Cars

Lasseter's inclusive, utterly distinctive sensibility makes Cars all that it can be. His embrace of the comic-dramatic friction between innovation and tradition infiltrates every aspect of the movie - the look, the characters, the story.

What's surprising about this supremely engaging film is the source of its curb appeal: It has heart.

Cars is a fine example of the formula, with pleasant chemistry, the patented Pixar cleverness, and the usual sweetly melancholy nostalgia courtesy of songwriter Randy Newman.

I wouldn't have thought that even in animation a 1951 Hudson Hornet could look simultaneously like itself and like Paul Newman, but you will witness that feat, and others, in Cars.

Never really quite great, it's still a good enough diversion for the family and should please adult fans of racing.

At 116 minutes, it's a test not of speed but endurance.

If Cars is indicative of the kind of movie we can expect from Pixar post-Disney merger, well, there's always Miyazaki.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Probabilmente il 6 più generoso che abbia mai dato per un film Pixar finora. Ha forse uno dei worldbuilding peggiori che abbia visto per un film animato. Poi i **** non lasciano chissà che impressione (ad eccezione di Saetta McQueen, Doc Hudson e Cricchetto, ma quest'ultimo negativamente). L'unico motivo per cui di il voto è il messaggio di fondo che, per i giovini, non è male, e anche il piccolo sguardo sulla salvaguardia dei cimeli storici americani non mi è dispiaciuto. Per il resto, di per sé la storia funziona, tranne che per i motivi già citati. Consigliato? Sta a voi.

I don't think Cars is as bad as people think it is. Sure, it's a letdown compared to the Pixar movies prior to this one, but it doesn't do anything offensively bad but I know that it also doesn't do anything outstanding. The story is the typical movie about an unlikeable protagonist who goes through a journey outside his luxuries to learn humility. It doesn't try anything new storytelling wise. It has clichés and tons of filler scenes (That's probably why the movie feels slow) and it doesn't communicate to the audience a powerful or deep message or anything, it just lacks that "Pixar magic". Probably my biggest problem with the movie is the world building. Why are they cars? This is probably the dumbest concept and the dumbest world Pixar has ever had. It just makes the wolrd building so confusing, like, how are they able to hang pictures or posters in walls if they don't have hands or thumbs? How are they living? How the hell do they AGE ?(because Doc Hudson is supposed to be an old guy) How do they have children? Why is everything feeling like the human world but it isn't supposed to be a human world but instead, a world of cars? HOW??? WHY??? WHAT??? This story could literally work with humans driving cars, at least if it was that way I wouldn't be complaining about how stupid this idea was. The movie does have some positives, of course. Like I said, it's not as BAD as people say it is. Sometimes the score is pretty good, I like the "Our Town" song, specially the scene it is being played, like, that is probably my favorite scene of the movie because that is the only semblance of "Pixar magic" this movie **** I think that's it. The rest of the aspects were ****. Overall, this movie was pretty meh. It's still much better than most of Illumination's catalog and this is probably the "best" out of the Cars trilogy. If you don't want to watch it, just watch the "Our Town" scene or just listen to the song, you're welcome.

One Of The Most Uncreative Movies Of All Time! My 5 Year Old Sister Could Of Though Of Talking Cars.. Very Very Overated! Movies Like This Make Me Mad That Noone In The USA Knows What Studio Ghibli Is.

Cars tries desperately to be funny, but most of the jokes tend to fall flat. Also, I'm not quite sure how talking cars would be able to build the ragtag Radiator Springs anyway.