Billy Crystal talks Monsters Inc. 2

It’s been ten years since the last Monsters Inc. film, but production is well underway at Pixar Studios of the 2013 prequel, Monsters University.

Billy Crystal, voice of half of Monsters Inc.’s valiant dual leads (the small, green half), spoke about returning for the prequel at the American Cinematheque Event for a 20th anniversary screening of ‘City Slickers’.

Returning with John Goodman as the voice of James P. Sullivan, Crystal confirmed Pixar hasn’t lost it’s touch after the recent slating of Cars 2. “It’s really a great script, it’s really funny.”

A marathon recording session preceded the event, where Crystal “spent five-and-a-half hours for [their] fourth session on Monsters Inc. 2.” The film, set long before the original, details how Sullivan and Crystal’s character Michael Wazowski met in college.

“It’s how they met, it’s how Michael and Sully meet, and plan to become scarers at Monsters Inc.,” Crystal told an audience last Friday. “So this movie ends where the other one starts.”

Pixar’s record with sequels is temperamental - the Toy Story trilogy is testament to how well they can work, while Cars 2 might argue otherwise - but prequels are new territory for the animation specialists.

But expectations will undoubtedly be great from such a high calibre studio. And with material such as this, it’s no surprise: Crystal, 63, elaborated that “it’s college pranks with monsters. And I wear a retainer. Mike has a retainer.”

Read More

Driver: San Francisco [Preview]

The Driver series originally surfaced back in the days of the original PlayStation, with the emphasis firmly on the driving side of things. You couldn’t get out of your car, wander round and start shooting people; back then, this wasn’t just another Grand Theft Auto clone (and rightly so, considering the first two games were actually released whilst GTA was still in aerial view mode). Since 1999, however, the series has fluctuated wildly (the less said about Driv3r, the better).

Now we’re twelve years down the line, and less than a month away from Driver’s latest offering, San Francisco. You can’t get out of your car anymore, a feature introduced way back in 2000 with Driver 2. But you can get out of your body.

New gimmick/mechanic/USP ‘shifting’ allows the player to, well, shift between cars. Returning protagonist Tanner has been left in a coma (though developer Reflections assures us it’s “not the Bobby Ewing moment in Dallas - it’s crucial to the story”), and within his coma-induced state of mind, he’s led to believe he can transport his consciousness remotely to other cars with a quick tap of a face button. Or rather, that’s the bit we’ll be doing.

But it really is just as easy as that; a press of 'X' (or the Xbox equivalent) and you’re floating above the streets of San Fran, as everything runs in slow motion below you while you find another car to zip into. Sounds nuts, right?

It's lucky for Reflections, then, that their chimerical mechanic has so many potential applications. Take the race level I played; a father-daughter team need to finish in both first and second to be victorious, winning a trophy or their pride or something. Tanner, good guy that he is, decides to ‘help out’. Over the course of two laps, it’s your job to make sure both cars finish in the desired position by constantly switching between them, bringing both up to speed. It definitely makes for a more intense and interesting experience than your standard racing fare.

And there’s plenty more intriguing gameplay where that came from. It’s not just about winning races or escaping from cops; there’s a strategic element to shifting, which quickly becomes obvious. Where’s the sense in endlessly chasing villains when you can shift into a bus, creating an instant roadblock just a few feet ahead?

If things are starting to sound a bit daft, that’s probably because they are. San Francisco takes itself far less seriously than previous Driver instalments; particularly the last console iteration Parallel Lines, the first (and only) game of the series to be rated 18. It’s evident from the off, not least in the humourous scripting and banter between the two leads (Tanner is joined by his partner, Jones). The changes and indeed the shift mechanic have apparently come about as a desire to "[avoid] trying to duplicate anything that is being done in other open world action driving games."

Of course, with the renewed focus on driving (the game is called Driver, after all), it’s important that the cars play their part. Licensed cars are new to the series, and each one feels like a character in itself - the personality each vehicle has will resonate instantly as you get to grips with it; whether fragile and classy or packing a serious punch, you’ll soon have a few favourites you won’t be able to help yourself from shifting into the second you see them (I claim the Delorean!).

Reflections’ new gimmick might seem like a step backward - removing the ability to leave your car - and slightly silly, but the seamless execution shows promising signs of a series reformed. Driver's trying to be unique again - something that can only be commended - and while it's a risk, it's one that looks to have paid off.

Read More

Captain America: The First Avenger [Review]

The summer blockbuster season has been renowned for its superhero spectaculars over the past decade, following the success of Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man trilogy. 2011 has been no different, with no less than three different Marvel comic books (and one DC hero) adapted to film - two of which stand in preparation for next year’s Avengers film (stick around after Captain America’s credits for a trailer), where the likes of Thor, The Hulk, Iron Man, and the Captain himself unite to undertake the decimation of evil and other such superbly heroic activities.

Captain America is appropriately subtitled, therefore, The First Avenger. Whilst being the last of them to have his own film, he’s arguably the ‘oldest’ - with the film set in 1942 era New York, it’s a good seventy years before the rest of the superhero squad are introduced within the Marvel Cinematic Universe; a universe in which the aforementioned four Avengers’ individual films occur alongside each other.

The final preparation for the collision of superheroes next year, then, is this: Captain America, an experiment turned propaganda tool turned super-soldier. Man-behind-the-mask Steve Rogers (Evans) spends the 124 minutes runtime attempting to defeat radical Nazi officer Johann Schmidt (Weaving) and his legions of futuristic soldiers in order to - you guessed it - save the world. This of course comes after the inevitable origin story of the character; Rogers, a skinny, ill youngster unfit for national service is handpicked by German scientist Abraham Erskine (Tucci) for a ‘super-soldier’ experiment, giving him superhuman strength. Meanwhile, Schmidt lays his hands on an inexplicably powerful ‘tesseract’ (basically a cube) in a somewhat underdeveloped plot device, and must be stopped before his ambitious plans to take over the Third Reich and, ultimately, the world, come to fruition. It’s standard superhero fare, but the twist isn’t in the plot.

Rather, the wartime milieu of the film allows for a variant on the usual Marvel clichés much in the way the Cuban Missile Crisis and 60s setting did for X-Men: First Class. Doused in warm sepia tones and high waistlines, director Joe Johnston has admirably captured the atmosphere of the period; from a ‘world of tomorrow’ exhibition (replete with hovercars) celebrating the rapid advancement of new technologies to less optimistic World War 2 signifiers - think searchlights and sirens - the film allows its audience a sense of nostalgia, whilst colliding 21^st Century technology with historical themes in its characters.

Take antagonist Schmidt, a radical more radical than Hitler; in a more historically accurate twist, a Nazi officer who would wish to aspire to the Fuhrer to the point where he might surpass him. Schmidt’s armies appear in contrast; almost robotic, with steampunk and cyber influences apparent, the weapon technology harnessed by the tesseract is more sci-fi than war film. But the fact that it works so well is testament to the vision of the original comics, and the film’s producers and directorial style.

Johnston’s flaws are marked, however, by his use of action. Limited here compared to other Marvel blockbusters, the director arguably gives his characters chance to flourish - something that must be commended, no doubt. But when it’s at the expense of the majority of the action, in what can only be lauded as an action film - it’s a summer superhero blockbuster, after all - Johnston’s priorities are questionable. Much of the action comprises of montages that might have been more suited to wartime America itself, not a modern-day audience - think slo-mo; heroic running, gunning and diving; low-angle shots and so on. Basically, cheese of the mouldiest variety. It’s reminiscent of the era, but unnecessary, given the strengths of the mise-en-scene of the piece already.

This isn’t Chris Evans’ first Marvel role, of course, though it’s certainly a ‘cooler’ one (forgive the terrible pun). Starring in both Fantastic Four films as The Human Torch, Evans here attests his range, playing seemingly the opposite of his previous character - where the Torch was cocky, confident and flamboyant, Rogers is modest, selfless and of a pure spirit. Enthusiastic and engaging, Evans plays the character amicably. A stellar supporting cast from Weaving to Tommy Lee Jones, and an unprecedented turn from down-to-earth (and classically British) Hayley Atwell also help to sustain the character-driven feel to the film, albeit at the aforementioned expense of more elegant or sustainable action scenes.

Yet to quote another famous superhero film, maybe Captain America is the film Marvel deserves, but not the one it needs right now. At times it feels like it’s purely a setup for The Avengers, mired in getting Rogers to the present day so he can team up with the rest of them, but all the while trying fervently to best its counterparts. Taking itself more seriously than the likes of Thor - montages aside - Captain America is full of ambition. Sadly, however, most of it is fruitless. Johnston fails to do anything significant with his characters, instead burying them under one of the weakest stories seen in a Marvel film to date.

Plot holes are numerous and frequent (be prepared to see this film in dubious amounts on a future BBC Three ‘movie mistakes’ filler show). The pace is hurried, and flits from scene to scene - at times, it’s hard to get a handle on what exactly is going on. One scene in particular springs to mind; a zip wire down to a moving train on a snowy mountainside - a landscape that juxtaposes much of the rest of the film - ends inexplicably, jumping to a detention centre where one of Weaving’s henchmen has been captured, without any indication as to how. It’s all quite disjointed and jarring - not least unexpected, after such admirable character development and atmospheric settings.

But there’s still plenty to like in this middle-of-the-road yarn; Johnston’s adaptation is bursting with soul, character, and even the odd explosion. It’s not particularly complex or deep; there are no clever messages or insinuated political commentary, and the plot is wafer thin, but Captain America’s heart will win you over in a myriad of soulless superhero blockbusters, past and present.

✰✰✰✰

See also: Thor (2011), Iron Man (2008)

Dir: Joe Johnston

Cast: Chris Evans, Hugo Weaving, Hayley Atwell, Stanley Tucci

Marvel Studios, 124 mins, 29/07/11

Synopsis: Marvel's final Avenger comes to the silver screen. Steve Rogers, a meek would-be soldier, is injected with an experimental serum that gives him superhuman strength and agility.

Read More

Limitless [Review]

Before you read this review, take a moment to consider the collective intellect of the human race: a race that fights wars with itself. Now imagine a world where the human race harnessed the full potential of their brainpower, as opposed to the twenty or so percent that we use now (a statistic that surely decreases every generation). What is the more likely outcome? That we might learn to exist with ourselves peacefully; that weapons might be abolished, and all violence might end? Or that we’d simply find bigger and better ways of blowing ourselves to kingdom come?

Limitless attempts to answer that question through a singular entity, in the form of struggling writer Edward Morra (portrayed here by a surprisingly well-cast Bradley Cooper). Recently split from his girlfriend Lindy (Abbie Cornish) after spending months without having written a word towards his book contract, Morra is the epitome of a typical down-and-out soul. So when an opportunity comes knocking, it’s little surprise he takes it - even if that opportunity is in the form of a brain-enhancing drug he knows next to nothing about.

It’s clear where things are heading. Soon, dark side-effects emerge as Morra becomes hooked on the small, clear pill, and attempts to go cold-turkey prove almost fatal. But it’s not the medical consequences of the drug which prove most interesting: it’s how the character harnesses those consequences for his own gains. Fortune, inevitably, comes first - abandoning his career as a writer, Eddie turns to the stock market and quickly amasses a rather large amount of money (think seven figures). In comes the film’s other big name, Robert De Niro, as high-flying businessman Carl Van Loon, seeking to exploit Morra’s success for his own corporate merger. De Niro and Cooper work well together, but undoubtedly it’s Cooper who steals the show - boasting his range in a film that zips between murky grunge and high-flying suavity in seconds. Things turn awry, however, as it emerges that the drug is in wider circulation than first thought, and a number of people surrounding Morra’s newfound life have also been subjected to its effects.

A genuinely intriguing and inviting plot is gifted to Limitless, then, and its title is certainly befitting of the protagonist’s capabilities while ‘under the influence’. But whilst the film’s first hour offers so much potential; so many avenues that director Neil Burger could have taken, surrounding the complex nature of a sudden and unexpected rise to power - and the risks such gains carry to those unprepared to deal with the nature of them - none of them are followed. Instead, we’re left feeling hollow and unfulfilled - probably the opposite of the filmmaker’s intentions, given the tacked on ‘twelve months later’ ending to a plot that can’t decide where to head (and so inevitably heads nowhere). Bouncing back and forth between high and low, there’s an apparently limitless supply of the drug too, despite its only dealer being murdered fifteen minutes in. Limitless promises much, but gives far less.

But while the plot might have its misgivings in the final act, the directorial style is notable all the way through. A monotonous narration by Cooper suits alarmingly well, if at times feeling a little contrived, whilst the CGI is subtle yet convincing in exemplifying the enhancing consequences of the drug. Similarly, the contrasting mise-en-scenes of the different-states-of-Eddie are a delightful change of pace, again emphasising the drug’s effects - from moody, murky greens and browns to bright colours and sharp details. The directive flair is marvellous, and in this way, Burger almost manages to overcome the lacklustre finale. His next project is the film adaptation of videogame Uncharted: Drake’s Fortune - an undertaking first associated with David O. Russell. If Limitless is anything to go by, be thankful of the change.

Limitless is a rare beast; a spark of originality in a dense, dark amalgam of sequels and clones - but one that falls short of true brilliance, failing to pursue its ambitious setup in favour of riding out a predictable and clichéd climax. Yet whilst it might disappoint many in its promise of a deep, psychological thriller, it still retains some of its premise, with an intriguing and complex first act. Its attempts to cater to such a large audience might perhaps be its downfall, but Limitless still remains enjoyable for the most part, if ending up a little unsatisfying in its execution.

✰✰✰✰

See also: Pi (1998), Total Recall (1990)

Dir: Neil Burger
Cast: Bradley Cooper, Abbie Cornish, Robert De Niro
Relativity Media, 105 mins, 23/03/11

Synopsis: Down on his luck writer Edward Morra (Cooper) becomes hooked on a drug that vastly increases his intelligence. But with great [brain]power comes great responsibility...

Read More

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 [Review]

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone was first released upon audiences in 2001, some four years after the book was published. Now, ten years later, the series has finally come to a close - with the screen adaptation of a book (or half a book) that is also, fittingly, four years old. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 has been the centre of a media circus for months now, with all the talk raging around the actors and actresses and how they feel about the saga ending; what they will do now and where they will go. And yes, while it's all very sad for the cast and crew to have to leave the cosy home of Leavesden Studios and brave the big wide world all over again, the final Potter film means a lot more than that to a different group of people.

I am of course talking about the audience; from those who camped for three days straight in Trafalgar Square for (probably) the very last time you'll see Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson walking down the red carpet together, to those who simply cosied up with a book every night and eagerly anticipated each new release, a generation of fans have grown up with the boy wizard. To see it come to an end meant no disservice could be done to the series - one of the primary decisions behind splitting the seventh book into two parts. A lot rests, then, on this film. Part 1 was released to widespread critical acclaim, after the misery that was Half-Blood Prince, and a steady stream of trailers have built up a solid base of hope that director David Yates will deliver. And deliver he has.

From the opening scenes at Shell Cottage right through to the final, inevitable battle between Harry and Voldemort, Part 2 is a whirlwind ride of magic and mystery that doesn't give you a second to breathe. Unlike Part 1, however, this feels less like a montage of disjointed events and more like a fluid, fluent piece of art. Breathtaking CGI and action sequences collide with gut-wrenching emotional jaunts; if you've been following the series all the way through, you'll be lucky to leave the cinema without shedding a tear (manly or otherwise). These are the characters we've spent the last decade getting to know; the characters we've seen blossom from quivering, pyjama-clad eleven year-olds into mighty, fearless warriors (here's looking at you, Neville Longbottom). To see them taken away from us is disturbingly upsetting, particularly as we're talking about fictional characters here. But that's just testament to the strength of the storytelling, and indeed, the integrity of the transition from book to film.

Part 2 begins with a daring raid on Gringotts Bank in search of another Horcrux, one of the elements of Voldemort's soul that must be destroyed in order to finally defeat the Dark Lord. One treacherous goblin and a dragon ride over London later, and it's off to Hogwarts for one of the greatest battles in cinematic history. Fire, brimstone and ash dart maniacally around dozens of Death Eaters, students, teachers, giants; even the giant spiders are back for one last attempt to eat anything in their way. Alongside this, of course, is the continued search for said Horcruxes, the remainder of which, inevitably, lie in the school itself. Harry's quest is satisfying - staying remarkably true to the book, quieter moments intersect with the constant attack on the senses of the battle itself. But still there is no sign of things slowing down, as the plot moves at a remarkable pace. Unlike the earlier books where secondary plot points could be omitted, most everything in Deathly Hallows is crucial to the story - and thus most everything has been replicated in visual form here to some extent, perhaps excusing the rapid speed at which the film travels. At just over two hours, though, this is in fact the shortest of the Potter outings - and it's worth wondering whether an extra ten minutes or so might have helped to calm things down.

But then that might have been missing the point. The battle of Hogwarts is an incredibly climactic point of the novel, and it seems Yates has attempted to replicate this on screen, with mostly success. While the ultimate climax doesn't follow the book word for word, it's satisfying enough to please fans, if actually slightly anticlimactic in execution. Similarly, key character deaths are glossed over fleetingly in places. While still emotional, one can't help but think they could easily have been done better with thirty seconds more screen time. Luckily, such emotions are enhanced by the actors - and what fine actors they are.

Since the first Potter film, the three main stars - Harry (Radcliffe), Ron (Grint) and Hermione (Watson) - have come a long way. Part 1 alone is proof enough of that; Part 2 only exemplifies matters. Finally the kids get a chance to shine (it's just a shame they had to wait until they were adults). But the unexpected star of the show is none other than seasoned villain Alan Rickman, once again resuming his role as the most complex character of the lot, Severus Snape. Now Headmaster of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, Snape spreads tyranny amongst the youngsters with the help of a couple of Death Eaters. But as his story unfolds throughout the film, we witness truly the motives and background of one of the greatest fictional characters of all time; yet no other actor could have displayed more testament to his prowess. If the rest of it left you brazenly unflinching, prepare to break out the tissues for The Prince's Tale.

A superb supporting cast return from the various films throughout the series; Emma Thompson as Sybill Trelawney and Jim Broadbent as potions master Horace Slughorn are both present and correct, as is Maggie Smith, reprising her role as Deputy Headmistress Minerva McGonagall. In a further surprising turn, Smith's boldness shines through in McGonagall, unrelenting and unwavering, while Ralph Fiennes continues to terrorise as big bad Voldemort, consistently proving his eagerness for the role. It’s been a long time coming that I can say a Harry Potter film has next to no evidence of poor acting - Yates must have stumbled upon his own batch of Felix Felicis during filming.

It’s a satisfying end to the series; breathtaking and unyielding, a visceral and visual assault on the senses, Deathly Hallows: Part 2 leaves us shattered, with a Potter-shaped void somewhere in the depths of our now cold, brazen hearts. A truly defining moment of an entire generation; $6 billion, 10 years and 8 films later, and finally we wave goodbye to Harry Potter.

And what a journey it’s been.

✰✰✰✰✰

See also: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001), Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)

Dir: David Yates
Cast: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Alan Rickman, Ralph Fiennes
Warner Bros Pictures, 130 mins, 15/07/11

Synopsis: The final chapter of Harry Potter is upon us, complete with deadly duels, a full scale battle, dragons, swords and more, as the three leads continue their quest to find and destroy Voldemort's remaining Horcruxes... 

Read More

Horrible Bosses [Review]

Having a quick glance around this website, you might notice this review is considerably shorter than most. And there's a very simple reason for that. Horrible Bosses is a comedy film; a comedy not engrossed in subtlety or sophisticated humour, along the lines of Monty Python, but of the more obtuse and exaggerated, the lewd and the loud. That's not to say it takes things over the top; the film in fact manages to achieve that which many screenwriters find so difficult - it is a comedy everyone (of a certain age, of course) can enjoy, without having to resort to jokes about passing wind.

Revolving around a trio of working-middle-class thirty-something men, Horrible Bosses does exactly what it says on the tin - each character has an incessantly intolerable superior; be they a nymphomaniac or a drug-fuelled sociopath, the bosses in question seem to make it their mission to cause our leads as much emotional (or physical) pain as possible. This of course drives the men to decide to brutally murder each other's superiors, as any logical train of thought might. Thus proceeds ninety eight minutes of bumbling hilarity as the office worker, accountant and dentistry assistant attempt to become stone-cold killers.

The acting is fine, but you're not convinced of the plot. More of a B-list cast, the most notable names being Jennifer Aniston (that's the nympho) and Jason Bateman (one of the suffering employees), the three leads struggle to act as though they might be capable of such an atrocity - making the outcome hardly surprising. Yet while it's predictable stuff, you can't help but get swept along for the ride, particularly when it's injected with so much humour. The chemistry between the trio seems unlikely but, somehow, it works.

And sure, Horrible Bosses doesn't do anything revolutionary. But it doesn't need to. It's a daft Saturday night comedy of the best kind - think Superbad, Dinner for Schmucks, etc. That it does manage to make its audience laugh is a clear indicator of success, and success that is due the three leads. While not entirely convincing you of their nature as murderers, their haphazardness does spark its fair share of laugh-out-loud moments. And to that end, Horrible Bosses achieves what it sets out to do. Of course, unlike the now classic Superbad, the longevity of the film is doubtful - hardly that memorable, it won't warrant a second viewing. But you'll enjoy it while it lasts.

✰✰✰

See also: Superbad (2007), Dinner for Shmucks (2010)

Dir: Seth Gordon
Cast: Jason Bateman, Jennifer Aniston, Colin Farrell
New Line Cinema, 98 mins, 22/07/11

Synopsis: Three everyday, average Joes decide they hate their bosses enough that they should stop living. And it's all downhill from there...

Read More

Cars 2 [Review]

For many years now, Pixar has built itself modestly upon a throne of fervent praise; a throne most warranted by a library of films of the highest calibre. Not so much as a single negative comment can be said about the majority; though perhaps most of The Incredibles (2004), arguably the weakest of the bunch. To be celebrated of the studio indeed was its inherent originality; the Toy Story trilogy notwithstanding (though great as all three instalments were, it was certainly excusable), Cars 2 is the first of reportedly many sequels lined up over the next few years. And while not without its merits, if this is a sign of things to come, Pixar may well have had its day.

From the off, Cars 2 faced difficulties. Perhaps one of the least well-received of Pixar’s films, the original Cars (2006) was criticised for its predictable story and unsophisticated humour, and while in many ways Cars 2 works to right these wrongs, it still falls short in various areas. The first automobile outing was a small-town adventure; mostly enjoyable if slightly clichéd, but revolving around a few central characters. The sequel, however, goes global - in more ways than one. Much as the Star Wars prequels appeared to be created solely for the wallets of Lucasfilm’s glorious empire, so too does the cast of Cars 2, numerous beyond reason, exist apparently to sell toys. And that’s what this movie will inevitably do: sell merchandise. The first film was Pixar’s most successful in that respect, though what good it has done the franchise is debatable - indeed, many have criticised this sequel as no more than Disney milking another of its cash cows ‘till its udders run dry.

Regardless, Cars 2’s plot is undoubtedly - and perhaps inevitably - on a much grander scale than it’s predecessor’s. A World Grand Prix to celebrate the founding of a new renewable fuel source takes protagonist Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) to all corners of the Earth; from Japan to Italy and right back to good old Blighty. Well, actually, that’s the only three places it takes him, but at least it’s across different continents. Allow me to correct myself, however: when I refer to Lightning McQueen as the film’s protagonist, this is simply due to the manner of the first film of placing him on this pedestal. For the sequel, director John Lasseter and his crew decided instead to focus the spotlight on the token imbecilic comedy character of the original: Tow-Mater, voiced by Larry the Cable Guy, and all the stereotypical ugly-Americanisation that he puts into the happy-go-lucky truck. But this was a poor decision.

The main plot of the film circles around an MI5 style spy ring of vehicles (perhaps a more apt title for the film would have been Planes, Trains and Automobiles 2), led by one of the many, many new characters - Finn McMissile, in an instantly recognisable turn by Michael Caine. Mater is inevitably drawn into this in all his ineptness, and thus begins an escapade around the world to thwart an evil corporation of, uh, ‘lemons’ (a name attributed to cars with bad engines, and played upon brilliantly in one of the film’s more subtle jokes - look out for the table decoration during a meeting in Italy). But nevertheless, while Cars 2’s plot is ambitious, it doesn’t feel apt for this film. Granted, there’s a Grand Prix going on, but it’s all in the background. Secret agents and the like don’t seem like a natural choice for a film about talking cars. Combine this with the decision to support an entire film on a secondary character, and you’re setting yourself up for failure.

It’s lucky, then, that Pixar’s traditional scriptwriting runs much stronger here than the original. The humour is more subtle, or else more sophisticated - watch out for famous London vehicular landmarks such as Tyre Bridge or Big Bentley - while the dialogue is mostly tighter than before. Sadly, stereotypes still abound: the hippy one, the army one, the crazy one - they’re all still present from before, this time joined by a host of international typecasts. But aside from a loosely crammed in plot to give McQueen more screen time - a clichéd quarrel between Mater and the racecar over friendship that screams a carbon copy of the original - the script mostly improves on the first.

As always, Pixar’s animation quality excels, with dizzying visuals and a finely crafted London cityscape for the film’s finale. And sure it’s enjoyable, but while the plot is fairly more unpredictable in places - you won’t see the final twist coming - and the humour more up to Pixar’s usual standard, Cars 2 still doesn’t feel in the same vein as the studio’s usual brand of magic found in classics such as Toy Story (1995), or even the recent surprise emotional rollercoaster Up (2009). Moral stories lie under no subtext or pretence, and stereotypes display little imagination of character yet again. Even despite a slamming by critics, Cars 2 will no doubt become a commercial success, though whether it deserves it is another question entirely.

✰✰

See also: Cars (2006), Johnny English Reborn (2011)

Dir: John Lasseter

Cast: Larry the Cable Guy, Owen Wilson, Michael Caine

Disney Pixar, 106 mins, 22/07/11

Synopsis: Racing champion Lightning McQueen and sidekick Tow Mater head overseas to compete in the World Grand Prix. But Mater soon becomes embroiled in the world of vehicle espionage... 

Read More