Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Cars 2 (2011)

This is topic Cars 2 (2011) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001782

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 06-23-2011, 04:25 AM:

Saw the 2D digital version (didn't want to waste my time with 3D - I like bright pictures so I can see detail) of this movie tonite for a test run and ...

...the studios needs to quit making sequels .... period.

It's fine to develop a character in the first movie, but don't take away his character development for the sequels.

Started out good .. but pretty soon, the cars ran over a few nails to start letting their tires go flat and you can hear the "Phsssss" from time to time.

Then it went downhill from there on.

Remember how everyone hated "Jar-Jar Binks" from "Phantom Menace"? Even though he had just the right amount of bit parts in that movie, you times that by ten and you got what they did with Mater...way too much to where it was totally annoying.

At least it ended with a surprise note.

It'll be good kiddie matinee fare, but the adults are gonna squirm in their seats for this thing to get over with.

Can you imagine what the patrons are gonna think when they have to fork over the extra for 3D and what they gonna say afterwards?

I'm real Glad that I'll be upstairs...

1.5/5 for me.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 06-23-2011, 07:25 AM:

I hated the first film and I definately can NOT stand Mater - I was hoping the sequel would be a tad better, oh well...

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 06-23-2011, 09:14 AM:

I liked the first one a lot, and I don't get the Mater Haters. I liked Mater but to each his own I guess. I'm still looking forward to this one. The quality of the animation in the first one was ridiculously good.

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 06-23-2011, 11:33 AM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
Can you imagine what the patrons are gonna think when they have to fork over the extra for 3D and what they gonna say afterwards?

If you didn't watch this in 3D Monte then how can you say the 3D was bad or it wasn't worth it. This movie is geared towards kids more then any other PIXAR film, also PIXAR knows how to use 3D and make it look good. The past two go's at it have been excellent.

However, from the start I've said this film isn't going to be good. The trailers just depicted a boring movie, sad cause I loved the first film.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-23-2011, 11:43 AM:

I am glad that they are at least going the direction of putting the characters into a completely new story, rather than just rehashing the old one, which so many sequels do.

Mater was the most popular character in the older film so it was a cinch he would be featured more in the sequel.

I liked the first one, and will be screening this one tonight, so I have high hopes. But I'm with Kurt -- the trailers didn't make it look too great. But, lots of the Pixar movies have had terrible trailers.

I do have the feeling this is going to be the first Pixar movie not to get the lofty reviews they are used to. (I myself hated Wall-E but was definitely in the minority on that.)

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 06-23-2011, 12:04 PM:

Animation was totally excellent! PIXAR knows how to do CGA films without a problem (and a 25yr dedication at the beginning for Pixar on the film itself).

Some of the critics that have already seen this film have already bashed it against the wall pretty good.

Maybe what got me is that there wasn't a balance between all of the characters, but true: they got away from Radiator Springs and off to other parts of the world to create a completely different story.

Just a lot focued on Mater which turned the others into just background characters with little chance to expose their personality.

Maybe they should have named this "Cars 2: To Mater, with Love"

Oh, I know that the 3D version would be also good, but just tired of the whole 3D thing. I just wanted to see a regular movie.

Sorry on this, but comparing this to the original disappointed me a bit, but in a whole, it will do great guns in the boxoffice for the young ones.

EDIT: the Toy Story short, "Hawaiian Vacation", at the beginning was great though.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 06-23-2011, 03:11 PM:

quote: Kurt Zupin
If you didn't watch this in 3D Monte then how can you say the 3D was bad or it wasn't worth it. This movie is geared towards kids more then any other PIXAR film, also PIXAR knows how to use 3D and make it look good. The past two go's at it have been excellent.

However, from the start I've said this film isn't going to be good. The trailers just depicted a boring movie, sad cause I loved the first film.

surprisingly no they haven't, Pixar's 3D films are no where as good as say the Kung Fu Panda 2, Despicable Me, Coraline. (sans one scene the hang-glider scene, Toy Story 3 was rather pointless in 3D)

Dory from 'Finding Nemo' may have been dumb, but she's nowhere as dumb AND annoying as Mater ('Cars 1' favourite character ??? [puke]

) even Owen Wilson's voicing was dull and utterly one dimensional - let alone a trite paint by numbers predictable script - in my mind, 'Cars' is bottom barrel for Pixar (I thought Lisa's jab at 'Cars' on the Oscar 'Angry Dad' episode of The Simpsons was golden [thumbsup]

)

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 06-23-2011, 05:05 PM:

Isn't the Toy Story short a remake of the old Disney classic
"Hawaiian Holiday" from 1937 ... the one with Mickey, Minnie, Donald, Pluto, and Goofy all together ?.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-23-2011, 06:12 PM:

quote: Kurt
If you didn't watch this in 3D Monte then how can you say the 3D was bad or it wasn't worth it.

With this kind of logic, all movies need to be watched in 3D just to see if it is worth it to watch them in 3D or not.

Anyway, disliked the original Cars. Refuse to see this one. What is "Mater"? Is that one of the characters? Which one? None of them were memorable.

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 06-23-2011, 06:26 PM:

I actually really enjoyed this.

The first Cars passed me by. I don't like NASCAR, I don't like F1, and I don't drive and was too busy to catch it at work at the time. The bits I saw from upstairs in the projection box didn't interest me either. So when I saw the opening scene half-animated in November last year at a Disney slate presentation and it looked good I was intrigued. Got the chance to watch the film last week and as I wasn't working until later that day I went along to the screening with moderate hopes.

This film is an action spy adventure, with the obligatory kids film messages. The voice cast is great, I liked Michael Caine and Larry The Cable Guy in particular. The animation is outstanding, full of little gags from other Pixar films and so lush and detailed. They have gone and animated three new distinct locations with different styles (and revisited two from other Pixar films), you really get taken on a world tour with the film.

For me the 3D makes the craft of the whole thing so much more vivid. The race scenes are particularly fun. The film is quite bright so will avoid criticism like Pirates 4 did. It must sound awesome in IMAX.

Some of the reviews seem to criticise the number of plots going on. The film does have a lot of tangents, but it is quite easy to keep up with, and provides a lot of opportunity for gags and for action set-pieces. All the humour and action is very well executed. I particularly like how they adapt all the spy film conventions and gadgets for the car and non-car characters.

Cars 2 didn't have me almost in tears like Up or Toy Story 3, it didn't make me smile and marvel as much as Ratatouille or Wall-E, but it was a great fun film.

I hope that Pixar don't end up in a situation like Studio Ghibili where everyone in the press compares their latest release to Spirited Away and can't accept a more fun and commercial film every once in a while. There's nothing wrong with switching off for two hours for some noise and colours and laughs, and Pixar have proved they can do that kind of film far better than most in Hollywood. We'd get more people through the door if everyone else's "worst film so far" was a solid 7/10.

Also, the Toy Story short is great.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 06-24-2011, 08:57 PM:

The big thing I have to both laugh and shake my fist at was the usage of the "lemon"cars in this movie...

...namely, the mid 70's AMC line and the late 80's Yugo.

My family were Rambler/AMC owners. My dad, when I was born, bought a 1951 NASH Statesman and it ran like a top with no problems.

Then in 1955, he went all the way with the NASH Ambassador Pina Faria Edition, which has the continental kit and full luxury inside. Even the front bench seat can lay down flat to the back seat and you have a bed for the weary traveller-didn't have to hit the motel. That car ran forever until it could run no more...in 1979.

Mom needed her own car so in 1963, they got a Rambler American 440H, 2dr HD with the manual twin stick overdrive. I inherited this car when I began to drive in 1968. Drove it until 1972 and got my own new car.. a green with black striped AMC Gremlin X with the 304CID V8 and three speed on the floor.

With a little tweaking, I was beating "Heavy Chevy's" with it...in stock form,

That Gremlin was my last US built vehicle. Went over to Japanese with Toyotas, Datsuns, Suzuki's and now with S.Korea's KIA's.

All of these Rambler/AMC vehicles that we owned NEVER gave us any problems .. and they call them "lemons" ....

Course, they didn't pick on the Big 3 and the "lemons" that they had: Chevy with their VEGA, the FORD with the PINTO and Dodge with the ASPEN, but Pixar couldn't due to the Big 3 are still in biz and AMC and YUGO are defunct companies.

My Gremlin, in 1972 was at the $2735 price whereas the Vega and Pinto were a bit over $3100 new .. and I had the more powerful motor and size, so go figure.

The AMC Pacer was a neat car to drive - "an EGG with Windows", and total room inside being so wide. But, AMC got jipped when GM dropped the plans for making a wankel motor that AMC was going to use in the Pacer. Thus, AMC got stuck dropping their straight 6 motors in them-which became a mechanic's nightmare to work on.

The Yugo CV - should have stayed in the Eastern Bloc, but Mr Bricklin (remember the Bricklin car of 1975?) convinced the US to allow the makers of the Yugo to export the vehicles to this country. Motor was just too small for the USA demands for the highway, but good for town driving, in which it was really designed for. Sadly, being labeled as a "disposable car" it was treated a such-nobody took care of them, where as Yugo owners testify if regular oil changes were done, these were pretty stout little vehicles.

The Gremlins in the movie were '74 and '75, esp the purple and gold Gremlin, being their deluxe model which usually carried the V8. The Pacers, of the 1975 and '76 years only had the 258CID straight 6 in them.

-Monte

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-24-2011, 09:07 PM:

Haters of the original Cars should give this one a chance, unless you really hate Larry the Cable Guy. He's the star of this movie and there's a lot of him.

Having said that -- this is a better show than the first one. Pixar seems to be the only company around that can make sequels that are better than the originals. The movie is action-packed, and contains almost none of the sentimental teary-eyed stuff that the first one did. There's not a "nostalgic" feel about this at all. It has a totally different mood than the original. Pretty rare for a sequel.

The story has almost nothing to do with the first movie, which is why I think the haters should give it a chance. Visually, it's a feast. You could watch it a dozen times and still not see everything. In fact, if you really hate Larry the Cable Guy, watch the movie while listening to an iPod or something and just enjoy the visuals.

The racing scenes in 3D are a lot of fun but the racing isn't a "major" part of the movie the way it was in the original. The various locations are fun too and add to the exceptional imagery. There are a few nods to previous Pixar films -- I spotted the restaurant from "Ratatouille" in the Paris sequence.

The story is a bit confusing at first -- I think mainly because going into a G-rated Disney film, your expectations are for a simplistic story. The story here is many-layered and demands attention from Frame #1. So once it kicks into high gear, it's a great ride.

The only real downer for me was the fact that George Carlin couldn't be there to do the voice of Fillmore. I was surprised that they didn't retire that character, or make him non-speaking. The guy who does the character does a fairly bad Carlin imitation.

The Toy Story short at the beginning is nothing short of amazing. Not so much for the story and the animation -- which are top-notch -- but for the fact that they got virtually the entire cast of the Toy Story movies back for this short. Normally in something like this, they pick one character (or invent a new one) and run with that. The story and concept were a lot of fun too, and the ending was hilarious. It's the best Pixar short in quite a while.

Overall, I'll give the whole show a 4.5 out of 5 stars.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 06-24-2011, 09:34 PM:

I agree, Mike - Gonna have to catch this one a few more times to really get a good hold of what's going on. Then, maybe I'll have a better tune to sing about this one.

I had to do the same with the original "CARS" - watched it a couple of more times.

-Monte

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 06-24-2011, 09:50 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
With this kind of logic, all movies need to be watched in 3D just to see if it is worth it to watch them in 3D or not.

Anyway, disliked the original Cars. Refuse to see this one. What is "Mater"? Is that one of the characters? Which one? None of them were memorable.

No Joe, all I'm simply saying is you really can't bash 3D in a film if you havn't seen it to know if its good or bad. Just hating 3D to hate 3D is just dumb. I'm not a fan of 3D and only see movies in 3D when I show them in IMAX. I can think of two movies in the past year that I actually watched in 3D that were not in IMAX, but to say that oh its in 3D it must suck just annoys me.

quote: Jonathan Goeldner

surprisingly no they haven't, Pixar's 3D films are no where as good as say the Kung Fu Panda 2, Despicable Me, Coraline. (sans one scene the hang-glider scene, Toy Story 3 was rather pointless in 3D)

I have to disagree, I saw Toy Story 3 probably 30-40 times in IMAX and it was one of the better 3D animated films I've seen. UP had some great shots in it as well. They may not be mind blowing effects in them but they add to the movie more then they take away from it.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-25-2011, 01:44 AM:

Yes Kurt. My logic is sound in response to your original comment.

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 06-25-2011, 08:23 PM:

When the first Cars movie was released in 2006, it hit screens around the same time as The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift. This allowed for an interesting direct comparison between an established car movie franchise and Pixar's interpretation of that style of movie. The result was that Pixar kicked Tokyo Drift's butt in terms of raw, seat-of-your-pants racing excitement. And Cars 2 is no exception, again capturing the essence of motor racing - the cacophony, the flash, the motion blur, perfectly capturing the thrill of the race. Add into this a James Bond style action plot concerning a cabal of automotive lemons attempting to sully the allure of biofuels by eradicating beautiful sports cars and we have a sequel which betters it's predecessor.

This time around Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) takes a back seat and the far more interesting Mater (Larry the Cable Guy) takes centre stage with support from Her Majesty's secret agents, Finn McMissile (Michael Caine) and Holly Shiftwell (Emily Mortimer). The action is smart and thrilling with lots of little references to pop culture and people, the likes of which we've come to expect from the Pixarians. In a particularly nice touch and in a show of respect to the recently deceased Paul Newman, his vehicular counterpart, Doc Hudson, is now also deceased.

Every Pixar film is prefaced by a short film and Cars 2 is no exception. This time around it's a Toy Story short which is cute but naturally lacks the originality of Day and Night or Partly Cloudy or For the Birds. It is, however, appropriate for the target audience and the kiddies won't be disappointed.

Although some distance off the pinnacle of Pixar's work, Cars 2 is a competent and entertaining effort and its increased action and complexity of story is a solid improvement on its predecessor.

8 out of 10.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 06-26-2011, 12:40 AM:

I really enjoyed this movie. I was worried going in due to the reviews here, but I was pleasantly surprised. Mater didn't bother me in the least in the first movie. And he didn't bother me in this one either. He is in NO WAY a comparison to Jar Jar Binks. And what's with people saying that the story had too much going on to keep up with it all? The story was fine for me. I asked my wife afterward and she said the same thing. So I don't get that at all. I think you guys must have watched a different movie or something. The story was great. The gags were funny (the car going through the metal detectors at the air port with it's tires off was great), the action was great, the animation was top notch. I enjoyed it. And saw it in 3D on a Sony projector - so the eyes were in pretty good sync, which is always a plus. No temporal problems - although I did notice some in some of the trailers, which I thought was weird. Maybe they're coded differently.

Oh, and what the hell is up with the 3D in Spy Kids? That 3D looked like total fake crap. I though RR shot his movies in 3D...? This trailer was certainly at least a partial conversion. And a horrible one.

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 06-26-2011, 04:07 PM:

CINEMA: Rave Westroads 14, Omaha, NE
AUDITORIUM: 11
PRESENTATION: Christie 2k DLP (2D)
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: Loud music leaking from the First Church of the Neighboring Auditorium
RATING: Two and one half stars (out of four)

A 9:30am matinee? Okay.

Smiling Ticket Seller takes my money, inputs stuff into the POS screen, and no ticket appears. Tries again. And again.

"I'm sorry, it's not printing. I'll be right back."

She runs into the lobby. I turn to see the line of people waiting to buy tickets. I explain.

"She broke the box office."

A few people say "Oh", and everybody looks understanding, or at least less confused. Smiling Ticket Seller appears with a manager, and they solve the problem by opening another register and printing from there.

THE PLOT: Tow Mater, International Truck of Mystery. Wackiness ensues.

The Jar Jar Binks comparison IS valid. Lucas banked on Jar Jar catching on with kids, and he didn't. Pixar did the same thing with Mater, and it isn't working. A family of five walked out of this screening an hour in because their kids got bored and wanted to leave. This is not the first such situation I've heard of.

Still, I basically enjoyed it and suspect I'd enjoy it a little more on a repeat viewing. There's certainly lots to look at here, all sorts of little easter eggs to watch out for (the Radiator Springs Drive-in is showing "The Incredimobiles", the restaurant in Ratatouille gets a cameo in the credits, and one of the Grand Prix sponsors was "Lassityres"). The new Fiat 500 sure got a lot of background time.

The international Grand Prix cities were gorgeous, especially London. The rendering of Radiator Springs, on the other hand, actually looked a little less detailed by comparison. Even the Cars characters popped a little more in the last Grand Prix scenes before the end scenes at home.

"Hawaiian Vacation" was freaking awesome.

To continue the death watch theme, George Carlin's "Fillmore" character DOES return, voiced by somebody I've never heard of.

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 06-28-2011, 07:09 AM:

I watched this one after work tonight, and like I stated earlier. Cars is Pixars franchise that is strictly for kids. Everything in this movie is set up for children 10 and under. That doesn't make it a bad movie, but it also doesn't put it on a level with their other great films.

I thought the first half was excellent and had a good set up, but once the middle and last half got around I wanted to walk out. I was bored out of my mind. The scenic stuff is amazing as is expected.

The Toy Story short was nothing short of brilliant as stated by everyone else as well.

2.5/5 [thumbsup]

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 06-28-2011, 09:55 AM:

um, impressive animation and some fun action scenes pretty much hide the fact that the script is so subpar for a Pixar film - ultimately mediocre, but less annoying than the first film.

I didn't think the 3D aspect brought anything to the enjoyment of the film - thankfully the image brightness from the Sony 4K projector was set properly. The 7.1 sound was probably the best part.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-28-2011, 12:22 PM:

quote: Kurt Zupin
I thought the first half was excellent and had a good set up, but once the middle and last half got around I wanted to walk out. I was bored out of my mind.

I had the opposite reaction. I really started getting into the story around the second act.

We watched some of the scenes in 3-D last night (for our screening we watched 2-D) and I really enjoyed it. Makes me want to watch the whole thing in 3-D. The part where Mater is trapped in the clock tower is pretty cool.

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 07-03-2011, 08:03 PM:

So Paul Newman passed away and in this film they recognize that with the reference to the "Hudson Hornet Museum" in the film. I believe there is something in the credits too.

However, George Carlin passed away too. Yet -there is the VW Bus in this movie - WITH SOMEONE ELSE'S VOICE & no mention in the credits.

Hollywood has double standards.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-03-2011, 09:11 PM:

Did they put a "Buddy Christ" on the dash or anything?

Posted by Jason Metcalfe (Member # 5739) on 07-05-2011, 01:52 PM:

Did anyone else get this on 35mm and get the "projectionist trading cards" in the cans?

I hated the movie but I thought these were awesome

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-05-2011, 08:31 PM:

I have all of the projectionist trading cards going back to The Incredibles. Do they go back farther than that?

One nice thing about the Disney movies is how they put some extra thought into the informational goodies in the can. One of the films came with a handy magnet detailing the DCP naming conventions. That's the Disney attention to detail there.

I watched this movie again with some family yesterday and we enjoyed it even more the second time. I love all the tiny details found in the backgrounds and on the cars.

About Carlin not being "recognized" -- first, he wasn't known as a movie star, so I was thinking it's not as appropriate as Paul Newman's recognition. There have been lots of instances of dead people being replaced without recognition by others in sequels, the Harry Potter series being a famous recent example. It would have been nice to see a dedication to George in the credits though. Maybe his family asked for it not to happen.

Posted by Connor Wilson (Member # 6088) on 07-20-2011, 06:17 AM:

CINEMA: Regal Countryside 20, Sterling, VA
AUDITORIUM: 9
PRESENTATION: Sony Digital 4K (RealD 3D)
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: During the climax of the film, there was this annoying glare coming out of the front exit of the auditorium. Thankfully, after like 10 minutes, the door was then closed.
RATING: 5 (out of 10)

Definitely Pixar's worst film, but in other standards, not a bad, nor a good film.

That Toy Story short preceding the film was da bomb, though.