Cars 2

We have now arrived at the wrongfully hated sequel, “Cars 2,” released in 2011. Roger Ebert started his review out by saying, “While I was watching "Cars 2," an elusive nostalgia tugged at my mind. No, I wasn't remembering Pixar's original "Cars" from 2006. This was something more deeply buried, and finally, in the middle of one of the movie's sensational grand prix races, it came to me: I was sitting on the floor of my bedroom many years ago, with some toy cars lined up in front of me, while I used my hands to race them around on the floor and in the air, meanwhile making that noise kids make by squooshing spit in their mouths.”

Ebert went on to say, “In this memory, I was completely engrossed with my cars. They were as real as people, and I played favorites and identified one car as my surrogate. Maybe my hands were swooping around with toys, but my imagination was somewhere else, and I performed the dialogue for the cars: Oh, yeah? Take that! We'll see! Eeeeyowww!”

Ebert goes on to say, “This memory was not random. I think it was inspired by the spirit of John Lasseter's movie. I believe in some sense, the great animator was sitting Indian-style on the floor of his Pixar playroom and hurtling his cars through time and space with sublime reckless delight. We learned from "Cars" that Lasseter loves automobiles, and here we learn that they can serve him as avatars in an international racing-and-spying thriller as wacky as a Bond picture crossed with Daffy Duck.”

I think Ebert is right when he said, “I have no idea what kids will make of the movie. At a time when some "grown-up" action films are relentlessly shallow and stupid, here is a movie with such complexity that even the cars sometimes have to pause and explain it to themselves. It mixes concerns about fossil fuels with spycraft and a lot of grand prix racing where more is at stake than who wins.” This time the protagonist has changed: The red NASCAR Lightning McQueen is covered by the rusty, buck-toothed tow truck Mater, who was just a supporting car in the first film.

A plot synopsis would put us into confusions, and the movie isn’t about a plot as much as the action it contains. Shortly, Sir Miles Axelrod, voiced by Eddie Izzard, has created a new fuel that doesn’t drain the planet’s shrinking oil reserves and wants to prove it in a World Grand Prix to be sold in England, Japan and Italy. Ebert said, “This is a masterful way of introducing new backdrops into the races, and the movie is so visually complex that I imagine Lasseter and his colleagues slipped details in just for fun.”

Ebert pointed out, “At one point, in a shot so brief you don't want to blink, we even learn that the Popemobile travels in its own Popemobile. This inspires the theological puzzle of whether the one inside is the pope. One of my fellow viewers said she didn't even see a Popemobile. Maybe I dreamed it. In any event, there are no humans in the movie who could be the pope, although much is made of the dinosaurs who are a source of fossil fuels. Actually, I believe oil originated from ancient plants and microorganisms and not so much from dinosaurs, but in the Lasseter universe, it no doubt comes from gas-guzzling dinosaurs like in those old Rambler ads.”

This is all beside the point though. Lightning McQueen finds himself in a championship race with the Italian driver Francesco Bernoulli, voiced by John Turturro. He and Mater end up being in the middle of a undercover race between the power of fossil and alternative fuels, also having the British secret agents Finn McMissle (Michael Caine) and Holley Shiftwell (Emily Mortimer). Ebert joked, “Having recently admired Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon doing dueling Michael Caine imitations in "The Trip," I noted that Michael Caine does a pretty good one himself.”

The first film was a speech to a past when America drove around Route 66 and now-classic cars were the icons in American lives. The cars in “Cars 2” have evolved a wide variety of new upgrades. Ebert noted, “They extrude so many wires, spikes, weapons and gimmicks they must really be shape-shifters, and Mater in particular is expert at disguising himself. This is not surprising, because a lot of the guys you find around tow trucks are pretty good at using paint jobs to dress up beaters.”

However, “Cars 2” is fun. Ebert ended his reason by saying, “Whether that's because John Lasseter is in touch with his inner child or mine, I cannot say. There remains one bone to pick. Although the hero of the 2006 film was a Hudson with the step-down design and there are AMC Gremlins in this film, as nearly as I can tell, Lasseter entirely ignores the greatest independent American automaker of them all, Studebaker. Maybe I missed one. I don't think so. There is a more obvious reason. Introducing a Studebaker Golden Hawk into this film would make all of the other characters look shabby.”

As I have already stated before, this film was wrongfully hated. I understand the complaint that maybe it was violent for children, but I think it upgraded the first one by showing how cars have evolved now and that they are using natural resources like hybrid, electrical and solar power. This is rightfully showing how car manufacturers are trying to use other resources instead of oil because of how deadly that can be. Also, it’s for saving the environment and we all need to think about the Earth. Definitely see it and give it a chance because it has been hated a lot and it doesn’t deserve it. Plus, I understand making Mater the central focus was the wrong idea, but think of the whole picture instead of nitpicking, which for a kid’s movie like this, it’s wrong.

I’m not surprised to know that they will be coming out with a “Cars 3,” I think next year. Let’s see what they have in store for us in that one because I think it will be good.

Now I’m really excited because tonight I’m going to see the new Disney’s “Moana” movie, but I will probably post a review on that tomorrow. We’ll see so stay tuned for that because I have been hearing a lot of good reviews about it so I can’t wait to see it.