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…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

I am so sick of Scotland!

Outlaw/King (2018)
(SPOILERS) Proof that it isn't enough just to want to make a historical epic, you have to have some level of vision for it as well. Say what you like about Mel's Braveheart – and it isn't a very good film – it's got sensibility in spades. He knew what he was setting out to achieve, and the audience duly responded. What does David Mackenzie want from Outlaw/King (it's shown with a forward slash on the titles, so I'm going with it)? Ostensibly, and unsurprisingly, to restore the stature of Robert the Bruce after it was rather tarnished by Braveheart, but he has singularly failed to do so. More than that, it isn’t an "idea", something you can recognise or get behind even if you don’t care about the guy. You’ll never forget Mel's Wallace, for better or worse, but the most singular aspect of Chris Pine's Bruce hasn’t been his rousing speeches or heroic valour. No, it's been his kingly winky.

If this is not a place for a priest, Miles, then this is exactly where the Lord wants me.

Bad Times at the El Royale (2018)
(SPOILERS) Sometimes a movie comes along where you instantly know you’re safe in the hands of a master of the craft, someone who knows exactly the story they want to tell and precisely how to achieve it. All you have to do is sit back and exult in the joyful dexterity on display. Bad Times at the El Royale is such a movie, and Drew Goddard has outdone himself. From the first scene, set ten years prior to the main action, he has constructed a dizzyingly deft piece of work, stuffed with indelible characters portrayed by perfectly chosen performers, delirious twists and game-changing flashbacks, the package sealed by an accompanying frequently diegetic soundtrack, playing in as it does to the essential plot beats of the whole. If there's a better movie this year, it will be a pretty damn good one.

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

It was one of the most desolate looking places in the world.

They Shall Not Grow Old (2018)
Peter Jackson's They Shall Not Grow Old, broadcast by the BBC on the centenary of Armistice Day, is "sold" on the attraction and curiosity value of restored, colourised and frame rate-enhanced footage. On that level, this World War I documentary, utilising a misquote from Laurence Binyon's poem for its title, is frequently an eye-opener, transforming the stuttering, blurry visuals that have hitherto informed subsequent generations' relationship with the War. However, that's only half the story; the other is the use of archive interviews with veterans to provide a narrative, exerting an effect often more impacting for what isn't said than for what is.

You kind of look like a slutty Ebola virus.

Crazy Rich Asians (2018)
(SPOILERS) The phenomenal success of Crazy Rich Asians – in the US at any rate, thus far – might lead one to think it's some kind of startling original, but the truth is, whatever its core demographic appeal, this adaptation of Kevin Kwan's novel taps into universally accepted romantic comedy DNA and readily recognisable tropes of family and class, regardless of cultural background. It emerges a smoothly professional product, ticking the expected boxes in those areas – the heroine's highs, lows, rejections, proposals, accompanied by whacky scene-stealing best friend – even if the writing is sometimes a little on the clunky side.

He mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable folly of the panned Pan, I was struck by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters, makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.

Prepare the Heathen’s Stand! By order of purification!

Apostle (2018)
(SPOILERS) Another week, another undercooked Netflix flick from an undeniably talented director. What’s up with their quality control? Do they have any? Are they so set on attracting an embarrassment of creatives, they give them carte blanche, to hell with whether the results are any good or not? Apostle's an ungainly folk-horror mashup of The Wicker Man (most obviously, but without the remotest trace of that screenplay's finesse) and any cult-centric Brit horror movie you’d care to think of (including Ben Wheatley's, himself an exponent of similar influences-on-sleeve filmmaking with Kill List), taking in tropes from Hammer, torture porn, and pagan lore but revealing nothing much that's different or original beyond them.

It seemed as if I had missed something.

Room 237 (2012)
Stanley Kubrick’s meticulous, obsessive approach towards filmmaking was renowned, so perhaps it should be no surprise to find comparable traits reflected in a section of his worshippers. Legends about the director have taken root (some of them with a factual basis, others bunkum), while the air of secrecy that enshrouded his life and work has duly fostered a range of conspiracy theories. A few of these are aired in Rodney Ascher’s documentary, which indulges five variably coherent advocates of five variably tenuous theories relating to just what The Shining is really all about. Beyond Jack Nicholson turning the crazy up to 11, that is. Ascher has hit on a fascinating subject, one that exposes our capacity to interpret any given information wildly differently according to our disposition. But his execution, which both underlines and undermines the theses of these devotees, leaves something to be desired.

Part of the problem is simply one of production values. The audio tra…