Category Archives: Fantasy

As a child of the 1990s, I long ago lost track of how many times I’ve seen “Finding Nemo” – and given Pixar’s new penchant for sequels, a return to that lushly presented underwater world was perhaps inevitable. Set several years after “Nemo,” “Finding Dory” centers on the beloved blue tang with memory problems, who ventures forth on a transoceanic journey in search of her long-lost parents. (Obviously, there’s a Pixar-trademark emotional wham moment. It packs quite a punch).

Most of the movie takes place in and around the fictional Marine Life Institute, a clear homage to California’s (amazing) Monterey Bay Aquarium. Accordingly, “Finding Dory” has less of a road-movie vibe than the original. This works to the film’s great credit: it never feels like a rehash of previous material, but comes off as fresh and energetic.

Along those lines, this wouldn’t be a Pixar movie without a full stable (or tank) of memorable new characters. There’s Hank, a delightfully curmudgeonly octopus bent on getting transferred to an aquarium in Cleveland; Destiny, a nearsighted (and slightly ditzy) whale shark; Bailey, a hypochondriac beluga whale, whose attempts at echolocation are some of the film’s funniest moments; and many more.

Message-wise, “Finding Dory” has been interpreted in many quarters as a commentary on the significance and gifts of persons with disabilities (namely, Dory’s short-term memory problems). On this issue, the film unfortunately doesn’t quite stick the landing. Throughout the movie, fishy fellow-travelers Marlin and Nemo occasionally escape predicaments by asking themselves “what would Dory do?” Their answer: act spontaneously without overthinking the matter. The problem is that this impulsiveness isn’t clearly connected to Dory’s memory problems; the film conflates Dory’s personality trait with Dory’s uniquely valuable way of seeing the world by virtue of her “disability.” Accordingly, “Finding Dory” isn’t quite as profound as it perhaps believes itself to be.

A more sober-minded, reflective approach to this issue is certainly conceivable. It could, for example, play out like this: since Dory experiences moments of breathtaking beauty over and over again, never growing jaded to them, she thereby inspires those around her to cherish their lives and sense of wonder by viewing the world “freshly.”

Perhaps I’m too persnickety, but we’ve seen the heights Pixar can hit. And “Finding Dory,” for all its entertainment value, doesn’t do much to move the ball forward in terms of innovative storytelling (by contrast, last year’s “Inside Out” definitively showed that Pixar has a great deal of fuel in its creative tank). That said, while it’s not as consistently memorable as “Toy Story 3” or “The Incredibles” it’s also not as risk-averse as, say, “Brave.”

Whether you can quote much of “Finding Nemo” from memory, or have no idea what I’m talking about, you will probably enjoy this sequel – and thematic quibbles aside, “Finding Dory” is a solid, broadly appealing entry in the Pixar canon. It doesn’t revolutionize its genre or push the boundaries of the art form – but hey, not every film really needs to do that.

VERDICT: 7.5/10
A satisfying (and touching) companion film to one of Pixar’s classics.

Normalized Score: 4.6

I dedicate this review to all the people who are familiar with this franchise, but don’t want to admit it publicly: you know you’re out there. Having played through the original strategy video games, I myself have more than a passing familiarity with the franchise’s densely layered plot arcs…and when I heard a movie was in the works, I had mixed feelings. The first teasers, for one thing, did not inspire confidence.

The verdict? Well, mixed. It’s definitely not as bad as I’d expected, given its critical drubbing on Rotten Tomatoes, but it’s wildly uneven and suffers from a curious soullessness for most of its runtime.

Set several centuries prior to the wildly popular “World of Warcraft” game, the film version of “Warcraft” centers on the flight of the Orcish Horde, led by warlock Gul’dan, out of their dying planet Draenor into the lush human world of Azeroth. (Some have apparently tried to interpret this movie as a Trumpian anti-immigration parable. If you subscribe to that view, please go away, because that’s asinine: this plot line has been around since the ‘90s). Our heroes – human warrior Lothar, half-breed orc Garona, young wannabe mage Khadgar, and legendary sorcerer Medivh – find themselves confronting not only invading orc clans, but also a dark magic (fueled by drained lives) known as the Fel. Swords and sorcery – plenty of both – ensue.

“Warcraft” gets a number of things right. The art design is outstanding, and despite a few (very) poor-quality initial trailers, the film’s CGI and motion capture are really quite good. This isn’t an unqualified plus: for most of the film’s first act, it feels more like a fancy VFX demo reel than a story in its own right. But hey, the orcs look way, way better than you’d expect…and the magic-spell effects are breathtaking. Director Duncan Jones keeps the pace moving along nicely, and the movie never feels like it outstays its welcome. There are also some nice twists and turns that keep the plot from devolving into pure formula.

The movie also has plenty of problems. For one thing, I found the film’s internal logic extremely hard to follow – and I’m already familiar with this series and with this movie’s general plot (I can only imagine how befuddling things would be for uninitiated viewers). More problematically, the film’s use of the Fel concept introduces a frustrating moral incoherence into the storyline. “Not-really-explained dark magic” is always going to be a plot gimmick in films of this sort, but such a device is typically used in a marginally more reflective way. As the film progresses, it becomes clear that Fel energy can possess and corrupt an individual whether or not they’ve done anything to warrant it. Given that this power is (ostensibly) an “evil” force, the film’s frequent use of spontaneous Fel corruption robs the story of any moral urgency. Why is Gul’dan even worth fighting if he’s not actually responsible for his actions? The theme of selling one’s soul for power isn’t a new one, but at least it’s consistent: when tempted by fate, people are likely to make decisions that compromise them. Stripping any sense of responsibility or agency from the equation means that Fel corruption is attributable to essentially random acts of violent magical upheaval – a narrative failure that undermines the movie’s storytelling and betrays the Warcraft lore as a whole.

In keeping with this general amorality – or at the very least, this lack of any casuistic texture – characters display a generally blasé attitude toward massive casualties and collateral damage. No one expresses concern for the victims whose lives are drained to generate Fel energy; both orcs and humans are much more concerned about the fact that the Fel ravages the physical landscapes it touches. Such casual utilitarianism strips the film of its emotional weight, and makes most of the movie feel coldly Nietzschean: why should anyone care about anything, or anyone, in this nasty, brutish world? (A far better movie would’ve left out the Fel entirely, centering the movie exclusively on the cultural clash between orcs and humans and their attempts to forge consensus).

That being said, in the film’s closing minutes, this downward spiral comes to a screeching halt in favor of a genuinely unexpected, and emotionally moving, climactic moment. Viewed holistically, the movie is still a mess – but its conclusion does it a great service.

In some ways, I’m not entirely surprised: “Warcraft” is a pretty thematically threadbare series. From its origins, the franchise has been less an operatic story than a purely visceral experience – as reflected in its saturated color palette, rococo aesthetics, and heavy reliance on high-fantasy tropes. The film captures that essence, but makes no attempt to transcend it; longtime franchise fans will probably be pleased, but mainstream audiences will be left wondering what all the fuss was about.

I enjoyed “Warcraft” much more than I thought I would – and if you too are a semi-closeted nerd, you’ll have a good time. But this series (let’s be honest, there’ll obviously be a sequel) won’t be rivaling “Lord of the Rings” anytime soon.

VERDICT: 5.5/10
It’s worth a Redbox rental, but “Warcraft” simply can’t hit the heights it strives so very hard to reach.

Normalized Score: 1.0