Finding Nemo (2003)

Josh Gilchrist's review of Finding Nemo

The best thing that you can say about Disney and Pixar's "Finding Nemo" is that the computer animated imagery is once again exquisite, getting better with each film. The bad side, the story line is only pleasant instead of inspired like the visuals.

After changing the landscape of animation forever with 1995's "Toy Story," Pixar is showing signs that its bubble is about to burst. The brilliant nonvisual aspects which made these computer animated features so appealing in the first place now seems to be waning.

My problems with "Finding Nemo" are exactly the same problems I had with their last feature, "Monster's Inc." Both films are too obsessed with being cute instead of the enlivened creativity that surrounded both "Toy Story" films and Dreamworks' "Shrek." The creativity that exists now is more along the lines of who can come up with the cutest premise or funniest joke, some of which just aren't funny in "Nemo".

There are some funny moments but far less than expected. Some of the film's best humor is because of the delivery of Ellen DeGeneres, playing a blue tang named Dory who has a memory problem. Teaming her with my favorite of comic actors, Albert Brooks, seems like it would deliver enough laughs to put an audience in stitches. But, sadly Albert Brooks, who plays the lead character of Marlin, is playing a clownfish without the clowning. His character's major appeal is that he's a very caring and supportive father who must triumph over his character flaws to save his son Nemo, who has been captured by scuba divers and thrown into a fish tank in Sydney, Australia.

The touching family drama is the most satisfying nonvisual factor of the film, and it's a tactic that Disney has used over and over again. The ocean offers enough exciting peril to excite the audience, as our heroes encounter jellyfish, sharks and whales.

The jellyfish sequence is the most realistic. The sharks have an opportunity to be equally menacing, but this is where Pixar drops the ball. The sharks have none of the characteristics of sharks outside of the way they look. In fact, they act human. For a film that's aimed towards little ones you expect this sort of thing but the sharks are used for silly comic relief. They're not out to harm the fish, they're all in a support group to stop eating fish. Why are they doing this? The motivation is unclear. Maybe a fellow shark choked on a fish bone. Compare this to the actions of the toys in "Toy Story" whose motivations were very clear, to earn the love of the child who owns them.

But "Nemo" has big heart when it counts and I assume that's why the film is at least satisfying. Director and writer Andrew Stanton keeps the ball rolling if only because he knows his audience; the child and child at heart. I can throw out as many flaws as I want but, when I'm done doing this, I can't deny that the film is beautiful to look at. Unlike CGI effects in live action films, an animated film can probably survive alone on beautiful images for the imagination to treasure.

And the film is much better than other Disney animated adventures like "Treasure Island" and "Atlantis," two films who had no redeeming factors whatsoever. All Pixar needs to do with their future endeavors is to beef up the characterization and not to forget that their audience isn't only made up of those under the age of twelve.

A word of warning to parents: There are some very intense scenes throughout "Nemo," making the film's G rating questionable. At least three crying children were taken out of the screening I attended. So, please, use judgement and possibly leave the very little children at home.

==========
X-RAMR-ID: 34986
X-Language: en
X-RT-ReviewID: 1157367
X-RT-TitleID: 1122673
X-RT-AuthorID: 5858