Film Review: ‘Finding Dory’

Finding Dory
Courtesy of Disney/Pixar

In the ravishing sequel to 'Finding Nemo,' Ellen DeGeneres' amnesiac tile fish learns to remember what life is all about.

Finding Dory,” the ingeniously pleasing sequel to “Finding Nemo,” opens with a scene that merges our affection for a beloved character with a bit of a jolt. We see Dory, the friendly blue tang fish from the first film, back when she was a big-eyed toddler with a babyish gurgle, getting trained by her parents, Charlie (Eugene Levy) and Jenny (Diane Keaton), to tell a stranger (any stranger), “I suffer from short-term memory loss.” The thing is, poor Dory really does — she can’t even remember the phrase! It’s no wonder that her parents are aghast with anxiety. In a flash, a character with a singular and beguilingly funny trait — the inability to remember almost anything for more than 10 seconds — comes at us in a whole new way. She’s no longer a daffy amnesiac. She’s a child fish with a serious disability.

Have the creators of “Finding Dory” gone all politically soft and sensitive on us — in response, perhaps, to the memory-challenged community? Hardly. They’ve done something better: figured out how to take an already perfect character and deepen her in an exquisitely satisfying way. Dory soon drifts away from her parents, and not just because she doesn’t know how to get back to them. She can barely remember that she has parents. As surely as the death of Bambi’s mother, this primal set-up rips a small emotional hole in the audience, one that we’re desperate to see filled. “Finding Dory” then leaps forward to one year after the first film, when Dory is an innocent grown-up with no idea of what she’s looking for. To figure that out, she must learn to stop forgetting.

Andrew Stanton and Angus MacLane, the co-directors of “Finding Dory,” have made a beautiful, rambunctious, and fully felt sequel — a movie totally worth its salt water. It’s a film that spills over with laughs (most of them good, a few of them shticky) and tears (all of them earned), supporting characters who are meant to slay us (and mostly do) with their irascible sharp tongues, and dizzyingly extended flights of physical comedy. The images never stop dazzling us with their awesome, tactile sheen ­— their oceanic incandescence. (Who needs 3D glasses? Even if you happen to see “Finding Dory” in 2D, just about every shot in it pops out at you with beauty.) In a summer of tepid and disappointing sequels, audiences from around the world will be grateful to encounter a sequel to a movie as beloved as “Finding Nemo” that more than lives up to the first film’s casually magical charms.

At this point, the Pixar films fall into a few distinct tiers of ambition and achievement. There’s the visionary top drawer: the timeless works of peerlessly witty, mind-opening artistry (all three “Toy Story” films, “The Incredibles,” “Inside Out”). There are the whimsically clever concoctions that may not, in the end, do more than entertain you, but they do it splendidly (“Cars,” “Monsters, Inc.” and its sequel, to name a few). There are the rare overly busy duds (“Cars 2,” “A Bug’s Life”). “Finding Nemo” may be in a category all its own. To this critic, it has never been quite in the top drawer — it lacks that full-on audacity of imagination. Yet it has so much zest, soul, and heart-of-the-ocean visual poetry that it’s still a movie you can cherish as a classic. It’s basically a sentimental odyssey: Can Marlin (Albert Brooks), the grumpy beleaguered clownfish, with the help of the winsomely forgetful Dory, locate his missing son? And that raises a challenge for the sequel. How can it be the same…but truly different?

In “Finding Dory,” our heroine, sparked by a split-second brain flash, remembers — before she forgets again — that she has parents, and that single momentary dislocation is enough to retrigger the feeling that her family is out there. It’s enough to tell her that she’s lost. So she decides to find them, with Brooks’ Marlin — and Nemo (Hayden Rolence) — in tow. If the movie were just one more extended underwater search, it might have played like glorified leftovers. And Dory, for a while, does seem the unlikeliest candidate on earth to be a sidekick suddenly placed center stage. Her epic personality tic threatens to become annoying. But Stanton and MacLane, working from a script by Stanton and Victoria Strouse, execute a minor marvel: Dory’s memory starts firing — not in a false, un-Dory way, but one jaggedly subliminal mind shard at a time, like a series of acid flashbacks. She’s still a fish who can really only see what’s right in front of her, and that, as before, is the beauty of Ellen DeGeneres’ vocal performance — her high-spirited myopic exuberance. Yet each new drop of memory triggers something in Dory, not so much a change in identity as a gain in dimension. She still knows very little, but she becomes someone who knows what she doesn’t know.

Under the sea, 13 year later, proves to be an even more ravishing place than it was in “Finding Nemo.” The swaying stalks of kelp are as majestic as the trees in “The Lord of the Rings.” An irradiated octopus looms like a nightmare Cyclops, and a big old grouchy hairy oyster who speaks in vaudeville rim-shot jokes isn’t all that funny, but check out his ginormous pearl! The gliding schools of fish and pulsating coral reefs glow like creatures out of a psychedelic rainbow fairy land — which, of course, is just what the bottom of the ocean is.

“Finding Dory,” like “Finding Nemo” before it, invites you to dive in with your eyes, which is why these movies are submersive daydreams for children. But it’s when the picture arrives at the Marine Life Institute, a theme-park conservatory ruled over with hilarious goddess-like force by the recorded voice of Sigourney Weaver on the loudspeaker, that the movie takes off as a swim-for-your-life slapstick adventure. Stanton and MacLane use the ocean as a mystic setting, but they use the Marine Life Institute the way Stanton used the spaceship in “WALL-E”: as a fantastical playground. In a laboratory, Dory meets Hank (Ed O’Neill), a scaly-slimy curmudgeon of an octopus who is also a chameleon (he blends into everything from a tiled wall to a metal stair banister to a “Hang in There, Baby!” kitty poster). Hank, for all his quick-change artistry, is a casualty of captivity — he just wants to curl up in a boxy aquarium somewhere. But bonding and redemption ensue, as does a voyage to the park’s ominous inner sanctum, a place where fish are placed into species containers and shipped off to deepest, darkest Cleveland, where they will live forever as joyless specimens. In a Touch Pool, children’s hands come down on the fish like bombs. The fight against the crushing of the spirit is built right into the Pixar aesthetic, and it’s part of what animates Dory. She’s looking to rejoin her parents, but she’s also looking to rescue and liberate them.

At a certain point, it will probably strike you that the title of “Finding Dory” seems like a misnomer (albeit a catchy one), since the story is all about Dory trying to find Charlie and Jenny. But, of course, it’s really about Dory discovering who she is after she gains the ballast of having a little bit of memory. But only a little bit. Dory’s glory is that her amnesia makes her totally responsive to life. She’s living in a pure existential state, unencumbered by the past, and that’s why she gets things done. Her way of solving problems becomes a credo (“What would Dory do?”), and it’s almost poetically funny when she herself adopts the credo. The movie, in the end, is about finding Dory. It’s about how the past, for her, isn’t really so past. It’s just the ability to remember life as we’re living it, one moment at a time.

Film Review: 'Finding Dory'

Reviewed at Dolby 88, New York, June 7, 2016. MPAA Rating: PG. Running time: 103 MIN.

Production

A Walt Disney Studios release of a Pixar Animation Studios, Walt Disney Pictures production. Produced by Lindsey Collins. Executive producer, John Lasseter. Associate producer, Bob Roath.

Crew

Directed by Andrew Stanton, Angus MacLane (co-director). Written by Stanton, Victoria Strouse. Story, Stanton, Victoria Strouse, Bob Peterson; camera (3D color, widescreen), Jeremy Lasky, Ian Megibben; editor, Axel Geddes; music, Thomas Newman; production designer, Steve Pilcher; art director, Don Shank; visual effects supervisor, Chris Chapman; casting, Natalie Lyon, Kevin Reher.

With

Ellen DeGeneres, Albert Brooks, Ed O’Neill, Kaitlin Olson, Diane Keaton, Eugene Levy, Hayden Rolence, Ty Burrell, Idris Elba, Dominic West, Sigourney Weaver.

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 17

Leave a Reply

17 Comments

Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. ed says:

    only reason this movie is doing good is because of nemo… this movie sucks bad but you don’t know that till you have bought a ticket and see the movie. if it was released without the nemo movie it wouldn’t be making a thing

  2. Rudy Mario says:

    Mr. Owen has written a good review. Interestingly another hollywoos trade mag has given a net negative review. But for me my ultimate judge will be my 6 year old daughter who has repeatedly wached Nemo on bluray. Looking forward to watchING this movie.

  3. gabe says:

    high hopes

  4. It’s a trade publication. These reviews are really meant for exhibitors, so that they can fully understand what a movie contains before they agree to book it for their theater(s). These reviews help a film to get to the correct audience. They’re really not meant for the average consumer. While I agree that many critic do rely too much on plot summery to pad out their reviews, here I understand the purpose. Do what I do, if you want to avoid spoilers: read the first few paragraphs, and the last couple. Then you should be okay. Anyway, it’s great to read Mr. Gleiberman’s work again. He’s among the best film writers we have these days.

  5. Zee C. says:

    Beautifully written review! You have a wonderful way with words, Owen.

  6. LOL says:

    I miss Justin Chang No offence to Owen. My loyalty will always be West Coast.

  7. agressively redundant says:

    I have a feeling one day, when these people who endlessly complain about reviewers have nothing else to complain about, they’re going to complain if you give the main character’s name. “You said her name was Janice! Stupid critics ruining movies.” Plot summaries do not equal spoilers. Most of this is the very beginning or in the trailers already. People who try and make themselves look like film connoisseurs that aren’t critics usually wind up looking like idiotic blowhards with no life when trying to correct said critics

    • Cass says:

      Agree, they’re just imbeciles. Remember, a quarter of the U.S. population still believe the Sun revolves around the Earth. That’s all you need to know about some people.

  8. M says:

    Owen is a breath of fresh air for Variety, especially when one thinks back to the pretentiousness of the Scott Foundas era. But there is no need for a plot summary in a movie review. Folks who read reviews, even in a trade publication, do so to determine if a pic is worth seeing. Not in place of actually seeing it.

    • Ken says:

      Well, this is a trade site after all, and industry figures want to know what the movie contains. As for the 50 million little tykes and most of their parents who will see it, I don’t think they read Variety. Fine review, btw.

  9. Geo says:

    Nothing new here.Variety riding, DIsney once more as they do the last 2 years. THey gave it a 100 HAHAHHA

  10. steve says:

    Was hoping to read a review and not a recap of the film that gives away the things we WANTED to see and discover for ourselves. Read this review and and have it spoil the film. What happen to reviewers reviewing and NOT just giving it all away. Lazy sloth.

  11. Sexracist says:

    I wish I had short-term memory loss so I could forget reading this review

  12. Lou Acosta says:

    Variety, I think it’s time for you to embrace the spoiler-free review.
    It’s totally possible.

More Film News from Variety

Loading