Planes

Just watched this computer animated feature in 3-D with my movie theatre-working friend. Part of me knew this was going to be a formula movie with the Disney trademarks of someone thought of as being average doing extraordinary things being the premise but it still works here. Also, there was some good funny lines sometimes and the story and characterizations were not bad if not great. I mean, John Cleese is good at being the stuffy Brit as one of the racing planes. There were also many exciting point-of-view shots of the leading plane flying through the skies so there was that. I also liked another one of the planes serenading a female racer with a slow version of "Love Machine". So on that note, Planes is worth a look if one is not too discriminating in choosing one of these late summer movies...

I'm not sure why there is so much negativity aimed at this movie. I enjoyed every second of the movie and would definitely watch it again.

Yes the story line is predictable and we all know what the outcome is going to be, but don't we know that already is most animated movies?

I thought it was an inspiring story and gives out the message that if we treat people well , and help people, then good things can come your way when you need it, which works out well for dusty when everyone gives him spare parts for the goodness he shown them and the courage he shown making the journey.

It teaches the lesson you can be what you want and you don't have to be told what you are and i like that.

Not sure WHY this movie has received such a poor rating - i thought it was actually a pretty solid, pretty fun movie. Could it have been better?... sure - not many movies in the history of cinema that you can say 'no' to, but if you just want to go have some fun and enjoy a 3d animated film with the kids for the night?... you certainly won't go wrong with Planes.

The irony to me about most of the negative reviews was that this movie borrowed a lot of the material from 'Cars' but most of that was to be expected, no?... isn't that half the reason of going to see this movie in the first place? ... meanwhile, most of the architecture and outline from Cars was blatantly stolen from 'Doc Hollywood' but that didn't seem to bother too many people did it (haha - believe it!)

Anyway... i thought it was a fun movie - pretty predictable, yes, but how many animations aren't? I don't think we watch these movies for the twist endings do we?

I was pretty happy to see the return of Dane Cook, who has seemingly vanished since his (cringing) attempt at romantic comedies (thank god that's over)... but as with many of these animated movies today, it was the supporting cast and the eccentric characters that regularly steal the show. (El Chupacubra anybody?!)

All in all - i'm glad i didn't listen to everyone's negative reviews and went and saw this on the big screen... my daughter is too

OK so it's no Cars. Or actually, it's very much like Cars, but the Planes part of that world. That's the whole idea. The Brent Mustangburger character ties it together if there was any doubt. Some of the jokes are similar. Some of the sight gags are similar. But the story itself is actually superior. Rather than a story about a spoiled sociopathic jerk who discovers that he actually does have a heart, this is a story of an individual who is all heart and proves to the world that you can be more than what everyone else tells you that you have to be. The Skipper character is very much reminiscent of the Doc character but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Overall, it's a very inspiring story. Perhaps a little contrived, but it's a cartoon for kids. Lighten up! The jokes are good. The animation is good. My 4 year old daughter liked it and so did I (a 40yo man). As an inspiring story for kids to dream, work hard hard, and succeed, it is far superior to Cars in every way.

Planes is a mixture of its direct-inspiration Cars, Monsters University, and the forgotten PBS Kids show Jay Jay the Jet Plane. Even with reminders of brighter, more vivid animated works, Planes is a middling Disney effort and clearly a corporate byproduct from Disney (not Pixar as many will assume) to sell merchandise to children, with the quality of the actual film being a clear afterthought.

The film was originally conceived as a direct-to-DVD film and have a series of sequels follow accordingly. Of course, last minute, Disney decided Planes and its planned sequels possessed enough promise to go theatrical. This decision isn't hard to comprehend; Cars and its sequel weren't critical favorites and their box office receipts were notably lower than previous Pixar films, but their merchandise sales totaled roughly $8 billion. From toy cars, to diecast collectibles, to blankets, to bedspreads, to posters, to stray DVD short films featuring the characters lining store shelves, the marketing behind the Cars name was stunning and blatant. Planes hasn't been graced with the brazenness of toys and TV commercials, making me question why Disney decided to allow the film to go to theaters if they weren't going to milk it for what's its worth.

Whatever; it's probably best the marketing splash for the film was reduced to a quiet disruption in the cinematic ocean. The film focuses on Dusty Crophopper (voiced by Dane Cook), an ambitious cropdusting plane that predictably spends his days flying over tall grass spraying fertilizer. His ambition is to become a racing plane, flying high, soaring to unforeseen heights, and racing around the world. His biggest drawback isn't really the fact that he's not built for flying of this capacity but his fear of heights. Since he is so used to flying at pretty low heights for planes, he fears soaring to the "highway in the sky," as put by Skipper Riley (Stacy Keach), an F4U Corsair with a successful past, who also serves as Dusty's mentor. Backed by a crew of ground-ridden misfits (okay, vehicles) and his passion, which is incorruptible, Dusty's dreams literally soar as he competes in one of the most prestigious plane competitions in the world.

The animation in the film is some of the strangest I've seen in the post-CGI animation takeover. Some scenes are truly evocative and breathtaking, and usually exist when we're somewhere like the Taj Mahal or in The Himalayas. They showcase the location in stark detail and really show off the beauty and majestic area that encompasses such a place. Other scenes, specifically ones that feature several characters on the screen at one time, appear stunningly bland and unfinished. They almost look like unfinished products of CGI animation – like the final still before all the finalizing and color-correcting is done. They lack detail and lighting specifics known in modern animated films, and before you tell me otherwise, remember Disney just brought us "Wreck-It Ralph," which showcased dozens of video game worlds through the beautiful medium that is animation.

This is likely because the project was meant to line store shelves immediately rather than be blown on the big screen. On an average, living-room-size Television, Planes probably looks pretty damn good. On a gigantic theater screen before an audience of maybe fifteen people (in my case), it looked underwhelming. Whether or not you liked "Cars" or its sequel (I'm in the minority that loved the original film and tolerated the sequel), you can't say this film exists on the same level of visual beauty that the latter pictures did. Cars 2, alone, had a number of amazing set-pieces and lighting techniques that were used perfectly. Even Monsters University was beautiful in the way the animation was textured and the way the lighting was used to brighten and liven certain settings. In comparison to the look of other animated features such as Despicable Me 2 and Turbo (both of which currently attracting children now), Planes will likely not come close to the revenue of both of those films or inspire the true awes thanks to the animation.

To all the people who criticized Larry the Cable Guy's Mater as being an insufferable character, I challenge the same people to not mention the stunning shallowness of the characters here, especially the international planes that could be the perfect example as to why other countries view Americans as close-minded and ignorant. Just to give you an inkling as to how deep the international planes are, one is named "El Chupacabra," and is known for being a passionate romantic, a gifted Mexican singer, and a telenovela star. He also boasts the most stereotypical Mexican accent in cinema history. For all you kids out there, imagine Juandissimo Magnifico from The Fairly Odd Parents and there you have it. Even the British plane at one point says, "I don't cry, I'm British!" There are children's films that will make both a child and their parent smile and have a rewarding time at the movies (most of them come from Pixar, but Dreamworks is known for several too). There are children's films that will appeal to children and leave the parents groaning at the thought they had to pay to get in as well.

Then there are films like Planes that may appeal to some children, but the stimulating effect on their growth and mental health shouldn't be sacrificed for the ninety-two minute electronic babysitter that the film is. Everything about the film has been done in previous animated efforts, right down to the "be yourself and be brave" moral at the very end, only this time, it feels especially, almost unacceptably lazy and contrived.