Cars 3

I thought "Cars" was great back in 2006 because it was a lot like the Pixar films of the 90's. There was sincerity and originality in its storytelling. The sequel in 2011 did have problems but it was still fun to watch. Now in 2017, Pixar has released a third film in the franchise and I had hopes that the franchise would end on a good note. It did but part of me wishes it had been just as good as the first film. "Cars 3" was too similar to the first film in terms of story structure for its first half but was original in the second half. Also, what I said about "Cars 2" applies to its successor in that the show "will appeal to kids the most but thank heaven Pixar did not screw it up completely." "Cars 3" was fine the second time around so that is good news.

A great Pixar film has three qualities and the same can be said for any movie: a great story with great characters that features new technology in filmmaking. In terms of the story, the plot summary by itself looks very promising. Minor mistakes appear to have been made in its execution. I also feel that the filmmakers didn't take as many creative risks that have reaped success in the past. "Monsters University" kept me guessing and had a big payoff but the plot of "Cars 3" was a little more predictable. Its climax had great rising action and drama but its "highpoint" failed to satisfy. Pixar tried the same approach as those working on the fifth "Pirates of the Caribbean" film in that Lightning McQueen is reset back to his roots so that the magic of the first film can be felt. However, this kind of plan for a sequel doesn't always work. "Rocky V" is proof of that because most people did not care for it but then again, the next films in that franchise ("Rocky Balboa" and "Creed") succeeded by hitting the metaphorical reset button. In the case of "Cars 3", things turned out quite a bit better than "Dead Men Tell No Tales" because Jack Sparrow is not as relatable as McQueen. Despite my misgivings concerning this show's climax, I am a little more familiar with popular story motifs than the average moviegoer so I am betting the general public will not see the climax coming and will feel satisfied. For example, the filmmakers did do a good job hiding the subtext of the scenes on the beach, at Thunder Hollow and at Thomasville. Pixar did not repeat the mistakes made in "Cars 2" because Lightning McQueen is once again the principle character and the film is solely about auto racing. The movie also explores the irony of athletes retiring because they are not elderly but nevertheless too old to compete against new blood. When McQueen meets Cruz and everyone else at the training center, he is treated like a veteran even though he doesn't feel like one. He sees himself following the same path that Doc did after his crash back in 1954. Unlike what happened to Doc though, everyone seems content to let McQueen realize on his own that his days are over. They provide him training and a new approach but deep down, they don't have much faith in him. If he is going to retire however, McQueen wants to go out on a high note. We get a great scene when McQueen realizes that Doc's best days were not spent as a racer. That felt quite powerful to me. When McQueen loses his final practice race, I liken that unto the scene when Rocky visits the empty venue the night before the fight and realizes that he can't win. The reason both characters still show up to compete is because they have something to prove and want to go the distance. Deep down for the first time, McQueen knows he can't win but he doesn't want to quit the race and let everyone down. He doesn't know exactly what to do but over the course of the entire race, he finds an answer. The victory at the end of the race, as I mentioned, should have been far more thrilling than even the Piston Cup final in the original film but I just didn't feel it. In the second half of the show, there was sincerity in the storytelling up to the climax where things just weren't as climatic as I was hoping for. Maybe one problem was the lack of resolution concerning Jackson Storm at the end of the show. Other loose ends were tied up very nicely but Storm's reaction to the end of the race was missing. My picky side would say that the story as a whole lacked the balance between fun and drama that I seek from Pixar. The movie did have heart but the lack of originality limited its power. Putting that aside, the film still plays out better than what other studios might have done if they made this sequel.

I can say that same thing about the new characters in "Cars 3" as I said concerning the characters in "Brave": they are good but not great. Thankfully, as with other Pixar films, a character is constructed first and then an actor is sought out who can not only bring the character to life but also add unto what the filmmakers have already done. The returning cast members slipped right back into their roles and in the case of Owen Wilson, he took his character to new places quite well. By the way, this is Bonnie Hunt's seventh Pixar film. The only other actor who has been in more Pixar films is their good luck charm John Ratzenberger (Pixar employees don't count). Cruz Ramirez's back-story is very powerful as performed by Cristela Alonzo. I thought Chris Cooper was a good choice for the role he had and I was excited to hear Armie Hammer as Jackson Storm. Unfortunately, Jackson is not as developed as McQueen's past rivals. Jackson feels like the Ivan Drago of the franchise because he comes across as too invincible and one-dimensional. Speaking of past rivals, I wonder why Michael Keaton did not reprise his role as Chick. Albertan Nathan Fillion played Johnny in "Monsters University" and did his job well as Sterling in "Cars 3". The character of Tex is applied to the story to great effect. The more I think about it, the more I get convinced that the passing of Paul Newman may be the reason why the Cars franchise has struggled. The writers seem to lack the freedom they need to create great, inspirational stories because Doc has been removed from the franchise. For this sequel, they used recordings of Paul Newman from the first movie that didn't make it into the finished film.

Another reason why the film fell short of my expectations was that "Cars 3" did not feature any new technology in computer animation. In "Finding Dory" for example, the kelp and the character of Hank challenged the animators on the film. "Cars 3" had no "wow moment" from what I saw. I did take note of the old footage of Doc in his racing days and the gold shine on McQueen's new exterior but Pixar has had film moments like this before. In terms of Easter eggs, the Pizza Planet Delivery Truck is competing at Thunder Hollow and a shot from "Coco", Pixar's next movie, shows up for Cruz's homesick trainee. For the first time in the franchise, John Lasseter is not the director. Director Brian Fee has worked in the story department on every previous Cars movie and on other films at Pixar but this is his directorial debut. This may have been the reason why the film's story was not executed perfectly. Randy Newman is back in this franchise as the musical composer and Bob Peterson helped to write the screenplay.

From 1995 until 2010, Pixar was unstoppable. The 2010's on the other hand were a decade of moderate success for the studio. It is a little sad but realistically speaking, even the Walt Disney Studio has had ups and downs ever since its inception. Pixar couldn’t remain unstoppable forever but I find they do better with original films and when they have the freedom to produce whatever they want. In 2006, when Disney acquired Pixar, there was a push for sequels but Disney it appears also gave Pixar the freedom to make sequels to certain Pixar films when they wanted so that the creative process and the desire to make the movie in the first place was not hindered. This worked in that only "Cars 2" received negative reviews and Oscars continued to be won by films like "Brave", "Inside Out" and later "Coco". The heads of Pixar got to be the heads of Walt Disney Animation because of the 2006 acquisition deal and this begat the Disney Resurgence. Despite all this, we can all agree that Pixar enjoyed more success in the previous decade than this one. Pixar may have have been on to this fact because following "Toy Story 4", there are no new sequels planned. As for "Cars 3", it is keeping a franchise tradition. The first film came right after "The Incredibles" and the second film was released right after "Toy Story 3". "Finding Dory" made a lot of money and so "Cars 3", as with its predecessors, must follow in the shadow of yet another hit Pixar movie. I reasoned that "Cars 2" fell short of expectations because the studio might have been more focused on "Toy Story 3" at that time. I likewise hypothesized that "Cars 3" was only so-so because the studio was working harder on the next three Pixar films. For me, the success of those movies was far more important and so I don't mind "Cars 3" as it is. In my opinion, two out of those three subsequent Pixar films worked and that is symbolic of Pixar's success in the 2010's. The first time I saw "Cars 3", I didn't find it as fun or as good as I was hoping. The film achieved four stars on my rating scale because I mustn't be too picky. "In the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so."

4 Stars out of 5