Movie Discussion: Cars 2

The reviews have been lukewarm to say the least and no one here in the Bureau has plans to got see the latest offering from Pixar (that’s pretty telling, right there).

Anyone out there see it? What did you think? Has Pixar finally manufactured its first clunker? Or is it merely a case of reviewers finally finding a small chink in the giant’s flawless armor?

6 replies on “Movie Discussion: Cars 2”

  1. @Damien, perfectly good for my kids. What might bother you?

    It was okay. Not Pixar’s greatest. I think the problem was that the story seemed forced. The whole spy thriller thing seemed like couldn’t come up with a new story with the same characters so they picked the “story of the week”. It was basically a Mater movie. They replaced all the characters that we know and love with a completely different set. Even Lightning McQueen seemed like a cameo. Mater is all that remains. I mean, they could’ve made the same movie with the Toy Story characters, or Nemo as spy, or anyone. It just seemed forced.

    It was executed well, as all Pixar movies are.

    • That’s really too bad if that’s the case. Pixar’s always been about characters and story first, and that’s why they’ve done so well.

      Don’t go over to the dark side! Lead the rest of Hollywood back to characters and story over shoving stuff together that’ll sell!

  2. My 4 year old kid is a Cars otaku. I’ve read all the expanded universe junk to him, watched all the Cars Toons, bought a ton of the toys, etc… I’ll say that the movie kinda works for those who have seen the “and you was there, too!” stuff, where Mater is the lead role who gets in crazy global adventures and brings McQueen into his tall tale of dubious but substantiated provenance.

    The movie would have actually worked for me much better had Mater thrown in a “and you was there, too!” right before McQueen was pulled into the spy stuff.

    The plot was too heavy for most kids (mine got it, but he’d been privy to a lot of the pre-stuff, familiar with the new characters, and storyline). He’s still focused on the racing elements which got his interest with the first flick, but was largely glossed over in the second.

    Cars die horrible deaths on-screen – but it didn’t phase him (he kinda got it, and we need to work on his empathy…).

    I think Pixar over-estimated peoples’/kids’ exposure to the expanded universe, given that Cars is a merchandising extravaganza. Larry the Cable Guy cannot carry a flick. George Carlin’s absence was felt (Fillmore lacked ‘something’, and seriously how hard is it to fake the hippy-dippy weather guy?).

    That was another major thing that was lacking from the film – the humour was lifeless for a Pixar movie – the best jokes were in the preview. Character development was extraordinarily limited. Pixar creates worlds and believable CGI characters in other movies, but… not in this one.

    I’d qualify this one as a good try. Not the worst. But the worst bit was the music was a cover by Weezer – much like Rascal Flatts cover from the first one. A shitty cover – there was NOTHING added in the rendition, and Weezer is a decent band. At least my boy got an appreciation of the awesomeness of Sheryl Crow from the first one. The rest of the sound track blew.

    Hopefully it will be his gateway to good Bond stuff (Caine was brilliant casting, though I would have nerdgasmed with Connery), but for the moment, I’m playing lots of racing with explosions, so at least there’s something there.

    I’d call it Pixar’s first ‘swing and a miss’… but the even the worst Pixar is superior to most folks ‘best’.

  3. Based on what I’m reading here and elsewhere, I’m wondering if this story was originally conceived as “Cars 2.” When Pixar’s Disney contract was running out and they were going to be free to work with any studio, they mentioned that they had story ideas that were not necessarily for all ages. Maybe after the buyout a fully Bond-esque idea was transformed into a *cough* vehicle for one of their family friendly franchises.

Comments are closed.