I just saw Cars 2 in 3D and I’d like to express my opinion on this most recent Pixar sequel.
Let me just start off by saying that the 3D effects in the movie are not that impressive. The only scene in which 3D makes a difference is where Mater and McQueen fly. It’s such a small part of the film (less than 20 seconds) that it’s not worth the premium for the privilege of wearing dark glasses in a movie theater.
But the “Lion King” 3D preview is worth the surcharge. You get to see the entire opening “Circle of Life” scene. Based on this preview, the 3D conversion of this Disney classic is going to be awesome.
Before I start writing about Cars 2 let me give you some of my personal history with Cars. The first time I saw it I didn’t like it at all. My main problem with the movie was way the animators decided to move the cars' pupils when looking from from side to side. They stayed together going to the far left when looking left and the far right when looking right. To me they looked very awkward and it was very distracting. Enough so that I didn't like the moive. But my opinion also changed over time.
After seeing Cars a few more times on DVD I grew to look beyond it's visual issues and appreciate it. I liked the new and novel world of living cars that John Lasseter and his animators created. Its parody to the real world, the setting, its nostalgia, the characters and their relationships are all part of what eventually earned my admiration.
Mater was the most unique supporting character that Pixar had come up with since, my all-time favorite supporting character, Dory from Finding Nemo.
The story in Cars taught the importance of relationships and loyalty over achievement and materialism.
In the many “behind the scenes” interviews and documentaries that Pixar employees and executives have done over the last 25 years their mantra has been that “Story is King.”
While Pixar’s characters are always very strong, the story is what has always driven their films. The plots have been unique and different. The story in Cars 2 leaves a lot to be desired.
The main plot and subplots are something we’ve seen in other movies many times. I thought the expansion of the Cars universe to make it global was a great idea. The elements of other “Cars” countries were as clever and funny as those that made up North America featured in the first film.
The sequel’s story is filled with clichés and recycled plots. If you’ve seen any James Bond film you’ve seen the Cars 2 story before.
Now the recycling of a plot using espionage to stop a conspiratorial plan to dominate the world as a means of gaining money and power is not new. Mike Meyers used it to create the Austin Powers franchise. But he did it with a tongue-in-cheek comedic attitude. Austin Powers didn’t take himself or the spy world too seriously. Cars 2 doesn’t do a good enough job of making light of the espionage aspect of the story. There was so much potential for gags about spies and the sophisticated equipment and gadgets. Spy gags were limited to Mater.
Even the “unsuspecting innocent bystander being drawn into the spy world” subplot of Cars 2 has been used before. The 1978 Goldie Hawn and Chevy Chase film “Foul Play and Bill Murray’s film “The Man Who Knew Too Little” from 1997 are the examples that come to my mind. You may not be familiar with these movies but the premise was used in both of them. I’m sure there are better examples you can think of yourself.
Back to Cars 2: Everything that happens is so recycled that whenever anything happened I found myself trying to remember the movie where I’d seen it before.
When I saw the revelation of the identity of the mastermind behind the conspiracy to sabotage the World Grand Prix races and kill McQueen I knew exactly where I’d seen that before. It’s the ending to every Scooby Doo cartoon ever made. I’m surprised the villain didn’t use the line: “I would have gotten away with it too if it hadn’t been for that meddling tow truck’”.
In the world of animation today where computer animated movies are plentiful Pixar features set the industry standard. Their animation and visual effects set them above anything Dreamworks or any other animation studio releases. This is still true in Cars 2. While nothing outstanding or groundbreaking visually happens in this film it’s still a visual pleasure to watch. The animation is cutting edges, and visually fun.
Also, unfortunately, there are several of the main supporting characters that are little more than just cardboard cutouts with speaking parts.
Although Michael Cain is an outstanding actor his character of Fin McMissle is not much more than a vehicle (no pun intended) to advance the plot. He’s the dullest most uninteresting spy I’ve ever seen on the big screen. In the scenes where he was in danger I really didn’t care whether he escaped or not.
Holly Shiftwell (whose name is Pixar’s “family friendly” attempt to parody the double entendre names given to Bond girls) starts out as a promising character and potential girlfriend for Mater but just doesn’t develop into a character I cared about. At the end of the film (spoiler alert here) when she shows up in Radiator Springs and announces to everyone she’s Mater’s girlfriend, you have to wonder who she’s trying to convince. The cars she’s talking to? The audience? Herself? Or “all of the above?”
The open wheeled race car character, Francesco Bernoulli, is a total mystery to me. Other than giving McQueen a rival to beat in the 3 races why is he in this picture? Although there’s an attempt to do it; he’s never really a rival to McQueen when it comes romancing Sally. His insults and remarks to McQueen are lame and not the least bit funny. If he was supposed to be McQueen’s rival he needed to be more of a bad guy. He needed to be viewed as a serious rival to help make the viewer want to see McQueen beat him.
Also the main villain needed to more of; an EVIL villain. The thing that makes a great hero is a diabolical enemy; a ying to the yang. The weaker the enemy is the less amazing is hero’s defeats of him. That’s the problem with the villain in Cars 2. He’s not the least bit diabolical.
The last ineffective character in Cars 2 I need to mention is Lightening McQueen. He just seems to sleep walk through this movie. In “Cars” he is a character with many many layers to his personality. He had depth. In “Cars 2” he’s as shallow as the baby pool at a Walt Disney World value resort. (I don’t care who you are that’s funny). I never really sympathized or connected with McQueen the way I did in the first film. He was boring.
Even in the action packed final scenes where he’s teamed up with Mater, he’s literally just along for the ride. Bring back the Lightening McQueen from “Cars”. He was greatly missed in “Cars 2”.
There are two things that make this movie palatable and I mean that in a “dry popcorn with no butter and no coke to wash it down” way. They are the “spoonful of sugar” that helps Cars 2 “go down”.
First are the characters from Radiator Springs. When they are given the chance, they enhance the film by just being themselves, being loyal to their friends, and doing what they have to do to help. But there’s way too little of them.
Mater, of course is the star of this film. He’s funny, innocent, naive, and lovable all at the same time. He goes on a journey that helps him learn who he is and where he fits into the world.
Cars 2 is basically a 90 minute version of one of Mater’s Tall Tales. But if you go into the theater knowing that’s what you’re going to see you’ll enjoy “Cars 2” as much as it is possible to enjoy it.
Let’s hope that with their next release “Brave” Pixar gets back to the thing that makes their films instant classics and story becomes king once again.
