From the very outset this makes a poor impression. Arnaud Sélignac's direction is brusque and forced, resulting in pronounced delivery and acting that feels distinctly unnatural, and decidedly brisk pacing that immediately feels inappropriate and outright awful. The dialogue is all but nonsensical, not in terms of being Dadaist or satirical but more in terms of making little to no sense, and making leaps that - should one know no better - would give one the idea that lines or scenes were cut out from in the middle of others that may be only seconds apart as they appear. For that matter, maybe editor Tom Priestley is also to blame for overly curt editing, yet even individual moments are rather flummoxing. One emphatic line to greet us as the narrative first picks up just a few minutes in almost made me pause, for I couldn't be more confused at the non-logic and in-universe implications of child Nemo's remark that "it's all in color." What is this movie, and how did Sélignac secure the casting of recognizable stars including Harvey Keitel, Carole Bouquet, and Dominique Pinon, and more?
Granted, 'Nemo' is a a fantasy film, and we can generously assume that the power of imagination could lend to storytelling that's scattered or off-kilter, or refuse more ordinary, straightforward sensibilities of fiction. Yet the doing here seems to share less in common with the whimsy of Terry Gilliam or Steven Spielberg than with the total obliteration of rhyme or reason that was Catherine Breillat's confounding 2010 slop 'Sleeping beauty.' The difference is that where Breillat's stumble was chiefly in its slapdash narrative, here it's more about the other characteristics of Sélignac, Jean-Pierre Esquenazi, and Telsche Boorman's screenplay. Perhaps one might reasonably say that the considerations here echo how dreams can flit to and fro without consistent, traceable progression; then again, even the most outlandish dreams I've ever had, and remembered, were more cogent than the exploration here. David Lynch's 'Mulholland Drive' is arguably more cohesive. Anyway, none of this excuses those weaknesses I've already observed, nor the other instances of acting that's airy and aimless.
In fairness, the sets are gorgeous. So are the costume design, hair, and makeup; even the lighting is joyously smart and inviting, and the practical effects. Philippe Rousselot's cinematography is warm and lovely, making every odd and end very easy on the eyes. Some of the acting comes of better than other examples (sorry, Seth Kibel; what's that phrase about not working with animals or children?). There are terrific ideas in the story, even dancing as it does from one notion to another, and in the scene writing, and I wish only that the script were more careful so as to make better use of those ideas. Mind you, there are also ideas here that are just questionable or plainly bad, so the scales unfortunately balance out. And one way or another we have to weigh all these qualities against the more tawdry or senseless elements, and there are so many of the latter that considerable upper limits are placed on the entertainment value. It's hardly that 'Nemo' is altogether bad, but it's definitely not great. If you want fun fantasy fare, you can get it elsewhere easily enough.
The picture is pretty much all over the place. While some facets are admirable and the entirety is enjoyable in some measure, in too many ways the result is sadly less than convincing. Taken as a whole the plot is also weirdly simplistic, and lacking in substance. I suppose it's all decent enough for something light and uninvolved. If you're looking for carefully made, raptly absorbing, intensely invigorating cinema, though, I regret to inform that you need to go elsewhere. Check out 'Nemo' if you like, and have a good time with it; for better and for worse, the cast sure seemed to. Save it for a lazy day, though, and don't get your hopes up, because when all is said and done there's just not much enduring worth here.
