Cars Review - Part 1

[tealin]

This review will be a two-parter, as I saw the movie Friday afternoon courtesy of the good folks at Piñata Party Central and will be seeing it Saturday night with the crowd from my sister’s school. Two different days, two different crowds, quite possibly two different reviews. But only one first impression. Be warned: this review is nowhere near objective and is at times personal enough to be extremely boring.

I have to say right off the bat that I was not terribly excited to see this movie. I don’t drive, I’ve never experienced the Great American Love Affair With Cars, I don’t care for racing (‘Who among us does not love Nascar?’ said John Kerry – well, me, for one) and I have no nostalgia for Route 66. All it had going for it was that it was done by Pixar, who are almost universally reliable. I wasn’t expecting much when I sat down in the theatre. I wasn’t expecting anything bad, I just wasn’t expecting anything at all. So it took me by surprise when the first sequence actually interested me – I’m still not sure why, but it was sprinkled with that magic Pixar dust that makes you forget you’re watching animate cars and just skips straight to the story. If they could bottle this Insto-Presto Suspension of Disbelief Powder they’d make a killing. Normally I’d be worried at this circumventing of sanity and detachment, but I go to movies with the intent of enjoying myself, so I’ll accept any trick they play on me that achieves this. It was also full of things that made it clear this movie was done by people who really cared about their work and put a lot of effort into it, people who really loved what they were doing, which won me over more than anything else. I work at a TV animation studio, I know we have deadlines and quotas and budgetary restraints and therefore nowhere near the kind of artistic luxury that those lucky Feature people have. I know that the majority of people I work with care about their work and put in as much attention to quality as they can, but corners have to be cut and deadlines met, so work only has to be good enough, not as good as possible, nor can it be laboured over in pursuit of improvement. Cars, oddly enough, rekindled my desire to work on features, a desire which I thought had been successfully stamped out by recent history and burnout, so I can’t hold too much against it in the long view.

I have to say, though, that this was my least favourite Pixar movie. In a way that’s like saying Almond Joy is my least favourite chocolate bar, because despite its relative value it’s still a chocolate bar and way better than, say, raisins – but the fact remains it’s at the bottom of my personal ranking of Pixar movies. It still had a better story and better character development than most animated movies I’ve seen recently (not that I’ve seen all that many) and even most of the live-action ones. That said, this was the first one in which I could start to see the bones of a formula starting to show: Hero’s hitherto hunky-dory life suddenly changes, enter cast of adorably eccentric characters, Hero changes in small but significant ways, Hero achieves something he didn’t know he needed to when his quest began... Okay, that fits lots of movies and books (even Going Postal) but the thing is that the plot and characters seemed a bit more transparent in this one.

Visually – once you get past the whole ‘everybody’s a car’ thing – it was quite nice. Pixar has a way of lighting things that gives such a sense of atmosphere and space ... luckily they didn’t also convey temperature, otherwise I would have disliked Radiator Springs as much as I dislike I-15 from San Bernardino to St George. But the scenery and the realistic attention to environments reminded me of nearly every summer vacation of my youth – little things, like the way rows of crops strobe past or the strata in hills bisected by the freeway, and big things like the feel of an offramp in the midnight desert or the sunset lighting up distant cumulonimbus over scrubland. These rang true, and it was amazing to see them depicted so truly by someone else.* Also amazing was how somehow – probably Pixar dust again – the desert never got boring. When you spend fifteen years of your life touring various deserts every summer, they get old fast, but I kept finding new things to look at and think ‘ooh, that’s nice.’ Nostalgia, maybe?

Characters ... well, they were serviceable. (Har har.) I never really liked any of them. Lightning and Sally and Doc, well, they had their parts to play, and were sympathetic in that way main characters are, and the supporting cast was all ... very ... supportive, but ... meh. Maybe there just weren’t any that resonated with me. Not much chemistry between them, either.

The story, as I mentioned, was good. Not personally involving, but enough to keep me interested in what was going on, and considering it was about cars, that was an achievement.** There were some very nice sequences, my favourite of which was probably Tipping Tractors ... it was oddly hilarious, but mostly it was a piece of self-contained storytelling that I never ever would be able to do myself, so there was a healthy helping of awe along with the laughs. As a whole, though, even where it wasn’t formulaic it was often predictable, so while it was well-constructed it wasn’t exactly dazzling or really all that satisfying, for me. I like to have my emotions jerked around by a story, but when I can tell what’s going to happen it just doesn’t have the same effect.

Animation was, of course, brilliant. Those Pixar people sure know how to give themselves a challenge ... I mean, cars have even less acting potential than fish. At least fish have fins they can gesture with and can turn their head from side to side, and can move their whole body around for expression. I wasn’t crazy about the big windshield eyes at first, but then I realised that squishing both pupils to one side was a handy way to cheat a head-turn; you can’t do that with headlight-eyes. Some of the little things they did with wheels and things, too, were very nice touches. I know very little about CG but what I’ve gleaned from working on CG shows makes me really wonder how they rigged those cars to do all that they did.

Stay for the credits! There’s a bit of funny stuff (the Ratzenberger series is particularly amusing) but there’s also the Joe Ranft memorial ... it may not be as magnificent as he deserves but it’s probably the most they could expect an audience to sit through when 98.5% of them probably have no clue who he is. And he was killed in a car crash. What is that? Ironic? Twisted? Literary? Whatever else it may be, it’s cruel.

Well, there we go, part 1 complete ...


*It was actually a similar experience to watching Spirit, though possibly better in a way because they didn’t hurtle from Bryce Canyon to Yellowstone in five minutes on horseback and thus immediately discredit the movie in my annoyingly realistic mind.
**If it had been about tall ships, now...

Comments

[lepitot.livejournal.com]

Oh, excellent! It sounds great.

I've never been overly fond of cars, either. The way I look at them...they'll get me where I want to go. But, something about the preview caught my eye, and since then I've been anxiously awaiting it.

I'm glad you thought it was good :)

Jon

[rawrsie.livejournal.com]

hehe, I'll enjoy reading part two from behind a cup of hot tea tomorrow.. *cough, hack, cough*

I was considering doing a review of my own but you had to go and say 95% of what I would have. Just to add, the story was basically toy (car, haha) story again. Main character caught up in 'fast lane' gets thrown into circumstance that makes him reconsider his lifestyle and learn the value of freindship.

Oh yes, and that horrible song (even though it wasn't randy newman) right in the middle of the movie yanked me right out of the experience for a good 10 minutes.

[twirlynoodle.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah, I forgot to say, soundtrack = blargh. But the style seemed to suit the whole car thing pretty well.

[lepitot.livejournal.com]

Which song is terrible?

I watched a special on ABC and they highlighted a few of the songs. I really liked the little snippet from Life is a Highway (I think that's what it is called). And, the supposedly "incredibly emotional" song called Long Ago or something didn't seem overly great to me. "Long ago, not so long ago" not very impressive lyrics, if you ask me.

Is the soundtrack really THAT bad?

[twirlynoodle.livejournal.com]

It was ... the long annoying song in the middle. I don't remember which one.

The soundtrack... well, it's not to my taste. The instrumental music is unobtrusive which is its job, but the songs ... not my cup of tea. Perhaps those among us who like Nascar will like them.

[leucocrystal]

I really enjoyed your review, and it was nice to read the thoughts of someone who isn't approaching it from the same perspective, of course.  If you'd like to see a different (but still positive) viewpoint, I posted a review myself, here.  In my case, I am a big fan of cars and racing, so that's another perspective to take a look at.  Looking forward to part 2! :)

[niteflite.livejournal.com]

Great review! I was going to write a review (probably still will, once the movie loses it's new-Cars smell ) and I've got to say, I agree with you on practically every point.

The one point I've got to say is: There was one song that did rock. Route 66. But then, it pretty much had to. I mean, the only way it could have been even better is if I had sung it. Ego? No. Not really. I just sing that song really damn well.

Yeah, okay. My ego is a little bit inflated. Only a bit.

[disneyboy.livejournal.com]

Well, I fully expect an MP3 to appear here with YOUR rendition of "Route 66", and we'll be the judge of just how inflated your ego is!

[niteflite.livejournal.com]

Ha HA! I don't own any mikes or anything! Now you'll never know, will you?

[disneyboy.livejournal.com]

I say we all pitch in for a mike fund for Niteflite! (evil grin)

[disneyboy.livejournal.com]

I think I might need some time to figure out exactly what I thought about the movie - like just about everyone else here, I'm inclined to agree with just about everything in Tealin's review (particularly concerning the film's technical achievements - animation, lighting, atmosphere, the gorgeous backgrounds, etc.), but I particularly want to avoid merely parroting the persuasive opinions of friends, family, and coworkers before carefully, honestly considering my own reactions. My brief* thoughts, off the cuff, are -
-A lot of people have said this was the weakest Pixar movie yet - mmmmaybe. At least, I feel, it skews rather younger than most, if not all the rest of their films (similar to Monsters, Inc.) The dialogue tended to be very "on the nose" without much subtext, and the themes, though quite admirable, were presented rather bluntly and obviously (being loyal and decent is more important than being "the best", stop thinking about just yourself & look out for others, take time to look around, notice the details, and enjoy the journey of life, rather than being obsessed with the destination, have respect for the past and the elderly, etc.)
-I have serious reservations about NASCAR racing: aside from the fact that it's unbelievably wasteful (the tires alone - about 40 per car per race -cost around $20,000), it seems as close to the modern equivalent of chariot racing as we can get - i.e., terrible, lethal risk for cheap thrills. That said, the opening sequence is very exciting, sucked me into the story and the main character, and made me understand, at least in the context of the movie, what all the fuss is about with these races, and even as you dislike a lot of Lightning's attitude, you can't help but cheer him on and want him to succeed. (and, of course, it's the perfect foil to slow-paced, seemingly pointless Radiator Springs - Lightning is built only for speed and king in his element, but totally helpless on the outside - no functioning headlights, rear-view mirrors, or social skills!) What never does quite happen in this sequence or any other (though vague little hints are dropped here and there throughout) is a clear explanation of what, exactly, the rules of this universe are, beyond: cars are alive, there are no people or animals (but there are plants). Yet there are recognizable elements from the real world - American flags, Route 66, California, etc.- it's a little easier to accept a heretofore undiscovered "secret world" within the familiar one, or else to start all over with an alien universe, than to subtract something integral from a world we know without any explanation. How do the cars fix themselves? Do they feel pain? How much of them is "alive"? Who made them? Do they, um, procreate? (a couple of uncharacteristically "adult" jokes - mild by anyone but Pixar's standards, I guess - are made about "lugnuts" and peeking at a car's undercarraige - what's that about??) Are all machines alive? (apparently some flying vehicles are, but Bessie, the tar spreader, is not). Are the tractors "animals"? Or just mentally retarded? And why?? It was questions like this that may not have kept anyone else awake, but kept me from completely enjoying films like "Brother Bear" (we're told that all the animals secretly talk, and are therefore people - except, inexplicably, for fish, so the bears have something to eat guilt-free - also the whole premise that bears are our misunderstood "brothers" that, idealy, we should sit down and have parties with - hey, I'm a pretty big bleeding heart-Sierra Club member-vegetarian weenie, but, c'mon, even I know some unprovoked bears kill and eat people!)

[noodledaddy.livejournal.com]

I thought that the tire number was a little high, so I did some research and found that rather than 10 sets of tires (40 total) being used per car in a race, the average is more like 10 tires per car. NASCAR vehicles get between 125 and 250 miles per tire (depending on where they are on the car). If 40 tires were used, it would require a pit stop every 12 laps or so for a complete tire change (based on a 500-mile race).

As to the fuel, the LA Lakers burn more fuel flying their charter jet to Miami for a game than do all the participants in a NASCAR race. Should we ban basketball?

Do I watch NASCAR? No. Do I want those to want to watch NASCAR to have the freedom to do so? You bet.

On sports...

[disneyboy.livejournal.com]

Well, I was going to list the link that I got my figures from, but of course now I can't find it to save my life. So I can neither confirm nor deny your figures, although tire usage probably varies a lot for different tracks and cars. As for the comparison to basketball, or just about any other organized sport, I'm probably not the best person to run to for a sympathy vote! It's not like I really want to ban such sports - hey, if people really want to fork over a mint for a crappy seat in the Staples center to watch a bunch of overpaid, badly-behaved prima donnas throw a ball around, who am I to stand in their way? (OK, I am exaggerating a bit for hopefully comic effect) But if ____- ball (fill in the blank) disappeared tomorrow, even though it would be a tragedy beyond reason for a lot of people, I'm not sure, frankly, that I'd even notice. (watch as the hate mail pours in) I may have been mistaken in bringing up the whole waste issue, as my real beef is with the safety, with the inherent danger and risk of injury or death being a big draw for the sport. I have a real problem with boxing, bullfighting, rodeos, etc. for similar reasons (the last two are more objectionable to me because of the exploitation of and cruelty to animals - horseracing also falls into this category for me, to a lesser extent)- I find it disturbing when any audience finds cruel, excessively punishing, and/or lethal sports entertaining. I understand that since Dale Earnhardt's fatal accident, certain safety precautions have become mandatory in NASCAR races, which is definitely a step in the right direction. But at what point do we say, it doesn't matter if people are willing to participate in a certain sport or how many screamimg fans are willing to pay good money to watch it - certain spectacles are unacceptable to a civilized society and cannot be condoned? How commited are we to moving beyond gladiator fights or bear baiting, or their modern equivalents? Is NASCAR dangerous enough to fall into this category? Maybe not, but I think these issues are something that sports fans and organizers in general need to think and talk about more than they do.

Re: On sports...

[(Anonymous)]

>hey, if people really want to fork over a mint for a crappy seat in the Staples center to watch a bunch of overpaid, badly-behaved prima donnas throw a ball around, who am I to stand in their way? (OK, I am exaggerating a bit for hopefully comic effect)

I don't think you are exaggerating.

As to the tire number, I saw one site that posted the number at 60, not 40, but they did not referece their sources. 60 tires in 500 miles? 15 total changes in 500 miles would be 33 miles between tire changes. I got my stats from a mechanic's page that I don't have any more either. Did you know the four tires are often each a different size (width AND height)?

You bring up may good points, I just wanted to point out that if you get what you want (no more NASCAR for example), others should have the right to get what they want, including getting rid of stuff you may like. I don't know the stats, but I'd be willing to bet that about as many people have been killed making movies as driving in NASCAR races. I was able to find stats for 1991- 2001 and there were 9 NASCAR drivers killed in those 11 years. Haven't been able to find any stats for stuntmen, I guess they do not get as much press.

It's a tough call to make, selecting what is and what is not allowed in a society. Morality does not always transfer cleanly between societies, even within the same country. Look at pornography. It is terribly damaging to society, but it is thriving, and lots of big corporations make a lot of money off of it.

Cars review (part 2)

[disneyboy.livejournal.com]

-For all the faults that "Robots" had, the opening sequence is, in my opinion, fairly brilliant in being entertaining, introducing you to the characters and the world in an inviting way, and spelling out the rules so clearly (and imaginatively)that you don't worry about them for the rest of the movie (this is a robot universe, all machines are alive, they are "born" and age - they have jobs, they marry, etc., and as we later find out, will wear out and die without proper maintenance). I think the filmmakers (of Cars) are assuming that if you're caught up in the characters and story and are sufficiently entertained, you're not going to question the central conceit. I expect most audiences won't think about it too much, at least not during the film. You could argue that to explain things too completely would have taken away a lot of the innocent charm and simplicity of the film, but that's the peril inherent in taking on such a weird, limiting premise.
-It was amazing to me (and the friend I saw the film with), at least, how much personality and empathy Paul Newman creates with his first few words on screen! Somehow they even got the car to look like him! For me, his character (by which I mean his vocal performance, helped by great animation - not sure how much the writing contributed) not only represented the most important theme of the movie really clearly, but managed to leap forward from what could have easily been a tired stereotype (like most of the other characters) of the crotchety old man with a mysterious past, to seem like a real "flesh and blood" person, with personality, charisma, a lot going on beneath the surface, a real and intriguing history, etc. (too bad the main character was rarely that compelling)
-although "Mater" occaisionally seemed sooo stupid as to strain credulity or likability, I loved the backwards driving bit. I also loved the brief bits of the giant RV's cheering on the racers - especialy the big one with the round nose, totally seemed like some redneck I've known.
-as was already mentioned, those parodies at the end were hysterical, particularly the bit about John Ratzenberger (who is absolutley a voice-over genious and cannot be used too much, IMHO)
If it sounds like I'm being overly critical, I think it's fair to say I still enjoyed the film more than 90% of my co-workers, and considerably more than most of the other tripe out there (so maybe I'm actually being too soft). More later, perhaps...
* HA HA! I meant for me! But now it's 6am and I need at least a LITTLE sleep!

Re: Cars review (part 2)

[lepitot.livejournal.com]

I actually thought Robots was a very good, and highly under-rated, movie. The animation was amazing, and I loved the storyline.

John Ratzenberger...he is the dinosaur in Toy Story (and the bloopers in Monsters, Inc.), and then Mr. Huph in The Incredibles? He is hysterical...such a great voice over voice.

Re: Cars review (part 2)

[niteflite.livejournal.com]

John Ratzenberger has been a voice in EVERY Pixar movie.

Hamm (the piggy bank) in Toy Story one and two

P.T. Flea in Bug's Life

Abominable Snowman in Monster's Inc.

a school of fish in Finding Nemo

the Underminer in Incredibles

and Mack in Cars

Re: Cars review (part 2)

[lepitot.livejournal.com]

Oh okay...I was wondering who he was.

Re: Cars review (part 2)

[azvolrien.livejournal.com]

he was also in the English dub of Spirited Away - which I think was done by Pixar, though I might be making that up.

Re: Cars review (part 2)

[disneyboy.livejournal.com]

It was the same voice for the dinosaur and Mr. Huph - you're thinking of Wallace Shawn, star of one of my favorite movies, My Dinner With Andre (which qualifies me as insane in everyone else's eyes, I know - sigh) - as well as the hunchback in The Princess Bride ("inconthievable"!). He is indeed brilliant and hysterical. There were a lot of good things about "Robots": it's a very pretty film and has some nice moments (my favorited were between Rodney and his dad - they felt really genuine) - I just wish it had relied less on topical, "gaggy" humor and more on humor inherent in the characters and the situations (i.e., Robin Williams and his constant non-sequitors wore out their welcome for me after a while).

[azvolrien.livejournal.com]

I've been meaning to go and see Cars, though I'm not sure if it's out yet on my side of the pond.

Ooh, Spirit! Seen that. Played merry hell with geography, but my the horses were lovely.
...
My mum just walked past humming 'Do You Hear the People Sing?'.

[disneyboy.livejournal.com]

My big note about "Spirit" was that they should have gotten rid of that almost completely unnecessary Matt Damon narration - the animation spoke for itself! I could have done without the soft rock songs, too, but they were bearable, I guess.

[azvolrien.livejournal.com]

I wasn't really paying attention to the words; I was just watching the horses.

[thefordmustang.livejournal.com]

I thought the voice of Spirit was fine. It probably was not necessary (the movie really was exceptional in showing the beauty of animated movies as silent movies) but it made me feel like this was a story being told many years later by an older Spirit. It certainly worked very well in the beginning of the movie when it is not clear at first that the narrarator is a horse.

[thefordmustang.livejournal.com]

*It was actually a similar experience to watching Spirit, though possibly better in a way because they didn’t hurtle from Bryce Canyon to Yellowstone in five minutes on horseback and thus immediately discredit the movie in my annoyingly realistic mind.


You mean it isn't possible to gallop on a horse bareback between Monument Valley and Glacier National Park in a day? Gee, what's with horses these days?