Finding Dory (3D)
Cert: U / 103 mins / Dir. Angus MacLane & Andrew Stanton / Trailer
Okay, it's Sunday night and like a kid putting off their homework, I've been sitting on this one since Friday afternoon. I have, however, been giving it some thought and the fact is, I just don't have that much to say*1 about Finding Dory.
That's not to say this isn't a very competently written, produced and performed piece, nor that I didn't enjoy the film thoroughly. I smiled and laughed my way through it, as did the sizeable audience. But at the end of it all, I got up and left the cinema accompanied only by the satisfied feeling that it hadn't been time wasted at all (which, in itself, is actually an understated compliment).
Sauntering into town a mere thirteen years after its progenitor, Finding Dory uses many of the characters from the first film and many of the same gags as a result. The fact that they're always well-intentioned and sincere works in its favour, as does the film's relentless sweetness. The central plot strand itself also isn't a million miles away from what's come before, so if you're a cynical parent who's been force-fed Finding Nemo to the point where the Stockholm Syndrome's worn back off again, you may want to bundle your youngsters off with their friends (and associated cinema-going guardians) for this one.
At just under an hour and three quarters, it's slighly too long for the story it's telling, made more prominent by a third-act which keeps extending itself into More And Bigger Crescendos Before The Credits Can Roll. A couple of the younger patrons got a bit fidgety by this point in the movie; something to bear in mind if you're paying for them all to sit in the flicks. And to make matters worse, I'm also going to tell you to stay until the end of the credits for a great reference to Finding Nemo. The scene's over a minute long, so it's worth hanging around for if you're a fan of the first film. As for the saccharine-level? Well, it's a U-rated Pixar movie, so you should know what to expect by now ;)
But in all seriousness, there's very little to dislike here. Finding Dory is consistently funny and thoughtful, and manages to raise disability issues in a way that's relaxed and ideal for youngsters and parents alike.
It's just a film that I was able to appreciate completely, then file as watched…
…Finding Nemo?
Only if you're passing that way and you want something emotionally pleasing and in 3D.
Other than that, this will be just fine to watch at home.
The film's been a long time coming and it hasn't really brought any new ideas with it.
So in that respect, actually yes.
Ellen DeGeneres is reliably fantastic once again, everyone else just about keeps up.
Nah.
Not that I heard.
Level 1: Bill 'BB-8 Voice Consultant' Hader does vocal-work here, as does John 'Derlin' Ratzenberger.
^^ And it's actually better than 'quite' good, but it's not as good as the 'pretty awesome' it'd get if I awarded it a 6.
But I don't do half-marks, and I don't like marking out of ten, so there we go.
*1 No, really. Not like other times when I'll say I don't have much to say and then go on to write 1,500 words about someone repeatedly using the wrong accent, etc, all the while skirting around the central issue of me picking up on entirely the wrong thing(s) whilst watching the film.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Oh. Is this where Diane Keaton and John Goodman are at, now? As actual actors? I expect this level of afternoon-whimsy from Ed Helms and Amanda Seyfried (and even The Voice Of Steve Martin™, to be honest*1), but even so.
Still, I imagine a guaranteed seasonal repeat-fee is a nice little earner, isn't it?*2
As four generations of the Cooper family congregate for their annual festive celebrations, we get an insight into their individual lives; their ups, their downs, their loves and losses. Yeah, it sounds like hard work, doesn't it? Don't blame me, I didn't write the film…
As is so often the case with Hollywood's Portmanteau-Lite™ subgenre of gentle comedy*3, Jessie Nelson spins far more plates than is feasible for a feature film, and only a couple of those feature anything worth picking over. Like any buffet though, you're not really supposed to like everything that's on offer (even though, crucially, you've paid for it all anyway). Like the film's metaphorical progenitor Love Actually, the viewer here can't spend enough time with the individual threads to build the emotional connection that the finale expects. Although you don't have to worry too much as the film will tell you what to feel, anyway.
Stylistically, not to mention narratively, the film is all over the place; barely even a first-draft of a screenplay, more a notebook full of ideas - good and bad - exorcised equally by releasing them onto paper. Only in this case, followed by no further revision process. Occasionally witty, charming and touching (courtesy of Marisa Tomei and Olivia Wilde's respective segments), two minutes later the film goes back to being mawkish, condescending and about as spiritually earnest as the Coca Cola truck…
Oh, and which casting director managed to sneak through the idea of Diane Keaton (69) and Marisa Tomei (51) playing siblings with a six-year age gap*4? Don't get me wrong, they're both fine actresses, but when Tomei finally referred to her 'sister' while looking directly at Keaton, I nearly choked on my mince pie. Both actresses look fantastic 'for their age'*5, but they don't look the same age. Even cinematographer Elliot Davis has noticed the visual disparity, and whenever Keaton's alone in a shot, the focus is so soft that I thought I'd developed cataracts. Which only insults everyone further, to be honest. And speaking of casting, at least none of the film's exorbitant $18m budget went on those expensive child-actors. Oh, there are plenty of children in the film of course, just not actors...
But despite my moaning (and this is the truncated version, believe me), the film never becomes completely unbearable, but it's an over attentive host making small-talk with all the guests while neglecting the meal they're meant to be serving.
Ultimately, Christmas With The Coopers is probably a passable analogy for the gatherings which fill the holiday season, where you'll tolerate a room filled with fifteen people you don't like just to catch up with two that you do.
Perhaps this is the perfect Christmas movie, after all..?
Nope.
Telly.
*looks over spectacles*
The film doesn't even fulfil its remit to itself, no.
I will a bit, yeah.
There isn't.
This disappointing movie features Olivia Wilde who also appeared in Cowboys And Aliens alongside Harrison 'Solo' Ford.
*1 And before anyone gets all pissy in the Comments Section about me taking Steve Martin's name in vain, let me remind you that he plays a talking dog in this film. And that's not even the lowest point of his career, okay?
*2 Even after you offset it against your credibility. Or dignity. Or soul.
*4 That's a rhetorical question. Venus Kanani and Mary Vernieu are responsible for the casting of the film, I just didn't want to name them in the main body of the review. Not that they deserve any less admonition than the rest of the crew, mind…
*5 And seriously, I feel fucking awful for even using those words, but since the bone of contention is the gap between their ages, it's kind of a necessary evil. Look, don't blame me; I'm not the one walking up to Keaton and Tomei in a bar and saying "why, you two could be sisters!".
*6 And hey, thanks for reading all these footnotes. That means a lot. Although if you're reading this one then you've just skimmed down them in one go because there's no corresponding *6 in the review above. Which means you've probably read the others out of context, too. Fine. Not judging, just saying…
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Now I'm in choppy waters. Woody Allen is almost a genre in himself, and one I'm nowhere near familiar enough with to call myself a film-geek. I relate to Allen's neuroses so much I know I need to do a concentrated season of his work (but that's a programme for another time). Now obviously, Woody Allen does his 'one film a year' thing (a feat which I'm in awe of, irrespective of how much I enjoy or gripe about his films), and obviously I've only seen a small percentage of those works. What this means is that I watched Annie Hall in isolation, and while even I know that it's Allen at his self-analysing best, I don't know how it fits into his other movies around that time.
Anyhow, I enjoyed Annie Hall very much; it's rarely laugh-out-loud funny, but I smirked throughout. Although it often seems that the writing itself is a lot better than the directing and the acting (even if Allen and Diane Keaton are magnificent). At times it almost feels as if the screenplay is ahead of its time and is just waiting for film-making to catch up and do it justice. For a film of the seventies it's incredibly meta, but the production makes things a little disjointed, and for the entire runtime I felt like I was waiting for it to slow down and start properly.
That's probably the point though, right? Let me know in the comments.
Although as fine as Annie Hall is, it's a conceited film which has a greatest-hits reel of itself in its own final moments, Woody Allen or otherwise…
No, to be honest I've been a bit preoccupied with the other film from 1977…
I am.
I would, in a Sunday-night, bottle-of-wine sort of a way.
There isn't.
Annie Hall features a cameo appearance from Christopher Walken, who starred in Pulp Fiction along with Sam 'Windu' Jackson.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
You are cordially invited to an almighty mess of a movie, which tries its hand at broad farce, thoughtful drama and gross-out comedy. Sadly, these don't mesh together comfortably, as 1) the farce is pretty much in full swing from the word go, with no ascension to breaking point as it's all just shouty chaos, 2) the heartfelt melodramatic pieces start too early in the film, before we've gotten to like or even know the families, and the film's not long enough to properly accommodate the number of characters we're supposed to care about, and 3) Robert De Niro, Susan Sarandon and Diane Keaton just look embarrassed for the duration of their 'raunchy' scenes. Almost as embarrassed as I was, in fact.
And then Robert De Niro fell in a swimming pool!
Not even kidding!
The Big Wedding isn't all awful, and there are chuckles to be had, but it's rarely more than that. It has the air of one of those godawful ensemble comedies with a handful of stories fighting for screen-time, and where you know there can be no clear winner, largely because the weapons they're using are so worn. Even the more likeable performances from Robin Williams and Topher Grace feel phoned-in, and the fact that the wedding couple themselves are pushed into supporting roles makes it feel more like a mashup of Meet The Parents and Mamma Mia than writer/director Justin Zackham would like you to think*1.
And then Robert De Niro got punched in the face!
Not even kidding!
I'd be able to give the film more credit if it knew what it wanted to be. The trailer makes it look like a pedestrian feel-good family comedy but it's often too bawdy for that, yet it's nowhere near as edgy or alternative as it'd like. It's a formulaic wedding-comedy that can't decide if it wants to thank you for coming, or take the piss out of what you've chosen to wear.
And then Robert De Niro called his ex-wife a cunt.
Not even kidding.
Ish. In some ways, it's more than the trailer, but in others it's exactly that.
I chuckled, when I wasn't wincing.
Not really.
DVD at best, but rent or borrow, don't buy.
Yeah. I will.
I can't imagine so.
No.
With last year's Gambit remake, this year's I'm So Excited!, and now The Big Wedding all struggling to successfully merge chaos and laughs: can Farce work in movies, now? Should it be consigned to a time when it worked better because films played by a different set of rules?
*1 Yes, as if the casting of De Niro and Seyfried wasn't making you think that already…
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
