So, yeah, Finding Dory does nothing new, covers no new ground, er, um, water. Sure, it's entertaining. It has some funny moments and introduces one new, great character, but it's virtually identical to Finding Nemo and strays out of the realm of believability far more frequently. And, yeah, I know it's a movie about talking, sentient fish, and I'll buy in for that, but I can't quite go all the way to octopus-driving-truck.
Speaking of the octopus, Hank, he's great. His character arc is also completely predictable, but he's a very fun character while onscreen. Really, he steals the whole thing. He would have been better, though, if he wasn't just the new incarnation of Gill, the escape-focused fish from Finding Nemo. No, it doesn't change the character sufficiently to have Hank wanting to escape in rather than escape out.
I guess what it really comes down to is this: If you've seen Finding Nemo, there's no real reason to see this movie unless you just really loved it and want to see the characters from a slightly different angle doing basically the same thing over again. If you have kids who are younger than Finding Nemo, they'll probably love Finding Dory and it won't matter whether they've seen Nemo or not. Kids notoriously love to watch the same thing over and over again (I still kind of have nightmares about Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day, a movie I never ever need to see again).
If you haven't seen Finding Nemo... I don't know. I'd probably say just go watch Finding Nemo because it's a better movie. All I know is that when I come out of a movie and am glad I didn't have to pay full price for it (because we had two free tickets), then I can't in good conscience give it a whole-hearted recommendation. If you have the time and don't mind spending the money, sure, it's not going to drive you from the theater in disgust. It's good. Or good enough. But it's not great. It's not even Pixar-good. It's Cars 2 and Monsters University, movies completely playing to the formulas of their predecessors to rake in a buck.
I have not heard good things about Finding Nemo. That really makes me sad because I am a huge Ellen fan. With the price of movie tickets, I guess I will wait for a rental.
ReplyDeleteThat's Hollywood for you. It's not really surprising that they would pump out a sequel to a film just for a buck, especially because they're much safer than original works that might fail. It's a wonder that things like Inside Out even get made.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed Finding Nemo but I think it was because my kids enjoyed it. It wasn't one of those movies I wanted to see over and over again like the first Toy Story. That I loved! I'll pass on Finding Dory.
ReplyDeleteElsie: Finding Nemo has been one of the most successful Pixar movies of all time and, last I looked, is still the #1 all time best selling DVD. That said, it has never been near the top of my Pixar list. On the other hand, Toy Story is on my list of top movies.
DeleteI agree that this was pretty much a rehashing of the same story. There's plenty they could have done that didn't have to involve hunting for a fish. I liked Hank, but the sea lions also amused me (seals? I don't remember). My son has decided Dory is faking it since she can suddenly remember her parents, and that whole story line seemed to irritate him. I didn't mind it. I've certainly had to sit through far worse kid movies. Winnie the Pooh was one of them.
ReplyDeleteShannon: The sea lions were great, but they were also just a new iteration of the seagulls from the Nemo. It makes them shrug-worthy.
DeleteIt's sort of like regression to the mean: Pixar would've had to keep taking chances to keep being great, but Disney doesn't exist to take chances, and when Pixar takes chances, people get all over them.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest problem, though, was "Cars." That was what brought in the merchandising, and merchandising is what spurs sequels (a sequel being itself a piece of merchandise of the first one, in the case of movies like "Finding Dory.")
There was a really interesting story I read once about movie studios, and how they look for movies that will generate money not just from the film but from merchandise (like you usually think of it, action figures and tshirts and stuff) and then from rides at theme parks and spinoffs. So it's not even about the STORY then. It's a wonder that movies which fit that mold still can be good (like the Marvel movies).
Sweetie and Middle saw this movie. They both said it was funny, and I said "what were the funny parts" and they both shrugged and said "I guess it was just okay." Doesn't seem like it's really a big hit.
They really could've done something to explore the world of the fish a bit or flesh out Dory and make it a new story. If they wanted to stick with the "[Verb]Ing [Fish Name]" structure they could have gone with "Discovering Dory," say, with Dory trying to figure out where she comes from to decide what kind of fish she really is, or "Remembering Dory," with Dory remembering suddenly that when she ran into Marlon in the first movie she was on some important errand. Those would've been interesting and I only just thought of them this second.
Briane: It's unfortunate that the merchandising of movies is a direct result of Star Wars. Which is an interesting journey, because it wasn't the merchandising that happened when the original trilogy came out that did it; it was the resurgence of merchandise in the 90s that lead to the prequels and, well, everything else that has happened since in movies.
Delete