Search
Search results
Barely Breathing (Breathing, #2)
8.0
Rate It
Book
Barely Breathing by Rebecca Donovan is a US bestseller and the incredible sequel to Reason to...
Muse of Nightmares
9.5
Rate It
Book
In the wake of tragedy, neither Lazlo nor Sarai are who they were before. One a god, the other a...
David McK (3557 KP) rated Terminator: Dark Fate (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019 (Updated Jul 24, 2022)
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines
Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles
Terminator: Salvation
Terminator: Genisys
Forget them all.
(as an aside: notice how they get progressively worse as they went along?)
Right from the opening pre-credit sequence, this sets itself up as a sequel to the superlative Terminator 2: Judgment Day, ignoring all the above-named moves (and TV series). It's also no secret that this stars Linda Hamilton's kick-ass Sarah Connor (who was unceremoniously killed off off-screen in Terminator 3, before having her own TV show in the Sarah Connor Chronicles), with Gabriel Luna's Rev-9 a more worthy successor to Robert Patrick's T-1000 than Kristinna Loken's T-X and with the (inevitable) return of Arnie himself as an original series Terminator.
Like the first 2 movies, this is essentially a chase movie, with Connor and co on the run from the Rev-9 (from a future that has never heard of Cyberdyne or Skynet) while trying to protect Natalia Reyes Danni from the Rev-9: I also have to say that, like a lot of James Cameron's movies, this features powerful female roles, with Arnie really only along as back-up.
Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles
Terminator: Salvation
Terminator: Genisys
Forget them all.
(as an aside: notice how they get progressively worse as they went along?)
Right from the opening pre-credit sequence, this sets itself up as a sequel to the superlative Terminator 2: Judgment Day, ignoring all the above-named moves (and TV series). It's also no secret that this stars Linda Hamilton's kick-ass Sarah Connor (who was unceremoniously killed off off-screen in Terminator 3, before having her own TV show in the Sarah Connor Chronicles), with Gabriel Luna's Rev-9 a more worthy successor to Robert Patrick's T-1000 than Kristinna Loken's T-X and with the (inevitable) return of Arnie himself as an original series Terminator.
Like the first 2 movies, this is essentially a chase movie, with Connor and co on the run from the Rev-9 (from a future that has never heard of Cyberdyne or Skynet) while trying to protect Natalia Reyes Danni from the Rev-9: I also have to say that, like a lot of James Cameron's movies, this features powerful female roles, with Arnie really only along as back-up.
David McK (3557 KP) rated The Matrix Resurrections (2021) in Movies
Feb 9, 2022 (Updated Oct 1, 2023)
Unnecessary sequel
Summer of 1999.
Pre Millennium.
Just at the start of our current high-tech always-on society.
And The Matrix was released, becoming hugely influential in the process and popularising the concept of 'bullet time'.
Both the sequels (Reloaded and Revolutions) were released during 'the year of the Matrix' in 2003, doubling down on the philosophical ponderings of the first movie (in particular, during Reloaded, with the whole still-to-this-day confusing Architect scenes), with Revolutions also seemingly leaving the trilogy with nowhere to go.
Until nearly 20 years later, when one of the two Wachowski siblings decided to resurrect both Neo and Trinity in this.
I's very much a film of two halves, with the first half in particular hugely self-referential (lots of nods and winks to the audience, and even clips from the earlier films shown on TV screens within the movie), while the second half settles down more into your standard action fare.
Whilst enjoyable enough, it lacks anything to match the sheer pizzaz of the first movie, or even the Freeway chase/burly brawl/chateau fight from the second or the Neo Vs Smith showdown in the third.
Pre Millennium.
Just at the start of our current high-tech always-on society.
And The Matrix was released, becoming hugely influential in the process and popularising the concept of 'bullet time'.
Both the sequels (Reloaded and Revolutions) were released during 'the year of the Matrix' in 2003, doubling down on the philosophical ponderings of the first movie (in particular, during Reloaded, with the whole still-to-this-day confusing Architect scenes), with Revolutions also seemingly leaving the trilogy with nowhere to go.
Until nearly 20 years later, when one of the two Wachowski siblings decided to resurrect both Neo and Trinity in this.
I's very much a film of two halves, with the first half in particular hugely self-referential (lots of nods and winks to the audience, and even clips from the earlier films shown on TV screens within the movie), while the second half settles down more into your standard action fare.
Whilst enjoyable enough, it lacks anything to match the sheer pizzaz of the first movie, or even the Freeway chase/burly brawl/chateau fight from the second or the Neo Vs Smith showdown in the third.
The Darkest Sin
9.0
Rate It
Book
Set in Renaissance Florence, The Darkest Sin is an atmospheric historical thriller by D. V. Bishop...
Historical fiction Renaissance Florence Italy
Merissa (12854 KP) rated Estranged in Books
Jun 8, 2023
Set in dystopian/post-apocalyptic urban surroundings, Kalei is a police officer who keeps trying to gain entrance into SWORDE - a crack team who deals with Estranged. Kalei lost her parents and sister to the Estranged, and so she wants nothing more. This all changes one evening when her home is attacked and she becomes Estranged too. Now she not only has to deal with losing her family but becoming the very person she has sworn to kill.
This is an enjoyable story that is full of action. It became a bit difficult to read halfway through, simply due to the amount of action that was taking place, plus the 'street talk' that was prevalent. It did even itself out though, and once again, became a thrilling read. With plenty of twists and turns, you don't ever see what is coming before the author wants you to.
This story is all wrapped up in this book, but it has been left open for a sequel. I hope that the story does continue as I would love to carry on with Kalei's story. Definitely recommended.
* Verified Purchase on Amazon *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Jun 2, 2016
This is an enjoyable story that is full of action. It became a bit difficult to read halfway through, simply due to the amount of action that was taking place, plus the 'street talk' that was prevalent. It did even itself out though, and once again, became a thrilling read. With plenty of twists and turns, you don't ever see what is coming before the author wants you to.
This story is all wrapped up in this book, but it has been left open for a sequel. I hope that the story does continue as I would love to carry on with Kalei's story. Definitely recommended.
* Verified Purchase on Amazon *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Jun 2, 2016
David McK (3557 KP) rated Gladiator 2 (2024) in Movies
Dec 6, 2024 (Updated Dec 6, 2024)
"My name is Gladiator"
It's only taken nearly a quarter of a century, and some insane ideas, before Ridley Scott made a sequel to his ground-breaking 2000 film Gladiator, often credited with kickstarting the resurgence in 'swords and sandels' films of the early 2000s.
In this, which plays a heavy debt to that earlier film, Paul Mescal stars as Hanno who, it turns out, also played a pivotal role in that earlier film (I don't want to give too much away, other than to say he's playing the same character circa 20 years later) and who, like Maximus before him, ends up fighting for his life in the Roman Arena for the amusement of the Roman mob.
Denzel Washington, this time, plays a role somewhat similar to Oliver Reed did in the first film, with - here - 2 Emperors instead of 1 (Commodus) in the persons of the twins Geta and Caracella - and with able support provided by the likes of Pedro Pascal (whom the trailers will make you think has a bigger role than he does) and Connie Nielsen.
Good, yes, but not up to the standards of the first.
In this, which plays a heavy debt to that earlier film, Paul Mescal stars as Hanno who, it turns out, also played a pivotal role in that earlier film (I don't want to give too much away, other than to say he's playing the same character circa 20 years later) and who, like Maximus before him, ends up fighting for his life in the Roman Arena for the amusement of the Roman mob.
Denzel Washington, this time, plays a role somewhat similar to Oliver Reed did in the first film, with - here - 2 Emperors instead of 1 (Commodus) in the persons of the twins Geta and Caracella - and with able support provided by the likes of Pedro Pascal (whom the trailers will make you think has a bigger role than he does) and Connie Nielsen.
Good, yes, but not up to the standards of the first.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Mary Poppins Returns (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Disney knocks it out of the park
It was 1964 when the world was introduced to a practically-perfect British nanny in Walt Disney’s Mary Poppins. Back then, Julie Andrews starred as the eponymous character alongside Dick van Dyke and David Tomlinson. It was an instant hit and became one of Disney’s most-loved feature films.
That is, by everyone apart from the author of Mary Poppins, PL Travers. So incensed by what she felt was Disney’s misunderstanding of her source material, she banned all future work with the studio.
So, 54 years later and with Travers’ estate finally agreeing to a sequel (I wonder how much Disney executives had to pay for that), we get a sequel that no-one was really asking for. Mary Poppins Returns brings the titular character back into the hearts of newcomers and fans alike, but is the film as practically-perfect in every way like its lead? Or is it a bit of a dud?
Now an adult with three children, bank teller Michael Banks (Ben Whishaw) learns that his house will be repossessed in five days unless he can pay back a loan. His only hope is to find a missing certificate that shows proof of valuable shares that his father left him years earlier. Just as all seems lost, Michael and his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) receive the surprise of a lifetime when Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt), the beloved nanny from their childhood, arrives to save the day and take the Banks family on a magical, fun-filled adventure.
Emily Blunt as Mary Poppins? You’re right to be sceptical. After all, how can an American actress bring to life a character so quintessentially British? Remarkably, she does it, with a cracking British accent to match. Blunt is, as she is in all her films, picture-perfect and oozing charisma. In fact, the entire cast is fabulous with the likes of Colin Firth and Meryl Streep joining the party as a sneaky bank manager and Mary Poppins’ cousin respectively. We’ve also got Julie Walters popping up every now and then as Ellen the housekeeper.
The new Banks children are absolutely wonderful. Pixie Davies, Nathanael Saleh and Joel Dawson show a range of emotions that would make seasoned actors blush, but here they thrive and look like they were having a blast. And that’s a trait clearly shared by the entire cast. Lin-Manuel Miranda’s plucky lamp-lighter, Jack, is obviously having the time of his life and this makes the whimsical nature of Mary Poppins Returns even more apparent.
In its hey-day, Mary Poppins was a technical revolution. Mixing live-action with colourful animation made the screen burst alive with imagination. Of course, special effects have moved on in the 50+ years that Mary has been away from our screens, but you’ll be pleased to know that each sequence feels just as magical.
From under the sea adventures to topsy-turvy houses, the ‘action’ scenes are beautifully filmed by director Rob Marshall. One scene in particular, involving hundreds of lamp-lighters is absolutely astounding and exquisitely choreographed.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be?
The setting of Depression-era London lives and breathes before your very eyes. The CGI and practical effects used to create the capital in 1935 is astonishing, and testament to the teams behind the film. That £130million budget was clearly very well spent.
Then there are the songs. We all know the masterpieces from the original, but will there be any here that children will still be singing along to when they grow older? That’s debatable, but there are three or four that have the potential to be future classics. Look out for Trip the Light Fantastic, which makes up part of the film’s best scenes.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be? The world is filled with such atrocities, it’s nice to sit back, relax with the family and enjoy a film that allows you to escape into your own imagination.
Any downsides? Well, while the pacing is nearly spot on, there’s no denying that Mary Poppins Returns is a long film by family film standards. At 130 minutes, it feels like this sequel is perhaps more for fans of the original than the children that the older film was clearly made for.
But these are small gripes in a sequel that pleasantly surprises on each and every turn. While lacking in the typical Disney poignancy, the film’s message is read loud and clear. There’s no doubt that Mary Poppins Returns is yet another hit for the studio and you’re sure to leave the cinema with a huge smile on your face. Mary is back and she means business.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/12/23/mary-poppins-returns-review-disney-knocks-it-out-of-the-park/
That is, by everyone apart from the author of Mary Poppins, PL Travers. So incensed by what she felt was Disney’s misunderstanding of her source material, she banned all future work with the studio.
So, 54 years later and with Travers’ estate finally agreeing to a sequel (I wonder how much Disney executives had to pay for that), we get a sequel that no-one was really asking for. Mary Poppins Returns brings the titular character back into the hearts of newcomers and fans alike, but is the film as practically-perfect in every way like its lead? Or is it a bit of a dud?
Now an adult with three children, bank teller Michael Banks (Ben Whishaw) learns that his house will be repossessed in five days unless he can pay back a loan. His only hope is to find a missing certificate that shows proof of valuable shares that his father left him years earlier. Just as all seems lost, Michael and his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) receive the surprise of a lifetime when Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt), the beloved nanny from their childhood, arrives to save the day and take the Banks family on a magical, fun-filled adventure.
Emily Blunt as Mary Poppins? You’re right to be sceptical. After all, how can an American actress bring to life a character so quintessentially British? Remarkably, she does it, with a cracking British accent to match. Blunt is, as she is in all her films, picture-perfect and oozing charisma. In fact, the entire cast is fabulous with the likes of Colin Firth and Meryl Streep joining the party as a sneaky bank manager and Mary Poppins’ cousin respectively. We’ve also got Julie Walters popping up every now and then as Ellen the housekeeper.
The new Banks children are absolutely wonderful. Pixie Davies, Nathanael Saleh and Joel Dawson show a range of emotions that would make seasoned actors blush, but here they thrive and look like they were having a blast. And that’s a trait clearly shared by the entire cast. Lin-Manuel Miranda’s plucky lamp-lighter, Jack, is obviously having the time of his life and this makes the whimsical nature of Mary Poppins Returns even more apparent.
In its hey-day, Mary Poppins was a technical revolution. Mixing live-action with colourful animation made the screen burst alive with imagination. Of course, special effects have moved on in the 50+ years that Mary has been away from our screens, but you’ll be pleased to know that each sequence feels just as magical.
From under the sea adventures to topsy-turvy houses, the ‘action’ scenes are beautifully filmed by director Rob Marshall. One scene in particular, involving hundreds of lamp-lighters is absolutely astounding and exquisitely choreographed.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be?
The setting of Depression-era London lives and breathes before your very eyes. The CGI and practical effects used to create the capital in 1935 is astonishing, and testament to the teams behind the film. That £130million budget was clearly very well spent.
Then there are the songs. We all know the masterpieces from the original, but will there be any here that children will still be singing along to when they grow older? That’s debatable, but there are three or four that have the potential to be future classics. Look out for Trip the Light Fantastic, which makes up part of the film’s best scenes.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be? The world is filled with such atrocities, it’s nice to sit back, relax with the family and enjoy a film that allows you to escape into your own imagination.
Any downsides? Well, while the pacing is nearly spot on, there’s no denying that Mary Poppins Returns is a long film by family film standards. At 130 minutes, it feels like this sequel is perhaps more for fans of the original than the children that the older film was clearly made for.
But these are small gripes in a sequel that pleasantly surprises on each and every turn. While lacking in the typical Disney poignancy, the film’s message is read loud and clear. There’s no doubt that Mary Poppins Returns is yet another hit for the studio and you’re sure to leave the cinema with a huge smile on your face. Mary is back and she means business.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/12/23/mary-poppins-returns-review-disney-knocks-it-out-of-the-park/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated How to Train Your Dragon 2 (2014) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Watch out pixar
Dreamworks’ How to Train Your Dragon was an example of setting your expectations low and coming out pleasantly surprised. The first film proved that the studio could create animated masterpieces and it left audiences across the globe hooked.
However, expectation has never been higher for its sequel, How to Train Your Dragon 2, but does it soar to the dizzying heights of its predecessor?
Thankfully the answer is a resounding yes. From beautiful animated dragons to breathtaking aerial-bound sequences, this sequel just about surpasses the original in every way.
Following on five years after events in the first film, Dragon 2 follows a 20-year-old Hiccup, voiced wonderfully by Jay Baruchel, and his sidekick Toothless in their home town of Berk as the residents come to terms with living peacefully alongside dragons.
Being Hiccup, he is naturally curious to learn about a legendary ‘dragon master’ who can enslave the beasts to form an army and sets out to persuade him to care for the animals like the villagers. This plot point is sidetracked from the outset however as we are introduced to Valka – Hiccup’s long lost mother, voiced by a rather miscast Cate Blanchett.
The bond between Hiccup and Toothless has grown massively in the five year break between films and this makes them even more enjoyable to watch. Yes, each of the villagers has their own dragon to look after, but it is the relationship between the two primary characters which we really care about the most.
Feline similarities in Toothless will not go unnoticed, his cat-like qualities give him an air of cuteness that you wouldn’t expect to come from such a menacing and ultimately deadly creature, and it is testament to Dreamworks that they have managed to craft such a personality for a character that never speaks.
The animation is also absolutely stunning, from the crystal waters of the sea around Berk to the people and dragons themselves, everything has been given an upgrade after the first film’s success and the battle scenes are beautiful in their simplicity – there’s no worrying about losing track of characters here.
However, it’s not all smoke and mirrors, the story has real meaning. Family values are explored, the way to treat animals is also looked at brieflyrs_634x1024-140205120546-634.cate-blanchett-bp.cm.2514 and ultimately, this is about one young man’s journey to maturity.
Unfortunately, the vocal performance of Cate Blanchett detracts somewhat from the overall magic. Her peculiar Scottish accent, which travels all over Europe by the time the end credits roll, is of particular annoyance and it’s a better film when she is not playing a central part. This is a shame as the realisation that Hiccup’s mother isn’t dead should be one of great consequence, but Blanchett’s strange acting hampers the scenes.
How to Train Your Dragon is to Dreamworks what WALL-E is to Pixar, each film is one of, if not the best animated feature from either studio and Dragon 2 follows that trend. It is the rare sequel that is superior to the first film – a la Spider-Man 2.
It’s an emotional rollercoaster too, and in some places very dark, possibly too much for children, but for teenagers and adults alike, there is something to enjoy here. From the engaging plot to the mesmerising soundtrack.
Overall, How to Train Your Dragon 2 is a fine film, helped along the way by some incredible animation, amazingly deep characters and a meaningful story. Only a poor showing by Cate Blanchett stops it achieving perfection.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/07/16/watch-out-pixar-how-to-train-your-dragon-2-review/
However, expectation has never been higher for its sequel, How to Train Your Dragon 2, but does it soar to the dizzying heights of its predecessor?
Thankfully the answer is a resounding yes. From beautiful animated dragons to breathtaking aerial-bound sequences, this sequel just about surpasses the original in every way.
Following on five years after events in the first film, Dragon 2 follows a 20-year-old Hiccup, voiced wonderfully by Jay Baruchel, and his sidekick Toothless in their home town of Berk as the residents come to terms with living peacefully alongside dragons.
Being Hiccup, he is naturally curious to learn about a legendary ‘dragon master’ who can enslave the beasts to form an army and sets out to persuade him to care for the animals like the villagers. This plot point is sidetracked from the outset however as we are introduced to Valka – Hiccup’s long lost mother, voiced by a rather miscast Cate Blanchett.
The bond between Hiccup and Toothless has grown massively in the five year break between films and this makes them even more enjoyable to watch. Yes, each of the villagers has their own dragon to look after, but it is the relationship between the two primary characters which we really care about the most.
Feline similarities in Toothless will not go unnoticed, his cat-like qualities give him an air of cuteness that you wouldn’t expect to come from such a menacing and ultimately deadly creature, and it is testament to Dreamworks that they have managed to craft such a personality for a character that never speaks.
The animation is also absolutely stunning, from the crystal waters of the sea around Berk to the people and dragons themselves, everything has been given an upgrade after the first film’s success and the battle scenes are beautiful in their simplicity – there’s no worrying about losing track of characters here.
However, it’s not all smoke and mirrors, the story has real meaning. Family values are explored, the way to treat animals is also looked at brieflyrs_634x1024-140205120546-634.cate-blanchett-bp.cm.2514 and ultimately, this is about one young man’s journey to maturity.
Unfortunately, the vocal performance of Cate Blanchett detracts somewhat from the overall magic. Her peculiar Scottish accent, which travels all over Europe by the time the end credits roll, is of particular annoyance and it’s a better film when she is not playing a central part. This is a shame as the realisation that Hiccup’s mother isn’t dead should be one of great consequence, but Blanchett’s strange acting hampers the scenes.
How to Train Your Dragon is to Dreamworks what WALL-E is to Pixar, each film is one of, if not the best animated feature from either studio and Dragon 2 follows that trend. It is the rare sequel that is superior to the first film – a la Spider-Man 2.
It’s an emotional rollercoaster too, and in some places very dark, possibly too much for children, but for teenagers and adults alike, there is something to enjoy here. From the engaging plot to the mesmerising soundtrack.
Overall, How to Train Your Dragon 2 is a fine film, helped along the way by some incredible animation, amazingly deep characters and a meaningful story. Only a poor showing by Cate Blanchett stops it achieving perfection.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/07/16/watch-out-pixar-how-to-train-your-dragon-2-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Finding Dory (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Is it a return to form for Pixar/
For years, Pixar was an unstoppable force. The studio combined stunning animation with thought-provoking stories that adults and children could enjoy. From Toy Story to Wall.E, everyone, at some point will have watched a Pixar film.
Then a few things caused the bubble to burst. Firstly, other companies upped their game, big time, with Dreamworks in particular being hot on the heels of their rival. Secondly, Pixar’s own partner, Disney started churning out great animated films with Zootropolis and Wreck-it Ralph worth a mention.
Finally, Pixar lost its way. Cars and its dreadful sequel, followed by an underwhelming prequel to Monsters Inc and the marketing disaster that was The Good Dinosaur all culminated in a studio damaged by its own high standards. Now, in 2016, we have a sequel to arguably Pixar’s best film, Finding Nemo, but does Finding Dory build on its predecessor or sink faster than a stone?
Dory (Ellen DeGeneres) is a wide-eyed, blue tang fish who suffers from memory loss. The one thing she can remember is she somehow became separated from her parents as a child. With help from Nemo and Marlin, Dory embarks on an epic adventure to find them. Her journey brings her to the Marine Life Institute, a rehabilitation centre for diverse ocean species and from there; she tries to reunite with her long-lost relatives.
Finding Dory opens with a neatly packaged throwback to its predecessor, providing an easy way of getting the audience up to speed with what came before it – after all, it’s been 13 years since the release of the first film. From then on, it’s full steam ahead with a story that lacks the subtlety of Finding Nemo, but is engaging nonetheless.
The animation is you guessed it, exceptional. Nemo was one of the best films to showcase Pixar’s talents and its sequel continues that trend. The vibrancy of the colour palette is breath-taking and each shimmering wave makes you feel part of the watery depths. The blacks feel endless and the diversity of marine life just adds to the sparkle.
For adults, there are some cracking references to other films. Would you believe me if I told you Pixar managed to shoehorn an Alien homage in there? Well, they did, and it works beautifully. Couple that with a surprise turn from Sigourney Weaver as a park announcer and it’s a recipe for laughs all around.
Ellen DeGeneres takes centre stage this time around and rightly so. Dory is a loveable character, especially in her wide-eyed youth, and a very well-written one, despite her constant forgetfulness. Elsewhere, Idris Elba provides some laughs as a lazy sea lion and Ed O’Neill steals the show as a grumpy octopus.
Unfortunately, the final act of the film delves into unnecessarily and uncharacteristically silly territory. The joy of Pixar’s other works is that, despite their often out-of-this-world themes, they still feel grounded in reality. Dory’s finale is so ridiculous that it spoils the effect of the plot.
Nevertheless, you’ll be reaching for your tissues more than once as director and scriptwriter Andrew Stanton combines that heart-warming story with some lovely dialogue that will resonate with all generations.
Overall, Finding Dory isn’t the outright success it could’ve been, but it doesn’t continue the slip in Pixar’s quality either. The animation is truly wonderful and some of the references to more adult films are worked in very cleverly – but that final act; it’s just awful.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/01/is-it-a-return-to-form-for-pixar-finding-dory-review/
Then a few things caused the bubble to burst. Firstly, other companies upped their game, big time, with Dreamworks in particular being hot on the heels of their rival. Secondly, Pixar’s own partner, Disney started churning out great animated films with Zootropolis and Wreck-it Ralph worth a mention.
Finally, Pixar lost its way. Cars and its dreadful sequel, followed by an underwhelming prequel to Monsters Inc and the marketing disaster that was The Good Dinosaur all culminated in a studio damaged by its own high standards. Now, in 2016, we have a sequel to arguably Pixar’s best film, Finding Nemo, but does Finding Dory build on its predecessor or sink faster than a stone?
Dory (Ellen DeGeneres) is a wide-eyed, blue tang fish who suffers from memory loss. The one thing she can remember is she somehow became separated from her parents as a child. With help from Nemo and Marlin, Dory embarks on an epic adventure to find them. Her journey brings her to the Marine Life Institute, a rehabilitation centre for diverse ocean species and from there; she tries to reunite with her long-lost relatives.
Finding Dory opens with a neatly packaged throwback to its predecessor, providing an easy way of getting the audience up to speed with what came before it – after all, it’s been 13 years since the release of the first film. From then on, it’s full steam ahead with a story that lacks the subtlety of Finding Nemo, but is engaging nonetheless.
The animation is you guessed it, exceptional. Nemo was one of the best films to showcase Pixar’s talents and its sequel continues that trend. The vibrancy of the colour palette is breath-taking and each shimmering wave makes you feel part of the watery depths. The blacks feel endless and the diversity of marine life just adds to the sparkle.
For adults, there are some cracking references to other films. Would you believe me if I told you Pixar managed to shoehorn an Alien homage in there? Well, they did, and it works beautifully. Couple that with a surprise turn from Sigourney Weaver as a park announcer and it’s a recipe for laughs all around.
Ellen DeGeneres takes centre stage this time around and rightly so. Dory is a loveable character, especially in her wide-eyed youth, and a very well-written one, despite her constant forgetfulness. Elsewhere, Idris Elba provides some laughs as a lazy sea lion and Ed O’Neill steals the show as a grumpy octopus.
Unfortunately, the final act of the film delves into unnecessarily and uncharacteristically silly territory. The joy of Pixar’s other works is that, despite their often out-of-this-world themes, they still feel grounded in reality. Dory’s finale is so ridiculous that it spoils the effect of the plot.
Nevertheless, you’ll be reaching for your tissues more than once as director and scriptwriter Andrew Stanton combines that heart-warming story with some lovely dialogue that will resonate with all generations.
Overall, Finding Dory isn’t the outright success it could’ve been, but it doesn’t continue the slip in Pixar’s quality either. The animation is truly wonderful and some of the references to more adult films are worked in very cleverly – but that final act; it’s just awful.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/01/is-it-a-return-to-form-for-pixar-finding-dory-review/