The Order

 

Score:  A

Directed by Justin Kurzel

Starring Jude Law, Nicholas Hoult, Tye Sheridan, Jurnee Smollett

Running time: 116 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short:  The Order is a thriller based on a true story from the 1980s, with a lone FBI agent doggedly unearthing a deadly den of far-right fanatics.  It is exceptionally well made and riveting, with a strong focus on both the agent's hunt alternating with a close look at white supremacist culture.  Jude Law is fantastic as the lead and Hoult as his foil, along with the rest of the cast.  Not for the faint of heart, but this is a diamond in the rough - highly recommended.

In the early 1980s, Terry (Law), an FBI agent, is assigned to a backwater station in rural Idaho.  As he awaits the rest of family to join him there, he gets a sense of the region, meeting the police department and the locals.  For a sparsely populated area, Terry's new territory is buzzing with menace as there has been a string of bank robberies and a far-right conspiracist militia has been ensconced for years, one that is strong enough to make even law enforcement hesitant to monitor it.  Newcomer Terry is undeterred, however, and as his investigation intensifies, so does the chaos and violence.  Terry finds some brave allies in the area, but faces an uphill battle in a nationally-overlooked yet volatile situation.

The Order is a thrilling re-enactment of a true story from just forty years ago, combining excellent performances with a focused narrative and pulse-pounding action.  The movie is tightly focused and straightforward.  The focus is almost entirely on Terry's hunt for the violent perpetrators, with effective and nuanced sketchings of the characters that are more than enough to breathe life into the story.  It's also impossible to miss the story's relevance today, with its growing far-right groups restless for action, but the movie handles this effectively and powerfully, by showing rather than telling.  The portrait of the far-right is not limited to just violence, but also shown through quieter scenes of the far-right group in daily life (which feels normal in many ways, but with horrifying exceptions, like 7-year olds target shooting with assault rifles, etc.)  These alternating thriller and observational elements are expertly interspersed for a well-paced and engaging ride.  The acting is also outstanding across the board.  Jude Law is fantastic as the lead: even though his character is stoic, he does it in a very distinctive way and is both rough-edged and grimly focused but also thoroughly a good guy with integrity - and in a realistic, non-Hollywood-like way.  Hoult is one of the best rising actors of the last decade or so and is phenomenal again here as the creepily charismatic and cunning far-right leader.  He is obviously twisted yet still human (the movie wisely gives him some "regular" scenes with his wife and children).  The supporting cast is great, too, with Sheridan as Terry's fresh-faced but determined sidekick; Smollett as Terry's jaded boss; Maron as a beleaguered local radio host; etc.

The action is great: always tense, because it is realistic and modestly scaled.  Most of the action takes the form of bank robbery-type situations.  It manages to translate the fear for the victims involved even though few people are wounded or killed - and because of that, there is extra horror when there are casualties.  We get to see Terry's skill and courage without him seeming like a "superhero": he just tries to do the right thing (successful or not), using whatever he has at his disposal.  Several times, sheer luck is his best ally.  Finally, the movie shows a range of far-right individuals and communities, united by a chillingly alien, brainwashed attitude in their self-certainty and righteousness (we see kids giving the Nazi salute, etc.).  There's the "old school" insular, isolated community that uses plenty of harsh words but mostly works to keep its own power; and far more dangerous radicals determined to inflict bloodshed on the rest of world.  There are no monologues here about the perils of far-right groups or their conspiracies - because it's enough to simply show what they believe in and will do to bring about their world view.  A fitting end awaits for the villainous Matthews: a futile last stand, and a dream going up in smoke.

***

I had never even heard of The Order before I saw it listed in my local theaters showtimes.  I looked it up and saw that it had good reviews and was a historically-based thriller - sign me up! I thought.  Fortunately, this turned out to be one of those pleasant surprises I was hoping for as 2024 comes to a close.  I hope that the movie gets some Oscar awards considerations, as it's one of the best of the year.  Side note: I saw that this was distributed by Amazon, and while I dislike their retail business, I am glad that the film business does so much to support great creative work like this (and Manchester by the Sea, etc.) - particularly by releasing them widely into theaters rather than hoarding them for streaming (*I'm staring you down, Netflix and Apple*).  I'm not sure if I'll be back in theaters again before January, but we'll see!

* By http://www.impawards.com/2024/order_xxlg.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=78124937

Gladiator II

 Score:  B-/C+

Directed by Ridley Scott

Starring Paul Mescal, Denzel Washington, Connie Nielsen, Pedro Pascal

Running time: 148 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short:  Gladiator II attempts to bring back the historical grandeur and visceral thrills of the 2000 classic, but fails.  Denzel Washington's trainer/manipulator provides a compelling and entertaining presence, but mostly the movie tries to both recreate the original while also moving it forward, leading to pointless and dull circling.  Mescal is a far, far cry from Russell Crowe and even the action is mostly a disappointment.  Skip this, at least in theaters. 

Lucius (Mescal), a soldier in Africa, is forced into slavery following the Roman Empire's conquest of his home.  He and others are brought to Rome to become gladiators, a blood sport in which the contestants kill each other for the entertainment of massive audiences in the Colosseum.  The twin, mad emperors of Rome have begun a gladiatorial tournament in honor of their army's latest conquest.  Lucius is purchased and trained by Macrinus (Washington), who sees a level of skill and passion in Lucius that he believes will bring him glory - and wealth.  While Lucius struggles for both survival and vengeance against his captors, at the other end of Roman society, former emperor Marcus Aurelius's daughter, Lucilla (Nielsen), ponders and plans with her husband, general Acacius (Pascal), how to end the vicious cycle of violence.

Gladiator II is a failed follow-up to the classic 2000 original, both trying too hard to mirror it and also coming up short in most cinematic areas, from acting to writing.  The structure of Part II is familiar but also odd - it seems to want to be both sequel to and remake of Gladiator.  By that I mean it follows most of the overall plot structure of the original (and doesn't waste any opportunities to squeeze in call-back moments).  Yet it also tries to move the plot of the original forward, using both "new" (essentially replacement) characters and old, which gives the sensation of spinning its wheels in the mud.  The best part of the movie by far is new character Macrinus, played by Denzel, as both Lucius's trainer and mentor as well as a political player.  His acting is great, of course, and the character also has much more complexity and nuance than any other character.  The others, both actors and characters, are mediocre to poor.  Mescal as Lucius is a pitiful shadow of Crowe's greatness as Maximus; he is much more annoying than heroic.  He may have physical prowess but is a dull to off-putting character.  It's also tough to watch Lucilla's (Nielsen) larger role here.  Trying to expand a minor role into a lead is tricky at best, and the attempt fails badly here; it just feels forced all around.  The twin emperors are kind of entertaining in their sheer madness, though they get little screen time; Pascal is charismatic as usual but is given an extremely generic role with little to do  Overall, the movie tries to check all the boxes of character roles from the original (and accentuate the violent "manliness" of gladiators, presumably for the "bros").  Except for Macrinus, it all comes off as artificial and/or poor imitation.

The main draw is the action, of course, and overall it's fine; some is great, some is fine, but quite a bit is disappointing, too.  The opening war scene (again, mirroring original movie) is tremendous with excellent visuals and intensity but in a much different setting from the original, raising hopes for the rest of the film.  Most of the gladiator scenes are disappointing, though; there are some interesting ideas here and there, but most of the scenes are too short.  It would have been much better to jettison some fights altogether (and some of the tired ideas) and extend the good ones, in my opinion.  The final gladiator scene is absurd, too, departing the fairly realistic if entertainingly-heightened style of the original in favor of an almost fantasy setup.  I did like that the finale avoided what could have been an even bigger bloodbath, even if it also resulted in an ending that felt rather sudden and empty.  Along with the uneven, at best, acting and action, the writing and directing (by legend Ridley Scott!) is subpar thanks to cliched dialogue and poor pacing.  Finally, the sequel doesn't even have a great score to fall back on, like the original's from Hans Zimmer: the music didn't stand out to me at all here.

***

When I first heard there would be a sequel to Gladiator, my first reaction was skepticism, which I should have held onto.  But with a dearth of interesting movies this fall, and finding out Denzel Washington was in it, I decided to give it a chance.  It's a great example, if nothing else, of why Hollywood should stop making so many damn sequels and remakes.  I'm not opposed to sequels and remakes in general - I watch and enjoy many of them.  But the desire to rely on the comfortingly familiar elements in them is often too tempting.  The director, writers, actors, and all involved must be even more alert to the fundamentals of good filmmaking and trying to make a solid work that can also stand by itself.  Gladiator II largely fails in all of these things.  Hopefully there will be a few more movies to see before the end of the year in order to end 2024 on a better note!

* By IMP Awards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=77311566

Venom 3 + Red One

 

   

Red One

Score:  B+

Directed by

Starring Dwayne Johnson, Chris Evans, J.K. Simmons, Lucy Liu, Kiernan Shipka

Running time: 123 minutes

Rated PG-13

Following in a recent trend of Christmas action-comedy movies, Red One brings some serious star power and does so in a surprisingly effective and entertaining way.  The movie's world is clever, putting Santa and the North Pole in the midst of a human world-myth world security and intelligence network.  A silly concept, of course, but the movie takes just the right balance of tone between tongue in cheek with enough seriousness to be compelling and even tense at times.  The cast is also very well chosen: Dwayne Johnson is perfect as the head of Santa's security; it's basically his usual schtick, but it fits naturally here.  Chris Evans is also great as more of a cunning, sly ne'er-do-well, which also makes for a great holiday-style redemption arc.  The dialogue is snappy and funny throughout, with neat nods and tie-ins to its various components (Christmas, The Rock's movies, etc.); not surprising, as Red One was directed by Kasdan who made the impressive Jumanji reboot and several TV comedies.  The action is fun, too, but it's the inventive world, committed and well-suited star performances, and even some holiday cheer that make this a great trip to the theater.

Venom: The Last Dance

Score:  C

Directed by Kelly Marcel

Starring Tom Hardy, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Juno Temple

Running time: 109 minutes

Rated PG-13

Venom: The Last Dance is, apparently, the last in the superhero trilogy of anti-superhero Venom, a combination of human Eddie Brock (Hardy) and a symbiotic shape-shifting alien.  While the series has had entertaining moments and its main character is a nice change of pace in the genre, I'm not sad to see it end, particularly on this "blah" note.  The Eddie-Venom dynamic is the most interesting part of the series, but this movie strangely only has a few moments that focus on them.  Instead, much of the screen time is devoted to a whole new (dull) villain that is chasing after the main duo.  Worse than this unimaginative setup is the final, incomprehensible sequence when the internal "rules" of the world go out the window (Symbiotes can be eaten but... survive? Each character seems to get "killed" multiple times), ruining any suspense.  Venom still provides some chuckles from his untamed, predatory yet not-quite villainous persona, and some of the action is fine.  But mostly, it's a mess with little pay off.

***

It's been a pretty slow fall for movies so far, and I wasn't even going to write a review for Venom 3 at first.  But I thought it served as a nice contrast with Red One: while Venom seems a cash grab using its star and genre but serving audiences poor to mediocre results, Red One rises well above its seeming cash grab origins to provide a very solid, entertaining, and distinctive experience.  Fortunately, Red One just came out so you should still have a chance to catch it in theaters.  There are a few other movies coming out in the last month or so of the year - notably Gladiator 2, which I will see and review soon.  Hopefully the year will end on a high note at the theater!

* By SocialNewsXYZ, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=77071925

* By Dwayne Johnson's Instagram post, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=77219523

Saturday Night

 

Score:  A

Directed by Jason Reitman

Starring Gabriel LaBelle, Rachel Sennott, Corey Michael Smith, Matt Wood, Lamorne Morris, et al

Running time: 109 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short:  Saturday Night is a well-conceived origin story for the storied NBC comedy show, putting audiences right in the thick of the chaos of the first episode.  The cast of mostly unknowns does great work - it's the characters themselves that we all know, and everyone from leader Lorne Michaels to volcanic Belushi to an overwhelmed aide are compelling to watch.  Combine this with a great script, direction, music, and more, and you have both an entertaining and Oscar-worthy trip to the theater.  Highly recommended.

October 11, 1975: it's 10:00 PM in New York City, and Lorne Michaels (LaBelle) has just arrived at 30 Rockefeller Plaza to launch a strange new late-night comedy show.  The problem is, well, everything.  Michaels finds out that NBC affiliates from around the country have come to see the show's debut in person, led by legendary NBC executive David Tebet (Dafoe).  The show's cast is mostly in place, although Belushi (Wood) still refuses to sign his contract, some wonder what the hell is going on, and others fret that their sketches will be cut.  Plenty more obstacles must be overcome in order to launch their live show at 11:30 PM, mostly having to do with the unique, not quite definable nature of the show.  But there is a lot of talent and willpower on set as well, and the various forces collide all the way up to the last minute.

Saturday Night is a wildly entertaining, very well-made, and highly appropriate origin story movie for the legendary SNL (now celebrating its 50th season!).  The structure is its main strength: it all takes place in the 90 minutes leading up to the first broadcast (mirroring the show's is 90 minutes run time).  This gives the movie urgency and, yes, a feeling of being live and in the moment.  We get just enough backstory/exposition to understand what's going on but the movie is mostly about the nuts-and-bolts chaos of actually putting this crazy thing on air.  The events portrayed are also a very nice mix: the movie mostly follows Lorne Michaels, who created SNL, though it focuses on others, too.  The primary lens shows Michaels dealing with his cast members and crew both on stage and behind the scenes.  We get just enough of the "bigwigs" to portray the stakes involved: how slim SNL's chances were of success and how ready the execs were to pull the plug.  There's also a perfect amount of re-enactment of SNL sketches being rehearsed, sprinkled throughout the movie: they are brilliantly and hilariously shot, from Weekend Update to Billy Preston to the construction workers sketch and more.

The cast and the vibe of the film are perfectly suited as well, drawing audience in closely to the events.  LaBelle is great as Michaels; he's certainly nowhere near as charismatic as the cast, rather he is a combination of audience surrogate as well as a distinct character with sheer grit and determination as well as the kind of cool under pressure leader the show required.  The actors playing cast members are fantastic, from Belushi to Chase to Akroyd to Radner, Curtin and Morris.  They all show both comedic chops on stage but also are believable as "real" people off stage.  There are plenty of great non-cast member roles, too: Sennott as Shuster, Michaels's wife (in a rocky time) and a writer/co-leader of show who appears just as visionary as him; a put-upon Dick Ebersol; fiercely funny and passionate head writer Michael O'Donoghue, Dafoe, Simmons, etc. etc.  It's amazing that the movie could fit in all these characters so well (plus a few intriguing "cameos").  The script is excellent, both for comedy (few direct jokes - mostly just natural humor) and for the inner workings of a TV production.  The overriding vibes of the movie are fun and excitement; it's easy to root for Michaels and Co. to succeed, and feel drama even when knowing the final outcome.

***

Saturday Night is the first drama of the season I've seen, and it was a great way to start!  I've been a fan of SNL for years, which perhaps biases my opinion.  But I feel the movie really captured the essence of the show well.  Does SNL always work and is hilarious? No - it's often just OK, or even bombs at times.  But there's a constant feeling of upbeat, fun, positive energy from the show, and it keep me hooked - and that comes through in the movie Saturday Night, too.  Now, beware that, just like the show, the movie gets a bit raunchy at times - and there's a fair bit of cursing.  This is just a really fun ride, though, with all the elements clicking together so well.  It might be too late to see it in a theater, but catch it on streaming if you can!

* By Columbia Pictures - https://x.com/DiscussingFilm/status/1821568411362795671, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=77575339

Deadpool & Wolverine

 

Score:  A

Directed by Shawn Levy

Starring Ryan Reynolds, Hugh Jackman

Running time: 128 minutes

Rated R

Long Story Short:  Marvel is back!!!  The only new theatrical release this year for the blockbuster action franchise is a biggy, teaming up two of the most popular characters.  Although they come from very different origins, Deadpool and Wolverine turn out to be like chocolate and peanut butter.  Come for the lovable, 4th-wall-breaking snark from Deadpool, stay for the MCU's unmatched event-movie spectacle. Warning, for those expecting a typical superhero movie: there is lots of bloody/gory fighting and plenty of swearing.  Still, for those who can stomach it, this is a tremendously entertaining summer movie!

The "Merc with a Mouth", Wade Wilson, aka Deadpool (Reynolds), is going through a rough patch.  He aspires to the heroics of better-known icons like Thor and Captain America, but he can't seem to leave parts of his past behind him.  While working mundane jobs, a mysterious agency introduces him to the multiverse, however, in a development that threatens to literally upend Wade's entire world.  Wade knows that he can't fix the problem on his own and, using the newly discovered multiverse to his advantage, searches for a partner.  He manages to locate the mutant he has always worshipped, Wolverine (Jackman) - but it's not what he expects.  The two odd bedfellows must work past their differences and together confront a deadly threat to the multiverse.

Deadpool & Wolverine is a great return to form for Marvel superhero movies, full of fun and able to manage some tricky balancing acts.  Deadpool is a unique superhero, not only more sarcastic and vulgar than most, but also frequently breaking the "fourth wall" by talking directly to the audience.  While Marvel doesn't take itself completely seriously, either, it is still "traditional" story-telling; as Deadpool himself remarks, his appearance in the MCU is thus an awkward fit.  However, this third Deadpool movie, and the first one "sharing" space with another franchise, works very well, largely due to the now-maligned multiverse concept.  When you have infinite universes at your disposal, it's a perfect situation for Deadpool, who thrives on the bizarre, extreme, and unrealistic (and each of those elements is still kept in check enough to hold the audience).  Among the most entertaining scenes are those showing different versions of the title characters; perhaps the best is "Dog"-pool, which is, naturally, the ugliest breed of dog on the planet.  The plot is not super interesting; it does nicely build off previous Wolverine /X-Men movies, but between this and the multiverse components (even I'm not sure I got everything!), it's a bit reliant on superhero fandom.  Still, it's solid enough as a vehicle for the main entertainment.

Instead of plot, the movie focuses mostly on the co-leads' relationship, which is a great decision as they are both distinct, charismatic - and very different - characters.  Deadpool is the primary focus, and his character is developed in small but thoughtful chunks despite all the surroundings shenanigans.  At the same time, his trademark dirty humor isn't toned down at all - and Wolverine's own more subtle but also dark humor is a great companion for him.  The whole movie is hilarious - particularly the more familiar you are with superhero movies, with several great cameos.  But even for those who aren't, there is plenty of slapstick and sight gags as well as Marvel's signature wisecracks and banter.  The action is also a lot of fun, even though it suffers from "Superman syndrome" in that the leads are basically immortal.  However, at least half the time they are fighting each other, so rather than worrying about what may happen to them, you just enjoy the impressive, creative, and funny choreography.  There's only one regular "henchman" fight, but it basically turns into a music video (hint: boy bands) so it's great, too; the finale battle isn't amazing, but the movie didn't really need one.  Even the ending is somewhat poignant, despite the good-humored cynicism of most of the movie.  After all the blood and bickering, it shows that even the rougher-edged among us need good companions.

***

Deadpool & Wolverine had a lot to live up to as the only Marvel movie to be released this year and the first time the unique Deadpool experience was mixed with a more traditional movie.  Fortunately for audiences - and Marvel - it was a resounding success.  It was truly an open question, to me, if Deadpool could really work within the MCU framework.  As much as the multiverse concept has been worn out, though, it turned out to be the perfect tool to re-introduce this almost "meta" character.  Deadpool himself suggests that perhaps it's time to retire the multiverse plot, winking at declining critical and box office results for Marvel.  Along with the legal troubles of actor Jonathan Majors, who played the key villain, this could well be the right call.  Whether or not Deadpool returns is left nicely ambiguous by the ending (although $$$ signs seem to point toward "yes") - if he does, I now have quite a bit more confidence that it can work out perfectly well.  Now that Marvel is already done for the year, though, it's back to the guessing game of what's next for me at the movie theater!

* By http://www.impawards.com/2024/deadpool_and_wolverine_ver6.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=73871602

Fly Me to the Moon

 

Score:  B+

Directed by Greg Berlanti

Starring Scarlett Johansson, Channing Tatum, Woody Harrelson

Running time: 132 minutes

Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Greg Berlanti (producer behind everything from Dawson's Creek to my favorite CW superhero series) directs an intriguing rom-com, mixing fact and fiction in the time of the moon landing.  Johansson and the supporting cast are great but Tatum is awful, and the movie has sharp writing, humor, and design.  It just lacks a genuine "spark" to truly lift off into the upper echelon.  Still, a worthwhile, change-of-pace summer visit to the movie theater.

The great Space Race of the 1950s and 60s kicks off with great excitement and apprehension.  Yet, when America finally closes in on President Kennedy's vision of putting a man on the moon by the end of the decade, the country's interest has waned.  Apollo 11 mission launch director Cole (Tatum) is hard at work in Florida, working on the rocket and training with the astronauts, but he struggles with tightening budgets.  So the government calls in saleswoman/conwoman extraordinaire, Kelly (Johansson), to bring back buzz, attention - and most importantly, dollars - for the moon landing mission.  Cole and Kelly appear to be polar opposites, but the country depends on their magnetism to achieve a spectacular success.

Fly Me to the Moon is a fun, well-made rom-com despite its odd conglomeration of parts; still, it could have been even better, perhaps a classic, except for some key shortcomings.  The movie has three main distinct, though intertwined, components: romance (Cole and Kelly), historical (based pretty closely on Apollo 11 preparations), and "Hollywood" (filming a fake moon landing).  It was a tall task, considering the different tones needed for each part - but it pulls off the balance impressively.  The "rom" is more restrained, focusing more on "com" and the plots, both historical and Hollywood.  Scarlett Johansson is fantastic as the lead, easily the main character draw in the film.  She is charismatic and clever, a little ruthless and self-centered but very sympathetic.  Tatum, on the other hand, is just... not good.  I've never thought much of him, but it's painfully obvious here how out of his depth he is.  The movie could have been much better with a different actor.  The supporting cast is great, adding a significant boost to all elements of the film, from Harrelson's devious agent to Garcia as Kelly's partner, to Cole's various co-workers (young, charmingly naive engineers, as well as his old partner played by Ray Romano, etc.). Johansson's husband (SNL's Colin Jost) even gets a hilarious cameo!

The comedy is excellent, as is the dialogue and writing, but there is a glaring vacuum where there should be a strong emotional investment.  Once again, the cast does a great job with the comedy.  Johansson is superb here as she is in her overall performance, and Harrelson was made for his role - even Tatum manages some good laughs.  But it's Kelly's film director friend, played by Jim Rash, who is the comedy MVP.  The writing feels very natural, crisp, and understated, in a movie that was ripe for florid overwriting or on-the-nose dreck; each scene is well done and fits together nicely.  Unfortunately, while it's easy to admire the skill of (most) of the actors, writing, set design, directing, and so on... it just can't seem to find that one, strong connection to really pull in the audience.  The romance is fine but hampered by Tatum's acting; even the plot also lacks a spark to truly pull you in, to fully invest the audience like the best movies do.  It's also too long, mostly due to a drawn out conclusion.  Those involved should be proud of their accomplishments here, but no need to take too long a victory lap.

***

Fly Me to the Moon is much different from the kind of movies I usually see in the summer - but that was one of the main reasons I wanted to see it.  I find that good variety is key to my enjoying movies of all kinds.  I advise you pay closer attention to the audience score on Rotten Tomatoes (91%) than the critics' score (65%) for this movie.  Is it a classic?  No - but it is well worth seeing in the theater, particularly since so few of its genre are shown in theaters at all anymore, let alone in the summer.  It is a shame that it's so far flopped at the box office.  Casting Tatum was an avoidable error, but I don't blame the movie for lacking the "spark"; it's there or it's not, you can't control it.  Everything else that could be controlled - from the performances to writing to directing - is finely done.  Next up for me is another sharp turn: Deadpool & Wolverine, here we come - Marvel is finally back!

* By Columbia Pictures/ Apple Original Films - http://www.impawards.com/2024/fly_me_to_the_moon.html#google_vignette, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=76870601

Inside Out 2

 

Score:  B

Directed by Kelsey Mann

Starring Amy Poehler, Maya Hawke, Kensington Tallman, et al.

Running time: 96 minutes

Rated PG

Long Story Short:  Inside Out 2 brings Pixar back to the world of one of its biggest original hits, this time with the Emotions contending with an adolescent host.  Like the first movie, there are plenty of clever ideas and gags, but the sequel falls well short of the masterful 2015 film.  It's just too overstuffed, and doesn't bring enough freshness to the world despite the new Emotions and real world setting.  Still, it's a perfectly good option, especially for families looking for a summer theater trip.

The Emotions of young Riley (Tallman) - Joy (Poehler), Sadness, Anger, Fear, and Disgust - continue to steer the girl through life, which is now entering the treacherous high school stage.  Riley loves hockey, and she attends an important camp with her two best friends; her performance at the camp could determine whether she makes the high school team.  Joy and the others feel confident that they can help Riley succeed, but their usual directions start to go awry - and they also find new company in Riley's head, led by a determined Anxiety (Hawke).  The Emotions must act fast to prevent the hockey camp from becoming a train wreck for Riley, and also work out their own new roles in her life.

Inside Out 2 is a fine animated film, but it is a pale follow-up to a Pixar classic, trying to stuff in too many themes and characters with not enough originality.  The structure is quite similar to the first Inside Out with the action playing out in two areas: Riley's real human life and the anthropomorphized Emotions working inside Riley "HQ": control rooms, vast memory vaults, etc.  I would have expected to like the sequel to follow the original's successful formula, but it just didn't work as well - primarily because it's overstuffed in both "worlds": more time on Riley's life, and a new batch of Emotions.  Those colorful beings are still fun, with all the originals returning.  Unfortunately, two of them have new voice actors, which I found pretty distracting (Hader and Kaling had been perfect for Fear and Disgust).  Familiarity brings fondness, but the filmmakers also realized they needed to spice up Riley's internal world with some new Emotions.  Anxiety and Embarrassment are particularly good but again, it just ends up being too much, a dilemma for the film.  Meanwhile, though it makes sense to see how the battle of the Emotions is playing out in Riley's life, her hockey camp story is fairly bland.  Partly this is the difficulty of aligning real events to match the internal work of Emotions but there are some highlights, too, including Riley's sudden overreactions to the Emotions' prompts (thanks, puberty).

The overarching genius of the original Inside Out was in the way that it literally connected traditional movie action/plot to fundamental human psychology.  Somehow, it also melded all the intricate details with a cohesive message (i.e., the importance of sadness).  The sequel has some great psychological and human themes as well - but maybe too many of them.  I really liked the final theme, of humanity's complexity - we each hold many, often contradictory, feelings and qualities and have to balance them, but it's also what makes us resilient.  The other ideas leading up to it are thoughtful, too, but it's so much that the impact of each diminishes.  It feels odd writing this, but there's almost too much dialogue here - the film could have done more showing and less telling.

***

Since Inside Out was one of my favorite Pixar movies, I really looked forward to the sequel.  I enjoyed it but, maybe inevitably, was disappointed.  I should also note that I was feeling pretty tired during a good portion of the movie, so that could well have affected the way I felt about it.  Unless a second viewing completely changes my mind, though, I am pretty convinced of one thing: Pixar needs to get back to making original movies and keep the sequels to a minimum.  Last year's Elemental was a great example, I loved it - unfortunately, because it didn't do well at the box office, Pixar is probably going to lean even more into the sequels (especially now that Inside Out 2 is over $400 million in just two weeks).  I want to emphasize: this is not a bad movie by any means and, as with just about all Pixar movies, both kids and adults will enjoy it.  But I am a bit depressed by what the box office returns for the last two Pixar releases will mean for the creative direction of Hollywood for the foreseeable future.

* By http://www.impawards.com/2024/inside_out_two_ver2.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=75269099