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 concept behind Given Names(Prénoms) is so simple that it’s hard to believe no one has ever done it before. Filmmaker Nurith Aviv showed up at the apartment of various friends of her with a bunch of flowers, and then listened to the friend talk about their first, or given, name. That’s it! It’s the kind of discussion that happens often in real life – just listen to any group of new mothers justify their choices, or any teenager sulk about what this label for their identity means to them – but it’s not often such a chat is captured on film.
It doesn’t work flawlessly, of course: at the BerlinaleMs. Aviv made it clear the movie was originally designed as a kind of art installation, and more reviews than were included were filmed. The opening of the film is also more of a tribute to the late French filmmaker AgnèsVarda, who Ms. Aviv had worked with. (Mr. Varda’s original given name was actually Arlette, changed by her when she was a teenager.) But once we are into the direct interviews this hiccup is immediately forgotten as we get a window on some really interesting cultures and how their given names have shaped these very interesting lives.
You learn so much about someone while knowing so little of them, just from the simple story of their name. One of the interviewees was born in secrecy during the Holocaust, left on the doorstep of a Polish family by his Jewish parents where he spent the first years of his life under the name of a dead child of the Polish family. Once he was reclaimed by his parents they did not really change his name, but moving to France and beginning a new life in a new language changed it for him. Other interviewees had parents from different cultures and gave their child a name that with different connotations in each culture. It’s fascinating to hear these considerations be discussed but also how the owner of this name felt about it. One woman has a stutter, so mentions how pleased she is to have a name she can pronounce. She also has a very ordinary name from her birth culture (the Turkish name Zeynep), because her mother had a embarrassing first name that her own parents made up, and was therefore adamant her own children would not have the same problem. Some people have had different names through different stages of their lives, while others have had names for different purposes. Some have had the same name the whole way through and never liked it, others like their name so much they write poems about it. There’s a whole spectrum of humanity and history on display here through just one simple question.
The interviews were clearly rehearsed but they were not a dialogue. Instead Ms. Aviv filmed them talking directly to the camera, sharing these intimate details about this gift they were given and how that’s affected them like we’re chatting over a coffee. All the interviews were conducted in Paris and in the French language, but even amongst that there’s a global reach among the people here that is both very ordinary and highly unusual. Some people have received prejudicial treatment based on their names while others have had no problem at all. In France names are taken seriously for an additional reason: the spelling of names is legally standardised. Some people are pleased by the simplicity, while other people (or their parents) rebel. A cultural side effect is that it’s therefore not unusual for the name on your birth certificate to be used only in government contexts, while your true name is used everywhere else.
American audiences find such interference laughable, of course, but in other ways American discourse around baby names has shaped the way people around the world think about their choices. Just think how ordinary names like Luna or Lea, Liam or Luca are in preschools around the world right now. These short, easy-to-spell names travel across different cultures in ways which names like that of this movie’s editors, Nurith and Hippolyte, might not. Given Names is a fascination exploration of a cultural issue we more normally take for granted, and I am not just saying that because one of the interviewees is also named Sarah. Our given names are who we are but also who our parents thought we might be, and that’s not necessarily who we become. Hearing people discuss their feelings about this is entrancing indeed.
Advertisement
Given Names (Prénoms) recently played at the Berlin International Film Festival.
Learn more about the film at the IMDB site for the title.
The first half of Gabriel Mascaro’s latest movie, The Blue Trail, is filled with immense sadness. It imagines a dystopian Brazil in which its fascist government built colonies for elderly people to live in and forces them to relocate, despite the fact that many of them are still able to contribute to society. One of those people is Tereza (Denise Weinberg), who has recently learned that the government has lowered the age threshold from 80 to 75, in an attempt to relocate more elderly citizens to spend the rest of their lives in.
Of course, still able-bodied and wanting to continue her daily routine, Tereza rejects the government’s interventions and leaves her home, determined to fulfill a lifelong dream: to fly in a plane. Throughout her journey, she meets a bevy of colorful individuals, including ship captain Cadu (Rodrigo Santoro), who takes her deep into the Amazon and literally opens her eyes to things she never saw in her plane of existence.
Describing the viewing experience one takes in trusting Mascaro’s vision is a little difficult. The Blue Trail offers a clear-eyed view of how the filmmaker believes society treats elderly individuals, even though they will reach that age at some point. Mandatory diapers on bus rides. Colonies for them to live and never be allowed to contribute to society. The fact that they think little of them and believe they’re disposable, without understanding their impact on the world, says so much about how governments around the world have constantly mistreated them and continue to fail to truly care for their well-being.
Watching Tereza being forced to wear a diaper before boarding a bus, one feels the filmmaker’s frustration in their eyes. In that moment, the protagonist feels helpless. All she wants is to return home and, hopefully, fly. Since she isn’t allowed to go anywhere, her only shot at adventure is a boat ride. These sections see Mascaro’s filmmaking at its most visually audacious, with painterly tableaux that recall the staggering grandeur of Werner Herzog’s Fitzcarraldo. There’s something so majestic when seeing a camera float in the water, as if it acts as the boat itself, as the captain and Tereza explore the Amazon. The feeling one gets when a firework appears in the air is so textured that the film becomes hard to look away from, even as it begins to sag in its second half.
While the bulk of The Blue Trail seems to follow a conventional path, Mascaro begins to take the esoteric route when he has Cadu trip balls on blue snail drool, which may or may not be a direct visual reference to Frank Herbert’s Dune? Either way, a scene like this arrives on left field and completely repurposes the rest of the movie, which takes a strangely spiritual route that seems poised to fleetingly say something about society’s mistreatment of the elderly and Tereza’s close connection with scripture, but ends up saying nothing at all. As her journey continues, the film’s images become less impressive, and our initial connection with a funny and biting protagonist begins to falter, because Mascaro and cinematographer Guillermo Garza frame her on a much smaller scale than in the first half.
Advertisement
That said, Weinberg remains an effective actor and imbues her performance as Tereza with a pain she’s been carrying for decades. It further exacerbates itself by the way society rejects her altogether, even her own daughter, who prefers she live in a colony so no one has to worry about caring for her needs. But the movie works the strongest when it focuses on the adventure and Tereza’s quest to do something worth her while, for once, rather than scenes where Mascaro attempts to interiorize her.
Still, out of all the films in competition at last year’s Berlinale, The Blue Trail is one of the most engrossing and rewarding titles that graced their screens. It may not work for everyone, but its images are so potent that one leaves the cinema with a sense of renewal, and perhaps some hope that society might improve if we let the elderly decide, on their own, how they would like to spend the rest of their lives, at home or elsewhere. We should give them the privilege of doing so, because that’s what they deserve.
We went to see Mortal Kombat II in theaters and wow do we have thoughts about it.
*warning: minor spoilers below for Mortal Kombat II
I’ll freely admit that I was excited to see the sequel to Mortal Kombat (2021). That movie was pure dumb fun from start to finish, and most agreed that as long as a sequel kept that same tone, it would likely be equally fun to watch.
Well…I have good news and bad news.
The good news is: Mortal Kombat II is indeed filled with a lot of dumb fun.
Advertisement
The bad news: the parts that aren’t dumb fun are really, really bad and awkward.
Mortal Kombat II
Directed by: Simon McQuoid
Starring: Karl Urban, Adeline Rudolph, Jessica McNamee, Josh Lawson, Ludi Lin, Mehcad Brooks
Release Date: May 8, 2026
Mortal Kombat II is set up sometime after the events of the 2021 film, with the evil Shao Kahn set to call for the final Mortal Kombat tournament that will decide the fate of Earthrealm, as one more defeat means Shao Kahn and Outworld will gain total control. Lord Raiden, meanwhile, is in search of the last champion Earthrealm needs to compete in the tournament and has just located him: Johnny Cage, a washed up actor and martial artist who is way past his prime and very cynical about everything.
Advertisement
Let me just start by saying that as much fun as this film is for the most part, Mortal Kombat II could’ve been so much better. The 2021 film proved that it’s possible. Tell a coherent plot, throw in a heavy amount of fighting scenes that pay homage to the video games, and you really can’t go wrong.
Where Mortal Kombat II fails, for the most part, is in trying to tell a coherent plot. Whereas the first film took the time to introduce us to Cole Young and his struggles, this film barely introduces Johnny Cage before we are tossed headlong into the tournament portion of the story. It genuinely felt like about an hour of exposition was missing, exposition that could have better rounded out Johnny’s character and how he feels about being suddenly responsible for the fate of Earthrealm. There are hints of some of these things, but it always feels like something is missing.
Speaking of Cole Young, this sequel, to put it bluntly, did him dirty. Given his suspicious absence from most of the promo materials, it was heavily suspected Cole’s story was not going to end well, but for goodness’ sake it didn’t have to go like that. I genuinely liked Cole by the end of the 2021 film and here he was barely more than a glorified extra. I don’t know what the film writers were thinking, but treating the main protagonist of the previous film in this way is not a good look.
Then there’s the downright uneven tone of the story. The portions with Shao Kahn are, quite rightly, dark and deadly serious. Shao Kahn is set up as an absolute monster and you feel that every second he’s on the screen. But the problem is the film will cut from a moment of brutality to a moment of awkward humor that feels very out of place. Most of these come from Josh Lawson, who is back as Kano in a manner that could’ve been epic but feels like it was thrown together just because the writers could.
Advertisement
I’m not saying a Mortal Kombat film can’t be funny or have moments that are funny, but the humor here just felt…off…or just downright awkward.
It wasn’t all bad. Mortal Kombat II had a number of things that were done right and kept this film from being a complete disaster. The most important of these were, as you might expect, the fighting scenes. As in the prior film, Mortal Kombat II paid homage to the video game with a number of combat scenes that felt like they came right out of the video game, right down to the way the camera panned around to show the two combatants squaring up to each other.
All of the fight scenes were great, but my two favorites had to be the scenes with Kitana and Shao Kahn respectively. Shao Kahn, as mentioned before, is set up as this terrifying being whose evil knows no bounds. He feels like he stepped right out of the video game and I couldn’t have asked for a better interpretation.
I’m equally thrilled with how Kitana’s story is presented. Kitana has been my favorite Mortal Kombat character for years and Adeline Rudolph plays her to perfection. The film made sure to give Kitana her iconic fan weapons and I love how they were used. Forgive the minor spoiler but those fans are responsible for some of the most brutal deaths in the film.
Advertisement
At the end of the day, you’ll likely leave the theater feeling entertained by Mortal Kombat II. The fight scenes alone are worth the price of admission, and Kitana’s story is very well told. Just…don’t think too hard about the rest of it.
