10 Years Ago, Finding Nemo Was Disappointing by Pixar Standards

But since then, a shift in critical expectations transformed 2003's charming deep-sea adventure tale from "slightly subpar Pixar" into a "modern classic."
marlin and dory and jellyfish.jpg

Ten years ago today, a movie about a little orange clownfish and his worried dad's trans-Pacific journey to rescue him started playing in theaters.

It was Finding Nemo, and its arrival in the world was, by most accounts, glorious. It broke box-office records and won an Academy Award, and a decade after its release, Andrew Stanton's affectionate computer-animated film about dad-fish Marlin's ocean-wide search for Nemo is widely considered a modern classic. It holds a 99 percent "fresh" rating on movie-review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes after being re-released in 3D last year—a higher score than all the studio's other 12 films except for the perfect-scoring first and second Toy Story films. It taught a generation of now-young adults to chirp out "Just keep swimming!" when times get rough, and it has even inspired a sequel due in 2015.

But Finding Nemo wasn't unanimously recognized as one of the Pixar greats at first. Instead, some critics considered it a mild disappointment to the studio's sterling reputation—a condemnation that, 10 years and a few truly under-inspired films later, seems ironic in light of the critical reception of Pixar's and Disney-Pixar's more recent fare.

Even back in 2003, every new Pixar creation was already burdened with the task of measuring up to its predecessors (a tradition that lives on today, and, it could be argued, yields more and more unsatisfying results). After releasing Toy Story, the first-ever all-computer-animated movie, in 1995, the CGI-animation studio went on a sensational winning streak with the massive successes A Bug's Life, Toy Story, Toy Story 2, and Monsters Inc.

So when Nemo's undersea adventure arrived in U.S. theaters on May 30, 2003, critics across America praised its magnificent visual elements, its touching story, and its punchy, memorable characters that were funny to both kiddie moviegoers and their parents. Like its forerunners, Finding Nemo was a delight for audiences and a new technological high-water mark for Pixar, the general chorus went.

But, make no mistake—it was no Monsters Inc. What? Please.

"Visual imagination and sophisticated wit raise Finding Nemo to a level just below the peaks of Pixar's Toy Story movies and Monsters Inc.," sniffed The New York Times, while USA Today's reviewer reasoned that while Nemo lacked the clever humor of Monsters Inc., "kids will identify with the spunky sea fish Nemo, and adults will related to Marlin, Nemo's devoted dad." The Seattle Post-Intelligencer wrote that Nemo couldn't "muster the kind of emotional tug that appeals to all generations and made several of the earlier Pixar films such instant classics," and one reviewer at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette even docked points for its lack of the "defining musical moment we usually get from Pixar (was Randy Newman busy or what?)." NPR found Nemo to be initially cloying, but allowed that its faults were forgivable because there was "enough imagination left in the Pixar formula."

And according to The Gettysburg Times, Finding Nemo wasn't as wondrous or resonant as Monsters Inc., or as "wildly imaginative." Still, though, "slightly subpar Pixar beats most family entertainment hands down."

Yes, that's right: Ten years ago, Finding Nemo was the subpar Pixar movie.

Of course, many viewers and critics still don't place Finding Nemo among Pixar's best offerings. The Atlantic's own Christopher Orr, in his self-described "moderately heretical view," considers Nemo to be a lesser Pixar hit. Still, though—after watching the studio release far-less-beloved fare like last year's divisive Brave and 2011's disastrous Cars 2, it's easy to wonder whether critics and audiences didn't realize just how insanely good things were at the time.

Presented by

Ashley Fetters is a former associate editor at The Atlantic.

How to Cook Spaghetti Squash (and Why)

Cooking for yourself is one of the surest ways to eat well. Bestselling author Mark Bittman teaches James Hamblin the recipe that everyone is Googling.

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register.

blog comments powered by Disqus


How to Cook Spaghetti Squash (and Why)

Cooking for yourself is one of the surest ways to eat well.


Before Tinder, a Tree

Looking for your soulmate? Write a letter to the "Bridegroom's Oak" in Germany.


The Health Benefits of Going Outside

People spend too much time indoors. One solution: ecotherapy.


Where High Tech Meets the 1950s

Why did Green Bank, West Virginia, ban wireless signals? For science.


Yes, Quidditch Is Real

How J.K. Rowling's magical sport spread from Hogwarts to college campuses


Would You Live in a Treehouse?

A treehouse can be an ideal office space, vacation rental, and way of reconnecting with your youth.

More in Entertainment

Just In