Finding Money...

Rating: 6/10 (22 December 2017)

"Finding Nemo" was such a self-sufficient and satisfying masterpiece it was beyond the predictability of needing a sequel. But once again know-it-all executives chose the easy way, milking the success of a beloved animated movie and making an ersatz of a sequel. 13 years after. It's all about the numbers, right? Well here's a number: 10. 10 reasons why the film sucked.
1. Saccharine overdose, I expect many cutesy elements in a Disney Pixar movie, it first started with the babyish version of Dory, with those big eyes meant to make hearts melt and then she opened her mouth and I could have sworn the casting agents auditioned thousands of kids to find which one would have the cutest voice ever. Yes, she was adorable but it was like a doctor telling me to open my mouth and "say aaaaaaaw".
2. The action starts too quickly, a random school trip on mister Ray's back, a random Dory's intrusion, and a random flashback and pop goes the Dory. "Finding Dory" was trying to create an emotional connection between the opening scene and the adult Dory but it felt just too rushed, it's not like we've seen Dory longing for her lost parents before, she just happens to remember she had parents.
3. You don't base the plots on comic reliefs, there was a reason why the short-term memory loss was used for Dory, it was a defining character's trait but also a running gag, here it structures the plot and makes it dependent on Dory's flashes of memories coming at the most conveniently possible time, just when she's in a false track or a dead end, there's something that pushes her on the road again. The first movie was following a simple trajectory, and was dependent on a few encounters and obstacles, here it's all about hazardous contrivances and twists of luck.
4. The film is about Dory trying to find her parents, the title makes a little sense although it was the only possible one establishing a continuity with the first film. The problem is that the title basically establishes the story from Marlin and Nemo's perspective and they're secondary characters, in fact, they're as "pivotal" as Indiana Jones in "Raiders", we understand their presence but they're also here to show that the animators didn't believe Dory alone was capable to carry a whole movie. They were right, we needed the pairs of clown fishes as the straight ones, oh the irony!
5. Too much repetition, of course it's inevitable if your main character is suffering from short-term memory loss but how many times did she needed to mention it, how many times did we need to see an excited and happy Dory just going all tail ahead. She was a lovable buffoon in the first, hysterical in a good way, now she's hysterical in the worst possible way. Everything that made the first film genuinely funny became rapidly annoying here and don't get me started on the whale speak.
6. Caricatured characterization, try to say that quickly. It seems pretty obvious for Dory, but how about Marlin? Basically, he's learned nothing from the first film, and he's still acting like a paranoid over-protective sad sack, not only that, but he says perhaps the most terrible thing to Dory without immediately apologizing, following the idiot plot where anything can be solved if the right words are said.
7. Too much time spent above the water,. I don't mind a fish going from an ocean to a tank, but this trip was a bit far-fetched even for a movie that features a fish that can read. The problem is that the first Nemo started with a shocker, but if the very rules of that sequel applied in the first film, the Barracuda or the dentist's fish tank wouldn't have caused much trouble. In a universe where a fish can talk to a sea-lion, travel on a crazy seagull, or when an octopus can easily vanish from sight like a chameleon, any thing is possible. These are not the rules "Finding Nemo" was based on.
Which leads me to that infamous car chase, Fonzie jumped the sharks, Dory jumped the truck... it's the same ruining effect. It's not enough that it's possibly the most overused climactic sequence in an action-packed movie, they had to indulge to it an a supposedly aquatic adventure. How about going for the emotional climax, how about actually making a good use of the aquatic park setting... how about not making the damn thing.
8. Indeed, was that trip necessary? Have we ever felt that there something in Dory's arc waiting to be closed. It is usual for animated sequels to focus on a character's background or on the secondary character, it worked with Buzz Lightyear for "Toy Story 2" but that's because there was good material in it. "DreamWorks" also came up with great secondary stories in the "Shrek" or "Kung Fu Panda" series, but Dory is just another-character-looking-for-her-parents with memory losses as a twist. It's a rather thin premise if you asked me. And you can tell they're trying to fatten it with the usual "anything is possible" lesson.
9. What's with that musical schmaltz titled "Unforgettable" did they try to pull a "Skyfall" or what? The song was so James Bond-esque I expected to see a woman's silhouette swimming in the ocean. What a shameful Oscar-bait, the film didn't get any nominations and there's a good reason for that.
10. It wasn't that funny, yeah, yeah, Sigourney Weaver was funny the first time and then got overused, in the French version, they even dubbed it with a famous anchorwoman, which didn't make sense, once again the star system is killing the film... I guess every country will have a famous national voice. the first film was about "Finding Nemo", the second has no reason to exist, except for "Finding Money".