When I first heard about Cars 2 (years ago) I didn’t fret. Cars was good, and Pixar was well-known to insist on good story first before making a film.

But when I saw the first trailers for Cars 2, I had a sinking feeling in my stomach. I didn’t see how they would pull this one off. Mater in Tokyo getting involved in a spy story? This looked like “let’s milk this franchise for all we can” direct-to-video type fare.

And yet I had faith in Pixar, and went to see Cars 2… and it was better than the previews indicated, and the climax was actually exciting… but for the first time in a Pixar film, I found myself, about two-thirds in, wishing it was over.

This story really does not flow organically from the original. No. The characters are shoehorned in to a story with a completely different tone and feel.

The problem of sapient cars in a world with no humans is something that takes a lot of people right out of the film; I was able to suspend this disbelief for the first movie, but the 2nd film really makes that hard. Who made the tiles on the roof that Finn McMissile knocks down? Cars, amazingly enough, do not have hands, and there are sooo many things in their world that need hands to have been made… and so the spy cars are given James Bond-esque voice-activated gadgets that try to make up for it… but all they do for me is call attention to the problem that is actually best glossed over, because it cannot stand up to scrutiny.

This film is basically Mater’s Undercover Adventure, with a small amount of Lightning McQueen thrown in, and barely any of anybody else. Furthermore, there only characterization involved, a spat between best friends, has the exact wrong message. McQueen was RIGHT to ask Mater to behave differently at an upscale party in Tokyo than at his home in a small American town. EVERYONE should be capable of altering their behavior based on what setting they are in. I don’t lounge in my underwear in the public library because “I’m just being true to myself.” I can be true to myself, still be fundamentally myself, and yet have some self-control and consideration for other people’s customs! McQueen may have gotten angry and yelled at Mater, but he was ultimately exactly correct.

Mater’s self-absorption and obtuseness reached mountainous levels in this movie, he left his job as McQueen’s racing coach in the middle of a race to flirt with a girl and didn’t turn his headset off, causing chatter to distract McQueen and ultimately changes the outcome of the race! And then McQueen ends up apologizing?!

My other major problem was that the villains murder a character in cold blood during the film. The camera pans away but we see the dismembered character’s body parts flying through the air in a reflection. Seriously, Pixar? This character is never referred to again. Even after the good-guy spy characters realize that Mater is not their contact, they never wonder where he actually ended up. The murder was not even necessary for the story, he could have been imprisoned instead. My daughter didn’t seem to notice this part much, but I did, and it bothered ME. I don’t go to family films to feel bad. I go to be entertained, or perhaps moved, or englightened, but not to feel bad, and brutal murder makes me feel bad, especially when it’s in such sharp contrast to the rest of the film.

Ultimately, it’s not a horrible movie. It’s a bad Pixar film, but it was for the most part entertaining. I’m sure I’ll buy it on DVD and my daughter will watch it lots, and I’ll even watch it again myself a few times. But I’ll be reading during the boring parts, probably.

Take a listen to the 10th anniversary spectacular show, featuring the long-awaited part IV to the radio-play parody version of the 1986 classic film, The Transformers: The Movie.

Well he doesn’t. He lives in the book, and he lives in the movie too. He’s riding uphill at the end, clearly alive.

So don’t believe what movies tell you, even about other movies.

So I guess I figured it was just to be a cool name, an exaggeration of how powerful they were.

Turns out it’s Destroyer type ship, prefaced with Star because it’s in space. Instead of the Fleet, you have the Star Fleet. Instead of a Cruiser ship, it’s a Star Cruiser. And thus the Star Destroyer.

At least that’s what some yabo wrote on tvtropes.org.

On the one hand it makes sense, but on the other hand it still doesn’t. I mean, they housed many fighter craft, so wouldn’t that make them more like Star Carriers?

And apart from Vader’s Super Star Destroyer, and the Death Star, they were the biggest ships. Destroyers are supposed to be lighter armed escort vessels.

And why would Vader’s spiffy prototype ship just be a Super Star Destroyer, if the Destroyer part referred to the class or function?

No, I think I was right after all, on reflection. It’s just supposed to sound all macho.

Darth Maul met his end in one on Naboo, and the Emperor, due to supreme overconfidence, actually had one installed in his private chambers on the second Death Star, presumably as a big “screw you” to the last Jedi, basically saying “I am so awesome that even with a Sith Disposal Chute right here in my room, I can’t be defeated.” Although considering he masterminded one of the most convoluted conquest plans ever under the very nose of the Jedi order, succeeded completely, and has been ruling the galaxy for 20 years, and managed to kill Samuel L. Jackson, if anyone had the right to be overconfident, it’s him.

Anyway, in Episode II there is no Sith Disposal Chute and so naturally Dooku cannot be defeated by the Jedi.

Ah, but how about Episode III? I submit that Dooku’s death was brought about by Palpatine; he told Dooku to take it easy on Skywalker, as they were to turn him to the dark side. And he’s the one that commanded his death. (Dooku did deserve it for being dumb enough not to know the 2 Sith Rule.)

So, a Sith can kill another Sith without resorting to the Chute, but so far the only Jedi vs. Sith battles to end with the Jedi on top have needed a Chute.

Obi-Wan vs. Whinikin on Mustafar? Didn’t die.
Yoda vs. Palpatine on Coruscant? No chute, Palpy wins.

Battlefield Earth. That’s right, I liked it so much when I rented it, I later bought it on DVD. It’s hilarious.

Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. A great movie. No. No. But it was okay. I liked it. Didn’t love it. I don’t see why the hate.

Hudson Hawk. Mis-marketed, but a great comedy (which is what it was intended to be). Has the distinction of having the most entertaining Director’s Commentary ever. I’ve actually watched it several times with the commentary, because it’s so funny. Almost a 2nd movie on one DVD! This one is more of a “box office failure, but later on people decided they liked it” movie.

The Master of Disguise. This was funny! Stupid, yes, but c’mon! The main character is called Pistachio Disguisey, they knew it was stupid. Even my wife didn’t hate it.

All video-game characters are in fact made of cotton candy. This theory, and only this theory, can explain the cat-like hydrophobia shared universally by their kind. How else are we to believe that Frogger, a frog, is killed instantly on contact with water?

It’s so true. Frogger is a frog. A frog. Born in water. Needs to stay moist to survive. You’d think he’d be less happy on the highway, where the hot blacktop burns and bakes him, but there he’s only concerned with trucks. It’s the water he fears, because it kills on contact.

Frogger would rather be on the back of a turtle or crocodile, than in the water. Why then does he want to build a nest there in the first place? I don’t hop on stones floating in acid to raise a family.

I watched this show when I was a kid, but I never thought it was good. The main character’s name is Lion-O for crying out loud!

I did like the theme song. Not because it was good, but because I always thought bathroom-related humour was funny.

“Thundercats are on the move, Thundercats are loose!”

C’mon, am I really the only one that thought they had too much fiber in their diet when they sang that line?

She kisses Harry, whom she used to date, and knows tried to kill Peter…

Granted, Peter cheated on her too, kissing Gwen Stacy like that. That was wrong.

But does she have the right to be indignant? She chastises Peter for that because it was “our kiss.” If you recall, it was a “Mary Jane cheats on Harry with Spider-man” kiss. How dare Peter turn it into a tawdry “Spider-man cheats on Mary Jane with Gwen” kiss! Has he no decency?!

At least Gwen Stacy had class.

Since I didn’t care about Mary Jane, I couldn’t care about Peter either since he was dumb enough to be in love with her. So when she dumped him on the bridge, I just thought it was funny.

I did care about Harry though. Harry I understood, even when he was wrong, even when he was making evil choices, I still understood him. Didn’t approve, didn’t agree, but I understood. And at the end he repented and did good. And died for it. Poor guy. Him I cared about.

Dumb to make the Sandman Ben’s killer. Totally screws up Spider-man’s origin. His whole motive is that when he fails to act, people die. And with Ben, it wouldn’t have mattered if he’d stopped the robber or not, because that robber didn’t kill his uncle. Someone else did. Whoops.

Bruce Campbell, brilliant as always.

It’s fun to call him Spidery-man instead of Spider-man.