'Soul' Review

Nominated For: Best Animated Feature, Best Sound, and Best Original Score.

Won: Best Animated Feature and Best Original Score.

Synopsis: Joe Gardner is a middle-school teacher with a love for jazz music. After a successful gig at the Half Note Club, he suddenly gets into an accident that separates his soul from his body and is transported to the You Seminar, a center in which souls develop and gain passions before being transported to a newborn child. Joe must enlist help from the other souls-in-training, like 22, a soul who has spent eons in the You Seminar, in order to get back to Earth. 

Runtime: 100 minutes

MPAA Rating: PG (for thematic elements and some language)

Who should see it? Families and fans of Pixar.

Joining Pixar's catalog, Soul is the twenty-third feature from the eclectic animation studio. This year, Pixar released two of their first original films since Coco after a recent string of sequels. Unfortunately, both had their box office hopes dashed by the ongoing pandemic. Onward's theatrical run was cut short by theater closures, only for it to be fast-tracked to VOD and Disney+, while Soul forewent a theatrical release altogether and was released exclusively on Disney+ for Christmas. Release circumstances withstanding, Soul was co-directed by Kemp Powers and Pete Docter with a story and screenplay by Powers, Docter, and Mike Jones. Of this year's two Pixar releases, Soul was the one I was most anticipating for a few reasons. For one, it seemed to offer a more innovative premise and a unique animation style based on trailers. Secondly, the film had an exciting blend of creative voices behind the scenes. 

Soul is Powers's directorial debut and stands as the fourth feature credit for Docter. Pete Docter's involvement stuck out as he previously co-directed Monsters, Inc., Up, and Inside Out, three films I rank among Pixar's very best. Docter also happens to be Pixar's Chief Creative Officer, so I found it fascinating that this story compelled him to jump back in the trenches and shepherd a budding filmmaker. Pixar's filmography continually covers complex topics in an easy-to-digest manner, entertaining and moving audiences of all ages. You'd think this creative well might run dry after twenty-five years of storytelling... Well, think again because Soul is Pixar at its most imaginative, emotional, and existential. 

Central to Soul are universal musings over life's meaning and the blurred line between passion and unhealthy obsession. Ultimately, Docter and Powers implore the viewer to take a deep breath and enjoy the little things. Fixating on one's purpose and self-worth is simply not good for the soul. Though, Soul has much more to offer than resonant messaging. It's gorgeously animated with a tremendous amount of detail and vibrancy. The world-building is also well worth mentioning, as "The Great Before" and "The Great Beyond" are fascinating, fleshed-out locales for the audience to explore. Even New York feels fully realized as an environment with a personality of its own, true to life. While awe-inspiring, the settings never overtake the story, as Docter, Powers, and Jones are careful not to get lost in the vast world they've created. The cohesive element holding everything together, though, is the soundtrack featuring jazz compositions and arrangements by Jon Batiste as well as an original score from Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. 

It only makes sense for music to play a pivotal role in a movie about a musician. And the music featured in Soul is incredibly varied, ranging from upbeat jazz riffs to a soothing, ethereal synth to melancholy melodies. While Docter, Powers, Jones, and the animators establish the framework for a sincere story with breathtaking visuals, Batiste, Reznor, and Ross make it sing. Their soundtrack is seriously transcendent at times, and an ear-worm for sure!

Leading the gifted voice cast, Jamie Foxx lends dweebish, impassioned qualities to Joe Gardner, while Tina Fey's 22 is a mischievous and stubborn source of comic relief. Their dynamic brings plenty of heart and levity to the proceedings. They're also backed by a host of compelling supporting characters in the human and soul worlds, voiced by Graham Norton, Phylicia Rashad, Angela Bassett, Donnell Rawlings, Daveed Diggs, and Questlove, respectively. Within the soul world, there are abstract constructs called Counselor Jerry(s), portrayed by Alice Braga, Richard Ayoade, Wes Studi, Fortune Feimster, and Zenobia Shroff. Rachel House's Terry is a colleague of theirs who seeks to keep things in order, obsessing over ensuring the correct count of souls enters "The Great Beyond."

The first ballad between Docter and Powers stirs the soul, occupies the mind, and unfastens the tear ducts. Soul rivals the beauty and sincerity of Pixar's most cherished work and will resonate even more in the years to come. As someone who's loved quite a few Pixar releases since Toy Story 3, I don't say this lightly... Soul is, without a doubt, the best film released by the studio in the last decade. It's such a shame it had to debut on Disney+ because this would have been incredible to experience in theaters. However, I take solace, knowing it will be safely seen by audiences of all ages. 

Film Assessment: A+

'Mulan' (2020) Review

If you missed my Tenet review, then welcome back! I'm writing once more, and hope to catch up on reviewing everything I've seen and neglected these past six months. In addition to Tenet, I recently reviewed I'm Thinking of Ending Things and will soon write about The New Mutants and The Personal History of David Copperfield before doubling back to share Reel Recaps for March-August. In this review, I'll also address Mulan's unique release situation.

'Mulan' Review

Nominated For: Best Costume Design and Best Visual Effects.

Synopsis: A young Chinese maiden disguises herself as a male warrior to save her father.

Runtime: 115 minutes

MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for sequences of violence)

Who should see it? Families and fans of Disney's live-action remakes.

Adapted from the 1998 animated film and the centuries-old Chinese poem, the Ballad of Mulan (though neither reference points are credited for some reason), Mulan is Disney's latest live-action reimagining. Those who've read my reviews for the previous Disney remakes will know I'm growing tired of the fad. But considering Beauty and the Beast (2017), Aladdin (2019), and The Lion King (2019), each grossed over $1 Billion worldwide, I doubt the studio intends on cutting back anytime soon. More so than previous retellings, Mulan is saddled with an abundance of controversies, provoking a coordinated social media movement to boycott the film for various reasons I'll now detail.

For starters, the exclusion of songs and Mulan's humorous dragon guardian Mushu upset many animation fans. Then, star Yifei Liu openly commented about Hong Kong's police force regarding their show of force against pro-democratic protesters. After months of release delays due to COVID-19, Disney announced in a shareholder's call that Mulan would be released exclusively via "Premier Access" on Disney+ for $29.99, on top of the $6.99 monthly subscription. This rightfully upset many, but considering the production's $200 M budget, I can understand why the studio hopes to recoup that investment. And most recently, the credits thanked the Turpan Municipal Bureau of Public Security, who helped China’s communist government imprison Muslims in concentration camps. Your opinion may vary whether each of the aforementioned issues is problematic or not, but that's beside the point. I'm sharing the information so you can make an informed decision. Since I knew Mulan would be added to Disney+ for free on December 4th, I had no intention of paying for it and planned to wait. However, I had a friend that purchased it and lent me his login to review the film so long as I split the cost with him, and I figured $15 seemed much more reasonable than $30. So, I obliged. 

Diverting from the copy/paste formula most Disney remakes employ, Mulan sets itself apart from the animation. Though it tells the same story in broad strokes and occasionally homages the original, Mulan attempts to ground itself as a martial arts epic. Given China's immense box office potential, it's evident Disney tailor-made this retelling to satisfy the Chinese government. That said, it's odd Disney's efforts didn't extend to representation behind the camera. Neither the director nor the four credited screenwriters are Chinese, much less Asian. Though not a requirement for the opportunity to tell Mulan's story, you think the studio would make a more genuine effort for the sake of the story's perspective. Alas, that wasn't the case... However, it's worth noting director Niki Caro still managed to make history, considering Mulan is the most expensive live-action film ever directed by a woman with a whopping production price tag of $200 M.

Regarding the project's scope, budget, and approach, Mulan had plenty of potential to better represent the Chinese folk poem. The stage was set for a more faithful adaptation, but screenwriters Rick Jaffa, Amanda Silver, Elizabeth Martin, and Lauren Hynek had other ideas. Namely, the inclusion of "chi" as a convoluted justification of Mulan's fighting prowess. I felt this change contradicted the story's underlying female empowerment message. The live-action version infers that Mulan can fight alongside men because she possesses superhuman reflexes. The implementation of chi, in of itself, is not a harmful idea. But it's suggested few women have strong chi, which is the only reason why Mulan is special. It's like what happened to Rey in The Rise of Skywalker, where a female character's strength was unnecessarily verified by a nonsensical explanation... Interestingly, both are Disney releases that fell victim to studio-meddling to try and appease a specific group of people. In Mulan's case, it was Chinese audiences and their government. For TRoS, it was toxic Star Wars fans outraged by creative choices from The Last Jedi. 

That said, Mulan isn't a dumpster fire by any means. It's more of a mixed bag. For everything Mulan managed to get right, there's something else that held it back. The script isn't fleshed out particularly well, so there's little depth or emotion found anywhere. It's mostly a surface-level retelling. Nearly every action set-piece was also butchered in the editing bay or oddly choreographed, lending an artificiality to the stunt work. Mulan's strengths are also inconsistent, as the visually striking assets (sets and costumes) occasionally looked cheap in flat lighting. Well-rounded aspects include the gorgeous cinematography by Mandy Walker and Harry Gregson-Williams' zen score. Though there's no singing heard in this version, there are many orchestral renditions of the classic animated songs laced throughout the score.

Concerning the cast, Yifei Liu and Tzi Ma make the most of their material as Mulan and Fa Zhou. Their bond as father and daughter felt very genuine amidst many superficial relationships, which is good considering it's the story's emotional core. Front and center, Yifei Liu offers a rich portrayal of Mulan's notable attributes, striking a nice balance as a tough yet vulnerable heroine. She's convincing as the disciplined warrior, the conflicted soldier, and the devoted daughter. The remaining ensemble never quite rise above their lackluster material to leave a lasting impression. 

Most frustrating, though, is how this film colossally wastes Donnie Yen's talents. He exists as a detached leader and mentor figure. The decision to effectively split Li Shang into two separate new characters robs each character of Shang's well-rounded endearing qualities. Now, there's a vague love interest whom Mulan shares little chemistry with and a mentor who hardly interacts with Mulan. I understand the rationale behind the choice, but it fell flat in execution. 

On the antagonistic front, there are two baddies: a warlord and a witch. Both these characters are hardly fleshed out beyond those superficial descriptions, which is just a shame. I understand the inclusion of Attila the Hun in the animation is historically inaccurate, but he had a much more menacing presence than either of these villains. Böri Khan is virtually the same character with the same motivations, but he's sorely missing Attila's weight and gravitas. He's hardly even in the movie to make such an impression, so I can't really fault this on Jason Scott Lee's performance. Li Gong's Xianniang is a unique addition to the story, but her potential as an antagonist also felt squandered by the script. 

Ironically, it seems those involved in making Mulan spent little time of self-reflection. Unlike the idealized girls sung about in the animation, Mulan is not a remake worth fighting (or paying $30) for. Instead, use your Disney+ subscription to rewatch the included original and wait till December 4th if you're still determined to see the 2020 iteration.

Film Assessment: C+

'Frozen II' Review

Nominated For: Best Original Song "Into The Unknown" (written by Kristen Anderson-Lopez and Robert Lopez).

Synopsis: Anna, Elsa, Kristoff, Olaf, and Sven leave Arendelle to travel to an ancient, autumn-bound forest of an enchanted land. They set out to find the origin of Elsa's powers in order to save their kingdom.

Runtime: 103 minutes

MPAA Rating: PG (for action/peril and some thematic elements)

Who should see it? Fans of Disney and Frozen.

Returning to the helm of Walt Disney Animation's frostiest franchise, Jennifer Lee and Chris Buck co-direct Frozen II, which features a screenplay by Lee and story from Lee, Buck, songwriters Kristen Anderson-Lopez and Robert Lopez, and Marc Smith. Following up the second most successful animated film of all time is a daunting proposition, but Lee and Buck seem to face the challenge earnestly. While I don't think the narrative reached its full potential, I commend the filmmakers for charting a new course rather than retreading what came before. With that being said, Frozen II totally feels like one of Disney's direct-to-video sequel releases. The animation and music are up to snuff, but the story's severely lacking... Which is more-or-less how I felt about the original. This is probably a very unpopular opinion of mine, but these two films are, without a doubt, the weakest films from Walt Disney's animation division this decade.

None of this is to say I "hate" either because that couldn't be further from the truth. I've just never been entirely on board the Frozen hype train and think that's important for understanding my perspective. I appreciate musicals, and really enjoy most of the songs by Kristen Anderson-Lopez and Robert Lopez, but I also value quality storytelling. I just happen to think neither film shines in that regard. Thematically, they offer well-intentioned messages about sisterly love and being yourself, among other things. However, these ideas aren't explored as extensively as they could be.

My patience was also worn by constant callbacks to the original, which stall the story. These longwinded jokes are made at the expense of the film's pacing, which fluctuates between hurried and glacial. A group of new characters found in the enchanted forest may as well be a bunch of cardboard cutouts seeing as they have no discernible characteristics, existing solely to prop up the core messaging. The supporting characters carried over from the first film are also dead weight with stale subplots. Meanwhile, the ending is void of any meaningful stakes and consequences.

On the other end of the icicle, Frozen II features a few power ballads of the same caliber as "Let It Go," which are "Into The Unknown," "Show Yourself," and "Lost In The Woods." Across the board, the soundtrack is pretty strong, though not quite as memorable as its predecessor. It's worth noting that a few outtakes are included on the soundtrack that I thought were better than songs that actually made it into the final cut. The animation also features a more diverse array of colors and locations as an autumn aesthetic overtakes this sequel. Lee and Buck offer glimpses of an epic fantasy adventure with a grander scope and scale than the original but hesitate to commit to a much more enticing alternative. It probably won't surprise anyone for me to say this, but every sequence where Elsa finds herself alone is stunning, and Idina Menzel's mezzo-soprano belting is heavenly. Even more of that in the inevitable third installment, please.

Reprising their widely beloved roles, Idina Menzel, Kristen Bell, Jonathan Groff, and Josh Gad lend solid vocal performances. Menzel and Groff are the standout singers of the bunch, but Kristen Bell isn't too far behind. However, Josh Gad's Olaf grated on my nerves. Your tolerance of the snowman sidekick may vary depending on how you felt about him previously. Otherwise, Sterling K. Brown and Evan Rachel Wood are noteworthy additions to the cast. Though I wish Sterling K. Brown had a more substantial role since I know what he's capable of bringing to the material.

Like most sequels, it's clear Frozen II had lofty aspirations to expand on everything that initially captivated audiences. Though the animation and select songs measure up to that ambition, Jennifer Lee and Chris Buck struggle to sustain an ascent. Despite leaving largely unimpressed, I think the narrative potential for this franchise hasn't frozen over yet. 

Film Assessment: B-

'Dumbo' (2019) Review

Synopsis: Struggling circus owner Max Medici enlists a former star and his two children to care for Dumbo, a baby elephant born with oversized ears. When the family discovers that the animal can fly, it soon becomes the main attraction - bringing in huge audiences and revitalizing the run-down circus. The elephant's magical ability also draws the attention of an entrepreneur who wants to showcase Dumbo in his latest, larger-than-life entertainment venture.

Runtime: 112 minutes

MPAA Rating: PG (for peril/action, thematic elements, and brief mild language)

Who should see it? Families with young children.  

I've admittedly grown disillusioned with Disney's recent practice of adapting their animated classics into live-action. The gimmick is tiresome because the new versions either safely regurgitate the same story through the lens of live-action with superfluous CGI ala Beauty and the Beast (2017) or radically retell the story audiences know and love (Maleficent). An unchanged edition hardly seems worth the time of day while an interpretation that deviates too far from the original will upset those who grew up watching it. There's a tricky balance in retelling the story so that it will satisfy everyone. Very few of Disney's recent reimaginings have balanced these extremes to deliver something which champions the same spirit as the original while finding something new and worthwhile to say. The 2016 adaptations of The Jungle Book and Pete's Dragon accomplished this feat, but the studio has otherwise seen mixed results.

With Dumbo, visionary director Tim Burton and screenwriter Ehren Kruger aim for the middle ground by quickly branching off from an abbreviated retelling of the 1941 animated feature to explore the elephant's antics flying under the big top. The additional material was likely intended to inflate the runtime since the original is barely over an hour. The extended portion offers Burton and Kruger many avenues to explore, but that's the problem. Burton and Kruger are unsure which direction to take the story, and the addition of many shallow human characters only serves to further convolute the simple premise of the original. If you've recently rewatched the 1941 film, you're probably aware of certain problematic story elements. Thankfully, racial stereotypes and Dumbo drinking champagne are omitted.

Regardless, this remake has more pressing concerns. Kruger's script is unfocused on account of stuffing this narrative with a multitude of bland caricatures. Tonally, I'm not sure Burton knew how he even wanted to approach the material as the heightened reality he presents doesn't jive with the cartoonish performances or saccharine story. You're never quite sure what Burton expects the audience to take seriously, and the editing actively undermines the viewer's emotional connection as scenes abruptly end before they can register with a crowd. This frequent occurrence compromises the general flow of the film as Burton seems to be in a hurry to move past the sentimental sections. That's not even mentioning the artificial aesthetic evident in many exterior scenes (much of the green screen work looks remarkably fake). Since learning Tim Burton would be helming this reiteration, I've felt Dumbo peculiarly paired director and source material, so it shouldn't surprise that it's genuinely the most bizarre thing I've seen in a while.

In spite of my reservations towards Disney's remakes, Dumbo piqued my interest for a few reasons. As I alluded towards already, matching Tim Burton with this source material was an interesting choice, to say the least. Elephants are also my favorite animal, so a story about an adorable baby elephant naturally appeals to me. And Dumbo sure is cute. In fact, the precious pachyderm practically steals the show... However, Burton hardly concentrates on Dumbo in the movie entitled Dumbo. The inclusion of several new human characters reduces Dumbo's role in his own feature. It's a shame since most of Dumbo's scenes are quite charming and serve as an elaborate vfx showcase.

Concerning the ensemble, Colin Farrell is joined by young newcomers Nico Parker and Finley Hobbins to portray the family responsible for Dumbo. To put it lightly, these child actors aren't the best... but I don't think it's entirely their fault. They're saddled with stale dialogue, and Burton's vision is very scattered. Even a veteran actor like Farrell suffers under Burton's direction, and he's certainly not the only one, as Eva Green's also relegated to an insubstantial role.

Reuniting for the first time since Batman Returns, the trio of Tim Burton, Michael Keaton, and Danny DeVito are working together once more. Unfortunately, Keaton and DeVito are operating at polar opposites as Keaton's depicts V.A. Vandevere as a hokey, over the top entrepreneur in one of his worst roles to date while DeVito embraces the campy and sentimental sides of the story to provide a hysterical, layered portrayal of an eccentric ringmaster. 

Perhaps, like Dumbo, Burton put all his faith in a magic feather and flew through production on auto-pilot because his distinct creative stamp barely registers on this middling remake. For all its faults, the titular pachyderm's trunk still manages to firmly grab hold of your heart, so clearly Burton did something right.

Film Assessment: C 

'Mary Poppins Returns' Review

Nominated For: Best Production Design, Best Costume Design, Best Original Song "The Place Where Lost Things Go" (written by Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman), and Best Original Score.

Decades after her original visit and tenure at the Banks household, the magical nanny Mary Poppins returns to 17 Cherry Tree Lane, London to help the Banks siblings and Michael's children through a difficult time in their lives. 

Based on P.L. Travers' children's books, Mary Poppins Returns is directed by the renowned Rob Marshall and features a screenplay by David Magee and screen story by John DeLuca, Magee, and Marshall. Following up a beloved Disney classic fifty-four years later is not an enviable task, but Rob Marshall's taken the challenge to heart and delivered a long-awaited sequel which recaptures the spellbinding magic and musical whimsy of the original without completely recycling the first film. I foresee grossly over-exaggerated complaints that Mary Poppins Returns merely rehashes the original with the incorporation of somewhat similar story beats akin to fan complaints regarding Star Wars: The Force Awakens' love affair with A New Hope. There's admittedly an equivalent scene for all of the original's iconic moments, but much like The Force Awakens, the context surrounding each is drastically different (though some still aren't willing to concede that). It's surely the safe route, but Marshall traverses that beaten path in the most delightful way!

Mary Poppins Returns is the kind of old-fashioned musical which reminds you Hollywood doesn't make them like they used to. The vibrant, imaginative, and exuberant song and dance numbers pulled from Poppins' bottomless bag are show-stopping, to say the least! While the songs may not catch on as quickly as "A Spoonful of Sugar," "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious," "Chim Chim Cheree," or "Step In Time," the new array of tunes are no doubt charming! I haven't listened to any long enough to pick a favorite, but I quite like the renditions of "(Underneath the) Lovely London Sky," "Can You Imagine That?," "A Cover Is Not The Book," "Trip a Little Light Fantastic," "The Place Where Lost Things Go," and "Nowhere to Go But Up." The songs by Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman are all enchanting while Shaiman's score is sensational. It's been a while since I've been swept away by a string of stellar show tunes, but John DeLuca, Joey Pizzi, and Marshall have staged an extraordinary set of musical numbers!

Meanwhile, The blend of live-action and hand-drawn animation is seamless and, of course, evocative of the original. The animation was so well done in fact that I would love to see another feature-length, hand-drawn animation from Disney soon! It's, of course, time-consuming and Disney had to ask animators to come out of retirement to accomplish it here, but I'm hoping the inevitable success of Mary Poppins Returns will inspire studio executives to give two-dimensional animation another go! Other technical elements deserving of praise are the colorful costuming and thorough production design. In particular, there were some porcelain costumes (which can be glimpsed above), that really impressed me. I would not be surprised if Mary Poppins Returns swooped in to take many technical awards at the upcoming Oscars given the Academy's love affair with the original and the awards buzz surrounding this sequel.

As Mary Poppins, Emily Blunt is practically perfect in every way! Much like Alden Ehrenreich had to do in Solo: A Star Wars Story earlier this year, Blunt faced a Herculean task of stepping into an iconic role made famous by another actress. I'm referencing the magnificent Julie Andrews of course, and I'll say Blunt successfully put her own stamp on the role rather than offering a pale imitation of what had come before. I'd describe Blunt's Poppins as wittier and more sarcastic where Andrews often felt more serious I suppose. Otherwise, Blunt's singing and dancing were tremendous!

Stepping in for Dick Van Dyke's Cockney chimney sweeper Bert, Lin-Manuel Miranda's street lamplighter Jack was a suitable replacement. Many best know Miranda for his theatrical productions In The Heights or Hamilton, so it shouldn't be a surprise that he knows this role out of the park! Miranda's singing, dancing, and fast-spoken vocal delivery (rapping?) were all spectacular, not to mention he's quite convincing in the active role. The three Banks children, Anabel, John, and Georgie, played by Pixie Davies, Nathanael Saleh, and Joel Dawson are pleasant inclusions as well, helping to maintain the sense of fun, awe, and whimsey amidst the imaginative, animated insanity. 

Meanwhile, Ben Whishaw and Emily Mortimer are splendid as an older Michael and Jane Banks, imbuing their characters with sentiment and a touch of gleeful, childlike innocence at times. Regarding the film's flaws, I wish there had been more to Colin Firth's character and Meryl Streep's scene was honestly expendable, though she's excellent in it. There are also some cameos which I won't specify since some may consider them spoilers, but just know the actors I'm referring to are billed on the posters and their characters have been featured in the promotional material.

As many hoped, Mary Poppins' return to the cinema screen amounts to an utterly delightful sequel which matches the quality of the original. It is with great pleasure I say Mary Poppins Returns is as sweet as a spoonful of sugar!

Film Assessment: A

'Cars 3' Review

Cars 3 speeds by Lightning McQueen at the tail-end of his career as a new generation of racers emerge and McQueen winds up in a crippling crash that ejects him for the season. Determined to get back in the game and decide when he's done racing, McQueen heads out to a training facility to work with trainer Cruz Ramirez in hopes of getting back out on the racetrack again.

After the unfortunate critical crash of Cars 2, fresh face Brian Fee takes the steering wheel as director of Cars 3 and reroutes back towards the racing roots of Cars. Fee focuses on an aged athlete arc to drive the story forward, making matters more adult-oriented opposed to the go-getter goofiness of Cars 2. This time around Cars 3 almost seems self-referential to audiences perspective of the Cars franchise by detailing that McQueen just isn't the racer he used to be and paralleling the consensus that Pixar may have fallen behind in the animated arena.

Cars 3 also features relatively recent additions in regards to scripting with a story treatment from Fee, Ben Queen, Eyal Podell, and Jonathon E. Stewart in addition to the screenplay penned by Kiel Murray, Bob Peterson, and Mike Rich. This team of screenwriters clearly put her ears to the ground and acknowledged common complaints about Cars 2 since they position Mater as an ancillary automotive this time around. For the matter, the events of Cars 2 were never referenced and it's almost as through it never happened (similarly to how Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales handled the stink of On Stranger Tides).

Lightning McQueen leads this tertiary lap with a desire to finish his career on his terms. McQueen was never one of Pixar's greatest characters but he's significantly more sympathetic this time around and it's incredible how much I care for the car when viewing through a different lens. I think one of Pixar's strengths is how they craft their subsequent sequels grow with the viewer. Just look to Monster University, which was released when the children who saw Monsters Inc. were headed off to college and Pixar pulled off a similar tactic for Toy Story 3 effortlessly.

The writers extract meaningful messages about mentorship, leaving a legacy, and getting older that will resonate with more mature audiences while incorporating riveting races and a daunting demolition derby for younger viewers. I was impressed with just how well Cars 3 tied in with Cars, essentially bringing McQueens' story full circle in a satisfying manner.

Pixar has always been quite adept at translating a quality story with rich thematic significance from paper to screen but it's only enhanced by the animation. The visual storytelling on display is masterful with one example being a sequence that phased out the older racers with the young, chipper cars, leaving practically only McQueen left. This sequence managed to make it seem like Lightning actually had a long winded career as opposed to the few races showcased in Cars and Cars 2. It not only sold that aspect of the story but the fact McQueen and his buddies were being edged out by rookies that's a natural occurrence with any sport.

The animation itself though was outstanding as you'd expect from Pixar with photorealistic environments and an intense color palette. While Cars 3 may take a few pit stops, I was engrossed from start-to-finish with Lightning's quest. Elsewhere, Randy Newman composes a sumptuous score, there's plenty of trademark Pixar easter eggs to look out for, and the vocal talent offers some pristine performances.

Owen Wilson discovers dramatic depth within Lightning McQueen that carries his character arc to fruition while Cristela Alonzo convincingly communicates Cruz Ramirez's spunk and determination. McQueen and Ramirez are an interesting pairing and their friendship was without a doubt one of Cars 3's highlights. Armie Hammer and Nathan Fillion each make the most of their limited screen time as Sterling and Jackson Storm but both are confined to slight two dimensional caricatures as a stingy sponsor and the hotshot rival rookie. 

Along the way Smokey, River Scott, Louise Nash, and Junior Moon are all drawn into the mix to serve as elderly advisers, voiced by Chris Cooper, Isiah Whitlock Jr., Margo Martindale, and Junior Johnson respectively. They each fill out their roles well and help fill the void Paul Newman's Doc Hudson left behind after Newman passed. Meanwhile, Larry The Cable Guy proves Mater is sufficient in small doses as the dorky tow truck moseys around with the rest of Radiator Springs' residents including Bonnie Hunt, Cheech Marin, Tony Shalhoub, Guido Quaroni, Jenifer Lewis, Paul Dooley, Michael Wallis, George Carlin, and Katherine Helmond as Sally, Ramone, Luigi, Guido, Flo, Sarge, Sheriff, Filmore, and Lizzie.

  

So were the new bells and whistles enough to bring the Cars franchise up to speed? Surprisingly, yes. Pixar really revved up their creative engine so that Cars 3 could cross the franchise finish line, qualify for trilogy consideration, and launch the anthropomorphized automobiles to record high speeds.

Film Assessment: B+