thedriveintheatre

Just another day at the office.

Ethan Hunt and his team of Impossible Missions Force agents are pulling off yet another ridiculously difficult assignment (breaking into the Kremlin undetected and stealing classified documents) when things go spectacularly wrong. A nuclear extremist called Cobalt detonates a bomb that destroys the Kremlin and escapes with the codes to arm Russia’s nuclear missiles, leaving Hunt and his team to be implicated in the disaster. Disavowed and branded as terrorists, the remains of the IMF must now stop Cobalt from starting World War Three, while sorting out each other’s alliances and differences.

This is Tom Cruise’s character’s latest mission in a nutshell. But for him and Brad Bird in his live-action directorial debut, the stakes are much higher: impressing longtime fans of the franchise and upping the ante from the previous instalments.

I haven’t watched the original TV show, but I’ve seen the previous three films and enjoyed each of them for different reasons. Well, okay, M:I:2 by John Woo was kinda disappointing, but at least it was set in Sydney, my second home. And I’m a fan of Bird and his movies: the traditionally-animated classic ‘The Iron Giant’, the superhero homage ‘The Incredibles’, and the inspiring tale of a rat who became a chef, ‘Ratatouille’. And now he can add another winner to his sterling resume; this is probably my second-favourite in the series (the first is still JJ Abram’s M:I:3).

Right from the first two minutes, we are thrown into an action sequence featuring Josh Holloway from Lost and the excitement doesn’t let up, even with its lengthy running time of 2 hours. Tom is clearly in his element as the lantern-jawed hero who doesn’t quit, while Simon Pegg’s Benji gets an upgrade from techie to field agent. Rounding off the crew is Paula Patton as Jane Carter, a beautiful agent with vengeance on her mind, and Jeremy Renner as William Brandt, an enigmatic analyst who shares a dark past with Hunt.

The setpieces are spectacular and brilliant; maybe it’s just me, but Bird’s experience in animation seems to have rubbed off on the film, from the spoiler-ridden ‘follow the fuse’ opening credits (unless you’ve seen the trailer), to the lifelike dust storm that swallows Dubai in one inventive chase sequence. But not surprisingly, it is the sequences sans the CGI that prove the most memorable. The standout scene of Tom scaling the world’s tallest building, the Burj Khalifa, deserves to be seen on the largest screen possible (I was lucky to catch it at the Lido IMAX in Singapore). The sight of Tom hanging by the tips of his fingers a thousand feet above the city is enough to make the strongest of viewers sweat their palms and clench their sphincters.

Michael Giacchino has interestingly worked on the last Mission Impossible as well as two of Bird’s movies. For this outing, he brings an international flavour, with clever variations of the theme in different cultural styles – from the chorus of a Russian marching band, to the percussion-driven rhythms of Arabic music. A Dean Martin favourite of mine also features in an entertaining prison breakout sequence.

The only qualms I had was that the villains were underdeveloped. Michael Nygvist gets decent screentime as Cobalt, but doesn’t really interact with Hunt as trade a few glances and punches. Vladimir Mashkov’s Russian Agent Sidorov is tasked with bringing Hunt in, but he does little beyond show up in Hunt’s wake and being an occasional annoyance. Aniel Kapoor’s arms dealer was surprisingly the most interesting to watch, as he attempts to (unsuccessfully) seduce Carter in typical Bollywood ‘tease me-tease you’ fashion.

Another letdown was the whole ‘rogue agent’ premise that was hyped in the promos and taglines. Even though they’ve been disavowed and denied backup and support, the team still get a cache of weapons and equipment, with Benji’s incredible hacking skills coming in handy during sticky situations. It’s not like Hunt had much backup in the previous movies anyway; M:I:3’s third act was more convincing in its impromptu plans and one-man-army desperation. I was expecting something along the lines of the Bourne series or Quantum of Solace’s simplicity, but the team still gets a lot of toys to play with and convenient modes of transportation. This wouldn’t be an issue if it wasn’t marketed that way, so if you’re expecting a stripped-down, bare-bones spy thriller without the fancy gadgets, this would be deceptive advertising.

So is it Mission Accomplished for Bird and his team? In my opinion, a resounding yes – it’s a character piece that manages to include emotional weight without becoming angsty, it’s a good old-fashioned spy flick without being overly reliant on shakey-cam or CGI shots, and it’s another stellar entry that takes the series in a new direction while still respecting its roots. In fact, it might even contend with Fast Five for being my favourite live-action film of the year.

Now your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to go see this movie and let me know what you think. Oh, and this blog post will self-destruct in 5 seconds.

P.S. Pixar fans will relish a reference to one of the studio’s inside jokes in the film. Let’s just say you’ll know it when you hear it.

If there’s one thing they share, it’s that ‘Dreamworks’ smirk…

Note: I have tried to avoid spoilers as much as possible, but I still advise you watch both films first before reading the following.

About a fortnight ago, I went to see one of my most anticipated films of the year, Cars 2, with a friend. You can read about my thoughts and opinion about the Pixar sequel here. After the show concluded, we snuck into another theatre to see Kung Fu Panda 2. I have supported Dreamworks with a rather pricey entry ticket for the Australian premiere (but it was worth every cent) and you can read about my experience in another post. For my friend, it was his first time viewing, and for me, it’s a rewatch in theatres, something I only do once in a blue moon (ie once-twice every year) and that I usually reserve for the best. I am going to rewatch Cars 2 in IMAX tomorrow, but I want to take the opportunity to compare these two very different films from the biggest rivals in the animation industry.

Now, I’m aware that comparing a panda on an existential quest with a tow truck embroiled in international espionage is like trying to compare rice with ‘bangers and mash’, but just for the sake of those who are considering which film to take their kids to this summer break, as well as for my own personal amusement, I will perform this little exercise anyway. My arguments will be structured under ‘similarity headings’, but I may mention where they differ when necessary.

1) Both are sequels to huge franchises for their respective studios.

Cars TWO and Kung Fu Panda TWO. Both generate huge amounts of tie-in merchandising for their parent companies. I was walking through ToysR’Us on a recent trip to Adelaide and the aisles were just filled with Cars merch, from talking Finn McMissile figurines to Lightning McQueen poster beds. There were a couple of Kung Fu Panda 2 figurines too, and McDonalds Australia is running a Happy Meal toy campaign (I got Mr Ping this week!).

The strange thing is, many people enjoyed the first Kung Fu Panda movie, because it represented something bold and pop-culture-references-free from Dreamworks, but many didn’t appreciate the first Cars movie, because it wasn’t ‘bold enough’ (I thought it was pretty touching, but most professional and amateur critics thought the theme was quite cliched) and had a few pop-culture references. Which is kinda sad, I feel, for Pixar, cos’ Cars is better than most of Dreamworks’ movies around that time.

2) Both feature accidental hero protagonists.

For Kung Fu Panda 2, Po was the accidental hero in the first movie. Here, he’s much more of a bad-ass, but he’s still prone to slip-ups, which makes him all the more flawed and emphathetic. This is due to any lack of intelligence on his part, but because of his physical shortcomings and rather boundless appetite (for food or adventure). Many nerds (including Yours Truly) can emphathise with his struggle for acceptance and his utter devotion to his passion. Some might feel his constant warcries and posturing annoying, but I feel that this is because he truly love what he does and this is how he expresses his enthusiasm. Besides, he is not arrogant, and he reveres his idols and is eager to learn from them. This is especially more pronounced in the second movie, where he finds his boundless optimism challenged by his idols’ (Master Ox and Croc) defeatist attitude in one memorable scene (where we actually see him being visibly shaken and speechless). And for once, his strength (ie Kung Fu) is rendered useless by Lord Shen, making him all the more vulnerable. By the end, he harnesses the ‘go with the flow’ technique of acceptance and non-aggressive combat in his final showdown with Lord Shen.

For Cars 2, Mater is the protagonist in a ‘North by Northeast’ plot of mistaken identity and reluctant heroism. Or rather, he’s not so much reluctant as blissfully ignorant of the dangers of being a secret agent. Although he tries to tell Finn and Holley many times throughout the film that he is not a mere “tow truck”, he still goes along passively for the ride (pun unintended) because he’s “always wanted to be a spy”. This, of course, leads to many misadventures and his incompetence almost cost his new spy partners their lives (although this is thankfully adverted). Some viewers found his constant pratfalls frustating, and while I, personally, found them endearing (in a Goofy or Mr Bean sort of way), I felt that he could’ve proactively tried to behave himself during the Tokyo dinner party or when he was pretending to be a spy instead of bumbling around aimlessly (he actually does try to be serious when infiltrating the lemons’ casino, but this doesn’t gell with his silly antics before). The way Mater ‘solved whodunnit’ at the climax is out-of-character for a guy who didn’t realize he wasn’t the one who was ‘leaking’ a few scenes ago, and this sudden burst of deductive reasoning seems a sudden and illogical character progression.

I’d also like to briefly mention the villains. Of the two, Lord Shen is pretty much the more fleshed-out antagonist. Dr Z has some pretty good motivations, but they were more of the ‘Freudian’ “I was bullied as a kid, therefore I have to take out my frustrations on innocent civilians” reason. He stood nothing to gain other than personal self-satisfaction. The real villain, I felt, had a more ‘Bond-ian’ reason of “It’s all about the money and to rule the world”, but that’s just my opinion. Lord Shen, on the other hand, had a more credible reason to destroy Po, and without giving away too much, the Panda poses a threat to his existence and supremacy, and that it was largely because of a prophecy predicting his arrival that Shen dug the hole into which he is now in at the start of the movie.

3) Both have incredible animation, sets, action sequences, and special effects.

Many have raved about Cars 2’s water and explosion effects during the spectacular opening sequence, and while I wholeheartedly agree, I find it interesting that the end of Kung Fu Panda 2 had equally amazing water and explosion effects. There was one shot where we see an explosion barrel down a canal from side-on and it looked stunningly real. It is also interesting how both Cars 2’s beginning and Panda 2’s climax take place at night.

Kung Fu Panda 2 had some pretty intricate detail in their architecture of Gongmen City, from the design of Shen’s pagoda to the little streetboard signs that Po smacks into during the rickshaw chase. But Cars 2 blows the panda’s rather static single set out of the water with not one, not two, not even three, but four different cities. I was amazed by the rendering of Rio de Janerio earlier this year in Blue Sky’s Rio, but Pixar managed to recreate FOUR cities, and ‘Cars’-ified each of them. From the multitiude of neon billboards in Shibuya, to the coastal cliffs of Porta Corsa in the shape of classic cars, the amount of attention to detail is staggering.

Both have great character animation. The first Cars succeeded in giving cars individual personalities and mannerisms, and this without conventional human hands or faces! In the sequel, they take it to a whole new level with the plethora of cultures and their own ways of expression and body language. You can ‘tell’ a kei car geisha is bowing, or that the Queen is knighting someone. Panda has it easier with anthropomorphic animals, but the animation is much sutbler and evocative than the first movie. We see how pained Mr Ping is at Po’s depature, or the thoughts going through Lord Shen’s mind when he is reminded of his bitter past. The most remarkable thing about Panda is that it has a very theatrical air to it; you feel you are watching a stageplay instead of a motion picture.

And of course, both have standout action sequences. Both films suffer from attention deficit in an attempt to keep the audience interested; at times I wish the characters would stop chasing each other and actually stop to have a meaningful conversation or reveal more of their character. Of the two, I felt Kung Fu Panda 2 devoted more time to character development, despite having the shorter running time. Cars 2 is a much better ‘action’ movie than Panda in terms of sheer quantity of action setpieces, but it suffers from a lack of poignant or contemplative scenes as a result.

4) Both have decent soundtracks.

Of all the reviews I’ve read, professional or amateur, I’ve seen few who mentioned the score or music of either of the movies. This either means I need to read more reviews, or that people simply found nothing to write home about. This wasn’t the case last year when it came to Toy Story 3 and How to Train Your Dragon.

Again, Kung Fu Panda 2 is the better of the two. With two of the titans in film soundtracks (John Powell and Hans Zimmer) collaborating, I was worried that it would be a case of too many cooks ruining the stew. Thankfully, the soundtrack manages to stay cohesive, although I struggle to remember any ‘main theme’, unlike HTTYD or the first Panda, where I can hum the theme off-hand. But if there’s one track to redeem the entire soundtrack, it has to be ‘Po Finds the Truth’, which is a tour-de-force of raw feeling and emotional carthasis.

Cars 2, on the other hand, has a stronger theme running through the film. In fact, the hook is very catchy. “Da-da-daaa… da-da-daaa…” You’ll know it when you hear it. Giacchino interestingly chose to go with a British surf music theme, and while this is a very courageous move on his part, on a personal level, it is not really my cup of tea. I’m more of the David Arnold grand-orchestra or Harry Gregson-Williams synthesizer variety, but others might find the 70s-inspired groove more to their taste. What I don’t like though, is how often the hook is repeated, with very little variation. With his other albums like Up or Incredibles, he has various version of the theme, ‘light’, ‘dark’, etc. Here, it feels like a video game soundtrack from the 90s in its simplicity, but again, I must say, that hook is pretty darn catchy. “Dadadadadadada da-da-daaa…”

5) Both expand and improve upon their predecessors.

What both Cars 2 and Kung Fu Panda 2 manage to achieve is be fantastic sequels in their own right. In the case of Cars 2, it turned the first film’s themes and setting on its head. Instead of the city slicker being held against his will in a long-forgotten roadside town, it is now the country bumpkin who voluntarily goes on a trip around the world. Mater, who has never ventured beyond Radiator Springs (except for the last Piston Cup race and his occassional adventures in his ‘Tall Tales’), now finds himself a stranger in strange lands. The inclusion of a spy plot doesn’t really mesh with the first’s sedentary setting, but it makes for an interesting contrast. I had a problem, though, with the ‘Broken Aesop’ of Cars 2. In the first movie, Lightning has to change his character to be a better person (or car). In this one, we are told that Mater doesn’t have to change who he is to suit others, even though he is incredibly ignorant of (although charmingly eager to experience) other cultures’ customs. But, I liked how Lightning and Mater’s friendship is put to the test. In the first movie, Lightning needs a best friend in the form of Mater. In the second, Mater has to learn to ‘let go’ of Lightning and give him space by finding new friends in the form of Finn and Holley.

Kung Fu Panda 2, on the other hand, expands upon the first film. Po is now less of a klutz and more ‘awesome’, but he is not indestructible. He gets beaten (both figuratively and literally) many more times in this film, and at one point, he even undergoes a ‘Christ-like’ resurrection and enlightenment in time for the third act. We also find out more about his backstory, and one of my favourite scenes is Mr Ping telling Po how he came to be his ‘father’. In many ways, Po and Shen’s stories are parallels; both were abandoned by their parents (for different reasons), both have to find ‘inner peace’, both’s past and futures are intertwined… it makes for a very engaging dualistic tone to the film. We also get more developments between Po and Tigress, long the hotbed for fanshippers. We don’t get an outright declaration of romantic-love here, but there’s one heartwarming scene where Tigress does something to Po which reveals the depth of her friendship at this point. If there’s one thing I didn’t like, it’s that the film felt a little too short for a story of this magnitude. And the first had more setting-variations, while in this sequel, two-thirds of the film take place in Gongmen City.

So having watched both these films back-to-back on the same night, which one would I recommend? Well, on that night, I was pretty ‘high’ from Cars 2, so if you asked me when I finally left the theatre, I would give ‘two thumbs up’ for the Pixar film. But upon further contemplation and reflection, I have to say KFP2 had a more cinematic and theatrical sensibility that makes it storytelling more powerful and meaningful. If you’re looking for a good time and more ‘bang for your buck’, go see Cars 2. It is the epitome of popcorn-blockbuster fun and excitement, and it is Pixar’ best action movie since ‘The Incredibles’. But if you’re looking for grand, mythic storytelling with profound themes about forgiveness and redemption, then go see Kung Fu Panda 2. It will make you laugh, move you to tears, and warm your heart like the greatest of movies.

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.

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 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)

Ladies and gentlecars, may I proudly present, the new Cars 2 trailer! I swear, Pixar must be telepathic or something, because no sooner than I had finished my annoying assignment than I saw the site being updated! :D

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/disney/cars2/

It’s so new when I watched it a few minutes ago, they still haven’t got the resolution right! (There’s two black bars down the side) But expect it to be corrected within the next few hours or so once the video has finished rendering.

Much, much better than the first few trailers, although there is too much focus on Mater and not enough Finn or Holley. Bernoulli fans will be pleased to hear the Italian bragster for the first time.

Also, the editing keeps going back and forth and the music leaves much to be desired. I really wished they had gone with a dramatic and tense ‘killer ending’ instead of the feel-good jolly-good-show-what-a-pleasant-adventure vibe.

Still feels like a spy spoof to me, but hopefully I’ll be proven wrong when I finally see it. Fingers crossed that Professor Z is a formidable baddie who means business and not a ‘straw villain’.

Still, I like the hint of the climax just before the title card. I hope it will be just as exciting an MILD SPOILER aerial-rescue sequence MILD SPOILER END as Rio! :)

P.S. You might be surprised to know the bidet joke doesn’t appear in this one! Thank goodness.

The new trailer will be unleashed in less than 24 hours! I’ll be crossing my fingers and holding my breath.

I really hope Pixar gives us a more dramatic and exciting James Bond/Mission Impossible-style trailer than the Austin-Powers fluff pieces so far. I want to hear actual music from Giachinno, not a film theme pinched from someone else. I want to see some emotional pathos, like the ‘whooshes’, some tight editing, I want to feel that this is a true spy movie instead of a spoof.

If everyone’s wondering why I have such high expectations for it, it is because John Lasseter promised us that it will be a bona-fide spy movie and not a spoof. So far all the trailers I’ve seen have portrayed it as a parody, the most oft-repeated clip being Mater unceremoniously sprayed by a Japanese bidet. And one of the henchmen falling into a septic tank. That is not a thriller. That is a comedy. Had ‘Hawaiian-Shirt-Man’ not made that claim, then maybe I would’ve been more lenient.

The trailer should give the viewer a taste of the promise it will deliver. Surprise me.

P.S. On a side note, I find it ridiculous how many ‘trailers’ have already been uploaded on their Apple site (23 so far). Pixar can proudly lay claim to having the most number of trailers for one movie ever on Apple Trailers.

Absolutely ridonkulous.

Critics are raving…

Over the last two weeks, I went to the movies for a grand total of five times, and watched five diverse movies, one of them twice and another for the second and last time.

I rewatched Rio with a bud for the second time on Wednesday, and it looked just as awesome in 2D on a smaller screen. I’ll post a detailed review if I have the time, but this is simply my favourite film of the year, mainly because it appealed to my ‘inner child’ and every character is utterly lovable. Rango is just as good, only it is more daring and less sentimental. As I’ve mentioned on Twitter, if Rango is a technical masterpiece in the likes of Legend of the Guardians, then Rio is a storytelling charmer in the vein of How to Train Your Dragon.

I also had a similar sensation comparing Source Code with Fast Five. Source Code is very intellectual, and you have to pay attention or you won’t understand the ending. Fast Five is just a ‘put your brain on cruise control and just let it rip’ kind of movie, and it is a very well-done genre picture (by genre, I mean action racing movies). But both movies have very emphatic characters that you will care about; Source Code being a ‘love story across time’ like Deja Vu (one of my favourite movies) and Fast Five being a tale about family, trust, and friendship, much like Rio (except with plenty more explosions). Both also have equally exciting action setpieces; Source Code literally being Speed on a train-meets-Groundhog Day, and Fast Five boasting the most spectacular vehicular destruction I have ever seen in my entire life (it’s even better than The Bourne Supremacy and Bad Boys 2 in gutwrenching carnage).

Hoodwinked is a passable spy spoof, but we already have another one by a more well-known studio coming out in June, so why bother with this one? For starters, it’s a decent sequel, if a little underwhelming in comparison to its superior predecessor, which had a clever ‘Rashomon’ narrative of multiple perspectives and subjective truth. Here, the espionage genre is sent up mercilessly, as well as various movies that you won’t know about unless you were born before the 90s or you’re a film buff. I chuckled many more times than my less pop-culturally aware friends, but I didn’t experience as much pathos or emotional connection as I had for the other movies I’ve seen lately. Pixar fans, though, would be delighted to know that there is a Ratatouille cameo in there. Yes, I’m not kidding, pay attention during an antagonists’ flashback sequence and you might just spot one of the characters in a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it moment.

I watched Thor for the first time with my bro the Saturday before last, and a second time with two of my mates when we snuck into another theatre after Source Code on Sunday (shh… it’s illegal, you know). Thor’s also a pretty good alternative, but it tries to be grand and kitsch at the same time, instead of going for all-out cuteness like Rio or all-out drama like Rango. And that kinda threw me off a bit. You see Thor throwing ice giants around and smashing them with his hammer, and then in the second act, he’s eating cornflakes and walking around topless. It makes for nice contrast between his world and ours, but I just felt they could’ve grounded his realm in more believability instead of making it a spotless, right-angled, not-a-single-trash-piece in sight Utopia. It’s like they sent a platoon of M-Os to clean up Asgard.

Needless to say, I spent my two-week school holiday fruitfully in terms of cinematic outings. In fact, I think this might have been the most number of movies I’ve seen in theatres in a fortnight.

Rio (rewatch) - 9/10
Source Code - 8/10
Fast Five - 8/10
Hoodwinked Too! - 4/10
Thor - 6/10

As I’ve said in the Cars 2 soundtrack thread, that’s a pretty tall order. But with Mikey’s G work on The Incredibles and Mission Impossible 3, I’m sure he’ll deliver!

Anyway, while we’re on the topic, allow me to make a prediction:

There will be a James-Bond style opening title sequence. Allow me to paint it for you:

We begin with darkness, just like the first movie. I doubt Pixar will blatantly copy J.B. and have Finn enter from stage-left in a series of dots and shoot the screen and all that (that is the infamous ‘gun-barrel sequence’ BTW). Instead, Disney/Pixar’s name will slowly materialise. We will probably hear someone’s voice, again, like the first movie. Probably Finn or the tugboat.

We fade-in to the camera sweeping over waves, before we pan up to the boat breaching the crest of a wave. Probably with some nice Mikey G instrumentals, something to the effect of what they used in the trailer (although those weren’t his, but from [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCFUzpKVx-0]this guy[/url]). Anyway, we move on to the pre-title action sequence. After Finn makes his spectacular escape from the villains barely with his life and Prof Z’s rig in ruins, we iris-out to the title sequence, to the blare of french horns or violins.

We launch into the title sequence to the soaring music of the theme song, probably by a famous artist (again, like J.B.). The first movie also opened in a similar fashion with Sheryl Crow’s ‘Real Gone’. The title will appear incorporated in the scene (like the first movie did with the title on the tarmac). Maybe an overhead shot of Finn surfing over the waves to safety, and his wake disturbing the water’s surface and revealing the title in the depths. And then the screen dissolves into some abstract-surrealist world, with Finn as a silhouette doing cool stuff like rappelling or bootleg turns, against a backdrop of burning flames or ‘oil blooms’ (you know, when you dissolve detergent into water and it forms a cloud?).

Mater then enters midway and does some silly shennanigans, with an exasperated Lightning close behind. We see close-ups of Holly’s stunning curves, which melt into a race-track corner through some artistic transitions. Now we come to the end of the song, and we see Finn approaching in the distance. The final chords rise in suspense, the last chorus line echoes, and Finn pulls to a stop as he runs right into the camera and turns the screen dark again, before we iris-out on Radiator Springs.

:D

To get an idea, I’m imagining it as a combination of ‘[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfCXQsKv1jg]The World is Not Enough[/url]’ and ‘[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzX14t4dCQ0]Casino Royale[/url]’, two of my favourite James Bond opening title credits of all-time.

If Pixar does something along the lines of my speculation, I would be ever so happy. This is too good an opportunity to miss, and they can do the title sequence like Monsters Inc. with some [url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitle7wmurkq3abiw]beautiful graphic design[/url]. What do you guys think? Would Pixar open in the movie in such a way, or do you have other ideas?