Home
Regular Features
Restaurant Guide
Dining Reviews
Musician
Profiles
Business Profiles
Internet Gems
Book Reviews
Places to Go, Things to Do
Services
Where
to find The Beachcomber
Send a letter to the editor
Advertise with us
Contact Us
| |
|||||
|
Cars:
A Drive Down Memory Lane Cars is the newest film from Pixar, the studio that created Monsters Inc. and The Incredibles, among other well regarded animated films. The studio excels at creating tiny universes, worlds either hidden within our own or that are a slight departure from life, as we know it. While they’ve brought life to inanimate objects before, like in Toy Story, in Cars they have a bigger challenge before them, one they meet with passable results. Owen Wilson’s Lightning McQueen is a hotshot rookie racecar that was part of a three-way tie for the Piston Cup. On his way to California for the tiebreaking race, he gets lost and ends up stranded in Radiator Springs, a forgotten town left to wither after interstates replaced Route 66. While stuck there, he encounters the typical array of lovable small town misfits, including Mater, a tow truck voiced by a relatively palatable Larry the Cable Guy, Doc Hudson, a ‘50s cruiser voiced by Paul Newman, who was also a racing consultant for the film, and Sally, a shiny newer model Porsche voiced by Bonnie Hunt. These three, along with the rest of the spirited, heartfelt town residents, teach Lightning that there’s more to life than being the brightest, newest, fastest winner, and that quiet beauty and an honest living can beat living the life of a superstar. If there was ever a cry for an animated feature made specifically for the NASCAR set, this is it. The film is crammed with in jokes for people who consider driving a sport; with racing luminaries past and present making appearances, alongside the usual rapid-fire visual jokes that have made Pixar so successful. However, it lacks some of the other qualities that have made their films must-sees for kids and adults alike. While their art has long been the acme of computer animation, the success of their films have always been based on a solid, well-constructed script. The hallmark of the films is the easy, sharp wit; tossing out gags for every age group without being excessively impressed with their brilliance (makers of Shrek, I’m looking at you right now). While there’s certainly cleverness in Cars, there’s also an unchecked sentimentality that mars the sharpness of the rest of the film. At times it borders on sappiness, which is surprising coming from the company that made a whole film about children growing up and abandoning their toys without resorting to the saccharine. Worse still, there are parts of the car-filled world that don’t add up. Past films have addressed the hidden worlds of insects and superheroes and undersea creatures, and while they were firmly in the realm of fancy, they made sense, at least by their own internal logic. Cars made me feel like the worst kind of nitpicker, and I sat asking questions like, “If a car runs out of gas, and it can’t move, how can it still talk? And if it consumes gas, why does it have a tongue? Who makes the cars? How does their world continue to exist?” It’s picky, but they were questions I couldn’t shake, and it undermined the integrity of the story. It doesn’t speak to my own finicky nature so much as the ill-considered subject matter. Pixar can go pretty much wherever they want, to pretend worlds filled with monsters, or 20,000 leagues under the sea, but usually their worlds are so well put together, the details so meticulous, there are no questions to ask. Like all Pixar films, Cars is worth seeing, particularly if you’ve ever spent a happy afternoon watching a bunch of cars go in circles a couple hundred times. The animation is nearly photorealistic at times, which is a marvel to see, and there are some wicked stingers during the credits, bits which are as good as the best parts of any of their films. Regrettably, Cars itself does not place so well. Still, even a lesser Pixar offering is better than much else of what’s out there. Bottom line: Pixar idling. |
|
The
Loop of Love: The Lake House Alejandro Agresti’s The Lake House doesn’t bear close scrutiny. It’s a love story, stitched together with fantasy and the kind of coincidences that Charles Dickens himself would have hesitated to employ. Alex and Kate, played respectively by Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock, reside in the same eponymous house. It’s an eccentric, mostly glass structure on Lake Superior. Both work in the Chicago area, both love the same spunky little mutt of a dog, and both are greatly attracted to one another. The complication is, both are living in the same house two years apart. Alex is an architect, who has inherited some of the genius of his distant architect father, Simon, played with an elegant crust by Christopher Plummer. Oh, Simon also just happens to have designed the lake house. Alex is alive and well in 2004. Kate is a doctor. She enjoys a good relationship with her mother, but thinks she may have waited too long for Mr. Right, and is considering settling for Mr. Adequate. Kate lives in 2006. A letter left at the house leads the two to a correspondence, conducted in “real time” by mail through the same magic mailbox. Once they figure out the time anomaly, they come up with various ingenious ways to communicate. Anything placed in the mailbox can be “sent” instantaneously. Alex can “leave” things around Chicago for Kate to find, in her own present time. What they can’t figure out is how to meet in person. Turns out, they already have. At this point, the coincidences begin to accumulate, some happy, some tragic. A few family issues are dealt with, such as Alex’s reconciliation with his father, and his soul-searching over whether to sell out or become a real architect like dad. The pace never really picks up, but unrolls leisurely, with a few smiles and some outright laughs. Interestingly, neither ever resorts to a personal computer. Theirs is an old-fashioned handwritten correspondence. Telling anything more about the story would blow the ending. The movie leads you down the love-story path, ups the stakes, throws you off guard a few times, then nearly explodes in your face. At least in my face. But stay with it. The acting ability of Keanu Reeves has been subject of some debate. Like Will Smith, he enjoys the luxury of being able to move from mega-lucrative genre films like the Matrix series to modest, more “artistic” and romantic fare. Gone, however, is the clueless surfer-dude of the Bill & Ted series, replaced by a genuinely charming nice guy. Sandra Bullock is never not worth watching. She has all the brains and acting gravitas of a Meryl Streep, but with a latent sexiness that grows on you. And, as they say in Hollywood, she and Reeves have chemistry. The Lake House is no one’s idea of a great love story. Still, it’s pleasant, contemporary without any irritating attempts at hip-ness, and ultimately satisfying. Bottom Line: Worth your
time, whenever it is. |
|||
Copyright © The Beachcomber, Inc. 2003 - 2008. All rights reserved.