Archive for June, 2011
11 items.
If you’ve been following this blog at all, then you know that I’ve been having a good time taking the piss out of X-Men: First Class for the last couple of months.
Some of it I think was deserved. While I will admit that the marketing for the film has gotten better in the last few weeks, this movie was practically tripping over itself as it tried to make itself look appealing to an audience who had become VERY skeptical of 20th Century Fox helming another X-Men movie after the debacle that was Wolverine: Origins.
I will admit to having my bias. Wolverine: Origins was a colossal cluster eff because the producers of that film essentially decided to throw out three movies worth of continuity and start over with their own while still trying to toss in callbacks to the original films. It was a sloppy mess and it didn’t make very much sense.
On the surface, X-Men: First Class appears to do the same thing. As any comic book geek worth their weight in adamantium will tell you, the first class of X-Men was Cyclops, Marvel Girl, Iceman, Angel and Beast. Not Banshee, Havok, Beast, and Mystique.
But, in truth, the film is a slave to continuity in an unexpected way. Very easily you can see the rag-tag group of mutants Professor X has grouped together to be the beta version of the classic X-Men lineup. The film appeared to have ignored the fans to service its own selfish whims. When really it creates a foundation for the X-Men franchise that could potentially pay huge dividends going forward.
In other words, X-Men: First Class is an reboot of the franchise with a head on its shoulders. It does this by answering questions you never thought to ask like “How did the X-Men get their hands on a super-sonic jet?” or “Where did Magneto get his helmet from?” or “When did Mystique decide to align with Magneto and why?”
The film also creates relationships where you don’t expect them. I was kind of confused by the relationship between Professor X and Mystique at the beginning, but ultimately, it works. That detail plus several others ALL work because the film sets rules for itself and explores those areas carefully. We’re not confronted with a big crazy monster at the end just because the heroes need something to fight. The characters have motivation and the stakes feel real.
There are a couple of duds and dead ends in he film, of course. January Jones as the telepath Emma Frost gives the worst performance in the movie. She’s wooden and unconvincing – an unfortunate prop to hang lingerie from.
In fact, most of the bad guys in the movie don’t really go anywhere or do anything. The sword-wielding teleporter Azazel I think gets two lines in the whole movie. Another baddie who and create massive winds (apparently Riptide) doesn’t speak at all. It feels like a waster opportunity.
Kevin Bacon doesn’t exactly bring the aristocratic smarm to Sebastian Shaw that I would have liked but they put an interesting spin on the character that makes him more of a hidden threat.
The film’s best performances go to it’s two leads – James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender. They bring a noble conviction to their roles that makes them a pleasure to watch. They have a natural chemistry that I hope can be bottled and recaptured in a second movie very soon.
Fassbender in particular makes Magneto a tragic figure. Driven by hatred and revenge, we don’t really fault him for his negative world view. Like every great (potential) villain, he is the hero in his own story.
There was talk of a Magneto: Origins movie at one point. We see a little bit of his origins in this movie. Or, at least what became of Magneto during the time between his experiences as a child in World War II and his time with the X-Men.
I will say this… Erik Lehnsherr: Nazi Hunter is a movie I would totally pay to see.
Believe the hype, people. X-Men: First Class is the real deal.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’ll be over here in the corner… eating crow.
[ 6 Comments ]
Crow. Crow. Crow.
All weekend long I was thinking about how much of it I would have to eat after seeing X-Men: First Class. Instead, I thought I would just own up to it.
If you’ve been keeping up with the Bonus Materials blog here on the site (and if you haven’t, seriously, why not?) I’ve been crapping all over X-Men: First Class since the first promotional stills came out. The film just looked… goofy. And desperate. There was absolutely no indication that Fox had abandoned the slapdash “every obscure mutant and the kitchen sink” approach that made their last outing – Wolverine: Origins – such an abysmal failure.
How wrong I was.
I won’t go into all the details. If you want to read my review, I posted it online late Saturday night after watching the movie. But I will say this much: If I was going to rank the X-Men films, I’d still put Bryan Singer’s X-Men 2 at the top of the list. But Matthew Vaughn’s efforts with X-Men: First Class are a close second.
How good is this movie? It made me forget that Wolverine: Origins ever happened. That’s significant, people.
Some critics are wetting their pants and saying that X-Men: First Class is the best film in the series. That might be a case of lowered expectations talking. My praise doesn’t go that far. The film has some dead spots. Most glaringly, January Jones as The White Queen. You could have pinned a couple of water balloons to a 2 x 4 and been given a more scintillating performance. Kevin Bacon seemed to be having a lot of fun as the main bad guy. But Azazel and Riptide? Seriously? You couldn’t have gotten better henchmen?
There are also some contrivances in the plot that feel fine when you’re watching the movie, but don’t really hold water if you think about them. Like how Mystique and Professor X met as children, or how Charles Xavier somehow convinced his family to adopt her? It’s never really explained.
The one thing I expected to have the biggest complaint about – the characters included in the “First Class” – wasn’t really a problem at all. From the outset, it seemed weird that the film would sacrifice the First Class of the comic books – Cyclops, Marvel Girl, Angel, Iceman and Beast – for the totally odd assembly of Mystique, Havok, Banshee and Beast. But the more I think about it, the more I’m convinced it was a smart move.
Long-time fans of the comics might care about those characters individually (I know I’m a fan of Havok and Banshee) but they don’t really care about them as a team. As a result, it forces the focus on Professor X and Magneto, their relationship and where their paths separated. It’s very clever, really. Because if you had stocked the film with Cyclops, Marvel Girl, Angel, Iceman and Beast, I would have wanted to know more about them, their histories and how they got along as a team. Professor X would be almost entirely incidental.
So, in that respect, X-Men: First Class isn’t really about the First Class at all. And, truthfully, when you have James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender as your leads, you wouldn’t want it to be. The movie is about establishing the X-Men as a concept and creating the context where they are necessary.
Making a film that featured Cyclops, Marvel Girl, Angel, Iceman and Beast would be pointless. Because, in the comics, the team was already recruited and the only reason given was because they were mutants. It wasn’t long before they were sent into battle with Magneto. But there’s never really any motivation give. “Here are the good guys and here’s the bad guy. Now fight!” is the context. X-Men: First Class gives us SO. MUCH. MORE. to sink our teeth into. Think of it as the prequel before the prequel.
With that said, did you see X-Men: First Class this weekend? If so, what did you think and how much crow did you have to eat? Maybe you were one of those smarties who thought it looked great all along? Either way, leave your comments below!
[ 28 Comments ]
On the invitation of a friend, I went to see The Hangover Part II this week.
Up until I received his invitation, I was content to let the second installment in this forgotten weekend franchise slip blissfully below my radar. The trailers and advertisements for the film looked painfully reminiscent of the original film and reviews since then have all but confirmed it. The film has only been in theaters for two weeks, but it’s staleness is already legendary.
But, hey. When a buddy calls to see a movie, you put aside your reservations and go. It’s the Bro Code.
I suppose the same could be said about The Hangover Part II. Good will among those who saw the original movie was so strong, a sequel was all but demanded by the powers-that-be. When it was first announced, people were pretty excited. But as footage started coming out, that enthusiasm waned – and rightfully so.
It’s unfortunate that director and co-writer Todd Phillips couldn’t come up with something more than copying and pasting the original Hangover script into a new document, performing a Find and Replace on “Vegas” for “Bangkok” and sprinkling in a few “I can’t believe this is happening again!” exclamations from his characters.
Is it wrong to admit that I kind of hate these characters now? In the original Hangover, The Wolf Pack was an oddball assembly of guys who you at once celebrated and sympathized with. For all intents and purposes, they were regular guys caught in extraordinary circumstances who managed to emerge unscathed with a hell of a story to tell.
I think that was part of the appeal behind the original Hangover. Most people wouldn’t want to be caught up in the whirlwind those three guys found themselves in. But everyone kind of wishes they had a story like that. It would fuel late-night B.S. sessions for the rest of your life.
But in the sequel, you kind of sit back and think to yourself “How could these morons get wrapped up in this again? Haven’t they learned anything?”
To their credit, Ed Helms sheepish dentist Stu seems to have learned something from the original outing. He puts a napkin over his orange juice to keep people from giving him roofies. He barely invited Bradley Cooper’s Phil or Justin Bartha’s Doug to his wedding. The mentally deranged Alan played by Zach Galifanakis was deliberately kept at arms length.
But there wouldn’t be much of a movie if the lead characters exhibited any common sense. So, before you know it, the gang is flying off to Thailand where Stu’s fiancee’s family (conveniently) calls home. Wackiness ensues.
It’s not worth going into the plot because it’s a deliberate facsimile of the original. After having ONE (!) beer on the beach together, Phil, Stu and Alan wake up in a dingy hotel in Bangkok. What follows is supposed to be a fun mystery as the guys untangle where they’ve been so they can find Stu’s soon-to-be brother-in-law – lost during the previous night’s revelry.
Yes, there are a few laughs in the movie – due largely to Galifanakis, who can extract laughs out of the most droll situation with a simple, doe-eyed thousand yard stare. His potent combination of inadvertent malevolence and wonder are the only things that keeps the movie on two feet.
Recognition should be afforded to Ken Jeong as Mr. Chow. He shows up early in the film and I felt immediately agitated by his presence. But he is dispatched of fairly quickly. The laughs he earns when he re-materializes in the third act all but negate the nattering annoyance I felt in the first act.
Overall, however, I found myself feeling exceedingly impatient with the proceedings. I wanted the guys to get their next clue and move things along so we could get to the inevitable slideshow of photos capturing their raucous night. And after the photos materialized – like clockwork – I felt insulted by the whole affair. Ashamed that I had put down good money to see a movie I pretty much already owned on DVD back home.
Much like visiting Bangkok itself, I felt very unclean after spending time watching The Hangover Part II.
[ 6 Comments ]
My apologies for the lateness of this week’s comic. I struggled with this one. I think I probably bit off more than I could chew. I guess 8-panel comics do that to me.
But I really wanted to include that line about walkie-talkies and shotguns. As you may or may not remember, Spielberg digitally removed the shotguns federal agents were carrying and replaced them with walkie-talkies for the film’s 20th anniversary re-release in 2002. It caused a bit of an uproar.
I’m sure I wasn’t the only person to have looked at the trailers for Super 8 and thought to themselves “It looks like E.T. with lens flares.” It’s kind of hard not to when you know that Spielberg was an executive producer and they slapped that old Amblin Entertainment title card in front of the previews.
Additionally, harping on Abrams for utilizing his favorite visual device may even be a little cheap. But at least there was SOME context for the lens flares in Abrams’ reboot of the Star Trek franchise. He said he wanted the film to look like the future.” What’s the deal with adding lens flares to a movie that’s supposed to take place in 1979?
I didn’t get a chance to see Super 8 this weekend and was left kicking myself because I’ve done a really good job of keeping myself spoiler-free. If Abrams is known for his love of lens flares, he’s equally well known for creating an air of mystery around his films. Although, once the mystery is revealed, there is rarely a reason to stick around or care about that movie ever again (Cloverfield, I’m looking at you.)
I do kind of wonder if this retro-vibe Abrams is exploring with Super 8 isn’t a bit of a wank, though. This is not just a period piece we’re talking about. He’s purposefully aping a specific style. Is Abrams trying to push the nostalgia button to earn points with audiences? Is Super 8 an original composition or is it a remix? The way Hollywood looks these days, it’s hard to know what’s authentic anymore. Every movie is either a remake, a sequel or a reference to something else.
But I still want to entertain the mystery. I’m kind of enjoying the chase. That’s why I’m not exactly enthusiastic to ask you guys to submit your thoughts about Super 8 if you happened to see it this weekend. I want to go in “pure.”
After all, if Super 8 is an 80’s throwback, it seems appropriate to be caught off-sides by it like audiences back then did. Back before there was the internet or a 1,000 spoilers creeping around every corner.
Am I alone in this? Did anyone else experience the same sense of anticipation with Super 8? Is it justified or am I being manipulated? And if I’m being manipulated, isn’t that kind of the point?
I guess I’m feeling kind of philosophical today. If you’d like to add your thoughts in the comments section, jump in.
[ 12 Comments ]
On Tuesday, the governors of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences voted to change the nomination process for the Best Picture category. For years, the field was limited to 5 nominees but was expanded to 10 a few years ago. For the 2012 Oscars, there will be anywhere from 5 to 10 nominees and we won’t know how many films have been nominated until they are announced in January of next year.
AMPAS claims that Academy members have historically shown passion for more than five movies during the nomination process, but on average, not more than 7 or 8. The no longer feel an obligation to “round up” the number of nominees to 10.
Films that receive at least 5% first place votes among Academy members are eligible for Best Picture nomination. That’s fine, I guess. But does anyone else see this as giving the studios a greater opportunity to jockey for a nomination? Like, if studios get a sense that their critical darling (but financial dud) is hovering around 4%, won’t they push harder for swing votes? I see this as opening the door for more marketing and more campaigning that gets in the way of honestly recognizing films based on merit.
I guess I’m skeptical of it because it feels so shapeless. Almost as if the Academy is indifferent to the number of films that are nominated. “5 films, 6 films, 9 films… Hey! Whatever you want!”
Or worse, it feels like a contrived maneuver that will cause a lot of second guessing among Oscar-watchers. Which will result in more print articles trying to make predictions and more ink spilled covering potential confusion and controversy.
What is your take on this rule change? Leave your comments below!
[ 5 Comments ]
Is “a fistful of power rings” a new sexual euphemism? Let’s see if we can make that happen.
Maybe there’s something wrong with me, but I always found the original Green Lantern comic design to be one of the sexiest in comics. Yeah, I know Hal Jordan is a dude, but I always appreciated the costume’s sleek, retro-future design. It’s truly one of the few costumes in comics that doesn’t need improvement. Even Jim Lee managed to leave it relatively unchanged in his horrible Nehru collar-inspired reboot of DC comic’s entire line of characters.
Of course, the producers of the Green Lantern movie managed to muck that up by making Hal Jordan look like a emerald-hued Slim Goodbody.
Critics beat the crap out of Green Lantern. It’s averaging a 26% “rotten” score on Rotten Tomatoes right now. According to Box Office Mojo, estimated attendance for Green Lantern is below that of even Daredevil and Ghost Rider – two films synonymous with B-grade superhero movie flame-outs.
But the fan reaction has been interesting. People seem to be defending the movie as mindless fun. I take that to mean that the eye-candy was satisfactory even if the story fell flat on it’s face.
If you had asked me a few months ago to speculate on Green Lantern’s odds of success at the box office, I probably would have sided with the critics. Despite Ryan Reynold’s inherent likability, all of the new movie clips and preview material they were showing made Green Lantern look like amateur hour. Everything from the costume design, to the lumpy CG character work to the inclusion of Sinestro, Hector Hammond AND Parallax as villains did not inspire confidence.
But a strange thing happened to me a couple of weeks ago. The success of X-Men: First Class effectively eliminated my doomsday predictions for Green Lantern. I don’t know why. Beyond their superhero subject matter, the films couldn’t be more different from each other.
I guess it’s because I was convinced that X-Men: First Class was going to be a complete bomb. To me it appeared as tone-deaf to the comics as Green Lantern appears to be. The fact that X-Men: First Class was actually good forced me to put my assumptions on hold and adopt a wait-and-see attitude toward Green Lantern.
So, despite the bad reviews, I’m still willing to invest the time to see Green Lantern. I’m willing to open up my heart a little bit and take my chances.
Because here’s the thing: I LOVE Green Lantern. For me, he’s the DC equivalent to Iron Man and I’ve been a fan of the character and the mythology for a long, long time. In fact, the GL books are the only DC books I read right now. So you know I’m serious about it.
It’s easy to love Superman or Spider-Man… Captain America or Batman. That’s like saying “I love America” or “I love vacation days.” It’s kind of a given.
It takes a little bit of fortitude to say “I love Green Lantern” or “I love Iron Man.” Because, for a long time, these guys were second-stringers and their comics were not very good.
I hate to be all “I loved these characters before they were cool.” That’s not how I feel. I’m thrilled these characters are getting their due in popular culture. I’m just trying to explain how long I have been invested in them.
So, yeah. I want to give Green Lantern and – more surprisingly – Cami wants to come with me.
Well, maybe not surprisingly. She’s a huge Ryan Reynolds fan. How big? Her favorite Ryan Reynolds movie is Just Friends. Okay, admittedly, it’s a pretty funny movie. But, yeah… watching Reynolds run around in a painted on costume for two hours? I’m sure it doesn’t hurt.
Did any of you check out Green Lantern this weekend? What did you take away from it? Is the costume everything it’s trumped up to be? Leave your comments below!
[ 29 Comments ]
With Cars 2 coming out this weekend, I am reminded of a unique piece of artwork created by Jake Parker a few years ago – a cross-section of Lightning McQueen.
If you’ve never seen this illustration before, I’m happy to bring it to your attention. Because Jake’s illustration addresses something that fundamentally unsettles me about the Cars universe – how does a talking car… y’know… work?
Jake’s drawing is a mesh of organic and mechanical that actually makes a fair bit of sense. Although, when you go back and watch the movie and notice that all of the characters side and back windows are tinted, it makes things kind of creepy to think that their brains are behind that glass.
I know it’s a kids movie and I know you’re not supposed to ask these questions. But the level of detail that Pixar infused into these characters begs the question.
Incidentally, I’d also like to know how these characters built the buildings they inhabit with no opposable thumbs, but maybe that’s an issue for another day.
[ 4 Comments ]
Haphazardly monitoring Twitter last night, I saw my feed lit up from people who were wetting their pants over the new Captain America trailer. Then enthusiasm was so unbridled, it almost made me want to skip watching the trailer myself.
Almost.
I understand the emphasis is on action with this trailer, that’s fine. But the use of Tool’s “Forty Six And 2” feels COMPLETELY out of place. So easily I could have pictured more anthemic orchestration like John Williams’ Indiana Jones score. But that’s a quibble.
Despite a summer plagued by superhero movies that have created anxious doubt(X-Men: First Class), suffered critical misfires (Green Lantern) or were merely serviceable (Thor), I am actually very optimistic about Captain America because it seems like they’ve gotten a lot of the little details right. More importantly, they haven’t given away the store with their previews. They’ve been promoting this movie for almost a year and I still feel like there are plenty of treats waiting for us on the big screen.
The casting is excellent. Can I say pleases me to no end to see Tommy Lee Jones barking orders at people? It goes without saying that Hugo Weaving as The Red Skull is perfect.
I’ll let the trailer speak for itself. What’s your take on Captain America? Leave your comments below!
[ 9 Comments ]
Someone is going to call my a hypocrite for this one, but allow me to explain myself.
Last Friday, I went on a li’l Twitter rant (as I am sometimes prone to do) about the critical response to Cars 2. What specifically set me off was this article from Cinema Blend titled “5 Ways Pixar Can Move On From The Critical Failure Of Cars 2.”
I have a problem with this because the article was published at 10:30 in the morning on THE DAY of the film’s release. General audiences haven’t even had a chance to see the movie yet and sites like Cinema Blend were already calling it dead on arrival.
To his credit, my good friend Joe Dunn from Joe Loves Crappy Movies tweeted “Tom I love ya but you are just as guilty of this as they are. It’s the nature of the world we live in. :(” This gave me pause. Mostly because, well, he’s not wrong. I’ve been MORE than guilty of this in the past.
Except (and I’m not trying to justify myself here) but when I react negatively to a film before it lands in theaters, I’m usually reacting negatively to the marketing. If I’m 50/50 on a seeing a movie, bad marketing combined with bad reviews will usually keep me away. But if it’s a movie I want to see – like Green Lantern – I’ll probably go regardless. And if it’s a movie I’m wrong about – like X-Men: First Class – I’ll be the first to admit it.
What Cinema Blend is doing is basically saying “The movie is terrible. Critics have already weighed in. Don’t bother. What’s next for Pixar?” I found the assessment premature.
I totally understand WHY they ran the story. Journalism (such as it is) is all about Getting There First. In entertainment journalism particularly, it’s all about citing the trends early and (in some cases) creating them.
American’s also have a weird relationship with their heroes. We love to celebrate their successes and we love to watch them fall. More importantly, we love to watch them get back up. We love a good comeback story. To make that happen, Pixar had to stumble and Cars 2 was easy pickin’s.
Let’s face it: the original Cars didn’t exactly set the world on fire. Kids love it, but most adults loathe it. I used to be one of them. Of course, having a 4 year-old who is in love with the cast of characters from Radiator Springs kinds of forces a perspective shift. But that’s neither here nor there.
In some ways, returning to the well for Cars 2 smacks of greed. The licensing and merchandising revenue from the original film was HUGE. Cars toys haven’t left store shelves for the last 5 years. To leave money like that on the table would be pretty stupid from a business standpoint.
I think that’s what critics are picking up on and they’re punishing Pixar for it. Because here’s the thing: I saw the movie this weekend and it’s not that bad.
I’ll write a full review later over on the Bonus Materials blog, but my point is this: All the doom-saying going on? It’s trumped up. Is Cars 2 a great movie? No. It’ll never hold a candle to Wall-E or The Incredibles. But here was the deciding question for me – “Is it worse than the original Cars?” Not at all. To that end, it’s not worthy of the scorn it’s received.
In my view, critics just got tired of talking about how great Pixar is all the time. They saw their shot and they took it.
What’s been your reaction to the critical backlash against Cars 2? Do you feel it’s justified or is this an industry hit job? Leave your comments below! (and look for my Cars 2 review later in the day!)
In the meantime, I wanted to draw everyone’s attention to a little site-related business. I’ve been making efforts to spruce up the Theater Hopper store and am offering a few new products.
I have officially made available “Artist Editions” of all three of my books. For $3.00 more than the “standard” edition, I’ll draw whatever you want inside the book’s forward pages. For a sample of these sketches, check out the Facebook gallery I put together for all the Theater Hopper: Year Three illustrations I completed. Over 60 to thumb through!
If you already own all of my books, but would still like some custom artwork, I’ve recently made available commissioned sketches for $5.00. I’m deliberately keeping the price low so it gives everyone an opportunity to own an original piece of art. Plus, it helps keep me loose creatively. Some of the stuff people have asked for so far has been really inventive! I’m also building out a Facebook gallery of commissioned sketches as well, if you want to check that out.
Sorry to bog things down with site business, but I’ve realized that I don’t talk much about the business side of Theater Hopper anymore and things have suffered for it. Considering I only talk to you in this space once a week, I need to do a better job of folding that back in.
That’s all for now. Have a great week, everyone!
[ 26 Comments ]
As you probably know, Cars 2 came out this weekend. And, as you probably know, most critics didn’t like it. Cars 2 has the dubious distinction of being the first “rotten” movie in Pixar’s 15-year production history.
Unfortunately, this is probably what Cars 2 will be most readily identified with – a punctuation mark on unsurpassed era of critical praise. This is unfair for a number of reasons.
The peripherals of Pixar’s films include a legacy of quality, critical response to that standard, box office success and merchandising ubiquity. In many ways, this is a Jenga stack that was destined to tumble. As each new film is released, any small imperfection will be magnified and exploited before the tower falls.
In this case, Cars 2 has the unfortunate distinction of being released behind Toy Story 3 which was Pixar’s most profitable, best reviewed film to date. Next to that, nearly anything would have looked like a pale imitator.
But does that mean that Cars 2 is a bad movie? No, it’s not. Is it a great movie? Well, no. Not exactly. Then what is it? Cars 2 is a perfectly serviceable piece of family entertainment that moves briskly, entertains thoroughly and doesn’t insult the audience’s intelligence. That sounds like faint praise. But neither is it condemning damnation.
I guess walking out of the theater, the question that I tried to answer was “Is Cars 2 worse than the original Cars?” My conclusion was, “It isn’t!” So, by that logic, how can it be the worst Pixar movie of all time. Or, at the very least “rotten?”
Well, I would say that there we some opportunities missed. Unlike the original Cars, whose theme was basically “Slow down and enjoy life,” Cars 2 serves up a tepid lesson about letting your friends be who they are. It doesn’t exactly resonate.
Additionally, I find that one’s enjoyment of Cars 2 weighs heavily on their ability to tollerare comedian Larry the Cable Guy as the faithful tow truck, Mater. Make no mistake about it – Cars 2 is his movie. Either you’re okay with that or you’re not.
In the negative reviews I’ve read, most critics aren’t okay with that. It’s understandable why. As a character, Mater is well-meaning, but best in small doses. Regrettably, what Cars 2 does is makes him slightly more insufferable and ignorant so Owen Wilson (as racing superstar Lightning McQueen) has a reason to push him away in the film’s first act.
This feels a little disingenuous to the character. Despite Mater’s country-bumpkin exterior, in the original Cars, he at least seemed to have some awareness of how others perceived him. I’m thinking specifically when Lightning McQueen is brought in front of a Paul Newman’s Doc Hudson to answer for tearing up the main drag in Radiator Springs. When Bonnie Hunt as Sally shows up, Lightning McQueen is awestruck. Even moreso when Mater says Sally is his financée. “What?!” Lighning says, incredulously. “I’m just kiddin’,” Mater responds. “She jus’ likes me for my body.”
None of that self-awareness is on display in Cars 2 and Mater feels like he’s taken a step backwards as a result.
The resulting lack of message or character progression can make Cars 2 feel somewhat shallow if you listen to your inner cynic. “This is just a money grab!” “They want to sell more toys!” You’re inner cynic is right, by the way. I’m just saying that doesn’t mean Cars 2 is a bad film.
In terms of scope, creativity, design and attention to detail, Cars 2 delivers exactly the way you expect a Pixar movie to. In fact, once the dust settles and people seriously sit down and consider Cars and Cars 2 side-by-side, I think they will agree with that assessment. From a technical perspective, Cars 2 is every way superior to its predecessor. Animation buffs will be dissecting it for years.
Considering that Pixar has always been a studio that trumpted the value of “Story First,” Cars 2 failings in this area makes the rest of the film seem like a sell-out. I don’t feel that way because I never felt like the film was wasting my time.
The more I think about it, the more I acknowledge that maybe I have my “fanboy blinders” on. But I guess I feel like I see both sides of the equation. I know where Cars 2 doesn’t work but I don’t feel like that diminishes the accomplishments of what DOES work about the film. Therefore, I don’t feel like critics are necessarily justified in punishing the movie with abysmal reviews for an otherwise inoffensive and acceptable film.
If it was a Dreamworks movie on the other hand, maybe we could talk. 😉
[ 9 Comments ]
