fett on 28/6/2011 at 15:00
Saw it this weekend. As I've previously noted, I'm a gushing fanboy of almost all things Pixar. Toy Story 3 and Up were the best films I've seen in the last few years, probably because I'm turning into an old, sick guy with kids who are growing up fast. Nevertheless, in terms of sheer storytelling wow-ness and characters that actually work, I generally give Pixar two thumbs up.
Then we have this Owen Wilson/Larry the Cable Guy shit.
I've seen the first Cars film at least 3 billion times because it was Brennan's favorite movie when he was 3-4. It grew on me. At the time, I was also in a transition from being the pastor of a semi-large church/hometown rockstar to being a stay at home father, so the message of the movie wasn't lost on me. Sometimes a quiet life is more meaningful. Got it. Pixar did a great job of putting that one over without being ham-fisted and cheesy (even the on-the-nose James Taylor song in the middle was tasteful and well-placed.) My initial aversion to this film had to do with Owen fucking Wilson and Larry the fucking Cable Guy. Next to Paris Hilton, I can't image two more flat, non-talent, 2-D human beings to voice the lead roles in an animated film. But the writing saved both of them and the whole thing worked.
Now, Cars 2 comes along, and despite a valiant effort on the part of the writers, the weaknesses of the actors in question glares through so badly, it ruined the whole thing for me. The plot was a bit all over the place, but I think it will make more sense with repeated viewings - typical James Bond/spy stuff. But there's no question that Wilson and Guy are one-trick-ponies. Mater spends the whole time doing his (by now) stale redneck routine, and McQueen spends the whole time being a colossal dick - in other words, it's pretty much like watching an interview with Guy and Wilson. I don't think I laughed out loud once, and the relationship arc between the two characters was a predictable snooze-fest.
Also, way too much suspension of disbelief - the first film was full of fun surprises that made you think, "Oh yeah! That's how it WOULD be in a world populated by cars." This felt more like a problem solving nightmare revolving around, "How can we DO these things with cars." Much like Veggie Tales (for those familiar) used to be brilliant when the jokes were incidentally about vegetables having no hands and feet, and then they just started putting invisible hands and feet on the characters. Don't know if anyone can follow that comparison, but it boils down to the difference between subtle, clever comedy, borne of a good premise, and contrived, heavy-handed jokes that are trying to work around the premise (Oh uh, we have a decent story, but we have to make it work for characters who are cars. Hmmmm....).
Love, love, love Pixar, but I have zero positive feelings toward this film. I hope they do better with Monster University next year. Bleh.
Koki on 28/6/2011 at 15:26
Thanks, I was actually going to download it tonight.
Really.
BrokenArts on 28/6/2011 at 15:55
On another forum, was a similar discussion about this movie, one guy mentioned he and his wife walked out an hour into the movie, that surprised me. Rotten Tomatoes gave it 33%, along with the new Pirates. The up swing, it did better than the Green Lantern, (26%) that's not saying much. Toy Story 3 made me tear up, fucking cartoon!
Aerothorn on 28/6/2011 at 15:58
Owen Wilson, no talent? I can certainly see the guy's shtick becoming tiring (combined with really lazy career choices) but that's not the same as saying he's talentless. He's the driving force of Bottle Rocket, and while it's sad that pretty much every later performance doesn't capture the energy of his first, it shows that he CAN act.
Sulphur on 28/6/2011 at 16:39
The original Cars didn't grow on me. It was what it was - a nostalgic exploration of times and values gone by, replaced by today's fast-paced modernisation, but its characters failed to spark anything inside me. Perhaps it's the anthropomorphised talking cars that failed to jive with my sensibilities and, at some subconscious level, caused just enough cognitive dissonance that I couldn't be invested in the characters; maybe, in a bit of a first for Pixar at the time, the characters just weren't as well written as usual. But most of all, the biggest complaint levelled at the original movie by people was that it was just doggone slow.
Yes, I know, that's the point of the movie, etc., etc. I get it - I could live with Cars and its at-times slumbery pace; but while it was a good movie by normal standards, it's nowhere near being the cream of the crop in Pixar's catalogue as far as I'm concerned.
However, as ill-executed as Cars was, Pixar seems to have made everything worse by overcompensating for its failures and flopped mightily hard on its ass for probably the first time ever. They tried to inject too much action, too much speed, too many characters, and too much incoherence into it and wrapped it all up with the most terrible, hamfisted message about friendship ever written in their oeuvre. Pixar's films were special in how they avoided all the wishy-washy shortcuts everybody else took when defining its principle characters and their relationships. Their stories were always layered with a mature subtext that even the older kids could understand, and adults could appreciate all the more -- take a look at the first ten minutes of Up for a recent example.
And that, all of that, is completely missing in Cars 2. It's mindless kiddie fodder worthy of an anonymous Saturday morning short. While we were leaving the theatre, reviewing the entire experience in my mind, it all just felt... hollow. It's the first time I've ever truly been disappointed in a Pixar movie.
fett on 28/6/2011 at 17:49
Quote Posted by Sulphur
They tried to inject too much action, too much speed, too many characters, and too much incoherence into it and wrapped it all up with the most terrible, hamfisted message about friendship ever written in their oeuvre. Pixar's films were special in how they avoided all the wishy-washy shortcuts everybody else took when defining its principle characters and their relationships. Their stories were always layered with a mature subtext that even the older kids could understand, and adults could appreciate all the more -- take a look at the first ten minutes of
Up for a recent example.
THIS, THIS!!
Most of you probably haven't actually seen the actual Cars shorts that show up on the Disney channel from time to time on Saturday mornings - but this movie was actually just an extended version of one of these. Mater starts by telling some fantastical story in which he's an astronaut or rock star, and then imagines the whole thing from there, with McQueen being the butt of the jokes. That's what this was - Mater's spy fantasy. The fact that the other characters mistook him for a spy just stretched it to the breaking point. Lazy.
jimjack on 28/6/2011 at 17:56
I wasn't a fan of the first one. I hate this need to cash in on a relatively successful first film by spitting out a lously hastily put together second one. Anyway it's all good for the kiddies. Most pixar films are adequate to amuse the adults, other's just need to be seen on cable.
Mr.Duck on 28/6/2011 at 17:56
Like with the first Cars: I was entertained. And nothing more.
CCCToad on 29/6/2011 at 11:13
Basing a sequel off merchandise sales is pretty dumb. Typically its how well received the first film (or even game) was that determines whether people are going to jump at the second one in the series.
So I'm not sure why chose their worst movie to date for a sequel....especially giving it a hackneyed plot that doesn't really fit the characters or the setting.
