Skip to main content

You have to get through your fear to see the beauty on the other side.

The Good Dinosaur
(2015)

(SPOILERS) When a picture arrives as misconceived, misguided and generally misbegotten as The Good Dinosaur, and one knows it already went through extensive reworking to get here (resulting in its release being put back a year), one is left wondering how much worse the original conception can possibly have been. Surely it couldn’t have been more aesthetically challenged (the characters) or narratively less stimulating (a journey in which you come to know yourself – admittedly, it’s the classic construct, and there’s nothing at all wrong with that, only in how it arranges itself here). I’m not necessarily advocating the notion of Pixar seeing what was stewing and scrapping it completely (as seems to have happened to DreamWorks’ languishing B.O.O.), but it’s clear that, fall all their rigorous vetting and testing of ideas, they have just as significant blind spots as anyone out there; most usually, their particular problem starts with not being able to see beyond a saccharine, affirmative message.


Disney is no stranger to undistinguished dino productions, of course. Paul Verhoeven’s Dinosaur became the entirely forgettable feature of the same name directed by Eric Leighton and Ralph Zondag about a decade and a half ago. Bo Peterson (Up) was initially one of The Good Dinosaur’s directors, the premise being his, before Peter Sohn (previously only credited with shorts) took sole responsibility. It seems Peterson gave up over third act issues, but Pixar clearly had problems addressing the endemic ones (en route there were changes in characters, conception of the dinosaur community, voice casting).


There were also size issues; the difference between Spot (the boy) and Arlo (the lead Apatosaurus, who makes the dinos in The Flintstones look scientifically plausible) was significant, and Lasseter et al wanted to emphasise the boy and his dog (dino and his boy) aspect. Pixar has survived tormented features before (Ratatouille, Brave, the latter perhaps their most underrated film), but this one seemed to be fatally skewered on several fundamental levels, ones no amount of tinkering could remedy.


The high-concept isn’t in and of itself a problem; dinosaurs have evolved while humans have remained primitive. The developed reptile isn’t exactly a new one, from conspiracy theories (reptilian bloodlines) to popular science fiction (Doctor Who’s Silurians and Sea Devils, bemoaning the swarm of ape primitives infesting their once-fine planet). And that Whoopi Goldberg movie. And Super Mario Bros. There was even an early ‘90s Jim Henson dinosaur sitcom that substituted humans for dinosaurs, much as Sohn’s film. Although, that made them visibly evolved. Here, we have dinosaurs walking on all fours, capable of constructing houses yet unable to furnish themselves with clothes. Meanwhile the canine humans cover their nakedness. Obviously, this is a kids’ movie, but that doesn’t mean the concept isn’t a confused at its very genesis. It’s right there in photo real landscapes, contrasting distractingly with the overtly cartoonish characters.


And that’s just Problem One. Right from the off, this is aesthetically displeasing, and I’m sure that was half the battle for audiences lost right there. In attempting to make Arlo soft and relatable, mammalian even, Pixar have made him nothing like a dinosaur. More like a generic plush toy no kid would want to own; a dinosaur by way of Nick Park’s Wallace. Also, in attempting to making him different –  a misfit, timid, maladjusted dinosaur, just like a lot of actual kids who will be watching, minus the dinosaur bit –  the elements are stacked against him; he’s goofy-looking, and useless. Spot is as bad, a child as a faithful mutt, trying to bridge a line between infant and untamed, and ending up with the Feral Kid from Mad Max 2 as inspiration. The designs border on the grotesque, rather than the cute (contrastingly, styracosaurus Forrest Woodbush and the menagerie in his horns are quite appealing, but we only spend a couple of minutes in his/their company).


Apparently the premise was designed to undermine the ideas of “what dinosaurs represent today, and how they are represented in stereotypes”. Except, they picked vegetarians as their protagonists, and you can see immediately that, as somewhat muddled as its delivery is, Zootopia was instantly more successful at addressing the idea of preconceptions. The concept here simply doesn’t support the content. Turning the picture into a part-Deliverance, part-western doesn’t help either, as neither device embraces the dinosaurs themselves. Additionally, it might not have been the best decision to have the characters sound like Tow Mater from Cars, just not quite so dim.


The picture’s affirmative philosophy (“You gotta earn your mark by doing something big, for something bigger than yourself”) is treacly but inoffensive, and of course is designed to emphasise that courage isn’t about great deeds but a laudable attitude. Fearful Arlo isn’t divested of fear (as Sam Elliot’s dad T-Rex, envisaged as a rancher, says of a great feat, “Who says I wasn’t scared? But you can get through it”) but learns to manage it, and his journey fosters an attitude of acceptance and openness; the pest “critter’ that so alarmed him becomes his best and most devoted friend. But still, all things in their place, it seems; despite being presented as effective canines, Spot’s rightful place is with a surrogate family of his own kind (a la The Jungle Book; the 1967 one, that is).


Despite the clumsy character design, Sohn and his team conjure some arresting images and sequences. You’d expect nothing less of Pixar. There’s cattle rustling with velociraptors, and in a striking inversion of Jaws, pterodactyls’ (think Jungle Book’s vultures, but more threatening) wings protrude from beneath the clouds. There also some oddly squeamish moments; Spot bites the head of an enormous bug (the sort of thing that would look at home in Starship Troopers or The Mist), and he and Arlo engage in a brief acid trip after consuming fermented berries.


Elsewhere, there are homespun platitudes courtesy of Arlo’s ghost dad, and the value of family is expectedly foregrounded, but Arlo’s pronouncement “I love him” of his pet human doesn’t feel earned, probably because the characters never take root as ones you care for or appreciate. The score, from Mychael and Jeff Danna, does its best to wear you down, however, the kind of insipid, inspirational mush that would make Randy Newman proud.


This may have been the least successful Pixar film, but it’s still preferable to Lasseter’s much cherished Cars franchise (no danger of being consigned to the pits, despite being the pits, there, as they’re his babies and he has final say; I expect fellow staffers whisper words of comfort to Peterson to that effect whenever Lasseter’s out of earshot). As a basic narrative, their sixteenth is dependable if unexacting, so it at least engages on that level. In terms of character, though, it missteps fatally. As for the short film, I’m not quite sure how Sanjay’s Super Team was nominated for Best Animated Short Oscar, as aside from some distinctive design work, it’s paper thin. Which makes it a suitable accompaniment to The Good Dinosaur.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

I should have mailed it to the Marx Brothers.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
When your hero(es) ride off into the sunset at the end of a film, it’s usually a pretty clear indication that a line is being drawn under their adventures. Sure, rumours surfaced during the ‘90s of various prospective screenplays for a fourth outing for the whip-cracking archeologist. But I’m dubious anyone really expected it to happen. There seemed to be a natural finality to Last Crusade that made the announcement of his 2007 return nostalgically welcome but otherwise unwarranted. That it turned out so tepid merely seemed like confirmation of what we already knew; Indy’s time was past.

You want to investigate me, roll the dice and take your chances.

A Few Good Men (1992)
(SPOILERS) Aaron Sorkin has penned a few good manuscripts in his time, but A Few Good Men, despite being inspired by an actual incident (one related to him by his sister, an army lawyer on a case at the time), falls squarely into the realm of watchable but formulaic. I’m not sure I’d revisited the entire movie since seeing it at the cinema, but my reaction is largely the same: that it’s about as impressively mounted and star-studded as Hollywood gets, but it’s ultimately a rather empty courtroom drama.

Do you read Sutter Cane?

In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
(SPOILERS) The concluding chapter of John Carpenter’s unofficial Apocalypse Trilogy (preceded by The Thing and Prince of Darkness) is also, sadly, his last great movie. Indeed, it stands apart in the qualitative wilderness that beset him during the ‘90s (not for want of output). Michael De Luca’s screenplay had been doing the rounds since the ‘80s, even turned down by Carpenter at one point, and it proves ideal fodder for the director, bringing out the best in him. Even cinematographer Gary K Kibbe seems inspired enough to rise to the occasion. It could do without the chugging rawk soundtrack, perhaps, but then, that was increasingly where Carpenter’s interests resided (as opposed to making decent movies).

If you never do anything, you never become anyone.

An Education (2009)
Carey Mulligan deserves all the attention she received for her central performance, and the depiction of the ‘60s is commendably subdued. I worried there was going to be a full-blown music montage sequence at the climax that undid all the good work, but thankfully it was fairly low key. 

Alfred Molina and Olivia Williams are especially strong in the supporting roles, and it's fortunate for credibility’s sake that that Orlando Bloom had to drop out and Dominic Cooper replaced him.
***1/2

Everyone who had a talent for it lived happily ever after.

Empire 30:  Favourite Films of the Last 30 Years
Empire’s readers’ poll to celebrate its thirtieth birthday – a request for the ultimate thirty films of the last thirty years, one per year from 1989 – required a bit of thought, particularly since they weren’t just limiting it to your annual favourite (“These can be the films that impressed you the most, the ones that stuck with you, that brought you joy, or came to you at just the right time”). Also – since the question was asked on Twitter, although I don’t know how rigorous they’re being; does it apply to general release, or does it include first film festival showings? – they’re talking UK release dates, rather than US, calling for that extra modicum of mulling. To provide more variety, I opted to limit myself to just one film per director; otherwise, my thirty would have been top heavy with, at very least, Coen Brothers movies. So here’s they are, with runners-up and reasoning:

What happens at 72?

Midsommar (2019)
(SPOILERS) Ari Aster, by rights, ought already to be buckling under the weight of all those accolades amassing around him, pronouncing him a horror wunderkind a mere two films in. But while both Midsommar and Hereditary have both received broadly similar critical acclaim, his second feature will lag behind the first by some distance in box office, unless something significant happens in a hitherto neglected territory. That isn’t such a surprise on seeing it. While Hereditary keeps its hand firmly on the tiller of shock value and incident, so as to sustain it’s already more than adequate running time, Midsommar runs a full twenty minutes longer, which is positively – or rather, negatively – over-indulgent for what we have here, content-wise, and suggests a director whose crowned auteurishness has instantly gone to his head.

You're always sorry, Charles, and there's always a speech, but nobody cares anymore.

X-Men: Dark Phoenix (2019)
(SPOILERS) To credit its Rotten Tomatoes score (22%), you’d think X-Men: Dark Phoenix was a travesty that besmirched the name of all good and decent (read: MCU proper) superhero movies, or even last week’s underwhelming creature feature (Godzilla: King of Monsters has somehow reached 40%, despite being a lesser beast in every respect). Is the movie’s fate a self-fulfilling prophecy, what with delayed release dates and extensively reported reshoots? Were critics castigating a fait accompli turkey without giving it a chance? That would be presupposing they’re all sheep, though, and in fairness, other supposed write-offs havecome back from such a brink in the past (World War Z). Whatever the feelings of the majority, Dark Phoenix is actually a mostly okay (twelfth) instalment in the X-franchise – it’s exactly what you’d expect from an X-Men movie at this point, one without any real mojo left and a variable cast struggling to pull its weight. The third act is a bi…

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

Why would I turn into a filing cabinet?

Captain Marvel (2019)
(SPOILERS) All superhero movies are formulaic to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly greater. The key to an actually great one – or just a pretty good one – is making that a virtue, rather than something you’re conscious of limiting the whole exercise. The irony of the last two stand-alone MCU pictures is that, while attempting to bring somewhat down-the-line progressive cachet to the series, they’ve delivered rather pedestrian results. Of course, that didn’t dim Black Panther’s cultural cachet (and what do I know, swathes of people also profess to loving it), and Captain Marvel has hit half a billion in its first few days – it seems that, unless you’re poor unloved Ant-Man, an easy $1bn is the new $700m for the MCU – but neither’s protagonist really made that all-important iconic impact.