Why all the hate for Cars?

[Absolute]

I have often heard people refer to Cars as their least favorite Pixar movie, and not just in the current thread about Pixar movies. Beyond just thinking it's the worst Pixar movie, many people actively dislike it.

I don't get the hate for this film - I thought it was fun. A good story, good characters, good animation, lots of funny little jokes (especially if you are into cars). It wasn't the best movie Pixar ever made, but it wasn't bad.

Is it just people who think cars are evil, planet-destroying death machines or what?

[Argent Towers]

Obviously liking or disliking a movie is a matter of subjective taste. But I didn't like it for many reasons. First of all, the "hotshot comes to a little one-horse town and is initially snotty but is charmed into staying and helping them" plot is trite, and a rip-off of Doc Hollywood. Secondly I loathe Larry the Cable Guy, "blue collar humor" of the artificial, mainstream variety, and rusty old tow trucks from the 1950s. I dig heavy-wreckers like the big green "Raja" in Heat, but an old piece of junk like "Tow-Mater" just doesn't do a thing for me. What an utterly stupid moniker! The desert setting was aesthetically unappealing. I don't want to look at tan, brown, tan, brown, tan, gray, tan, brown and tan all day long, baking in the hot sunlight. I want to see some goddamn greenery. I thought the "faces" on the cars looked stupid and ugly. I thought the characterizations of the cars were unbelievably cliched and cheesy (a low-rider with a Mexican cholo accent? Come on.) What can I say, I thought it was a crappy movie.

[Munch]

Yup - I came in here to post that I loved the movie back when it starred Michael J. Fox and was called Doc Hollywood.

[GuanoLad]

When has lack of originality ever stopped a film from being decent entertainment?

And it must be pointed out that it's only superficially like Doc Hollywood, which in itself is a very ordinary film and is fair game for remaking, as an animated film, and aimed at a new audience.

I think Cars is the least of the Pixar films because it relies on car culture too much, especially NASCAR and Route 66, both of which are very American and limited in their appeal.

But I still find it entertaining; I think the characters are great, and the visuals are breathtaking.

[Student Driver]

Not to be one of those type of "me too" types of people, but what Argent Towers has said, nearly word for word. (The one difference: I thought the desert scenery was pretty well-done. Like other computer animation studios, I've felt that Pixar sometimes builds its stories and story environments to show off developments in animation techniques. Something tells me they had probably made some advances in animating dust and such. Whatever the case, the geek in me who loved Tron sat in awe watching the realistic dust and such).

Storywise, it's not a bad movie by any means, and from any other animation company (including Disney proper) it'd be astounding. But it's like getting a B- project from an A+ student; it's above average but you know that Pixar is capable of better. The reliance on "blue collar" humor felt a little close to the Dreamworks method of using pop cultural references for cheap jokes. Tow-Mater was one step away from that dreadful "They call me Tater" joke. Ugh. And, like Argent said, that kind of humor is forced and artificial. In the context of a comedy night, fine, but it's misapplied here.

It's been a brilliant longterm success in ways that other, more highly acclaimed Pixar films haven't been, and for that I have to give them tons of credit. It's been incredibly marketable to both children and adult car fans... the licensed products continue strong (taking a sizeable chunk of the die-cast car market, for instance) while more recent efforts fizzle. Not too many WALL-E toys out there, but endcaps full of Cars model vehicles still hang on at toy stores and discount department stores. It-- like the Buzz Lightyear branch of Toy Story-- has managed to tap into the boys market, too. While any gender can enjoy the products, boys seem to gravitate to Buzz and Cars more than gender-neutral Pixar properties. It's also the closest to a boy's license range that Disney has right now, so it tends to get promoted on equal footing with the very successful girl's ranges of Disney Princess and Disney Fairies. All of this has kept the film in the public eye for far longer than, say, Ratatouille.

Anecdotally, among friends with kids, Cars is far and away the favorite film of the kids-- not just the favorite animated film, or favorite Disney/Pixar film. It's a kids' movie... the people who don't like it invariably aren't kids.

[astro]

It was "OK" , but it did not delight me the way Pixar usually does. It was more overtly paint by the numbers formulaic than any other Pixar movie I can recall.

[Tim R. Mortiss]

It is definitely my least favorite Pixar movie. I'm not sure why, and I can't give a supportable argument to bolster my position, but for some reason it really pissed me off. Somehow I just found it very annoying. Maybe the overall hick-ness of it all?

[olivesmarch4th]

It was one of my least favorite Pixar movies, but Pixar movies are great, so that's not an insult in itself. I saw this movie last month and actually enjoyed it way more than I thought I would. It took me a while to get into the storyline, but the whole Route 66 concept was very moving. When they showed the montage of the cars preparing for the opening of Route 66 and all their hopeful faces as the anticipated new visitors (which never showed), I burst into tears. I couldn't help it. They did a really good job of painting that tragedy.

There was also a featurette on the DVD we watched which included interviews with some of the people living in the original towns that were bypassed by Route 66. A wrinkled old shop owner commented that after the construction of Route 66 (and the loss of his customer base), ''When something like that happens, well, you don't see a reason for getting out of bed any more.'' You don't really realize how based in reality Cars is until you watch that featurette. The film is about more than just a big-shot car learning to love in a country town, it's about a real economic phenomena that occurred as a result of highway construction, and I believe it was crafted to be as accurate as possible. I thought the landscapes were beautiful and though there were definitely some cheesy accents, I think people easily forget how diverse certain parts of our country are, even in the sticks. Love it or leave it, there are towns like this all across the country. Cars is a distinctly American film, with a distinctly American sensibility, and I think it's less of a clishe than people give it credit for. Even the characters that seemed overly simplistic (like Tow-Mater) are based on real people.

[DrFidelius]

I don't hate it, but it is one of only two Pixar films I have made no effort to see. I am not a car buff by any means, and neither the characters nor the story held any appeal to me.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

I liked the soundtrack, & the background setting was nice.

[Baal Houtham]

Hey Student Driver, nice analysis of the marketing aspect. It sounds as if you work in toy retail.

I enjoy the Blue Collar Comedy tv shows, but not so much I want to see Larry the Cable Guy dropped undigested into the middle of a movie. (Well, digested a little bit, since the Cars character was less dimensional.)

It's tempting to say I don't accept human emotion coming from mechanical objects --didn't care for WALL-E either-- but the original Luxo Jr. short was effective. (But maybe Luxo wouldn't have been convincing if it had tried for complex feelings.)

Anyway, I didn't like the big eyed cars and thought the lead character was Tom Cruise-ish and annoying (even after his transformation.) The lack of humans in the film bothered me; did the machines manufacture themselves? It seemed fudged.

The spiritual lesson of humility and the learning from a shabby old master were paint by number.

[Argent Towers]

Actually, after Cars came out, my friends and I amused ourselves by joking about how formulaic the whole anthropomorphic-objects-with-stunt-casted-voices and stereotyped personalities thing was, and ultimately conceived a parody film of it, which we called Money. It was about various random denominations of paper and coin currency from around the world, who were about to be phased out in favor of newer, slicker versions. The rag-tag team of money - including a wise old $5 Lincoln bill, a spunky Mexican dollar with the voice of a cholo, a snotty but good-hearted Franc who's constantly bickering with an English Pound, and others - would assemble to wage a guerrilla war against the evil World Bank, led by the villainous Credit Card (who ultimately threatens the existence of all cash) with a plan that's SO CRAZY IT JUST MIGHT WORK!

[MrDibble]

I think cars are evil, planet-destroying death machines, and I liked it. But then I grock Route 66 nostalgia and the whole airstream aesthetic. Also, I was unfamiliar with Larry the Cable Guy, so Mater didn't really push my buttons the way it seems to for Americans.

[Crowbar of Irony +3]

I didn't even watch it. I am not a car bluff, and I don't imagine myself driving one anytime soon, and the premise is totally lost on me (being not an American). I don't know if it is good or bad as a movie, but it's didn't interest me to watch it in the first place.

Other than Cars I have watched most of recent Pixar's flicks except Toy Story 1 and 2. Oh, um, except Up. Was that by Pixar?

[Lazz]

I went to see it with my nephew, he loved it but I was bored as hell.
I don't like cars in general, like even less anthropomorphic cars, and I felt it was too long, on top of that. I actually slept near the end.

[Argent Towers]

MrDibble - how about Armour, a movie about suits of armour in a museum that come alive at night? There would be a tough, arrogant suit of German Gothic plate c. 1480; a comically pompous Maximilian suit with an over-the-top accent; a foppish, slightly effeminate suit of Greenwich armour from the Elizabethan period (voiced by Hugh Grant?); a haughty, swashbuckling French cuirassier's armour from the early 1600s; and of course a Japanese Samurai, who is always attempting elaborate, flashy sword techniques but failing in a comical manner and crashing into a wall or something.... and maybe even a suit of Mughal mail-and-plate voiced by that Indian guy from The Forty Year Old Virgin.

The museum would get broken into one night by evil, history-hating thugs, and with the local police tied up at a high-profile terrorist incident across town, it would be up to these obsolete suits of armour to save the day with A PLAN SO CRAZY IT JUST MIGHT WORK! And of course the Samurai would wind up with one of those Kimono-wearing manikins from the East Asian section, and the French cuirassier would finally win the heart of the beautiful noblewoman in the Rigaud painting he has been pining after...hmmm....hmmm.....

Do you think it could show the burglars' brains being bashed out with a pole-axe and keep the PG rating?

[Unauthorized Cinnamon]

Hm. I couldn't care less about cars (considering them solely useful and interesting in that they get me from one place to another), and I really like Cars. I do agree it's a retread of Doc Hollywood, which is probably a retread of dozens of movie elements, but IMHO, who cares if something is a retread, if it is done artfully?

Apparently (from comments in this thread) it helped a lot that I had absolutely no notion of Larry the Cable Guy and was dimly aware of something called the Blue Collar Comedy Tour, but had never seen any of it. Mater was just a fun silly character.

For the record, my least favorite Pixar is Ratatouille. I think Cars is pretty good - not Toy Story or Up, but fun.

[Neidhart]

Did the Cars world spontaneously spring into existence ca. 1905? If not, what did the generation before Lizzie look like? Were they horses? How are cars born? How do they mate? So long as spare parts are available, why would they ever die?

Fun to watch, but this one just pegged the suspension-of-disbelief-o-meter.

[Lethal Babydoll]

Still better than "Nemo" and "Up," IMHO. I like the Rat one and "Incredibles" most

[Jinx]

For crap sake, people! These (Disney/Pixar) movies are written for kids! Have you ALL forgotten how to be a kid and not analyze everything to death! This movie was awesome!

[Jonathan Chance]

As opposed to a functioning society of aware toys? That have held their existence secret for thousands of years? Or a talking rat that cooks at a four-star level? To claim Cars pegs the suspension of disbelief meter shows some narrow-gauge thinking.

And I know I bring this up every time Cars pops up but those who continually get hung up on the fact that it follows (more or less) the plot of Doc Hollywood would grow some western cultural awareness. The plot of 'sophisticated outsider finds truth while helping rubes' goes back, literally, hundreds of years. Possibly thousands. It's most famous, or should be, as the basis of Brigadoon with Gene Kelly. Really, people, at least try, will you?

For Cars, I was initially skeptical but it's a good movie. Well made with beautiful animation. The initial scene during the credits was almost photorealistic. It's also clear that there's a LOT of car worship going on by the production team. I'm not a car guy by any means but I know loving kindness when I see it.

That and the soundtrack, especially the intro song by Sheryl Crowe, make it all worthwhile. It also has underlying themes of those things lost for efficiency (which could be caused by interstates, media, Wal-Mart or whatever) and an old/young dichotomy between the two race cars (Paul Newman and Owen Wilson) and you've got a good movie.

[Jinx]

Then again...some people only watched this movie for the crashes!

[kiz]

Originally Posted by GuanoLad

I think Cars is the least of the Pixar films because it relies on car culture too much, especially NASCAR and Route 66, both of which are very American and limited in their appeal.

:nodding: I love Pixar movies, but you just nailed it as to why Cars is my least favorite. Heck, I couldn't even sit through most of it.

Besides I've never liked NASCAR.

[KarlGrenze]

It's not my favorite Pixar movie, but I liked it waaay better than I thought I would. It was completely different to what I expected (I thought it would consist mostly of car races, which I dislike).

The scenery was beautiful, as others have said. The story was so-so, but again, better than my expectations. And I'm a sucker for animation, so that is always a plus.

Not like Finding Nemo or Monsters Inc.

[flodnak]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance

It also has underlying themes of those things lost for efficiency (which could be caused by interstates, media, Wal-Mart or whatever)

Yes, yes, yes. This is why I love the movie. There is a real nostalgia there for the things that made places unique and special and sorrow about how these have been lost in the name of progress and efficiency. (And this is not just a Small Town/Big City difference, by the way. Every city in the US used to have its locally-owned downtown department store. How many are Macy'ses now - or just closed and gone?) Radiator Springs isn't where I'd choose to live, but some people - erm, cars - refused to leave even as the town was dying around them. Why?

Combine that with gorgeous and lovingly-rendered landscapes and the best soundtrack of any Pixar film and I'm willing to excuse the stupid potty joke

[Red Barchetta]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance

As opposed to a functioning society of aware toys? That have held their existence secret for thousands of years? Or a talking rat that cooks at a four-star level? To claim Cars pegs the suspension of disbelief meter shows some narrow-gauge thinking.

Hardly. Just because a seemingly majority of others here have trouble accepting the premise, and you don't, doesn't automatically mean it's the result of "narrow-gauge" thinking. Instead, it's distracting. The other Pixar movies work so well before we're presented with fantastical elements within a real-world context. Cars, on the other hand, presents an entirely new universe that makes no damn sense, no matter how much they tried to demonstrate how the cars actually interact with their world.

The whole movie felt like an excuse to market toys.

Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance

And I know I bring this up every time Cars pops up but those who continually get hung up on the fact that it follows (more or less) the plot of Doc Hollywood would grow some western cultural awareness. The plot of 'sophisticated outsider finds truth while helping rubes' goes back, literally, hundreds of years. Possibly thousands. It's most famous, or should be, as the basis of Brigadoon with Gene Kelly. Really, people, at least try, will you?

I don't think people have issues with the fact that they share a similar plot--many movies and other forms of media do as well. Instead, people take issue with the fact that it's practically a scene for scene remake.

[blondebear]

I don't care about NASCAR or Larry the Cable Guy, but I love the American Southwest and Route 66 ("limited in it's appeal"...?). Plus, it has Paul Newman's last work-- doing voiceover on a subject near and dear to his heart. All reason enough for me to really like the movie.

[Argent Towers]

I wish David Cronenberg had directed it.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Originally Posted by Argent Towers

MrDibble - how about Armour, a movie about suits of armour in a museum that come alive at night? There would be a tough, arrogant suit of German Gothic plate c. 1480; a comically pompous Maximilian suit with an over-the-top accent; a foppish, slightly effeminate suit of Greenwich armour from the Elizabethan period (voiced by Hugh Grant?); a haughty, swashbuckling French cuirassier's armour from the early 1600s; and of course a Japanese Samurai, who is always attempting elaborate, flashy sword techniques but failing in a comical manner and crashing into a wall or something.... and maybe even a suit of Mughal mail-and-plate voiced by that Indian guy from The Forty Year Old Virgin.

The museum would get broken into one night by evil, history-hating thugs, and with the local police tied up at a high-profile terrorist incident across town, it would be up to these obsolete suits of armour to save the day with A PLAN SO CRAZY IT JUST MIGHT WORK! And of course the Samurai would wind up with one of those Kimono-wearing manikins from the East Asian section, and the French cuirassier would finally win the heart of the beautiful noblewoman in the Rigaud painting he has been pining after...hmmm....hmmm.....

Do you think it could show the burglars' brains being bashed out with a pole-axe and keep the PG rating?

So, what you're saying is....

Rob Schneider should be in it?

[drastic_quench]

Originally Posted by blondebear

I don't care about NASCAR or Larry the Cable Guy, but I love the American Southwest and Route 66 ("limited in it's appeal"...?). Plus, it has Paul Newman's last work-- doing voiceover on a subject near and dear to his heart. All reason enough for me to really like the movie.

Yeah. Especially internationally.

[mswas]

I enjoyed the film. I think it's one of the better Pixar offerings myself.

It's interesting that a lot of the reasons people don't like it are for the class distinctions. They don't approve of the fact that it appealed to a class that they can't relate to.

[TV time]

OK, I am of mixed feeling about the movie. First off, I was editor of the newspaper of one of the two prime models for the town in the movie (Oil Can Springs?), Tucumcari and Santa Rosa, New Mexico. So every time I see the film on the television I get bit misty because I recognize many of the mesas around the town (even the Cadillac Ranch ridge right in back of the town), I recognize most of the buildings they feature and I definitely appreciate the sentiment created by the bypassed community when I-40 took over from Route 66. Maybe having cute cars face the situation trivializes it. I don't know.

The reason I dislike the film is because when it came out I was working at another paper in another state and my publisher decided to give the staff a private showing of the film rather than pay us a bonus for a special promotional edition we had put out. So everytime it comes on, I have a bitter taste in my mouth.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by TV time

OK, I am of mixed feeling about the movie. First off, I was editor of the newspaper of one of the two prime models for the town in the movie (Oil Can Springs?), Tucumcari and Santa Rosa, New Mexico. So every time I see the film on the television I get bit misty because I recognize many of the mesas around the town (even the Cadillac Ranch ridge right in back of the town), I recognize most of the buildings they feature and I definitely appreciate the sentiment created by the bypassed community when I-40 took over from Route 66. Maybe having cute cars face the situation trivializes it. I don't know.

The reason I dislike the film is because when it came out I was working at another paper in another state and my publisher decided to give the staff a private showing of the film rather than pay us a bonus for a special promotional edition we had put out. So everytime it comes on, I have a bitter taste in my mouth.

That's too bad. I definitely could relate to it. It's interesting that they used Tucumcari and Santa Rosa. That makes a lot of sense. It being in New Mexico works quite well for that.

It's a definite slice of Americana, and people seem to dislike that about it the most. It also is very clever in the way it chronicles the history of American car culture from Rte 66 to Talladega. I-40 really did a number on Rte 66 and I like that it recognizes that. It really teaches children the history of twentieth century America in a very clever way IMO.

[Maserschmidt]

My kids love this movie, and only The Incredibles ranks higher for them. The rat movie, on the other hand, they've only watched 2 or 3 times.

[StoutHearted]

When it came out on video, my niece watched it every day for 6 months. I was her Christmas hero last year when I got her a Cars nightlight. When I would baby-sit her, I had to watch the video quite a bit. I thought it was OK; though I hated how they shoehorned in stereotypes to replace honest jokes. "Oh look! the hick car is Larry the Cable guy saying "Git 'er done!"

[Little Nemo]

Did the Cars world spontaneously spring into existence ca. 1905? If not, what did the generation before Lizzie look like? Were they horses? How are cars born? How do they mate? So long as spare parts are available, why would they ever die?

I mentioned my theory before.

Cars is set on a world full of what are essentially self-aware robots. They were clearly designed to serve human transportation needs but there are no humans (or other living creatures) around. Something must have built the original cars. And something must be building the cars now.

My theory is that this world used to be like our world, full of people. The cars and other machines served the people. Giant computer-run factories ran the economy and built all the products needed for human use.

But then some huge disaster killed off all of the biological life on the planet. The cars, whose function was to serve humans, now lost their sense of purpose. The computer factories, whose function was to build a society for humans, also were adrift. So they essentially reprogrammed themselves.

The factories keep building the cars and other robots to keep society running even if there are no longer any people to run it for. Lesser machines like the cars cannot handle this paradox so the knowledge of humanity has been deleted from their programming. They've been programmed to exist without questioning why they exist.

[Argent Towers]

I don't think it's anything as deep as that.

Take, for intance, Disney's Robin Hood (now there was an amazing classic kid's movie. God, it's probably the most appealing characterization of Robin Hood that's ever been done, and it's a damn Disney cartoon - a testament to Brian Bedford's voice acting skills. Did you know that there is a huge cult following of women who actually found the fox Robin Hood sexy, not because they're "furries" or anything but just because his voice was so smooth and confident sounding?) I digress. Anyway, Disney's Robin Hood opens with a little visual of an old-time Medieval manuscript showing some illustrations of the Robin Hood story with human characters, and then Roger Miller's rooster character appears at the top, saying, "There are lots of stories about Robin Hood. Well, here in the animal kingdom, we have our own version. And it goes something like this..."

And that's the last you see of the human figures. From that point on, the viewer simply accepts that the movie is taking place in an animal world, and that's all there is to it.

This concept, to me, works quite well with animals. But it does not work with cars, since cars are inherently a creation of humans. Forcing the viewer to envision some kind of scenario where cars live in their own world, with "car hotels" and car races attended by other cars, is just stupid. But again, I have nothing but utter contempt and hatred for that movie, so anything I say about it is going to be negative. I'm going to find faults with everything in it.

And, ugh, the Tow-Mater character was just so unbelievably stupid! Even if everything else in the movie was awesome, I would still dislike it just based on that character alone.

This has nothing to do with me not being able to appreciate "blue collar humor." It's that Tow-Mater is not blue collar humor. That kind of shit is a dumbed-down, artificial, pre-packaged version of what blue-collar humor is supposed to be. The blue collar world, in reality, is in some ways the last bastion of the true raconteurs. But this involves extremely vulgar language, explicit anecdotes about various crude and offensive topics, and a lot of other things that aren't allowed in "mainstream" entertainment. So what we get is the filtered, antiseptic, Disney-fied version of "blue collar humor" and that I simply can't fuckin' abide.

[DrDeth]

Ok, there's like 10 Pixar films. Of them, one has to be the "least favorite." Now, note that few here HATE it as per the OP's incorrect assumption, it just seems to be the least popular of a group of otherwise great films.

I like it, but compared to The Incredibles or others, it just isn't as good. The list of Oscars it was nominated for, as compared to the other Pixar films (6 of which won), bears this out. Admittedly Toy Story 2 was also weak in comparison.

Apparently there are plans for a Cars 2, and a Toy Story 3.

[Maserschmidt]

Originally Posted by Argent Towers

This has nothing to do with me not being able to appreciate "blue collar humor." It's that Tow-Mater is not blue collar humor. That kind of shit is a dumbed-down, artificial, pre-packaged version of what blue-collar humor is supposed to be. The blue collar world, in reality, is in some ways the last bastion of the true raconteurs. But this involves extremely vulgar language, explicit anecdotes about various crude and offensive topics, and a lot of other things that aren't allowed in "mainstream" entertainment. So what we get is the filtered, antiseptic, Disney-fied version of "blue collar humor" and that I simply can't fuckin' abide.

You mean like sticking Pat Buttram into any voice role, even when it doesn't fit the location?

[Argent Towers]

If you didn't like that element of Robin Hood - the fact that it was a bizarre mash-up of English and rural American accents - fine. To me, it's one of the things that makes the movie more charming, but I can get behind a legitimate distaste for that element of the film. But Pat Buttram is infinitely more tolerable to me than Larry the fucking Cable Guy.

[Maserschmidt]

Originally Posted by Argent Towers

If you didn't like that element of Robin Hood - the fact that it was a bizarre mash-up of English and rural American accents - fine. To me, it's one of the things that makes the movie more charming, but I can get behind a legitimate distaste for that element of the film. But Pat Buttram is infinitely more tolerable to me than Larry the fucking Cable Guy.

The mislocated accent didn't bother me as much as the fact that the Pat Buttram accent (quintessential Southern) personified the half-wit hick who was going to look like an idiot by the end of the movie. It's just another crappy bit of shorthand, like Larry the Cable Guy.

[Jim's Son]

I like the movie and love that they got Mario Andretti, Michael Schumacher, Richard Petty and Junior to do voices. But it drags in the middle with too much of "arrogant young hot shot learns about life in the sticks".

[FordTaurusSHO94]

I have tried to watch it 3 times and fell asleep each time.

[lissener]

Cars misfired on so many levels. For me the strongest disconnect was between an eery, Ballardian, post-apocalyptic world where all human life had obviously been wiped out, and the bizarre idea that a post-human machine civilization would not only be apparently unaware of the devastating tragedy of their human creators, but would include such things as the voice of Larry the Cable Guy. Classic surrealism, but stupider.

[Argent Towers]

That gave me a good laugh. A Ballardian Cars would have been great. Complete with giant billboards with flashing lights that subliminally transmit messages encouraging the purchase of consumer goods like cigarettes and infrared barbecue spits.

[Baal Houtham]

Originally Posted by Argent Towers

Actually, after Cars came out, my friends and I amused ourselves by joking about how formulaic the whole anthropomorphic-objects-with-stunt-casted-voices and stereotyped personalities thing was, and ultimately conceived a parody film of it, which we called Money. It was about various random denominations of paper and coin currency from around the world, who were about to be phased out in favor of newer, slicker versions. The rag-tag team of money - including a wise old $5 Lincoln bill, a spunky Mexican dollar with the voice of a cholo, a snotty but good-hearted Franc who's constantly bickering with an English Pound, and others - would assemble to wage a guerrilla war against the evil World Bank, led by the villainous Credit Card (who ultimately threatens the existence of all cash) with a plan that's SO CRAZY IT JUST MIGHT WORK!

Mr. Towers, I enjoyed that post. And Least Original, I also enjoyed the South Park Rob Schneider link?

[Ruffian]

At first, I was completely turned off by this film. It seemed like such an obvious merchandising scheme ("OOh, lots of kids like to play with cars! Let's make a movie about CARS! Think of all them toys we could sell and money we could make!"), and then when I saw it, I found it all pretty Meh.

Then, when my obsessed-with-vehicles-since-10mos-then-20-month-old son had to stay home with the flu while I was still recovering from back surgery (and thus unable to chase after him), I saw it was on Encore. I turned it on for him while he lay on my reclining body on the couch. After the opening scene, where everything is black and Lightning says, "Speed. I am speed," followed by the blur of racing cars before going back to black for continued narration, my son immediately signed and said, "More! More! More!" (Heh heh, easy son, there's 115min "more" coming.) Ever since, he has been captivated by this film.

I have seen in scores of times since, mostly in parts (rarely does he watch entire length movies), and I have come to appreciate it more as time has passed. The artwork, the humor, the storyline...it's all grown on me.

Son 1.0 is now 3 1/2 years old and stil loves this film, and while I have showed him others, this remains his favorite. I actually prefer it as it's one of the few kid's films out there without a dark scene; he's a sensitive, nightmare-prone sort, and he's still a bit young to understand the scarier scenes. He likes Finding Nemo, for example, but the mother fish eaten by the barracuda, the shark chasing Dory and Marlin, and the lantern fish coming after them were too much. Recently I decided to show him the movie including those scenes (I had been skipping those chapters on the DVD the few times he'd seen it in the past; as he was older and had been asking questions about death, I wanted to use this as an opportunity to discuss it), and he had nightmares of a fish chasing him that night.

Cars? No such scary scene. The car crashes aren't menacing to him, and he knows everyone gets fixed and all better.

Yup, this movie has grown on me. Finding Nemo and Up are more my thing, though.

[Argent Towers]

I would enjoy a Cars 2 that was set in Europe. I don't dig the whole "slice of Americana" thing. I'd like to see a version with BMWs, Mercs, SAABs, Citroens, Rolls-Royces, etc etc. European cars are intensely more interesting and have more character to them, in my opinion, than American ones.

[susan_foster]

To me it felt sort of like something I saw on the Simpsons - that bit where Krusty is doing one of his show's, and it's a skit that's about a family with giant ears? The one that totally bombed? I don't know if you follow my logic, but there was a little too much made of the fact that they were cars.

[JohnT]

Originally Posted by olivesmarch4th

It was one of my least favorite Pixar movies, but Pixar movies are great, so that's not an insult in itself. I saw this movie last month and actually enjoyed it way more than I thought I would. It took me a while to get into the storyline, but the whole Route 66 concept was very moving. When they showed the montage of the cars preparing for the opening of Route 66 and all their hopeful faces as the anticipated new visitors (which never showed), I burst into tears. I couldn't help it. They did a really good job of painting that tragedy.

There was also a featurette on the DVD we watched which included interviews with some of the people living in the original towns that were bypassed by Route 66. A wrinkled old shop owner commented that after the construction of Route 66 (and the loss of his customer base), ''When something like that happens, well, you don't see a reason for getting out of bed any more.'' You don't really realize how based in reality Cars is until you watch that featurette. The film is about more than just a big-shot car learning to love in a country town, it's about a real economic phenomena that occurred as a result of highway construction, and I believe it was crafted to be as accurate as possible. I thought the landscapes were beautiful and though there were definitely some cheesy accents, I think people easily forget how diverse certain parts of our country are, even in the sticks. Love it or leave it, there are towns like this all across the country. Cars is a distinctly American film, with a distinctly American sensibility, and I think it's less of a clishe than people give it credit for. Even the characters that seemed overly simplistic (like Tow-Mater) are based on real people.

Yeah, but the sentiment is all wonky. The "Route 66" town got it's livelihood from the 1920's-built US Route system, which itself decimated hundreds of railroad communities. That musical moment in the movie was so eye-rollingly hypocritical in its revisionist history as to make the entire movie seem a forced lesson in fake sentiment.

I truly think the theme of Cars should've been "Payback's a bitch."