Wednesday, June 14, 2006


Movie critic Manohla Dargis complained that there is "not a hybrid in sight!"

NYTimes critic dismissed the movie as lacking any living characters - do these three sprightly fellows to the right look alive to you?

The NYTimes movie critic Manohla Dargis characterized the animated movie Cars as "creepy". She even compared it "The Terminator". Her biggest complaint was the lack of liberal preachiness prevalent in too many animated films and the sin of Cars is that it ignored Hollywood's flavor of the month, global warming.

Dargis' take & complaints

* "...the film's regrettably retro attitude toward all things automotive (not a hybrid in sight!)"
* "An animated fable about happy cars might have made sense before gas hit three bucks a gallon, but even an earlier sticker date couldn't shake the story's underlying creepiness, which comes down to the fact that there's nothing alive here: nada, zip."
* "instead of blowing the living world into smithereens, these machines have just gassed it with carbon monoxide."
* "Even stranger, the film turns Detroit's paving over of America into an occasion for some nostalgic historical revisionism. Surreal isn't the word."
* "One clunker won't shut down or even threaten the factory line, but here's hoping that as this onetime scrapper becomes increasingly entrenched and establishment, it keeps its geeks-and-freaks flag flying."

Ms. Dargis claimed that the hippie VW bus character (played by George Carlin) was the movie's most "credible resident" because he "mutters about conspiracies".

Why would someone take global warming so seriously that they are offended it's not addressed in a kiddie film? Jonah Goldberg addressed Gore-mania when it comes to the idol worship of "Inconvenient Truth" by liberals and environmentalists.

Goldberg asked, "Why on Earth aren’t these people denouncing the movie Cars?" Well, take a look at Ms. Dargis's movie review - a serious takedown of a non-serious movie.

A delicious treat is the number of NYT Reader Reviewers who take Dargis' dour item to task...

* "One need not worry that nothing is "alive" in Cars, the newest animated film from Pixar, because the Cars themselves are alive. This crosses the reality boundary that my three-year-old son crosses every day: his cars talk to each other and to him. He apologized to one the other day for not taking it with him to daycare."
* "I don't often read Manohla Dargis's reviews, so I don't have a feel for her perspective, but her review of CARS has to be about as misguided as you can get. (Did she want an emissions test for each vehicle?)"
* "Manohla Dargis, your reviewer of "Car" needs to lighten up. Cars is a movie for kids, not a polemic for political correctness. I have seen Cars already and I loved it."
* "Cars is a story of America because Americans love cars, and our passion for automobiles is put forth with hilarity and class in the film. Despite the review by the Times critic, who seemed to want to prove intellectual superiority and establish personal PC views on pollution more than enjoy a movie, the film is an outragious and clever tale..."
* "Oh puh-lease!!! Get off of your preachy soap box and stop seeing everything as a means to further indoctrinate the masses. This is ENTERTAINMENT, not the anti-car message you wish it was. Gassed them out with carbon monoxide? Everything is clean but the fossil fuel? A bit biased, perhaps? Just because you don't like cars and wish this movie shared your view doesn't give you the right to pan it. Most people actually do like cars."

It looks like the marriage of automobiles and mainstream movie fare is the ultimate opiate for the masses. Ms. Dargis, please pass the buttered popcorn and warning label-free soda, thank you.

Mmmmm, animated exhaust...

NY Times: "Cars" - Review - Movies - by Manohla Dargis


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?