I’m not sure what numbers you’re looking at. The IMDB rating for Chicken Run is 7.0.
The reviews are objectively not “rave” by Pixar standards, as Rotten Tomatoes demonstrates.
I sure didn’t love it.
must have been wrong on the list I took. OTOH, Its Rotten tomatoes score is 97%.
Four of their seven features has Rottentomatoes has scores over 90%, with Pirates just missing at 87.
I have high hopes for Finding Dory, so… stay tuned. You’re not wrong, however.
It’s also worth looking at the shorts, , because that is where they develop new talent. I think Disney has had the edge there as well.
I think part of the reviewing needs to look at the intended audience- was *Cars 2 *popular in the under-5 set? Probably so, and that’s likely who it was intended to market to, not the adults who rate the movies on RT and IMDB. Same with Brave.
No question, Disney has had a good period of creativity. Even the Disney TV shows have been good - or, in the case of Gravity Falls, better than good - it may be the best animated show for kids of the past decade or so.
The last hand drawn Disney feature was The Princess and the Frog, released in 2009.
In the middle of most peoples’ rankings of Pixar movies is a very good place to be, though. Even if they’ve had some duds, most folks agree that Pixar has had more good movies than bad, which would make the median Pixar movie a good one.
Oh God, I hated that movie so much. I saw it in theaters and about half-way through I realized I wasn’t going to get any less bored. So I just decided to pay attention to how pretty it was.
But most Pixar movies have managed to charm children and adults alike. For whatever reason, Cars 2, far more than any other Pixar movie, failed with adults.
It’s certainly reasonable to judge Cars 2 with the same criteria we use to judge the other movies in this thread.
Count me in the “What’s the difference, nowadays?” camp.
It’s great, but I’d put it only 4th (behind Adventure Time, Steven Universe and Avatar, if you’re curious) - we are in a Golden Age of animated children’s shows.
I’d put it in the same camp as Avatar, which was great, but it has better animation and is overall more unique.
I did not care for Adventure Time (and neither did that ultimate critic, my kid. 
). But that may just be because the humor in that show didn’t appeal.
I look forward to watching Steven Universe, which I have not seen yet.
Disney was better than Pixar when Pixar first hit the gate, but coincidentally started a big slump right when Pixar could do no wrong*. Now the shoe’s on the other foot (again).
Other studios have copied what made Pixar good, siphoned talent. Pixar itself boosted output, further thinning the talent pool. Their best directors went off and made some ruefully terrible live-action movies. While Disney Feature Animation gets the advantage of playing with expectations.
*: The first Toy Story isn’t as great as its reputation, and Bug’s Life is derivative and boring. Although not as mind-numbingly dull as The Good Dinosaur is.
Firstly, wrong.
Secondly, even if it were not as great as it is, it would still be better than Pocahontas, the Disney film that came out that same year.