Skip to main content

Finding Dory...'s Parents

          Finding Nemo is one of Pixar’s very best films, it’s one of my two or three favourites; it also happens to be a film that never demanded a sequel. Nemo getting lost again? “The Return of Darla”? It seemed like a bad idea, and I was concerned when I heard Finding Dory was going to be released. Because making the comic relief foil of one film the star of the sequel is how Cars 2 happened? Thankfully, Finding Dory is no Cars 2.
          It’s revealed that Dory was born in a marine institute exhibit and that prior to the events of the first film she got lost. Because of her short-term memory disorder she could never remember her parents or where she came from, and so meandered the ocean until meeting Marlin. Now she’s beginning to recall things again and with Marlin and Nemo, journeys back to the aquarium in California in search of her family.
          Most of the film is set in this marine institute and though it doesn’t have the depth and wonder of the ocean, the filmmakers still have a lot of fun with the setting, sending up the complexity of such parks, whale aquariums, and in one hilarious sequence, touch tanks. Plot-wise there are a few points where it feels repetitive of the first film. Not only do they start from literally the same reef as before, but they encounter a dangerous creature not long after, albeit one who’s not nearly as fearful as Bruce the shark or an angler fish. Finding Dory’s also trying really hard to be cute with recurring flashbacks to Dory’s childhood where she’s big-eyed and tiny (the short in front of the film is overly cute too, but it’s actually not bad). The forced adorableness is distracting but these scenes do tie into the film okay, and reinforce that Dory though mostly comic relief is actually something of a tragic character. Her short-term memory loss is treated as a handicap. I admire the film for exploring that and for setting up her backstory in fragments so that we learn the details of how she got lost alongside her. There’s a sentimentality permeating her journey that isn’t ineffective by any means, but doesn’t feel earned like the first movie did. Perhaps it’s because the theme of the importance of family has by now become too commonplace in Pixar and this film didn’t do enough new with it. 
          Some of the cast of the last film return (though I did miss Bruce, Gill, and Nigel). Ellen DeGeneres is right in her element as Dory and Albert Brooks is back along for the ride as Marlin. The problem is Marlin doesn’t display much of the character development he’d undergone prior and is back to being a worrisome fussbudget. It’s also weird seeing Marlin having been the hero and heart of the last film, relegated to a side character in this one. Nemo’s along for the journey too. However the main focus is Dory and to the films’ credit she carries the movie very well. Among the new characters introduced, the best of them is Ed O’Neil as an octopus called Hank. He’s got a gruff likeability to him and his relationship with Dory is one of the film’s unexpected delights. The cast also features Kaitlin Olson as a near-sighted whale shark called Destiny, Ty Burrell as an echolocation-inept beluga called Bailey (I do like that every animal in this marine institute has an impairment like Dory), and Eugene Levy and Diane Keaton as Dory’s parents. There are also a pair of really funny seals and a park announcer who’s someone you won’t expect.
          There’s enough interesting material in the park and Dory’s quest is investing enough that most of the film is enjoyable. But the final act falters somewhat. There was one story choice they seemed to have made that really impressed me, but they backed out on it minutes later, and given the result, I would have preferred that former direction. The finale also gets really ridiculous, tonally inconsistent, and convoluted that it feels like it’s from a different film.
          Finding Dory is very clever and funny a lot of the time (which makes sense given it’s directed by Andrew Stanton), but unlike it’s predecessor it’s not one of Pixar’s strongest. That being said, it’s the best sequel Pixar’s done since Toy Story 3. The last act and finale really do hurt the film, as does the character inconsistency. But it’s interesting, visually terrific, even provoking at times, and introduces some great colourful characters and situations. It’s just not quite as the soundtrack would suggest, unforgettable.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

A Stylish and Charmingly Reinvented David Copperfield

The Personal History, Adventures, Experience and Observation of David Copperfield the Younger of Blunderstone Rookery (Which He Never Meant to Publish on Any Account)  is the most important book Charles Dickens ever wrote. It is not the most famous or influential by any means (that would of course be A Christmas Carol ), but it is the book that is the purest expression of the authors’ style, identity, and worldview. It is his most personal work, semi-autobiographical in its story of the chronology from infancy to adulthood of a character who overcomes great loss and hardships to find a fulfilling life as a writer. To read David Copperfield  is to understand Dickens himself. Armando Iannucci knew this when he decided to make a new adaptation of the novel for a twenty-first century audience. He also knew that Dickens adaptations are ubiquitous at this point. Films are a bit rarer, but every few years a new television adaptation rears its head to keep the authors’ unique world an...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more