Dinosaur Review by Tim Wick
So, what really is the point in writing this review? Most likely, this
movie will be pushed out of theatres this weekend and yet I have taken up
valuable 1's and 0's making sure my opinion is on this web site. Why didn't
I review this weeks ago?
I don't know if there is much of a point. I have no doubt that Dinosaur
will show up on the second run theatres pretty soon, so I guess I could say
I'm writing this review for those of you that will see it there. But that's
not really it. I don't get to see too many sneak previews and I sure as
heck am never going to be invited to a critics showing, so I get to see
movies when I can. That pretty much makes me like the people that read
these reviews. So even if I'm watching a film during it's last week in the
theatres, I'm going to write a review. I figure there are people out there
who - like me - like to read reviews after they have seen the movie. I like
to know what other people thought of the film.
So anyway, that is why I'm writing a review for Dinosaur now. That, and I
didn't actually see it until last night.
Dinosaur is an absolutely beautiful movie. Pixar has been the true champion
of computer animated film and Disney apparently has been taking the time to
learn the technique as a result of their partnership. The character
animation is absolutely stunning, with individual hairs on Lemurs being
moved by the wind, shots of hundreds of dinosaurs in a single frame (each
with their own movements) and individualized markings to help you remember
which characters are which. The backgrounds are probably the best work in
computer environments I've seen. Last year's Star Wars pales in comparison
to the environments created by Disney animators. I was especially impressed
with the fading clarity as the landscape stretched towards the horizon.
This is most certainly the way things look in real life, but rarely how they
look in animated film.
Typically, characters that are computer animated look almost plastic
(strangely similar to the claymation characters of Chicken Run). For Toy
Story, this works because of the characters involved. For Dinosaur, this
would have been a near disaster. For the most part, that smooth, plastic
skin is not evident. The individual characters have amazing texture to them
that makes them remarkably real. Often, I would forget I was watching
computer animation.
However, as I said about Titan A.E., you can only look at a work of art for
so long before you need to move on.
Looking at the IMDB, I see this movie has already made over one hundred
million dollars, so it is by no means a commercial failure. But it is an
artistic one.
Disney animated films of the last twenty years - even the sub-par ones like
Pocahontas - had something I can only call a soul. Dinosaur lacks that
soul. It is a flat film filled with flat characters that are driven by a
flat story. There is no emotion there, much as the filmmakers tried to
inject some. I ended up leaving the theatre almost unable to remember
anything beyond how good the movie looked. The story was a forgettable
Tarzan derivative. Given Disney did a rather blah version of Tarzan last
year, the last thing I wanted to see was a more blah version of Tarzan that
was about dinosaurs.
There was something about Disney animation of the past that has been most
definitely lost in this film. While this movie takes the time to show the
harsh realities of a carnivore - herbivore relationship, it does it almost
clinically because it's afraid to have us feel anything about it. Many of
the scenes in the film were meant (seemingly) to recall the Rite of Spring
sequence from Fantasia and it simply reminded me that that sequence had more
impact than this film did.
The other major problem I had was the fact that this film didn't need speech
to convey it's story. In fact, it would have been a more powerful story
without speech. There is something so primal about dinosaurs that unless
they are intentionally cartoony (as in Land Before Time), it just seems
wrong for them to talk. I try to avoid casting too much judgement on that
choice because I need to remember this is an animated film for kids and they
would be bored to tears if they were forced to watch an 80 minute film
without talking lemurs. Still, it did bother me and I'm not going to
pretend I liked the choice just because it's better for the kids.
Another thing that bugged me was dinosaurs using Latin names for things.
They are being pursued by a Carnotaur for most of the movie. If the things
were going to talk, couldn't they call the beast something that had more
meaning to them? I haven't the slightest idea what that word might be
(perhaps "Great Hunter" or something), but I know I kept bristling every
time I heard someone refer to another dinosaur by it's Latin name. That
certainly falls into the pet peeve category, but given the movie really did
nothing to engage me, I was stuck dwelling on my pet peeves.
I hope this is a one movie hiccup for Disney. Having seen five animated
features this year (Dinosaur, Chicken Run, Titan A.E., The Road to El Dorado
and Fantasia 2000), this is the worst (though Titan A.E. was close). We may
have passed out of the second golden age in Disney animation unless they can
find their soul again. The tragedy would be if other animation studios
continue to be shut out by the consumer (Witness Fox's recent decision to
shut down their animation studio).
Keep your fingers crossed for Dreamworks. If they can find an audience,
they could be the next great animation studio.
|
