DID YOU READ

This Movie Makes No Sense: “Cars 2”

cars-2-02172012

Posted by on

Earlier this week at a press junket for “John Carter,” Disney producer Lindsey Collins suggested that a Pixar backlash was to blame for “Cars 2″‘s lack of an Oscar nomination for Best Animated Feature. “I think it had the fact that Pixar has dominated going against it,” Collins told Movieline. “At a certain point there was going to be somebody who was going to take the fall a little bit. It was going to be like, ‘Eh, we don’t like that one.’”

Was there a Pixar backlash? Perhaps. It definitely felt like a few critics took an undue amount of glee in finally getting an opportunity to savage a film from the vaunted Pixar Animation Studios. In their sixteen year history making animated feature films prior to “Cars 2,” Pixar had never received a negative score on Rotten Tomatoes. Even 2006’s “Cars” — supposedly “the bad Pixar movie” according to some critics — earned a respectable 74% on the movie review aggregator. But if critics were lukewarm on the first film in the series, they were bitterly cold on its sequel, which ultimately wound up with a rotten 39% Tomatometer rating. The reviews were scathing, a veritable festival of anti-pull-quotes. “A mess!” declared the Associated Press. “Surprisingly tedious!” moaned ReelViews. “Utterly ordinary!” kvetched The New Orleans Times-Picayune.

If you’re looking for someone to refute the bad vibes, to explain how everyone missed the boat and why “Cars 2” is a misunderstood masterpiece, you’re parking in the wrong garage. “Cars 2” is a mess, and its plot is, at times, surprisingly tedious. It is easily the worst film ever produced by the animation wizards at Pixar. It’s not, however, “utterly ordinary.” In fact, “Cars 2” is a bit more interesting — and a whole lot weirder — than you’ve heard. Ordinary? A film about sentient automobiles existing on a planet exactly like our own except for its total lack of human life, engaged in auto racing (a sensible occupation for cars) and international espionage (a less sensible one)? A film with car toilets and car bidets and car food and car sleeping gas? Sorry, no ordinary film makes this little sense.

Of course, the living, (apparently) breathing cars first appeared in the original “Cars,” directed, like its sequel, by head Pixar honcho John Lasseter. But they invited less questions that time around. “Cars” was largely confined to the comings and goings of a sleepy town called Radiator Springs, where a race car named Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) got stranded on his way to the big finale of the NASCAR-ish Piston Cup. Though inspired by a Lasseter family vacation along the old Route 66, Radiator Springs was an entirely fictitious setting. It felt divorced enough from our own reality to let the inherent strangeness of its premise — a universe of cars without humans who, according to my vague recollections of elementary school social studies, were the ones who invented cars in the first place — slide. Anthropomorphic cars. Fine.

The expanded setting and more complicated plot of “Cars 2,” though, make the larger implications of this world harder to ignore. This time out, Lightning is invited to participate in the World Grand Prix, with races all over the globe. While in Tokyo for the first leg of the WGP, Lightning’s dopey sidekick Tow Mater (Larry the Cable Guy) gets mistaken for an American spy by British secret agent Finn McMissle (Michael Caine). While Lightning drives through the World Grand Prix, Mater participates in a series of James Bond-style chases and “car-ate” fights to protect the world from evildoers who wish to interrupt the races and discredit its sponsor, a new alternative fuel source named Allinol.

If the cars are searching for an alternative fuel source, then they must be using a non-alternative fuel source — and, sure enough, “Cars 2″‘s opening sequence, inspired by the pre-credits adventures of 007 in thrillers like “The Spy Who Loved Me,” follows Finn McMissile as he sneaks aboard an enormous off-shore drilling platform. In other words: the cars of “Cars” need gas. Fair enough; but if cars need gas to run, and the gas needs to be sucked out of the ground just like it does in our reality, how did the cars function before they built their first oil wells?

Exactly what the cars need to survive is massively confusing in general. The cars require gas (or Allinol), but they can also apparently eat as well, ingesting foodstuffs through the enormous cartoon mouths on their front bumpers (their mouths also sport teeth and tongues, which must freak out potheads when they watch this movie). The World Grand Prix’s launch party in Japan features a free food buffet, including wasabi that Mater mistakes for pistachio ice cream. As you might expect, Mater eats too much and is sent scrambling for water. The existence of wasabi means the existence of organic foods which would be unnecessary (or impossible) in a world without humans or animals. Then again, Mater mistakes wasabi for pistachio ice cream, which implies the existence of ice cream, which implies the existence of cows. But where are they? Who milks them? And how?

Cars need to make pit stops just like humans do, but still, it’s a bit unsettling to learn the cars use bathrooms like the one Mater patronizes in “Cars 2.” During the aforementioned Japan sequence, Mater begins “leaking” and dashes off to the lavatory. You might expect a car’s bathroom to look like a car wash, but no, a car’s public restroom looks exactly like a human one, right down to the mirrors and sinks (even though the cars don’t have hands to wash in them).

Mater uses a toilet stall and gets roughed up by a parody of Japanese “Super Toilets” that include high-tech features like bidets and heated seats. Lasseter has said in interviews that “Cars 2” was inspired by the international press tour for “Cars 1,” and it seems likely that he himself might have had a bewildering altercation with a crazily elaborate Japanese toilet. But that still leaves me wondering: WHY DOES A CAR NEED TO USE THE GODDAMN BATHROOM?

Let’s talk about God for a second. The cars seem to have one, as a race in Italy is attended by The Popemobile. During a stopover in Paris, we also see Notre Dame Cathedral which sports clever “car-goyle” statues amongst its spires and arches. These are all clever visual jokes, but the film doesn’t dwell on them, probably because if it did you’d start to think about them, and when you start to think about them the whole thing falls apart. If God created man — or cars — in his own image, that would seem to suggest God, at least in this batshit crazy universe, is a car too (probably a Lamborghini).

Here’s another one that stumped me. The final leg of the World Grand Prix is in London, where the Queen is both a spectator and the potential target of Finn McMissile’s enemies. Eventually, the heroes defeat the villains, and Mater gets knighted by a thankful Queen. A Queen car! So there’s car royalty! How does that work? The English royal bloodline goes back centuries — does the English car royal bloodline work the same way? If it goes back even two or three generations, that’s before the invention of cars. Was Queen Crown Victoria, say, a horse-drawn carriage? Did the cars evolve from lesser forms of transportation? How does Darwin fit in here? If all of human history played out basically as it did in Cars Land, what did Ancient Greece look like? Or the American Civil War?

So many questions. I’ve spent so much time dwelling on the larger theological and political implications of a world of cars I haven’t even mentioned the more practical puzzlers, like the strange choices surrounding which characters returned from the first “Cars” for the sequel. If Doc Hudson was killed off in deference to the passing of his voice, Paul Newman, why did they recast George Carlin’s character Fillmore? It all makes no sense.

Actually, while this movie makes no sense to me, an alleged adult, it might make perfect sense to a child. Kids, after all, routinely anthropomorphize their toy cars with nary a thought to rationality or continuity. The charmingly human world of “Cars” speaks to a child’s logic even as it confounds an adult’s. That’s why this series has become Pixar’s second-most successful franchise and a huge cashcow for Disney even though it’s never connected with parents in the same way more respected and literate Pixar films like “WALL-E” and “Up” did. It may not have earned an Oscar nomination for Best Animated Feature, but I’m sure in the universe of “Cars” it would have won every single award given to movies. And the statuettes would have been shaped like the open source car — or OSCar for short. Just don’t ask why.

What part of “Cars 2” makes the least amount of sense? Tell us in the comments below or write to us on Facebook and Twitter.

SAE SDCC 2017

SDCC OMG

Stan Diego Comic-Con

Stan Against Evil returns November 1st.

Posted by on
Photo Credit: Erin Resnick, GIFs via Giphy

Another Comic-Con International is in the can, and multiple nerdgasms were had by all – not least of which were about the Stan Against Evil roundtable discussion. Dana, Janet and John dropped a whole lotta information on what’s to come in Season 2 and what it’s like to get covered in buckets of demon goo. Here are the highlights.

Premiere Date!

Season 2 hits the air November 1 and picks up right where things left off. Consider this your chance to seamlessly continue your Halloween binge.

Character Deets!

Most people know that Evie was written especially for Janet, but did you know that Stan is based on Dana Gould’s dad? It’s true. But that’s where the homage ends, because McGinley was taken off the leash to really build a unique character.

Happy Accidents!

Improv is apparently everything, because according to Gould the funniest material happens on the fly. We bet the writers are totally cool with it.

Exposed Roots!

If Stan fans are also into Twin Peaks and Doctor Who, that’s no accident. Both of those cult classic genre benders were front of mind when Stan was being developed.

Trailer Treasure!

Yep. A new trailer dropped. Feast your eyes.

Catch up on Stan Against Evil’s first season on the IFC app before it returns November 1st on IFC.

Commuters_105_MPX-1920×1080

Grow TFU

Adulting Like You Mean It

Commuters makes its debut on IFC's Comedy Crib.

Posted by on

Jared Warner, Nick Ciavarella, and Tim Dean were once a part of Murderfist, a group of comedy writers, actors, producers, parents, and reluctant adults. Together with InstaMiniSeries’s Nikki Borges, they’re making their IFC Comedy Crib debut with the refreshingly-honest and joyfully-hilarious Commuters. The webseries follows thirtysomethings Harris and Olivia as they brave the waters of true adulthood, and it’s right on point.

Jared, Nick, Nikki and Tim were kind enough to answer a few questions about Commuters for us. Here’s a snippet of that conversation…

Commuters_106_MPX-1920x1080

IFC: How would you describe Commuters to a fancy network executive you met in an elevator?

Nick: Two 30-somethings leave the Brooklyn life behind, and move to the New Jersey suburbs in a forced attempt to “grow up.” But they soon find out they’ve got a long way to go to get to where they want to be.

IFC: How would you describe Commuters to a drunk friend of a friend you met in a bar?

Jared: It’s a show about how f*cking stupid people who think they are smart can be.

IFC: What’s your origin story? When did you all meet and how long have you been working together?

Jared: Nick, Tim, and I were all in the sketch group Murderfist since, what, like 2004? God. Anyway, Tim and Nick left the group to pursue other frivolous things, like children and careers, but we all enjoyed writing together and kept at it. We were always more interested in storytelling than sketch comedy lends itself to, which led to our webseries Jared Posts A Personal. That was a show about being in your 20s and embracing the chaos of being young in the city. Commuters is the counterpoint, i guess. Our director Adam worked at Borders (~THE PAST!!~) with Tim, came out to a Murderfist show once, and we’ve kept him imprisoned ever since.

IFC: What was the genesis of Commuters?

Tim: Jared had an idea for a series about the more realistic, less romantic aspects of being in a serious relationship.  I moved out of the city to the suburbs and Nick got engaged out in LA.   We sort of combined all of those facets and Commuters was the end result.

IFC: How would Harris describe Olivia?

Jared: Olivia is the smartest, coolest, hottest person in the world, and Harris can’t believe he gets to be with her, even though she does overreact to everything and has no chill. Like seriously, ease up. It doesn’t always have to be ‘a thing.’

IFC: How would Olivia describe Harris?

Nikki:  Harris is smart, confident with a dry sense of humor but he’s also kind of a major chicken shit…. Kind of like if Han Solo and Barney Rubble had a baby.

IFC: Why do you think the world is ready for this series?

Nikki:  I think this is the most accurate portrayal of what a modern relationship looks like. Expectations for what your life is ‘supposed to look like’ are confusing and often a let down but when you’re married to your best friend, it’s going to be ok because you will always find a way to make each other laugh.

IFC: Is the exciting life of NYC twentysomethings a sweet dream from which we all must awake, or is it a nightmare that we don’t realize is happening until it’s over?

Tim: Now that i’ve spent time living in the suburbs, helping to raise a two year old, y’all city folk have no fucking clue how great you’ve got it.

Nikki: I think of it similar to how I think about college. There’s a time and age for it to be glorious but no one wants to hang out with that 7th year senior. Luckily, NYC is so multifaceted that you can still have an exciting life here but it doesn’t have to be just what the twentysomethings are doing (thank god).

Jared: New York City is a garbage fire.

See the whole season of Commuters right now on IFC’s Comedy Crib.

BVSS-106-Stitching-web2

C'mon Fellas

A Man Mansplains To Men

Why Baroness von Sketch Show is a must-see.

Posted by on

Mansplaining is when a man takes it upon himself to explain something to a woman that she already knows. It happens a lot, but it’s not going to happen here. Ladies, go ahead and skip to the end of this post to watch a free episode of IFC’s latest addition, Baroness von Sketch Show.

However, if you’re a man, you might actually benefit from a good mansplanation. So take a knee, lean in, and absorb the following wisdom.

No Dicks

Baroness von Sketch Show is made entirely by women, therefore this show isn’t focused on men. Can you believe it? I know what you’re thinking: how will we know when to laugh if the jokes aren’t viewed through the dusty lens of the patriarchy? Where are the thinly veiled penis jokes? Am I a bad person? In order: you will, nowhere, and yes.

BVSS 101_14c

Huge Balls

Did you know that there’s more to life than poop jokes, sex jokes, body part jokes? I mean, those things are all really good things, natch, and totally edgy. But Baroness von Sketch Show does something even edgier. It holds up a brutal funhouse mirror to our everyday life. This is a bulls**t world we made, fellas.

BVSS_101_13

Oh Canada

After you watch the Canadian powerhouses of Baroness von Sketch Show and think to yourself “Dear god, this is so real” and “I’ve gotta talk about this,” do yourself a favor and think a-boot your options: Refrain from sharing your sage wisdom with any woman anywhere (believe us, she gets it). Instead, tell a fellow bro and get the mansplaining out of your system while also spreading the word about a great show.

BVSS 101_9_c

Dudes, that’s the deal.
Women, start reading again here:


Check out the preview episode of Baroness von Sketch Show and watch the series premiere August 2 on IFC.

Powered by ZergNet