Roger Ebert on "Cars 2"

[Andy R.]

Roger Ebert's favorable review of "Cars 2" had but one critique in his conclusion, and that one critique garners it a spot here instead of "Stove-huggers".

It should come as no surprise, as his infatuation with that particular Studebaker finds its way into almost any of his writings related to an automotive topic.

Third time's a charm...

[FlatheadGeo]

I always knew that he had TASTE!!!

[JBOYLE]

I can't believe they still haven't used a bulletnose, seems like a no-brainer.

Maybe with Ebert being as well known as he is, next time they'l include one just to make him (and us happy).

Also, do an Avanti...:0

[rockne10]

Ebert is a former Golden Hawk owner. His same critique of the first Cars movie.
Will they never learn?

[Chris Pile]

Roger is also right about 3D.
The glasses gave me a headache when I saw "Up", and they do darken the screen.
I've been reading that the public is tiring of 3D, which upsets all the movie theaters and movie makers who were hoping to make a small fortune with the fad.

[Warren Webb]

My wife & I took our grandson to see Cars 2 last night. Even though there were no Studebakers again in the movie, at least they werent shown as being among the "losers" that the Pacer's & Gremlin's were shown as. Not as entertaining as the first one, but close. It does give a moral to the young ones to be careful in what they say in that it could be taken wrong. Perhaps the same goes for us in here too, although we, as adults should be a bit thicker skinned but still have to take in account that not everyone might be as tough as ourselves.

[FlatheadGeo]

3D was tried in the 1960's. It gave me a headache back then and it most likely will do so today!

[Samjoe]

Studebaker looking car in the Incredibles

I think there is a Studebaker looking car in the Incredibles. Looks like a Hawk from the front and looking out the windshield.
But looks more like a Pakard Predictor from the side.