It amazes me how badly Bob missed the obvious about the original "Cars" (which wouldn't be at all relevant to a review on the sequel, except that Bob went out of his way to backhandedly build up the original in order to compare the sequel to it as being a lesser creation).
The original wasn't a NASCAR love letter. It was a ROUTE 66 love letter.
The whole movie was commentary about how small towns that were built to serve motorists have since fallen on hard times thanks to the obscurity they've been relegated to with the development of the more modern, more streamlined Interstate superhighways. Racing only comes into it because of the demand of the story: you need to introduce the main narrative, and Pixar decided to go with the tried-and-true "superstar out of their element" routine.
And in a world of cars, who are the superstars? The racers.
Nor do we stick with only NASCAR; European formula racing and old-school dirt-tracking are prominently referenced as well. But if Bob didn't pretend otherwise, his decade-old redneck jokes and pseudo-political kvetching would be more obvious as a pointless sidetrack away from the actual review.
It might also have something to do with Bob's apparent ignorance about the origin of "Cars": a Disney short from the '50s called "Susie the Little Blue Coupe". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYOiVSsr1KM
"Susie" was a story about the life of a car...from brand-new, to going through a variety of owners, to being junked, to being rebuilt as a hot-rod. The animation and character style is a dead giveaway as the basis for Pixar's "Cars", although the recent movies have eliminated the human owners.
Again, this was nothing more or less than a love letter from Disney to the concept of American car ownership...except the only reference to racing in it at all is the aforementioned hot-rod refurbishing. No NASCAR mentions at all (then again, the organization had only existed for about three years at the time "Susie" came out).
But for Bob, the mere involvement of American auto racing in "Cars" is enough cause to trot out politics and social complaints that have absolutely nothing to do with the film itself. And this continues to color his commentary throughout his actual review of "Cars 2". He comes across as forcing himself to backhand every compliment he gives, as though out of fear that if he doesn't establish himself from the beginning as loathing certain aspects of American life, he might open himself to attack from people whose opinion he actually cares about as being a "redneck" himself.
Myself, I was planning to give this film a pass, on basis of the trailer. It struck me as being a force-fed concept: Mater mistaken for an international spy and getting caught up in a huge international conspiracy? "The Tow Truck With One Red Tire", anyone?
But Bob's clear-cut struggle to dislike the film by inserting irrelevant and distracting snark strikes me as suggesting there's actually a stronger underlying story to this. I do believe I'm going to catch a matinee come Monday.
.
