Inside Out 2 (2024): A Bigger, Not Better, Yet Still Really Solid, Look Inside Riley’s Head

“Inside Out 2” is directed by Kelsey Mann (Party Central, Megas XLR) and stars Amy Poehler (Parks and Recreation, The House), Maya Hawke (Asteroid City, Do Revenge), Kensington Tallman (Drama Club, Home Sweet Rome!), Liza Lapira (NCIS, The Equalizer), Tony Hale (Veep, Arrested Development), Lewis Black (The Daily Show, Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law), Phyllis Smith (The OA, The Office), Ayo Edebiri (The Bear, Bottoms), Lilimar (Batwheels, Cleopatra in Space), Grace Lu (Fright Krewe, Super Wings), Sumayyah Nuriddin-Green, Adèle Exarchopoulos (Blue is the Warmest Color, Passages), Diane Lane (Let Him Go, Extrapolations), Kyle MacLachlan (Dune, Twin Peaks), and Paul Walter Hauser (Richard Jewell, Cruella). This film once again follows the emotions inside Riley’s head. As Riley enters puberty, the five core emotions of the previous movie face the reality that they could potentially be replaced with newer, more complex emotions. Meanwhile, Riley tries to properly navigate herself and fit in while attending hockey camp.

Pixar is one of those studios that I automatically associate with greatness. What Studio Ghibli likely is to Japan, Pixar is to the United States. A group of talented individuals making some of the most mature, watchable animation out there. When it comes to the Disney library, I tend to prefer Pixar’s work over their own in-house studio. That said, I still think “Raya and the Last Dragon” is one of the best animated films of the decade. While studios like DreamWorks and Illumination tend to have their place in moviegoing, when I watch an animated movie, chances are I am going to prefer it to be under the Pixar banner. Their track record over the past few decades has been astounding. With the exception of “Elemental,” I like every film they have put out so far. That said, when they greenlight a sequel, a part of me asks why. Granted, part of the answer is likely money. But even with that in mind, I question the creativity factor that would go into such movies like “Toy Story 4.” I felt the same way about “Inside Out 2,” which I was kind of intrigued by, but I was worried that it would not have the same impact as the first one. I thought the original installment was one of the best films of the 2010s. Then again, even though I thought “Toy Story 4” is the worst of the franchise, it is still an incredibly watchable, admirable flick. Maybe “Inside Out 2” would meet a similar fate.

To my lack of surprise, “Inside Out 2” is in fact a step down from the original. In fact, when it comes to the Pixar lineup, I would put “Inside Out 2” in the lower or middle tier. But as I have said before, Pixar movies that do not meet the higher tier are still, most of the time, solid enough to possess a level of quality that plenty of movies would kill to meet.

The good news is with “Inside Out 2” is that it does a nice job at evolving its characters. In this film we see Riley become a teenager, she is going through puberty, and we get a decent look into how that all plays out. Inside her mind, we see all the complexities of her emotions begin to rise as we meet new characters like Anxiety, Envy, Ennui, and Embarrassment, all of whom seem to serve their purpose. And these characters, on the surface, tend to accurately represent what a lot of teens probably go through at that time of their lives. Between their identity, seeing other people have things they do not, aging out of things that they may or may not actually want to age out of. If it did not properly represent me at that age, I am sure it will do so for somebody else.

On that note, Pixar usually does a good job with casting. Of course, Amy Poehler is back, and she brings a powerhouse performance as Joy. Phyllis Smith also does a great job as Sadness. Both characters continue to be the heart and soul of the franchise to some degree. Lewis Black also shines as Anger. But Maya Hawke as Anxiety is a serious contender to go down as the year’s most memorable voice performance. Not only is this character fantastically written and conceived, but she is performed at such a pace that I would automatically think of when it comes to Anxiety. Even if she is talking normally, her voice sounds like she is moving a million miles a minute. She is hyperactive, a little zany, but not too much. And there is one scene we witness towards the film’s climax where she is stunningly animated. Her movement in said scene very much fits her name. Her general design fits the role too. Anxiety is one of those characters that looks appealing, but kind of gets on your nerves once you get to know her. I say that in a good way of course, her purpose in the film is brilliantly realized. She is the closest character this film has to an antagonist, but I would not necessarily call her a villain. But much like some of the best villains or antagonists, Anxiety is someone whose perspective you can easily understand, possibly even appreciate. That said, I was still able to root for the core emotions throughout the movie. For Riley’s sake, I wanted them to get their way as the film went on.

The best thing about these two “Inside Out” movies, in addition to many other entries to Pixar’s library, is that there is a lot for grown-ups to appreciate to a greater degree than children. There is a segment where we get deeper into Riley’s mind and visit some of her more archived possessions. Two of which include characters named Bloofy (Ron Funches) and Pouchy (James Austin Johnson). First off, from an animation perspective, I love how this movie seamlessly blends these 2D characters into its 3D environment. Second, if you ever seen an episode of say “Dora the Explorer,” either as a child growing up or as a guardian watching over somebody else, I guarantee the moments that these two are on screen are going to get a laugh out of you. I knew seconds after they came on screen exactly what they were going for. These characters even did the cliche where they’re breaking the fourth wall, asking the viewer what they think should be done. Points all around. This movie amazingly described a lot of people’s childhoods while they were sitting in front of the television. And going back to the animation style, these are not even the only two styles we see, because the film also introduces a character named Yong Yea, who very much has a design similar to the artstyle of characters from the “Final Fantasy” games. These styles complement each other beautifully and never come off as distracting.

If you must know, “Inside Out” has arguably my favorite ending in an animated movie. It is to some degree, one of the simplest climaxes in a major motion picture. But what goes down in said climax is nothing short of emotional. It hits me every time I watch it because it shows that sometimes in life, happiness and sadness can work together to make you feel whole. In this film, the stakes feel a little bit bigger. Not just inside Riley’s head, but also outside. That said, one thing that felt a little smaller in this film’s ending compared to the last one is the emotional impact. The ending is really good and makes complete sense. But it seemed to be missing a moment that I took with me as the movie ended. There is one moment, or more accurately, a repeated line, that I continue to think about. Each time it was said, it truly showed what Riley was going through, and how she was perhaps letting her emotions and desires get the best of her. But with the last movie, you have multiple moments that I will list among some of the greatest in cinematic history between “Take her to the moon for me,” and Joy and Sadness allowing Riley to have a second to shed a tear when she needed it most. There are no moments in “Inside Out 2” that quite reach that level.

The structure of this movie is one to admire. Because the film is partially about Riley trying to get on a hockey team. In reality though, as much screentime as we get out of it, you could argue it is a borderline B-plot. The A-plot is inside Riley’s head as the B-plot is happening. That plot being the fight to make sure Riley is mentally stable. Because the reality is if Riley does not make the team, deep down, she still, depending on the state of her emotions inside her, has her mental health. The emotions’ jobs are to make sure Riley is herself and in control. And if she ends up making the hockey team, that is just bonus points. But if Riley reaches an extreme that could alter the course of her life for the worse, then chances are they are failing at doing their jobs.

If you think “Inside Out 2” is better than the original, I could totally understand why. But I feel like the first does a slightly better job at addressing the problems Riley and her emotions go through. It also possibly benefits from its originality. At the time, I do not think I have seen any concept like it. The first film exemplifies what Pixar does best. Taking inanimate concepts and heightening them to the point where they can make you laugh, cheer, and cry. “Inside Out 2” takes a lot of what is great about the first movie and builds on it, but it is not quite as memorable or as impactful as the material we got back in 2015. That said, there is a reason why the film has made more than a billion dollars at the box office. Because it is quite watchable. Good for kids, good for adults, good for everybody. Much like “Wall-E” did for me when I was younger, I am sure young children will probably watch this in their childhood and see it one way, and maybe come back to it as an adult and watch it with a new, matured set of eyes. And it is possible they might enjoy it more at such an age.

In the end, “Inside Out 2” is, again, not the best Pixar movie. But it is still a really good watch. I definitely found more enjoyment out of it than their previous feature, “Elemental,” so that is quite a positive thought if you ask me. The emotions are all well written and performed. I even liked Liza Lapira filling in for Mindy Kaling as Disgust. I thought she did a great job. Tony Hale as Fear was also quite good. He was very expressive throughout the picture. Although I could tell there was a difference in his voice compared to Bill Hader’s. That said, it is a good thing he is putting his best spin on the performance as opposed to doing a crappy impression of the previous one. The score of these past two films tend to serve as a character of its own sometimes. It was touching in the first one, and the same can be said here. As soon as the music played in this start of the film, I felt like I was instantly transported back to this universe. But as usual for Pixar movies, this film is beautifully animated. And kind of like the first film does in its abstract thought scene, “Inside Out 2” manages to seamlessly diversify its animation style. It looks great and never feels out of left field. I am going to give “Inside Out 2” a 7/10.

One last thing… I was a bit on the fence when they announced an “Inside Out 2,” partially because of how good the first one was. Having seen this second film, I can confirm the first one is far superior. But also having seen the second film, it honestly got me thinking… As much as I enjoy franchises like “The Incredibles” or “Finding Nemo,” they feel finite compared to “Inside Out” when you consider they’re about a certain group of characters. Even though the franchise revolves around the mind of Riley, I would not mind seeing inside the mind of a young boy or the mind of someone entering their 50s, or someone working the graveyard shift. There are tons of possibilities for the “Inside Out” franchise. If they greenlight an “Inside Out 3” with the Riley as the center, I am there. If they greenlight an “Inside Out” spinoff with somebody else as the center, count me in. I am game no matter what.

“Inside Out 2” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga!” Also coming soon, I will have reviews for “Thelma,” “Daddio,” “A Quiet Place: Day One,” and “Maxxxine.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Inside Out 2?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your personal favorite of the “Inside Out” movies? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Capone (2020): Josh Trank Chronicles the Gangster

mv5bztvmmdu3mjctmmuxni00nzi3lwi1ngmtmmy5mje0mgvlmzawxkeyxkfqcgdeqxvyodk4otc3mty40._v1_sy1000_cr006741000_al_

“Capone” is directed by Josh Trank (Fantastic Four, Chronicle) and stars Tom Hardy (The Dark Knight Rises, Dunkirk) as the title character alongside Linda Cardellini (Daddy’s Home, Gravity Falls), Jack Lowden (Dunkirk, Fighting with My Family), Noel Fisher (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Shameless), Kyle MacLachlan (Inside Out, Carol’s Second Act), Matt Dillon (There’s Something About Mary, Crash), and Al Sapienza (The Sopranos, Person of Interest). This film is about the famous American gangster, Al Capone, and is set during the last year of his life as he suffers from dementia.

This movie originally released on VOD this past May, and I have waited a little bit to talk about it for several reasons. For one, I took a break for the most part when it comes to movie reviewing during the spring. Also, “Scoob!” was a priority for me. It is an animated film, and I usually tend to review at least five a year now, so I wanted to get one under my belt. I should note that both movies released around the same time.

However, I was shopping inside Best Buy the other day and I came across “Capone,” which had a copy available on Blu-ray. I snatched it when I had the chance, and I popped it in a couple weeks later. For a price of $12.99, I felt that I was getting my money’s worth. After all, when this thing came out, I believe it was $19.99 to rent on VOD, which is still ridiculous to me. By the way, Disney, you’re crazy, and I say that as someone who may want to work with 20th Century in the future. “Mulan” deserves better and so do your customers!

Before I go any further, I should note that “Capone” has a 4.7/10 on IMDb. Given how a lot of the stuff on IMDb happens to be somewhere in the 6 to 8 range, that’s a pretty low score. I will say though, what kind of shocks me here is that this rating does not come from mostly 1s and 2s. Not even 3s. The most common rating for “Capone” is a 5 on IMDb. I’m not gonna give my score just yet. Per usual, we save that for the end. But I can see why 5 would be a common verdict here. This movie really isn’t anything special.

Now, this movie is directed by Josh Trank, who as far as my opinions are concerned has a fairly mixed resume. His movie “Chronicle” released back in 2012, was a fun found footage flick with a neat concept. I think it was pretty well done overall. But in 2015 he directed “Fantastic 4,” which ironically wasn’t even close to fantastic. When I was seeing it at the theater. I missed part of the climax as I was more concerned about getting more popcorn than I was about catching the rest of this movie. When it comes to “Fantastic 4” in particular, I don’t put all the blame on Josh Trank, given how that film was basically made as a quick money grab so Fox could keep the rights from reverting back to Marvel. So even though “Fantastic 4” was not entirely great, it wasn’t exactly earth-shatteringly devastating to watch. As for “Capone,” the same can be said for that movie. It’s by no means the best movie in the world, it’s not a masterpiece, not worth massive attention. It just… exists.

I will say though, and this should not be completely surprising as this movie does come from a smaller studio, this project feels just a tad more personalized coming from a guy like Josh Trank. Maybe there’s some hints of a story formula that become obvious here and there, but if this movie were say, the next “Parasite,” I would be all over Josh Trank right now and completely excited to see whatever he does next. Although I should point out, unlike “Fantastic Four,” Josh Trank actually wrote the screenplay for “Capone” by himself. During the writing process for “Fantastic Four,” he was involved with the screenplay enough to receive a credit. But so were Jeremy Slater and Simon Kinberg.

I do like Tom Hardy’s performance here as Al Capone. One thing for me to consider, based on the other projects where I’ve seen Tom Hardy, such as “Mad Max: Fury Road” or “Venom,” it doesn’t really feel like my typical vision for Tom Hardy himself. It actually feels like he’s playing a character. Although ironically, this movie comes out during the COVID-19 pandemic and this is the one time Tom Hardy plays a character that doesn’t wear a mask. Given his resume, such as the recently mentioned “Mad Max: Fury Road” and “Venom,” along with other films including “The Dark Knight Rises” and “Dunkirk,” it feels a little out of the ordinary. I’m not complaining, it’s just something I noticed.

I should note that I watched this movie on Monday, August 3rd. This gave me plenty of time to gather my thoughts for a review. Unfortunately, the little that I do fully remember about this movie does not say enough for this movie to have a lasting impact. Yes, I did feel bad for Al Capone given how he was going through some health issues. There’s definitely a reason to get attached to such a character. Although, I’m gonna use this phrase once again, this movie doesn’t really have the oomph factor to push it over the edge. Do I care for Al Capone here? Sure. But will I care for him in a week when I move on to the next movie? That’s hard to say. This movie has some great dialogue exchanges between characters that make you somewhat emotionally attached, but I don’t feel like I’m going to remember anybody’s name in this film except maybe Al Capone because he’s on the flipping title of the movie for crying out loud!

For the most part, I do think Josh Trank’s “Capone,” kind of like the last movie I reviewed, “Gretel & Hansel,” is a competent production. I think the location choices were suitable, I like the casting, and getting Tom Hardy to play the lead role is a fine mix of name recognition and talent. I will say one thing though as a compliment compared to “Gretel & Hansel.” “Capone” was more entertaining in its span of a hundred and three minutes, compared to “Gretel & Hansel” in its span of eighty seven minutes. Sometimes, it goes to show… A movie is as long as the viewer makes it. “Gretel & Hansel” in this case, maybe took a million more years to get through. I was entertained by “Capone,” but I don’t think I’ll watch it again in the near future.

In the end, “Capone” is not… Terrible, but to call it next level material or even “good” would be a lie. It’s just some extended series of scenes that may or may not be a waste of time depending on your mood. I think there was some effort put into it, but again, there’s no lasting impact for me to remember this film forever. Maybe if I watched the film in a theater, who knows? It could be experiential, but I didn’t. I saw it at home… Where we are stuck for the rest of our lives… End this pandemic… I’m going to give “Capone” a 5/10. I will say, the rating could jump to a 6/10 as there were some entertaining parts. But when seeing a brief moment of “The Wizard of Oz” was the most fascinating part of “Capone,” that’s kind of a problem. It was a good scene, but still.

Thanks for reading this review! This weekend I’m planning on seeing “The Burnt Orange Heresy,” a new movie that is only playing in theaters. Can’t believe I’m saying that! This film is about an art dealer trying to steal a painting and the mission suddenly goes out of control. Sounds like a work of art.

*Cricket noises*

Be sure to follow Scene Before either with an email or WordPress account so you can stay tuned for more great content! Also, check out the official Scene Before Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Capone?” What did you think about it? Or, what is your favorite Tom Hardy performance? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!