The Good Dinosaur (2015)

[Plain Old Tele]

Discuss.

[AniNate]

A simple short film narrative with a major studio budget and production design, The Good Dinosaur is a mesmerizing experience. Arlo's journey and bond with his pet human Spot is elegantly staged with charm and innocence, but the movie's vivid landscapes and entertaining  (if brief) supporting turns help to make this movie engrossing for its entire runtime.

 

Honestly, it's a measure of just how much I was entranced by this that I'd only complain that it was too short. I wanted to spend a lot more time in this world with these characters. Definitely want to see this again in 3D

[baumer]

Discuss

[Blankments]

Let's get this out of the way: The Good Dinosaur is mid-tier Pixar. That's okay, because mid-tier Pixar is still above average animation. The story is pretty derivative, at points reminding me of How to Train Your Dragon, Ice Age, and even Inside Out. How it tells this story is quite intriguing; as Spot (the human) cannot speak, there are sequences in it that play without dialogue that are magic. Up there with Pixar's best sequences. Unfortunately, Arlo (the dinosaur) opens his mouth a bit too much, and the storytelling becomes a tad more conventional, although at some points, the endless philosophizing on the nature of fear reminds of Malick's dialogue (thank you tribefan for that comparison). Speaking of Malick, you should see this on a big screen anyway, because the environments and cinematography are the most gorgeous I've seen from any computer-animated film. There are shots in this film that made me tear up just from the sheer beauty. The main voice actor, Raymond Ochoa, is as good as you'd expect a child actor to be, and Jeffrey Wright and Sam Elliot steal the show vocally with their quick screentime. It's also clearly influenced by Westerns, which is fitting. After all, the best Westerns are unremarkable in story but remarkable in visuals and moments, and that is exactly what The Good Dinosaur is. B

[kayumanggi]

I saw this earlier today. Luckily, I brought my handkerchief.

 

Having known the 'troubled' production and having seen the RT scores and reviews, I went to this movie with somewhat low expectations. However, this movie did something to me no Pixar film has ever done: CRY. lol

 

The scene between Arlo and Spot in the film's last few minutes was the one to blame. For someone who doesn't have parents anymore the connection I made with this one was just strong. And I think, more than anything else, that is what movies are for, making connections to your audience whatever their ages are. That scene despite the lack of dialogue was just so affecting and moving. I felt everything just by watching the characters' body gestures and by looking at their eyes. In a sea of kids, there I was behaving like a crybaby.

 

The funny thing is, the cinema where I watched this had a problem with its electricity supply. The movie suddenly stopped right after the scene that made me cry. We were told that the power had fluctuated and were asked to wait for a few minutes while they fix everything. Then it started playing again, a few scenes before the one that made me emotional, and that means I had to go through it again. I was like, are you kidding me? lol

 

This movie has been described as uneven, inconsistent, predictable, derivative. But despite these complaints, it was its heart and my having connections with it that made me love this more than INSIDE OUT.

 

And yes, this movie's visuals are the best I have ever seen in any computer animated movie. The landscapes and water environments were stunning. Some creatures were bizarre and some where familiar, and they all added to the beauty of the film. I also wondered if it could be nominated for an Oscar for vfx? Is that possible?

 

Also, though I have seen them many times, I still loved the man (dino) vs man (dino), man vs nature and man vs self concepts. There were good lines too especially from Arlo's father and Butch, the father T-Rex.

 

I hope you'll enjoy this as much as I did.

 

09 | 10

 

Edit: Let me just add, the music was great too.

Edited November 26, 2015 by kayumanggi

[Jessie]

Like every highly anticipated film on here, the first review on these boards is always overly positive. Tribefan is the first to overrate it this time.

[AniNate]

Like every highly anticipated film on here, the first review on these boards is always overly positive. Tribefan is the first to overrate it this time.

I will say if you generally don't care for Pixar, I can't imagine you'll like this very much. But if nothing else it absolutely has to be admired for its tonal and visual ambition

[filmlover]

This is probably my least favorite Pixar film since Cars 1 (pretending the sequel doesn't exist) but this is a really sweet and delightful effort that shows no signs of a reportedly troubled production. Just a really sweet tale of the friendship between two lost boys of different species, with some of the most gorgeous animation yet from the studio. This should make a lot of money over the holidays and rightfully so. B+

[The Panda]

I really enjoyed this film, is it Inside Out?  No.  But is it fair to me go in expecting it to be Inside Out?  No.  That would be like going into the next Spielberg film and expecting it to be as good as Schindler's List.  Yes, Pixar and Spielberg have proven they are capable of making their Inside Out's and Schindler's List's, but they've also made their Cars 2 and Lost World's as well.  

 

I'd say it felt a lot more like a classic Disney film than a Pixar film, and I'm not saying that in a bad way.  The story is a simple one, but it is told with groundbreaking and breathtaking visuals, and they're really what add the meat to the story.  It's a fun Western adventure with a lot of heart and a lot of picture painting.  

 

Now, me really enjoying this film may have just been because of my love of visual storytelling, I often think the visual presented (and I'm not talking about CGI, but if it's done well it certainly adds to the experience) is much more important to the film than the narrative itself.  I'm not saying the narrative is unimportant, or that it's okay for your narrative to be flawed.  But I am saying that great filmmaking doesn't require a great narrative, and a simple (or even bad) narrative can easily still be a great film.  It's the reason a lot of fantastic novels have been turned into awful movies, and a lot of mediocre novels have made for great movies.  Great production values (the editing, cinematography, sound, even the acting) will make up for a lackluster narrative.  

 

The Good Dinosaur does a great job at creating some visually moving sequences to express very simple ideas that have been presented in cinema time and time again.  It isn't necessarily perfect, but it's definitely a movie to watch.  

 

It's a very sweet and heartwarming movie, it's great for kids, and it may not be the most thematically relevant Pixar film, but it's still a delightful one.  The score was fun and transported you into this Dino-Western hybrid world, and watching Arlo and Spot bond doesn't get tiring.

 

On the negative side, I'm not going to harp on the simple narrative, because that's not what I think was the problem.  I think the biggest problem was you always felt like they could have done more with what they had.  The emotional moments don't hit as hard as you want them too, the character motivations and arcs aren't as defined as they could be, and I think it's simply that the film needed to be a little longer, or more time needed to be spent building up to the end.  It was a quiet film, but I think it could have been even quieter.  There were heartwrenching moments, and I think they could have dug a little deeper.  There were a lot of glimpses of greatness, but it often settled for a very strong good.  

 

Overall, I'll probably end up ranking this around A Bug's Life or a little below Monster's Inc. level of good by Pixar standards.  It's definitely better than Cars 2, Brave, and Monster's University, but it isn't quite the gold tier that films like Inside Out, Finding Nemo, and Wall-E are on.

 

B+

Edited November 27, 2015 by The Panda

[Dan9]

I really enjoyed it.

 

Let's get this out the way; It's completely obvious that the premise of the film ended up getting completely lost in the re-writes and re-edits of the movie. For that reason it was never able to achieve its full potential. And yes as a result of its difficult journey to the screen, the story isn't as 'clever' as you'd want it to be. 

 

So for Pixar I can understand why it might be considered a disappointment. But they probably have the highest benchmark to reach of any studio/film-maker ever. So calling it a disappointment doesn't mean it isn't a really enjoyable movie. I was still moved by the story and felt really involved. Some parts of it are hilarious, including a few moments of sudden brutality that takes the whole audience completely off-guard. 

 

So yeah, it's not Inside Out. But not much is. It's still something I'd recommend everyone go and see and decide for yourself anyway.

[whoot]

Coming out of hiding to talk about this. 

 

Not sure if it's because I was spoiled with Inside Out (in my top 2-3 Pixar rankings), or because my expectations for this were sky high - but after the first viewing I'd have to say I did not enjoy this movie, I'd give it a C. And I really wanted to enjoy this.

 

Spoilers obviously, right?

 

I felt some of the key scenes were very derivative of Lion King. Arlo's dad getting squished by a stampede of water was obviously like Mufasa'a death scene. We can argue the differences, but seriously that was the first thing that popped into my head when I saw it. 

 

Some scenes dragged on. Some felt random. Pacing just felt off. Like it couldn't decide between being a quirky movie or an epic.

 

I very much would have loved to see Bob Peterson's actual vision. Like, was his whole point of the meteor missing earth simply having the ability to tell a story with a human and a dinosaur together? But really it could have been about a dog and a cat and it would have made no difference story-wise? I feel like Peterson's vision may have been more interesting and I'd rather the movie "failed" with the story he meant to tell. It feels like the disappointment I had with Bolt - solid but somewhat generic, and it definitely wasn't the Chris Sanders vision.

 

i will say, nice try, and at the very least it was an original movie.

[BK007]

B-

 

Terribly disappointing. 

 

The meteor gag was awful. It should have solely been in the teasers a la old Pixar, not an actual scene in the movie. Why was it kept? Added nothing to the movie.

 

In the end, we get nothing from it either. The dinosaurs have not evolved at all. Farmers and cowboys are the best they could do? This was second rate Dreamworks ala Mr Peabody or perhaps even worse, like those of Home and the Penguins of Madagascar, stretching out a premise to breaking point without doing anything particularly interesting with it. In fact, that's exactly what I felt. Another studio's work. But the glory days of Pixar are long gone. We have Dory, Toy Story 4 and Cars 3 to look forward to for the next three years or something. How deflating. 

 

I own everything, even Cars 2, on DVD and Blu-Ray. I had even originally collected Disney films before realising how garbage a lot of them were. Now that Pixar's library has become increasingly diluted in quality, it's time to prune. They are exactly like everyone else now. 

 

I cannot believe they killed Arlo's father. Talk about generic. Must a parent die? Not that the voice cast was amazing. The character design was terrible. Arlo himself was excruciatingly annoying in his one-note character. It reeked of been there, done that. There is no more magic touch. Lasseter has lost it, not that there was any doubt after Cars 2. I think the Chapman led Brave and the Petersen led Good Dinosaur would have been better movies. 

[AniNate]

Okay, there may be legitimate reasons why one might not like this movie, but comparing it to DreamWorks is lazy and wholly inaccurate. For better or worse, they have never done a film like this.

[BK007]

17 hours ago, tribefan695 said:

 

Okay, there may be legitimate reasons why one might not like this movie, but comparing it to DreamWorks is lazy and wholly inaccurate. For better or worse, they have never done a film like this.

 

Are you referring to Dreamworks in the last sentence, or Pixar? 

 

What this most reminds me of is the feeling of unfulfilled potential and playing it safe and juvenile. 

 

Mr Peabody and Sherman had a really interesting premise and yet it didn't advance anything much. I don't even remember what the point of the story was. 

 

In the Good Dinosaur, well, there are a myriad of problems. Firstly, why is it even called the Good Dinosaur? What does the term even have to do with the story? Absolutely nothing. It adds to no themes, refers to no one in particular, and I think this is important because perhaps Petersen had intended, as all titles would, for there to be a meaning to the title. Sohn and Lasseter and whomever else have not even addressed the title. 

 

Second, what exactly is the story here? If it is "a boy and his dog", why did they even need there to be dinosaurs? As whoot said, you could use any pair of creatures. If they wanted to tell a story about dinosaurs, why do they need the tagline if dinosaurs didn't go extinct? In the end, they do nothing with the fact the meteor doesn't kill anything. They have interesting animals interspersed with generic dinosaurs and the cartoony designs did not fit into the beautiful landscapes and etc. Did they feel they needed it to make the film less serious and more kid friendly? If so, it was a terrible decision. This movie ends up in no man's land for so many themes/ideas. 

 

Sure, having a Zootopia like world might not have been the way they wanted to go, but they really go nowhere with any idea of development with dinosaurs and other species. There's literally just farmers and cowboys, as I said, or herders, so really just farmers. If the movie is supposed to be about nature, they should take a look at movies like Into the Wild, Wild, 127 Hours, Cast Away etc. Heck, they can even use Brother Bear, the Jungle Book etc. There are loads of movies about nature, the wilderness, survival, buddy movies etc. This movie just does not know what it wants to be. 

 

Besides the underdeveloped world, you have underdeveloped characters. What is the point of stock stereotypes? We grow no closer to them. There is nothing to latch onto. Character intentions are shallow and pointless. From the unbelievable pterodactyl monologue, to the T-rex herder stories, to Arlo's family. What do his siblings want? Nothing. What are their characters? Who knows. Yeah, the movie isn't about all these "side" characters, but take a look at Inside Out, or Ratatouille, or The Incredibles or any number of their other films. A good swathe of the "side" characters are clearly defined and developed, even if they are not the focus. There is nothing here at all. To make it worse, the development of Arlo and Spot's characters do nothing to shed any light on the side characters either. I do not know why Arlo misses Libby (zero relationship) or Buck (negative relationship) and he hardly has a relationship with his mother. Even his dad, as I said before, is a placeholder spokesperson for lessons to learn. There is no other purpose. 

 

Then we get to Arlo and Spot themselves. I must admire the creative team for Spot. They gave him a character and succeeded in bringing it through without any dialogue. However, they could have dropped the dog allusions. The family he meets can stand on two feet, heck, he even leaves on two feet, so why is he a dog? Stupidity besides the "boy and dog, but reversed!" story they seemed to have been going for. It is neither original or welcome. We've seen it time and again and this brings absolutely nothing new. I cannot remember what else it reminds me of, but I'm sure the Croods and Ice Age among other movies played with this sort of theme as well. This loss and moving on. It is so, so familiar and so, so underdeveloped and undeserved. Maybe it was Brother Bear. Furthermore, if humans evolved to walk on fours, their bone structure would be different, so it just fails on all levels. 

 

That brings us to Arlo. Infuriating. The sight gag of him being a tiny lizard to the humongous egg was unfunny and proved to be telling of nothing. He's small, so he's timid. Wow. Why is he afraid? Nobody is born afraid, they become so. Then, you could not see the point of his existence in the farm, and was just counter-productive in feeding the chickens. His fear of everything was unfounded. Nothing did anything to make him afraid. It was poor development. This isn't Marlin or Syndrome. This is just really poor. His idiocy in situations also was pissing off. Maybe there are too many "young adult" coming of age stories, but this junior coming of age story is just as annoying, if not worse. You see these in those awful live action family hijinks movies that Disney puts out and other studios copy with awful humour and shoddy production value. What does a kid really need to come of age about? They are kids, they should be playing. If you wanted to make a proper story about abuse or trauma, do so. This was just half baked and in the middle of nowhere. 

 

So, what really is there to sink your teeth into? Not much, it's "harmless" and beautiful. That's about it. A crushing disappointment. 

[BK007]

17 hours ago, tribefan695 said:

 

Okay, there may be legitimate reasons why one might not like this movie, but comparing it to DreamWorks is lazy and wholly inaccurate. For better or worse, they have never done a film like this.

 

Are you referring to Dreamworks in the last sentence, or Pixar? 

 

What this most reminds me of is the feeling of unfulfille

[MrFanaticGuy34]

I think BK007 expect way too much from animated films nowadays what he wants.

[AniNate]

17 hours ago, tribefan695 said:

 

Okay, there may be legitimate reasons why one might not like this movie, but comparing it to DreamWorks is lazy and wholly inaccurate. For better or worse, they have never done a film like this.

 

Are you referring to Dreamworks in the last sentence, or Pixar? 

 

What this most reminds me of is the feeling of unfulfille

I'm assuming your post got cut off, but tonally at the very least this is way different from any DreamWorks film, and I think there is novelty in taking a stripped down approach to a high concept like dinos and humans coexisting. We'll be getting a fast paced urban styling of evolved non humans in a few months anyway

[BK007]

24 minutes ago, tribefan695 said:

 

 

Are you referring to Dreamworks in the last sentence, or Pixar? 

 

What this most reminds me of is the feeling of unfulfille

I'm assuming your post got cut off, but tonally at the very least this is way different from any DreamWorks film, and I think there is novelty in taking a stripped down approach to a high concept like dinos and humans coexisting. We'll be getting a fast paced urban styling of evolved non humans in a few months anyway

 

I posted a really long post right above it! 

[AniNate]

Sorry, I'm on my phone. That was the first thing that showed up on Tapatalk

[AniNate]

So I get that you weren't satisfied with the character development but I still don't see how that makes it "Dreamworks". To me it just comes off as a vaguely negative comparison to make when you don't like an animated movie by another studio.

I don't agree that it could've been any species pairing. There are subtleties in Arlo and Spot's relationship that are distinctly human and Dino in character. And I guess I just didn't need an obvious positive relationship with his family to make his longing for them work. Our families piss us all off from time to time but that doesn't mean we don't miss them, especially if we were to all of a sudden find ourselves alone in the world.

Admittedly I'm no expert on psychology but it makes sense to me that Arlo would develop a fearful personality by virtue of being the runt of the litter. Being constantly in others' figurative and literal shadows can be intimidating.