DVDizzy Forum

No.

This, like the upcoming awful Madagascar 3, lost the idea of the first movie. All these characters, just like in M3, are no longer who they were and are completely unnecessary and even a hindrance to the story that they want to tell.

The original heart behind Cars, yes there was one, is ripped apart and shit upon in Cars 2 and everything you could possibly dislike in a Hollywood "bigger means better" mentality is here. Dumb humour, explosions, chase sequences etc.

I own it on Blu-Ray because I managed to get it for less than the BOGO Disney offer here but I still feel dirty just having it because it was a little completionist. Oh dear, I do feel violated, maybe I should sell it ASAP.

BK - You are, beyond a doubt, an Idiot!!!

There is no reason to use foul language in any post, and in my opinion, anyone who does is just showing their lack of education, the ability to express themselves, and total disrespect of other people.

You can what you feel without the foul descriptive words, and everyone will know that you don't like the movie. But to say it makes you feel like you need a shower just because it is in your collection is going a bit far.

Some people didn't like "Cars" or "Cars 2" and I get that. Everyone has their own taste in movies and if you didn't like it, you shouldn't have bought it in the first place.

Sotiris wrote:

Lazario wrote:As a matter of fact, I believe the original has never been judged harshly enough.

That's what I said too!

Sotiris wrote:No. The original Cars was not criticized enough.

Seriously, the first Cars does not deserve the 74% rating it has on Rotten Tomatoes.

Why don't you like Cars?

dvdjunkie wrote:I don't see the difference in a movie about cars than a movie about animals like "Bambi", or "Robin Hood", etc.

There are no humans in those films, and everyone says that "Cars" and "Cars 2" suffered from no human contact.

Don't really understand that. But if I were to rank (and I think that is stupid, but that's just me) the Cars films in the Pixar/Disney family, I would rate them both up there in the Top Five. I love "Finding Nemo" (another film with just animals, fish, birds, and such) and rate it close to the top of my Top Five. Again I think it is silly to rank films because everyone has their own opinions about them and has their own list.

Although, I agree in that the whole "Where are the humans?" argument is trivial against the film, I understand where it comes from. Your examples of Bambi and Finding Nemo are flawed in 2 ways. 1 - Animals exist outside of humanity, and if humans weren't around they still would've been here. Cars are man-made objects and do not occur naturally. So a world where non-natural creatures exist without creators is a bit absurd. 2 - Last I checked, humans play a HUGE role in both of those films. Humans drive the action in both films nearly completely. There would've been no story to tell without them.

Robin Hood is an interesting comparison, because that also includes a world where human inventions are being manipulated and used by non-humans. I would guess it's then assumed that these animals made these things. It's still not an appropriate argument to support Cars because once again, animals don't exist because a human has to build them.

I think a Cars origin story would put an end to any of this opposition, but it seems like the creators have decided not to put that much thought into it.

THAT is my overall complaint against the Cars Franchise. In comparison to all of the other Pixar films, there isn't nearly as much thought put into these Films. When you think about the complexity behind Up, Wall-e, and the Toy Story's this sort of simplistic "They just are what they are" story that only follows in the footsteps of over-played comedic and action trends feels unacceptable. Cars in comparison to the rest of Pixar's catalog is like comparing Beauty and the Beast and Belle's Magical World. The only thing that seems to exceed for me in either Cars film are their visuals. Everything else is a complete downgrade, and when you consider how progressive Pixar had been before Cars 2 everyone should be upset by the film.

In a simple answer that I've probably answered already... No, this film in my opinion will never be judged harshly enough.

toonaspie wrote:Cars 2 had numerous writing problems.

First off the idea of a doofus working with spies is not an original concept.

The second is with Mater himself. In both Cars movies, there seems to be a constant push on the audience to like Mater. Even Sally tells Lightening in both films that we should practically pity Mater, but why? Just because he's simple-minded? This is the thing about writing characters: if you push too hard on an audience to like a certain character despite their numerous flaws, it will only make us hate that character even more and to me Mater was a huge case of this in the second film. Mater's redeeming qualities were very little. Instead we're treated to the dumbed-down cliche of Mater being brought along out of pity having him act like a complete idiot and Lightening feeling bad for yelling at Mater even though he deserved it. We need a reason to like him upfront. Neither film really does that.

I actually thought Mater was funny and likeable in the first movie. I agree that he was somewhat annoying in the second movie, but he didn't ruin the movie for me.

Sotiris wrote:

Lazario wrote:As a matter of fact, I believe the original has never been judged harshly enough.

That's what I said too!

I'm not surprised (ya know- great minds think alike and all that). I just think (like with Beauty and the Beast's extreme lameness) there are some opinions that can't be expressed enough.

DisneyFan09 wrote:Why don't you like Cars?

I don't like the film because it wasn't marketed to me.

Of course, that's not nearly where the problem with the film ends. I wouldn't care to go into detail on it, but it's literally a brainless movie getting by on the popularity of jackass celebrities like Larry the Cable Guy (YES, an even more pointless, unrewarding, and inexplicable celebrity than Dane Cook), this tired "glory of automobiles" crap, and the standard "IF WE CRANK UP THE VOLUME ON EVERYTHING- YOU'RE TOTALLY HAVING FUN, RIGHT?!" Hollywood blockbuster pandering.

I mean... you know that old sitcom cliche where a character makes a disparaging remark about a sports team in public and literally HALF the episode is spent on jokes about the team's fans egging their house, keying their car, forming angry mobs at their jobsite, etc(.), and plays it all as funny without explaining why? That's basically how I feel about this movie.

dvdjunkie wrote:BK - You are, beyond a doubt, an Idiot!!!

Your new favorite word, I've noticed.

dvdjunkie wrote:There is no reason to use foul language in any post, and in my opinion, anyone who does is just showing their lack of education, the ability to express themselves, and total disrespect of other people.

You can what you feel without the foul descriptive words, and everyone will know that you don't like the movie. But to say it makes you feel like you need a shower just because it is in your collection is going a bit far.

Some people didn't like "Cars" or "Cars 2" and I get that. Everyone has their own taste in movies and if you didn't like it, you shouldn't have bought it in the first place.

So what; I bought Legally Blonde and make fun of it all the time. Are you going to bust my chops too? (Oh and, my point is just: who cares? Nobody needs you to help them make smart purchasing decisions. The market is cluttered with garbage for a reason.)

And would you quit freaking judging people based on arbitrary things for one second? People swear. It's perfectly natural, they should be allowed to do it here, and clearly it's debatable whether children should even be allowed on this board or not. We already plenty of adults who don't know how to have a proper discussion. Or choose to reply in order to criticize another poster for not being classy enough. Or for sharing an opinion that isn't pre-spackled with the requisite amount of heart and soul. Cursing doesn't reflect a person's intelligence- it reflects their level of patience.

DisneyFan09 wrote:Why don't you like Cars?
I don't like the film because it wasn't marketed to me.

I wasn't asking you, I was asking Sotiris. No offence.

dvdjunkie wrote:BK - You are, beyond a doubt, an Idiot!!!

dvdjunkie wrote:There is no reason to use foul language in any post...

Am I the only one seeing a contradiction here?