When the early buzz on Cars was that it was "John Lasseter's most personal film yet", my curiosity was piqued. How "personal", exactly, can a CG film about talking cars be? Does the car, that perfect icon of modernity, symbolise the sleek, mechanized process and mass production that computer animated film has become? Or does the story of the film's racing-car hero, Lightning McQueen, parallel Lasseter's animation career? At first, Lightning is the hottest thing in town, but when the competition takes him down a notch, he risks becoming the next disposable fad. Cars, if you think about it, are a bit like computer animators — inseparable from their machinery, constantly expected to perform.
But let it not be thought that this is a film dripping with subtext. It's as shallow and formulaic as anything else recently off the CG movie production line. The novel feature of Cars is that it takes place in a world lacking any kind of human form or presence. Sure, the cars are endowed with "faces", but the anthropomorphization, however ingeniously executed, can only be pushed so far. We relate to machines only inasfar as they are like people, or contribute to a human life-world: cars are not inherently cute. The voices help, to an extent, though Owen Wilson's acting is far from reassuring. Wilson, as usual, hovers between ironic embrace and knowing disdain of the material. Just as a cigar is sometimes just a cigar, a movie about talking cars is often just a movie about talking cars. See it and become a statistic.