Planes

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.

Feelings before seeing Planes was more the "not sure how it was going to turn out" sort of feeling. On one hand, there was the hope that Disney(or Disney Toon Studios to be exact) would continue the return to form trend started with 2009's The Princess and the Frog, which later saw even better films with Tangled(their best film since The Hunchback of Notre Dame) and Wreck it Ralph, Winnie the Pooh was also very sweet. There was also the feeling of trepidation as well because reading the plot line gives the sense that it would be predictable and unoriginal. Regardless of any initial feelings, the only way to judge Planes was to see it. Sadly, Planes was very disappointing for this viewer and possibly their weakest since Chicken Little. And this is coming from somebody who hopefully knows how to judge family films, yes guys this is a family film not a kids' film.

Planes does have things that it did do well. The animation is the best aspect by some considerable distance, it is great, not the best animation there's ever been but it looks beautiful all the same. It manages to be colourful and well-textured with detailed backgrounds and well-designed characters. The camera angles as well are a source of wonder, they're very well-incorporated and really give the sense that you're journeying in the air with the character. The music is catchy, with very well-chosen songs, and serves the film very well, the mariachi version of Love Machine is very sweet and fun. The aviation at least shows that the writers have done their research. The voice acting too is commendable all round, with Dane Cook in particular voicing with enthusiasm. John Cleese, Julia Louis-Dreyfuss and Val Kilmer are pleasing too, though they have been better.

Unfortunately Planes is also one of those films where it starts slowly and unpromising and never really takes off, sorry couldn't resist. The story just doesn't have any spark, the storytelling is predictable and lazy and the pacing sedate. People have said that it is basically Cars in the air with touches of Top Gun, Jay Jay the Jet Plane and The Ugly Duckling story and that is true, it is a very derivative film that makes a bigger problem in that there is nothing of surprise or distinction. The script lacks freshness, charm and wit, instead it's full of tedious down-time talk, tired one-liners and jokes(crazy like a firefox for example) and has no emotional impact. The air-force/aviation jargon might go over children's heads as well. The romance between Dusty and Ishani comes across as a cliché that is poorly developed, almost like an afterthought. The characters are annoyingly shallow, Dusty is not so bad but the rest are not very interesting and their development is thin, Skipper's back-story especially felt shoe-horned in and forced. El Chupacabra has his moments but is a stereotypical character(something that people may take a dislike to) and too many of his jokes are lame. In fact there are a lot of cultural stereotypes, and much of them border on the insensitive. The villain Ripslinger is also stereotypically designed and is possibly one of Disney's blandest villains, with some of the most annoying and unnecessary goons of any animated film in recent memory. The action looks good in the animation but fails to generate any excitement, much of it suffers from too much predictability and that the pacing is too sedate throughout.

In conclusion, far from a truly terrible film or the plane wreck it's made out to be but a disappointingly lazy one where it's easy to see the things Planes has been criticised for. Then again this is personal opinion and be taken with a pinch of salt instead of being discarded for being an opinion being different to your own. 4/10 Bethany Cox

I enjoyed this movie as did my 3 1/2 year old son. While not quite as 'warm and cuddly' as the original Cars movie it was still loads of fun (and far better than Cars 2). The landscape views from the air were tremendous as were the snow and water scenes. The dialogue was good but a bit more for kids and a bit less for adults. Still, they got a lot of the aircraft stuff right and the take on VF-17 was a nice touch and did a simple but effective job of helping to tie in Skipper's appearance in the film.

Overall I rate this one a 7...it invariably will be compared to both Cars movies but really it should stand as its own flick. And on that it holds its own and has real merit. Worth a look-see and BTW my son REALLY loved it.

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.

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