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. 😉
Yeah… I still have no desire to see it. I never saw the first one either. I’m not an Owen Wilson fan (at least not by himself), and not a terribly big Larry the Cable Guy fan (even though he lives nearby and I saw him at an Arby’s and got so excited about it that I was willing to admit that I was at an Arby’s). To each his/her own though.
I think you hit the nails on their heads with this, and your main comic entry for the week, Tom. Of all the great Pixar films over the years, Cars is probably tied for last place on the list of “cries out for a sequel.”
Yeah it was an okayish fun little movie. we got good-to-great acting (it’s easy to forget it’s Wilson portraying McQueen in some scenes) and by the end of the movie, everyone had learned their lessons, McQueen learned to slow down, Doc Hudson was able to come to terms with his past, and of course, the love interest and the colorful characters populating Radiator Springs got to see their community given an economic injection.
In short, the story was over.
Compare that to a Toy Story or an Incredibles, where you have characters who are by their nature constantly learning new lessons and exploring wider worlds, and you have to stop and ask “Why did they spend 60 million on Cars 2?” ((and yes, I would sell certain parts of my anatomy for tickets to Incredibles 2 so I am not unbiased))
And sadly, you’re right in identifying it. It’s a bald-faced money grab. Not that the writers didn’t turn out a decent enough story at the end of the day compared to a Michael Bay explosion fest; but let’s face it, they were probably basically told, “we’re doing Cars 2, get on board or get out.” Which means they were to craft a movie to a merchandising mark rather than someone coming to them with a script and saying “I think this would make a really good movie!” And in watching the movie, with its excess of gadgets and geegaws and cute toys and B-movie call-outs, that comes through loud and clear compared to the original story-driven Cars. (pun not intended)
Incidentally, Howard Taylor over at Schlock Mercenary had some interesting things to say about the designs of the villainous cars that really resonated with me when I stopped and thought about just why the bad guys were all lemons and junkers while all the heroes save Mater were sleek modern euro-cars.
it is a 68 million dollar bomb so far. it could still make hundreds of millions even if the critics do not like it.
Honestly it is all Pixar’s fault. They spent 12 years being amazing and then they phone it it (which is better than most people phoning it in because even the lazyest person with ocd is still pretty tidy)
Now Pixar is running in the average lane and it is making people a bit dissapointed.
Here’s the thing, though. Transformers 3 will come along this week and knock Cars 2 off it’s box office throne. The movie will be a vapid blockbuster in every sense of the word – just as much of a shallow money grab designed to sell toys than anything else – and Michael Bay will not take the same critical hit Pixar did. And that’s not fair because – and I will be good money – Cars 2 will be the better film.
That’s why I made the Jenga comparison. Bad reviews came crashing down on Cars 2 not because Pixar made a bad film. Audience expectations were simply set too high. Not for Cars 2, but for Pixar itself. It’s not Pixar’s fault that they didn’t make film on par with Wall-E or The Incredibles. Truthfully, it’s the fault of people like myself who put Pixar on too high a pedestal.
That is an interesting thought. Is Pixar on a pedestal that is too high? Is it the fault of the viewer or the fault of Pixar for being so damn good for so long?
Michael Bay has always been a trashy, splashy movie director. There is no history of his movies being “good” they have been “entertaining”. It makes money and it influences some aspects of society.
Pixar made movies that the majority of people generally thought were exceptionally well crafted. Did they have flaws? sure, nothing is perfect. But Pixar did not make sequels. (Toy story 2 was made at Disney’s request and was supposed to be straight to video but was so well done they made it a theatrical release causing a huge contract dispute and it was Cars that was the last movie in that disputed contract which some could say was made more to finish out an agreement than to be a Pixar film.)
The point is that Pixar worked very hard to be an excellent storytelling company with original and vibrant work. How high is that pedestal and was it of their making or the fans?
In some ways this Cars 2 situation is more like George Lucas and the Star Wars prequels in both the “its is for kids” argument being a bit flimsy in the face of how the story is being told and not living up to the expectations of people who loved the previous work and felt somehow betrayed by the new work not speaking to them the way the originals did.
How is James Bond referencing for “kids” any more than the complexity of intergalactic trade negotiations? 🙂
Lucas’s defense of the prequels being “for the kids” doesn’t exactly mesh with the situation Pixar created for Cars and Cars 2. Mostly because (I think) Pixar put a lot more thought into Cars 2 than Lucas did in the prequels. And I think Cars 2 works for both kids and adults more more effectively than the prequels did.
I don’t think there are going to be any adults who will feel “abandoned” by Pixar because of the way they handled Cars 2. In some ways, that film is more for them than it is for kids. There are references to the spy genre that will go directly over the heads of children.
Since you’ve seen the movie and took the time to form your own opinion about the movie, I’d like to hear your thoughts on how age appropriate it is. We were planning on taking our 3 yo son to see Cars 2 but I’ve read a great deal of parental reviews that this movie is significantly more violent than the last one. Beatings, torture, and even several cars being murdered.
I have a feeling we’re going to play it safe now and wait until it’s on DVD to screen it. But I’m disappointed for him because he was looking forward to going.
Do you feel those concerns are over-blown or is this really a movie for adolescent+ ?
Chris, that’s a great question and actually something I wanted to address in my review (but forgot to).
I was immediately struck by the tone in the opening sequence which is much more tense than I think the target audience would be used to. There are explosions, gunfire, fights, torture… yeah, kind of heady stuff. One car falls off an oil rig and we see piece of him float to the surface. So I guess that means he’s dead?
I will say that our four year-old was *literally* on the edge of his seat the whole time. Although he didn’t come home and try to hook his little sister up to a car battery, or anything.
I think older kids will be fine watching Cars 2. But I don’t know if I would have let my son watch it a year ago.
Thanks, I appreciate the feed back. We’ll have to wait until this one is on DVD and decide from there. Thankfully he’s pretty sheltered from commercials (Netflix FTW) so he’s not being inundated with Cars 2 references. Most of the build-up was our own fault for telling him we’d go see it.