I had a very unusual experience seeing this movie in theaters.

I watched it, I had a great time, I laughed, cheered, was thrilled, and the moment the credits started to roll the people in the row behind me IMMEDIATELY started spouting off how much they HATED it. I was flabbergasted. I was sorely tempted to turn around and ask them if we even just saw the same movie? How could anyone hate something that's so much FUN?!

But after thinking about it, I could see actually why they didn't get into it. Cars 2 is the first Pixar movie where you really have to 'get the joke' of the premise, or the whole thing falls apart like a house of cards. What this movie is, is the best James Bond movie of the last 15 years (not counting Casino Royale which transcends Bond movies to be just a great spy movie), with a bit of The Accidental Spy thrown in.

I LOVE Bond movies. The crazy opening sequences, the insane gadgets, the quippy lines. And Cars 2 hit pitch perfect parodies of every Bond standard. But you could never say of any Bond movie that it's got a deep emotional core, that's not how they're made. They're made to be balls to the wall fun and thrills, and that's what this movie is. Which of course makes it the polar opposite of the original Cars. It could hardly be more different.

If you get the joke, that this is a James Bond movie with cars, it's a riot. Loads of fun. It's not deep, it's not going to tug at your heart strings, it will not make your mother cry three or four times (as virtually ever Pixar movie ever made prior has done to my mother, I take her to Pixar movies with a bucket). It's just riotous fun. And I'm amazed that people are punishing Pixar for making a movie that's just pure fun. Granted Pixar is famous for it's deep emotional stories, and I suppose people expect that sort of thing every time. Even if you make a fun and entertaining movie, if you don't do what people expect, they bite your head off for it.

I went in with few expectations cause the early reviews bashed it to pieces, and I was frankly not that big a fan of the original movie. In the first Cars McQueen spends an enormous amount of the movie whining, and I found him generally unlikeable until fully halfway through the movie. It was a good movie, with a lot of heart and a message, but not one I would describe as a lot of FUN. Mater especially, a little of him went a long way in the first movie, and I was really worried about him being the star of this movie, because if a little of him annoyed me in the first movie, this one has 10 times more of him.

And yet, he actually annoyed me LESS this time around, cause he had something to do instead of just hanging around being Mater. They struck a perfect balance in his 'mater-ness' where the Accidental Spy nature of his story is charming instead of just annoying. And even more to my amazement, Mater's unique perspective DOES actually help solve the mystery. He's not just a bumbling idiot gumming up the works, he does actually help.

I was also constantly amused at the imagination that went into Cars-ifying the world. Even little touches like the swanky party in Towkyo (not a typo! ha!), the elevators are giant pistons that come out of the floor. I didn't expect it at all but once I saw it was it was so perfect.

To sum up, I have to say, I enjoyed this movie MORE than the original Cars. Yet at the same time I'll fully agree that the original is a technically superior film in writing and character, but Cars 2 is way more fun. If you go into this with the right attitude, that you're seeing a James Bond movie with Cars, that it's meant to be pure fun and embrace it on that level, there's a lot to love.

The only reason I didn't give it 5 stars is it IS shallow. I won't say it's a perfect film on every level cause it's not. But it doesn't deserve the hate it's getting, it's just a fun movie, and there's nothing wrong with that. If it doesn't quite transcend to the levels of brilliance of The Incredibles or Wall:E, that doesn't make it BAD, it suffers only in comparison to other Pixar work, compared to anything else, it rocks. :)

Violence is everywhere in our current world. It's a fact of life, and as adults we all learn how to cope with it, avoid it, or confront it when we need to. I accept this fact. But I can't accept that in a movie rated "G", there are multiple scenes of violence, death, even torture. I'll need to explain these concepts to my child at some point, but I'd certainly prefer that I be able to wait until he's beyond the age of four. I'll be explicit so that other parents who are considering this movie will know exactly what they're in for: there are several scenes in which the "bad guy" pointedly tells his subordinates to "kill him" (directed a Finn McMissile and Mater). There is a full-blown torture scene in which a car is restrained, heated to the pain point, and then destroyed (the actual death is shown only as a reflection). There are a lot of guns, bullets, and missiles. There's plenty of hand-to-hand (or wheel-to-wheel) combat, which seems like a picnic after the other stuff.
I'm not anti-violence, and I appreciate a good action movie. But I'm 35 and my kid is 4. We have different perspectives on life. When a movie is rated "G", I expect something significantly less violent than James Bond.
The first Cars movie is among my favorites. It's a fantastic story that has a great message and doesn't rely on explosions. Are Pixar and Disney really so short of ideas that they need to blow things up to make money? Come on...I know they can do better.

To be fair, Cars 2 is not a dud. But it's not a hit either. As someone who's loved everything Pixar has heretofore come up with, it pains me to say it, but I think Cars 2 will be remembered as Pixar's first miss. It's one of those films that, if you've seen the trailer, you've already seen ninety percent of what there is to see in the movie itself. The rest, unfortunately, is tedium.

The plot, such as it is, is as follows: Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) invites his best buddy from Radiator Springs, Mater (Larry the Cable Guy), to accompany him on an international racing event. In Japan, Mater is mistaken for an American spy by two British agents Finn McMissile (Michael Caine) and Holly Shiftwell (Emily Mortimer) who are investigating a criminal conspiracy involving oil rigs, alternative fuels and a mysterious secret weapon.

Every now and then, a film comes out where you look at it and wonder how it got into production in the first place. You keep thinking why didn't someone in the early stages come out and say "You know, this is a bad idea. A really, really _bad_ idea." And so many things about Cars 2 were bad ideas. Taking the story out of the intimate - and uniquely original - setting of Radiator Springs and sending it through Tokyo, Italy and London, which we recognize because they're already so familiar? Bad idea. Reducing all of the other residents of Radiator Springs, who were so memorable from the original Cars, to little more than cameos? Bad idea. Making the movie an action-driven parody of James Bond spy films? Bad idea. And last but not least, making Mater the center of everything? _Really_ bad idea.

Everything that made the first Cars film so memorable and enjoyable is missing here. Most particularly Doc Hudson (Paul Newman) who was part of what gave Cars its heart and gravitas. There's no character development in Cars 2, and no heart. There's just mindless action across dazzling settings, with repeated heavy-handed beatings over the head of _message_: "Friends are important!" and "Be Yourself!"

If the blame for Cars 2 failing to match its predecessor in quality can be laid at the feet of anyone, Brad Lewis as co-director/writer is probably most deserving of that dubious achievement. Why he was chosen is beyond imagining as his only previous work as a director was on a short video documentary on food and he apparently has no other credits as a writer. The original Cars, it must be noted, was co-directed and written by Joe Ranft, whose previous work as a writer includes a host of great films as The Brave Little Toaster, Oliver & Company, The Rescuers Down Under, Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, Toy Story and A Bug's Life. And the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Mr. Ranft, having passed away in 2005, was unfortunately not available for Cars 2, but you'd think that Pixar would have at least tried to get someone of the same caliber for Cars 2.

Again, Cars 2 not a bad film, not in the strictest sense anyway. On a technical level, the look is both lush and dazzling. But beneath the dazzle, there's just no 'there' there. It's not bad; it's just boring. And because it's a sequel of a very good and enjoyable film, it's also more than a little disappointing. Recommended only for those who want to see everything Pixar and who have time to kill.