Cars (2006) (mini-review++)

07(If you’re curious, my review process. It’s also pasted at the end of this post. I don’t believe in Rotten Tomatoes. I just believe in me.)

(***all-purpose SPOILER ALERT*** there may be some in this review)

acting 6

directing 6

effects 8

editing 6

writing 5

SW SCORE: 31

3 out of 5 🐙

++

This, for me, is Pixar’s first misstep. It’s just a very tired story of a sports comeback. You can dress it up in the creative world of a world with living cars. You can add Pixar’s flawless animation. You can hire celebrities to voice the characters. But you apparently can’t make these celebrities give passionate performances. Look, I love the archetypal story of a former great athlete falling down on his luck and then regaining his glory against all the odds. I’ve watched it more times than I can count. But Cars just feels like a flat example of that subgenre. I don’t know. Maybe I was just spoiled by the first 6 movies, almost all of them a solid classic (Yes, I’m hating on A Bug’s Life but even though that was a remake, at least it was a fresh take with strong performance). But hey if you pull off a half dozen flawless victories don’t expect to wow me when you deliver a wholly unoriginal effort.

Feels level (0 being no tears, 10 being waterfall): 0 – I just can’t remember a single moment in this film when I felt truly sad for the characters.

.

.

.

.

.

(1) Shark Wrighter (SW) Score: Based on a sum of 5 sub-scores (acting, directing, writing/story, effects: cinematography &/or animation &/or effects, editing) with 1 being terrible and 10 being terrific.

(2) Octopuses (0-5 🐙, with 5 being fantastic and 0 being feces)

(3) Octopuses are my unquantifiable feeling…not that SW score is scientific…but this one is even less so

(4) ++ This optional section includes any incredibly *brilliant observations that don’t fit into simple quantitative slices like the scores and octopuses *(they are likely NOT brilliant)

One thought on “Cars (2006) (mini-review++)

Leave a Reply