Cars 2 (4/5 Stars)

A Bait-and-Switch Sequel

Technically speaking “Cars 2” is a sequel to “Cars,” the 2006 movie by Pixar, but not really. If anything it is the feature length version of a series of Pixar shorts entitled “Mater’s Tall Tales.” These shorts starred a side character of “Cars” called Mater the Tow Truck (Larry the Cable Guy) telling grandiose stories of his daring exploits that took place all over the world and almost certainly never happened. The shorts were true cartoons, limited to fast paced joke telling and brilliantly animated action. If Pixar was being totally honest with us it might have named this movie, “Mater the Super Spy, Ka-Chow!” But here they are having it both ways. They get to cash in on sequel box office while at the same time telling a completely original story in a completely different genre. It’s sort of like a “bait and switch sequel.” It’s very clever of them.  

The first “Cars” was about a big-headed race car named Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) that got lost on the way to a big race in a small town called Radiator Springs. He gained wisdom by the simple folk there and gradually learned all about small town values. By the end of the movie he was a much nicer car. “Cars 2” is basically a James Bond movie and follows quite the same structure. It starts with a British spycar named Finn McMissile (Michael Caine doing a superb Michael Caine) infiltrating an offshore oilrig run by a car with a monocle named Professor Z. Professor Z is smuggling some sort of weapon, Finn takes pictures, Professor Z notices Finn, a chase ensues, spy car gadgets help achieve a daring escape, and all of this is before the opening credits. Later this plot line intertwines with an ex-CEO of Big Oil, Sir Miles Axelrod’s (Eddie Izzard) plans to put on a three race around the world Grand Prix to demonstrate his new alternative fuel, Allinoil. Lightning McQueen and his buddy Mater head on over to Tokyo for the first race. There Finn McMissile and his fellow spy Holley Shiftwell (Emily Mortimer) mistake the uncouth rust-covered Mater as an American agent with an elaborate cover. Several car chases later, Mater is embroiled in the spy world. Somehow and why Big Oil is sabotaging the Grand Prix and they have to find out what its all about.

So this is Mater’s story all the way and whether you like the movie or not perhaps will rest on whether you like the bucktoothed hillbilly Mater. I liked Mater. He had plenty of good one liners and on top of that is uncannily smart, at least about cars. A good example of this is why the British agents thought he was the American agent in the first place. The spies had this code set up for meeting the agent they had never met. One car would ask a question about why the old Volkswagon engines didn’t need some very technical thing. The answer is because they have a some kind of air-cooled engine block (I don’t remember the exact words, but it was very technical). Supposedly this question was chosen because a normal car would never know such an obscure fact. Well, Mater knows it and finds nothing strange about the question. He answers it without hesitation in breathless kind of enthusiasm typical of geeks with finally someone to talk too and then goes on to describe the cooling blocks of several other like cars from that time period. There are plenty of examples of this high level of car knowledge “Cars 2” and it suggests that the people who made the movie really love cars and know everything about them. I know absolutely nothing about cars and do not harbor any fond feelings for them. In fact a big reason I like living in NYC is that I don’t need a car here. My driver’s license actually expired almost a year ago and I haven’t bothered to renew it. What I’m trying to say is that I hate cars. But I do take vicarious pleasure from watching a movie that is in love with its subject matter. “Cars 2” definitely is. If you enjoyed Pixar’s “Ratatouille” without having any knowledge of French cuisine, than you should have a fun time watching “Cars 2” whether or not you know about cars. I suspect people who do like cars will love this movie.

Much of the humor and creativity in this movie (and there is quite a lot of it) has gone into creating our human world in a way that is totally inhabited by cars. They are doing everything that we do just in car fashion. This leads to some really clever spectacles. One of my favorites is the Popemobile inside a Popemobile. Another is when the cars go through airport security and have to take off their tires to go through the metal detectors. These little details fill the movie end-to-end. One weakness in the jokes however is that a person might have to be a world traveler to get them all. In the Tokyo segment, I would think that the viewer would have to be knowledgeable of Japanese TV shows, those compartments that people rent to sleep in, and the fact that you can get everything in a vending machine over there, to get the jokes about them. The same goes for the jokes that are ingrained into the scenery in Paris, London, and a coastal Italian city that looks a lot like Cinque Terra. If you were familiar with these places, I would think your viewing pleasure would be enhanced a great deal.

The same goes for the evil scheme that is being perpetrated by Big Oil in this movie. It reminded me of the water scheme that the last James Bond movie, “Quantum of Solace,” featured. Most people thought that scheme was totally lame. I loved it, but I think that was mostly because I had just read a book about water wars (Cadillac Desert) and had known the scheme was based on something that actually happened in Bolivia. I can see people having the same reaction to the evil plot here as well. Before seeing “Cars 2,” it might help to watch the documentary, “Who Killed the Electric Car?” the utterly baffling tale of how a “business” named General Motors designed and manufactured an arguably superior product only to go to rather extraordinary lengths not to market or sell it. With that knowledge, the scheme in “Cars 2” may not seem so unrealistic because it isn’t really. Similar things have happened. Pixar has once again done their homework. One thing that this scheme does get right in line with James Bond movies is the car equivalent of the bad guys. In this movie they are lemons, really bad working cars, bent on perpetrating an evil plot because they’re so bitter about their inferiority. Surely, if there is anything I’ve learned from watching James Bond movies, it’s that you shouldn’t trust people with physical deformities.

Not that Pixar is up on a soapbox here about environmentalism. This movie is mainly about car chases, jokes, and cool spy car gadgets. There is a subplot that deals with McQueen and Mater’s friendship getting strained by Mater’s spy stuff, but it isn’t heavy stuff. Unlike the last several Pixar movies, this one isn’t about to make you start crying in the theater. Apparently that level of pathos (as opposed to say intelligence, wit, or creativity) is now what solely defines a Pixar movie as its omission in this movie is the primary reason why it is scoring a completely uncalled for 33% on RottenTomatoes. It should be noted that audiences leaving the theater have given “Cars 2” a Cinemascope rating of A-. I would give it a B+ but yes that is far more accurate than the tomato rating. “Cars 2” is not a masterpiece but it is as good as any decent James Bond movie, a worthy comparison because it is the gold standard of the genre this movie takes place in. At the very least, “Cars 2” is a better movie than “Cars” was. 

Some extra thoughts on the ingenious marketing strategy of "Cars 2," and the meaning of the term "Bait and Switch Sequel."

What do people want when it comes to movie night? I would argue that it is different depending on when you ask them.

When a person is deciding which movie from many to see, they generally try to make the safest choice possible. This is especially true if you are choosing a movie for a group of people. You don’t want to be the guy who suggests an obscure movie that everyone ends up hating. A sequel from a very popular movie has at least a decent chance of being mediocre. If it is awful, then there is always an excuse. I thought it would have been like the first. The people with you will understand because they were thinking the same thing before heading into the theater. That excuse is not available when bringing people to see a movie that doesn’t have a track record.

But what will you have wished you had seen once you leave the theater. Well, supposedly you will have wished you had seen a good movie. Fill in your definition of that here. In the case of a sequel to “Cars,” I think I would have liked to see, at the very least, exciting action sequences I had not seen before and funny jokes I had not heard before or, in other words, a good original story. 

A “Bait-and-switch sequel,” is a movie that baits people into the theater by marketing something recognizable but than switches into an original story once the money has been paid and the people are sitting down. If all goes to plan it would be the best of both worlds, both in terms of box office and artistic credibility. So the rule: the “2” helps get people into the theater. It doesn’t help tell the story. Like “Cars 2” it should be used accordingly. 

Toy Story 3 (5/5 Stars) July 3, 2010

Pixar puts aside childish things. 

As Toy Story 3 opens, Andy is about to go to college. Now tall and mature, he rummages through his old toy box to see what he should take to college, put in the attic, donate, or throw away. He hasn’t played with Woody, Buzz, Rex, Slinky Dog, Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head, Hamm, Jessie, Buckeye, the army men, and the aliens from pizza planet in a long time. At the same time he hasn’t found it in his heart to get rid of them. A home video shows him at the tender age of ten rehearsing imaginative escapades with the song, “You’ve got a Friend in me,” playing in the background. For anybody who has childhood relics gathering dust in a closet somewhere (my Sunday comics collection for instance) the scene will send a nostalgic chill up your spine. There are just some memories you can’t bear to throw away.

The toys in this story, for those who live in caves, can think and talk and only pretend to be inanimate objects when humans are around. They act a bit like you think toys might act. They take on the personalities given to them by the children that play with them and the actors who lend their voices. Ken in particular follows this pattern. He is technically a straight man but he is also a girl’s toy, so he may be in love with Barbie but his personality and size of his wardrobe tend toward the feminine. The rest of this most impressive cast is as follows: Woody, voiced by everyman Tom Hanks, is a sheriff and the leader of group. Buzz Lightyear, voiced Tim Allen, is a brave space ranger action figure. Mr. Potato Head takes on the personality of its voice, Don Rickles, the king of insult comedy. Mrs. Potato Head is voiced by Estelle Harris, who you may remember from Seinfeld as George’s mother. Hamm (aka the evil Dr. Porkchop), is a piggy bank voiced by enormously laid back John Ratzenberger, the mailman from Cheers. Jessie, a cow-girl, is voiced raucously by Joan Cusack. Rex, the dinosaur, is voiced with a wild sideways lisp by Wallace Shawn, the little evil genius in The Princess Bride. R. Lee Ermey the drill instructor from Full Metal Jacket provides the voice of the army men. Joining the cast are other voices like Bonnie Hunt (a ragdoll), Jeff Garlin from Curb Your Enthusiasm (as a unicorn named “Buttercup”), the very British Timothy Dalton (as Pricklepants a toy thespian who doesn’t like coming alive because he’s trying to stay in character), Ned Beatty who seems to be channeling the totalitarian sheriff in Cool Hand Luke (as Lotso-Hugs, a big purple plush bear), Kristen Schaal from Flight of the Conchords (as a web-savvy Triceratops), and Whoopi Goldberg (as an Octopus). Finally rounding out the cast of toys are Ken and Barbie, the aliens form Pizza Planet, a psychotic monkey with cymbals, a sad clown with a tragic tale to tell, a bunch of thug action figures, an army of monkeys in a barrel, and a big really creepy baby doll. Whew, I hope I didn’t leave anyone out…Wait! There’s a slinky dog. Don’t forget the slinky dog! 

The person in charge of juggling all of these characters and giving each and every one of them their own moments, jokes, and arc is none other than Michael Arndt, the Oscar Winning screenwriter of Little Miss Sunshine. He does a truly admirable job. The movie is funny throughout, mixing comedy that simultaneously plays to both kids and adults. The plot goes something like this: There is a mix-up and the toys end up in a day care named Sunnyside. It turns Sunnyside is run by the hateful Lotso who runs the thing like a totalitarian dictatorship. The new toys are left to fend for themselves amongst toddlers who like to play rough and use finger-paints, while the older toys keep the more mature kids for themselves. The toys have to band together, form a prison break and get back to Andy.

How they do all this allows the director Lee Unkrich (Toy Story 2, Monsters Inc.) to present some Grade A action sequences. I mentioned in last week’s review that comedy/action sequences lends itself better to animation because there needs a great deal of control in order to achieve the continuity and timing needed for physical comedy. Well, watch the first scene where Mr. Potato Head hijacks a train and blows up a bridge but then Woody and Buzz save all the orphans but then evil Dr. Porkchop unleashes “Death by Monkeys,” and you will see what I mean. The explosion of the bridge is one of the best I’ve seen in a movie. I mean it is like super big. It’s a testament to what you can do when you can use computers to make the whole thing up and there’s no chance of stunt men getting hurt. The type of precision and creativity that Pixar uses in its action sequences is almost unparalleled in modern movies. The stakes are big, the fights are exciting, and you can always tell what is going on and how because Pixar uses long shots, wide angles, and applies the laws of physics. Hell, even the salsa dance that Buzz and Jessie do at the end is one of the best I’ve seen in a movie. Let’s see Antonio Banderas do that. 

The performances in this movie are powerful. In particular, Ned Beatty and Pixar have done an incredible job with Lotso. Never have I sensed such strong emotion in a cartoon. The clown who once knew him tells a sad story about a young girl who spent every moment of the day with Lotso. One day, the girl brought Lotso to a park, fell asleep, and was taken home by her parents who completely forgot to take Lotso along with them. A lost toy, Lotso somehow made it back, trudging through a thunderstorm, to the window of the girl’s home. He peered in the window and saw a replacement Lotso-Huggs bear sleeping in the bed with her. You can actually see the sense of betrayal in his face as his heart hardens. From then on, he is a toy without a soul. That huggable purple bear proves his is capable of some very bad things. Yes, Toy Story 3 is funny, heartwarming, and action-packed but it also happens to be the scariest movie Pixar has ever made. It is a very good question as to what would happen if a cartoon character was nominated for an Oscar. Who would get it: The voice actor, the animator, or both? I don’t know but the movies of Pixar are ripe for deserving such recognition. (You don’t believe me. YouTube the clip of Dory, voiced by Ellen Degeneres, in Finding Nemo trying to speak Whale. Try to tell me with a straight face that she doesn’t deserve some type of award.)

If Toy Story 3 doesn’t make you laugh as much as previous Pixar movies, it won’t because of any substantial lack of wit. What you are experiencing is what happens when a movie becomes too good to laugh at. A good example of this is Barbie’s line near the end of the movie. It is the climatic scene where the toys rise up against the evil Lotso. She speaks against Lotso’s tyranny and passionately declares, “Power in government should derive from the consent of the people!” Now this is funny for the obvious reason: Barbie is supposed to be a dumb blonde and here she is, to all the other toys’ surprise, saying something very smart. But you wouldn’t laugh too hard because it isn’t entirely obvious whether Pixar means for it to be a joke. You wouldn’t know that because the movie itself is a perfect allegory of the evils and abuses of a despotic regime and the ultimate moral superiority of democracy. I wouldn’t be surprised if North Korea or China banned this movie. It’s dangerous to assholes. But back to Barbie’s plea. Either you will find it funny or it will strike you as a profound statement of political science. Or it may strike you as both. The point is that it works all three ways. Such is the genius of Pixar. This movie is a perfect illustration of what is meant by “family entertainment.” It is the type of movie that will please every single member of the family no matter what their age.

At this point, I am in awe of how Pixar keeps on making vastly superior movies year after year after year. I take delight in seeing how much money they are making at the box office. Hopefully other studios will get greedy and start making movies at the high artistic level of Pixar. The only thing Pixar hasn’t gotten, rather unfairly I believe, is Oscar Gold. Certainly, they have several golden statues in the Best Animated Feature Film and the Best Animated Short Film but it is about time they got recognition in the categories that weren’t made especially for them. (Wall-e in particular, I felt should have won the Oscar for Best Picture in 2008. It would certainly find itself on my list as one of the 100 best movies ever made). The Academy made a mistake in having an Animated category at all. They have essentially voiced the opinion that animation should be relegated to the kiddie table while the live action adults are having dinner. That they would start this tradition during the cultural Renaissance that is Pixar is tragically ironic. In making the argument that cartoons can be considered as great art I quote Sam Jackson’s substance over form argument as he talks about the existence of miracles in Pulp Fiction: 

Vincent: Okay, so God stopped the bullets-
Jules: No, you’re judging this shit all wrong Vincent. Its not that God stopped the bullets, turned water into wine, or found my fucking car keys. What is important is that in that moment I felt the touch of God.”

The movies of Pixar routinely make me laugh heartily, enthrall me with visual delights, and move me deeply. To say that it doesn’t count as great art as much as live action movies is like saying the comic strip Calvin and Hobbes isn’t great literature or that a Richard Pryor standup routine isn’t on the level of a soliloquy by Shakespeare. All of which is complete bullshit. 

I was ten when I saw the first Pixar movie, Toy Story. I must have watched it a dozen times in a period of two years. I pulled it out again in preparation for Toy Story 3. It was still a great movie but like Andi, in the third movie, I was now looking back at those toys as an adult who has put aside childish things. If like Andi and I on the eve of college, you also boarded up the remaining vestiges of your childhood and consoled your mother when she noticed how empty your room was, you might just cry a little. I eagerly await the next movie by Pixar, the best storytellers of my generation. 

Note: The animated short that precedes this movie, Day and Night, is as good as any other animated short Pixar has made. They deserve yet another Oscar for Best Animated short film.