Cars 2 might be the first dent in Pixar's fender

Finn McMissile (Michael Caine), Mater (Larry the Cable Guy)

 and Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) visit Tokyo

 in Pixar's 12th release, Cars 2.

Pixar Animation Studios has been sailing atop the animation business for years now. Along the way they've produced some of the strongest, sweetest and most lovable animated features of all time. Their track record is so good, us viewers have gotten to the point where we expect nothing but greatness every time they release a movie. And in the last three years, they've made arguably their three best movies (Wall-E, Up and Toy Story 3). Now, in what might be their most unusual decision ever, they've released Cars 2.

Before I go any further, let me say that I enjoyed Cars 2, mostly because I was blown away by the detail in the animation. The animators, obviously, worked very hard on this movie and the effort is visible. It might be the best achievement in pure animation the company has created yet. I'm not talking about the script or the vocal performances (which are pretty good too, with the likes of Michael Caine, Eddie Izzard and John Turturro joining in), I'm talking about the immense world of living and breathing cars. Most Pixar movies have common movie backgrounds like outer space or a backyard or a restaurant interior. Cars 2 features a world like ours, but instead of millions of people, there's millions of cars. And there's action in this film unlike anything we've seen in a computer animated movie (even bigger than The Incredibles). The film depicts some huge Michael Bay-like sequences with fast-paced chases and races.
The director John Lasseter said the Bourne trilogy and James Bond movies were inspiration for Cars 2. It is fun to watch because there's a little kid in you that can't look away.

In the midst of enjoying all that detail though, a part of me started to wonder if they were trying to make up for something. Because like most people, I was confused when I heard Pixar was making a sequel to 2006's Cars. I liked it, but it's probably the weakest movie Pixar has produced. According to the critic site Rottentomatoes.com, ten of the 12 Pixar movies have a positive rating of 95% or better. The only two that don't are, you guessed it, Cars (74%) and Cars 2 (33% at the moment).

Also I looked up each film's box office gross at Boxofficemojo.com and discovered that Cars ranks ninth out of the first 11 Pixar films in worldwide box office earnings.

Which begs the question, why make a Cars sequel? You know the answer. Raise your hand if you played with toy cars when you were a kid. I know I can't see you, but I'm sure there's a lot of hands raised. Cars made crazy money on merchandise sales.

Lasseter has been quoted saying Pixar would only do a sequel if they had a good script. Though the script isn't bad by any stretch of the imagination, it is a tad complex for a story aimed at kids and the lead character has changed from Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) to the lovable tow truck Mater (Larry the Cable Guy). Mater gets confused as a spy and unwillingly gets caught up in a plot that involves a bunch of mediocre cars, or "lemons", trying to do damage to more attractive and reliable cars.
To be fair, Cars 2 would have to have been Pixar's best film in order to make people think a sequel was worth it. That's mostly due to the fact that they haven't made a sub par movie yet and we've come to expect the very best from them.

To me it sounds like they were really trying to make this a great film, but I can't help but think it's a film they wouldn't have made in the first place. But when Disney wants you to make a sequel because the first one made a crap load of money on toy sales and such, you do it.