In general, I don't think it's so much hated so much as it is considered to be the red-headed bastard child of Pixar's film lineup (which it is). While the first "Cars" wasn't up to par with, per say, the "Toy Story" films or "Up", it was nonetheless a heartfelt, well-made film with a very relatable set of themes and good characters. This one, however, had a shallow storyline and failed to really develop McQueen and Mater all that well. Mater was a wonderful side character in the first film, but he simply is a bad main protagonist. And especially considering that this film was immediately coming off the heels of the enormously well-acclaimed films "Toy Story 3", "Up", and "Wall-E", it was even more of a bitter letdown.
Think of it this way: Imagine if, after Marvel Studios had created all their Phase I build-up films (which were all very likeable and rated well), they then decided to make "The Avengers" centered on Dr. Selvig, Pepper Potts, The Other, Agent Maria Hill, and Agent Phil Coulsen, and so sidelined Thor, The Hulk, Iron Man, Captain America, The Black Widow, Hawkeye, Nick Fury, and Loki to just small bit parts. It wouldn't have worked. Pepper Potts, Agent Coulsen, etc are all good side characters, but they cannot carry an entire film by themselves. That is what Pixar did when the focus was placed on Mater, and McQueen was given very little to do for most of the film (his story was completely told in the first "Cars").
reply
share
Mississippi20
10 years ago
The first 'Cars' film was the least well-received of all Pixar films to that point.....I think the Cars movies themselves are a bit polarizing just because of the very nature of the characters - they are talking cars. I think a lot of adults unfairly see it as juvenile.
This film is played more for lighthearted laughs and adventure (with a touch of "heart"). But there's nothing wrong with that. I think it's a great time. Coming off of films like 'Toy Story 3,' 'Up,' and 'Wall-E', it's impossible to emulate the same type of originality and "heart" (for lacking of a better term) given the subject matter - talking cars.
As an adult, I can still enjoy the incredible animation (the racing scenes are amazing), the clever parodies (Professor Z is a hoot), the lighthearted humor ("ya done good, ya got all the leaves"), and a fun little spy adventure story. The way they incorporated lemons, an international race, and alternative fuel into one, cohesive story - and still have you guessing to the end is pretty smart I think. Most of all, the characters are just endearing.
Great addition to the Pixar library.
reply
share
TheHiawatha
10 years ago
But the problem with "Cars 2" was that, unlike the first "Cars", it really felt like it didn't have much of a story to tell, and the heartfelt passion and simple storyline that drove the first "Cars" film was entirely lost. Yes, it's talking cars, but the first film was relatable to many Americans (especially in small-town America, where the message really hits home) and featured good character development from all the leads. "Cars 2" basically left the Radiator Springs crew in the dust, save for Mater--and Mater wasn't written well enough to really render an entire film about him.
I'll concede that it may be a bit unfair to judge this too harshly considering that this was following three films that were perhaps the best animated features ever made. But that still doesn't change the fact that "Cars 2" was mediocre in comparison to every single one of the Pixar films made before and after it, and in many ways it felt like a cash grab to sell more merchandise. For Pixar to go from making good-to-excellent films to making a mediocre picture is seen as a major change for the worse. But thankfully Pixar made up for it with "Brave" and "Monsters University".
PS: Also, in retrospect, it appears that "A Bug's Life" is actually rated lower than "Cars" (with the fans, anyways, though the critics leaned towards "A Bug's Life").
reply
share
Mississippi20
10 years ago
But the problem with "Cars 2" was that, unlike the first "Cars", it really felt like it didn't have much of a story to tell, and the heartfelt passion and simple storyline that drove the first "Cars" film was entirely lost. Yes, it's talking cars, but the first film was relatable to many Americans (especially in small-town America, where the message really hits home) and featured good character development from all the leads.
I agree. You don't have to sell me on 'Cars', but the fact remains that it was the first Pixar movie to not get an overwhelmingly positive response. It's the first one not to get over 90% on Rotten Tomatoes. 'A Bug's Life' might have gotten slightly inflated reviews for its time but the fact remains.
"Cars 2" basically left the Radiator Springs crew in the dust, save for Mater--and Mater wasn't written well enough to really render an entire film about him.
It would've been hard to do an entire new film in Radiator Springs. The beginning and end scenes in Radiator Springs are still fun but the appeal of 'Cars 2' is that it's
different than the first.
While Mater might have the most of the screen time, it's not like he has to carry the film all by himself. Plenty of great new characters - new and old. I also don't think it was poorly written at all. The "North by Northwest" story with Mater stumbling through a whole spy story he knows nothing about makes for lots of comedic moments.
I'll concede that it may be a bit unfair to judge this too harshly considering that this was following three films that were perhaps the best animated features ever made. But that still doesn't change the fact that "Cars 2" was mediocre in comparison to every single one of the Pixar films made before and after it, and in many ways it felt like a cash grab to sell more merchandise. For Pixar to go from making good-to-excellent films to making a mediocre picture is seen as a major change for the worse. But thankfully Pixar made up for it with "Brave" and "Monsters University".
They were bound to make a film that got panned sooner or later. If it's not your thing, it's not your thing. I think they made a very solid film and a lot of the criticisms regarding cash-grabs and merchandise are just unfair. At the end of the day, taste is subjective.
reply
share