Cars (2006) 20th Anniversary Screening

 

For some reason among the fans of Pixar, “Cars” appears to be a project that is widely dismissed. It may be because the movie was so successful at marketing toys that it was not taken seriously as a drama or a comedy. I frankly love the movie and my daughter Amanda marks it as her favorite Pixar film. So there, take that internet!

This revisit was a pleasant experience because I got a chance to go with my niece and her family and they all enjoyed the experience immensely , in large part because we were seeing it at the El Capitan theater in Hollywood. This venue is Disney's premiere theatrical location where all of their films get a special launch or in this case return visit. I have a little video to include to show you how cool the display is when they show a movie at the El Capitan.

I know that “Cars” creeps out some people because the idea of a car being alive is just alien to them, and let's face it if you think about it too hard there are some weird things that would be required. Fortunately for me I never think about it that hard, I just go with the flow and enjoy the experience that I'm watching. The song soundtrack is a blast, featuring a combination of soft rock and country music that works perfectly for the aesthetic of a Southwestern town being confronted by the NASCAR aesthetic.

It's so fitting that Paul Newman voices the veteran Hudson automobile which we discover late in the film was a champion from a bygone era. Newman of course was known as a racing enthusiast, and at this point in his life his voice conveyed not only confidence but an authority of age which worked perfectly for the character. I know there are people who are put off by the laid-back Surfer / stoner quality of Owen Wilson's persona, but I have always found him quite entertaining, and in the role of Lightning McQueen he seems to have found a niche that fits him quite well.

Maybe the reason that I appreciate the film so much is that I remember traveling with my family on Route 66 when we would go back to Battle Creek each year in the Summers. I think we did four or five trips in the early 60s before the interstates wiped out the old Route 66 Mother Road. Frankly for me, the magic hour is that Twilight moment in the summer when the sun has gone down but it is still light outside and the sky is a combination of Orange, purple and pink. In the desert of the Southwest it is phenomenally beautiful. This film takes advantage of the desert locale in the evening lighting. When the neon lights went on at the start of the third Act I was just delighted.

I can recognize  “Cars 2” is an abomination. It gives us too much of a secondary character and misses the spirit of the first film. It may also be that people resent the fact that “Cars” got two sequels and even though the third one restored the quality of the film story, there are other pics that people might have liked to have seen a sequel to First.

The look of the film, The Music, and the voice cast are enough to sell me when I was glad to revisit the movie in such a spectacular location.

Haunted Mansion (2023)

 

I don't have a lot to say about this film, it was fine and I liked the main characters, but it is in a rush to get somewhere after the first act, and that was not necessary. The opening section of the film nicely introduced us to the characters we are going to follow and it sets up the premise pretty well. I liked the photography angle and the story about grief is the hook that provides an emotional reason for watching the film. The problem is that once everyone is in the house the movie gets cluttered.

The number of times I have enjoyed the attraction that the film is based on would be hard to count. Most people will be happy to see the consistency of the references. It just seemed to me however that the film was mostly interested in getting in all those Easter eggs and not particularly interested in keeping the emotional thread at the center of events. There are several shots where it seems like there are dozens, maybe even hundreds of ghosts on screen at the same time. The effects in the mansion are rushed and you get no sense of thrill, fear or adventure from them as a result. 

There is a lot of frantic running through the mansion and away from ghosts, but at one point it had been suggested that the ghosts were running and that would have been a more interesting way for the story to develop. LaKeith Stanfield and Rosario Dawson sometimes feel like they are in a different movie than the other stars. Their story is potentially frightening and suspenseful. Owen Wilson, Tiffany Haddish and Danny DeVito are all in a movie that is comedy based. Their antics feel the most like the corny elements of the Haunted Mansion Ride. Jared Leto is a fully CGI character, but his voice and mannerisms (I assume motion captured) are correct for the movie, although the lighting and photography usually emphasizes the light hearted spirit of the film, even though his character is supposed to be quite dark.

At heart, this remains a kids movie. It has a PG-13 rating, and I am trying to remember what it was that would have pushed it over the PG edge. Maybe the subject of spooks is just enough to have the MPAA and the film makers squeamish about showing it to kids, but I think if your kids have seen Ninja Turtles, then they are probably fine to see this without too many reservations. I do think the fact that all the effects are CG does tend to render the film a little more safe, that's an artistic and financial choice that Disney has made. 

The 2003 version with Eddie Murphy is a vague memory. I think a couple of characters share the same names, but the story premise was not anything like this, at least as far as I recall. It looks like if you want to see this in a theater, you should get cracking. Last week's boxoffice was weak, we were the only two in the theater today, and other films are sucking up all the oxygen, so this will probably be streaming by September. 

Cruella

Cruella is the next in a long line of Disney films designed to exploit their previous properties and put a reboot Twist on them. So although there are Dalmatians in this film the movie is not really about the dogs. This is an attempt to reimagine Cruella de Vil as a sympathetic character gone wrong. In the long run not much is going to change on the main stories except our perceptions of these characters as they appear early on and then return in their original form.

I didn't expect a great deal from this movie and I was pleasantly surprised and how much I enjoyed it. Much of the credit goes to the production design team who's amazing designs for the mansion, the workshop the cars, and all of the technical things that get used in the film are a lot of fun. In addition special notes should be given to the craftspeople who designed the clothes that were worn by the various characters but especially those made for star Emma Stone. She wears these outfits and commands the screen simply by looking outlandish and confident while doing so.

The plot of this film imagines Cruella from her earliest age until just before the events that makeup  101 Dalmatians. Cruella appears to be the orphaned child of a former acquaintance of a fashion designer, The Baroness. Of course appearances always turn out to be slightly skewed in a movie like this and there will be plot turns that confound us, amuse us, and in the long run make a little bit more sense then they probably should. I like the use of characters that are referred to in the previous films and they also have been given revised backstories. Jasper and Horace, who are Cruella's henchman in this version of the story, turn out to be orphans that are similarly abandoned and are using petty crime as a way to survive. The movie really get started when characters get together and start plotting for Cruella to get into the fashion industry that she is always dreamed of being apart of.

There is a long sequence where Cruella is poorly used as an entry-level member of the Baroness' Empire. The idea that she ends up scrubbing floors and being ignored despite her good ideas is maybe a little trite but it's played for good comic effect. Emma Thompson provides great opposition as the heartless and manipulative fashion maven that Cruella is up against. The best parts of the movie are the three or four dramatic moments when Cruella's designs upstage the Baroness at key moments, typically a fashion show. These are usually presented as clever tricks or reversals of the Baroness own plans. They are also very well designed and have a great visual flair to them. That flair makes it feel as if the Fashion World could operate in these sorts of ways. The Cruella character becomes the Banksy of the Fashion World, a renegade artist with a sense a panache. Of course the more she is blocked by the Baroness the more fantastic her revenge scenarios become.

If you were thinking of taking your children to see this film, think again, because one of the major plot points involves the murder of a woman. That death is followed up by another plot to murder another woman. Then we are given a situation where there might be even more murder involved. And there is plenty of cruelty to go along with the plotting. There are Dalmatians in the film and in the early part of the movie they are villainous. Two other dogs are the charming heroes, if you can call criminals heroes. The fact that in the end the Dalmatians become a more important part of the plot, really has nothing to do with the original movies. This is not a kids movie with dogs, it's a movie made for adults based on characters from a kids movie. It would not do you well to confuse the two because your kids could very well end up traumatized by some of the things that take place in the plot.

It's a little schizophrenic that sometimes we see Cruella as a victim and other times see her as the perpetrator of something evil. Admittedly the character is evil but actress Emma Stone holds back on making Cruella completely irredeemable but only stopping short to keep a PG-13 rating. I found the movie very entertaining and funnier than I expected. Worth a watch for adults, but beware bad dogs. 

Raya and the Last Dragon

 

In the last few weeks, I have revisited a number of animated films that I remember having a solid emotional connection to. "Ratatouille" works like the devil and it has an emotional wallop to it at the end. Pixar has thrived on the "Toy Story" films and manages to get us with them almost every time. "Moana" and "Tangled" worked for me very well. "Frozen" was a moderate success from my perspective whereas it's sequel is a disaster .  "Raya and the Last Dragon" is perfectly fine in a number of ways and I can heartily recommend it to animation fans, but I must acknowledge a reservation. I felt more detached from the film than I should have. 

This is an original story, with a production design that pays homage to a culture that is under represented in American animated movies. Let me start by complementing the artistry of the backgrounds and the inventiveness of the landscapes and nations that are presented in the story. The people who populate each segment of the lost nation of Kumandra, look distinct enough for us to identify but also they look as if they can share a culture as well. We don't really get to spend much time in a couple of the segment nations that are labeled by the part of the dragon topography we see on the maps in the story. Fang, Heart, Spine, Tail and Talon each end up with a piece of critical gemstone that can be used to resist a mysterious plague that turns the living residents into stone. The mythology feels genuine for the cultures that the story is based on, even if they are invented. 

Raya takes her place as a Disney Princess, and she is closer to Mulan than Elsa. This is a warrior who moves from being a little girl at the start of the film, to a woman on a crusade for the majority of the story. There is a turning point near the end of the film which feels completely appropriate given the set up of the story, so it should resonate well but for some reason it doesn't quite hit for me, and I can't really explain why. The character arc is right, the plot points lead us to this conclusion, and we have had a variety of character to relate to so we should feel invested. I just did not and that is a disappointment for me in spite of all the excellent work that the film makers did, apparently most of it from home under the pandemic rules. 

One of the major characters in the story is the Last Dragon of the title, Sisu, voiced by Awkwafina. Her take on the voice and characterization reminded me of Phyllis Diller and the animation style, while certainly in keeping with the production design, made this character feel a little too cartoon like. I enjoyed her attitude but in the context of the story it feels like some comic relief being imposed on the proceedings. There is also a baby character that seems designed for humor and heart but who also undermines some of the tone of the film. The character of Tong as the sole survivor of his nations populace was actually fun and tragic in the right proportions. Namaari is an antagonist that is also well thought out and the nickname she is given at one point is one that I will be adopting for my oldest daughter, Allison, get ready to be referred to as Princess Undercut. 

This movie has everything going for it, and if I'd not seen every Disney/Pixar/Dreamworks/Fox film in the last thirty years, it probably would have worked for me a little better. Those of you with kids can safely assume they will be fine with this because it will probably feel fresh to them. 

Pete's Dragon (2016)

The other night, we decided to watch the 1977 Disney film of "Pete's Dragon". My kids watched it a lot when they were young and it seemed like a good thing to do in getting up for the remake that opened this weekend. As I watched it, I remembered how painful it was to experience back when the kids were four or five. It is looong. The songs are not memorable at all, and the actors either ham it up excessively or they are stiff as a board. Whatever the new film was going to bring us had to be better than this misbegotten piece of nostalgia that I hope never to have to sleep through, I mean watch, again.

Happily I can report that I was correct, this new version is a substantial improvement and will be an excellent family film for kids over the age of seven or eight. The one major reservation I have is that the film begins with a family vaction that goes dramatically wrong. It is traumatizing and the little guys might be scared and have nightmares about what happens. It is a scene that is done in the gentlest of ways but it is still tough to take when you are with your family. Once the opening five minutes is passed, the rest of the movie is a delight with some poignant moments of sadness but nothing that the kids won't have seen in a dozen other stories.

In a way, this is a different version of "The Jungle Book", with an orphan being raised by a wild anima but ultimately needing to be returned to a human society.  The animal in question does not really talk or sing but that does not mean that it does not emote. "Elliot" was a cartoon in the musical version and he was not always a creature that you could identify with. Ever since CGI has been used in movie special effects, Dragons have been a subject. From Dragonheart, to Reign of Fire, up through The Hobbit Films and Game of Thrones, these animals have been used as characters . Most of the time they are terrifying, sometimes they have voices but always they have been dangerous and scaly. The film makers here have managed to make a dragon lovable without stripping him of his dignity. Anyone who has owned a dog will see familiar expressions and behaviors expressed by Elliot. This is a story about a boy and his dog, who happens to be a dragon. The closest I've seen to this style dragon in the past is "the Luck Dragon" from "The Neverending Story". Elliot is furry and the face is expressive, I also liked the addition of his body colors changing in response to a particular touch.

Bryce Dallas Howard makes back to back appearances in consecutive years in movies featuring large animals run amuck. Unlike "Jurassic World", she is unlikely to get eaten, but her costar is a CGI invention. Robert Redford is in this film in a peripheral way, but as usual he is a welcome presence. I did not know that Wes Bentley and Karl Urban were in the film so that was a nice surprise. Young Oakes Fergley, who plays "Pete" is a good find for the part of a young child living in the wilderness who becomes a fish out of water in suburban/human surroundings. He is still very young so it is hard to say what his potential is but he is already a better actor than the child cast in the 1977 film.

There will not be any great twists in the story, it does feel in fact very much like an older Disney film when it comes to the plot. What makes it better than those creaky films like "Blackbeard's Ghost" or "The Love Bug" is the quality of the production and the actors involved. Everyone treats the story here seriously and the events that happen only stretch credibility a little bit at the climax. The last twenty minutes feels right out of a dozen other films even though the plot is different and the characters are not the same either. If you are a sentimental adult who can suspend their cynicism  for an hour and a half, or if you have kids and you want them to see a quality family picture, than "Pete's Dragon" should do the trick, and you won't have to get an annoying Helen Reddy song out of your head afterwards.