I wanted to thank you for your review for Cars 2. Because you gave it a negative review, I went to see the movie with no expectations. Thanks to my lack of expectations, I was able to appreciate the movie for what it was — a fun, stunningly beautiful summer popcorn flick. It was certainly not anywhere close to Pixar’s best film — — but I think after so many brilliant successes Pixar can be cut a bit of slack? Not everyone can be perfect 100% of the time. If the next film is not up to “Pixar Standards”, then I think there is reason for concern. But from my point of view, this movie just proves that Pixar can pull off even lighthearted summer flicks better than any studio in Hollywood. (Compare How to Train Your Dragon with Cars 2 — there isn’t any comparison.)
Thanks for all the hard work you do. I really appreciate your reviews and agree with you about 80% of the time. (I am not a big action movie fan.)
I don’t think my take on Cars 2 is overall negative — I think it’s a mediocre film, not a bad one, although I do object to the shallowness of the way that Mater is affirmed Just The Way He Is, with no need for Mater to change. (The original Cars understood that Lightning had to change. A protagonist who doesn’t need to change is usually boring; a protagonist who could use some change but whom the filmmakers like just the way he is threatens to become insufferable.)
Can we cut Pixar some slack after so many brilliant successes? I think that depends on what you mean. I think a mediocre movie should get essentially the same treatment whether it comes from DreamWorks, Pixar or anyone else. (One might possibly work one’s opinions more gently with a small indie film, but the end judgment should be the same.) I don’t think critics should be harder on a mediocre Pixar film just because Pixar’s usual standards are so high, nor do I think Pixar should get a pass because they usually do such good work.
That was kind of the point of my intro in which I pointed out that Cars 2 could just as easily have been a DreamWorks film, or a Blue Sky film, etc. And that’s how I evaluated it. The only Pixar movie that really figured into my thinking in reviewing Cars 2 was the original Cars, because at the end of the day Cars 2 is a sequel and it’s reasonable to use the original as a point of comparison and contrast.
Incidentally, note that just as I cast Cars 2 as a potential non-Pixar film before reviewing it, likewise in reviewing non-Pixar films I sometimes point to Pixar’s achievements as an example of what’s still missing in their competition. For example, in my review of Blue Sky Studios’ Robots I noted that “the main reason that neither Blue Sky nor DreamWorks Animation can yet compete with Pixar narratively (never mind visually)” that they “simply haven’t got the knack of created layered characters who are interesting in themselves and emotional complexities that grab the audience.” If I note that this is lacking in a non-Pixar cartoon, then I think it’s equally fair to note when it’s lacking in a Pixar cartoon.
I agree that there’s no comparison between How to Train Your Dragon and Cars 2. Cars 2 can’t hold a candle to How to Train Your Dragon. In addition to having a cooler world, more engaging characters, better relationships, better action, a more satisfying climax, and a hero who develops over the course of the film, consider just this one point of contrast: In How to Train Your Dragon, Hiccup is permanently maimed in the climactic battle and has to live with a metal prosthesis for the rest of his life. In Cars 2, Mater gets rocket-powered upgrades. One of these packs an emotional punch. The other doesn’t. There’s a maxim at Pixar: “For every laugh, a tear.” Which film better exemplifies this principle: How to Train Your Dragon or Cars 2?Link to this item
Why is the phrase “dark of the moon” wrong to you? It is a perfectly (well, all right, maybe imperfectly) proper English phrase with a history dating back to at least the 16th century (as per the OED).
The title reference is clearly to the dark side of the moon, as the opening act makes clear. That said, while the phrase “dark of the moon” is irrelevant to the movie, it’s true that the subtitle would not have assaulted my ears as it did had I been familiar with its prior usage. It just would have made me shake my head at the stupidity of its misuse. One of the great things about this job is that there’s always an opportunity to learn something, even with a review of a brain-dead movie like this one. Thanks for writing.Link to this item
- Am I the only one who was bothered by the fact that the appearance of the Autobot world into such close proximity of the Earth, did nothing like mess with the tides or have any gravitational effect at all?
- Maybe I should have been more offended by improbability of Shia LaBeouf hooking up with a supermodel.
- I would have been upset at Transformers for wasting 2.5 hours of my life, but then I saw The Tree of Life, and yearned for the gratuitous explosions, banal dialogue, and ridiculous plot.
Thanks Steven! This movie wasn't even on my radar. So is the great old theme song “Winnie the Pooh, Winnie the Pooh” in the movie? If so, we will run there. Our 3-year-old loves singing it!
Yes, Pooh’s theme song is there, with one slight addition: Tigger has been added, in parenthetical “the Professor and / Mary Ann” fashion:
A donkey named Eeyore is his friend
“There’s Kanga and little Roo (and Tigger too!)…”
There are also new songs, including a couple that are quite good (and at least one that isn’t). I should have mentioned that in my review.Link to this item
Copyright © 2000– Steven D. Greydanus. All rights reserved.