When the trailers for "Dinosaur" were released in late 1999/early 2000, I was about nine years old and I was experiencing one of the greatest anticipations of my childhood. The trailers for "Dinosaur" showed the first seven minutes or so of the movie, where we saw first-class, revolutionary animation of CGI dinosaurs superimposed against real backgrounds and the blending was seamless. These dinosaurs looked just as good as the beasts that wowed us in "Jurassic Park." What's more, they acted like real dinosaurs. They didn't speak or behave like human beings covered with scales at all. Added with a majestic score by the great James Newton Howard, the trailer had me excited. I'd had my fill of talking dinosaurs with "The Land Before Time" and its excessive sequels; I wanted to see real dinosaurs without people in the foreground. That would have been a dream come true for a young dinosaur-lover like me.
And Disney was originally going to give me that dream. That's right, folks, the first seven minutes of "Dinosaur" was originally going to set the mood for the entire picture. The dinosaurs would act like dinosaurs and not like people; it would be like a feature-length version of the Rite of Spring sequence from Disney's 1940 masterpiece "Fantasia." But a Mr. Michael Eisner of Disney insisted on changing this all and revamping this concept for a real winner into basically just a retread of "The Land Before Time" with CGI instead of hand-drawn animation. Mr. Eisner ought to be ashamed of himself, because instead of getting this wondrous spectacle that the trailers and the first seven minutes of the movie promised us, we got just a generic family movie special only in its animation, but destined to be forgotten outside of the special effects department.
I suppose Mr. Eisner's reasoning was that kids could not follow a story about dinosaurs without a) people or b) dinosaurs that act like people. Well, to him, I say your reasoning is backward. I was a "kid" at the time and I was disappointed to hear that the dinosaurs were going to start acting like people after the opening sequence. I would have been okay with narration; heck, I would have been okay if the lemurs in the movie voiced by Ossie Davis, Alfre Woodard, Max Casella, and Hayden Panettiere talked. But why the dinosaurs? What's more, even if they were to talk, why did they have to have such humanlike qualities? They have conversations, morals, love interests, and even philosophies. Oh, and some species of dinosaurs keep other dinosaurs for pets, too. The romantic subplot between two dinosaurs in the movie is completely wooden, generic, and worst of all, boring. That's a real disappointment for me because these dinosaurs are animated via some of the most impressive CGI I have ever seen. Like Roger Ebert noted in his spot-on review for the picture, the filmmakers spent a lot of effort making these dinosaurs look real, but spent more effort undermining that illusion. The only dinosaurs that do thankfully carry the illusion through are the carnivorous dinosaurs, who only snarl and roar and don't appear to have any morality or philosophy. And besides, did Pinocchio have a love interest? No? Then why should a dinosaur?
But enough of me bashing what doesn't work. Now I will tell you this: despite all of my complaints and suggestions (ones that would have made this a great picture instead of a good one), the movie does, I repeat, *does* entertain. It's a most adequate family picture that is sure to wow and amaze its many-aged audience members with its wonderful animation, strong voice acting, and dazzling moments of energetic action. I also appreciate that for the snarling antagonist, they chose a carnotaurus as opposed to the typical tyrannosaurus or allosaur. It's refreshing to see a new dinosaurs here and there. But why, oh, why, Disney, did you have to go and throw away such a brilliant idea for a more generic and forgettable one? The first seven minutes of "Dinosaurs" are absolutely wonderful. Before the dinosaurs talk, when they act like dinosaurs, when we see the real wonder and viciousness of that strange prehistoric time, the movie scores with absolute brilliance. But save for the animation, what follows is rather generic. Oh, there I go again....
I like "Dinosaur" but I really feel that it is a missed opportunity. A colossal one. This was my reaction when I first saw in the movie at the age of nine in 2000. Now seeing it again for the first time in years, my reaction is exactly the same. The people running the company once owned by the brilliant Walt Disney ought to reflect upon his genius and his ideas and his masterpieces. If they had done this (as they had wanted to before Mr. Michael Eisner stepped in) "Dinosaur" would have been a great movie, one destined to be remembered like the Rite of Spring sequence in "Fantasia" that its opening so reminds us of. But beyond that opening sequence, there is nothing that isn't well, like the dinosaurs themselves, fossilized. I will not deny that I ultimately liked the movie, nor will I deny that given its potential, I felt a little cheated.
And Disney was originally going to give me that dream. That's right, folks, the first seven minutes of "Dinosaur" was originally going to set the mood for the entire picture. The dinosaurs would act like dinosaurs and not like people; it would be like a feature-length version of the Rite of Spring sequence from Disney's 1940 masterpiece "Fantasia." But a Mr. Michael Eisner of Disney insisted on changing this all and revamping this concept for a real winner into basically just a retread of "The Land Before Time" with CGI instead of hand-drawn animation. Mr. Eisner ought to be ashamed of himself, because instead of getting this wondrous spectacle that the trailers and the first seven minutes of the movie promised us, we got just a generic family movie special only in its animation, but destined to be forgotten outside of the special effects department.
I suppose Mr. Eisner's reasoning was that kids could not follow a story about dinosaurs without a) people or b) dinosaurs that act like people. Well, to him, I say your reasoning is backward. I was a "kid" at the time and I was disappointed to hear that the dinosaurs were going to start acting like people after the opening sequence. I would have been okay with narration; heck, I would have been okay if the lemurs in the movie voiced by Ossie Davis, Alfre Woodard, Max Casella, and Hayden Panettiere talked. But why the dinosaurs? What's more, even if they were to talk, why did they have to have such humanlike qualities? They have conversations, morals, love interests, and even philosophies. Oh, and some species of dinosaurs keep other dinosaurs for pets, too. The romantic subplot between two dinosaurs in the movie is completely wooden, generic, and worst of all, boring. That's a real disappointment for me because these dinosaurs are animated via some of the most impressive CGI I have ever seen. Like Roger Ebert noted in his spot-on review for the picture, the filmmakers spent a lot of effort making these dinosaurs look real, but spent more effort undermining that illusion. The only dinosaurs that do thankfully carry the illusion through are the carnivorous dinosaurs, who only snarl and roar and don't appear to have any morality or philosophy. And besides, did Pinocchio have a love interest? No? Then why should a dinosaur?
But enough of me bashing what doesn't work. Now I will tell you this: despite all of my complaints and suggestions (ones that would have made this a great picture instead of a good one), the movie does, I repeat, *does* entertain. It's a most adequate family picture that is sure to wow and amaze its many-aged audience members with its wonderful animation, strong voice acting, and dazzling moments of energetic action. I also appreciate that for the snarling antagonist, they chose a carnotaurus as opposed to the typical tyrannosaurus or allosaur. It's refreshing to see a new dinosaurs here and there. But why, oh, why, Disney, did you have to go and throw away such a brilliant idea for a more generic and forgettable one? The first seven minutes of "Dinosaurs" are absolutely wonderful. Before the dinosaurs talk, when they act like dinosaurs, when we see the real wonder and viciousness of that strange prehistoric time, the movie scores with absolute brilliance. But save for the animation, what follows is rather generic. Oh, there I go again....
I like "Dinosaur" but I really feel that it is a missed opportunity. A colossal one. This was my reaction when I first saw in the movie at the age of nine in 2000. Now seeing it again for the first time in years, my reaction is exactly the same. The people running the company once owned by the brilliant Walt Disney ought to reflect upon his genius and his ideas and his masterpieces. If they had done this (as they had wanted to before Mr. Michael Eisner stepped in) "Dinosaur" would have been a great movie, one destined to be remembered like the Rite of Spring sequence in "Fantasia" that its opening so reminds us of. But beyond that opening sequence, there is nothing that isn't well, like the dinosaurs themselves, fossilized. I will not deny that I ultimately liked the movie, nor will I deny that given its potential, I felt a little cheated.