Touches You

Really Surprised!

Good movie but grossly overrated

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

I wasn't surprised to read that distributors didn't know whether to market "The Cars that Ate Paris" as a horror movie or an art movie. I don't really know what to make of it. Its fundamentally disturbing premise - a town in which the residents engineer car "accidents" and scavenge the remains - is handled so sedately it barely even registers. There is also a more serious social issue that the movie deals with about the battle between the young and the old. Any Australian is familiar with the term "hoon" and knows that these are usually young men. The movie does next to nothing with this premise either.Its hard to think that anyone who went to see "The Cars that Ate Paris" - and certainly no one in the US who saw it as the even more misleadingly titled "The Cars that Eat People" - would have come away satisfied. It resolutely refuses to be of interest in any way, shape or form. Want horror? There's no tension and the only "shock" comes from photos of the results of grisly car crashes. Want art? The movie is shot fairly interestingly, just without anything interesting within the shots. Want cars, even weird looking cars, like the ones featured on the poster? The only car related action the movie really features happens in the final ten minutes.Like I said, there's not really a whole lot to like here.

It seems that anyone who ventures near the town of Paris (Australia) ends up the victim of an auto accident; this, it turns out, is good for Business in the town of Paris. Coincidence? When Arthur Waldo's brother is killed in an auto accident which Arthur himself survives, the town decides to "keep" him. Arthur, it turns out, has a phobia about driving: a manslaughter charge resulted in the loss his license, and he's been unable to get behind the wheel of a car ever since. Meanwhile, other "accidents" have been occurring and the survivors given over to the local doctor, who conducts experiments on them. Among the townsfolk is the dim-witted Charlie (Bruce Spence, who played the gyro pilot in THE ROAD WARRIOR), who's eager to blow away anybody who wanders into his line of fire. He has a ghoulish collection of hood ornaments taken from the cars of his victims. When Arthur tries to leave the town, a pair of cars with engines revving menacingly bar his way. He returns to town and is told that he has "brain damage" and "a fear of cars... But that's the world we live in- the world of the motor car." If THE CARS THAT ATE Paris has one major failing, it's the lack of characterization(s): we never really get to know or care about anyone, especially our hero, Arthur. The climax deserves mention, wherein a group of ROAD WARRIORs engage in a DEATH RACE 2000 type of all-out automotive mayhem in which entire buildings are run into the ground.

Yup, there's more than one Paris in the world. Who knew? The other one is a small, creepy(if that aspect is criminally underused) Australian village that makes a living off making cars that drive past, crash, scavenging the parts, and lobotomizing everyone who lives through the "accident". Well, except for Arthur Waldo(yup, we found him), because, well, otherwise, there'd be no movie. Eh, or would there? After a while, this ceases to be about him(no wonder, he's almost pure reaction, no action, he doesn't cause things, he just goes with whatever happens). It ends up focusing on this youth gang that resides there, and who are getting increasingly dangerous(and yes, you do get to see that spiked vehicle on the cover, and it is indeed badass). My best guess as to the reason would be that a society built around destruction and death would inevitably lead to that...? I understand that Peter Weir is known for his strange concepts, and this certainly shows that. Did I honestly witness a Western parody halfway through this? Down Under? I did like the mayor, obsessed with maintaining his small part of the Earth, keeping people from leaving town. Other than that, however, I lost count of just how many times I asked "what on Earth did I just watch, and why did what happened, occur?". I'd suggest a drinking game, but it'd lead to alcohol poisoning. For only being 84 minutes(including the credits), this feels long. It seems to run out of steam and ideas, and the pace meanders. While it could be a cultural thing, I found this to be excessively vague and downright hard to follow. I could simply be spoiled by recent cinema and TV overexplaining. Is this a thriller, horror, comedy, all, none? There is a little gruesome, bloody, gory, violent and disturbing content in this. The DVD comes with a 3 and a half(!) minute trailer. I recommend this to fans of the director. 6/10

Before Peter Weir got really famous, he made this strange but worth seeing flick about a small town in Australia whose local economy centers on car wrecks, and how they draw an outsider in. "The Cars That Ate Paris" doesn't star anyone whom you would recognize, and there's no big action scenes here, but that actually gives the movie a more realistic feeling.I should identify that this is not a movie for those with short attention spans. It's not likely to stick heavily in your memory the way that most of Peter Weir's movies do (it's certainly not my favorite of his movies). But still, it's something to check out as a historical reference if nothing else."I can drive!" You'll probably feel like you can too.