Pixar's "The Good Dinosaur"

[Dobber]

We just got back from seeing it. We took our kids, it is my daughters birthday. It was really good. It really knows how to pull on the heart strings. My wife and I teared up several times. This was the first movie my Daughter ever teared up at too. As for the Dino's....still not a fan of the designs, but the Rex's where pretty cool. I thought Arlo's family looked more like Brachiosaurs than Apatosaurs.

Also, I personally would have preferred  Dino's that where around in the late Cretaceous in stead of the Jurassic Apatosaurus, the early Cretaceous Velociraptors, an the one Rex said it fought a Stegosaurus...why not just say Ankylosaurus instead. Just a LITTLE more research would have been appreciated. In fact that bothered me more than the cartoony designs.

Still a great movie, and I will not let MY PERSONAL issues detract from a very well done movie. I was also pretty surprised by some of the violence in the movie. Mainly, the "head" scene, and the "storm provides" scene. I was like 

Chris

[Arul]

For you who hasnt wacth the movie, this is a very recommended movie for all ages. very good movie, its not about the scientific accuracy of each species in the movie, so many moral value i almost drop my tears  dont stop here Pixar, i hope there will be the good dinosaur 2 in the future.


(Spoiler Alert)

I'm really liking the way Butch looks. Also that "roar" from the clip sounds like it was taken directly from Jurassic Park

Butch is my favorite character. i also recognize there is a jungle sound that taken from Ipad game "Deer Hunter 2014" lol

[EarthboundEiniosaurus]

Just got back from watching it. To be totally honest, it was something of a "meh" movie for me, but I didn't HATE it, it just wasn't as good as I thought "Inside Out" was and didn't really live up to the hype. certainly worth seeing, with amazing animation and some genuinely touching moments, but other moments seemed out of place or really unnecessary (if you've seen it I think you know which scene in particular i'm talking about). As for character design, I didn't really have a problem with the overly cartoony look, but thats not to say i didn't notice it at all. There were actually some parts during the movie where I started thinking about how crazy mobile Arlos shoulders were, but i didn't really dwell on it. MINOR SPOILER MAYBE it's true that some of the characters that are in the toy line aren't seen in the movie, and some characters in the movie don't have toys that i'm aware of END OF MINOR SPOILERS All and all, i'd recommend seeing it, if nothing else for the amazing animation, and a personal overall score of a 7 out of 10.

(off topic, but i really liked the short they played in front of the movie, "Sanjay's Super Team")

Thanks,

EarthboundEiniosaurus

[TomWToyForum]

Just got back from watching it. To be totally honest, it was something of a "meh" movie for me, but I didn't HATE it, it just wasn't as good as I thought "Inside Out" was and didn't really live up to the hype.

Was there really a lot of hype for this movie? I think it's more like Brave than anything else in terms of hype - a solid but not an exceptional Pixar movie.
Inside Out was the film that really got the hype, with many calling it a return to form for Pixar and one of their best works. I totally agree with those statements, but ever since I completely overhyped Mad Max: Fury Road for my best friend, I've been really trying hard not to hype things too much. I don't think my post was very hyped up about it.

I don't want to spoil anything but I really want to give props to the Jaws reference that felt menacing and not comedic, and gave a fresh twist on a well-known trope. I was pretty impressed with what they did there.

[EarthboundEiniosaurus]

Just got back from watching it. To be totally honest, it was something of a "meh" movie for me, but I didn't HATE it, it just wasn't as good as I thought "Inside Out" was and didn't really live up to the hype.

Was there really a lot of hype for this movie? I think it's more like Brave than anything else in terms of hype - a solid but not an exceptional Pixar movie.
Inside Out was the film that really got the hype, with many calling it a return to form for Pixar and one of their best works. I totally agree with those statements, but ever since I completely overhyped Mad Max: Fury Road for my best friend, I've been really trying hard not to hype things too much. I don't think my post was very hyped up about it.

I don't want to spoil anything but I really want to give props to the Jaws reference that felt menacing and not comedic, and gave a fresh twist on a well-known trope. I was pretty impressed with what they did there.

I saw lots of ads for it on television, and about a billion radio ads as well. They certainly were advertising it pretty heavily, and I had some pretty high hopes for it, but that's my fault. I probably should have gone in with lower expectations, but Inside Out set the bar pretty high. As for the Jaws reference, I caught that as well. Did anybody who's seen the movie happen to spot the obligatory pizza planet van anywhere? It's in all the Pixar movies and i'm curious to see where they hid it.

Thanks,

EarthboundEiniosaurus

[Tyrannosauron]

My two cents: not a bad movie as far as family movies go, but sadly disappointing given the source and setting. (Not many spoilers below, but best to be safe if you haven't seen it, maybe?)

For a movie that's ostensibly about a world on which the non-avian dinosaurs never went extinct, there really isn't anything in the script that demanded this movie be about dinosaurs. Arlo and Spot could have been an elephant and a mouse, or whale and a barnacle, or a beetle and another kind of beetle, and the story could have remained exactly the same. That just isn't the case with the better Pixar movies: the setting is an essential part of the story in Toy Story and Monsters Inc and Wall-E and Inside Out. In The Good Dinosaur, the setting almost seems like an afterthought (or--more likely--the remnant of a much earlier draft of the script).

There was also some uncanny-valley-type weirdness in the animation. I don't mind the cartoony character designs, but it's disconcerting to see a cartoony dinosaur with realistic weight and environmental interaction. At one point Arlo gets what looks like a realistically fresh bruise on his knee and I spent a good minute getting drawn out of the movie, trying to figure out the right emotional reaction.

With that said, the kids in the theater seemed to have a blast. It isn't a bad movie; it just could have been a better movie.

2015 could have been a banner year for dinosaur movies. Alas!

[TomWToyForum]

2015 could have been a banner year for dinosaur movies. Alas!

Banner year for dinosaur movies? Given the quality of Jurassic World, The Good Dinosaur would have to have been Toy Story levels of quality to compensate. At least both films are watchable, unlike a certain wide-release dinosaur movie that came out in the past few years...

[Shuvuuia]

My biggest complaint with The Good Dinosaur is what most of the others here have voiced. It didn't need to be a dinosaur movie. The fact that there were dinosaurs added nothing to the movie at all. It was a cute movie, and very good, but there was no reason it couldn't have just stared people.

[Newt]

Haven't seen it yet, but I intend to. It'll be the first dinosaur movie made in this millennium that I have seen. I would like to point out that the combination of stylized, simplified characters in realistic, visually dense environments has a long and honorable history in cartooning, perhaps reaching its apex with Tintin.

[Nobs]

Took my young son to see the movie.  Sadly I must say I got kinda bored during the movie!  I have not seen all of the PIXAR films, but of the ones that I have seen, this one ranks the lowest.  The pacing was slow, I think you were 30 mins into the movie before you see a non-apatosaurus character.  The humor was almost non-existent in the movie as well, nor can I remember any clever references (think toy story).  Sadly this is a miss for me.  If you want a kid friendly animated dinosaur movie, I would still recommend Land Before Time, or Disney's Dinosaur over this one.  : / 

[docronnie]

we will still watch it... Thanks for the reviews! :-)

[Newt]

I saw it last night. It was good...not great. As mentioned, it's a bit slow-paced, and there just isn't as much memorable stuff as in Pixar's best ventures. But still quite enjoyable, and beautiful. It's set in the Yellowstone region, and the animators really take advantage of the area's scenic splendor.

The story is, I guess, a sort of picaresque - timid young boy is separated from his family, has various adventures, returns home with newfound courage and confidence. It's not a tearjerker in the mold of Bambi, but there is a fair bit of emotional weight - or attempts at it anyways. The story arc is dead simple, and the incidents are just that - incidents, without any particular relevance to the overall story except that they give Arlo something to fear. Only three characters - Arlo, his dad Henry, and the human boy Spot - are more than cardboard cutouts.

I would disagree with Nobs and say that there are some funny bits - mostly physical or character-based humor. There are no verbal jokes to be had, which I for one am glad of. This movie doesn't need to be Kung Fu Panda. Still, not a kneeslapper, if that's what you're looking for.

[Dilopho]

I just watched this, now I'm sitting here crying like a big bubble blowin' baby.
There were some freaky things though- Upside-down shark fin scene really creeped me out. I didn't like the fermented fruit scene, either.
I loved the way the tyrannosaurs hopped everywhere.
What a great movie, but it's too scary for kids under 10!
Gosh, that footprint scene....before the "final battle"....man, that really upset me when I realised He wasn't leaving any footprints.

[Gwangi]

Think I'll wait to rent this one. Between "Star Wars", "The Revenant", "Creed", "The Hateful Eight" and even "Krampus" there are just too many movies coming out that look far more interesting and better overall. I couldn't justify sacrificing one of those for what appears to be an underwhelming kids movie. Too bad, I WAS looking forward to this one.

[alexeratops]

I just watched this, now I'm sitting here crying like a big bubble blowin' baby.
There were some freaky things though- Upside-down shark fin scene really creeped me out. I didn't like the fermented fruit scene, either.
I loved the way the tyrannosaurs hopped everywhere.
What a great movie, but it's too scary for kids under 10!
Gosh, that footprint scene....before the "final battle"....man, that really upset me when I realised He wasn't leaving any footprints.

[WarrenJB]

Sorry to bring up this thread after so long, but I've been reading ten pages of 'it's not a hyper-scientifically-accurate film, it's supposed to be cartoony, it's just for kids anyway', and I think it's a terrible, terrible copout.
Even though animal characters in Disney films are anthropomorphised, given big eyes etc., they've had a long tradition of careful reference and study of the real animals used as the basis, going back to Bambi in 1942. It creates more animatable and relateable characters, but also insightful caricatures of real creatures. Pixar has obviously carried that on, as mentioned, with films like Finding Nemo and Ratatouille*, but they fumbled it with The Good Dinosaur. Some characters suffer less than others - the Tyrannosaurs are the saving grace of the film, IMO - but the one we're forced to stare at the most, Arlo, is almost shapeless. A bright green amoeba in the middle of a stunningly realistic landscape. About the only things sauropod, let alone apatosaurian, in him that I can see is that he has a long neck and four legs.

Not a documentary? Kids won't care? I doubt they cared that Dory was carefully based on a blue tang, or about the work that Pixar designers and animators put in so that parisian rats wouldn't look like Mickey Mouse knockoffs.

Special mention to the raptor rustlers too. Lizard-faced monsters with bits of feather dusters glued over them. Urgh.

As for focusing on the story...

For a movie that's ostensibly about a world on which the non-avian dinosaurs never went extinct, there really isn't anything in the script that demanded this movie be about dinosaurs. Arlo and Spot could have been an elephant and a mouse, or whale and a barnacle, or a beetle and another kind of beetle, and the story could have remained exactly the same.

There was also some uncanny-valley-type weirdness in the animation. I don't mind the cartoony character designs, but it's disconcerting to see a cartoony dinosaur with realistic weight and environmental interaction. At one point Arlo gets what looks like a realistically fresh bruise on his knee and I spent a good minute getting drawn out of the movie, trying to figure out the right emotional reaction.

That.

(I've already thought about how unnecessary dinosaurs are to the story, but "could have been an elephant and a mouse, or whale and a barnacle..." just now makes me realise what reference they really used for Arlo's character design...)

Just got back from watching it. To be totally honest, it was something of a "meh" movie for me, but I didn't HATE it, it just wasn't as good as I thought "Inside Out" was and didn't really live up to the hype. certainly worth seeing, with amazing animation and some genuinely touching moments, but other moments seemed out of place or really unnecessary (if you've seen it I think you know which scene in particular i'm talking about).

And that.

Arlo, sorry to say, is uncharismatic. He spends most of the film whining and moaning and cowering. It's maybe meant to invoke the usual Pixar emotional response, making us feel sorry for his dead dad and lost home, but it starts to drag. One of the first Pixar films where I found myself wondering how long it it had been running and when it was going to end. The 'caveboy acts exactly like a dog' joke got tired fast, too. Henry's death was unexpected but the scene seemed too familiar - almost lifted directly from the Lion King. I also thought some of the story beats were an awful lot like Finding Nemo. (Family member dies early; character goes on long journey with an almost-obliviously fearless companion to overcome fear and find and/or rescue remaining family) The encounter with ghost-dad is a weird time-out in the middle of a headlong rush to save Spot from imminent devouring. I think it's weirder than the hallucination bit - at least funny fruit with interesting chemical compositions is a reason. It pulled me out of the film to wonder why Henry had to die at all, for the purpose of the plot, except for some of that Pixar feeling in a by-the-numbers way, and it made me wonder about the way other moments in the story were put together.

I think all the development problems and director changes and things showed, and I'm willing to give it some benefit of the doubt for that. As some of you say, it's not a terrible movie, but not a great one either; but that might qualify it as a bad Pixar movie.

* And to finish this grumble: what remains their best rendition of a dinosaur, in Up.

[suspsy]

I'm a big fan of this series. They have ones for the JP films as well. WARNING: some profanity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ophfRYpthW8

[SBell]

I'm a big fan of this series. They have ones for the JP films as well. WARNING: some profanity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ophfRYpthW8

Haven't had a chance to watch yet, but however much profanity there is, it won't be enough. That movie is pure stupid.

[suspsy]

When I finally tried to watch the film, I ended up doing kitchen cleaning and review writing while it played on the background. Never a good sign, unless it's a movie I've seen many times before. Arlo was one of the least likeable characters I've ever seen in a Disney film.

[CityRaptor]

So what do you think? Does that movie ruin our chance of getting a Devil Dinosaur movie at one point? I mean come on, this is already Disney's second Dinosaur with primate sidekick movie that is not considered a good movie.