The following is a review for
Cars, which I feel sums up the idea behind why people are looking for Pixar to fail. It's human nature. This reviewer, who states that he "generally isn't a fan of computer animation", seems to truly love the film. The review is near the middle of the page:
http://charlotte.creativeloafing.com/gy ... id%3A42676
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHILE IT MAY be too harsh (and depressing) to state that it's human nature to want to see something successful eventually fail, it might be accurate to note that it's human nature to expect something successful to finally take a tumble off the ladder. Admit it: Ever since Pixar Animation Studios began its incredible run with Toy Story back in 1995 (followed by five more toon blockbusters, the last being The Incredibles), haven't most observers been wondering when the company would hit a critical and/or commercial roadblock and watch its latest effort crash and burn?
Newsflash: It hasn't happened yet, and it ain't happening with Cars.
At a time when most moviemakers and studios are prostituting the venerable genre of the animated feature film, the only constants in terms of quality have been Japan's Hayao Miyazaki (Spirited Away, Castle In the Sky), England's Nick Park (the Wallace & Gromit adventures) and the United States' John Lasseter. Lasseter, the creative wizard behind Pixar (and now Walt Disney Pictures as well) has repeatedly stated that the key to any good animated film is the story, and of course he's absolutely right. But the success of Pixar rests with the fact that they go beyond good storytelling and beyond good visual schemes to provide their pictures with that extra oomph, whether it's in the tiny details (for instance, the restaurant briefly seen in Monsters, Inc. is called Harryhausen, after FX wizard Ray Harryhausen) or in the always spot-on voice casting (Pixar doesn't just go for the biggest A-listers but insists on finding the right person for each role).
The storyline for Cars actually seems a little hoary: A big-city slicker learns to slow down and smell the flowers -- or, in this case, the diesel -- in a small town in the middle of nowhere. Doc Hollywood, to name just one, has been there, done that. But the picture's six scripters expand the parameters of this plot description to make an entertaining and even poignant tale about the lure of the open road and the passing of a quaint chapter in modern American history. So for all its high-gloss NASCAR trappings, Cars is ultimately a paean to Route 66.
The cars are the characters -- no humans exist in this world -- and the most prominent vehicle is Lightning McQueen (voiced by Owen Wilson), a rookie sensation on the NASCAR circuit (the name is doubtless an homage to Steve McQueen, a real-life racing enthusiast). Lightning is cocky, conceited and convinced that he needs nobody's help to make it to the top. Clearly, Lightning is due for a comeuppance even more than he's due for an oil and filter change.
On his way to California to prepare for a race against a grizzled veteran known as the King (Richard Petty) and a loudmouth called Chick Hicks (Michael Keaton), Lightning unexpectedly winds up in Radiator Springs, a once-bustling Route 66 burg whose status rapidly collapsed once the interstate insured that all cross-country traffic would be diverted away from the town. Lightning is anxious to escape from this one-horsepower town, but circumstances force him to cool his wheels for a while. So in the meantime, he becomes acquainted with the locals, including Sally (Bonnie Hunt), a former big-city lawyer who prefers the simple life; Mater (Larry the Cable Guy), a "good ole boy" tow truck whose idea of a swell time is tipping the sleeping tractors; and Doc Hudson (Paul Newman), a sage automobile who might be able to teach the young hothead a few things about winning -- not only on the track but also in life and in love.
That Lightning will find redemption is never in doubt, but like the best storytellers, Lasseter and his co-writers make the journey to self-discovery as interesting as possible. Because the Pixar geniuses are able to convince us that these cars are sentient beings rather than hunks of metal, we become fully invested in their situations, and that adds surprising currency to the movie's wistful look at Route 66 and its historic worth as an umbilical cord that stretched out across the American terrain, bringing life to the generations of families that traversed it.
Regular readers know that I'm generally not a fan of computer animation, but Pixar is exempt from my scorn: These practitioners of the form operate at a level far beyond everyone else in Hollywood. The soulless quality that permeates most CGI toons is missing in this studio's output, and Cars nearly rivals the Toy Story twofer in creating life where none should exist. Yes, Pixar may indeed produce a flop one of these years, but for now, the future seems limitless, stretched out like an open road before it disappears into the sun-soaked horizon.
See next week's CL for interviews with Cars cast members.
) Still, Roeper gave "Thumbs Up" to longer movies before, so it makes no sense for him to give "Thumbs Down" to Pirates.
What a ton of rubbish!!