I’m all for audiences embracing critically reviled films, that’s why I still regularly check out user scores on IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes, just to not be totally lost in my critical bubble, which is such an easy place to get sucked into.

Knowing the world of film criticism all too well, I realize that cliques happen, waves of peer-pressured bandwagon fervor wreak havoc. If it happens that you don’t agree with the flock, then you run the risk of being chastised and mocked. I couldn’t care less, but there are some who do. The hive mind mentality is most definitely part of today’s film criticism.

In 2017, critics seemed to be in universal agreement that David Ayer’s “Bright,” starring Will Smith and Joel Edgerton, was a terrible action movie. The film, which garnered a 26% on RT and 29 on Metacritic, was widely mocked by the critical community, with many proclaiming it to be the worst film of the year.

The critical response was so bad that Ayer ended up scolding a few of the detracting critics, including IndieWire’s David Ehrlich, going as far as daring Ehrlich to try to write his own script. One might understand Ayer’s ire, a lot was riding on his film which, at the time, was the most expensive Netflix ever produced at a reported budget of $90M.

In a rather surprising twist of fate, audience reactions for the film were the polar opposite of the critical community. “Bright” ended up receiving an RT audience score of 90% —which has since lowered to 84— and on Google the film was at 90%. On Netflix, based on 1,469 user submission, the reviews were also overwhelmingly positive, with most being 4 or 5 stars.

Speaking to Inverse, Edgerton is now opening up about Bright’s nasty reviews. The actor praises the film’s blend of high fantasy with the police procedural genre, but acknowledges the impact of the negative reviews, stating they may have derailed plans for a sequel.

I have a lot of feelings about “Bright”. I’m fascinated by the disparity between critical and audience responses to movies. Often, the audience score is low, but critics love it, or vice versa. Occasionally, you get a double win or a double loss. My brother’s TV series, “Mr Inbetween”, is one of the rare double wins. But “Bright” was in the low 30s with critics, yet it resonated with viewers. Netflix’s algorithms would confirm that, as many people rated it highly, showing a clear appetite for more. I think critics were a bit too harsh on it.

About that sequel to “Bright,” it didn’t happen for a number of reasons, but the movie’s critical reputation wasn’t one of them. It was delayed a few times, due to co-star Will Smith’s busy schedule and due to Netflix’s inability to find a director (Ayer didn’t want to return). Eventually, Netflix canceled the whole thing after Smith’s “Oscar slap” scandal.

Ayer has never been embraced by critics, “Bright” is just one of many films he’s directed that got panned — the others include the likes of “The Tax Collector,” “Suicide Squad,” “Sabotage,” and “Street Kings.”

Under Paris begins with a pre-title sequence where a group of marine scientists are dangerously close to a man-eating shark. Unsurprisingly, all but one member of the team survives the vicious attack. The surviving scientist, Sophia (Berenice Bejo), goes on to live far away in Paris with memories of the traumatic incident where she lost her husband. The shark, named Lillith for some reason, finds her way to Sophia once again after conservation activist Mika (Léa Léviant) spots her in the Seine River with a tracker.

From this point, director Gens seems confused about whether the shark must be treated as a monster or pet. This dilemma, which persists for an hour of the film’s runtime, is rather frustrating to watch. By the time the film makes up its mind, it gets hard to root for the protagonist, especially since good old logic seems to take a hit too.

Add to the proceedings a smug mayor (Anne Marivin), who doesn’t want anything hampering the triathlon Olympics in Paris, leaving you wondering how the Parisian cops let a bunch of 20-year-old activists foil their covert operation? It’s possible, sure, but the film needs to sell it. Even as the number of underwater deaths begin mounting, the Parisians are strangely devoid of any panic. Further narrative issues come in the way of a screwball subplot involving the discovery of active World War II artillery under the Seine. The shark may be kept under wraps, but how is the mayor keeping this a secret? Again, it’s possible, but the film does not attempt whatsoever to convince the audience of the plausibility of the premise.

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.

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.

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.

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.