Cars 2 Review
Unless you've been hiding under a rock, you've probably seen the reviews for cars to -- how awful the plot is, it was too violent, it was a sequel on Pixar's weakest film, etc., resulting in a 33% at rottentomatoes.com. Now, I did not plan on going, because while I have good memories of the first film (it was the first film that I took my dad to for Father's Day), the hubby was not interested in seeing the second film. However, when I saw the reviews I could not believe that it was as horrible as lhey were making it sound like-- certainly not a 33%. So I decide to see it for myself and dragged my hubby along.
Short version: the critics must have seen something very different than what I saw-- because what I saw was not "the first bad Pixar movie". It was an incredible fun film possibly better than its predecessor.
Most people call "Cars" the weakest Pixar film for one reason or another. Personally, I felt that "A Bug's Life" was weaker, suffering from the fact that was their second film and could no longer ride on the novelty of it being the first it's kind. But that's beside the point -- the first "Cars" was simple in story, but big in heart,with terrific voice acting in a strong message about friendship. Cars 2 is by no means a masterpiece and perhaps does not have the same amount of charm as the first, but it's a fun ride without being mindless.
In this film,.Lightning McQueen is invited to partake in three races around the world -- Japan, Italy, and the UK respectively -- and brings along his friends from Radiator Springs, including well-intentioned but bumbling Mater (voiced by Larry the Cable Guy). Through a series of chances, Mater is mistaken for an American spy by British intelligence agent Finn McMissile (played brilliantly by Michael Caine) and must help save the racers from a lemon car bent on destroying the credibility of a new "green gas".
First off, the plot. The plot is simple, though not overly so--rather on the similar vine as "The Incredibles", especially in terms of action and mystery. Those who manage to keep their heads while watching (unlike me, who was enjoying herself too much), will probably figure out who the bad guy is halfway through, but it's still a while ride. The message throughout is that true friendship is accepting your friends for the way they are (as long as they aren't hurting themselves or you, I suppose), yet like all Pixar films, there's another message in the underbelly about the world we live in.
One cannot mention Pixar (or any Disney film that goes to the theater) without talking about the animation. Bright, colorful, and detailed, there's so much to be awed over. It's even more impressive because rather than the simple desert/town from "Cars" (which was no doubt beautiful), the action takes place in metropolises around the world. This film also made the world the cars live in come more alive, somehow. The animation film also strutted their creative stuff by showing how the cars in more mundane activities--how they eat, how they travel, even what their toilets are like. I was most impressed with how cleverly they handled Finn's spy gadgets.
Finally, the characters. Like I said before, Michael Caine was wonderful--I've loved him since I saw him "A Muppet's Christmas Carol", and here he's a joy as the aged but still agile spy. Agent Holly Shiftwell is played by Emily Mortimer, who brings a warm and convincing nervousness to the car who's thrown from the tech lab to the field. The Lightning McQueen in Cars 2 (played by Owen Wilson) is more low key in personality, and frankly he and most of the other citizens of Radiator Springs take a back seat. For this, you see, is Mater's story.
From what I remember a lot of the complaints about the first Cars was about Mater--whether because of his character or the man who played him. Making him the center of this story seemed to cause an overdone wrath from the critics. I'm not a fan of Larry the Cable Guy, but I have to admit, here especially, he brings an unexpected charm to the character who may not be the brightest bulb for the headlights, but does have an intellegence in what he does: car parts and fixing them. This is not bad thing--some people could never survive in college, but by golly give them a busted up car and they can have it running like a Jaguar. Ask any kid under 8 who their favorite character is, and 7 out of 10 times they'll say Mater. Why? Because for the same reason kids love "Winnie the Pooh, I think -- they can relate in his innocence about the world.
And this is ultimately what Cars 2 is -- a film for kids. Critics may not have loved Cars, but the kids did enough to make a sequel. I was in theater full of kids and they enjoyed the hell out of themselves with this one.
One might argue that Pixar has proven they are above making a film "Just for kids" (as seen by Wall-E, Up, etc.), which is that's true if you're talking about the way Beverly Hills Chihuahua is "just for kids". However, this is fun, bright, and clever, and if they make something that their target audience loves, isn't that the point?
I think critics were so hard on this film because of several reasons:
1) This is John Lasseter's passion project. He loves racing. He doesn't live too far from Infineon Raceway (we're not to far away from there either). The first "Cars" was a film on something he loved that he made for his children. Cars 2 is an extension of that--it's not meant to be a bold statement or even hard to think on
2) Critics loved Toy Story 3 (and while I really enjoyed it, I did not think it was as "perfect" as the critics seem to think), so going to pure kid fun is taking a step back. in terms of plot, yes, it's not as advanced, but it doesn't mean it's bad.
3) Year after year critics have praised the genius of Pixar to a point that it seems to be "if it's Pixar, it's amazing" without much thought. So you get one that's not quite up to par, then they're obligated to smash it.
4) Critics have made it clear that they are suspicious of any Pixar movie except Toy Story 3 because the franchise is, as my husband says, the "sacred cow".
5) Four words: Larry the Cable Guy. You either love him, or you hate him. You have to differentiate between him and Mater. If you can't do that, then the character is going to annoy you more than if someone else had done it (really, in terms of personality, Mater is not all that much different than Ray from Princess and the Frog, and there doesn't seem to be nearly as much hate for him).
Bottom line, don't listen to the critics. I loved it -- and hubby, who had reservations about it, enjoyed it MUCH more than he thought he would.
If you have children under ten you can take to this, chances are they'll really enjoy it. If you're a kid at heart, you'll probably enjoy it too.
Short version: the critics must have seen something very different than what I saw-- because what I saw was not "the first bad Pixar movie". It was an incredible fun film possibly better than its predecessor.
Most people call "Cars" the weakest Pixar film for one reason or another. Personally, I felt that "A Bug's Life" was weaker, suffering from the fact that was their second film and could no longer ride on the novelty of it being the first it's kind. But that's beside the point -- the first "Cars" was simple in story, but big in heart,with terrific voice acting in a strong message about friendship. Cars 2 is by no means a masterpiece and perhaps does not have the same amount of charm as the first, but it's a fun ride without being mindless.
In this film,.Lightning McQueen is invited to partake in three races around the world -- Japan, Italy, and the UK respectively -- and brings along his friends from Radiator Springs, including well-intentioned but bumbling Mater (voiced by Larry the Cable Guy). Through a series of chances, Mater is mistaken for an American spy by British intelligence agent Finn McMissile (played brilliantly by Michael Caine) and must help save the racers from a lemon car bent on destroying the credibility of a new "green gas".
First off, the plot. The plot is simple, though not overly so--rather on the similar vine as "The Incredibles", especially in terms of action and mystery. Those who manage to keep their heads while watching (unlike me, who was enjoying herself too much), will probably figure out who the bad guy is halfway through, but it's still a while ride. The message throughout is that true friendship is accepting your friends for the way they are (as long as they aren't hurting themselves or you, I suppose), yet like all Pixar films, there's another message in the underbelly about the world we live in.
One cannot mention Pixar (or any Disney film that goes to the theater) without talking about the animation. Bright, colorful, and detailed, there's so much to be awed over. It's even more impressive because rather than the simple desert/town from "Cars" (which was no doubt beautiful), the action takes place in metropolises around the world. This film also made the world the cars live in come more alive, somehow. The animation film also strutted their creative stuff by showing how the cars in more mundane activities--how they eat, how they travel, even what their toilets are like. I was most impressed with how cleverly they handled Finn's spy gadgets.
Finally, the characters. Like I said before, Michael Caine was wonderful--I've loved him since I saw him "A Muppet's Christmas Carol", and here he's a joy as the aged but still agile spy. Agent Holly Shiftwell is played by Emily Mortimer, who brings a warm and convincing nervousness to the car who's thrown from the tech lab to the field. The Lightning McQueen in Cars 2 (played by Owen Wilson) is more low key in personality, and frankly he and most of the other citizens of Radiator Springs take a back seat. For this, you see, is Mater's story.
From what I remember a lot of the complaints about the first Cars was about Mater--whether because of his character or the man who played him. Making him the center of this story seemed to cause an overdone wrath from the critics. I'm not a fan of Larry the Cable Guy, but I have to admit, here especially, he brings an unexpected charm to the character who may not be the brightest bulb for the headlights, but does have an intellegence in what he does: car parts and fixing them. This is not bad thing--some people could never survive in college, but by golly give them a busted up car and they can have it running like a Jaguar. Ask any kid under 8 who their favorite character is, and 7 out of 10 times they'll say Mater. Why? Because for the same reason kids love "Winnie the Pooh, I think -- they can relate in his innocence about the world.
And this is ultimately what Cars 2 is -- a film for kids. Critics may not have loved Cars, but the kids did enough to make a sequel. I was in theater full of kids and they enjoyed the hell out of themselves with this one.
One might argue that Pixar has proven they are above making a film "Just for kids" (as seen by Wall-E, Up, etc.), which is that's true if you're talking about the way Beverly Hills Chihuahua is "just for kids". However, this is fun, bright, and clever, and if they make something that their target audience loves, isn't that the point?
I think critics were so hard on this film because of several reasons:
1) This is John Lasseter's passion project. He loves racing. He doesn't live too far from Infineon Raceway (we're not to far away from there either). The first "Cars" was a film on something he loved that he made for his children. Cars 2 is an extension of that--it's not meant to be a bold statement or even hard to think on
2) Critics loved Toy Story 3 (and while I really enjoyed it, I did not think it was as "perfect" as the critics seem to think), so going to pure kid fun is taking a step back. in terms of plot, yes, it's not as advanced, but it doesn't mean it's bad.
3) Year after year critics have praised the genius of Pixar to a point that it seems to be "if it's Pixar, it's amazing" without much thought. So you get one that's not quite up to par, then they're obligated to smash it.
4) Critics have made it clear that they are suspicious of any Pixar movie except Toy Story 3 because the franchise is, as my husband says, the "sacred cow".
5) Four words: Larry the Cable Guy. You either love him, or you hate him. You have to differentiate between him and Mater. If you can't do that, then the character is going to annoy you more than if someone else had done it (really, in terms of personality, Mater is not all that much different than Ray from Princess and the Frog, and there doesn't seem to be nearly as much hate for him).
Bottom line, don't listen to the critics. I loved it -- and hubby, who had reservations about it, enjoyed it MUCH more than he thought he would.
If you have children under ten you can take to this, chances are they'll really enjoy it. If you're a kid at heart, you'll probably enjoy it too.