Pixar. The unquestioned king of animated films and for good reason. Year after year, picture after picture, they churn out high quality, entertaining, funny, and surprisingly profound family films. Their past three efforts in particular, WALL-E, Up and Toy Story 3 have shown such touching sentiment and maturity that I almost hesitate to call them animated films in fear that the label would somehow diminish them. Pixar movies can almost be placed in a category of their own, that is how good they are, that is what we have come to expect out of them. These are, of course, impossibly high standards to live up to and inevitably a movie like Cars 2 will come along and break their track record. Is Cars 2 comparable to the rest of Pixar's pedigree? No it is not, but you can't hold that against it. Not every movie can be as profound as Up or as charming as Finding Nemo. The main problem that Cars 2 has isn't that it doesn't compare to the rest of Pixar's franchise titles, it's that it probably doesn't even compare to its own predecessor, the funny but somewhat lacking, Cars. That is what happens when you make sequels out of mediocre movies, you end up with mediocre sequels. The Toy Story franchise has been able able to sustain three movies because of its solid foundation and touching stories. After watching the original Cars did you ever think to yourself, "Man, I really want more Lightning McQueen!"? I saw Cars in theaters and I may or may not have seen it again when it came out on DVD, but that was it, a maximum of two viewings. Cars simply wasn't that memorable.
Okay, I'm getting ahead of myself here. Cars 2 is better than mediocre. It's entertaining and funny and will undoubtedly be better than most of the other animated films released this year (though I'll be skeptical if any 2011 release will top Dreamwork's Kung Fu Panda 2). However, it is so markedly different than the original it's almost strange to call it a sequel. Other than having anthropomorphic cars as characters, this sequel bears little resemblance to its predecessor. Cars was simple and to the point and didn't try to be something it wasn't. Cars 2, on the other hand, oversteps its bounds and creates a whole new vehicle (pun intended) all together. Take one look at Mater (Larry the Cable Guy) in the original and tell me if you think he'd make a good lead character as an international spy, accidental or not. Is there anything in the original movie that would suggest a world of espionage and gun fights? I don't think so either. It would almost be akin to Finding Nemo 2 starring a grown up Nemo fighting a cocaine addiction. It simply wouldn't exist in that universe.
Anyways, Cars 2 revolves around the plot device of The Man Who Knew Too Little and various similarly themed stories where the main character unwittingly gets mixed up in a world of espionage and becomes an accidental spy. Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) is invited to participate in the World Grand Prix, a series of races held around the world. He reluctantly decides to bring his best friend Mater the tow truck along to see the world as he's never left the small town of Radiator Springs. Can you say culture clash? Naturally, Mater is overwhelmed by the big city lights of Tokyo and all its strange customs and such. McQueen and Mater have a falling out of sorts as McQueen is embarrassed by Mater and Mater doesn't understand why, he is only being himself after all.
The main story, however, isn't about the World Grand Prix. It is actually an international spy story involving evil cars undoubtedly bent on world domination of some sort. Two British agents, Finn McMissile (Michael Caine) and Holley Shiftwell (Emily Mortimer) are on the case and must rendezvous with an undercover American agent. Through a series of mix ups, they assume Mater is the undercover agent and they embark on a series of misadventures together.
Mater becomes the star of the movie, which is either a blessing or a curse. You can either appreciate his innocence and find his "average intelligence" charming or you can annoyed by it and be amazed that such a dimwit is the star of a $200 million Pixar film. I happened to find him somewhat funny and charming. The moral of the story is.... tough to say. Somewhere throughout Mater realizes how other people view him, as the idiot. But does he become a hero because he accepts being an idiot or does he learn something greater about himself? Neither, really. Cars 2 has the rare distinction of being one of those animated family films without any overarching theme or lesson. It is, above all, an action film in the lines of James Bond. If you can accept it for that, then you will have a good time, but if you're looking to dig a little deeper, you probably won't find it.
It also leads to the question if this is even a kid's film or not. The Incredibles deals with super heroes and villains shooting lasers and energy blasts at each other but it's all in good fun. Cars 2 takes its spy story pretty seriously. It is shockingly violent with guns, missiles, explosions and crashes. Cars are tortured and even killed. Killed! Also the plot is pretty complicated and the themes of fossil fuels and alternative energies will probably go over most kids' heads.
Visually, as expected, Cars 2 is very good looking. Backgrounds are very detailed and colors are bright and crisp. Tokyo is vibrant with bright neon lights and Italy looks cultured and gorgeous. I watched it in 2D and I don't imagine it could possibly look better in 3D. While watching it, I definitely wasn't itching for something to pop out at me.
Side note: There is a brief mention of the character of Doc Hudson (Paul Newman's character in the original), a nice shot out to Newman who passed away in 2008.
Side note: Every Pixar movie comes with a short film in the beginning. These are often as memorable as the actual film itself. The short for this film, starring the cast of Toy Story, isn't quite as original as pervious efforts, but still pretty good. Why not just make a Toy Story 4 instead of Cars 2? Ha.
Coming out of Cars 2, I was satisfied and entertained, ready to give it a B just for entertaining me. But after thinking about it a little more, I realized just how flawed it was and was ready to give it a B-. Should I go with my initial gut or my more analytical view? I've decided to try to be a tougher critic, so lower score it is.
Grade: B-
Ha ha.
ReplyDeletePersonally I really liked it, but A) I am a huge NASCAR fan, B) I am a sucker for colorful visuals, C) I am hopelessly obsessed with James Bond, and D) this is the first film I've seen in theaters since my son was born so would have probably loved even it if it were Gigli... Heh.
But really, I liked what Pixar did with it. Remaking Cars 1 would have made no sense, so totally going another direction (or two) was really the only viable option. I liked Mater, and the spy story with Caine, and the international Prix mini-story, and even the moral gas is bad thing going on. I LOVED the Mater dream sequence that had a drunk Dumbo thing going on.
I despised the stupid "you ARE the bomb" crap at the end... That was embarassingly bad and definitely below Pixar's level... And I didn't care for the waste of a short either. Usually the short is original and innovative, but this one seemed cheap and forced. And obviously it wasn't original, as it was Toy Story.