Next up is "Cars 2," the latest animated blockbuster from Disney Pixar. This is the sequel to "Cars" from 2006. Owen Wilson is back providing the voice of Lightning McQueen, who's been asked to compete in an international grand prix. But his sidekick, Mater, the rusty, aw-shucks tow truck voiced by Larry the Cable Guy, is the film's real star.
CLIP 9 -- Tokyo party. Mater fawns over the Formula 1 car
But there's so much more going on in "Cars 2." It's also a James Bond spoof. Michael Caine and Emily Mortimer provide the voices of a couple of British spies who mistake Mater for the American operative they're supposed to meet.
CLIP 6 -- Meet Finn. Mater and Finn McMissile meet in the bathroom
But wait, there's more. "Cars 2" also features a message about alternative fuel sources, with the bad guys launching a devious plan to keep vehicles reliant on Big Oil.
CLIP 7 -- Oil rig chase.
Until now, "Cars" was the weakest entry in the otherwise impeccable Pixar canon. Now, "Cars 2" has earned that dubious distinction. The thing that set Pixar movies apart from other animated films was the importance they placed on story. "Cars 2" is trying do so many things at once, it gets none of them right. It transparently caters to the ever-expanding global movie-going audience while also pandering to middle America. Sure, it's bright and shiny and colorful, so the littlest kids will probably like it. In my opinion, most adults will just be bored. Roger liked it, though; he reviewed it on the show last week, and he gave it a thumbs up.
I was not bored. I mean sure this is not Up. It’s not Ratatouille, but its still Pixar and there’s a certain level of craft and inventiveness that informs this. I mean this is still a really fun movie with a lot going on in it.
It’s pretty. I wouldn’t say it’s fun. I’d say it’s repetitive and there is no story, no characterization.
There’s a, there’s a Popemobile. Well, you know, there are all of these nice little jokes on the side lines. Sure, it lacks kind of the, the big central narrative that I think we’re sort of used to in a Pixar movie. But as a series of sequences, you know, and as a use of 3D. It’s pretty entertaining in my opinion.
It’s very shiny and tactile. I will agree with you on that. But did it need to be in 3D? Could it not have been just as bright and colorful and lively in 2D?
For example, very early in the film there’s a scene where, I think, cars are kind of chasing each other up a, you know, spiraling roling..
Right. It’s the big royal subplot thing.
Yeah it’s the subplot. It looks very beautiful in 3D. It’s a really great use of the depth that you can get in that format.
And the cars are clever, sure, but here’s my question: Why do they have teeth if they don’t eat? Why do the cars in Cars 2 have teeth? I’m very confused by this.
You are, you are questioning, you know, the logic behind the film that is set in a world where cars exist on their own without people that talk.
There are no people.
Much like in Transformers 3.