A Franchise That's Running On Fumes

'Cars 2' is a magnificantly animated Pixar feature with a whimsical and complex spy game plot built around a premise that doesn't deserve either.  Oh sure, John Lasseter has crafted a competently made thriller with striking visuals and an inventive flare for stunts, but it all unfolds with the manic pace of a kid with an attention deficit smashing his toy cars together.  Don't get me wrong, I loved playing with my cars as a kid too, but therein lies my fundamental dislike for the 'Cars' franchise; I always imagined people driving them.

My cynical attitude doesn't stem from the way the movies are made or with Pixar's eagerness to please the audience.  Indeed, Pixar is known for win after win with state of the art, vibrant animation coupled with emotional, effective story telling.  No, my problem with 'Cars' and 'Cars 2' is with the initial idea.  Most of Pixar's previous works have crafted stories around living things.  The 'Toy Story' movies are an exception, but even then, there are human beings involved that have an emotional connection to the toys and the toys, in turn, depend on their need to be played with.  It's a symbiotic relationship with true resonance for the audience.  The toys come to life because kids often imagine the toys as being alive, doing the things we see them do. 

The thing that stops me from enjoying 'Cars' is that I am distracted from the story with too many questions.  Where are all the humans?  How do these cars drive?  Who makes them?  Do they need to sleep and eat?  There is a scene early in 'Cars 2' where Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) and his girlfriend (a CAR has a girlfriend!) Sally sit at a table at a restaurant.  Do they NEED that table?  For what?  Who pumps gas into these cars?  And just what ARE they for that matter?  I have never been clear on whether these are real cars or toy cars being played with by the hands of some large, invisible child.  There's another issue;  'Cars 2' provides no sense of scale.  How big is everything?  The cars travel the world, but, who's world?  Ours?  The first movie took place in large dessert landscapes so that the cars, whatever their actual size, could come and go and didn't necessarily need to fit in against anything.  In 'Cars 2,' the cars are literally trapsing the globe, but never quite look big enough, or small enough, from scene to scene.  Some buildings massively swallow the characters and some look as if the cars come right up to the third or fourth level.

The plot this time around is a great deal more involving than its predecessor.  I found the original to be dreadfully boring and overlong and it pandered condescendingly to it's audience with a message of slowing your life down and appreciating the bygone era of the all-american highway.  Pixar, cranking out at least one picture a year, doesn't seem to live by the message they peddled.  In 'Cars 2,' John Lasseter and Pixar have overcompensated for the meandering pace of the first movie with a complex spy-movie plot that is way too mature for kids and too familiar for adults.  It involves a significant amount of slick espionage and confidently animated action, but all that excitement is wasted on yet another heavy-handed message on the importance of alternative fuel and the evil oil corporations.  There are some master talents providing voicework here, with the likes of Michael Caine as Finn McMissile, John Turturro as Francesco Bernoulli and the wonderful Emily Mortimer as Holley Shiftwell (get it?).  The dialogue issues in-jokes that will be lost on youngsters and aren't funny enough to inspire laughs from the grown-ups whereas most of the sight gags rely on car humor that, again, children don't really think of.  That really grinds my gears.  Do you see what I did there?  You get the idea.

This is largely considered Pixar's biggest flop to date and the numbers certainly confirm as much.  I attribute that to what I consider to be a fatal mistake; 'Cars 2' puts Mater (Larry The Cable Guy) front and center.  In movies where there is already enough difficulty establishing characters we're supposed to care about out of inanimate objects, why would John Lasseter and Ben Queen, who wrote the screenplay, make the most annoying character the star of the sequel?  Larry the Cable Guy is a one-trick pony who's stand-up gigs, which were arguably never funny in the first place, have long since grown tired.  He essentially does an impression of himself rather than voice an original character.  How many times can the lines "get 'ir done" or "that's funny right there, I don't care who ya are" actually inspire laughs?  Yet here they are, pulled straight from raunchy stand-up routines and put into a kids' movie multiple times. 

Obviously from the tone of my review, I was not the correct audience for the 'Cars' movies.  They are, to me, Pixar's biggest miscalculation.  I don't believe that the studio has lost its ability to create wonderfully animated, emotionally resonant features, but I also don't believe they are above taking advantage of an easily-merchandisable, money making franchise either.  That's the problem here I think; the priorities of the studio were misplaced with dollar signs.  Ironic then, that it has made Pixar its lowest profit margain yet.  But if for every 'Cars' movie there are three 'Toy Stories' or a 'Wall*E', then that aint half bad.  If Pixar wants to continue with sequels, I certainly look forward to the next chapter of 'Finding Nemo' or even seeing what 'The Incredibles' are up to now days.  I suggest though, that if they want to stay ahead of Dreamworks Animation, they leave the Cars in the junk yard.

Even little Steve is doing his part....way to go, Steve!

I was slightly concerned that by the time I saw 'Captain America: The First Avenger,' I would feel like I had already seen too much of it.  The movie was heavily over-marketed; undoubtedly because of its opening date just a week after the finale of 'Harry Potter,' the studio was concerned it might not perform above that momentous event.  Well, the bombardment of trailers and t.v. spots seems to have paid off; 'Captain America' did indeed triumph in it's opening weekend.  The final Marvel champion before next summer's 'The Avengers' also exceeded my expectations of over-exposure; I had a heck of a good time here with a film that is focused and engaging.  Director Joe Johnston has crafted a good ole' fashioned actioner that not only harkens back to the heroic sensibility America sought during WWII but also evokes much of the same sentimentality of Johnston's earlier film, 'The Rocketeer'-a childhood favorite.  It may not corner the market on anything new, but when it's done so well, sometimes that's enough.

'Captain America: The First Avenger' opens in present day with a discovery in what I'm guessing is the arctic. Somehow, a shiny red, white and blue shield  seems to have been frozen in the tundra.  Just as the discovery team (S.H.I.E.L.D, I'm guessing) gets worked up about what might be under that ice, we get a flashback to 1942 where Johann Schmidt (Hugo Weaving, sneering) is looking to do some dark deeds with the cosmic cube previously seen in 'Thor.'  Meanwhile, in Brooklyn, NY, Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is really wanting to enlist in the Army, but at 90 pounds he can hardly stand up in a back alley fight.  His stature says nothing for his courage, however, as he is always willing to step up to overwhelming odds.  It is his brave nature and strong will that catches the eye of Dr. Abraham Erskine (Stanley Tucci).  Erskine wants to induct Rogers into an experiment that the Government hopes will be the start of a "super-soldier" program.  This involves a great deal of levers, buttons, lights and scientific lingo that only Erskine and Howard Stark (Dominic Cooper) seem to comprehend.  As Erskine explains, a first attempt with this procedure in Germany had adverse effects on Johann Schmidt's skin tone and hairline.  A tragic event following Steve's transformation makes it impossible to create any more super soldiers, and lamenting that they only get one, the Government sees fit to make "Captain America" the poster boy for buying war bonds.  This campaign has Steve dressed in un-flattering spandex amongst a background of dancing girls, gleefully miming over 200 knockouts to "Adolf Hitler."  This role doesn't suit the newly-buff Rogers, or his Commanding Officer, Colonel Chester Phillips (Tommy Lee Jones). 

Things really start jumping into high gear when Rogers discovers his long-time friend, Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan) has gone missing behind enemy lines.  Before long, he's finally getting the Lion's share of the action and fulfilling his purpose while garbed in a pretty slick red, white and blue outfit.  Through a wonderfully paced montage, we see Captain America tossing his shield, pummeling bad guys with his fists and otherwise performing feats that an Olympic Athlete would envy.  These sequences and a great many action set-pieces do a great job at stirring a sense of patriotism that is worthy of the movie's title.  The best part is that it isn't condescending at all.  The villains may be uber Nazis and the premise might be absurd, but Johnston and crew embrace it with a seriousness that keeps it grounded and relevant to present times.  Speaking of present times, by the end of 'The First Avenger', Captain America awakens in a world that he does not recognize after a 70-year long nap.  How he gets there I will not say, but the journey involves him facing off against Johann Schmidt in his true form as the nefarious Red Skull.

As Captain America, Chris Evans is mature and stoic.  He plays the role straight, which is just right, I think, as the tone here steps away from the cheekiness of 'Thor' and 'Iron Man' in a way that really highlights the unique character trait of each Avenger; it will be interesting to see each of these capable actors assembled next summer. Come to think of it, of all the Avengers, Captain America and the Hulk probably have the most burden to bear.  Whereas Thor and Iron Man really embrace their powers and circumstances, Bruce Banner doesn't necessarily want to be the Hulk, and Steve Rogers wasn't planning on being frozen in ice for 70 years.  As for all the other players here, they more or less provide what is required.  Tommy Lee Jones does a nice job balancing Colonel Phillips' conflicted attitude about the good Captain with his unflinching duty as Commanding Officer.  Hayley Atwell as Agent Peggy Carter is so alluring, that upon awakening from his 70 year absence, Steve Rogers' first concern is understandably his missed date with her.

There is very little to criticize with 'Captain America.'  The worst you could say for it is that it isn't original.  But when adapting a 70-year old comic book charcter, how original can you get?  What matters is how the material is handled.  Joe Johnston provides an experience that stirs up the kind of excitement I had as a boy, forever dreaming up ways to have my action figures beat the bad guys, even going so far to dress up myself and charge into danger.  There is a scene in this film that I think perfectly encompases the sense of hope 'Captain America' is meant to inspire; a young boy charging down the street with a garbage can lid painted in red, white and blue while his friends follow, fists in the air.  It's the sort of thing you want to see on a post card.  In lesser hands, the scene might come off as condescending or even a little bit cheesy, but it perfectly puncuates everything that comes before it.  It symbolizes the kind of person Steve Rogers is both before and after his transformation, and it arouses in audiences the heroic sensibility in all of us.  Captain America, indeed.  A handful of countries around the globe hacked off the main title, 'Captain America' and kept only the subtitle 'The First Avenger.' They should really pay attention to the scene with that little boy.

The Boy Who Lived...And Lived Again

"Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows: Part 2" closes out a film series that by now has transcended the simplistic description of 'franchise' and become something much more.  The entire saga of Harry Potter is a coming-of-age tale in which we've been able to watch three characters, and the respective actors who portray them, grow up before our eyes.  Across 8 films in ten years, Warner Brothers along with a variety of directors, producers, writers, and of course, J.K Rowling herself, have provided us an everlasting tale that is in many ways unrivaled by any other narrative fantasy, save perhaps "The Lord of the Rings." 

Of course "The Deathly Hallows: Part 2" is the second half of a single narrative novel that was wisely split across two films.  Doing this allows screenwriter Steve Kloves, who has worked very closely with Rowling over the years to bring to life the very essential arcs of the story, to flesh out the layers of information provided in the seventh novel.  Indeed, this is the end game of the entire mythos, and the stakes have never been higher.  That this chapter does the best job yet at keeping the audience (readers and non-readers of the books alike) up to speed on what is going on and why is commendable.  Much of the emotional power of this film comes from knowing exactly what each character must do to survive the struggle between the Death Eaters and the good wizards defending the Hogwarts School.  The most poignant moments come when we discover vital information exactly when Harry does, sometimes to tragic effect.

David Yates, who has provided the series' direction since the fifth movie, has left nothing to chance here when it comes to audience expectations.  "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1" is, in essence, a travelogue road movie that begins with urgency and carries furied momentum throughout its runtime until the cliffhanger ending that also opens this film.  It only stands to reason then, that the entirety of the finale (also the series' shortest) feels like a 130 minute climax.  Not all of the fans' beloved favorite characters are given a proper send-off, but this is a reflection of Rowling's novel, not the liberties often taken with the novels' screen adaptations.  However, it is hard to imagine anyone being unsatisfied here when all the key players have their fair share of shining moments.

Screen veterans Maggie Smith and Alan Rickman who portray two of my favorite characters, Professors McGonagall and Snape, respectively, each have some powerful moments that are elevated by their considerable talents.  They may be supporting characters, but that each completely own the screentime they inhabit speaks highly of their skill, as actors, and the witch and wizard they portray.  At nearly 77 years of age, Maggie Smith in particular, had the packed house at my midnight screening applauding her sheer ferocity.  It's quite clear after ten years that each of these actors has an endearment for this material that, for some, will be the crowning achievement of their career.  Warwick Davis, pulling double duty here as the Goblin Griphook and Professor Flitwick, has come a long way from his "Willow" days.  Watch him in one of the opening scenes as Griphook, where his focus and attention is so nuanced that it is worth a study for aspiring actors.  It's a marvelous moment.

Chris Columbus kicked off the magic a decade ago with his direction of the first two installments, "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" and "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets."  Columbus brought a sense of whimzy to the world that J.K Rowling created and indeed, they conveyed a sense of child-like innocence and wonder; great detail was given to bring even the smallest elements of Hogwarts to life.  The 3rd and 4th passages each had a new director who brought their own unique flavor along with the darker tone provided by the developments Rowling had created in each new novel.  With each subsequent Harry Potter adaptation from Yates, the themes and material have grown ever-darker, requiring a word of caution to parents: these are NOT children's films.  Some of the more menacing Death Eaters and violence is too much for youngsters and certainly, the first and second year Hogwarts students in this movie.  In a particular scene in the great hall, as the students are addressed by an ominous presence, I noticed a child in the background whose frightened look may have been legitimate.

The big screen adaptations of J.K. Rowling's complex novels have not pleased everyone.  With each book being larger in scope, if not in paper, than the last, the producers and directors had to make economical decisions with shooting, leaving out what was not absolutely essential to the main story arc.  Rowling seems to have approved this.  No matter what the fans' complaints have been over the years, rest assured, David Yates has finished out the series with a magnificent farewell; a two-part film that helps prolong the action and delay the inevitable goodbyes.  I suspect many will tear up at least once during the procedings.  I certainly did.  The nice thing is, you don't have to be a die-hard fan of the novels to appreciate what is on the screen.   No matter which medium you prefer to experience the world of Harry Potter, in the end what we're left with is two iconic ways to enjoy an impactful fantasy narrative that spans the entire childhood of three best friends. 

*Note: This film is offered in 2D and 3D.  However, it was post-converted to 3D and already has an intentionally dark, murky color pallete.  Do yourself a favor, skip the extra cost of 3D and enjoy it the way it was filmed.