thedriveintheatre

The ‘mane’ cast just ‘lion’ around.

The Lion King has often been hailed by critics as one of the greatest motion-pictures of all-time, no small feat for a film back when the medium was still deemed by the average moviegoer as ‘just for kids’. Later animated flicks like Toy Story, Shrek, and Spirited Away began to change that perception, but this 1994 Disney feature continued Beauty & The Beast’s Oscar legacy by being the highest grossing 2D animated film of all-time in the United States and spawning two sequels and a Broadway adaptation.

The Lion King was one of my first unforgettable film experiences from my childhood. I remember watching it on VHS; the Elephant Graveyard sequence and the heartbreaking death of Mufasa brought me to tears as a six-year old. I remember my aunty, who watched the film with my siblings and I while babysitting us, desperately trying to cheer us up during the later ‘Hakuna Matata’ number. My dad later watched it on his own and became so enthusiastic about the Swahili expression, that he even wrote the phrase down and made my brother and I memorise the entire song.

This film holds a cherished place in my heart, and I haven’t seen the film in its entirety until now, sixteen years later, and in a theatre with surround sound, no less. Let’s get the most pressing question out of the way first - is the 3D worth the price of admission alone? Honestly, not really. There were a few great moments like the aerial shot of the flying flamingos during the opening sequence, or that iconic image of Scar leaping towards the audience with his claws out. But other than that, the added dimension didn’t really add much to the film, unlike movies like Avatar, How to Train Your Dragon and Legend of the Guardians, which had a lot of high-altitude flight sequences and multiple-planes shots.

But does it still stand the test of time? Unsurprisingly, yes. Unlike many contemporary ‘famliy’ flms like Transformers, Alvin & The Chipmunks, and Hannah Montana: The Movie, which will become dated within the next two months, TLK’s story is timeless, probably because it owes much of its plot to the epic Shakespearean play Hamlet. If you’ve been living under a rock for the past decade, here’s the story in a nutshell: A pride of lions rule an anthropomorphic kingdom of animals in Africa, led by the incumbent king Mufasa. His son, Simba, is next to ascend the throne, but Mufasa’s jealous brother Scar has other plans. There’s political manuevring, a love story, and a sweeping tale of redemption, betrayal, and destiny, all amidst the breathtakingly majestic plains and creatures of Africa.

As an adult, it is a real treat to rediscover a childhood favourite with new eyes. The subtext of Simba and Nala’s innocent game of ‘pinning’ as kids turning into something more as adults. The talented Nathan Lane’s wisecracks, Rowan Atkinson’s pun-laden morning report, or Jeremy Irons’ deliciously sardonic quips. The Zen-like philosophising of Robert Guillaume’s Rafiki. The gravity of change and renewal during the ‘Circle of Life’ exposition by Mufasa or the wildfire/thunderstorm climax.

And of course, the animation. You can tell the animators did their homework - the animals move naturally, whether they’re swinging through the trees, flying through the air, or beating the living daylights out of each other. With the exception of the comic-relief characters, there’s a certain theatrical quality to the acting that is not often seen in most animated movies nowadays, which tend to rely on Chuck Jones-style pose-to-pose movements. Not that the latter’s a bad thing, but the characters’ performance is more restrained and measured than say, Madagascar or Rio. It’s a reflection of a different era which lacks the hyperactivity and manic delivery of modern cartoon characters.

The score by Hans Zimmer is magnificent and evocative. ‘This Land’ was a highlight for me, as it is the musical representation of Simba and Mufasa’s father-son bond, and how that transcends even death. And of course, the catchy-as-heck musical numbers like ‘I Just Can’t Wait to Be King’, ‘Hakuna Matata’, and the evergreen favourite, ‘Can You Feel the Love Tonight’.

Did I mention the cast and crew list is a veritable dream team of animation and acting legends? Chris Sanders, Brenda Chapman, John Lasseter, Ed Catmull, Tim Rice, Elton John, Mark Mancina, James Earl Jones, Matthew Broderick, Whoopi Goldberg, Cheech Marin, and last but not least, Jim Cummings. Of course, I didn’t knew who on Earth these folks were as a kid, but many movies and a tertiary education later, I can now appreciate the immense talent behind this film. It is truly inspiring to see a few of these names with the knowledge that they will later go on to do great things in their subsequent years.

If there’s any criticism I have, is that some modern-day vernacular creeps into the dialogue such as “Jeez” and “fixer-upper”, as well as a few contemporary songs courtesy of Zazu. This might not seem remarkable in a movie where African animals talk in an American accent, but it does break my suspension of disbelief and ‘snap’ me out of the timeless quality of the setting.

In summary, it’s not like I would tell you to avoid this film. This is truly a motion-picture masterpiece that will be cherished for generations to come, and one that I fully admire even now as a grown-up. It was the glorious jewel in Disney’s crown during the Renaissance period, and still stands up to its revival now, despite the redundancy of the 3D conversion. Whether you liked it as a kid, or have never seen it before, or you just happen to be a fan of movies in general, go and see it on the big screen. I would’ve gladly settled for a 2D presentation, but it is just as amazing an experience with the clunky 3D glasses.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to re-memorise those snappy verses to Timon and Pumbaa’s catchphrase.

What do double-decker buses and London cabs transport in the Cars world?

A few fans on the various forums and blogs I follow have said that Pixar has the right to try a fun movie once in a while, especially three emotionally-draining pics (if we start from Wall-E onwards). And I agree that Pixar should cut loose and that they don’t always have to make tearjerkers.

But one of my biggest beefs with this sequel was how the theme was brought across (or rather, how poorly it was done). Every film has a theme; in Cars 2’s case, it’s about the struggle of Mater and Lightning’s friendship when Lightning moves on to bigger things. There is also something about Mater seeking acceptance from others when what he really needs to do is find his own inner self-confidence.

But the film couldn’t really decide if it wanted Mater to accept his shortcomings, or if Lightning was the one who needed changing. It also made Lightning out to be the bad guy when really, Mater ‘done goofed up’, to use a popular Internet meme. Granted, Mater didn’t intend to botch Lightning’s Tokyo race, but when his friend’s professional life is on the line, he really needed that wake-up call to stay focused and not be distracted.

And then there’s the whole conflicting message of “Remain the way you are,” when compared with the first movie. Cars was about Lightning realizing he needed friends, and he did this by undergoing a paradigm shift and being a better person. Cars 2 is also about Mater needing new friends and not relying on Lightning so much, but he’s told by Lightning that he should remain the obnoxious and ignorant truck he was during the Japanese dinner function. What if Mater told Lightning that he should remain selfish and cold-hearted? Would he have gone through the proper character development he deserved?

There’s a difference between being yourself and simply having good manners. If Mater perhaps tried to be as confident and well-groomed as Lightning’s peers (you know, like putting on a false air of knowledge by giving suggestions on wine or something), and then he accidentally trips over himself or blurts out a faux-pas, then maybe he would be more empathetic. Or maybe have one of the racers (Francesco probably) snub him in public, call him names. Most of us know how it feels like to attend a formal event and how we put on a fake veneer of sophistication (well, at least the insecure of us do). If it was done that way, then the moral would be we can be polite and educated, yet we don’t have to ‘Keep up with the Joneses’.

But the way they handled it, he essentially is an overenthusiastic ‘ugly American’ (it pains me to use that term, but that’s how I saw it) who ignores Lightning’s pleas to behave himself. It is as if he lost all his self-control and inhibitions and made a total *ss of himself. Lightning had every right to tell him off, but then he suddenly feels guilty about it after the Topolino talk and becomes painfully possessive of Mater to the point of creepiness during the “You’re the Bomb” scene. When really, he should also be ‘letting go’ of Mater and let him find new friends in the form of Finn and Holley, which thankfully, he somewhat did in the end.

Or they could’ve had Mater’s motive for being a spy is so that he can finally impress someone else (especially after his fallout with Lightning). Or maybe this is his way of getting back at Lightning, by having a good time and proving he can be sophisticated and classy and oh-so-suave (against his true nature). Instead, he is merely strung along, and occasionally attempts to tell Finn and Holley that he’s not really a spy, despite him willfully going along with the plan.

Another qualm I had was the theme didn’t really tie in with the movie as cohesively as other films I’ve seen this year. In scriptwriting convention, the throughline is the emotional journey our protagonist takes that runs through the entire story, and this often coincides with the theme. One of my ways of seeing if a theme is presented powerfully enough is to see whether the conflicts and struggles would still make sense if I took it out. Every problem, every challenge faced, has to call-back to that theme. So for Rango, every move the chameleon makes to convince the townspeople of his awesomeness is his attempt at portraying his ideal self, which in turn becomes his true self. The bar scene, the calling of the posse, the high-noon showdown, etc. In Rio, every action Blu does is to win the heart of his romantic interest, Jewel. There is also a secondary theme of Blu being too reliant on his owner Linda, and he encounters a turning point before the climax that signifies his independence. Kung Fu Panda 2: Po has to stop a diabolical villain from taking over China, but his real mission is to discover his past, sort of like an ancient version of The Bourne Identity. Every step he takes brings him closer to the shocking truth… et cetera.

For Cars 2, I can take out the theme of friendship against all odds, or self-confidence in one’s abilities, and the story would still work. Mater has no motive to be a spy other than it being a case of mistaken identity. Lightning didn’t need to patronise Mater. The theme doesn’t bubble to the surface or register on the palate as significantly or succintly as it should be. Again, this can be fixed by a few story adjustments like having Mater actually pretend to be a spy instead of being passively led on, or Lightning telling Mater straight-up that he shouldn’t have to play secret-agent just to impress him, because he loves him as a friend just the way he is, that sorta thing.

I can appreciate a brainless, fun movie. I watched Fast Five, another automobile-themed movie, and loved every second of it. But at least it was consistent and thorough with its throughline and had one theme: “Friends can be like your family.” Maybe people took away a different message (“Never drive in Rio”, “The Rock beats Vin in a fistfight”), but that’s what I got. For Cars 2, it’s a hodgepodge, mess of a potpurri. “It’s okay to be the fool, even though you should make no attempt at self-education”, “Make new friends, although you really should cling on to your besties, especially when they have a bomb strapped to their hood.” Oh, and “Lemons are misunderstood. We shouldn’t laugh at those less fortunate than us, although most of them are evil.” It is these conflicting multitude of themes, plus their total unrelation to the plot (I can take out all except the lemon-racism theme, which is crucial to the whole conspiracy) that makes Cars 2 a lesser movie in my eyes. That’s why a movie like Gladiator is better cinematically than 300. Or Saving Private Ryan being more magnificent than The Expendables (well, story-wise, anyway).

A movie can be entertaining and tell a good story; the two aren’t insoluble.

Accordion not included.

A while back, I wrote a post describing 5 things I expected from Pixar’s sequel Cars 2 such as ‘It will be a spy movie’, ‘There will be few slapstick jokes’, ‘There will be heart & soul’, et cetera. I’ve provided a link to that post at the end of this one. It is now time to review that post in light of having seen the film, as well as to add a few retrospective details.

1) It will be a spy movie

Pixar has definitely struck it out of the ballpark in this area. I really wondered how they were going to pull of a conspiracy plot that would somehow involve Lightning and Mater without feeling too far a stretch, but I’m glad it was plausible and even logical in the end. Danger - tick. Excitement - tick. Hell, there’s even a little adult innuendo, although it’s more of the chaste flirting type (although Holley’s last name comes tantalisingly close).

There’s not so much spoofs or parodies of the spy genre as more of loving homages. So we get an enemy-base infiltration sequence in the beginning, a couple of car chases (always a perennial staple), a backalley fistfight (or should I say, tyrefight?) and a dramatic countdown finale.

Pixar also doesn’t portray a romantic view of the secret agent occupation; characters are tortured and killed in various gruesome fashions, and as a spy, Finn has many enemies and fewer friends (there is a great line he tells Mater that expresses this axiom). I would’ve liked more backstabbings and double-crosses, or even a twist that I wouldn’t see coming at the end, but sadly most of the plot was very predictable.

But like Lasseter said, this is a spy movie.

2) There will be few slapstick jokes and pop-culture references.

On the scatological front, the trailer revealed most of the toilet jokes (thankfully). There was a line where Mater almost cusses when he fails to pronounce the last syllable of Holley’s surname (whether this was intentional or not, I don’t know). But most of the gags are of the ‘Mater-acting-silly’ kind.

With regards to pop-culture references, they are thankfully not the ‘flavour of the month’ kind used by lesser Dreamworks movies or any of the ‘(insert genre) Movies’ that will get dated two years from now. Rather, these are grander and more timeless cultural perceptions and stereotypes. So we get Japanese kei cars with dewy anime-eyes, Italian mothering-types who smother you with home-cooked food, stern-faced Queen’s Guards with giant bearskin hats, that sort of thing. It is very interesting how Pixar takes these cultural observations and ‘Cars-ify’ them within the world’s internal logic, so I can appreciate that.

3) The antagonist will not be a straw villain.

Oh man, Professor Z… he’s not exactly the most memorable Pixar antagonist - he has awfully little screentime and even fewer remarkable lines, but his actions speak louder than his words. What he lacks in quoteworthy bad-guy dialogue he makes up for in callous indifference in his acts of villainy. We witness the aftermath of his murder of Finn’s colleague in a rather brutal way (by cars’ standards) in the opening act, and one of the most unforgettable scenes is of his slow and sadistic torture of Bruce Campbell’s character.

Unfortunately, he doesn’t directly dispose of his victims, instead relying on his henchmen Acer and Grem to do the dirty deeds. Also, there are moments where he breaks out-of-character and becomes weak, like when he recalls his past of being treated as a lemon in the casino, or when he is captured by Finn and squeals when he is pressured to reveal the bomb disarming code. It’s great to show moments of vulnerability in the antagonist; Kung Fu Panda 2 handled that very well with Lord Shen’s moments of self-doubt. The way Cars 2 did it though, felt like it was played for laughs with Z’s dramatic sobbing when he recollected his memories of being teased as a lemon, or when he flees from Finn when his men abandon him. It would’ve been more bad-ass and in-character if he had simply faltered during the ‘remembering’ scene, or if he actually tried to fight Finn one-on-one instead of relying on his henchmen or escape crafts.

Also, the big baddy had a nice reveal (thanks to Mater’s sudden burst of intelligence), but as another Pixar Planet member pointed out, they still won in the end since they had legitimate ownership of the oil fields.

4) There will not be loads and loads of characters.

I am disappointed to say that Pixar let me down on this aspect. But not because there were too many characters, but that I wish they devoted more time to letting us get to know them. I know it’s very difficult to squeeze in a few more lines for a film with this many sub-plots and settings (despite the 2 hour-length). But I would’ve loved to hear more lines from Lightning’s fellow racers- I, personally, was disappointed to hear barely a word from my favourite racer Carla Veloso, but I’m sure fans of other cars like Max, Rip and Shu would feel likewise. I mean, they could’ve said something, maybe a congratulation to the winner of each race, or maybe a cuss word or two when they’re overtaken, something like that. At least Lewis got a few quick sentences.

Another Pixar Planeteer also pointed out that Uncle and Mama Topolino’s role could’ve easily been replaced by Sally as a confidante to Lightning during a crisis point in his relationship with Mater. Granted, it was nice to hear about Luigi and Guido’s backstory, but the Topolinos were superfluous characters.

As for Finn and Holley, I wish they included a scene where they had a heart-to-heart talk with Mater to take the spy game seriously. I can just imagine Holley having a quiet moment with Mater amidst all the chaos, and she questioning Mater why is he doing this, what does he stand to gain from trying to stop Professor Z. Or Finn, revealing a little of his past as a spy, seeing all his friends die and being unable to do a damn thing about it. Something like that! Again, missed opportunity.

It’s great though, to see the returning characters put to good use. Filmore, in particular, plays a crucial role in the film’s climax that I didn’t see coming, so good on that VW truck, maaaan!

5) There will be heart and soul.

Ooh, this one’s tricky. Yes, it has more heart than the average animated fare put out nowadays. The emotional backbone of the story is Lightning and Mater’s friendship and how that is put to the test when time passes on. I loved how Mater was upset about Lightning having less time with him as best-buds, only to find new friends in the form of Finn and Holley (the latter, I think, stands a good chance of being his next ‘Doreen’).

But when compared to other Pixar films, it lacks that certain spark, that sincere and honest ‘I’ve got a story to tell’ enthusiasm. The emotional backbone is diluted by the whole spy plot, and it is difficult to sum up the story in less than five words.

Truck tries to be a spy.
Truck mistaken for secret agent.
Tow truck saves the world.

Okay, bad illustration. But it is difficult to find the core, the theme, the by-line… I will elaborate more about this in my next post, but I was very disappointed at how this was handled.

Don’t get me wrong. Cars 2 has its heart in the right place. It just didn’t come through as clearly and succintly as I hoped through all that exposition and convoluted plot.

So was I proven right on all the points I made? To an extent, yes. Pixar hit a home run on a few like ‘It’s a spy movie’ and ‘Few slapstick and pop-culture references’. It was kinda iffy on others like ‘The antagonist will not be a straw villain’ and ‘There will be heart and soul’. As I’ve said in my review, Cars 2 is Pixar’s best movie since The Incredibles. But it just… lacks that special something that elevates it to the greats. I still like the film much more than the critics did, but I don’t think I’ll be fawning over it as much as I did for all the other animated films I’ve seen this year.

5 Things I Expect From Cars 2

Cars 2 Review

NOTE: I have tried to keep this as spoiler-free as possible, but I strongly advise readers to see the film first in case I reveal any minor plot or character details.

Pixar’s latest film has achieved an astounding feat, although it is not one its producers and fans have been hoping for. After eleven critically-acclaimed movies and sixteen years of feature film production, the award-winning studio finally created a movie that obtained a Rotten Rating on the movie review aggregator site, Rotten Tomatoes (at the time of writing, the rating sits at 35% with 159 reviews, a fortnight after its release). The sequel polarised fans more than the first ever did; most implored non-viewers to give the film a chance, saying it met their expectations, and for a few, even exceeded it. Others weren’t as forgiving, expressing extreme disappointment and even resentment at the studio. And there are those who remain ambivalent about their experience and said it was decent for the studio’s standards.

I am not here to discuss their opinions. I have covered that extensively in my past posts, and it has dawn on me that ‘secondhand reviewing’ is a weak, if seriously flawed way to judge a movie. This is why I believe I am now qualified to offer my opinion after having experienced the movie for myself first-hand. I will also not compare it with Pixar’s other films (besides the first movie), or recent animated films from other studios. I may do that in my next post, but I believe a film should be judged on its own merits. Lastly, I will not discuss this film in light of any real-life controversies surrounding it (such as the copyright claim lawsuit, or Lasseter’s late intervention and Brad Lewis’ rather unceremonious relegation to ‘co-director’ title). That will also be reserved for another post. I would also like to take the opportunity to inform you of my prejudices. It is my belief that a critic should always admit their biases and divorce their preferences or ‘conflict of interests’ from their assessment to remain as objective as possible. So here it is upfront; the first movie was what made me fell in love with Pixar. I have been disenchanted with the studio lately for many reasons, and it is with great trepidation and morbid curiousity that I walked into the theatre with a close pal of mine (one of my best friends, in fact) to watch one of my most anticipated movies of the year.

First off, let’s get the obvious out of the way. This is not Pixar’s best movie, not by a long shot. That would be still be any one of the ‘Big Three’ (my personal collective nickname for Ratatouille, Wall-E and Up, since these films represented the zenith of my affair with the studio), although Brave stands a good chance next year. It is also probably its ‘worst’, again, this being my opinion, and by that, I mean, it is not particularly revelatory, meaningful, or thoughtful as most of Pixar’s fare.

What it is, though, is one of the best action movies the studio has produced since The Incredibles. I have longed for Pixar to do a spy movie and a sequel to Cars, and I am pleased to say they have granted my wish. John Lasseter was right, this is a spy movie. There are plenty of allusions to great spy movies; the rooftop chase of one of the characters could’ve been straight from the Tangiers chase in The Bourne Ultimatum, the casino and torture scenes from a Daniel Craig or Timothy Dalton Bond flick, the plot about the control of the world’s resources probably inspired by The World is Not Enough or Quantum of Solace. Yet Pixar manages to take these references and make it their own (which they have done many times before with films like A Bug’s Life, Wall-E and Up). Not that there’s anything wrong with that. ‘Nothing’s original anymore’ is a maxim I believe in. What matters is the execution. And all I’ll say is that Pixar does this brilliantly with panache and verve.

Automotive enthusiasts will also find plenty to enjoy here; from the Karmann Ghia being a codeword (and any spy fan worth his salt would know that was one of cars driven by Maxwell Smart in the ‘Get Smart’ series), to the lemons sub-plot, and all the assorted celebrity voice-cameos in between. Oh, and I just discovered a few days ago that Siddeley the plane’s name is a reference to a British aircraft manufacturer company.

On a technical level, Pixar has crafted a visual masterpiece. I will compare this aspect to other films in another post, but I’m going to say that I was thoroughly blown away by the level of detail, like the breathtaking scenery of an Italian coastal town, the burning sparks of cinder in the aftermath of an explosion, the seafoam spraying from the crest of a wave in the dark of the night… the Special Effects, Modeling, and R&D Departments deserve kudos for pushing the envelope in bringing the Cars world to life.

The characters are nicely fleshed-out, especially the newcomers. It is hard not to fall in love with Finn and Holley, who have to be the most charming and suave characters the studio has ever created. Finn, deliciously voiced by the congenial Sir Michael Caine, is the vehicular embodiment of a spy, with more fancy gadgets than you can throw a portable mine at. I even found myself liking Holley as much as I liked Sally from the first film. I liked her character progression from inept tech geek to fully-fledged field agent, and her increasing exasperation at Mater’s antics is entertaining to watch.

It’s also nice to see the returning characters, although this is expected of a sequel. At times, I felt like I was meeting old friends and returning to a place I haven’t visited in a while - it was pleasant to see how much Radiator Springs has changed since we last saw it. Doc’s absence was handled decently, even though I wish they made it more obvious to the viewer that his departure was permanent. The supporting cast also have a bigger role in the story at certain parts; Filmore unexpectedly plays a crucial role in the film’s climax, and one of the more memorable scenes was when we discover the backstory of Luigi and Guido and how their relationship mirrors Lightning and Mater’s at that point in the movie.

On that note, I found myself empathizing with Mater. I mean, don’t we feel like a fool every now and then, especially if we find ourselves out of our element? For our intrepid tow-truck, the disorientation is two-fold; he joins Lightning on a whirlwind tour of the world and encounters foreign cultures and unfamiliar settings, and he gets mistaken for a secret agent and finds himself embroiled in international espionage, terrorist organisations, and global conspiracies. His naivety and direct honesty places him in many sticky situations, which makes for huge comedy and drama potential.

Unfortunately, this leads me to one of my biggest gripes with the movie: the conflicting message. In the first movie, Lightning’s developed from a selfish, self-centred loner to a more humble and big-hearted individual. In this outing, the focus is on Mater, who is now the protagonist and must undergo the biggest character arc of the story. To my disappointment, this was not handled well by Pixar, mainly because he remains the same character he was at the start of the film, a goof of a klutz. The only difference is that he accepts his fault without making any effort to change it, and inspires others to look at him in a kinder light. This results in a typical “Be yourself” message which feels contrived and contrary to the first movie’s moral of “Become a better person.” I felt they could’ve made Mater less of a clueless buffoon and have him at least attempt to behave in the presence of Lightning and his fellow racers during the party, only to be snubbed. Or made him be aware that he was being mistaken for a spy, and have him try to impress his new ‘friends’ by proactively pretending to be a spy, instead of having him guilelessly strung along for the ride.

On a personal note, I would’ve liked to see more of Sally. I find it hard to believe that Lightning would choose his best friend over his girlfriend to take on a whirlwind tour of the world, although it is plausible. Even then, I wonder why she couldn’t have been part of his pit crew, or why he couldn’t have just bought an extra ticket for her. I can just imagine a scenario with Sally after the Tokyo race which would’ve been great, but I won’t discuss that here.

I also felt the exposition was too quick, which might fly over the heads of the kids and confuse the adults who are not as familiar with the franchise as their younger charges. Even at one of Pixar’s longer runtimes of 2 hours, the film flew by too fast for me to appreciate the nuances of character or keep track of who is doing what. More adept viewers might be able to keep up, but I felt they could’ve paced the movie better.

There were also a couple of cringeworthy scatalogical gags that wouldn’t have looked out of place in a ‘lesser’ Dreamworks movie, but stick out like a sore tire from a studio of this calibre. Mercifully, most of them were already shown in the trailer, but I just wish they didn’t include them and devoted more time to character development or exposition.

Lastly, many reviewers, both professional and amateur, have not made mention of Giacchino’s score, which probably shows how unremarkable it is. Granted, it certainly is an interesting use of surf music, and it lends a very 70s Sean Connery or Roger Moore feel to it. Sadly, the hook, while catchy, is repeated too often, and there is very little variation to the tracks from memory. I might listen closely on a repeat viewing, but there are very few standout tracks, even those during the important scenes. And of course, the use of contemporary music is interesting (I am in fact listening to Polyrhythm as I type this), but this is the exception to usual Pixar soundtracks which rely almost entirely on score. Again, this is not really a bad thing, but it won’t stick in your mind either.

As I said in the beginning of this review, no other Pixar movie has generated this much controversy in the studio’s entire history. For once, the verdict is not unanimous; the critics wished it was never made, the fans think the critics are misguided, and the fence-sitters have little to praise about it. What do I think? Well, it depends. If you’re a Pixar fan, automotive enthusiast, or spy flick conoisseur, this is a must-watch. If you didn’t like the first film, Mater, or the idea of a world inhabited by talking, living cars, you’re probably not gonna like this one either (although I still recommend you watch it, as it might change your mind). If you’re hoping that Pixar has made another winner, I’m afraid it’s not this year. If you think Cars 2 is not worth watching in theatres, I can tell you that I saw it in 2D, and I immensely enjoyed it. It’s worth watching, preferably with your best friend. I might plan a rewatch in IMAX 3D, if only to provide more comments in a subsequent IMAX review and watch the Brave trailer for the first-time in all its glory on the big-screen.

The best line in Cars 2 sums up the open-minded and cautiously optimistic approach you must adopt should you choose to undertake the ‘dangerous’ mission of watching it:

“No one realizes they’re being fooled, because they’re too busy laughing at the fool.”

You said it, Finn.

It’s official: Pixar has done the impossible. Cars 2 is its first film to have a Rotten rating on the film review aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes. This event is unprecedented; no other Pixar film in the history of the studio’s fifteen years of existence has dipped into Rotten territory, not even for a second.

Pixar fans on forums such as Pixar Planet and Wall-E Forum (of which this blogger is a member of) are quick to jump to the film’s defense. Some say that the reviewers are biased because they didn’t like Mater for being the main protagonist, that they had too high expectations, that they shouldn’t compare it to the first movie. Others point out that a few critics like Pete Harmmond and Roger Ebert have praised the film. Yet a few say that the critics are ‘haters’ and that we shouldn’t listen to what they have to say. This is all very interesting, because no other studio on the planet has such a loyal fanbase that is willing to defend it tooth-and-nail against unwanted critcisms.

If you ask me personally, I feel that some critics might indeed be harsh against Cars 2, if only because they come loaded with preconceptions about the film and are shaped by their experience of the first. It won’t help if they didn’t like the idea of a world populated by inanimate characters devoid of human life in the first place, or if they didn’t appreciate the over-the-top caricatures of sports celebrity endorsements. If they brought the same judgemental mindset to a sequel which now expands the concept to include other cultures, coupled with an eccentric spy theme, chances are they won’t be too pleased with this installment either.

Having said that though, let’s examine this objectively. We are already 80 reviews in. The Tomatometer has dropped from 50% since I last checked to 40%, and then 39% in the last hour (maybe one or two new negative reviews came in).

We have 49 Reviews which RT has classified as being Rotten. Now, I don’t know what is the exact criteria for judging a review as being ‘Rotten’, but I can imagine it’s some algorithm counting the number of negative adjective keywords. Or maybe we have a human screener who reads the verdict or final paragraph and assigns it a ‘Fresh’ or ‘Rotten’ Rating accordingly.

But when all is said and done, the fact remains: Pixar has obtained a Rotten rating for Cars 2 on its opening day. That might change in the future (many fans are hoping for a ‘rebound’), but as of right now, this is what it is.

Here are a few more arguments that the supporters throw up that I want to debunk:

1) The critics are biased.

While this might be true with a few of them, it is not a case of having one Armond White or Cole Smithey troll here. We have 49 professional critics who are paid to view the film objectively and without bias, and all of them are saying that Pixar has made a dud. What are the chances that almost half a hundred critics are contrarians just for the sake of it?

At the time of writing, the rating on IMDB (a populist website that reflects the average moviegoers’ opinion) is 6.9/10. So it is not just professional critics who are not impressed.

Besides, the term ‘biased’ is a loaded word. Don’t forget that if you are a fan of the studio, you also bring your own biases to the table. It is very difficult to be objective, because we are all influenced by our interests and beliefs to an extent.

2) The critics are ‘Pixar haters’.

The term ‘hater’ is on often abused pejorative that we ascribe to contrarians who do not share the same opinion as us. If someone doesn’t like chocolate ice-cream and I happen to like it, I call ‘em a ‘chocolate ice-cream hater’. See what I did there? I just made someone else the ‘Other’ (Academics who study ‘orientalism’ and cultural studies would know what I’m talking about).

These are the same critics who have lavished praise on past Pixar productions. Why would they suddenly do an about-turn and sabotage the studio they once admired? The more likely reason is that they simply didn’t find this film as enjoyable as the last few. The jury is still out if this is because Pixar was too dramatically-driven for its previous films, and thereby shot itself in the foot when it wanted to cut loose and do something ‘fun’ for a change.

3) We should give Pixar a chance and just enjoy the movie.

The thing is, Pixar has always stood up to its harshest critics before. People doubted that it could make a second good sequel when Toy Story 3 was announced, but they (or most of them) were silenced when it opened to rave reviews. Pixar is remarkable simply because it’s just so damn good at what it does that it turns the hardest cynics into adoring believers.

I personally experienced this with Finding Nemo and the first Cars, as I have described in previous posts. For 11 films, Pixar has told meaningful stories with universally-resonant themes. Now I don’t know whether Cars 2 has something important to say or if there was really any point to making this movie, until I see it. But I certainly don’t want to watch a ‘Michael Bay’-style movie with lots of brawn and no heart. The moment that we start cutting Pixar some slack is the beginning of the studio’s decline into mediocrity.

4) Pixar can’t be perfect forever.

I can understand if Cars 2 didn’t get a 100% RT rating. That would be nearly impossible (although it still could happen, perhaps in an alternate universe populated by Pixar fans). I was expecting a 70%-80% rating, and a lot of Pixar fans shared the same optimism. Clearly, we were entirely off the mark.

So some fans say that Pixar can’t keep up its winning streak forever. That they were bound to make a bad one sooner or later. And that’s true, no one is invulnerable to failure.

But using this as a defensive argument is as flawed as taking pity on an intelligent and talented student who used to get ‘A’s suddenly scoring an ‘F’. Are we gonna give him/her a pat on the back? Say, “It’s okay, we’ll close one eye and pretend you didn’t just flunk that exam with that 39% score. Well done, kid!” We should question the student, find out what went wrong, and then suggest improvements for his/her next exam (in Pixar’s case, ‘Brave’), not deny the existence of such piss-poor peformance.

5) It’s Pixar, they can’t make a bad movie.

I have never actually seen this mentioned as a reason explicitly, but it can be implied from many of the fans’ comments.

Why is it so hard to accept that Pixar has made a less-than-favourable film? Is it because Pixar has always been making good movies that we find it so hard to fathom that they can make a bad one? And if they do make a stinker, so what? That doesn’t mean that it’s curtains for the studio. We can always wait for Brave next year for Pixar to redeem itself!

I find it very sad that many self-proclaimed Pixar fans are burying their head in the sand and dismissing the critics’ opinions, while trying to discredit what is obviously right before their eyes. The irony is that if this was made by another studio like Dreamworks or Blue Sky, people wouldn’t bat an eyelid if there were overwhelmingly negative reviews.

But because it is made by Pixar, it gets a free pass. We don’t have to seek justifications for everything that happens. Sometimes, we just gotta let go and accept it. If we are to deny the validity of the critics, then we should also ignore them when they have something nice to say about the studio and its films.

The hypocrisy of the narrow-minded is staggering.

The motion picture event of the summer every Pixar fan and animation enthusiast has been waiting for is almost upon us (well, it’s out tomorrow, actually).

Over the past months, I have ranted and raved about Pixar and this sequel to one of my most beloved films in equal measures. Now that I have had the wisdom of a couple of trailers, several posters, and countless, countless turntable videos behind my opinion, here are 5 things that I will be anticipating when I walk into the theatre this weekend.

1) It will be a spy movie.
… and not a parody of a spy movie. I keep stressing this on the various fan forums and social media sites I take part in, and I can’t stress it enough. Part of the reason for this expectation is because John Lasseter, director of the film and CCO of Pixar, said it so himself.

Watch this video from 2:11 and hear it from the (proverbial) horse’s mouth.

John Lasseter Gives Cars 2 Sneak Peek

Had he not thrown down that gauntlet so unequivocally and earnestly, maybe I would’ve had lower expectations. But there you have it, a promise that he made to the viewer, if not in a written contract, at least in a verbal assurance. So when I’m watching the adventures of debonair spy Finn McMissile and reluctant hero Mater, I want danger, excitement, maybe even a little sexual innuendo. I want Goldfinger, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, For Your Eyes Only, License to Kill, Goldeneye, or Casino Royale. Or for non-Bond examples, Body of Lies, Ronin, Spy Games, the Bourne trilogy. Or for non-Bond examples which are not serious dramas, Mr & Mrs Smith, Mission Impossible 1 and 3, or True Lies. Not Austin Powers, Johnny English, I Spy, Carry on Spying or From Beijing With Love.

I want the heroes to bleed, to cry, to know what it feels like to be a real secret agent with few friends and many enemies. Not get squirted by bidets, fall into septic trucks, or eat wasabi thinking it’s ice-cream. Which leads on to…

2) There will be few slapstick jokes and pop-culture references.

Pixar is good with this. Or rather, most of the time. While they are not as blatant with the pop-culture parodies as the majority of Dreamworks’ films, they are not immune to the juvenille scatalogical variety. Just refer to the ‘Butt’ joke from Finding Nemo, or Boo needing to answer the call of nature in Monsters Inc, or Russell needing to answer the call of nature in Up, or Mr Potato Head being surrounded by the products of the call of nature in a sandpit in Toy Story 3 (mercifully told rather than shown).

I have decided not to expect a total absence, since as I have mentioned, we have already seen a few from the trailers. And Pixar, when it does physical humour, can be brilliant, like in Ratatouille or Wall-E. But one of the most cringeworthy aspects of the first Cars movie was the over-the-top references to pop-culture and commercial advertising. Perhaps that was the intention, which I can totally appreciate. But if you want to be serious, tone down on the over-the-top dream sequences and fart jokes.

3) The antagonist will not be a straw villain.

Or worse, any of its sub-variants like Strawman Political, Strawman Hypocrite or Strawman Emotional. Nothing annoys me more than a villain who is evil simply because he’s ‘evil’, or has some weak Freudian motivation for his acts.

One of my biggest disappointments with Pixar’s last movie ‘Toy Story 3’ was with the villain Lotso’ motivations. He enforced the entire totalitarian regime of Sunnyside simply because of some internal conflict which didn’t serve any immediate interests. Why didn’t he just find another owner to spite Daisy, if only in his mind? What purpose will it serve him to walk into a daycare centre, and impose his worldview upon others? What does he stand to gain (besides perpetuating his own paradigm of owner love)? As Rex in the HISHE parody pointed out, “if there were anyone who should be furious, it should be Big Baby or Chuckles. They didn’t get replaced at all!”

I also had a similar problem with Nigel from Rio. Because he was abandoned from his role as a star in a TV show, he decides to take it out on every other bird in Rio simply so that they can become ‘just like him’! This is weak motivation. Meaningful motivations are those which satisfy the lowest rungs on Marslow’s Heirarchy of Needs. Money. Food. Power. Survival.

Lord Shen had a great motivation. He wants to kill pandas because they pose a threat to his existence. Hopper had a great motivation. He wants to keep the status quo of the ants feeding him so he and his swarm would never go hungry. Dr Facilier had a great motivation. He wanted political power over New Orleans as their new ruler. Like another great Disney villain, Scar. And so on.

It would be nice if Professor Z had some childhood backstory of being bullied as a lemon, and his mum hated him, and all that jazz. But it would be great if he wanted to control the world’s oil supply by eliminating his competition, or make a profit by short-selling on Allinol stocks and sinking their share prices through his terrorist attacks. Something like that. A grand scheme need not necessarily have weepy backstories as the reason. Sometimes, it could be just about the money.

One last point. The villain needs to perform something truly despicable that tell us that he means business. On this aspect, I’m confident Pixar will deliver, because I read the opening scene from one of the movie adaptation storybooks, and if it is the same as in the movie, then I’m very proud that Pixar went with that. All I can say is that if the movie storybook is correct, Professor Z does something very nasty to another car that will show how evil he really is…

4) There will not be loads and loads of characters.

Yes, it is indeed a trope. This is another thing that has worried me, especially with the endless character turntables and posters released over the last few months. One problem with sequels is that they feel they need to introduce an inordinate number of new characters to expand the cast. But often, this results in less time being devoted to the original principals and especially the protagonists who will undergo their character arcs.

I have read reviews which say Mater will be the primary protagonist of this film, and it’s a great role-reversal from the first when Lightning was the focus. I have said before that the themes are the exact mirrors of each other; the first was about a city slicker who experiences the slow-paced life of small-town Americana, the second is about a country bumpkin who experiences the bright and wonderful diversity of cultures around the world.

What worries me is that they will not be as focused on developing the protagonist here as they were with the first movie. That amidst all the shennanigans and tomfoolery, Mater will be overshadowed by his new fellow agents Finn and Holley. And while the first had no antagonist (only an annoying rival played by Keaton), this one has a notable villain who will drive a lot of the plot proceedings. A lot of fans have also expressed concern over the screentime of the Radiator Springs’ cast, especially Lightning’s love interest Sally, and this is another cause for concern.

5) There will be heart and soul.

The main reason why so many people around the world love Pixar is because it has utter devotion towards beautiful, poetic, and meaningful storytelling. Its themes are universal and human, even if the characters are not. We are moved by the characters’ journeys, we see ourselves in them, and we want them to succeed and save the world/get the girl or guy/live happily ever after.

A lot of Pixar’s rivals used to not pay much attention to their stories. They thought it would be fine to just throw in stereotypical archetypes, get a bunch of celebrity voices, and chuck in a few pop-culture references and fart jokes to make a good movie. And of course, while they made have made mint, especially with sequels, they weren’t as successful critically. Plus, they were killing their soul for the sake of money.

Now the tables have turned. Long-time rivals Dreamworks and Blue Sky have produced wonderful, all-ages movies that have touched the hearts and resonated with the souls of many animation fans who once doubted them. How to Train Your Dragon, Kung Fu Panda 1 & 2, Rio. Newcomers like Animal Logic and Industrial Light & Magic have also amazed to varying degrees with technical masterpieces like Legend of the Guardians and Rango.

On the other hand, Pixar is losing its grip on the throne it once sat at the top of the Western animation industry. It is starting to rely on sequels and spin-off shorts (Toy Story 3, Toy Story Hawaiian Vacation, Cars 2, Cars Toons, Monsters University), TV shows (to be produced by Pixar Canada) and tie-in merchandising (most notably Toy Story and Cars). It scrapped a much-anticipated project, Newt, only for its CCO to make a remark (whether in mirth or malice) at its rival Rio for being the reason of its cancellation. The studio had a few high-profile departures such as Lou Romano, Jan Pinkava, and Brenda Chapman because of its oligarchic creative committee The Brain Trust’s refusal to trust its director’s version. Meanwhile, noteworthy talents such as Chris Sanders, Nico Marlet, Peter de Sève, Brenda Chapman and Lou Romano (the last three being former Pixarians) are joining its rival studios, while former neurotic leaders such as Katzenberg are adopting a more laissez-faire approach.

Pixar is devolving into the studio its ‘enemies’ once were, and in this blogger’s eyes, Cars 2 is its chance at redemption (although there’s also Brave next year). And it can do this by not just having a fun movie which you just sit through, cut it some slack, go in with a ‘positive mind’, enjoy your popcorn, wipe your backside, and leave with no memories. Pixar must deliver a movie that expands and improves on the first movie, stand up to the harshest criticisms, change the minds of the cynical and doubtful (like Pixar has done many times before), and move a person not just to a mild sense of amusement and entertainment, but to a deeper level of emotional intensity, be it fear, happiness or pathos.

When I walk into that theatre within a few days time, I will be doing so with an amount of trepidation and excitement you can never imagine. This film will be the culmination of not just my love affair with the studio (since Cars was the movie that made me became an outspoken Pixar fan), but with the forums I have been in (since this may be the last year I will actively participate as I will be starting a job soon). It will also be the lowest point I have ever experienced as a fan; I have never felt so disenchanted and disillusioned with the studio’s current state of affairs, and with some of its more intolerant and close-minded fans I have encountered over the past year.

I have never before doubted a Pixar film for five years. This will be the first. When I walk out of that theatre, I want to be proven right on all the points I have mentioned, and proven wrong for ever losing faith in one of the greatest studios in the world.

So I was at my favourite haunt (an underground newsstand in Queen Victoria’s Building near Town Hall Station) when I spotted Empire’s June issue. I had a flip-through and decided to buy it because of a few articles that caught my attention, which I’ll share below:

To celebrate the release of Cars 2, Empire ran two articles in its ‘News etc’ section. The first is ‘5 Things Cars 2’:

You can view an enlarged option of the text box on my Flickr site, but if you’ve been regularly keeping up with Cars 2-related news, you would know most of the points already. Just a couple things to take note:

- The full-name of the film John Lasseter was referring to is C’etait un rendezvous, a cult car chase classic that has no plot, only a car racing through the streets of Paris at breakneck speeds. You can easily watch it on Youtube (it’s the first video when you search the title), and I highly recommend it. I consider myself something of a car chase connoisseur (I’m even a member on Varaces, a forum devoted entirely to car chases), so the fact that the Pixarians knew of this cult short film and are using it as inspiration fills me with a little hope somewhat.

- If you’re a Pixar fan, you’d probably know the story behind the inspiration of Finn McMissile’s character, but I ‘d just like to say that it pleases me immensely that they had the idea of him being screened at a drive-in theatre (notwithstanding the connection with my username), and I would dearly love to see the deleted scene, if it could be included as an extra on the Cars 2 DVD.

- British surf music? This would certainly be an interesting take. Personally I was hoping for something more David Arnold or Brian Tyler, but hey, I’ll be open-minded about this. Fingers crossed Michael Giacchino can pull this off.

The article on the following pages is ‘Pixar 3D’, and it’s a retrospective of the company’s 11 films to date, in the words of JL himself. Again, you can view enlarged ~ versions of the text boxes on my Flickr site.

Personally, I really dislike the image used of the Pixar characters sitting in a dark theatre wearing those annoying 3D glasses. It feels like a plug for 3D technology, with a bad comp of official poster images of the characters. Although I have to give points to the compositor for keeping them to scale.

Disappointingly, they haven’t written a review for Cars 2 yet before the magazine went to print (perfectly understandable with Cars 2 late-June release date, and besides, they’ll publish it on the site and probably in the next issue). The preview blurb might annoy a couple of the Cars fanboys (and girls) though:

Oh well, at least they were consolatory about it.

They did, though, feature a review for rival Dreamwork Animation’s Kung Fu Panda 2. Read the next post for more… :)

So I was in Big W at my local mall the other day when I saw the new Cars 2 tie-in books. I have surreptitiously taken a two photos each (of the cover and interior) for your perusal of the ‘The Cars 2 Essential Guide’ and ‘Cars 2 The Magical Story’.

I took a quick flip-through (I haven’t seen the movie yet, and I don’t want to be spoiled), but I just wanna say that from the opening sequence of ‘Cars 2 The Magical Story’, I have gained some faith in Lassseter’s promise about this being a serious spy movie…

SPOILER AHEAD

According to the book, Finn McMissile watches a fellow agent being crushed by Professor Z and his henchmen during the opening oil rig scene.

SPOILER END

This, I feel, is quite brave of Pixar, and hopefully they can maintain this tonal level of danger and menace throughout and not disappoint me with a ‘great opening-sucky remainders’ kind of plot. Cos’ I certainly don’t want a silly Austin Powers spoof instead of a serious Casino Royale drama. Not after how Pixar and Lasseter are trying to hype it up.

You can view two more photos of the books’ inside pages at my Flickr blog. (Minor spoilers)

Wow, we’ve been celebrating a lot of Pixar movies’ birthdays lately!

Well, I can’t believe it’s been five wonderful years since I fell hood-over-wheels in love with Pixar. While Finding Nemo was the primer fuel, Cars was the spark-plug ignition that kickstarted my ‘romance’ with the studio. It combined two of my greatest loves, cars and movies, into one heartfelt tribute to old-town Americana and the open road.

Happy birthday to the greatest car movie of all-time. Hopefully the sequel will enchant me as much as the first.

‘Doc Hudson’ - yamihoole/lennonluvr9

The following was posted by Pixar Planeteer x3haijessiex3 that bears reading and contemplation, not just by Planeteers or Cars fans, but for Pixar fans in general, too:

Some of us have stayed with each other through the harsh and the beautiful. We’ve made lovely relationships with each other, plans to meet each other, and we shared our dreams. Some of us here have even received the chance to meet the person of our dreams. A person who may stay with us forever. A person who may soon grow apart.

But when we think back to why we became friends in the first place, we need to remember. It was Pixar who made us love our lives. Though there are people out there who make fun of us for liking their movies, for watching their movies, even being obsessed, Pixar has kept us together. We, a little group of close buddies called the Pixarteers, have kept each other strong. We, Planeteers, have kept each other strong. We’re Pixar Planet members and we’re proud.

But we came about for a couple of reasons. We were all in high school. We all shared a loved for these four-wheeled creatures we call cars.

Cars with teeth. Cars with tongues. Cars with different eyes. Cars with different accents. Cars with different voices. Cars with genders. Cars beautiful in his or her own way. Cars that have beautiful moments like we do in the Summer. Cars that have harsh moments like we do when Winter strikes. Cars with bright minds. Cars with slow minds. Cars with fast speeds. Cars with slow speeds. Cars in a rainbow of colors. Cars the worst of enemies. Cars the best of friends. Cars with souls.

It was this movie, Cars, that made us all have a connection. It was this lovely group of underrated characters, that made us unique from the rest of the world. It was this story that reminded us to slow down for just a second. The movie that told us that for one minute, the world can wait.

This year will mark half of a decade sharing our lives with these characters. Though they’re not alive in the physical sense, they’re alive in the child inside of all of us. They’re alive in our fan fictions. They’re alive in our minds. They’re alive in our fan art. They’re alive in our poems.

It only took a little less than two hours to tell the story of Cars. A second of walking out of the theater with our hearts throbbing. A lifetime of smiling.

It was Pixar that did this. It was Pixar that made us believe that (not only the characters of Cars) the characters of these movies are alive and real. It’s Pixar that’s able to make us stare into computer animated eyes and feel real feelings.

For that second of looking into the eyes of our favorite characters, we feel five again. We feel like running outside and playing on the playground again; pretend to be our favorite characters. We feel like being Lightning McQueen while our other friends are Chick, The King, everyone. We feel like being Sulley and we call our best friend our Mike. We feel like Russel from UP. We feel like Boo. We feel like the little baby car staring up at her idol in the crowd of the race.

Though Cars isn’t one of the best Pixar movies; harshly criticized, we stayed together. We didn’t just change our likes just because everyone else didn’t like it. We stayed true to ourselves. We stayed true to each other.

It’s moments like these when I think back and realize: It all started with one movie. One studio. Millions of computer animated souls.

That seems so magical to me. So thank you, Pixar Planet. Thank you for connecting me with people who are just like me. Thank you for making me feel part of something. Thank you for making me feel normal. Thank you for giving me the biggest laughs and some of the worst tears. In the end, I believe it’s all worth it. All of this. Every single moment we all shared, not just the Pixarteers, but Pixar Planet as a whole - worth it. Thank you for existing, Pixar Planet. And thank you fellow Pixarteers, Cars fans, and Pixar fans, for being in my life.