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.
It's 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's 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.