Finding Dory review

“Finding Dory” is Pixar’s latest attempt at recapturing the magic of one of their flagship animated films. “Toy Story” managed to go back to the well twice, resulting in satisfying sequels that arguably eclipsed the original. On the other side of the spectrum they have “Cars 2;” a sequel nobody asked for, which managed to annoy non-child audiences even more than its predecessor. “Finding Dory” falls somewhere closer to that, even though, unlike “Cars,” 2003’s “Finding Nemo” was beloved by many and is still quoted and referenced to this day.

Ellen DeGeneres’ Dory, a blue fish with short-term memory-loss, was the quirky comedic relief of the first film and helped to offset the stern and humorless Clown fish Marlon (Albert Brookes) as they searched the ocean for his son Nemo. Here she now takes center-stage after having flashbacks of her childhood, becoming concerned with finding her parents and rediscovering her roots, of which she only has fragmented memories. Marlon reluctantly agrees to help her along the way before the two become separated and Dory is placed in quarantine tank at a California marina. There she meets an octopus named Hank with seven tentacles (Ed O’Neill), a near-sited whale named Caitlin (Kailin Olsen) and a beluga named Bailey with broken sonar (Ty Burrell).

There’s plenty to admire about this production and the animation is more rich and vibrant than we’ve seen from Pixar in a while. The ocean vistas are alive with all kinds of activity in each frame and Dory, along with the new characters in her adventure, are entertaining and humorous, but structurally, this story struggles to find a natural flow, often labored in clunky set-pieces that increasingly dares to break the audience’s suspension of disbelief. Director and co-writer Andrew Stanton find far too many cheats to get their ocean creatures out the water, with Dory spending much of the movie in a coffee bowl while Hank slithers her around their marina enclosure—an enclosure which seems to be fairly easy to escape from and, for some characters, is completely open to the ocean.

Believability aside, the characters suffer from a lack of clarity or specificity. The nature of Dory’s memory-loss, which has now been upgraded from a quirk to a plot-point, is inconsistent and the severity of which is often changed for jokes to land and for action sequences to work, which only undercuts the movie’s emotional themes about overcoming and transcending disability.  Poor Nemo and Marlon are given practically nothing to do in their piddling B-plot, which slogs its way an eventual convergence with Dory’s more-lively, if not somewhat ridiculous, A-plot.

The script feels unfinished and banal and the movie as a whole doesn’t justify its being made—other than Disney’s obvious cash-grabbing opportunity—but “Finding Dory” is still watchable. The voice talent helps to elevate the telegraphed jokes and the eye-rolling call-backs, and the animation, as previously mentioned, is gorgeous to look at. Pixar sets a high bar of excellence that both damns the films in their catalog that are merely mediocre while still shaming most their competitors, but I can’t help but consider this a missed opportunity.

Grade: C-

Originally published in the Idaho State Journal/Jun-25

Listen to this week's episode of Jabber and the Drone to hear more conversation about "Finding Dory."

X-Men: Apocalypse review

20^th Century Fox’s X-Men series has a been one of the longest running and most volatile of Hollywood’s plentiful superhero franchises. When director Bryan Singer helmed the first two entries around the turn of the century his objective was to naturalize the pulp materials his movies were based on and to internalize the comic book’s over-the-top sci-fi premise into a relatable political allegory about governmental oppression and systemic bigotry. Since then, the X-Films have been passed along to many directors and many writers and the sincerity of its themes have been gradually muddied by competing aesthetic choices, bad screenplays and a timeline that’s tangled itself into more knots than a pocketed pair of earbuds.  

When Singer returned to the property for 2014’s “X-Men: Days of Future Past” he had of lot of narrative housecleaning to get back to his original vision, but was still able to carefully land his albatross of a time-travel plot with all toes touching the ground.  The promise of “Days of Future Past” was that the slate was now clean and the films going forward no longer had to answer for the mistakes of the past, that’s why the latest entry, “X-Men: Apocalypse,” is all the more disappointing, as it relapses into many of the same inconsistencies found within its weaker predecessors.

Moving ten years forward from the events of the last film, this installment sees our heroes faced by an ancient mutant named Apocalypse (Oscar Isaac) brought back from the dead from the depths of the pyramids of Egypt. Once this god-like entity is restored he is put on a path to destroy the earth of human dominion by recruiting four powerful soldiers who are sympathetic to his cause. After Magneto (Michael Fassbender) is ripped away from his newly established anonymous life in eastern Europe he joins Apocalypse alongside a young Storm (Alexandra Shipp), Angel (Ben Hardy), and Psylocke (Olivia Munn).  When Professor Xavier (James McAvoy) catches wind of this new force he assembles a new team to keep his school safe, as well as the future of the world as we know it.  

This film somehow manages to suffer simultaneous from being too much and not enough. There are too many characters and too many subplots to keep track of and yet none of them are really explored with enough depth or purpose to justify their inclusion. The heroes such as Beast (Nicholas Hoult), Cyclops (Tye Sheridan), Quicksilver (Evan Peters) and Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) are explore to some capacity and have some stakes in the plot but the script lacks a sense of focus and drive by its constant shifting of the story’s center of consciousness. Is this supposed to about Mystique trying to save the soul of her mentor and friend Magneto? Is it about Cyclops’ journey to find belonging and responsibility within the group as a new student? Is it a political allegory about the arms race of the 80s? None of these plot ideas are fully flushed out and much of the film feels like a poorly paced build up to a non-climax.  

Secondly this movie suffers from a style that is far campier than we’ve been treated to from this series thus far, with flashier set-pieces, hokier dialogue—courtesy of hack screenwriter Simon Kinberg—and ridiculous costuming.  The film’s 3D minded cinematography heightens every battle scene into cartoony weightlessness. Because of this, the action sequences are less vital and less tactile and the visuals appear flattened and cheap when projected in two dimensions.

Still, McAvoy and Fassbender are great actors and there are moments of candy-coated pop filmmaking to be found in this mess, along with the DNA of the comic book’s higher minded ideas as well as Singers’ passion for minority social justice. “X-Men: Apocalypse” isn’t the worst film in the franchise—“X-Men Origins: Wolverine” still has that distinction—but this material has clearly become tired and strained from being worked and reworked over the last 15 years and as a result th movie never settles into a comfortable mode of its own.   

Grade: C-

Originally Published in the Idaho State Journal/May-2016

Listen to this week's episode of Jabber and the Drone to hear more conversation about "X-Men: Apocalypse."