Unique burst of cinematic inspiration eludes animated sequel
As we watched “Cars 2” in 3D last Monday, these thoughts filled our puzzled, addled head: Hey, this movie is all about cars—there are no humans here. Or, more correctly, the cars are the humans—they have totally been “anthropomorphized,” talking, moving, thinking and feeling exactly like you and me, except that they do it with their body parts. Weird!
But, when you think about it some more, not all appear strange in the world of animation and entertainment for kids (and adults who have retained their chidlike sense of wonder). After all, what’s the difference between talking cars and tap-dancing penguins, pink elephant ballerinas, and Puss in Boots smart-assing away with Antonio Banderas’ voice?
Secret agents
It’s just that “Cars 2” does it so totally. In fact, its automobile stars do everything their human counterparts are capable of, including falling in love and being secret agents out to save the world from greedy oil billionaires’ schemes to foil the globe’s transition to alternative fuels (the villains are also played by cars).
The film’s makers carry this monumental conceit to its absolute limits, and we admire their overarching burst of imagination—and attention to the smallest details. Boy, they really gave this production everything they had—on 3D, yet.
After a while, however, we found ourselves griping: Hey, this is supposed to be a 3D flick, but its added depth of view doesn’t really give it the visual wow factor it’s supposed to.
We wonder why that is, and later conclude that the lack of human or at least live, breathing bodies in the whole movie makes its characters cold and unfeeling, despite its makers prodigious efforts to precisely counteract that tendency.
So, when the 3D process distends or exaggerates spatial perception, the effect is far from stunning, because the objects the camera is exaggeratedly differentiating are basically cold and inert lumps of metal—and, where’s the visual thrill and joy in watching that?
So, we get 3D shots of car race after “exciting” car race—only to realize that—oh, no, we aren’t excited. That’s a big letdown, for sure.
Action scenes
To its credit, the film does work extra-hard to “humanize” its car characters, so that viewers can tell them apart, and more importantly, care about what happens to them. Thus, there are lead car characters who are loyally fierce buddies, cars who get crushes on other svelte vehicles, etc. And, the subplots even include some James Bond “blockbuster” action scenes that do get us excited—for a while.
All too soon, however, we find ourselves dozing off again, as the visual adrenaline rush wears off, and we’re back to perusing all those cars doing pretty much the same things they did 15 minutes ago, ho-hum.
Animated and “anthropomorphized” machines can be given an antic life of their own, as “Wall-E” brilliantly proved some years ago. Alas, that unique burst of cinematic inspiration appears to have generally eluded “Cars 2.”
