25 July 2014

DISNEY SEQUELS: FLAMES. FLAMES. FLAMES, ON THE SIDE OF MY FACE.

There's no intellectual merit in expecting a sequel to Planes to be anything other than a sequel to Planes. So can any of us be "disappointed" by Planes: Fire & Rescue? On the contrary, it's a bit of a pleasant surprise: it's probably a little bit better than Planes, with a far more engaging third act and prettier scenery throughout. It also jettisons the first film's ensemble full of ethnic stereotypes for just one cringe-inducing parody of sexually active women, which may or may not be "progress" as such, but at least it cuts down on the number of individual characters I wanted to watch plunge into a vat of acid.

Intuiting, undoubtedly correctly, that its audience consists only of children who enjoyed the first film and very little children who didn't see the first one but only really care about color, movement, and peppy voice acting, Fire & Rescue spends very little time mucking around with a recap, only throwing in a brief montage at the very start to remind us how Dusty Crophopper (Dane Cook), a sentient plane, went from crop dusting in middle America to winning all kinds of races and becoming quite the celebrity. As Fire & Rescue opens, though, we see that his new lifestyle has taken quite a toll on Dusty's insides: his gearbox has begun grinding itself into a pulp due to all the stress he's putting on it, and he's told by Dottie (Teri Hatcher), the forklift doctor in Dusty's hometown of Propwash Junction (that is, she is a doctor who is a forklift, not a doctor who specialises in forklifts), that if he doesn't slow down, he'll die. The word "die" is never stated, it's a kid's movie. It's just unambiguously and heavily implied multiple times across the film's 83 minutes.

It's tangential to the actual film, at best, but I'll never live with myself if I don't go on a little rant about the internal reality of the Cars/Planes universe. Ever since the very first Cars, the rules haven't made much sense: it's a world exactly like our own, only without any life from the animal kingdom. But buildings and agriculture and, well, cars and planes still exist, even though cars and planes have no immediately obvious need for many of the things we see them with in these films. But after enough exposure, that recedes into the background. But now along comes Fire & Rescue, and it's just taunting us with the sheer unacceptability of the films' world, pushing the camera right inside Dusty's mechancal core and defying us to pretend that these are living beings, even living beings who need gasoline and oil to function. These are planes, and by hinging its entire narrative on that one fact, Fire & Rescue insists that we deal with how much the world of the film could not possibly function given all we have ever seen of it. These are planes - these are actual, constructed vehicles for passengers who never were or will be. They have nor brains nor souls, just engines, internal combustion engines like the ones on the street outside, right now, as you're reading. Anyway, maybe "kids don't care!" as irritating parents who feel bent on defending these things will occasionally say, and setting aside whether the fact that kids don't care is germane to a goddamn thing - kids also don't care if they only ever eat chocolate bars, morning, noon, and night, but we don't tend to act like it's their privilege to do so - I have to wonder if kids don't care. Maybe the kids of the 2010s really don't. Maybe they devour this kind of blunt commercial nonsense. All I know is that when I was six years old, if I saw this movie, when the camera suddenly plunges right into Dusty, I would have flipped my fucking shit.

Anyway, for reasons that aren't worth belaboring, Dusty needs to pitch in to serve as adjunct firefighter in Propwash Junction, now that he's retired from racing, and this requires him to head off to receive on-the-job training at a National Park that mostly resembles Yellowstone with a healthy dose of Yosemite thrown in (the hotel that figures prominently in the story is, at any rate, a dead ringer for Yellowstone's Old Faithful Inn, inside and out). This doesn't make sense, but it does permit the filmmakers to create some genuinely gorgeous pine forests for their plane characters to zoom around, and that alone is enough to make Fire & Rescue the superior Planes film. Certainly the plot, in which Dusty learns the ropes from cranky helicopter Blade Ranger (Ed Harris), who has a mysterious past, doesn't do that; it's trading one pack of clichés for another, and overtly ripping off Cars instead of overtly ripping off Cars 2. Which I suppose is also a trade-off, though not a very honorable one.

So the plot focuses on a punch of planes putting out fires, along with some weirdly out-of-place material about facilities restoration in the National Park Service, and Dusty keeps having to dodge the horribly pushy advances of Dipper (Julie Bowen), the film's most prominent female character, who exists solely to be everything wrong with gender representation in contemporary North American pop culture. Oh, and there's a helicopter named Windlifter voiced by Wes Studi, an archaic stereotype of the wise old Native American mystic, so I miscounted when I said there was only one character who made me want to eat all my own skin off. I might be vaguely willing to forgive the filmmakers if I though there was some torturous riff on Apache helicopters going on, but I think that's far more clever than anybody was trying to be.

Between all the bad characters and the hopelessly generic "do the right thing" lesson-mongering (it is, at least, not another "be yourself" piece like virtually every other animated movie of the last generation, so I have to thank it for that), the story of Fire & Rescue is nothing of the remotest interest for anybody old enough to make the decision to see it, but it does come alive in the last third, when a massive forest fire breaks out and Dusty has to prove himself by etc. and etc. and etc. It's kind of fun to watch individual piece of foreshadowing click into place, and predict the exact shape of the finale one beat at a time, but in all honesty, it does work at the level of G-rated action spectacle. Though I see that in the United States, the film got a PG rating, so scratch that. The point being, the fire lighting is beautiful, the sweep and scale of the action are impressive, and the sense of drama is higher than anything else in the film has even implied might be a possibility. That getting there requires the film to jettison everything about its characters and render them as small figures in the face of a widescreen hellstorm of flame and smoke pretty much says everything about Fire & Rescue's liabilities as a piece of storytelling, but I'm willing to concede that it does, in the end, manage to push itself over the hump as raw entertainment.

5/10

15 comments:

  1. I'm gonna lay it out for you right now: kids don't care. Not at the age where they can be considered the target audience for Planes. The inconsistencies in the world of the movie will, however, plant the tiniest seeds of doubt, which will blossom into cynicism at a very early age, and that is how we will end up with an epidemic of hipster preteens in approximately seven to nine years.

    ReplyDelete
  2. LOVE the title. And the review, of course, but mainly the title.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Is his gearbox an integral part of his ... soul? (blegh) If not, why can't it just be replaced?

    Where does his soul/intelligence reside? In the cockpit?

    Why did they evolve cockpits? It's not very aerodynamic.

    Gah. Ignorance must be bliss.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ok so I had another idea:

    Planes and Cars are set in the same universe as Transformers, but after the Transformers have wiped out all organic life on Earth. They form themselves after the things they destroyed, in remembrance. It's now tens of thousands of years in the future, and the Transformers have regressed such that they're unable to transform any more, and no longer remember why they are like they are. It's cargo-cultism taken to the extreme, and they're slowly dying out.

    Planes: Revenge of the Fallen is about the last surviving humans returning to Earth (aboard the Axiom).

    ReplyDelete
  5. ^^ My theory is a little different and came about while watching some of the earliest episodes of "Ducktales" late last night (not recommended). There is an episode about a robot who is able to tap into the what-I-am-calling-for-the-sake-of-streamlining-it Internet and control vehicles and other machines, imbuing them with his malevolent intelligence but allowing them to be semi-autonomous. Also, and I found myself making a drinking game out of this, the ducks, dog-things, etc. refer to themselves as "humans" throughout*.

    This suggests that the Machine Apocalypse that leads to Cars/Planes does eventually happen in the Disneyverse, but that it is almost immediately preceded by the Extreme Body Modification Furry Apocalypse.

    * - The most bonkers example is the crow who hangs around Magica and claims to be her transformed brother. As an ornithologist, wouldn't uncomfortably humanlike anserid -> flight-capable talking corvid be an upgrade?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Are you familiar with the Pixar theory? I personally think it's quite bananas but still somehow entertaining.

    www.pixartheory.com

    It posits that all films take place in the same universe and tries to reason how that would work.

    @Trish. Loved your remarks about Ducktales! I loved that show as a kid...

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Trish - Armstrong! I had that episode on story tape. Man, did I ever turn the page when I heard the chimes ring like this...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Andy's Transformers theory is just the best. It beats the pants off the "sequel to Terminator 3" notion I'd heard and had been running with.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ah, the Pixar Theory. It's so weird and so obviously wrong, but I love the ambition and enthusiasm of it.

    This is a terrific comment thread, and I love every one of you.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Off-topic, but you are a hard man to reach, Tim! There is a vid on youtube, "Old vs. New - Spiderman Movies - Nostalgia Critic" in which they choose the new Spider-Man films over Raimi's. I read your negative opinion on Webb's films, so I wish something could be done about it, like a video essay debunking these jerks. Because dumba** youtubers mostly agree with them! Or maybe I could just punch a wall!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ack, did you try e-mailing and I didn't respond? That address is such a swamp of press releases and random nonsense, I barely ever have the balls to go in and check it. Apologies, to you and anyone else who has been ignored.

    Anyway, my opinion of video reviews is overwhelmingly negative (though not invariably: Red Letter Media on the SW prequels), so I'm not surprised to hear that YouTube folk have drifted that way. But live and let live, I say; the world is more fun when everybody has their own opinion, and it's way more fun when you know damn good and well that your opinion on certain things is more right than the other guy's. At least this has been my experience.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ok, let them live in their puny little fantasy in which Webb is not a gun-for-hire but some kind of auteur.. And thanks for confirming with your reviews what I thought of this whole lame reboot enterprise..

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm glad you brought up the email thing. I emailed you a couple of months ago and never heard back. >_<

    Anywho, I'm glad to hear you have the same opinion I do about the Pixar theory. I'll never begrudge a passionate fan their headcanon. Lord knows I had plenty of wacky personal theories about the Star Wars universe growing up.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Surely, I am a sick and twisted individual for asking so, but are you planning to look at the new Tinker Bell movie that came out in April as part of your Disney Sequels series? My interest primarily comes from the decision to cast Tom Hiddleston as a young Captain Hook, because it's fun when Disney and Marvel cross the streams.

    ReplyDelete

Just a few rules so that everybody can have fun: ad hominem attacks on the blogger are fair; ad hominem attacks on other commenters will be deleted. And I will absolutely not stand for anything that is, in my judgment, demeaning, insulting or hateful to any gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion. And though I won't insist on keeping politics out, let's think long and hard before we say anything particularly inflammatory.

Also, sorry about the whole "must be a registered user" thing, but I do deeply hate to get spam, and I refuse to take on the totalitarian mantle of moderating comments, and I am much too lazy to try to migrate over to a better comments system than the one that comes pre-loaded with Blogger.