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.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.