A sequel that really isn't.

Rating: 9/10 (4 July 2011)

One of the best movie reviews ever written came from the pen of Roger Ebert while talking about the movie "2010." In short, Ebert wrote that as good as 2010 might be, people's memory of the original film -- "2001: A Space Odyssey" -- would so forever cloud their judgment that "2010" could never be given a fair shake.
Given that the original "Cars" is, to some, Pixar's best work, and certainly no worse than a solid effort, the sequel is going to have difficulty gaining traction. And like many, I was perplexed as to what exactly there was left to do with this story arc.
Whereas the first movie is an ode to pre-Interstate America and gives a slap to the anti-car joykillers among us, this movie is not similar in any way save for the characters it uses to tell the story. The original "Cars" is a needed lesson for not throwing away or being dismissive of our past; "Cars 2" is James-Bond-meets-Cannonball-Run.
Fans of the spirit of the first movie, therefore, will have to find a way to detach before they can enjoy it. The supporting cast of the first film is essentially MIA. The supporting cast of the new film doesn't engender the same level of concern or interest. This is basically a two-man show, Mater and McQueen, and fortunately enough the writing is good enough to float the ship.
Where this movie stands out is in its presentation, graphics, pacing and look. It is just as fast as the original movie is slow. And it has several thunderously funny moments thanks to a clever script and a brief glimpse into the life of owning British automobiles.
Not Pixar's best by any stretch, but still light years better than what other animation studios are coming up with.