Cars 2: Review

"Cars 2"/Walt Disney Pictures-Pixar Animation Studios/Rated G/113 min./Dir. by John Lasseter and Brad Lewis

When I was a kid, my mother would always respond to the statement "My room is clean" with the same question: "Is it Paul clean or is it Mom clean". "Paul Clean" meant that on the surface, my room looked great. The bedspread was straight, the floor was uncluttered, the plethora of Star Wars toys were poised on shelves, looking like three dimensional art. However, if one looked beyond the surface (i.e. under the bed or in the closet), things might not look as nifty as they did before. "Mom Clean" meant that the room honestly didn't look that much different at first glance, but on closer inspection one could see cleaned windows, polished desks and chairs and spotless closets. There were times when she asked this question that I could proudly say, "Mom Clean!" At those times, I loved having mom go to my room and discover the work that had been done beneath the surface. However, if the answer was ever anything other than that, I would just hang my head and go back to work.

Recently, in the deluge of computer animated films, critics have asked a similar question when presented with the final product: "Is it DreamWorks good or is it Pixar good?". That question seems very insulting to DreamWorks, but it really shouldn't be. DreamWorks deals, for the most part, in surface entertainments and they're really quite good at it. However, when they give the world a "Kung Fu Panda" or a "How to Train Your Dragon", they're clearly making sure that there's more than just the surface entertainment. That's why those films have been labeled by many critics as "Pixar good".

Pixar is famously known for the mantra "story, story, story". John Lasseter, the founder of Pixar and current creative head of Pixar and Disney Animation, has stated this time and again and, as a result, they typically produce truly transcendent films. I use the word transcendent quite literally. The films transcend plot and technique to reveal layering and depth that renders audiences truly moved by the experience.

Of course, every family has a black sheep and Pixar's was "Cars", the 2006 film that had to settle for being "successful" as opposed to "one of the best animated films of all time", a moniker often placed on new Pixar films. "Cars" had always been the one Pixar film that was "DreamWorks Good". It was, on the surface, entertaining, funny and a lot of fun to look at, but underneath the surface there was no exciting sense of discovery. It was a non-transcendent comedy, a solid entertainment, but so much less than the character-masters at Pixar were capable of.

When it was announced that they were making a sequel to "Cars", my first response was "Of all your films, you're choosing to make a sequel to your least acclaimed film? Why not 'The Incredibles?!? That one's begging for a sequel!" Then I remembered that "Cars" had become the most successfully merchandised film in their canon and figured that Disney honchos pressured them to come up with a franchise. After seeing the film, I'm still pretty sure that money was the motivation behind it getting made.

"Cars 2" is a totally different genre than the first film. Where the original was a comedy teaching the value of an relaxed, old-fashioned lifestyle, this one is a spy thriller/comedy. Which means that instead of being lulled to sleep, certain adults in the audience may feel bombarded by noise and action.

The plot centers around a World Grand Prix race, in which Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) is one of the favorites to win. Against his better judgement, Lightning decides to invite his best bud Mater the tow truck (Larry the Cable Guy) to come along and help in the pit crew. However, during the Tokyo leg of the race, Mater is mistaken for an American spy by the automotive equivalent of James Bond, a suave car named Finn McMissile (Michael Caine), who in a nifty bit of creativity has a grill that looks like a smoothly manicured moustache. Of course, as in all mistaken identity spy movies, zaniness ensues, and I don't use that phrase sarcastically. The results of Mater getting thrown into the spy world are often quite funny.

There's an unlikely but appealing romance thrown in for Mater in the form of a female spy played by Emily Mortimer named Holly Shiftwell, a nice tribute to the Bond tradition of giving heroines silly, doubly-entendred names. Plus, there's a richly textured world created here that's really a kick to look at. This is a case of the 3-D really working, making the world come alive in a visually exciting way.


On the downside though, there's a ham-fisted message that makes the environmental aspects of "WALL-E" seem extremely subtle. It's not that I disagree with the message, but nobody likes getting beat over the head with a moral, even if it's a good one.

Also, at the end of the day, this is a "Cars" film. No matter how visually engaging or pun-fully funny it is, there's never any sense of concern or wonderment. Will Mater live and save the day? Of course he will. Will he and Lightning learn the true meaning of friendship....again? Yep. Will we be given something beyond the surface plot elements to ponder on the ride home? Unfortunately, no. This movie is "DreamWorks Good", which, again, isn't an insult, it's just disappointing from a studio that so consistently shows us it's capable of more.

Also, your enjoyment of this film will definitely hinge on two questions: Did you like the first one and do you like Mater, because this is absolutely his movie. If the answer to either of those questions is no, then tread with caution. (by the way, my personal answers to those questions are: yes, like, but not love. and absolutely, Mater is the "simple-isn't-stupid" heart of the franchise)

As a teacher, I know the disappointment when an extremely talented and capable student turns in an assignment well below their ability level. Had any other student turned it in, you might give it an "A-" or a "B+", but for this student, those grades wouldn't accurately represent what they CAN do. Knowing what Pixar is capable of, "DreamWorks good" simply isn't good enough. It's delightful that DreamWorks is showing a desire to become more "Pixar Good", but Pixar should never be anything less. However, if you're just looking for a light and forgettable family film, this one can fit the bill.

Grade: B

p.s. There are very bright moments before the movie even starts with an awesome preview for Pixar's next original movie, the Scottish adventure, "Brave" and a delightful new short with the "Toy Story" characters. Don't miss them.