Matcollis This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

Huievest Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

Mischa Redfern I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

Brenda The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

gavin6942 The small town of Paris, Australia deliberately causes car accidents, then sells/salvages all valuables from the wrecks as a means of economy.Peter Weir got the idea to make the film while driving through Europe where road signs on the main French roads diverted him into what he perceived as strange little villages. It originally started as a comedy to star Grahame Bond but later evolved. The idea of a small village thriving on an unusual and macabre economy is interesting, though I found it rather lacking in the horror category. The horror label misled me, I think.The producers unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate an American release for the film with Roger Corman after it was shown with great success at the Cannes Film Festival. What is most interesting about this is the suggestion that the film was somehow an influence on Corman's "Death Race 2000" (1975), which would have gone into production at about the time Corman saw "Cars". But it is a bit of a stretch, since "Death Race" came from a short story and was Corman's response to "Rollerball"... any Weir connection would be minor.

zimmyfan66 "The Cars That Ate Paris" is delightfully shocking in a way that still resonates today. I say delightfully because there is every indication in the subtext of the film that what we're watching is a biting, hilarious satire. It works as a satire because of the naturalness of the actors. It doesn't work so well to caricaturize personalities in film as much as it does in literature because caricaturization loses its shock and becomes simply a cause for unbelieving laughter. Instead, satire works better in film when the personalities of the characters are as honest as can be against the backdrop of outrageous circumstances. I'm sure I could think of exceptions, like Dr. Strangelove for example, which needs the caricaturization I think because its plot deals with the mechanisms of government and war. When the scale is that large, caricaturization works. But "The Cars That Ate Paris" doesn't have such lofty targets. It deals with the ordinary people in the world who are easily swept into the agendas of others, sometimes by their own mindlessness. Speaking again for the naturalness of the actors, the "ordinary people" in this film all seem like real citizens of a dusty, scavenger town with delusions of order and efficiency. I was particularly stunned by John Meillon who plays the mayor of the dusty, scavenger town called Paris, Australia. His performance is so seamless, so richly mixed between an authoritative assurance and a desperation to hide from the truth, that he is frightening, frightening in what seems to be his complete lack of introspection or morality. And there doesn't seem to be the need for either in Paris. His character, while in control of most of the goings-on in the town, doesn't seem to need to order anyone around. It's as if they accepted him and his authority as a matter of practicality, as if it were unfathomable to do otherwise. He therefore carries an almost metaphysical command over the actions (and even appearances of) the other characters in the film. It's a hefty role to take on and make real, but John Meillon succeeds marvelously. It's one of the great bad guy performances that isn't really a bad guy performance. As an audience member you just feel the entropy and instability vibrating behind the eyes of Meillon. Aside from the natural acting, the film succeeds because of Peter Weir's vision, which finds its greatest catalyst in the "wild west," sepia toned cinematography by John McLean. The camera is focus more on the faces of the actors than anything, and anytime it steps out into the dirt roads of Paris, it exposes hardly anything other than the commotion and impenetrability of the town. It's a skillful early work from Weir who would later succeed again in satirizing authority and control over the events of life with The Truman Show in 1997. The only thing that wasn't all that awesome was the performance by Terry Camilleri as Arthur, the man who comes to live in Paris by accident. It seems like he was uncomfortable as an actor, almost unable to get into his character's shoes. However, it doesn't ruin the film when Meillon's performance is so intoxicating.

rtb1961 A movie done in style, all about relations between people, not normal people but where everyone is insane to varying degrees. These insane people try to create a town whose purpose, whilst fulfilling the normal needs is done in an insane fashion. They trap passing motorists at night and run them off the road. Should they survive they handed over to a macabre doctor who lobotomises them with a power tool to become his, experiments. There cars are stripped of any valuables than burned. Any equally disturbed individuals are recognised and kept to become a part of the insane community. To be best enjoyed as art background when suitably intoxicated and quietly partying. A movie clearly done to be enjoyed in this style, as it drifts from sane to insane in the same activity, as moments drift from sense to senseless. A movie that keeps you hanging on the edge of having a plot, of accelerating the story, of having real meaning only to leave you drifting along with it.

TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews 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