And I say that because “Cars 2” opens like a James Bond film, and this is quite intentional. The story as a whole can be summed up with the word “spy-jinx,” and the opener involving Sir Michael Caine as a sleek, British super agent is pure 007 in tone, style, and the way in which it sets up a diabolical conspiracy involving Big Oil’s willingness to kill in order to strangle in the crib a promising alternative fuel.

From there we are sent back to Radiator Springs, where Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) has returned home from a successful tour of the racing circuit for some relaxation  and to hang out with his best friend Tow Mater (a superb Larry the Cable Guy). One thing leads to another, most of it due to Mater’s buffoonery, and before you know it, Mater and Lightning are touring Europe for a World Grand Prix and Mater has been mistaken for an undercover secret agent who holds the key to the Big Oil conspiracy.

The story itself is disappointing, far below Pixar’s usual imaginative and emotional standards, which is a disappointment. The emotional wallop is lacking due to a weak, predictable subplot involving the friendship between Lightning and Mater. Laziest of all is the Big Oil bad guy. You might have been able to forgive the preachier moments if there was any imagination at work.  Big Oil, really? I dislike big business almost as much as big government, but what I really dislike is lazy storytelling.

What’s important to remember, though, is that we are grading this sequel on a somewhat unfair curve. Pixar has set the bar so high it’s a miracle they’ve leapt it as many times as they have. That this one falters by comparison is a fact, but the story still holds your attention and so do the amazing visuals.

No Pixar film has ever looked so lush, and the many action scenes and overall direction are all first-rate. You also get a large helping of that marvelous Pixar world. “Cars 2″ is set in a number of gorgeous cities, and there’s great fun to be had in seeing how they remain familiar with only machines as residents  and no humans. What till you get a load of the Pope and his Pope-mobile.

Another change from its predecessor is that the lead character  is not Lightning McQueen. Mater is the star, as is Caine. Both give marvelous voice performances but are let down by the weak story and jokes that never really take off.

“Cars 2″ is worth a look, and if you have kids and hate Big Oil, it’s well worth a purchase. Either way, you don’t want to miss the brilliant “Toy Story” included with the film.

—-

The flaws in “Cars 2” are especially evident because the feature-length story is preceded by a short “Toy Story” film.  The short film displays the creativity and imagination that is sorely lacking in “Cars 2.” Despite the fact that the “Toy Story” crew has already been featured in three films, the new story about Ken and Barbie missing out on a Hawaiian vacation is inventive and extremely funny. The feature film that follows can’t hold a candle to it.

In “Cars 2,“ Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) is challenged by European opponent Francesco Bernoulli (John Turturro) to compete in the World Grand Prix, an international racing competition. After prodding from girlfriend Sally (Bonnie Hunt), McQueen decides to bring his friend Mater (Larry the Cable Guy) along with him. Mater, who acts like he’s never been on a vacation before, quickly begins embarrassing his friend overseas. Mater also becomes mixed up in a spy plot that involves two secret agents, voiced by Emily Mortimer and Michael Caine respectively.

Caine, whose distinguished voice is a refreshing addition to the cast, does great work  but Paul Newman, who voiced Doc Hudson in the original, is missed. Also missing from this story is the sense of innocence that was captured in the original. Instead of relying on a good story, this sequel becomes a typical spy movie with a bumbling character caught up in the middle of a conspiracy. “Cars 2″  does feature an escape sequence early on that would make James Bond jealous but it’s strange to watch the animation geniuses at Pixar settle for a story that features a lot of guns and explosions.

John Lasseter, who previously worked on the first two “Toy Story” films,  directed “Cars 2” with the help of co-director Brad Lewis. The story was written by both of them and Dan Fogelman; the screenplay was written by Ben Queen. Other than Queen, the others have worked on previous Pixar films. Yet, instead of being creative or having fun with the subject as other Pixar films do, “Cars 2” runs on fumes and makes a lot of easy choices about the plot, never stepping far away from the formula or inserting a fresh sense of inventiveness into it.

Despite its flaws, it’s difficult not to appreciate the work involved in “Cars 2.” The animation, as usual for Pixar, is phenomenal and many of the foreign cities depicted in it are beautiful to behold. The characters also come alive in it. Unfortunately, the plot doesn’t support them and bogs it down. There is enough good in “Cars 2″ to recommend it (barely), especially for families who want to spend a few hours at the cineplex. It’s a well-made film that could have been much better with a stronger script.

It should be noted that Big Oil is unsurprisingly a major villain in “Cars 2.” In a movie about cars, the people who develop gasoline are an easy and obvious target and if “Cars 2” will be known as anything in the Pixar universe, it will be known for making easy and obvious decisions.

—–

The original “Cars” is considered something of a redheaded stepchild in the Pixar world, and I think I understand why. The scope of the picture isn’t like the others. The story’s mostly set in a very small town as opposed to other Pixar classics that tend to expand their concepts on to a much bigger and wider canvas. Having only seen “Cars” at home as opposed to the theatre, I actually found that the smaller, toned-down scale was one of the film’s many charms. And when you consider the culture we live in today, where Hollywood frequently sneers at small town America and its values, it was refreshing to see a sympathetic portrayal of  that world.

Obviously, if the trailer is any indication, “Cars 2″ intends to blow open its scope in a major way, which is probably a good idea. Someone told me the reason Pixar was so eager to make a “Cars” sequel was due to the merchandising. The film itself might not have done “Toy Story 3″ business, but the “Cars” merchandise was through the roof.

But who really cares why they made the sequel? Pixar is the flawless gem of the film world today; the one reliable bright spot in an otherwise disappointing and ridiculously unreliable universe. Whatever their motives, whatever their reasons, the only thing I care about is that Pixar keeps on keeping on — keeps on proving that great stories combined with universal, uplifting themes will translate into boffo box office.

“Cars 2″ opens June 24th.

If you remember The Fast and the Furious, the first entry in this 10-year-old franchise, you’ve already seen this picture. Like the four previous installments, Fast Five gives only the most minimal of nods to plot and characters, concentrating instead on high-end hot rods, screaming tires, and general vehicular mayhem. The stars, once again, are Vin Diesel, playing ex-con street racer Dominic Toretto, and Paul Walker, as ex-lawman street racer Brian O’Conner. Also on hand one more time is Jordana Brewster as Mia, who is both Dom’s sister and Paul’s girlfriend and, when pressed, a pretty fair wheel-girl, too.

This time out, the three leads have gone to ground in Rio de Janeiro, on the lam following the barrage of action that opens the movie. Their attention is soon drawn to a local crime lord named Reyes (Joaquim de Almeida), who disdains banks and instead keeps his ill-gotten multimillions in safe houses around the city. Dom and Brian want this money. To rip it off, Dom puts out a call to several actors who’ve been resting up from various earlier films, and soon we’re joined by a team of heist specialists that includes Tyrese Gibson, Chris “Ludacris” Bridges, and onetime Miss Israel Gal Gadot (whose prize-winning butt plays a key role in the proceedings). To reveal that this crew ultimately manages to separate Reyes from his money spoils, I’m sure, nothing.

Read the full review and a review of “Cave of Forgotten Dreams” at Reason.com.

Unfortunately for the Americanized version of the long running BBC hit Top Gear, it is trending into the third category. The show is lacking three elements: originality, chemistry among the hosts, and humor. That’s a shame because it has a lot going for it. The best asset of the show, after the cars, is comedian Adam Ferrara. I will readily admit that I have a bias towards my fellow comics doing well but the problem is that the producers of the show seem to lack the humor gene. In the six episodes I have seen thus far they haven’t let Adam loose. The closest they came was when he got a ticket for speeding on the causeway to Key West.  After watching the rest of the episode I wasn’t sure if this was an actual event or staged for the camera.

More on that in just a few minutes. Let me back up and admit I am a huge fan of the British version or the show. The three “presenters,” as they are called in the U.K., seem to have a real friendship and mutual respect even though they constantly “slag” on each other.  I realize that relationship has been built over the years but even when I go back and look at older seasons of Top Gear on DVD that chemistry is still there. The two other hosts of the American show, Tanner Foust and Rutledge Wood, seem to be a little out of their element as hosts, despite the fact that Mr. Wood has experience as a reporter for NASCAR and Speed Network.  I don’t want to be too negative about Mr. Wood. He has a “good old boy” hominess that I think could work to his and the show’s advantage, but it seems that the producers haven’t figured that out just yet.  Secondly the British version is anchored by Jeremy Clarkson; though one of  three hosts, he’s obviously the boss and the center of the show.  I believe having a “boss” on screen would help give the American show some definition and Mr. Ferrara would be a natural fit.

The problems with Top Gear USA are greater that the hosting duties. Thus far every “challenge” given to the hosts is a direct rip-off from the BBC version. Car vs. skiers, seen it! Boat, car, and plane race to a destination, been there. Many of the shots seem way too staged to have been just captured by the roving camera. It the episode where the guys race from Miami to Key West, there is a beautiful shot of all three modes of transportation in the same frame as they head South. What are the odds?  This is the scene which called Mr. Ferrara’s traffic citation into question. Call me crazy but I think a realty show should be realistic!

They also use the “Star in A Reasonably Priced Car” segment from the original series. This features a celebrity driving an underpowered car around a European style formula one track.  This feature of the show could have been easily “Americanized” by using a typical “NASCAR” banked loop track (perhaps the producers failed to notice just how popular NASCAR actually is).  They could have also used a drag strip, the most American form of racing.

Despite its faults, I still set Top Gear USA on my DVR. I am hoping the show matures and finds its stride because like millions of Americans, I love cars! When the host gets behind the wheel of a Bugatti-Veyron, McLaren, or some other supercar I will never own, I can’t help but think how cool that would be. When they take a challenge in a “beater” I can identify with, that feeling of hoping my car makes the next exit after driving several of the POS I have owned in my life.  I hope the show runs long enough for them to get so far down the list that I might get invited to take the reasonably priced car around the track because I know I could leave Jay Leno in the dust!

You never forget your first Pixar film. For me, it was the 1999 smash “Toy Story 2,” a movie I had no interest in at the time. My new roommate had invited me to see it at the local movie house, probably as a way for us to bond. Men don’t order up a round of Appletinis and talk about our feelings. We watch movies.

I gulped hard and said, “sure,” less than eager to offend. In the back of my mind I thought, “why does my roommate want to see a children’s film?”

Sometimes it’s best to trust your roommate and ignore preconceived notions. In my defense most animated films at the time were meant for children. Pixar changed all that.

“Toy Story 2” left me enthralled, plain and simple. It wasn’t the computer animation that got me hooked. Yes, the visuals were fascinating, especially for someone weaned on old-school cel animation. But the storytelling proved superior to anything I had seen at the movies in months, if not years. Buzz, Woody and the gang were like old friends, given life by actors who understood the stakes at play. That meant appealing not to just the audience’s inner child, but their fully adult selves, too.

Even the movie’s action sequences in “Toy Story 2” crackled with excitement – no small feat for a “children’s movie.”

I was hooked.

Subsequent Pixar films left me similarly dazzled. “Finding Nemo.” “The Incredibles.” “Ratatouille.” “Up.”

Even their misses were hits on a certain level. “Cars” felt bloated, but the amount of detail the animators poured into every frame left me agog. I could watch “Cars” again right now and just marvel at the reflections on the hood of Lightning McQueen. And the opening 20-minutes of “Wall*E” are sheer perfection, a refresher course in throwback comedy that Buster Keaton would applaud.

Over the years I learned how passionate Pixar fans can be. When I gave “Wall*E” a less than glowing review – the film’s second half let me down – I heard about it from both film fans and fellow critics. One critic questioned my credentials simply for not thinking the film was this generation’s “Sleeping Beauty.”

That kind of brand loyalty must be earned.

So consider this a belated thank you to a studio which cares deeply about the films they make, putting storytelling – and the audience – first. How sad that makes Pixar the exception to the rule.

Then it dawned on me. It didn’t have to make sense! It’s a government program. As long as it’s paved with good intentions, it doesn’t matter if it’s a road to nowhere.

So let me try to make sense of this for you (believe me, it’s not easy).

The goal here is to get gas-guzzlers off the roads. So the government is offering a voucher worth anywhere between $3500 to $4500 for your guzzler, which must then be used to buy a new car. How do you qualify?

(Breathe deeply.)

You can trade in a car getting 18 miles per gallon or less for a car getting at least 22 mpg. But the voucher would grow to $4,500 if the new car’s mileage is 10 mpg higher. Now, if you own an old SUV, you could receive a $3500 voucher, if your new wheels gets only two more gallons per mile. Now, if it’s five more miles per gallon – then you get an extra grand.

A caveat: unlike my houseboys, the car you want to trade must be at least 25-years-old. Or maybe younger (actually I never understood that part).

You follow me? Good – then find a gun and shoot me in the face.

Now, here’s the fun part. None of this makes any sense for you, if the car you’re unloading is worth more than the voucher. Meaning this only works for old cars worth under 3500 bucks. And if that’s the case – then the government pays and loses money on every junk heap.

Lastly, consider trying to find someone with a piece of crap up on blocks in their front yard who can suddenly afford a new car, even with a voucher.

You can count all of them on one foot – even if you’re missing a toe.

So, in sum, welcome to the rebirth of big government. It’ll drive you nuts just thinking about it.

Tonight: Dr. Michael Baden, Ann Coulter, Patti Anne Browne and Ron Geraci. Plus, if she’s up to it: my mom!

MONSTERS VS. ALIENS tore up the box office this weekend - especially in 3-D

That means that the Per Screen Average for the movie in 3-D was about $11,700, while the 4,800 or so traditional 35MM 2-D engagements had a Per Theatre of just an estimated $4,780. Exhibitors who figured out a way to overcome the credit crunch and pay the estimated $100,000 to convert a traditional theatre into one that can show Digital 3-D made a killing this weekend.

Unlike the hokey 3-D of past generations, Real-D technology is nothing short of astonishing. We’ve come a long way from 50’s chestnuts like Bwana Devil starring Robert Stack (“A Lion in Your Lap, A Lover in Your Arms” was the tagline for those that remember. 3-D moviemaking was discovered accidentally as doctors were experimenting with polarized lenses to treat kids with a “lazy eye.” Then came trioptiscopic photographt that allowed images to float off of the screen. Industry pioneers like Arch Oboler tried to make a go with 3-D under the clunky moniker Space-Vision, but couldn’t make it work. There was some success with that same Space-Vision system with movies like Jaws 3-D, Friday the 13th: Part 3-D and Spy Kids 3-D: Game Over, but nothing like today’s state-of-the-art technology.

Disney/Pixar will soon follow the technological path paved by Dreamworks

Hollywood is 40+ major 3-D releases in the pipeline, and there are still only 2,218 individual screens where those movies can play, so the race is on. Digital conversion and Real-D installation will be on the march for exhibitors who can figure out a way to finance the extraordinary expense.

Here are trailers for some of the 3-D features coming soon.

May 1 - BATTLE FOR TERRA (Lionsgate/Roadside Attractions)
What’s left of the human race invades a peaceful alien planet called Terra. A Terrian teen, voiced by Evan Rachel Wood from The Wrestler, tries to ward off the humans. Voice cast includes Brian Cox (Running with Scissors), Luke Wilson (3:10 to Yuma), David Cross (Arrested Development), Justin Long (He’s Just Not That Into You) and Amanda Peet (Syriana).

May 29 - UP (Disney/Pixar)
As always, it’s an odd premise with Pixar. In this one, a cranky old guy decides it’s time to see the wilds of South America, so he ties a bunch of balloons to his house. But after Ratatouille, Wall-E, Cars, Toy Story, I’ve learned to reserve judgment and prepare to be amazed. Featuring the voices of TV legend Ed Asner (The Mary Tyler Moore Show), Pixar vet John Ratzenberger (Cheers), Golden Globe nominee Christopher Plummer (The Insider) and Delroy Lindo (Heist).

July 1 – ICE AGE: DAWN OF THE DINOSAURS (Fox)
The third in the Ice Age series and, possibly, the #1 grossing movie of the summer. Dinosaurs in 3-D is box office gold. Seann William Scott (Dude, Where’s My Car), Oscar nominee Queen Latifah (Hairspray), Golden Globe nominee John Leguizamo (Nothing Like the Holidays), Emmy winner Ray Romano (Everybody Loves Raymond) and Denis Leary (Rescue Me) are all featured.

Then comes Harry Potter & the Half-Blood Prince in IMAX 3-D only on July 17, followed by G-Force on July 24, Final Destination: Death Trip 3-D on August 14, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs on September 18, the reworking of Toy Story in the 3-D format October 2, Astro Boy on October 23, Disney’s A Christmas Carol on November 6, Planet 51 for Thanksgiving and, finally, James Cameron’s long-awaited Avatar. Here’s the teaser trailer (that gives nothing away).

Watching this report from Havana, it almost seems fun living under totalitarian rule–Cubans are certainly “free” to work long hours on their cars. Communism also teaches you to make do with less, helping you to be more creative and resourceful, and affording you the opportunity to tool around in a classic Chevy or Caddy. Just look at that grill–living in Cuba is like being in the movie “Grease!”

CNN forgot to mention the other way that Cubans love to tinker with their vehicles.