Title: THE DEARLY DEPARTED
Print Status: Available
|
|
Buy now!
Comic ID #7417
Title: THE DEARLY DEPARTED
Print Status: Available
Title: THE DEARLY DEPARTED
Print Status: Available
Discussion (26) ¬
[ Comments RSS ]
Comment ¬
I think Cars 2 is worse than the original Cars, but that’s like saying Diamonds Are Forever is worse than Thunderball.
I’m not a James Bond fan (like the concept of character, but the movies actually bore me for some reason…), so I don’t exactly get your reference? Especially since they’re part of a much larger franchise. Are you saying, for instance, “Cars 2 is worse than the original Cars, but that’s like saying Batman Begins is worse than The Dark Knight” ?
yes but Diamonds are Forever is worse than Thunderball. 🙂
Any James Bond film after and including “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” should be judged within their own decade of relevant Bond films as the mood and relevance to the books changes to suit the contemporary era in which they were filmed.
If you are going to compare a Bond film to a Bond film that is trying to cash in then you would compare Diamonds are Forever with Moonraker.
But this is not a time or place to discuss that. Sorry. I just really like James Bond Movies. (well most of them, I do not watch the Daniel Craig ones)
well, as far as pixar goes, to me, Cars has always been the lowest point in their careers, with that in mind it’s not a surprise if the sequel is just as bad as the original one. not to bash dreamworks, but cars seems the most dreamworks movie made by pixar, and most dreamworks animated films have a shitty sequel.
in any case i dont pay that much attention to critics when it comes to this, cause it’s easy bashing, the movie can suck and have a bad rating, but if there’s the chance of bash and point out every other flaw in another film, to stand in a higherpoint as some kind of expert on how to make films, they will do it. and that’s just not fair crticism.
At least it’s not worse than Green Lantern..
I didn’t like the first Cars at all, so I won’t be seeing Cars 2. I didn’t like the two main characters and Owen Wilson just doesn’t do it for me. I saw Midnight in Paris and loved the movie but didn’t like Owen Wilson. He was perfect for the role though. I think it’s that drawn out speech that he has naturally that irks me.
The backlash against the sequel is just as you said, a chance to take down the might giant Pixar. Even their “worst” movie is better than most animated movies for kids and I suspect Cars 2 isn’t any different.But I guess for every sequel to their movies, the question will be, “Is this going to be another Cars 2?”
The next sequel Pixar has lined up is Monsters University in 2013. Actually, it’s a prequel to Monsters, Inc. I’m a little more optimistic about that one.
Pixar’s next movie, however – Brave – looks to be a complete departure in both tone and texture. Maybe something a little darker than we’re used to. That’s probably a good thing.
It LOOKS gorgeous. No real idea about the story yet, but the few character designs that have been shown? Wow!
The Brave trailer reminded me of the Secret of Kells.
For me Cars never was a good Pixar film. It has heart and it has beautiful visuals and all the little personality nuances that the company seems to excel in producing. But it has one serious flaw. It is a movie where people cannot exist.
All other Pixar films have the possibility of regular people in the world that has been created. Even in Bug’s Life the bug city is under a house and made with refuse from a human world. Part of the Pixar wonder is they created a magical world within our own world that was just around when no one was looking.
Cars is a wholly separate world. While enchanting in a way it is also distancing. Yes the cars have personalities and yes the cars are human like but there is no room for people in the movie. This to me is a bit of a deviation from one of the little touches that makes a Pixar movie so engaging. Sure it is an alternate world with strange and new things but it is familiar because it is just around the corner from the world people live in. It is somehow connected to the viewer. It has personal relevance in that most tenuous and subconscious way.
Cars, not so much. It is cute and i have seen it and I was surprised that I liked it but I don’t watch as often as Finding Nemo or the Incredibles or Bug’s Life. I have no interest in seeing Cars 2 but I am interested in your review since you are someone who has seen the movie who is not interested in bashing the movie because the word “critic” is part of the job description.
I do feel the some of the critical opinions are valid since Cars was the least likely Pixar film for a sequel so it does look like a merchandising driven move rather than a story telling move. That and they are building a Cars themed section of Disney’s California Adventure (Featuring Pixar) The movie will only heighten interest in the newly developed section (to be finished in 2012)
Took my kids to see Cars 2 on Friday, then went to see Rio in 3D at the cheap theater Saturday. Cars 2 is not cinema, but it’s not supposed to be. It’s supposed to be a fun movie for kids to go see that features characters they already know and love.
I’ve always seen Cars as a sort of animated Doc Hollywood — Cars 2 would have to be some spy movie ripoff, like a bad James Bond movie. But I think the critics have forgotten that the franchise is targeted at kids primarily, and their parents secondarily.
I saw Cars 2 last night and really enjoyed it. It’s really entertaining and fun to watch. Some really cool scenes to watch and of course the visuals were stunning. I mean, it may not have been cinematically dynamite, but thats not their intentions at all here. Its supposed to just be fun to watch and easy to soak in without over analysing every little detail and plot hole. Of course its not going to be as gold as Wall-e and Toy story 3 since its not aimed at the same demographic. But I think that as far as their goal to make a really entertaining film that wasn’t light on excitement what-so ever they nailed it. Also just a side note, the “3D” version of it was beautiful. Best 3D i’ve ever seen. Most of the time I kept forgetting that it was in 3D. The way it should be felt and not seen. It wasn’t coma inducing or anything, just really plussed all the gorgeous visuals that the movie entailed. Over all it was a very entertaining movie and I don’t think it deserves all these critiques telling people not to see it just cause they’re jealous of Pixars success.
I was very hesitant about seeing cars 2 because I wasn’t a big cars fan and I’m not really a car fan in general. I actually preferred to see Green Lantern again than seeing it. But then I saw it and I really honestly enjoyed it. Not just, “it’s stupid fun”, I liked the music, I though everything came together in the story, and I really loved all the spy stuff.
And also, who cares if they’re trying to make money? They’re a company, that’s what companies are supposed to do.
Haters gonna hate.
I’ve never seen the first Cars because for some reason the idea of cars that drive around and talk bothers me on a basic level.
While Cars 2 is definitely the worst feature Pixar has made, I think it’s getting worse reviews than the same movie released by a different studio would. It was a harmless, entertaining movie that my daughter loved and I chuckled a few times at, and that didn’t do anything wrong (it just missed a lot of chances to do things better than it did).
But in the past decade and a half we’ve come to expect much, much more from Pixar. Even the first Cars, while not up to the studio’s usual standards, runs circles around other animated movies in terms of story, characters, and visuals. Cars 2, on the other hand, seems like it does the minimum required to not be a bad movie, but compared to the rest of Pixar’s work that makes it look much worse than it actually is.
Chris, I think your assessment is exactly right. Cars 2 didn’t do anything “wrong.” It’s just not up to the caliber of other Pixar films. Therefore, people see it as “less than” in the context of other Pixar films. But it’s perfectly serviceable family entertainment and does not insult the audience’s intelligence.
I disagree that it does the minimum amount required, however. In terms of scope, character animation, locations and details, I’d say they upped their game from the original Cars 4-fold.
I haven’t seen Cars 2, and I’ve posted here before that I think Cars is an underrated film. It’s a beautiful story with just the right amount of slapstick. Cars is supposed to be the same nostalgic atmosphere as the Toy Story films; they’re supposed to harken back to a different age, and at the same time bring to life one of the favorite toys of little boys.
Also, Roger Ebert’s review of Cars 2 has made me want to go see it. I just haven’t decided who I will see it with yet!
That is one mournful Tom in the second panel.
Ya gotta SELL these things!
Cars is one of my favorite Pixar films. Cars 2 will never be. It was exactly what I feared from the trailers: a plot that belongs in an Incredibles sequel shoehorned into a world where it has no business being. Fell asleep twice, and the parties I was with admitted to dozing too. So it goes! What’s next, Pixar!?
I enjoyed both Cars and Cars 2, but as a gearhead I know a lot of the appeal was the world they created and the care they took with all of the small details.
I thought it was a great action movie. While I personally am ok with the all the gun play, I am questioning it for my 5yo. Same goes for the torture and end for Bruce Campbell’s character. I think if you frame Cars 2 as an entirely different story from Cars it fairs well. Animation was outstanding, the backdrops in the different countries was outstanding.
I personally enjoyed Cars 2 more than the original. I wasn’t going in thinking that it was going to be something to blow me out of the water, I mean its Cars! I think too many people were looking for some sort of emotional moment that so many Pixar movies had. Something that I said to my girlfriend before we saw it was “I cried during Wall-E, Up and Toy Story 3, if I cry during Cars 2 I’m throwing a kid at the screen.” Not that I was angry about crying but that I knew that this was to be nothing more than a fun kids movie with no emotional investment in the characters.
The film did bring back memories of when I was young and playing with toy cars, making them talk to each other and do things that cars normally don’t do. I feel like that is something that Pixar was trying to catch with this film, and that I thought they did well.
I thought it was funny they made a sequel to the cars movie instead of a movie that could have had the more obvious sequel and possibly better story I speak of The Incredibles. I didn’t hate cars 2, it was cute and I was entertained. But no Cars 2 is meant for boys still not old enough to enjoy a James Bond film. They could have made a completely different movie using a continuing cars story line and used the one they did for a new movie instead.
Did you really call WALL E a good movie?
Yes. In fact, I think it’s a modern classic. Audiences will be watching it 50 years from now, mark my words.