Cars 2 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews



Message


Empire Admin -> Cars 2 (12/7/2011 10:04:52 AM)

Post your comments on this article




bozo -> RE: Cars 2 (13/7/2011 10:34:22 PM)

I wonder... if Cars 2 wasn't Pixar, would it have gotten 3 stars? Maybe it would have been slammed, as it should be.




superdan -> RE: Cars 2 (14/7/2011 11:28:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bozo

I wonder... if Cars 2 wasn't Pixar, would it have gotten 3 stars? Maybe it would have been slammed, as it should be.



Have you seen it?




vad3r -> RE: Cars 2 (15/7/2011 1:54:39 AM)

Empire, you gave Transformers: Dark of the Moon 2 stars but say it's better than Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo which you gave 3 stars each to. Why is this 3 stars and Attack of the Clones 5 stars?




Deviation -> RE: Cars 2 (15/7/2011 2:39:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

Empire, you gave Transformers: Dark of the Moon 2 stars but say it's better than Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo which you gave 3 stars each to. Why is this 3 stars and Attack of the Clones 5 stars?


He's not being serious folks. I hope.




vad3r -> RE: Cars 2 (15/7/2011 3:33:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

Empire, you gave Transformers: Dark of the Moon 2 stars but say it's better than Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo which you gave 3 stars each to. Why is this 3 stars and Attack of the Clones 5 stars?


He's not being serious folks. I hope.



The answer lies within your soul Dev.




JonathanMardukas -> RE: Cars 2 (15/7/2011 2:22:13 PM)

I know nothing of either film or the main forum contributors. But from viewing any previous thread in Lists or Musings I expected to see some quote like 'Glossier and Soullesser' or such. Maybe i'm too early.[:D]




nc_jj -> Cars 2 (18/7/2011 5:08:22 AM)

To be perfectly, it was quite a fun ride, you know? I mean, it's no WALL-E nor anything of the sort, but it's a good film to chew popcorn with.




spideed2 -> The first time ive thought of a Pixar film as being a cash cow... (18/7/2011 1:04:23 PM)

Deleted repeat post




spideed2 -> The first time ive thought of a Pixar film as being a cash cow... (18/7/2011 1:04:25 PM)

And im a huge huge advocate of Pixar. This just feels like a Toy advert....and ive never felt that before. I would imagine Cars 2 was Dinseys idea, not Pixars.

Cars has its audience but its certainly not aimed at anyone over 9, which is fair enough. That said the film looks impressibe visually, just has no actual interest for me.

Id much rather see an Incredibles 2 personally, but agian im guessing merchandising for that film didnt make them as much money.





Enzino -> Flawed world building (18/7/2011 3:34:26 PM)

Even fantasy movies have to have some sort of internal logic and the Cars movies don't make sense to me. Who built all these cars? Who builds the houses? The cars certainly can't. Why are there cow cars in Radiator Springs? Do they harvest the motor oil? How do the cars reproduce? So while I think they're all very cute, these logic problems detracts from the story.




Enzino -> Flawed world building (18/7/2011 3:34:27 PM)

Even fantasy movies have to have some sort of internal logic and the Cars movies don't make sense to me. Who built all these cars? Who builds the houses? The cars certainly can't. Why are there cow cars in Radiator Springs? Do they harvest the motor oil? How do the cars reproduce? So while I think they're all very cute, these logic problems detracts from the story.




mystra -> RE: Flawed world building (19/7/2011 1:13:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Enzino

Even fantasy movies have to have some sort of internal logic and the Cars movies don't make sense to me. Who built all these cars? Who builds the houses? The cars certainly can't. Why are there cow cars in Radiator Springs? Do they harvest the motor oil? How do the cars reproduce? So while I think they're all very cute, these logic problems detracts from the story.



yeah that's what i can't get my head around... and Pixar normally builds these fantasy worlds so flawlessly ie Toy Story - it's when the people aren't looking that they come to life, Monsters Inc is sort of a monster world linked to the human world through the doors, etc etc

Everything they do normally is to find a fantasy hidden within the reality, and thats what grounds their other films so well.

in Cars the world just has the odd changes to make our usual world suitable for cars, but in general... hmmm... like how the hell did a bunch of cars build Big Ben and why... yet if this was done say like Toy Story where the cars have a 'secret life' so to speak then it would make more sense.


Also... and i say this every time about Cars - modern cars were designed so that their front end sub consciously makes a face in your mind (ie the headlights, grille, number plate, badge etc). So why the hell are Cars' cars designed to have eyes in the windscreen... it looks so cheap anyway, and i just see the headlights as their 'eyes' and find it distracting.

Lasseter's love for this franchise will get him in to trouble, he's a genius but he's too in love with this series and is in danger of losing credibility a la Lucas - not knowing when to stop and move onto something new!




Ballschin -> RE: Flawed world building (19/7/2011 3:04:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mystra

yeah that's what i can't get my head around... and Pixar normally builds these fantasy worlds so flawlessly ie Toy Story - it's when the people aren't looking that they come to life, Monsters Inc is sort of a monster world linked to the human world through the doors, etc etc

Everything they do normally is to find a fantasy hidden within the reality, and thats what grounds their other films so well.

in Cars the world just has the odd changes to make our usual world suitable for cars, but in general... hmmm... like how the hell did a bunch of cars build Big Ben and why... yet if this was done say like Toy Story where the cars have a 'secret life' so to speak then it would make more sense.


Also... and i say this every time about Cars - modern cars were designed so that their front end sub consciously makes a face in your mind (ie the headlights, grille, number plate, badge etc). So why the hell are Cars' cars designed to have eyes in the windscreen... it looks so cheap anyway, and i just see the headlights as their 'eyes' and find it distracting.

Lasseter's love for this franchise will get him in to trouble, he's a genius but he's too in love with this series and is in danger of losing credibility a la Lucas - not knowing when to stop and move onto something new!


So after 10/11 (whatever it is) nigh on perfect family films, Lasseter is in danger of losing his credibility because he made one poorly received sequel? I think you might be slightly overreacting...

Personally I never understood the animosity towards Cars, it was a thoroughly enjoyable kids film and I think because Pixar have become so fantastic at making films that appeal to adults as well we may be losing sight of the fact that these films are primarily made for kids. Kids like cars and the profitability of this franchise allows Pixar to branch out and make more interesting films such as Ratatouille or Wall.E.

Regarding the lack of realism in the Cars universe, I think once you start picking apart the credibility of a children's film you're kind of missing the point.




mystra -> RE: Flawed world building (19/7/2011 3:29:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ballschin


quote:

ORIGINAL: mystra

yeah that's what i can't get my head around... and Pixar normally builds these fantasy worlds so flawlessly ie Toy Story - it's when the people aren't looking that they come to life, Monsters Inc is sort of a monster world linked to the human world through the doors, etc etc

Everything they do normally is to find a fantasy hidden within the reality, and thats what grounds their other films so well.

in Cars the world just has the odd changes to make our usual world suitable for cars, but in general... hmmm... like how the hell did a bunch of cars build Big Ben and why... yet if this was done say like Toy Story where the cars have a 'secret life' so to speak then it would make more sense.


Also... and i say this every time about Cars - modern cars were designed so that their front end sub consciously makes a face in your mind (ie the headlights, grille, number plate, badge etc). So why the hell are Cars' cars designed to have eyes in the windscreen... it looks so cheap anyway, and i just see the headlights as their 'eyes' and find it distracting.

Lasseter's love for this franchise will get him in to trouble, he's a genius but he's too in love with this series and is in danger of losing credibility a la Lucas - not knowing when to stop and move onto something new!


So after 10/11 (whatever it is) nigh on perfect family films, Lasseter is in danger of losing his credibility because he made one poorly received sequel? I think you might be slightly overreacting...

Personally I never understood the animosity towards Cars, it was a thoroughly enjoyable kids film and I think because Pixar have become so fantastic at making films that appeal to adults as well we may be losing sight of the fact that these films are primarily made for kids. Kids like cars and the profitability of this franchise allows Pixar to branch out and make more interesting films such as Ratatouille or Wall.E.

Regarding the lack of realism in the Cars universe, I think once you start picking apart the credibility of a children's film you're kind of missing the point.


not from one poorly received sequel... but if he keeps at it... hearing rumours that Toy Story 4 might be on the way... Toy Story was genius, and one of the greatest trilogies all of time... it closed on a high... not saying that a 4th doesn't have the capability of being another 5star film but ... i like to see new things from Pixar, because they do it so well... i just don't want him to keep fiddling with one franchise or two.

i don't view Pixar as making films for children primarily anyway... to me they make family films - which are for everyone to enjoy. I guess Cars does have a more specific aim at children rather than a broader audience, but i wouldn't say this of their other films.

I aren't picking on the realism as such - i'm picking on the sense behind it, as in how the Cars world works - when Pixar put such effort and energy into these details in all their other films, it's odd for them to have a world that makes less sense within itself.






kittyp -> But for 4 year old boys.... (19/7/2011 6:29:03 PM)

It doesn't have to be vintage Pixar. They have an uncritical and very lucrative market in the 4-6 year old boy demographic. I should know, I'm the mum of one.




kittyp -> But for 4 year old boys.... (19/7/2011 9:14:13 PM)

It doesn't have to be vintage Pixar. They have an uncritical and very lucrative market in the 4-6 year old boy demographic. I should know, I'm the mum of one.




Bighousewill -> Its Tow Maters Movie (22/7/2011 6:01:10 PM)

Cars was not my favorite movie because well I found it childish but I watched cars 2 today and it is a really good movie the story is fun and exciting and it is bright and colourful and nice to look at. The focus is not on the main character Lightning Mcqueen which is why I liked it, I mean it could have been about him and just racing or something but Pixar is all about story. And the Toy Story short is just brilliant worth the price of admission. Don't know what the 3D version was like but I watched a digital 2D version so picture quality was good.




Bighousewill -> RE: Flawed world building (22/7/2011 7:52:54 PM)

quote:

modern cars were designed so that their front end sub consciously makes a face in your mind (ie the headlights, grille, number plate, badge etc). So why the hell are Cars' cars designed to have eyes in the windscreen... it looks so cheap anyway, and i just see the headlights as their 'eyes'


Did you not get the joke when Tow Mater was in the car market and he said hey what are you selling? and car with headlights for eyes said headlights! and he got really scared and drove off.




skeletonjack -> RE: Flawed world building (23/7/2011 9:13:22 AM)

A sequel to Pixars Doc Hollywood remake was completely unnecessary, yet here it is. Sadly its easily the worst of Pixars movies. That's not to say it isn't perfectly watchable, its just so disappointingly standard animated movie fare.
Not a great deal for adults in this one, but kids (young boys especially) will undoubtedly love it.
3 stars




Drone -> RE: Flawed world building (23/7/2011 2:46:55 PM)

I loved it; I took my son to see it this morning.  Far superior to the first. 

I've never been much of a fan of Pixar to be honest, so I find it interesting all of you who love all this stuff hate it, whereas I'm the opposite and thought it was fantastic.

With the exception of Toy story 1 & 2, I find most of their output a bit dull... didn't particularly enjoy Wall-E, Finding Nemo, Up or even the original Cars - I thought it had a very dull story and felt overlong.  But this hit all the right notes for me, aside from the utterly illogical world when you consider it.

It also looked, and sounded fantastic.  Mcqueen is a secondary - possibly even third character in the film, next to Mater and Finn Mcmissile which I found interesting.  I really have to disagree with the comments I've read on many sites, which state the story is weak - I thought it had a very good, cohesive story - and a couple of characters actually get killed in Cars 2, which seemed a little hard given the lighthearted approach of the first.

Super entertaining if you have a young 'un to take along.




Whistler -> Cars 2 (24/7/2011 12:34:25 AM)

Fast, funny and charming. It's not quite up there with the likes of Toy Story, Finding Nemo or The Incredibles, but it's a lot of fun nonetheless. And Michael Caine's awesome.




BatSpider -> Car sick (24/7/2011 8:42:16 PM)

Took my lil nephew to see this. Liked the first Cars, was awesome with a lot of simple charm. Cars 2 is utter shite for attention-deficite morons. This is basically Transformers 3 style lobotomy for under-5s, by parents who don't care. My nephew also hated it. He has cool taste.




BatSpider -> Car sick (24/7/2011 8:42:18 PM)

Took my lil nephew to see this. Liked the first Cars, was awesome with a lot of simple charm. Cars 2 is utter shite for attention-deficite morons. This is basically Transformers 3 style lobotomy for under-5s, by parents who don't care. My nephew also hated it. He has cool taste.




beancounter -> RE: Cars 2 (26/7/2011 11:24:14 AM)

I took my two boys (7 and 9) to see it yesterday and we all had a great time. The boys' verdict was that it was better than Cars. It was fun, funny, fast-moving and exciting. Above all it was entertaining. From my point of view it was better that the film focussed more on Mater than Lightning McQueen.

Pixar make high-quality family films which entertain. They cater well for children, but also for the adults. When I think back to some of the films my parents had to sit through with me I cringe.

If you are worried about the internal logic then this type of film is not for you, which is fair enough. You can't please all of the people etc...

Overall I don't think the Cars movies are up there with a lot of Pixar films in terms of character, story etc. (Of course technically they are of the same standard). And they are not as good as some other recent family films (Kung Fu Panda, How to Train Your Dragon). But I would FAR rather sit through a "poor" Pixar film than, say, The Smurfs. So it's all relative.

I know John Lasseter has a soft spot for this franchise. And yes, there is far more scope for merchandising than, say, Up. Don't forget that Pixar, and Disney, and all the other producers, are doing this to make money. If they can entertain us at the same time, then I will happily pay them my money.




Drone -> RE: Car sick (26/7/2011 12:54:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BatSpider

Took my lil nephew to see this. Liked the first Cars, was awesome with a lot of simple charm. Cars 2 is utter shite for attention-deficite morons. This is basically Transformers 3 style lobotomy for under-5s, by parents who don't care. My nephew also hated it. He has cool taste.


Yawn.  And reporting your post for being disgustingly insulting and offensive.  I assure you I am a very good parent and my intelligent little boy of under five wanted to see Cars 2, so I took him, and we both enjoyed it.  Pathetic comment; how dare you make such a generalisation.




Deviation -> RE: Car sick (26/7/2011 1:56:12 PM)

BITCH FIGHT




bozo -> RE: Car sick (27/7/2011 11:38:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drone

quote:

ORIGINAL: BatSpider

Took my lil nephew to see this. Liked the first Cars, was awesome with a lot of simple charm. Cars 2 is utter shite for attention-deficite morons. This is basically Transformers 3 style lobotomy for under-5s, by parents who don't care. My nephew also hated it. He has cool taste.


Yawn.  And reporting your post for being disgustingly insulting and offensive.  I assure you I am a very good parent and my intelligent little boy of under five wanted to see Cars 2, so I took him, and we both enjoyed it.  Pathetic comment; how dare you make such a generalisation.



Wow. You're yawning and being disgusted and offended at the same time. Neat trick.




shool -> RE: Car sick (27/7/2011 12:10:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

BITCH FIGHT


Where? Darth silas might be interested in watching.




Flickmeister -> Last Place (28/7/2011 10:29:56 AM)

I took my 6 and 3 year old at the weekend. The youngest one loves cars and racing and CARS1 is his favourite movie. The simple premise of Cars1 easily registers as does all the characters however the more tricky plot clearly left him cold and he only got excited during the (brief) race parts of the film. The older of the two sat. and watched. and left and really didn't react during the movie at all. For me I only laughed the once when Mater did an intro between The Queen, McQueen & McMissile very near the end and ultimately I was already starting to look at my watch at this point. Simply not good enought for the high standards of Pixar. No emotion, No soul.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.0625