Dinosaur (2000)

Again, this came from <a href=http://pub4.ezboard.com/bnicktheshadow>my board</a>.

PROS

This film is best described as being akin to that stunning, beautiful girl in your class who you simply can't take your eyes off. She's simply stunning in terms of looks. You can't help but notice her fine features - her flowing hair, her glowing eyes, and that charming smile that just melts you.

Hey, good lookin'.

In other words, this film is a technical marvel. Dinosaurs have been done over and over again since 3D computer art went mainstream in the first place. Short after short, we have seen them increase in detail over the years. The peak was of course in the CG/model blending of Jurassic Park... but in terms of a true animated feature, Dinosaur is paramount. From a modelling standpoint, the dinosaurs in Dinosaur are spectacular. From an animation standpoint, it goes even further beyond that. The texturing is magnificent. The movements are lifelike. Even the backgrounds, the scenery - they are all spectacularly rendered. In addition, there were many scenes where the dinosaur objects are mapped and edited onto pre-shot aerial footage, and the blend was certainly well done. I speak, of course, of the scenes involving water, which always seems to be one of the decisive factors in animation.

That said... this film is just photorealistic. In fact, the cinematography goes beyond simple interpolation of footage and animated objects. It gets to the point where they even add motion blur to some scenes to give it a dramatic slow-motion effect. This is used in all the right places and evokes some images that are, to say the least, memorable.

The musical score has a very nice exotic quality to it. Although the main theme is not utilized enough or on a great enough scale to linger in my mind for days on end, the music in general captures the "natural" style and the environment of the film.

Finally, the use of Carnotaurs instead of Tyrannosaurs was fairly original, although this step in originality seems a little on the deliberate side.

CONS

Well, just like that pretty girl in your class you can't take your eyes off of - she may be good-looking, but she really doesn't have all that much substance to her. Once you get to know her, you lose all interest in her because she's really just a ditz.

This film can best be compared to Titanic. Art design? Beautiful. Direction? Quite commendable, I must say. But then you have the issue of the screenplay - and I can say with confidence, the guy who wrote this should be shot. The flaws of this film can be traced directly back to him. He is responsible for destroying an otherwise brilliant cinematic work of art. Checking on the IMDB, the script and story were put together by seven different people, each of whom only have a small fistful of credits to his or her name, of which none are significant. "Tales of the Crypt"? Out to Sea? Oh, please. What the hell kind of credentials are those?

Supposedly, Dinosaur was originally a film with no dialogue, but that idiot of an executive Michael Eisner declared that it had to have some dialogue to a) reduce a classic film into a kids film, because everybody knows animation's for children, right? and b) profit off increased sales of McDonald's Happy Meals. What an idiot. They threw together that chicken@#%$ script for the sake of having some dialogue? Don't they know that the beauty of film is showing, not telling? If you aren't going to have anything useful to say, why say anything at all?

The screenplay is just terrible. It is wretched. It's kind of like the actors doing the voices were reading off a piece of toilet paper they just wiped their asses with. At some points, it sinks below Titanic, though that comparison is already very harsh. In fact, it's on the level of the direct-to-video sequels to The Land Before Time - the same videos that completely tainted the original film and turned the name from a work of art to a kiddy franchise. The screenplay is utterly unquotable. It doesn't even have lines that are memorable because they are bad, Ã* la "I'm flying, Jack!" Unless you count that infamous "love monkey" line which you've all undoubtedly seen from the trailer. If you haven't, count yourself lucky.

Speaking of the "love monkey", which is actually a lemur (by the way, all lemurs in this film are referred to as "monkeys" presumably to avoid confusing the kids), all the rumors you heard about him are true. So you could take Jar Jar Binks, eh? Well, try this little critter on for size! And if you hated Jar Jar... don't see Dinosaur. You'll be pulling your hair out every time something comes out of that furball's trap. And if you're bald... well, let's not think about that.

The story itself lacked substance and meaning. It seems to have a subliminal anti-Darwinist sentiment to it, making the semi-villain of the story the advocate of the "survival of the fittest" principle. But isn't that contradictory, since we're dealing with dinosaurs here in the first place?

Also, you tell me how the dinosaurs survived the meteorite strike at the beginning of the movie (no real spoiler there). At least in The Land Before Time it was just mass earthquakes in a concentrated locale.

OVERALL

Like I said - this film is the stunningly attractive chick that turns out to be a ditz once you get to know her. She looks so good, she's one to dream about. But she lacks substance. The Land Before Time is a deeper, more meaningful film. Dinosaur is essentially another Titanic - all visuals. I wouldn't say Dinosaur is a bad film, but it is shameful compared to what it could have been.

Bravo!! You know, I must say that I enjoy your reviews better than actually going to the movies. My chair is more comfortable, my floor isn't sticky, there are no kids screaming, and the temperature is comfortable.....not to mention the snack bar is ten times better. But something tells me that this is not the movie to see in the comfort of my own home.....

IronParrot, all the reviews I have read of the movie have said basically the same thing (with less style, however) so I have come to the conclusion that you're right, but I have to go to it anyways, just for the visual. Keep up the good work, man!

IronParrot, I agree with you, but the meteor strike thing..
My problem with it, actually, is that NOT ENOUGH dinosaurs survived it. From all the science books & videos that I've seen on the subject, most of the dinosaurs survived the meteor, they died off much later because there was practicaly no vegetation left; the herbivores died out because of that and the carnivores died out later because there weren't any more herbivores for them to eat. All of this didn't happen in a day; it took years, maybe even generations; you have to consider the global range of these creatures. There were billions of them all around the world, they didn't just die out in a few seconds.
One of my main problems with the film is that the "survivor group" is WAAAAAAAYYYY too small!
and anyone remember where they say that that Brachiosaurus/Diplodocus is the last of her kind?
well, HOW ON EARTH WOULD THEY KNOW THAT?!?!
I doubt that they took a trip around the whole planet! My problem main with this, actually, is that they made it on too small a scale. If they had at least met another group of survivors in their travels, that would have been okay...
Also, why is it that in all the dinosaur films ever made thus far with dialogue, they make the T-Rexes a bunch of dumb dinosaurs who can't even talk. No argument about different laguages here; the lemurs undoubtly had a different language than the Iguanodons, and yet they spoke normaly.
Also, if all the dinosaurs talk, then why do we see in the very beginning (when the egg floats down the river) two male dinosaurs (triceratops I think) roaring at each other?
Another CON of course, was the ending (the few seconds before the end of the movie); it was a copy of the "Lion King" ending (last few seconds), and there absolutely no cause for all the characters to become so excited. And then every dinosaur around the place follows their example.
Looks to me like a cheap attempt at a majestic ending.

BTW, If you want to see something with special effects just as good, buy the newly-released video "Walking with Dinosaurs". It's a 3-hour long "natural history" of the creatures. You may think it's boring, but it's divided into 6 parts, with each part having a story while introducing new species and information. Although it's a documentary, I'd prefer it over "Dinosaur" any day, although I'm still going to get the video of that movie, no matter how many cons it may have.

PS. As you may have noticed, I dropped the "z" talk due to popular demand... makes my character seem a lot different, doesn't it?

By the way, nothing that I mentioned is as spoiler, for it can all either be found on the official site or in one of the previews. And I think the only people who will understand what I said about the ending are the ones who've seen the movie.

Without the "z" talk, I had to double-check to make sure you were the same guy.

Good points you mentioned, actually. Very good points. BUT - with the proximity of the meteorite strike as shown in the film, all the dinosaurs in THAT VICINITY would have been wiped completely. Those far, far away - far beyond the range of the film as shown in Aladar's journey - would have died from lack of vegetation due to the sunlight blockage caused by the dust raised by the meteorite collision.

And the Brachiosaur... that disturbed me. Last of her species? Yeah, right. First of all, there's that problem with how they could know she was last - and also, the species was extinct by the early Cretaceous. Credibility is notably missing here.

True, not only the Brachiosaur, but also the "monkeys". There weren't any lemurs around in that time. Nothing that even looked like lemurs!
Also, did you ever notice how in all the reviews of the story, comments on it, etc, it says "..when a giant fireball hit.."
I suppose that's another little "substitute" to avoid confusing the kids. But "fireball"?! I mean that's just plain STUPID!! Even little kids should know what an asteroid is!
In another review about the story, they call it a "comet".
About the dying-out thing, however, the vegetaion wouldn't have died instantly. And even when it did, the dinosaurs would be able to survive for quite some time. Maybe cannibalism helped, I wouldn't know, but I'm POSITIVE that they didn't all just die out a few days after the meteor hit. It was too large a dynasty to just die out that quickly.
Oh, well, without arguing on this topic further, I think I'll just go and watch the 2 last parts of "Walking with Dinosaurs". The last one deals with their extinction, so I'll probably find the correct answer...

I only saw 1 of the 2 parts, so I don't have the answer to the debate, but the second-last part of the video DID reveal another CON to the movie;
remember when the egg momentarily went into the water at the begginning? Remember that thing that looked like a huge Tadpole with legs swam up to it?
If it wasn't completely extinct at that time yet, it was living only in Antarctica; in all other parts of the world, crocodiles had driven it out.

So the movie had a lousy story, so what? The visuals more then made up for it. I went there knowing it would not be an intellegint movie, and I was right. I don't care though, and this is coming from someone very interested in this field of study (since I don't believe an asteroid killed off the dinasaurs, though that's another story all together, I won't even go into that.) This movie was visually stunning, despite the fact that the characters shouldn't have talked. The water on he dinasaurs, did you see that? Amazing. I don't care that the story was worse then my little sisters scriblings, it was well worth it.

Yeah. I'm not saying it's a bad film - its just that the only reason why I saw it was for the visuals, and the visuals alone don't justify a second viewing. One viewing is enough.

Tater, you have a little sister??

Heh, Darthess Taterette I guess

Well, I saw the last part of the documentary, and it seems that the meteor wasn't the only thing that wiped out the dinosaurs; volcanoes had started popping up at that time and the Earth was covered in poisonous sulphuric gases. Because of this atmospheric polution, not a lot of dinosaur eggs hatched. The mammals, on the other hand, were small scavengers and didn't have to lay eggs.
Then the meteorite struck.
The combination of these two events brought the dinosaurs to extiction.
Yet, I doubt that they would have died as quickly as you say. Only 65% of the earth's creatures died; mammals didn't come after the dinosaurs, you know, they came 220 million years ago.
So, no, all plants didn't die. There were just not enough for the dinosaurs since most of them were so big at that time. I guess the small dinosaurs eventually dwindled to nothing because of the sulphuric gases poisonning their eggs.
And if there wasn't a meteor... didn't I hear that they found a huge crater somewhere in Mexico? Because in the video, they said exactly where the meteor struck th

Well, I saw the last part of the documentary, and it seems that the meteor wasn't the only thing that wiped out the dinosaurs; volcanoes had started popping up at that time and the Earth was covered in poisonous sulphuric gases. Because of this atmospheric polution, not a lot of dinosaur eggs hatched. The mammals, on the other hand, were small scavengers and didn't have to lay eggs.
Then the meteorite struck.
The combination of these two events brought the dinosaurs to extiction.
Yet, I doubt that they would have died as quickly as you say. Only 65% of the earth's creatures died; mammals didn't come after the dinosaurs, you know, they came 220 million years ago.
So no, all plants didn't die. There were just not enough for the dinosaurs since most of them were so big at that time. I guess the small dinosaurs eventually dwindled to nothing because of the sulphuric gases poisonning their eggs.
And if there wasn't a meteor... didn't I hear that they found a huge crater somewhere in Mexico? Because in the video, they said exactly where the meteor struck the Earth.

1. Yes, I have a little sister. It's not important though
2. The theory of the meteor and the volcanoes for that matter is just that, a theory. There are other theory's out there, like that of the biblical flood, that are equally plausible and equally believed by scientists. There are even those that say dinosaurs did actually co-exist with man at one time. The dating system that is currently in use is extremely innacurate, even those who use it admit that after about 2,000 years it's not really trustworthy.

huh? dating system? (????????)
What are you driving at here?

Also...

equally believed by scientists

Strange... so far I have heard that most scientists prefer the meteor theory, and the volcanic one is a close second (I guess that's why they chose to combine them in the video).
I might be wrong, though; please tell me if I am.

Also, (no offence intended at all) what would have caused the flood if there was one? It's possible that it happened when humans were around; in fact, it did; a lot of ice melted after the last ice age, but there was no ice to be melted 65 000 000 years ago; antarctica was almost tropical at the time.

I'm speaking of the incredibly innacurate carbon dating method.
The meteor theory is rapidly becoming less and less plausible as new evidence surfaces. The great rift is evidence that there were vast amounts of underground water which burst out of the earth causing the movement of the tectonic plates as well as the great flood. There is evidence that the earth was surrounded by a thicker atmosphere that was mostly water, causing a tropical climate around almost all of the earths surface. When this fell the result was a flood that completely reshaped the planet we live on. The way the dinasaur fossels exist would really not have happened from a meteor, and there is actually evidence that dinosaurs and humans co-existed at one time.