Be honest, the first Cars movie is extremely based

This is the best Pixar movie. Second one is good too. /thread.

Attached: 86CA1A06-1770-4C62-B08D-B4B9AED6BBB8.jpg (1019x1500, 146.02K)

>the Ebert & Roeper Cars review where it ends with Ebert asking how the cars have sex

Attached: Screenshot_20220803-222430.png (708x710, 431.71K)

>juvenile
Literally a kids movie, you stupid faggot

I consider Cars and Cars 3 10/10 movies.
Wall-E was the last of the Pixar run, Cars 3 was the dead cat bounce.

Soul is unironically fucking soulless, that movie has no creativity at all. “Lol what if the souls are alive or something” it’s like the same plot as the emoji movie and then it randomly turns into a body swap movie and one character is a black guy so it’s just creepy. My favorite part was when he died at the beginning, that was niece and nephews favorite part too. They thought the movie was boring as hell.

kek

Not really. There's not much memorable or unique about it. And I don't really understand what the point of the final race was. Lightning could have just won the race then went back to help the other car finish. I get that 'winning isn't everything' but he had already won. Is he just not supposed to care about his career anymore? Is competition bad? Him not caring is one thing, but everyone from the town showed up to help him win. Why let their efforts go to waste?

And that doesn't even go into how flawed the premise of the movie is. He's basically stockholm syndromed into befriending the town, with his supposed love interest imprisoning him so he can 'learn his lesson' when the damage he dealt was just a result of waking up scared and confused. It had nothing to do with him being a self-centered asshole. Instead of a protagonist having to own up to his mistakes and become a better person, it's the story of a guy who is unfairly punished for something he didn't mean to do, but it's lucky that he learned something I guess.

The worst part of the whole thing is that there's no reason for them to be cars in the first place. The plot and world aren't affected by it at all. You can't rewrite Toy Story or Finding Nemo to be about people instead, not only would you have to scrap most of the plot but the overall themes of survival in a harsh world would be diminished. In Cars, the cars are simply deliberate stand-ins for people. There are no cartoonishly unrealistic characters like Buzz or Dory that wouldn't work in live-action. They're only slight exaggerations of real people. So you're left wondering... what really was the point of this movie? The moral of the film isn't original or interesting, and the story itself is not told in a convincing or unique way. It feels like a bunch of rejected ideas from other Pixar movies cobbled together into a film that bears all the surface trademarks of a Pixar film, but lacks the meaningful core behind it all.

it was better than any other CG film that year

>typing all this senseless rage for a movie for kids about talking cars

Attached: ACD17F55-619B-47AA-971F-B6BCBEFCF0B2.jpg (750x487, 109.26K)

Did you even watch the fucking movie? Lighting didn’t win the race because he didn’t give a shit about actually winning in the end. He wanted to be sponsored by Chad dynoco and not beta chick-hicks. He didn’t win the race because he wanted to help out with his sponsorship, and It would make chick hicks look like an asshole by winning just to float and NOT helping the broken down car. Imagine being this mad and making up random bullshit to justify your shit opinion. He threw the race to show dynoco that helping others is more important than winning, a classic kids concept. You moron.

>it's a movie about space wizards for children

>You think that’s more ridiculous than a rat who can cook and uses a humans hair to control his arms?
yes. there is precedent for intelligent rats. cars are cars

Is there also a precedent for humans being controlled through their hair follicles? Dumbass