Before this goes any further, I think we should all take a step back and realize what goes into one's perception of how enjoyable a movie is. Unfortunately, as unbiased and focused as one may try to be, there will always be external distractions that can create noise and subconsciously chip away at one's enjoyment. When I go to a movie I try to quell all outside issues and solely focus on what I'm watching. That is the best way to immerse yourself in the story being told. No one can consistently and unwaveringly accomplish this. Even Roger Ebert has admitted that his opinion on a movie from time to time has been skewed to one side or the other depending on what type of mood he was in that day. On top of that, other variables exist to alter one's perception. If someone is told a movie absolutely sucks, they will go into watching that movie with very low expectations and may find they like it a lot more than they would have, had the bar been set high. This works vice-verca as well.
With that said, I liked Pixar's newest film. I watched it during a sweet spot of time where I felt no rush of an outside obligation, or worry. This of course could also be attributed to Pixar's ability to captivate the viewer. The friends I went with also liked it, but during analysis after the film, revealed that they liked the first one better. This seems to be the common trend right now, as the majority of reviews are unfavorable concerning Cars 2. I do understand a lot of their qualms with the movie. At times it felt a little convoluted, being that there seemed to be 3-4 separate stories going on at the same time. It felt like the main character of the first one took a metaphorical back seat to a side character. It also had a drastically different type of flow too. Cars 2 could be cataloged as a spy flick. Unknowingly the tow truck is suspected as being an adept spy by other secret agent cars, which gets him into trouble.
I heard a mother a few days prior to seeing the film talk about how it was a little violent to be bringing her kids to. While it is true, that some cars do blow up and since the cars are alive, this insinuates murder, I don't adopt that same mentality. I typically think parents should make their children aware of the differences in the world, but explain right from wrong while doing so. Why deprive a child of a movie they are sure to enjoy, because it has some themes that we want to shelter said children from. If we do that, the child will encounter those themes someday on their own when we might not be able to give them the guidance they need to conquer them. Or worse, it may inject a sense of curiosity and defiance as to why these issues were kept from them or forbidden rather than explained. Why weren't they trusted. Didn't the parent believe in them? That should be a separate post all together though.
I liked the first Cars film, but something felt off about it to me. Like a lot of people, it really is hard for me to get past the fact that these cars have eyes and are driving around talking. The same could be said about Toy Story, A Bug's Life and many more movies which don't bother me, but Cars stands out as a sore thumb because of the use of other vehicles as their transport. What kind of communist society are these Cars living in where they dictate that the boat will be created for the cars travel, or the plane's sole focus in life will be to get Flashy Race Car from point A to point B? What a great role that cog plays in the wheel. The proletariat shouldn't stand for it!
Anyway, it was a pretty enjoyable film. After a string of epic thought provoking films like Up and Wall-E(my favorite Pixar film), it is easy to see why people were underwhelmed by this Pixar entry. It doesn't try to be anything other than a fast paced high octane film that conveys that the director has a true love for Cars. If you enjoy Pixar films and don't go into this one looking for a life changing moral or more emotion than a laughable rusty tow truck can provide, I'm sure you'll enjoy it.