James P.Sullivan
11-27-2015, 07:22 PM
So I went to see Pixar's latest feature this morning, having not seen Pixar on the big screen since Monsters University back in July 2013 (yes, that means I haven't seen Inside Out yet).
I've been eagerly looking forward to this movie for a couple of years now, ever since I heard it was in the works. Going into the cinema knowing all that this movie had gone through to get there was certainly an intriguing experience. What was this movie going to be like, with the studio having replaced the director half-way through, replaced the entire voice cast, and re-scripted a lot of the movie? Apart from bumping the release date back over a year, what did all that accomplish? Did it serve to improve on a mediocre film and make it great? I was very, very curious. From screenshots on the internet, I knew this film was going to be a visual spectacular. I also knew the basic premise was about a young dinosaur getting lost, meeting a human boy, and finding his way back home, but I had stoically resisted the urge to watch any of the full length trailers, allowing myself only to see the teaser. So what more did Pixar have to reveal?
Turns out, nothing much.
Don't get me wrong; I loved many things about this film. However, story was unfortunately not one of them. Throughout the film, I kept expecting something more to materialise, but it never quite did. In one sense, the story felt empty. There was so much unfilled potential. Somehow it just wasn't quite right. It was like it was missing something. The story never quite went anywhere. At one or two points (and I hate to have to admit this, it being a Pixar film), but I almost got bored.
Here are some things in the film that didn't work for me:
[SPOILER ALERT]
Problem A
Arlo's family are presented as farmers, and we are shown shots of them doing such things as tilling, sowing, building, etc during the opening of the film. However, the finer details (which normally wouldn't matter so much) do seem strange here. For example, how did the dinosaurs make the fences and the baskets when they don't have hands? And why do they keep chickens? Do they eat the chickens or just eat their eggs? We are never shown them eating either - it would appear they're just there for Arlo to feed. Also, the dinosaurs' main crop would appear to be some sort of corn, but again, we're never shown them eating it. In fact, we're never shown them eating anything on the farm. What do they do with the corn? They store it in a tower, but do they eat it plain just like that? Do they grind it, make flour, and make bread?? We're not told. I know it's not hugely important, but it does raise some questions that could've been avoided. I think, personally, I'd really have preferred the dinosaurs to be plain old real dinosaurs, in their natural habitat.
Problem B
Next up, there are several cliche moments in the film that I really thought Pixar were better than, but apparently not. The typical "scary rustling in the bushes only to reveal something small and cute-looking" happens at least twice. Character dialogue between siblings is cliche. The antagonists (if you can really call them that) are horrendously cliche - the leader, the girl, the idiot, etc. They are cringe-worthily cliche and just down-right dumb. No suspense, no real stakes.
Problem C
The character design is kinda odd. Don't get me wrong, Arlo is cute, as is Spot. But most of the other characters are just odd-looking. I didn't find them very visually appealing at all, particularly Arlo's dad and siblings, the pterodactyls, and the dad T-Rex (which is pretty much the entire cast).
The characters are all highly stylised and cartoony which creates quite a contrast with the incredibly photorealistic setting. It didn't really bother me that much, but if anything I'd have preferred the character design overall to have been perhaps slightly more realistic.
Problem D
The other characters. Arlo and Spot are the only main characters in the film, which isn't very many. We are stuck with these two for the entirety of the film, which at times gets almost tiring. The other characters that appear here and there feel out of place and somewhat thrown-in, as they have no bearing on the rest of the film at all. Particularly the deranged triceratops, voiced by the director himself. Completely out of place, to the extent it actually felt awkward. The T-Rex family also feel out-of-place - they don't leave any impression on you after they're gone.
The antagonists. The only antagonists in the entire film are four lousy pterodactyl-type flying creatures who appear briefly about half-way through and then again at the end. As already stated, they're very cliche, and as a result, very boring. If you're going to have antagonists, for goodness' sake make them serious! At the very least don't make them laughable and cliche. It gets very boring very quickly. And I really thought Pixar was above all that.
Problem E
The ending felt rushed. Arlo finally gets home after his epic journey (that's taken up at least an hour and a half for us audience members) and we've only got about two minutes left before the credits.
Problem F
Spot's name. In order to discover that the human boy has a name, the scene with the deranged triceratops was thrown in. Could they really not have thought of a more interesting, less down-right weird way of discovering that he has a name?
Besides, the fact that Arlo even discovers his name is highly implausible. In the film, it's implied that humans can't talk, yet dinosaurs can. So why on earth would the boy respond when Arlo calls him Spot? How does he know he even has a name? Also, if he understands Arlo pronouncing his name, why can't he understand anything else Arlo says?
However, the language divide between Spot and Arlo does provide for and set the scene for the one real Pixar moment in the film. The moment that made me cry. That was a beautiful scene. It reminded me I was watching a Pixar feature.
With that in mind, on to the good things:
The language-barrier scene. As mentioned above, this scene is beautiful and made me cry. At least Pixar still know how to tug at heart strings, even if they lost the plot with this movie (quite literally).
The scene with Arlo and his dad in the field with the glow bugs was beautiful and very artistically executed.
The intense action/peril scene with the death of Arlo's dad near the beginning was also exceptionally well-done. Very exciting. Such a pity this trend didn't continue into the rest of the film.
The final, climactic scene during the storm at the end of the film, when Arlo is trying to rescue Spot from the flooding river is equally well-done. Very exciting, and left me almost breathless. Again, such a pity this kind of engaging drama hadn't appeared more beforehand.
The animation is stunningly beautiful. I cannot stress enough how incredibly photorealistic and breath-takingly beautiful it all is. This alone is reason enough to see it on the big screen. It is definitely Pixar's most visually beautiful film to date.
The cinematography is also very good - some fantastic shots taking full advantage of the beautiful setting of the film.
The editing was also spot-on.
The music was lovely, despite sounding oddly Scottish at several points. I personally would have preferred a more distinct, unique approach to the score, but it's still a worthy listen.
Overall, I give The Good Dinosaur 5/10, mainly for it's jaw-droppingly gorgeous visual appeal and the two intense scenes at the beginning and end of the film. If the story had been a lot more engaging and had actually connected with me and drawn me in, it would most certainly have a higher score, but instead it just felt very lacking and empty in many places. I had hoped the whole rescue mission during production was a good sign, guaranteeing a good story, but apparently not. So I'll be honest and say I'm very disappointed at the hugely missed potential this film had. Who knows? Maybe Bob Peterson's original film would have even been better? Guess we'll never know.
I've been eagerly looking forward to this movie for a couple of years now, ever since I heard it was in the works. Going into the cinema knowing all that this movie had gone through to get there was certainly an intriguing experience. What was this movie going to be like, with the studio having replaced the director half-way through, replaced the entire voice cast, and re-scripted a lot of the movie? Apart from bumping the release date back over a year, what did all that accomplish? Did it serve to improve on a mediocre film and make it great? I was very, very curious. From screenshots on the internet, I knew this film was going to be a visual spectacular. I also knew the basic premise was about a young dinosaur getting lost, meeting a human boy, and finding his way back home, but I had stoically resisted the urge to watch any of the full length trailers, allowing myself only to see the teaser. So what more did Pixar have to reveal?
Turns out, nothing much.
Don't get me wrong; I loved many things about this film. However, story was unfortunately not one of them. Throughout the film, I kept expecting something more to materialise, but it never quite did. In one sense, the story felt empty. There was so much unfilled potential. Somehow it just wasn't quite right. It was like it was missing something. The story never quite went anywhere. At one or two points (and I hate to have to admit this, it being a Pixar film), but I almost got bored.
Here are some things in the film that didn't work for me:
[SPOILER ALERT]
Problem A
Arlo's family are presented as farmers, and we are shown shots of them doing such things as tilling, sowing, building, etc during the opening of the film. However, the finer details (which normally wouldn't matter so much) do seem strange here. For example, how did the dinosaurs make the fences and the baskets when they don't have hands? And why do they keep chickens? Do they eat the chickens or just eat their eggs? We are never shown them eating either - it would appear they're just there for Arlo to feed. Also, the dinosaurs' main crop would appear to be some sort of corn, but again, we're never shown them eating it. In fact, we're never shown them eating anything on the farm. What do they do with the corn? They store it in a tower, but do they eat it plain just like that? Do they grind it, make flour, and make bread?? We're not told. I know it's not hugely important, but it does raise some questions that could've been avoided. I think, personally, I'd really have preferred the dinosaurs to be plain old real dinosaurs, in their natural habitat.
Problem B
Next up, there are several cliche moments in the film that I really thought Pixar were better than, but apparently not. The typical "scary rustling in the bushes only to reveal something small and cute-looking" happens at least twice. Character dialogue between siblings is cliche. The antagonists (if you can really call them that) are horrendously cliche - the leader, the girl, the idiot, etc. They are cringe-worthily cliche and just down-right dumb. No suspense, no real stakes.
Problem C
The character design is kinda odd. Don't get me wrong, Arlo is cute, as is Spot. But most of the other characters are just odd-looking. I didn't find them very visually appealing at all, particularly Arlo's dad and siblings, the pterodactyls, and the dad T-Rex (which is pretty much the entire cast).
The characters are all highly stylised and cartoony which creates quite a contrast with the incredibly photorealistic setting. It didn't really bother me that much, but if anything I'd have preferred the character design overall to have been perhaps slightly more realistic.
Problem D
The other characters. Arlo and Spot are the only main characters in the film, which isn't very many. We are stuck with these two for the entirety of the film, which at times gets almost tiring. The other characters that appear here and there feel out of place and somewhat thrown-in, as they have no bearing on the rest of the film at all. Particularly the deranged triceratops, voiced by the director himself. Completely out of place, to the extent it actually felt awkward. The T-Rex family also feel out-of-place - they don't leave any impression on you after they're gone.
The antagonists. The only antagonists in the entire film are four lousy pterodactyl-type flying creatures who appear briefly about half-way through and then again at the end. As already stated, they're very cliche, and as a result, very boring. If you're going to have antagonists, for goodness' sake make them serious! At the very least don't make them laughable and cliche. It gets very boring very quickly. And I really thought Pixar was above all that.
Problem E
The ending felt rushed. Arlo finally gets home after his epic journey (that's taken up at least an hour and a half for us audience members) and we've only got about two minutes left before the credits.
Problem F
Spot's name. In order to discover that the human boy has a name, the scene with the deranged triceratops was thrown in. Could they really not have thought of a more interesting, less down-right weird way of discovering that he has a name?
Besides, the fact that Arlo even discovers his name is highly implausible. In the film, it's implied that humans can't talk, yet dinosaurs can. So why on earth would the boy respond when Arlo calls him Spot? How does he know he even has a name? Also, if he understands Arlo pronouncing his name, why can't he understand anything else Arlo says?
However, the language divide between Spot and Arlo does provide for and set the scene for the one real Pixar moment in the film. The moment that made me cry. That was a beautiful scene. It reminded me I was watching a Pixar feature.
With that in mind, on to the good things:
The language-barrier scene. As mentioned above, this scene is beautiful and made me cry. At least Pixar still know how to tug at heart strings, even if they lost the plot with this movie (quite literally).
The scene with Arlo and his dad in the field with the glow bugs was beautiful and very artistically executed.
The intense action/peril scene with the death of Arlo's dad near the beginning was also exceptionally well-done. Very exciting. Such a pity this trend didn't continue into the rest of the film.
The final, climactic scene during the storm at the end of the film, when Arlo is trying to rescue Spot from the flooding river is equally well-done. Very exciting, and left me almost breathless. Again, such a pity this kind of engaging drama hadn't appeared more beforehand.
The animation is stunningly beautiful. I cannot stress enough how incredibly photorealistic and breath-takingly beautiful it all is. This alone is reason enough to see it on the big screen. It is definitely Pixar's most visually beautiful film to date.
The cinematography is also very good - some fantastic shots taking full advantage of the beautiful setting of the film.
The editing was also spot-on.
The music was lovely, despite sounding oddly Scottish at several points. I personally would have preferred a more distinct, unique approach to the score, but it's still a worthy listen.
Overall, I give The Good Dinosaur 5/10, mainly for it's jaw-droppingly gorgeous visual appeal and the two intense scenes at the beginning and end of the film. If the story had been a lot more engaging and had actually connected with me and drawn me in, it would most certainly have a higher score, but instead it just felt very lacking and empty in many places. I had hoped the whole rescue mission during production was a good sign, guaranteeing a good story, but apparently not. So I'll be honest and say I'm very disappointed at the hugely missed potential this film had. Who knows? Maybe Bob Peterson's original film would have even been better? Guess we'll never know.