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. 

Miracle at St. Anna 09/27/08

Miracle at St. Anna, I admit, is a great idea for a movie. It deserves to be made again, by somebody completely different or maybe from Spike Lee again, just with a clearer focus on the story and better judgment on the merits of some scenes. It also needs better technical expertise. Spike Lee has obviously never filmed a war movie before. The battle scenes themselves are, I admit once again, great ideas. The first one deals with the Buffalo soldiers of WWII. They are of the few black men who fought in the war. They are crossing a river to fight the Germans, who have set up a loudspeaker manned by Axis Sally. She is a smooth talking Kraut who gently reminds the men that they are fighting for a country that hates them. To make matters worse, the soldiers are led by a racist commander who makes several bad decisions. The battle is not nearly as good as it should be. The camera shows no strategy, its pretty unclear where the soldiers are or what they're end goal is. At this point we don't know who the characters are. No one has been introduced. 
September is the heartbreak month of movies. It is where all the misguided attempts of proven directors are stored away in hopes nobody sees them. For three weeks straight I have been let down by the likes of Spike Lee, The Coen Brothers, and Woody Allen. Those are tough pills to swallow. I look forward to October and perhaps the first great movies of the fall season. 
Back to this film: I hope that someday it is remade. There is a great movie here, it is simply buried under bad acting and confusing meandering scenes. The mystery that bookends the movie is unnecessary. The racial commentary seems forced. A love story is completely one-sided and smacks of jungle fever when the Italian woman jumps in the sac with the American soldier so quickly. I don't know, maybe I missed something there.
There are two characters that for half of the movie are completely perplexing. One is this little Italian kid that talks to an imaginary friend and the big soldier, with a pint sized brain, that saves his life. When they speak its like dumb talking to dumber. The kid repeatedly calls the big guy 'The Chocolate Giant.' In fact, there are many allusions by the Eye-talians that this man is the 'largest negro you've ever seen.' I don't know, I know its supposed to be funny, but I was brought up not to laugh at that sort of thing. 
Then there's the revisionist history. There's this one scene where the black soldiers are refused service at an ice cream shop that is serving German POWs. They are threatened with violence if they don't leave. I have no trouble with that. History says that sort of shit happened. What I didn't approve of is when the soldiers came back with loaded guns and basically held up whitey at gunpoint. In the movie they get away with it scot free. I honestly don't believe that would have happened. In reality they would have been lynched the same night. The scene played less as truth but as some sort of cinematic revenge on Whitey exacted by Spike Lee. The emotion behind the scene is understandable but it does not belong in what I assume is a serious film. It should have been left in the deleted scenes on the DVD with a commentary track with Spike Lee saying "Yeah I shot this and I liked it a lot, but at the end, it was a bit out there, you know."
So why isn't this a bad review, what with all my criticism so far. Well, because the story saves itself from Lee's worst efforts. Two thirds of the way through the story we finally figure out why the kid is talking to an imaginary friend. I won't give it away, suffice to say the kid has seen something terrible and is in a state of shock. There the story ratchets up a notch and we are drawn into the story. The troop of four is stuck behind enemy lines and surrounded. There is a last battle with the Nazis, a couple double-crosses, and the tender conclusion to the kid's story. To save these scenes from going completely to waste, this movie needs to be made again. 
ps. I actually still don't know what the miracle was or why the guy at the beginning would say that he's the only one who still knows. I figure, what's the big mystery.? Did I miss something? Why would this operation be kept under wraps. Keep in mind, I'm not saying that the story is deficient because there isn't a mystery. In fact, I would say it is better if the whole mystery thing was dropped and the movie was told in a more straightforward, less meandering way. 

You Don't Mess With the Zohan 06/09/08

Looking back at my movie reviews I find that this is the first Adam Sandler movie I've ever officially critiqued. I haven't been too eager to see a Sandler film after I was hoodwinked into seeing 'Anger Management' which really sucked. It wasn't the bad taste that had killed it. Overall it was the incredible lack of creativity. Sandler has had a string of really lazy movies. I think 'Zohan' may be his most creative in years. For one thing his new character doesn't yell and scream in annoying rants like many of his characters. He still inflicts pain but it is calm and collected and because of this much more enjoyable. 
The story involves an Israeli counterterrorist played by Sandler who is superhuman at his job but who tires at the ceaseless violence in the Middle East. He one day fakes his death while fighting a superhuman terrorist played by John Turturro, escapes to the New York City, and follows his dream to become a hairdresser. There he falls for a Palestinian woman and is amazed to find that on the same street Israelis and Arabs coexist nonviolently. Cue the cultural stereotypes, funny accents, hummus, and goats. Still there seems to be a great deal of sincerity in the premise and I'm glad that Sandler had the guts to do it. 
The best thing about this movie is the action. Zohan and Turturro possess superhuman powers. They catch bullets, walk on ceilings, have enormous packages, etc. etc. etc. There is a scene where they face off each other and take turns screaming 'I feel no pain.' How they resolve the dispute involves one of the worst things you can think of. There is this magic aura around the movie where Zohan can do incredible feats and nobody seems to notice. He walks across the street to apply for the job at the salon and spontaneously breaks out into dance. He bangs scores of old ladies. He brushes his teeth with humus. All of this seems appropriate. 
I would only change one thing from this movie. There's a subplot that concerns a developer who tries to turn the street into a mall. He hires a bunch of redneck whiteys to incite the Israelis and Palestinians to fight each other. This was a mistake. I don't think they should be in the movie. That way you keep the conflict between the Israelis and Arabs where it would be more meaningful and it would shave the least funny ten minutes out of the movie. I also could have done without the overload of peepee jokes. I can take a load of them, just not an overload. I didn't mind the banging hot mamas scenes. 
I'd also like to mention actor Nick Swardson, a good character actor. He had basically one joke in this movie, but he must have made me laugh a dozen times. Rob Schneider wasn't bad also.

Transformers July 6th, 2007

First of all let me say that I know very little about that late 80s craze that was Transformers. I remember playing with a couple toys but I didn't know any of their names and I didn't watch any of the cartoons. None of this, I think, made any difference while I watched the movie. Mostly I think because the best things in this movie had nothing whatsoever to do with Transformers. Oddly enough since the movie is named Transformers I find it weird to suggest what probably would have made this a great movie instead of a good one would have been the absence of the Transformer Wars. What I'm basically saying is that instead of the whole war thing, they should have solely focused on the Romantic Comedy part and maybe renamed the movie "Shia and the Bumblebee: A story about a kid and his transformer car." Because seriously that's the best thing about this movie. Shia Lebouf trying to score Megan Fox with the help of his car.
And of course this is a weird thing to say because this movie is directed by Michael Bay, a man who has made such mindless blow-em-ups like Armageddon, Bad Boys II, Pearl Harbor, and The Island. He specializes in huge spectacles, but seriously who saw this movie said they liked the climatic battle better than the antics of LeBouf, the snarliness of Turturro, and the complete wackiness of Transformers trying to hide in a backyard. In this movie, the actual humans are more compelling than the huge special effects displays.
I'm not saying I hate all action in a movie. But there's a difference between the best computer simulated explosions money can buy and martial arts. The former is boring, the other is exhilirating. It's sort of the difference between watching a classic basketball game or a loop of guys dunking. One is instant gratification, the other is drawn out, you can see what's happening why it's happening and who it's happening too. In the end it's more memorable and more enjoyable. The problem with the action sequences in this movie is that you rarely get the entire picture. The Transformers are so huge that it's hard to ever get a real good shot of what they're doing or who they're fighting. I hardly ever knew the names of who I was watching and it was incredibly hard to see what was actually going on. Bay further compounds the problem by shaking and moving the camera alot. This not only hurts the action but also the comedy. He needs to do less. Think about the Matrix, they never did closeups during an action sequence, they wanted you to see the strategy involved. 
Still there are many strong points to this film. Shia is paticularly good at stealing the scene from gigantic robots, Megan Fox is hot, and John Tuturro, Anthony Anderson, and the parents provide solid supporting work. If you see this on DVD, skip the climatic battle. Boorrrrinnnggg. Everything else is fine.