How did this happen?
>>71710064
It's good
>>71710064
Turns out you can buy ratings
>>71710098
no its not. even my little sister hated it. worst time i had in a theater ever.
People have bad taste. Plus it's Pixar.
Sjws
>>71710064
It's great. Top tier Pixar.
It was amazing
I went watching it with my sister and she had to shut me up because I was giggling like a retard during most of the movie
The only worthwhile movie of Neo-Pixar
It literally was good you fucks
>>71710188
Anecdotal. Most people liked it.
I think I might be the only person who thought it was pretty poorly written.
>>71711503
Well it was repeating most of pixars tropes.
>taht IMBD score
It's great. Even my shit taste friends had to admit it was good and he still comments on it.
PIXAR has only made 2-3 bad movies. Cars 1/ 2 and Brave basically.
>>71710188
Is she hot?
>>71710064
Looks about right.
>>71711547
All of their movies are garbage with meme marketing to dazzle the "adults" who treat it like art. Anti-Kino
I didn't like it. Felt shallow and insincere. The main cast were entirely one-dimensional. The dramatic climax was telegraphed to the point of obviousness, his entire existence was superfluous making no impression on me whatsoever & his sacrifice was contrived for the purpose of a 'tearjerker' moment in what has become a nauseatingly cliche Pixar trademark.
The arc of the girl was so rushed, her story so periphery, that there was never any emotional connection.
I honestly don't get why it was met with near universal acclaim.
>>71710064
ask the progressive, Iron (Wo)Man loving marvel fans. they can explain it to you
>>71711353
>children's movie that teaches kids that they're not responsible for their actions
>"It literally was good you fucks"
pretty gud despite the lack of antropomorphic animals
I'm just glad it exists for the Disgust porn.
Movie is totally forgettable otherwise. Not bad, but bland.
>>71711547
Its funny you picked cars 1 as one of their bad movies when its better than nearly every movie released after it.
>>71713332
Bullshit.
>>71710188
People have opinions.
i have it downloaded but havnt watched
is it any good?
>>71713716
Yes, it's good
>>71713716
no
>>71713772
what pixar tier is it?
>>71711819
>I honestly don't get why it was met with near universal acclaim
Well that's obvious kek
>>71713716
Pixarkino only beaten by Up and Wall-E
>>71713797
shit tier
>>71713716
Its worth one watch.
Osmosis jones meh tier
Luckily finding dory put them back on track
>>71710188
>me and my sister didn't like it therefore it's bad
sure thing mate
>>71713897
>Luckily finding dory put them back on track
people seriously like that shit?
>>71713842
Up is shit though
>>71713971
It's far from 'shit'.
If you don't like something it doesn't mean it's 'shit', fag.
>>71713934
They sure do, freakazoid
>>71713934
I thought it was funny but still had sentimental moments basically all I want from a pixar movie
inside out was overtly sad and way too "heady" for a kids movie, no funny moments at all really
>>71714026
Mr. Cameraguy, zip pan to the next scene!
>Hey, let's make a movie with characters so one-dimensional that they're literally one emotion each
>Let's make the central plot device a little girl so we can get away with literally the entire cast behaving like children
>Let's make a convoluted system that makes absolutely no sense and only serves as a tool to drive the completely predictable plot
>>71714160
t. The Projector
>>71710188
Answer this >>71711630
You turd
>>71714600
About 98.6 degrees
>>71710064
They made a fantastic movie and got good ratings. It's not that hard to figure out.
>>71710064
YMS got the right idea
>>71713332
If you think Cars was better than Ratatouille, you're either a ten year old boy, or being purposefully contrarian.
>>71715285
Possibly both, I mean, lets face it, it is
>2016
>>71710064
Armond sort if liked it, but still acknowledged that it's infantile.
No other Pixar movie has been this amusing or well constructed. Pixar’s dull emphasis on childhood, rather than adult matters, gets a delightful boost with the introduction of Riley’s imaginary friend Bing Bong (part elephant and part cat, with a cotton-candy body). These scenes exhibit art styles that convey Abstract Thought and Non-Objective Fragmentation; there is even a conveyor-belt line of pre-sexual make-believe boyfriends. Although Joy and Sadness both have blue hair, their manic-depression link is not dramatized. Yet, notice Joy’s evanescent pink body with floating, pointillist edges while she holds glowing orbs of Riley’s black-and-white memories, or her ash-and-coal-dark wasteland of forgetfulness that evokes the childhood-oblivion scene from The Long Day Closes. Pixar here reaches its zenith. But Inside Out is still Pixar. Rather than make animation for adults (by exploring Id, Ego, Superego, or even Conscience), it forsakes grown-up perception and resorts to saccharine childhood complacency. It obliterates the idea of moral responsibility and merely skims the surreal depths of universal experience. Yet whenever Riley is seen as more than a middle-class brat, Inside Out has moments that might make both Walt Disney and Salvador Dali twirl their moustaches.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419681/movie-reviews-inside-out-jurassic-world
It's a great movie, I'm sorry you can't appreciate it. You can go back to masturbating to a cartoon rabbit now.
>>71715899
Armond is such a great writer
>>71715959
checked
>>71711819
>main cast were entirely one-dimensional
This was literally the entire point of their existence you fucking dolt
>>71716091
Just because it was intentional doesn't make it good.
>>71716187
That's true.
Buit it was good in the case of Inside Out :^)
>>71713247
tfw not depraved enough to have already seen this and a little disappointed in myself
>>71713842
>Up and Wall-E
>Not The Incredibles
