It's not what they say, It's what you enjoy.

Rating: 10/10 (25 June 2011)

I'm finding myself very disappointed by the generally critics about "Cars 2", and I found the nucleus of the issue the fact that Pixar's latest movies have had a very philosophical idea floating around (Wall-e, Up, Toy Story 3) and the "Cars" franchise it's not about that.
Does "Ratatouille" have a philosophical script? I'm afraid not, "A Bugs Life"? Sure not, But they accomplish another goal, they were made for another approach, a different image and a different perception of the movie.
Is Pixar a philosophy-related books maker? Is Pixar a adult-animations producer? They're not, they're great storytelling guys (They found out a way to link the whole world without making a "Around the World in 80 Days" film), they make the gorgeous 3D scenarios (I was astonished by the great detail of London and Porto Corsa) and they develop almost perfect characters (Who in the world will link as many cars parts with body parts as Pixar did?) and most important, they bring entertainment to the audience, and "Cars 2" fills all those gaps.
I'm afraid this is the result of what happens when someone (in this case Pixar) develops a great reputation and suddenly they came up with something different of what we are used to, and it became for some people a "horrifying" creation.
I enjoyed "Cars 2" since the stressful opening scene until the happy ending and I think is because I entered the theater hoping to have a great time, fun and a visually amazing experience, and not hoping to find the anthropological greatest creation, and that's exactly what I got.