Finding the Flaws in FINDING DORY - A Kinda-Sorta Review

SPOILERS FOR "FINDING DORY," OBVIOUSLY, SO DON'T READ UNLESS YOU'VE SEEN THE MOVIE

Before I go any further, I want to admit that I absolutely cried multiple times during Finding Dory. The show was on its first Friday night and the theater was jam packed with not just children, but people my age who experienced Finding Nemo in theaters. 

I genuinely enjoyed Finding Dory. It's Pixar's best sequel since Toy Story 3... even though that's not saying much, given Pixar's fairly recent foray into unnecessary sequel territory with mixed results. Any questions we had about Dory from Nemo are satisfyingly answered in typical crying-your-eyes-out Pixar fashion. 

The literal instant the opening shot lit up the screen, the audience gasped. Tiny, baby Dory. Super adorable, right? As the scene progresses, we can see that Dory was born with short-term memory loss, but her parents were not. As the story progresses, we are treated to brief yet vital flashbacks, memories locked deep within Dory's subconscious. 

In one of these flashbacks, Dory's parents are holding a private discussion as to whether they think Dory can survive on her own when she grows up. For parents with mentally and physically disabled children, this is a real concern. And this is what makes their reunion going into the final act of the film so rewarding. We also learn that Marlin is still constantly frustrated with Dory's inability to remember, and by the end of the film, he's learned that thinking like Dory isn't such a bad thing. Marlin has a fully developed brand new arc that, while touched on in the first movie, feels completely new given the emphasis on Dory. 

Okay, so long story short, Finding Dory is about overcoming disabilities of all sorts and accepting those who may struggle. Much like almost every Pixar film, it's a highly positive message for not just children, but adults as well. I learned a thing or two about overcoming anxiety from last year's Inside Out, and I've been struggling with that for over a decade. 

So what's the problem? Well, there are a couple of scenes in particular, both including a pair of sea lions voiced by Idris Elba and Dominic West. These sea lions lay on a rock and don't do much... other than yell at a third sea lion to stay the hell off their rock. They provide a few (admittedly stellar) laughs while helping out Nemo and Marlin. The third sea lion in question looks ridiculous with his thick, crooked unibrow and what are basically googly eyes. He literally doesn't do anything other than try to get on that fucking rock, but is excluded by the other sea lions. 

So... doesn't that kind of defeat the whole message of the movie? If accepting differences in others is the central theme of the film, then why the fuck didn't they let him on the goddamn rock? Shit, even seeing him accepted onto the rock WITH HIS FRIENDS at the end of the movie would've been better than what we got. Even Ed the hyena from The Lion King was accepted by the others, even though he was just comedic relief. 

I was really loving the shit out of Finding Dory until this came up. I admit that I laughed quite a bit, as did just about everyone else. It's funny, but after the laughter died down, part of me felt uncomfortable laughing at this poor sea lion who, like Dory, just wanted to be accepted. The filmmakers threw in a cheap joke at the expense of the theme. What the fuck were they thinking?

My other, less important gripe with the film: the ending. Not the tail end of the movie when they're back home, but right before that with the truck. You remember, because how could you forget?

It seemed to me that the filmmakers kept digging themselves into this situational hole. One thing after the next goes wrong, but after a certain point it just has to end. The entire sequence with the truck on the highway felt so cartoonish, so unimportant, that I was convinced I was watching a subpar Dreamworks movie. It was such a grand spectacle that unfolded like children playing with their toys. Not since Cars 2 have I seen such an un-Pixar sequence in a Pixar movie. 

In fact, much of the story in Finding Dory jumped over some logic boundaries. I don't call this kind of stuff out much, but it was jarring for a Pixar film. Marlin "knows a guy" who can get them to California, but how did he find Crush if he had been surfing the currents? How did Dory and Hank get into that stroller undetected? It's little things like this, small gaps in logic and time, that really took me out of the movie. Small gripes like these are dismissive coming from just about any studio, but I do expect more from Pixar. It's just not like them to have these small gaps. 

At this point I'm just nitpicking. 

Really, though, I did love Finding Dory. If these gripes, the sea lions and the truck sequence, had been reworked, I would call it one of Pixar's best. 

Instead it just made me cry a few times. 

Even though this isn't an official review, I'm giving a little score anyway, in case you were wondering. 9.2/10 is still pretty damn good. 

BATMAN VS SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE - Review

Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice

Comic book/Superhero, 2016
2 hours 31 minutes

Directed by Zack Snyder

Rated PG-13 for "intense sequences of violence and action throughout, and some sensuality"

Starring
Henry Cavill
Ben Affleck
Jesse Eiseneberg
Amy Adams
Holly Hunter
Gal Gadot

I wanted to like Batman vs Superman. Why wouldn’t I? For several years, I have been reading both of their stories and I have nothing but respect for both characters. Even though I didn’t like Man of Steel (and my frustration for the film has only grown over the years), I had a little bit of hope that this movie would right the wrongs of the past. 

After seeing the trailers for the film, my predictions were as follows: Messy plot, overdone philosophical debate about the role of heroes in society, and nonstop action in the final act. It didn't help that the second trailer gave away the whole story.

What I got was worse. 

Before I get into the heavy stuff, I need to explain something about myself. I know I’ve been doing this critic thing for a few years. But the fanboys are going nuts, getting angry at film critics for simply voicing their negative opinion of the film. Now, I assume that most of the critics have no understanding of these characters. They don’t understand the Justice League teases like comic book fans would, so their views might be skewed. They’re looking at the film from a perspective of, “oh, ANOTHER comic book movie. Let’s see what kind of mess we’re in for this time,” instead of, “I hope this has some sweet references and cool homages to the comics!” 

I’m coming to you from the perspective of the latter. So let’s start with the good. 

There are some nice visual homages to the comics, a few great ones from The Dark Knight Returns (in which Batman and Superman fight in the final act). It’s cool to see that in any comic book movie, but it’s the one thing Batman vs Superman does well. There's also a single, truly great Batman fight that comes towards the end of the film (where Superman is not involved). It was featured in one of the trailers and the whole experience is about as Batman as it could be. Instead of the stiff, realistic martial arts used in Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy, Batffleck uses a multitude of gadgets and soars across the room with comic book-esque fighting moves, like something out of the Arkham video game series. It’s really awesome, and I wouldn’t mind seeing a movie filled with more of that. 

You’re probably wondering, what exactly is WRONG with Batman vs Superman? To be perfectly frank, most of it. On a pure filmic level, the entire production is a mess. The first two acts are a jumble of different storylines, most of which serve nothing for the plot. 

Bruce Wayne is attempting to hunt down a criminal we have no reason to care about. Clark Kent is at odds with the government after the destruction of Metropolis in Man of Steel. Lex Luthor is up to something, but again, there's no reason for us to care. Wonder Woman is up to something, but we don’t know what and there is no reason to care other than that we know she is Wonder Woman. Even the intro to the Justice League is presented as a giant piece of exposition dropped like a big turd, serving no other purpose other than set up for the next film. 

This is the perfect example of a movie that was written backwards. The title of the movie itself says enough: Batman vs Superman means the two heroes are going to battle for some reason or another. How does Snyder get them there? Well, he's got a few characters to play a part in a grand scheme which adds up to a bunch of characters doing rather unnecessary work. The final 45 minutes is the culmination of these threads, yet only a couple of them actually matter. 

As soon as one scene from one story ends, a different scene from the next story picks up. It's too chaotic. Nothing leads to the next thing, and there are frequent black outs that fade into the next scene, as though the editor has no understanding of how to cut scenes together. Never before has a superhero film been less focused. 

The visual effects and score are even noticeably worse than the editing. The visual effects, especially during the final 45 minutes, are as bad as a $250 million budget can afford. I guess that's saying something. Much like Interstellar Hans Zimmer fell asleep on his organ once again, and not even Junkie XL (who scored Deadpool) could save him. 

Marketing is somewhat to blame for the failure of the film. In the second trailer we are given quite a bit to dissect, including much of the Batman and Superman fight, Wonder Woman and Doomsday. Here’s the problem: that’s actually the whole movie. If you think this is anything other than Batman and Superman and Wonder Woman teaming up to fight Doomsday (who is so clearly created by Lex Luthor using the remains of Zod) then you are sadly mistaken. Even the "money shots" from the trailer are the same ones they use in the movie, so Wonder Woman's first on screen appearance is identical to what's in the trailer. 

Everything above this point, is my perspective as a critic. This next bit is my perspective as a comic book fan. 

My biggest problem with the movie is the director, Zack Snyder. At one point I was convinced he was a good choice for this project. Man of Steel looked cool until I was in the theater. I thought maybe Batman vs Superman will redeem him. The trailer only confirmed my suspicions. Looks like more of the same. It’s dark and unnecessarily gritty. 

Then I started reading the interviews. 

Holy mother of God, Snyder is one dumb fuck. The incompetence this man has, not just as a filmmaker, but a so-called “fan” of Superman, is astounding. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Snyder said, “I was surprised with the fervency of the defense of the concept of Superman... I feel like they were taking it personally that I was trying to grow up their character.” If Snyder were an actual "student of Superman," as the article puts it, he would know that Superman doesn't need growing up. Batman changed radically once Frank Miller got his mitts on him in the 80s, and that shook up his status quo. The Dark Knight Trilogy works because Batman is allowed to be grown up, to be dark. Regarding Batman's killing spree, I lost track of the body count fairly quickly. He doesn't only blow stuff up, he uses actual machine guns on his enemies. 

But, to be fair, Snyder has gone on record, saying, "A little more like manslaughter than murder, although I would say that in the Frank Miller comic book that I reference, he kills all the time."

You sure about that, Zack? 

From Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns

Although Snyder fucks up Batman, he does give the character a good reason to dislike Superman: He fucked up Metropolis and now we've got a God living among us. That's fine, but I'm not as concerned with Batman's motives.

And then there's Lex Luthor, or more specifically, Jesse Eisenberg's portrayal.

My favorite image of Luthor and Superman is one that has been seen dozens of times in dozens of comics. Luthor stands facing the floor-to-ceiling windows of his immense office, gazing out on Metropolis... and Superman, who is floating just on the other side of the window. Two of the most powerful men on the earth... Luthor, with his intellect, wealth, and arrogance. Superman with his brawn, compassion, and determination to do good. Where was THAT in Dawn of Justice?

Here's the Lex Luthor I know. This quote is taken from Luthor, speaking to Clark Kent (from Superman: American Alien #4, written by Max Landis):  

"People aren't important. Not as a whole. But everyone runs around like they've got a big S on their chest for 'special,' but the actual gift of genius, of work ethic, of aspiration, is rarer than a white tiger. Thats' why you see people throughout history rising above the masses. Those are the changers. Those are the doers. You are not important. You're not. I am... I am one of the chosen few not because someone was nice enough to murder my parents, or because mommy birthed me onto a throne - but because I am truly, actually, indisputably exceptional. I did this all myself, from day one, and that's not braggadocio - that's an empirical fact."

This has been at the core of my favorite interpretation of the character. He has changed over the decades, yes, but he's always been a brilliant and ingenious super villain. Did you get any of this from Eisenberg's performance? Did he come off as being intelligent? There was barely any conflict between the two adversaries. For months, Jesse Eisenberg has been hyping up not just the movie, but his own performance. In one interview (which I'm having trouble finding) he said he had one particular scene which was one of his crowning achievements. I assume he was referencing the remarkably erotic scene in which he force-feeds another man a Jolly Rancher simply because "It's cherry." Luthor was literally just a prop to create Doomsday and to set the stage for the Fight of the Century.

And THEN there's Superman himself.

I can't remember the last time I've seen such a depressed looking Superman. Most of the time, he doesn't even look like he wants to be saving anyone. This is most likely due to Cavill's dull performance. Can't hurt for Superman to smile once in a while, you know? There's no sense of wonder or fun in this movie, heaven forbid Superman cracks a joke once in a while. Even Clark Kent, now a Daily Planet journalist, has nothing to do but brood over nothing. The relationship between him and Lois is nonexistent with the exception of Zack Snyder's idea of a date, which is hopping into the bathtub while still wearing clothes. Superman might represent the cynisism of the modern world, but Jesus fucking Christ, that makes for one God-awfully boring and uninspired movie. When you want to make your superheroes realistic, don't make them assholes who don't even seem to want to do the job they volunteered for.

Snyder has repeatedly referenced Watchmen in regards to having similar themes. He isn't wrong. Watchmen, Man of Steel and now Batman vs Superman all deal with the complex and philosophical issues of heroism and vigilantism in society. After three films of asking the same rhetorical questions, Snyder has yet to find a suitable answer. The second season of Daredevil (specifically episode three) did the conversation better, and in a single hour of television. There's no doubt that Justice League will continue to explore these same themes.

The big argument for this that I've seen so far is that it's a different interpretation. It's a valid argument. So why didn't Warner Bros decide to adapt Superman: Red Son, in which Superman's ship crash lands in the Soviet Union instead of Smallville Kansas? THAT is a different take on the hero. THAT is something different. Soviet Batman is significantly different in THAT because he's a fucking Russian (at least, I think he's a Russian. Either way, it's a different take on Batman) with different ideals. However, when spending millions of dollars to bring 75 year old characters (which are so engrained in popular culture) to the big screen and wide audiences, there's a limit to how much you can change the characters without upsetting those who care more about the characters than the general masses. Batman and Superman used to kill in their infancy (Batman even carried a gun for a brief time), but they've both grown up so much that most people forget. They are known today as guardians of peace and justice who do not kill, and I believe their creators would be proud of how they have evolved over the decades. 

If the core of the characters don't remain in tact, then is it really a story about them?

I think this may be the first time I have been unable to understand the opinion of the other side. I don’t understand. I really, truly don’t understand how anyone can like this movie. There are certain movies that others like that I don't and I can understand why. This, though… I don’t get it. Is there something I’m missing? Movies are supposed to be for entertainment, but isn’t there a line? 

When the cast says "the movie is for the fans, not the critics," it's because they know it's a lost cause. Jesus, that's not even a fair thing to say, and that's coming from a fan AND critic! At the end of the day, no matter how good or bad a movie is, it's subject to the same scrutiny as any other. Those involved in production have put their heart into this movie, but that doesn't mean it will be well received. They made a bad movie, pure and simple.


For many, Dawn of Justice is a dream come true. Assembling the dream team is something I've always wanted to see, and their spats throughout comic history never cease to entertain. But this is not my Batman. This is not my Superman. The Batman I know and trust doesn't commit murder or manslaughter. The Superman I know would never have let Zod level Metropolis. The Lois Lane I know is not incompetent at the moment of truth. The Lex Luthor I know actually despises Superman for reasons other than the advancement of the plot. Hell, even the Jimmy Olsen I know isn't a goddamn undercover agent.

Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice is an insult to superhero and comic book movies. It's an insult to the moviegoers and the comic book readers. It is an insult to every genre it falls under. I cannot remember the last time I watched a comic book movie this horrific. Perhaps if I were not a fan nor a critic, I would think otherwise. But as both, I have to say this film is among the worst of the genre that I have ever seen. We live in a world where Man of Steel is "the good one."

Why is it Batman VS Superman?
Why not Batman AND Superman?