The problem with doing moving reviews is that I'm not a movie buff. This is especially a problem when I like a movie. If I dislike a movie, I can always find lots of reasons. But if I liked it, all I can say is whether I liked the movie or not, and mention a few bits that were good. I don't know what it is that makes a movie great instead of just good, or good instead of adequate. I don't know the terminology or the techniques they use.
Now, I loved Finding Nemo. I see only a few movies a year, and I'm quite satisfied that Finding Nemo is one of them. But as I said, I rate it below Monster's Inc. and the Toy Story movies. Why? I dunno. If pressed, I probably would have said something about the open ocean not having a lot of scenery, that is, it all tends to look the same. And in my memory, the movie seems kind of slow--which is ridiculous, because it sure didn't feel like that when I was watching it.
And now Ian Hamet has come along and said the things I would probably have said if I had known then what I know now, and if I knew what was I talking about. I can sum it up in one word: pacing. Or two words: comic timing. In Monsters Inc. and the Toy Story flicks, the timing is perfect. In Finding Nemo, it's off. And now that Ian's pointed it out, I can think of bunches of examples (the scene with the whale, for example, dragged, especially the interiors).
And so they achieve most excellent goodness...but not greatness.
Thanks, Ian!Posted by Will Duquette at June 10, 2003 09:16 PM
Still, I think A Bug's Life is better, too. Nemo may have the sharper script, but Bug has no pacing issues.