'Cars 3' is reasonably diverting but somewhat sluggish

The movie attempts to bring back the heart of the first installment, but talk in the film of retirement and the good old days will make kids and adults alike fidgety.

Disney-Pixar/AP
Lightning McQueen, voiced by Owen Wilson, foreground, in a scene from 'Cars 3.'

It’s pretty well agreed that “Cars 2” was no “Cars.” I wasn’t nuts about “Cars,” either, but after that assaultive and unfunny sequel, I was hoping against hope that the franchise would come to a screeching halt. Little chance of that, since the films have pulled in billions of dollars in ticket sales and merchandise.

So how good/bad is “Cars 3”? If we’re talking Pixar threepeats here, it’s certainly no “Toy Story 3.” Instead, it’s a reasonably diverting, somewhat sluggish attempt to reinstall the “heart” of the first installment, as it focuses on Lightning McQueen (voiced as always by Owen Wilson) as he attempts a comeback after a crushing defeat against state-of-the-art bad boy Jackson Storm (Armie Hammer).

Brian Fee, taking over from previous director John Lasseter, brings back some of the stalwarts, such as tow-truck buddy Mater (Larry the Cable Guy) and Lightning’s mentor, Doc Hudson (the late Paul Newman), but the aura of nostalgia that pervades “Cars 3,” with extended talk about retirement options and the good old days, made a lot of the kids at my screening fidgety. Me, too. A feminist angle, with race technician Cruz Ramirez (Cristela Alonzo) primed for the big time, was refreshing. If Pixar and DC Comics can work it out, maybe Cruz can team with Wonder Woman. Grade: B- (Rated G.) 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.