In defence of 'Cars'

Necronomicon

I see all too often that Cars is dubbed as Pixar's weakest film (though admittedly, most of those qualify the statement by saying that 'weak' by Pixar standards is still pretty damn good). I honestly feel it is their most under rated film, and one that gets better on repeat viewing. It has been 4 years since the theatrical release of Cars; and with a sequel on the horizon (due for release next year), I figure now is a good time to re-review the film and encourage people to give it another chance (contains spoilers).

---

Let's run down through a quick (but not exhaustive) checklist of features that make us love Pixar films, and their applicability to Cars:

1) Strong depth in characters: Check. Forget McQueen, it's the supporting cast that truly steals the show here. Much of the comic relief comes from tow truck Mater; but for me, it is the Italian duo of Luigi and Guido that make the film (and indeed rank near the top of Pixar's entire character index).

2) Subtle adult humour: Check. One criticism leveled at Cars is that it negates Pixar's ability to appeal to both adults and children simultaneously, without alienating either age demographic. I disagree; the 'blink or you'll miss it' cameos from Schwarzenegger and 'Jay Limo' had me in knots. And I'm not sure many kids would have appreciated Mater's "He did what in a cup?!" reply to McQueen when talking about the coveted Piston Cup trophy.

3) Exploration of important real-world themes: Check. The economic impact of highways bypassing rural towns is reflected in the desolate 'Radiator Springs'. Perhaps not as poignant as, say, the exploration of life and death in Up but it's there.

4) In-jokes and easter eggs: Check. Among several easter eggs, there's also a beautifully crafted credits gag (I can't decide if this is my all-time favourite, or if that falls to the 'bloopers reel' at the end of Toy Story 2) that contains a delightful nod to other Pixar films.

To stop this review from escalating into fanboyism, Cars isn't without its flaws. I'll concede that it is one of the more straightforward and somewhat predictable narratives in the Pixar catalogue. It is also a slow burner from the point where McQueen begins to settle into his new surroundings, so you'd be forgiven for thinking that the middle act is a bit sluggish; you won't find any jaw-dropping set pieces, and perhaps less all-out humour than we are used to.

Despite this, it's hard not to appreciate the progress in McQueen's character during this period. The opening and closing scenes are symmetrical in that they both take place on the race track, but the McQueen we root for at the end is unrecognisable from the one in the beginning. In between we see his personality shift from selfish and uncaring, to one of great humility and respect. And if the middle act is slow burning, the finale compensates in spades.

In conclusion: Cars may lack the immediate thrust of the likes of Toy Story and Up, but it still ranks among my favourites. It is a rare Pixar gem in that it is more of a grower; I've seen it a few times now, and with each viewing my appreciation for its subtleties and attention to detail has increased. I wholly disagree with the claim that the film lacks heart; it represents strong characterisation, a lovable supporting cast, and a very healthy message that presents itself in the final act that winning is not everything. Finally, it is arguably Pixar's finest piece of work visually - of all the available blu-rays (hurry the hell up with 'Nemo and The Incredibles Disney!) it is by far the most impressive, surpassing even Wall-e in its aesthetics.

trustno1

I personally didn't like Cars and Toy Story II, I felt that they were the weakest in the Pixar catalogue.. but having read your glowing review I am prepared to revisit Cars and see 'was it just me'.. as I do remember when I was watching it that the computer effects were just stunning and I was diappointed that I didnt' enjoy it more. Although I did love the scene when they were scaring the tractors so they would fall over..

Renn

I feel that people get way too excited about Pixar movies. They can put out whatever the hell they want and you'll still have a sh*tload of fanboys loving their stuff. I just cringe at the 'Pixar can do no wrong' comments you hear the whole time...like the article in the Independent at the weekend...fwiw, the only one I truly enjoyed was Toy Story. The rest I can leave behind.

Necronomicon

Renn wrote: »

I feel that people get way too excited about Pixar movies. They can put out whatever the hell they want and you'll still have a sh*tload of fanboys loving their stuff. I just cringe at the 'Pixar can do no wrong' comments you hear the whole time...like the article in the Independent at the weekend...fwiw, the only one I truly enjoyed was Toy Story. The rest I can leave behind.

I can see where you're coming from, if you're not into their films I imagine it gets tiresome to listen everybody waxing lyrical about them constantly. But I find that Pixar fans are pretty honest in their views - hell, if the sentiment that they can do no wrong was true then I wouldn't have made this thread

Renn

Yeah sorry, just needed to get my negative bit in before everyone else

Nah, their movies are fine but they get a little bit tedious (just like my constant nagging eh eh). There's other animated movies out there that I prefer...but some not for kids.

krudler

Renn wrote: »

Yeah sorry, just needed to get my negative bit in before everyone else

Nah, their movies are fine but they get a little bit tedious (just like my constant nagging eh eh). There's other animated movies out there that I prefer...but some not for kids.

explain tedious. From Toy Story to Up they deal with themes and issues lightyears (excuse the pun) ahead of the drivel that Dreamworks come out with like Shark Tale and Shrek, the only movie of theirs I enjoyed recently was Kung Fu Panda, and even that went downhill after the fantastic opening sequence.

Pixar manage to cram more heart and emotion into single moments than most adult themed movies can manage in their entire runtime. Toy Story 3 is a brilliant example of this (ending spoiler ahead)

Where the toys are in the furnace at the end about to be incinerated and instead of trying to escape again they just embrace their fate, hold hands and without saying a word to each other their expressions tell us everything they need to say. And when Andy finally says goodbye to the toys the wasnt a dry eye in the house, instead of a big,overly emotional sequence their relationship ends with two words "thanks guys" and it perfectly captures the loss of childhood we all go through.

krudler

Cars I like but dont really at the same time, I think Owen Wilson was miscast, his character isnt really engaging. But like was said the supporting cast is what makes it. Doc was a great farewell character for Paul Newman to play, and its themes of losing a small towns identity through industrialisation is pretty heavyfor a kids movie, I love the montage of how Route 66 slowly becomes redundant as the highways take shape. Its really a love letter by Lasseter to roadtrips as a kid with his family, and how everyone these days is in a rush to get to the destination, not enjoying the journey. I must give it a watch again soon actually.

Brendog

I dunno what it was!

There just wasn't any "buzz" about the release of "cars"...It just seemed very bland...

all pixar movies have had a huge "buzz" before their release, Wall-E, Toy Story(1,2,3), Finding Nemo, Monsters Inc.etc.

Cars 2 might be different though..
Its become alot more popular since it was released on DVD so I'm predicting a bigger box office revenue than the 1st one.

filmfan

I like Cars a lot, better after a couple of views. It is more of a kid's movie compared to some of the others have appeal more evenly to adults and kids!

I may be one of the few people who didn't think Up was that amazing though, the opening sad sequence is brilliant but I didn't actually like the overall story that much!

Renn

krudler wrote: »

explain tedious. From Toy Story to Up they deal with themes and issues lightyears (excuse the pun) ahead of the drivel that Dreamworks come out with like Shark Tale and Shrek, the only movie of theirs I enjoyed recently was Kung Fu Panda, and even that went downhill after the fantastic opening sequence.

Pixar manage to cram more heart and emotion into single moments than most adult themed movies can manage in their entire runtime. Toy Story 3 is a brilliant example of this (ending spoiler ahead)

I dunno. It's just with some of their recent stuff it's all going good and then the expected arrives. Like with Wall-E for example, first half of this is perfect then suddenly it takes a massive nosedive and basically ruins what we saw in the opening half hour or so. Same with Up, perfect first twenty minutes and then they decide they have to go all whacky and everything, and go and ruin what they started. I've seen Finding Nemo, Cars, Ratatouille etc and they're all forgettable enough imo. Don't think I've seen any Dreamworks stuff so I can't comment really, but from clips I've seen and trailers for their new stuff, it all looks the same.

And "Pixar manage to cram more heart and emotion into single moments than most adult themed movies can manage in their entire runtime" is exactly what a Pixar fanboy comes out with

razorblunt

I liked Cars, though I must say most Pixar films I can watch over and over again, I've only watched Cars a couple of times, the one I really dislike is The Incredibles and I usually get flamed for that. I also didn't like Ratatouille but I haven't rewatched it so will give that another viewing first.

Cars wasn't a bad film though. It just wasn't their best. It just shows how far Pixar has come when their supposed weakest film is still much better than what other studios are producing, namely Dreamworks.

Mickeroo

I only noticed the second time i watched it that all the rock formations in the desert are shaped like cars.

Renn

But just because it's supposedly better than what their competitor is putting, does that automatically make it a good movie?

Renn

Renn wrote: »

But just because it's supposedly better than what their competitor is putting, does that automatically make it a good movie?

It doesn't make it a bad movie though. I guess it depends on what you're comparing it to. Against Up! and Toy Story then yes, it's a bad movie - but compared to Shrek, it's an amazing movie.

krudler

Sorry but your argument that Up is "whacky" is just laughable. funny yes, charming most definitely, but whacky? hardly.

I do agree though that both Wall-E and Up suffered from a poor middle half - maybe poor is the wrong word to use - a weaker middle half compared to the superb opening and closing. Wall-E is the perfect example of this - when the humans got involved, it just moved into slightly whacky territory.

Having said, I have always thought that Wall-E should have ended at 4:07 of this video.

Warning: contains spoilers and shows the ending of Wall-E, don't watch if you haven't seen the film.. obviously..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HIwzZMqufg

Renn

Jeez...

Hmm, whacky as in silly, does that help you in any way? Like I said, I enjoyed the opening part of the movie, thought they got it spot on there. Then it goes all pear shaped in my opinion. Thought the talking dogs thing was lame, as was the weak villain. Definitely lost its charm after roughly twenty minutes. But if it didn't for you, good on you.

Renn

Oh, and that f*cking kid. There. I said it.

That being said, I think The Incredibles was the only Pixar movie that contained a proper villain. Maybe I'm wrong?

Mickeroo

brokenlaptop wrote: »

That being said, I think The Incredibles was the only Pixar movie that contained a proper villain. Maybe I'm wrong?

Up had a fairly clear cut villain i thought.


Renn,
I wouldn't call Up wacky, I thought it had a very Miyazaki feel to it, but I see where you're coming from with the talking dogs etc. Definitley some more kiddy-centric humour in places. I laughed my ass off though

"You are my prisoner and I love you!"....classic


Before The Dark Knight came out,The Incredibles was hands down the best superhero movie out there

johnny_ultimate

Again, I can only reiterate like others that Cars isn't bad, just weaker than other Pixar stuff. There are definitely moments of warmth, mainly in the town sequences - the middle act is the best. Technically, it's stunning. It just... lacks something.

The weakness for me is just I really, really don't like Nascar racing and cars in general! It's, alas, the closest Pixar have come to not justifying having something speak. They've injected humanity into toys, rats, bugs, robots, fish and monsters, but I bought into them far more than I did with Cars. They're just too unreal to fully relate to on occasion! And Lightning McQueen is irritating, although I liked Mater :pac:

bnt

1) There's no "h" in wacky.

2) I found the film highly derivative - an animated remake of Doc Hollywood (with Michael J Fox). Some great animation, but little more. Oh well ...

filmfan

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Again, I can only reiterate like others that Cars isn't bad, just weaker than other Pixar stuff. There are definitely moments of warmth, mainly in the town sequences - the middle act is the best. Technically, it's stunning. It just... lacks something.

The weakness for me is just I really, really don't like Nascar racing and cars in general! It's, alas, the closest Pixar have come to not justifying having something speak. They've injected humanity into toys, rats, bugs, robots, fish and monsters, but I bought into them far more than I did with Cars. They're just too unreal to fully relate to on occasion! And Lightning McQueen is irritating, although I liked Mater :pac:

Agree with this, how did Sally decorate her hotel without arms?:(

Galvasean

For me Cars was just too 'by the numbers'. Like the writers werent challenging themselves. I'ts just a little bit plain.

iMax

I've tried to watch Cars about six times & give up on it every time about a third of the way in. It's as BNT said, an animated remake of Doc Hollywood (which is more engaging), but having said that, it's a beautiful flick & has some nice scenes.

It's done some serious revenue for Disney (over a billion in merchandising profits), the post theatre revenue was almost double what the box office was too I think & that's where Disney's interest lies in it - $$$. If it hadn't got the revenue, they wouldn't be doing a sequel (2012 AFAIK). They tested the ground with the Disney Paris attraction (the theming is fantastic). & as a result, they're pumping a couple of hundred million into developing "Cars Land" at their California Adventure park (which I thought was a great park because it was more adult themed).



12 acres in size & holding (for now) three rides, it's the most expensive & advanced park development in about fifteen years.

Galvasean

Cars' merchandising is insane. They still sell toys, kids clothes etc. By the truckload (excuse the pun) several years after the cinema release. My first cousin, whose nearly 4, absolutely loves the franchise. He's a real petrolhead jnr.

TheIrishGrover

Actually Cars is one of my favourite Pixar movies (A Bug's Life is probably my least favourite). However I can understand where people are coming from when they say it doesn't rank up there with Pixar's best. It's a bit of a slow burner film. Sure, there are the races at the start and finish which are pretty fast and fun but then the whole slow-down-and-appreciate theme might not be everyone's bag. Especially kids. I remember there being a lot of fidgetty kids in the cinema when I saw it first. It really is one that grows on you after repeated views: The vistas are amazing; I thought the voice acting was top notch (Maybe not as good as TS or Monsters Inc but I think they are hard to beat) RIP Paul Newman; I thought the writing was great too (I'm ahhier than a tornado in a trailer park) and all the little details (The jet trails that look like type tracks, the flashing past of The Birds on the telephone wires etc). Plus, it was pure lighting porn. EVERYTHING seemes to reflect and distort light convinvingly. Amazing.

Taken as it is, a film about appreciating what's around you, I think it's one of Pixar's best. And certainly their most underappreciated.

bonerm

TBH I only rate four out of all the pixar movies to date, and Cars is one of them.

Necronomicon

Sorry for bumping an aging thread, but Disney have released the first theatrical trailer for Cars 2.

Cars 2 sees Lightning and Mater traveling around the world for the Race of Champions that includes other disciplines like Formula One. Mater ends up in a 'Hitchcockian' case of mistaken identity, saves the life of a British secret agent named Finn McMissile and becomes embroiled in a spy thriller, but no one believes him.

While casting information hasn't been made official, Finn McMissile sounds suspiciously like Michael Caine

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFTfAdauCOo

krudler

Necronomicon wrote: »

Sorry for bumping an aging thread, but Disney have released the first theatrical trailer for Cars 2.



While casting information hasn't been made official, Finn McMissile sounds suspiciously like Michael Caine

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFTfAdauCOo

Oh dear, thats the first Pixar trailer I've seen where there wasnt a laugh in it, its like another studio made that. So the logical sequel to a movie about a talking car finding friends in a small forgotten town on Route 66 is...to have him go to Tokyo and get involved in a spy ring?

seriously?

johnny_ultimate

Hmm don't know what to make of that trailer: plot is more Incredibles 2 than Cars 2 :pac: It's Pixar, so I'll be watching it opening day, but shall be approaching it with a caution not usual for their films. Also the fact they're following up what may well be the greatest sequel of all time (yeah, I said it) adds another layer of expectations!

Necronomicon

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Hmm don't know what to make of that trailer: plot is more Incredibles 2 than Cars 2 :pac: It's Pixar, so I'll be watching it opening day, but shall be approaching it with a caution not usual for their films. Also the fact they're following up what may well be the greatest sequel of all time (yeah, I said it) adds another layer of expectations!

On a somewhat related note - Lee Unkrich has confirmed that there will be a Toy Story short before Cars 2. Not sure how I feel about that to be honest, after that tremendous sense of closure we got from Toy Story 3.

krudler

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Hmm don't know what to make of that trailer: plot is more Incredibles 2 than Cars 2 :pac: It's Pixar, so I'll be watching it opening day, but shall be approaching it with a caution not usual for their films. Also the fact they're following up what may well be the greatest sequel of all time (yeah, I said it) adds another layer of expectations!

Definitely, Toy Story 3 was the best movie of 2010, hands down.

Savman

I loved Cars!

groovie

That's a terrible trailer for Cars 2, where's the fun gone?

The first three or four times I watched Cars I didn't get it, then something clicked and I found the 'magic', it's well hidden tbh.

Have to mention the 'Cars Toons, some of which are hilarious, "Tokyo Mater" is a Fast And The Furious: Tokyo Drift 'homage' of sorts. It's outstanding (imho).

Sleepy

As someone with a 5 year old boy in the house, it's definitely one of the better Pixar movies I've had to watch over and over and over again.

Ratatoille & A Bugs Life can't hold a candle to it.

eh i dunno

Does anyone know where i could watch Cars online??

Sad Professor

eh i dunno wrote: »

Does anyone know where i could watch Cars online??

Yes, the iTunes Film Store. It costs 13.99 to buy. If you mean for free, then no, and such discussion is strictly against the rules of this forum.

eh i dunno

Sad Professor wrote: »

Yes, the iTunes Film Store. It costs 13.99 to buy. If you mean for free, then no, and such discussion is strictly against the rules of this forum.

Thanks for that.

THENORTHSIDER

Agree with OP ,I thought this was a great movie and never understood why it was poorly reviewed. Watched it many times and always see something extra in the movie

slave1

Not that I need the excuse but with three young ones in the house, I watch at least 2 animated films every weekend and Cars is a fantastic experience. Visuals/audio appeal to me and are breathtaking on a decent setup.
Picking your 'worst' Pixar film is hard, it does not mean the film is crap, just weak relative to the likes of TS/MI/Nemo etc.
Anyhow, Ratatoille by far is the weakest.

ztoical

I hate Cars, I think there is something really creepy about the whole look and feel of the film. The designs are just so blah and theres no real effort to create a 'world' I don't buy into it, don't feel I've been taken somewhere new and in my head while watching it I kept asking were are all the people? With Monster Inc I bought into the world the Monsters lived in, it felt thought out and developed and they'd really put some effort into how the monsters with all their extra bits and bobs could function and live in this world and how it would be different to the human world. With Cars I just felt they'd put no thought into how a world just poplulated with cars would function.

Also Starring LeVar Burton

Cars is one of my favourite Pixar movies - can't wait for Cars 2.

Podge_irl

Is there any other Pixar movie where the "world" is completely disconnected from our own? Most Pixar films tell the story of everyday things we look over - monsters in the closet, fish in the sea, toys in our room. They could genuinely be taking place around us (well, not really. But you know what I mean).

Cars is a world were there is anthropomorphised objects with no "maker". It's like Earth but where people are cars, it just doesn't make any sense. You can't feel any connection to it.

johnny_ultimate

Have to agree with ztoical and podge - it's how disconnected Cars feels from reality that puts it behind the other films IMO. There's no denying there's some resonant themes in it, and Lasseter's nostalgia for his old family road trips and the disappointment that that sort of small town atmosphere is changing comes across. But when you think about it, you could probably change the Cars for people without having to majorly alter the film - well, obviously it would change pretty dramatically, but if Lightning was a race car driver instead of a race car ultimately the same story could be told.

Toy Story, Monster's Inc., The Incredibles, Ratatouille, Up, Finding Nemo and even A Bugs Life just require one leap of faith on the audience - that superheros exist, that toys come to life, that monsters in the closet actually exist, that fish / rats / insects can speak etc... They're set in an exaggerated version of our own world, and that lends them strength and resonance. Even Monster's Inc. which is the most fantastical of the films works because a 'real world' setting is an integral part of the story, especially when it clashes with the Monster's world.

But Cars requires us to invest in an entirely foreign world - similar to our own, but populated by cars for no apparent reason. As I said earlier in the thread, I don't think it's a bad film by any stretch, but the fact that it remains so removed from reality, and with no big payoff for it being set in a world of automobiles that are alive for some reason, is what makes it one of the very few examples of 'lesser Pixar'.

I loved Cars.

It's just easy viewing.

The simple storyline amuses me :P

Phony Scott

I didn't like the original and found it quite boring. Up until five minutes ago, I wouldn't have considered paying to see this in the cinema on the first week it comes out...

Then I saw Bruce Campbell's name attached to the sequel.

I loved his voicework in 'The Ant Bully,' Bruce Campbell doing his shtick, and if it's anything like that, I'm sold on 'Cars II'!

johnny_ultimate

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

if Lightning was a race car driver instead of a race car ultimately the same story could be told.

But merchandising figures would be nowhere near the giddy heights its at now.


I put off watching Cars for years, it was just a film which never really appealed to me. As much as I love Paul Newman and Pixar the words Owen Wilson are enough to have me cowering in a corner cutting myself. When I finally sat down and watched it a few months ago I was baby sitting my little brother who was about 3 at the time and he absolutely loves the film, having watched it at least a dozen times. I really enjoyed the film though at the same time I'm not sure if I would have enjoyed it as much were it not for the fact that a little man was sat beside me saying "McQueen" and repeatedly getting overtly excited as he turned to me to express amazement at it all in the way a kid does. The more I think about it the more I need to revisit it again and see if it holds up.

I should add that anyone who has the opportunity to watch any of the Pixar films in the company of a young child should jump at the opportunity. Watchng my little brother inhale heavily as his eyes go wide during Up is amongst the most adorable things I have ever seen. Everytime he sees a picture from the film he instantly points to it and says "Kevin" with a massive smile. WHen I was home over Christmas I don't think a single day went by with him repeatedly asking to see Toy Story and as it was Christmas he was allowed to watch a little more TV than normal and I'm surprised that he didn't wear out the discs.

johnny_ultimate

I couldn't find a dedicated Cars 2 thread (awaits someone shamefully linking me to it) but I needed to vent after watching the travesty that is Cars 2.

So it was a long day, and a painful commute home. I needed something dumb and fun, so I chose this with apprehension. But, boy, is this film dumb. Of course focusing on Mater means the whole thing is far more idiotic and shrill than any Pixar film has the right to be, but still.

I honestly don't know when this script or idea ever seemed good. There is potentially a very enjoyable Pixar spy film in here, but it genuinely feels like they took an entirely different script and cynically sellotaped living cars into it at some late stage in pre-production. The first action scene sums up many of the problems - the more absurd functions they give these cars, the more incredible an already absurd world seems.

The first Cars for all its fault had some charm. This has none. It's like watching a hyperactive kid after a particularly regretful Smarties binge. The action sequences - bar maybe one or two brief vibrant interludes - have no sense of momentum, but most oddly few of them actually make use out of the concept of automobiles. Planes, boats, submarines, gadgets, flamethrowers - but so little driving. Why the hell did this need to be about cars? All the sub-characters are reduced to mere cameos - heck, even Lightning McQueen gets but a handful of lines while Mater and Michael Caine get involved in an uninteresting conspiracy involving renewable fuel (the film's confused, half-assed attempt at a message).

From any other studio, I could write this off as harmless fluff. And in a way it is. The visuals are fine and technically proficient (if surprisingly flaccid despite the colour palette). The music of Michael Giachinno is as ever involving if overblown. But not enough: this is Pixar. We need to demand greatness from them. And Cars 2 is a lame fart of a film from Hollywood's most brilliant studio. Your low intentions frankly aren't low enough.

And have Italy, Japan and London ever seemed to profoundly unintersting? Shame on Pixar for going the cheap gags.