Cars 3 movie review: road to nowhere

Get new reviews via email or app by becoming a paid Substack subscriber or paid Patreon patron.

Cars 3 red light

MaryAnn’s quick take…

Three movies in, and this world of sentient driverless cars still creeps me out, and still does nothing except advertise a mountain of related merch for kids.tweet
I’m “biast” (pro): nothing
I’m “biast” (con): not a fan of this franchise
(what is this about? see my critic’s minifesto)

So, hotshot sentient driverless race car — dammit, three movies in, and that’s still creepy — Lightning McQueen has hit middle age. He’s not as fast as he used to be. The youngsters are nipping at his heels… tires… whatever… and lapping him on the track. What’s an automobile dude to do?

I have many questions about the scenario of Cars 3.tweet

But… wait… Who designed and built the sleek new supercharged race cars nipping at Lighting McQueen’s heels?
tweet

Where are these vehicular youngsters coming from? Jackson Storm (the voice of Armie Hammer: Free Fire, The Man from U.N.C.L.E.) is sleeker of chassis and more supercharged of engine than Lightning (the voice of Owen Wilson: Zoolander 2, No Escape)… but… like… I mean… how does Jackson Storm exist at all? Who is designing and building new race cars? Do the cars of this bizarre world somehow give birth, and even if they do, how do the car-people take such leaps of pseudobiological evolution in a single generation? Is this somehow related to the notion here — seemingly accepted as fact by everyone — that “working out” can increase a car’s speed and, I dunno, “endurance”? In an attempt to fight back against the likes of Jackson Storm, Lightning starts working with trainer Cruz Ramirez (the voice of Cristela Alonzo), who puts her clients through paces that look very much like what a human trainer would do with human clients, but if you want to increase the efficiency and power of an automobile, don’t you have to, you know, replace parts and components, not merely work out the existing ones? I mean, mechanical devices do not have a way to self-maintain the way that biological creatures do (as long as you input food and water and air and sleep, output exercise, etc): someone external has to perform maintenance on a mechanical device, cleaning out gunk and oiling bits and pieces and swapping out worn stuff for new stuff, right? Right?!

Why is there a school bus? Who rides the human-scaled school bus? *sob*
Why is there a school bus? Who rides the human-scaled school bus? *sob*tweet

*sob*

I know. I know! I’m “overthinking” it. I’ve been overthinking the frankly haunting universe of these movies for more than a decade now,tweet since the first Cars was released, and I’m still hugely disturbed by it. Never mind a lack of opposable thumbs: how do the cars actually do anything without any sort of limbs and hands for grasping? How did they build the racing stadiums we see here that are scaled for car audiences (so they clearly cannot be leftover remnants of human civilization)? How did Lightning thread the celluloid into the film projector for the scene here in which he watches an old newsreel? On a wider scale, that newsreel! It’s part of Lightning’s reminiscences about his former mentor, Doc Hudson (the voice of Paul Newman [Road to Perdition, Where the Money Is], pulled from recordings made during the production of the first film), which contain specific references — visually, not in dialogue — to the 1950s and 1980s… so does that mean that we can now conclusively say that all of this is taking place not in some horrific dystopian future in which the cars attained sentience, rose up, and slew the humans, but in an alt-universe somehow running concurrently alongside our own? Or perhaps it’s all a fever dream Henry Ford is having during a nap on some hot summer’s day in 1909?

Perhaps the bizarre Cars universe is nothing but a fever dream Henry Ford is having on a hot summer’s day in 1909…
tweet

But as with all the Cars movies, if you don’t overthink it, there’s nothing to think about at all in Cars 3. The very familiar story about finding new purpose at midlife by rethinking your priorities — as Lightning eventually does — could not be more bland and banal… though perhaps there is some appropriate-level thinking to be done regarding this: Who thought it was a good idea to tell a story about middle-aged existential despair in a one-joke goofball animated world that appeals only to little kids?tweet I’m gonna go ahead and presume that this is down to writer (one of seven credited) and director Brian Fee, a Pixar animator making his debut in both roles. But Pixar has a pretty good record of telling stories with universal appeal, stories that work on multiple levels to amuse and provoke all ages. They’ve just never bothered to even try that with the Cars movies, which have only ever come across as cheap, manipulative commercials for the inevitable mountain of related toys and other kiddie merch.tweet As this one does too.


see also:
Cars (review)
Cars 2 (review)



share and enjoy
               
If you’re tempted to post a comment that resembles anything on the film review comment bingo card, please reconsider.
If you haven’t commented here before, your first comment will be held for MaryAnn’s approval. This is an anti-spam, anti-troll, anti-abuse measure. If your comment is not spam, trollish, or abusive, it will be approved, and all your future comments will post immediately. (Further comments may still be deleted if spammy, trollish, or abusive, and continued such behavior will get your account deleted and banned.)
If you’re logged in here to comment via Facebook and you’re having problems, please see this post.
PLEASE NOTE: The many many Disqus comments that were missing have mostly been restored! I continue to work with Disqus to resolve the lingering issues and will update you asap.
subscribe
notify of
15 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
view all comments
Danielm80
Danielm80
Fri, Jul 14, 2017 3:45pm

This review happened to show up while I was reading the new book in the Rook Files series by Daniel O’Malley:

https://www.amazon.com/Stiletto-Novel-Files-Daniel-OMalley/dp/0316228028/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1500046664&sr=1-1&keywords=stiletto+daniel+o%27malley

It features a group called the Grafters, who surgically modify their bodies to extend their lives and give themselves extraordinary abilities.

If Daniel O’Malley wrote the novelization of Cars 3, I’m sure he could make sense out of the story. And it would be less disturbing than the actual movie.

Jurgan
Jurgan
reply to  Danielm80
Sat, Jul 15, 2017 10:31pm

Like Cybermen?

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  Jurgan
Sun, Jul 16, 2017 1:53am

The Cybermen ripped off the idea from the Tin Woodsman.

Jurgan
Jurgan
reply to  Danielm80
Sun, Jul 16, 2017 2:04am

And that was probably inspired by something else as well. Everything is a product of its environment. As Carl Sagan put it, if you wish to make an apple pie from scratch you must first invent the universe.

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  Jurgan
Sun, Jul 16, 2017 11:26am

The Grafters are nothing like the Cybermen, who are nothing like the Tin Woodsman. The characters in the book are more like the U-Men from Grant Morrison’s X-Men comics.

And now that I’ve eliminated any trace of humor left in the original joke, I’ll leave this topic alone.

Jurgan
Jurgan
reply to  Danielm80
Sun, Jul 16, 2017 6:28pm

Maybe I missed that you were making a joke. A lot of people assume “X is like Y” is a criticism, but there’s nothing wrong with that as long as the newer one has a new way to look at it.

Bluejay
Bluejay
Fri, Jul 14, 2017 6:00pm

I’ve been overthinking the frankly haunting universe of these movies for more than a decade now

Have you seen this rabbit hole of a video? It’s a fascinating (if annoyingly narrated) theory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4riem49Yjus

TL;DW: The cars in Cars aren’t cars at all – they’re highly evolved insects.

RogerBW
RogerBW
Mon, Jul 17, 2017 7:09am

Of course you don’t see the human servitor class in the film. Why would anyone be interested in watching them?

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  RogerBW
Mon, Jul 17, 2017 10:47am

Oh dear. Now I’m picturing Sofia Coppola’s Cars.

Jacob S
Jacob S
Tue, Dec 19, 2017 9:37am

“Three movies in, and this world of sentient driverless cars still creeps me out, and still does nothing except advertise a mountain of related merch for kids.”

Yet you give Star Wars: The last jedi a good review because you are a “star wars” fan, Star Wars is probably one of the biggest franchises to be made to sell merch, especially the Disney star wars films.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/hypocrite

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  Jacob S
Tue, Dec 19, 2017 11:18am

She wrote that Cars 3 “does nothing except advertise.” She spent her entire review of Star Wars: The Last Jedi talking about the things it does well. You may not agree, but she’s supported her opinion with example after example of why she found the film intelligent and moving. If you want to argue that she’s a brainless fangirl, you have to ignore pretty much everything she wrote, which is…well…brainless.

Bluejay
Bluejay
reply to  Jacob S
Tue, Dec 19, 2017 11:22am

Because, in her view, the Cars franchise does NOTHING except sell merch. In her view (and mine), Star Wars ALSO tells interesting stories with relatable characters, so it does MORE than just sell merch. You may feel differently, but that doesn’t make her a hypocrite.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/asshole

Danielm80
Danielm80
reply to  Bluejay
Tue, Dec 19, 2017 12:22pm

Odd. The troll’s comment has vanished. I doubt MaryAnn deleted it, so either he self-deleted or I’ve totally misunderstood the Rapture.

Bluejay
Bluejay
reply to  Danielm80
Tue, Dec 19, 2017 12:33pm

So, an asshole AND a coward. Typical.

MaryAnn Johanson
reply to  Danielm80
Tue, Dec 19, 2017 11:06pm

I did not delete it. There was nothing there that made it worthy of deleting. Laughing at, sure. But not deleting.