Jump to content
  • entries
    945
  • comments
    4,956
  • views
    1,221,545

CarZzzz...


Nathan Strum

1,566 views

Despite the blog title, Cars isn't really a boring film.

 

Unless you're a little kid. Say, under 5. Maybe 7. Not having kids, it's a little hard for me to judge at what point stuff becomes boring for them (and it's been a lonnng time since I was 7). But based on kids in the audience (one of whom repeatedly kept asking "is it over yet"?), I don't think bringing really little kids to this film is a good idea.

 

I went to see Cars last week, and I have to admit, it's a much better film than I expected it to be. The teaser trailer didn't look very good, and nothing I'd seen since had much appeal either.

 

But the movie does work - after awhile. It takes some time to get going (pun not intended), since initially, the main character (Lightning McQueen) is a self-centered jerk, and there's no audience empathy with him. We don't care why he wants to win the big race, nor if he does. It wasn't until probably halfway into the film that I got into the story, as Lightning began to care about things other than himself (although he still wasn't an interesting character). As the characters developed, the film became more enjoyable, although that's about the point where the kids started losing interest, since they couldn't really care less about character arcs.

 

Pixar made a rare-misstep here in casting Owen Wilson as Lightning. He just isn't able to create much of a personality with his voice. (The same problem happened with Flik (Dave Foley) in A Bug's Life.) He's just kind of bland, and all of the interesting character moments belong to everyone around him. This would be fine if he were a good straight man, but he's really not. His reactions to what's happening around him seem very run-of-the-mill. Mater (a rusty tow truck), although an almost painful "country folk" stereotype, is actually the heart and soul of the film, and is not only a good comic foil, but provides some of the more heartfelt moments in the film as well. But just once, can't animators design "country folk" stereotypes without buck teeth? And I hereby throw down a challenge to all animation studios... I dare you to make just one film - just one - without a single fart joke in it.

 

Sally - the love interest - doesn't make much use of Bonnie Hunt's comedic talents, and seems to fall for Lightning for absolutely no reason (since this begins to happen while he's still a jerk). The villain - Chick Hicks - is pretty unimportant story-wise, and has almost nothing important to do in the film until the very end. Other characters have some fun moments, although they're largely restricted to variations on the same handful of jokes, since most of them are fairly superficial stereotypes. Paul Newman provides the voice of the local curmudgeon (carmudgeon?), but he's basically just an old grouch, and not a particularly likable one.

 

There are some genuinely funny moments in Cars, but not as many as in previous Pixar films. There is one particularly funny scene at night with Lightning and Mater, which Pixar manages to milk several more times in the film. Most of the best jokes, however, are in the end credits.

 

At times, I felt more like I was watching a video game, than a movie. Perhaps it's just an issue of perception, but it took me a long time to get into a world where there are only cars (or more accurately - vehicles), despite the fact that everything looks like it was built for humans to occupy. The filmmakers made some very awkward concessions towards the cars, too, such as the odd telephone-device that Lightning uses to call his agent. Perhaps there wasn't a more elegant way to get around that, but it just seemed very forced. Also, there were little toys on the shelf in Lightning's trailer. Kid-sized toys. Who would play with them? Why were they made? How did they get up on the shelf? (Cars have no opposable thumbs.) Odd little things like that abound in the film, when you completely remove humans from the equation.

 

One thing that surprised me about the film, was its predictability. Once the main situation in the film is set up, so many hints are dropped as to what's to come, that there are really no surprises left. There's a slight plot twist at the end of the big race, but it's completely inconsequential, since the end result would be the same anyway. Unlike most Pixar films, there wasn't any one moment in the film (except the night scene with Lightning and Mater), that just came out of nowhere and completely surprised me.

 

There are some great visuals throughout the film, and numerous things that race fans will appreciate (two words: Plymouth Superbird). Cars is certainly Pixar's best-looking film to date. Some of the visuals are stunning, and the attention to detail is, at times, remarkable. Design-wise though, I'm not sure that choosing to use the cars' windshields (instead of headlights) as eyes was the best choice, as they just seem too freakishly huge at times. But I guess they did this to avoid obvious comparisons to Chevron ads.

 

I think I would have loved this film when I was around 12 - 15. I was obsessed with cars as a kid. Hot Wheels. Model kits. Drawing pictures of cars. Cars would have probably been among my favorite films at that age. It's still a good film, but I can't say it's a great film. It's worth seeing if you like Pixar films, or animation, or NASCAR races, but it's not their best story, and most of the characters are rather forgettable. If you're thinking of bringing children along, I think there's way too much talking in it to keep little kids entertained for the film's nearly two-hour running time. For us older kids though, it's still an enjoyable enough of a ride to recommend. I'd give it 7/10.

7 Comments


Recommended Comments

That's about how I felt too. I hadn't planned on seeing it due to the trailers, but my sister wanted to go for her birthday and I enjoyed it.

 

For those who haven't seen it, but plan too - definitely stay thru the credits.

Link to comment

Good write-up. I haven't seen it yet but I plan to. And I agree with your comments about the design of the "caracters." In fact that's the only potential "issue" I have before going into the movie. It's difficult to associate a personality with a manmade thing. People, critters, plants, or any other organic stuff for whatever reason is easier to associate with a personality. I can imagine it is like watching a video game. Although if anyone could pull this off I imagine it'd be Pixar. I'll see it.

 

I never saw Robots either for this same reason. I can't imagine myself caring about what happens to a bunch of computer generated representations of mechanical devices.

Link to comment

Well, my 5 1/2 year old loved it. But then again, his Mom's a NASCAR fan. (For NASCAR fans there are some homages which are quite impressive.)

 

But I'll agree with you that it was one of Pixar's weakest films from a story, character, and emotional perspective. (Although I haven't seen Incredibles yet. Heck, some of the shorts were better.) I think one of the problems was the race put too much time pressure on the plot to change LMcQ (and the rest of the residents) in a hurry. Plus, the story didn't leave you guessing very long about what was going to happen next.

 

I'll agree that the graphics were stunning. (Mac leaving the city looked like places I've seen in real life.) As for the implausibility & issues surrounding a vehicle-only world, I was able to suspend my disbelief sufficiently to enjoy it anyway.

 

I was also amazed by the number of CGI animated movies coming out this summer. I guess the cost of doing movie quality CGI has dropped enough to make it the first choice for kid's features. I definitely want to see Monster House, although I think I'll have to wait for the DVD since I'm not sure I'll be able to persuade my son to see a "scary" (to him at least) movie.

Link to comment

There's a running list of animated features coming out this year at Cartoon Brew. They've referred to 2006 as the year of the "CG Implosion", since they expect many of the CG films coming out to fail horribly. Or at least be horrible.

 

So many "funny animal" movies... so many...

 

I can't bring myself to see Monster House. I think the "animation" looks absolutely awful. Motion capture is a terrible substitute for real animation, and I just can't get past how bad the characters look, move and act. But I'll admit I'm extremely biased, coming from an animation background. One thing Cars has going for it, is excellent animation (and first-rate sound design, which I should have mentioned in the review).

 

Something else I neglected to mention in the review was the short "One Man Band". Good animation, but weak character design, and a very thin story. It seemed more like a student film, than something a studio of Pixar's caliber should be putting out (and I've seen a lot of student films with much better stories). It was okay, but it obviously didn't impress me much, since I completely forgot about it afterwards. It's more reminiscent of some of the shorts Pixar did in their early days that nobody remembers either (like "Red's Dream").

 

The trailer for Ratatouille, on the other hand, looks excellent. This project is being directed by Brad Bird, who did The Incredibles (which is easily Pixar's best film).

Link to comment

Speaking of shorts, The Birds had a cameo in Cars. I laughed when I saw them, but not many others seemed to pick up on it.

Link to comment

I saw them too. :)

 

Also the number "A113" makes an appearance (it's somewhere in every Pixar film). That's the old room number of the Character Animation Department at CalArts where John Lasseter, Brad Bird, and umpteen-hundred other Pixar artists went to college.

Link to comment

Well, I picked up the PlayStation 2 version of Cars last week, and it makes for a pretty good game. In fact, it seems as if the movie was tailor-made to become a video game (something I'd mentioned in the review). I'm not sure if this was a coincidence, intentional, or just evidence of how influential video games are becoming in the movie industry. But the cars translate very well over to the video game world, much better than human or animal characters usually do. Probably because there's not as much required to pull off believable animation within the context of the game.

 

The environments are vast and gorgeous, and are very faithful to the film (although the load times when moving between them are brutal). All of the main locations from the film are present, as well as a few fun new ones.

 

In Story Mode, you can free-roam around the environments, interact with other characters (through cut scenes) and go to specific locations to either start a race or play a mini-game, in order to advance the story. The game takes place after the events in the film, so it's not just a re-hash of the movie.

 

Some of the mini-games are quite fun, although there are some pretty severe camera problems in the tractor game (which you can get around by using the right analog stick to move the camera - but it's a chore). The races take place over a wide range of environments in and around Radiator Springs, as well as on several different NASCAR-type tracks.

 

Controls are decent and very arcadey (which is appropriate to the game), but I do wish that power-sliding was a bit easier to control.

 

A lot of the game is too easy to really be challenging to experienced gamers (although some of the later levels are better), but it's still fun.

 

The story does have spoilers (get it? spoilers?) from the movie, so if you plan to play the game, see the movie first. The voices are done by the same cast as in the movie, or at least really good mimics. There should have been more incidental dialog between characters as you drive around though, since the same lines get repeated too often.

 

I don't think it's worth full-price, but it's worth a rental, or if you like the movie, wait for it to drop in price in a few months. Like the movie, a 7/10.

Link to comment
Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...