Even though Pixar films are expected to look great,
“Cars” takes visual excellence to a whole new level.
While characters are obviously cartoony (they are human-like cars,
after all), the landscapes they inhabit are nothing short of
photorealistic. It’s astonishing to see how far Pixar has
come in a little over a decade, especially considering “Toy
Story” still looks great today.
One of the complaints likely to arise about “Cars”
is that it is difficult to sympathize with cars that have human
facial expressions and act like people. And yes, sometimes
“Cars” can get downright bizarre. There is not a single
human in the film, and buildings have garage doors instead of
actual doors. This is strange and off-putting at first, but
consider this: Pixar is the master of empathy. In past films,
audiences have connected deeply with toys, undersea creatures,
superheroes and make-believe monsters. Pixar has been able to make
people care about objects both inanimate and unreal. Why should
cartoonish cars be any different?
That said, “Cars” is not one of Pixar’s best
efforts. In spite of the fact that the film succeeds in connecting
its characters with the viewer, it lacks the wonder of
“Finding Nemo” and the all-out tongue-in-cheek fun of
“The Incredibles.”
“Cars” is ultimately a fun film to watch and
definitely worth the time. Yet as entertaining as it is,
“Cars” doesn’t end up being truly unforgettable.
But, like “A Bug’s Life,” that’s the worst
thing that you can say about it. If “Cars” is to be
considered a misfire, then it’s exactly the kind of misfire a
studio would want.