation.
Though the transgression is a distant memory, its emergence shatters Gopal’s sense of shared space with Anusuya. He questions whether the life he built was an illusion. The woman he cared for seems suddenly unfamiliar. The film asks questions that may seem flimsy but persist in memory. For instance, Anusuya’s love for poetry that Gopal never really discovers, or the concept of marzi (inclination) in relationships.
Meanwhile, the revelation shakes the family unit. The parents initially try to shield the children from the truth, but the tension inevitably seeps in. Initially, it seems the son and son-in-law are bitten by the Baghban bug, but as the film progresses, the writing provides space for a dialogue on how companionship extends beyond the couple.
The film quietly reflects on the role of memory in a marriage, treating it as a central force that both sustains and disrupts long-term bonds. Gopal’s growing dementia suddenly seems like a cure for his marital problem. Without underlining, Shukla also explores the impact of the revelation on Gopal’s social psyche. Suddenly, a seemingly progressive man starts behaving like a parochial uncle, as we find dozens of them around us these days. Is it always the personal that shapes the political socialisation? Another uncle reminds us that laughing too much leads to days of sorrow, as if the Almighty has assigned us a quota of happiness.
Advertisement
A still from the film
| Photo Credit:
ZEE5
Kapur’s masterful control shines through in Gopal’s progression from bewilderment and stubborn pride to vulnerability and, eventually, the rediscovery of love. Over the years, Kapur has shone in the estuary of comedy that holds a tragedy in its fold. He lives the script’s shifting tones. From the tender caregiving scenes in the beginning to the profound internal shift in demeanour and body language toward the film’s resolution— the transformation feels earned and believable.
It is hard to believe Dimple as a wilting wife, but soon we realise it’s the gravitas in her voice and personality that makes Anusuya a believable picture of regret and resilience.
We know the coma is more like a metaphor, but the medical aspect is treated with a heavy hand. The plot unfolds in a somewhat linear and foreseeable way, with the revelation and its consequences following expected beats. The contrivances, the dot-to-dot mechanics of storytelling, surface in the second half as if the director is keen on arriving at the crux without peeling the layers properly. But it is the chemistry between Shukla and Kapur that prevents this bittersweet dramedy from becoming schmaltzy.
In cinema logic, sharks, especially great whites, make excellent characters in animation. From Bruce in Finding Nemo to Mr Shark, the master of disguise in The Bad Guys, these apex predators turn their great gummy mouths with many pointy teeth into jolly good fellows.
In Hoppers, the 30th animation film from Pixar, there is a great white called Diane (Vanessa Bayer), who, despite being a scary assassin, has such sweet, shining eyes and a warm smile that one cannot help but grinning back.
Hoppers (English)
Director: Daniel Chong
Voice cast: Piper Curda, Bobby Moynihan, Jon Hamm, Kathy Najimy, Dave Franco
Storyline: A fierce animal lover uses a new technology to converse with animals and save their habitat from greedy, self-serving humans
Advertisement
Runtime: 104 minutes
We first meet Mabel (Piper Curda) as a little girl trying to set all the animals in school free and being sent home for her pains (and also because she bites one of the teachers trying to stop her). Her busy mother drops Mabel with her grandmother (Karen Huie) who shows her the peace and quiet that can be hers if she only stops to listen.
The glade where grandmother Tanaka teaches her this valuable life lesson becomes a special place for Mabel. Years later, after her grandmother has passed, 19-year-old Mabel is a college student and still fighting for animal rights.
Matters come to a head when the mayor of Beaverton, Jerry Generazzo (Jon Hamm) plans to blow up the glade to build a freeway. Mabel tries to get signatures from the citizenry to stop the freeway plans, but that comes to naught as people quickly turn away from the zealous Mabel.
Frustrated, with no recourse in sight, Mabel chances upon a beaver making its way to her university’s biology lab. First worried that her biology professor Sam (Kathy Najimy) is doing some unspeakable animal experiments, Mabel is nonplussed to find that Sam, with her colleague Nisha (Aparna Nancherla) and graduate student Conner (Sam Richardson), have developed a revolutionary technology to transfer human consciousness to robot animal.
Advertisement
Mabel uploads her consciousness into a robot beaver and sets off to thwart the mayor. Seeing the world from the animals’ perspective gives Mabel a unique point of view. Hoppers has jokes, chases, largeness of heart and solid science — not consciousness-switching with robot animals or flying shark assassins but the fact that beavers are the environmental engineers of the natural world.
The voice cast is wonderful, from Bobby Moynihan as the beaver king, George to Dave Franco as Titus, the prickly butterfly who becomes the insect king after Mabel accidentally kills his mum — the Insect Queen, played with terrifying grandeur by Meryl Streep.
The animals are delightfully delineated, from the spaced-out beaver, Loaf (Eduardo Franco) to Ellen (Melissa Villaseñor) the grumpy bear. The animation is lovely, with each of the animal and human characteristics clearly outlined. From the mayor’s grasping to Sam’s brilliance, Mabel’s fervour to Loaf’s stillness, and the different animal monarchs’ regality, it is all given marvellous life.
ALSO READ: ‘The Bride!’ movie review: Maggie Gyllenhaal’s glam-goth Frankenstein can’t hold its stitches
The “pond rules” ensure that the animals are not completely anthropomorphised — a sticky point in animation films where carnivores and herbivores hang together without even a sneaky licking of lips!
Advertisement
Smart, funny, exciting, honest, and touching, Hoppers is the kind of film you can watch with the bachcha party and elders alike, with a happy grin. And then there is Diane of the red, red lips and sparkly white rotating teeth — yes, Hoppers boasts that level of detailing.
