05 December 2015

HE'S MY FRIEND AND A WHOLE LOT MORE

A much reduced version of this review was published at the Film Experience

The Good Dinosaur is, in the first place, a kids' film. That's meant to be a categorical judgment, though there've been more than a few people out there making it as a value judgment. And that's fair - it's been a rocky few years for Pixar Animation Studios, with their first outright bad film, Cars 2 only four years in the past, and the shockingly average Monsters University reigning indifferently over the first missing year in the studio's release schedule since 2005. This past summer's Inside Out wasn't at the nigh-unto-flawless level of Ratatouille or WALL·E, but it was a return to their form, at least as far as that form appeals to the adult and young adult audiences who are the voices in charge of this or any film's initial online reputation. That form being, of course, that Pixar was back in the business of making movies that were kind of kid-friendly but also really more for grown-ups, even if they were somewhat about children, childhood, and childish things - or in the case of The Incredibles and Up especially, films that are entirely for grown-ups, but marketing and bias against the medium of animation in America still got some kids to check them out.

The Good Dinosaur is not that. I honestly don't know that Pixar has ever made a movie that is this much a kids' movie in the 20 years it has been releasing features - not even the unabashed toy commercials of the Cars franchise are so wholly and significantly built with kids in mind, with very basic and very familiar themes spelled out in straightforward language and a plot that consists of only one moving part at a time. It is simplistic to the point of being insubstantial, and this has made many people sad who were hoping for a second consecutive film at the Inside Out level of emotional sophistication and narrative creativity. That was really never going to be in the cards; frankly, the movie doesn't seem to have any designs on that kind of sophistication, and if the rumors are true about what got cut when initial director Bob Peterson was taken off the movie and replaced by Peter Sohn, the film specifically abjures such sophistication. Anyway, I think I loved it a little bit. It is warm and immediate, where Inside Out is sometimes so intelligent that it requires work to get at the emotional resonance. The earlier film is better, clearly (though as far as their animation and design go, I think it's pretty much a push), but The Good Dinosaur is probably the one I would reach for first on a rainy day.

But no, it's not terribly creative. The film is a basic boy and his dog adventure in which a pair of characters face off against a cruel natural world: the boy is a apatosaur named Arlo (Raymond Ochoa), in an alternate world where the K-T extinction event never happened, and the dog is a human boy, a feral bundle of energy that Arlo names "Spot" (Jack Bright), and the plot takes the form of Arlo's struggle to return to the family farm after he's washed into the wilderness by a river. One could start rattling off the various movies that this calls to mind, but then there'd be no room for the review left. Heck, even if we just limited ourselves to things produced and/or released by the Walt Disney Company, there's more than enough of a list of predecessors to prove that whatever else The Good Dinosaur is, it's hella derivative.

What it has to compensate for this is character - basic characters, sketched in crayon. But engaging and likable characters, with beautifully big cartoon faces all full of expressive detail; Arlo in particular has some of the biggest anime eyes of any Pixar character to date. It's a fine cross between squishy shapes and body forms on the model of old-school cartooning, and the almost inevitable textural realism of a CGI film that can't help but make characters seem to take up physical space, even when they otherwise feel derived from a tradition of 2-D animation. That's the least of the film's aesthetic tensions; (in)famously, The Good Dinosaur sets its dinosaurs in the most incongruous settings conceivable. These uniformly-colored, vinyl-like bath toys of characters - even a rugged Tyrannosaur with scars all over his squinty face, voiced, almost inevitably, by Sam Elliott, is some kind of cuddly - are stuffed right into realistic backgrounds. Not even "realistic". That's not enough of a word. These are some of the most photorealistic backgrounds I have ever seen rendered in CGI, not just in animation, but in "live action", as if that phrase has meaning when we're talking about the creation of artificial worlds. Hell, let's go bigger: The Good Dinosaur has backgrounds that look more photorealistic than the ones in Disney's misbegotten 2000 tech demo Dinosaur, and those backgrounds were photos.

The Good Dinosaur's locations are based directly on U.S. Geological Survey topographical maps, and treated with awestruck respect by director of photography Sharon Calahan, the overseer of the film's visual style. This is some of the loveliest artificial cinematography in any Pixar film - not the most complex or narratively important (WALL·E has that firmly sewed up), but lush and caressed by light in the fashion of a top-notch landscape photographer, if only the photographer could manipulate the very sun in God's heaven. Calahan can do that here. She does it extremely well.

This combination of photorealism and caricature is terribly, wonderfully strange; it's definitely an either-or proposition, too. If you never accept that these dinosaurs and this landscape could reasonably co-exist, the movie won't work, period. To my eyes, it works, after an adjustment period: those early minutes are a vacation to the profoundest corner of the Uncanny Valley. But this doesn't feel accidental. The sharp realism of the natural backdrops, is such a severe contrast with the characters (our point of identification and entry into the film's world) that the environment becomes foreign and alien in a most nerve-wracking way it is literally a space that the characters don't fit into; it is a place that constantly reminds us that this is not where the heroes belong, and the environment starts to dominate our awareness of the film (one major shortcoming to this reading: the apatosaur homestead is in the same hyper-realistic aesthetic of the rest of the film, so the one notionally comforting space is just as daunting as the rest of the world. By looking so real to our eyes, the dangers plaguing Arlo are all the more palpable, and he becomes a far more sympathetic figure, since his plight feels authentic - he's in danger in a way that family film protagonists rarely ever are.

For it's a harsh and violent movie at times, kiddie flick or no. The generically necessary death of Arlo's father (Jeffrey Wright, one of multiple talented actors wasted on barely-there roles) that drives the narrative comes too early for the emotional upheaval to hit as well as if we'd actually gotten to know the characters' relationships well; it is certainly not up to the gut-wrenching level of the truly great "parent dying" scene in children's cinema.But once that hiccup is past, everything thereafter is menacing and unpredictable in just the right ways, especially the introduction of a clutch of deeply unsettling and tangibly psychotic pterosaurs, their leader voice perfectly by Steve Zahn. Late in the film there's a scene of them stalking Arlo through a cloud bank, their head-crests poking beneath the clouds like upside-down sharks; it's the scariest moment Pixar has put to film since the mutant toys in the first Toy Story.

The film's tormented production history certainly leaves its mark: the film takes place in a curiously underdeveloped world, with the notional hook of "what if the dinosaurs didn't go extinct, and formed societies while primitive humans were running around?" badly shortchanged. This was, apparently, where most of Sohn's cutting took place: there was to be a full civilisation of wild dinosaurs, cultures and settlements of every stripe worked out in evocative detail. Instead, we have on odd little farm that's almost as incongruous as the world of Cars (why do the apatosaurs need chickens? How do they build things without thumbs?), in the midst of a deliriously underpopulated world. And the opening and closing are both rocky, getting us to the meat of the action in a somewhat labored way; the ending in particular jams on the brakes and rushes us through the film's big emotional catharsis as Arlo and Spot take the stock of their relationship. It is not a screenplay that got fixed. It is a screenplay that got to this point when they had to pull the trigger.

For all that, the great majority of the film really is something to behold: absolutely gorgeous (this is easily the prettiest movie Pixar has made, which almost by default makes it the prettiest computer animation in history), and anchored by a richly sentimental adventure score by Mychael and Jeff Danna that is one of the best things I've heard this year; triumphal and swooning but in a compact, heartfelt way. It is thematically featherweight, with sweet, likable characters learning basic life lessons; but then, the most basic life lessons are the most important ones. It is certainly middle-tier Pixar: we're a long way up from Cars 2, Monsters University, or even Brave, and I'd put this on about the same "really good, but admittedly flimsy" level of A Bug's Life. But middle-tier Pixar is a hell of a lot higher than other middle-tiers: if DreamWorks or Disney made this exact film, it would be much easier to be impressed, and if any other prominent American studio did it, it would immediately become their all-time best film. Lack of ambition and all, I find it hard to be disappointed by a film as heartfelt and gorgeous and quick-moving as this.

8/10

17 comments:

  1. This movie is inconvenient for me.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm glad you warned about the incongruity between the characters and background--that's 100% the kind of thing I'd like to know about upfront, because it sounds extremely off-putting, and being prepared might make it more palatable.

    But I must say this: I'm flummoxed by Monsters University's mediocre reputation. Now, I'm missing the Cars pictures and Brave, but I still feel relatively confident estimating MU as the best non-Bird, non-Toy Story Pixar film there is. (WALL-E's plagiarism and authoritarian bent bug me a little; Up is a devastating short film with another 70 minutes of total nonsense tacked on, and which is batshitty enough that I respectfully disagree that "it's entirely for adults"; Bug's Life is just kind of there, being okay; and the original Monsters Inc. suffers from having to dig into an overcomplicated premise, and also lacks for themes beyond a general sweetness.)

    Meanwhile, MU has twenty years of animation experience to draw upon, some really extraordinary design, is funnier than the first, thankfully does not feel the need to lean too heavily on the shaky premise undergirding its universe, and finally it has a great message about dealing with sucking. In this last capacity, as far as I can tell MU is practically unique in the field of movies (allegedly) made for children, even though "dealing with sucking" is pretty much the fundamental skill you need to have for being an adult human being in the real world.

    Well, anyway: on a scale of 1 to 10, how much does The Good Dinosaur rip off Terrible Thunderlizards? And would it be better if it ripped it off more?

    ReplyDelete
  3. What a charming movie this is.

    You're dead right about the characters, too- they were exactly what was needed. Arlo in particular is an absolute knock-out- cute without being cloying, brave and resourceful without being overly precocious, and scared and vulnerable without being cowardly and wet. The young actor hit all the right notes, too.

    Honestly, the beauty of the landscape tells its own story, to the extent that some of the choicest shots almost played like a demo reel- yes, Pixar can do this sort of thing now, and it is astonishingly pretty.

    I see the point about the absence of a wider society to connect to- the film definitely could have benefited from a trip to the waterhole that the characters speak of. I did like the disjointed, almost-episodic nature of the plot in its own way, though- it reminded me more of Finding Nemo than any other Pixar movie, only reversed and without a constant connecting thread along the lines of the scenes with Nemo in the dentist's tank.

    Actually, the highest praise I can give this film is that it's the closest I've ever seen CGI animation come to the style and themes of the finest cuts of Studio Ghibli.

    Just to briefly talk about Sanjay's Super Team... what did you think? I know it's been rather divisive, but I was rather taken by the graphical design of the dream sequences and the showy auteur-ness of it all. It's certainly more personal and distinctive than I ever thought a mainstream CGI movie would ever go.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Just to be on the safe side, there be SPOILERS in this comment. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

    This one disappointed me. It's hardly bad, but some of its plotting and structure choices are inexcusable (in particular its cramming in a hitherto-completely unmentioned thread of emotional conflict into the final act at just the worst possible moment), and the sheer typicality of its narrative and character beats play poorly alongside its fiercely episodic structure, which prevents any of them achieving the kind of resonance or vibrancy that would allow them to overcome that problem (oddly enough, I think the one area I feel this doesn't apply to is in the character of Henry; I respect that we get to see him let his frustration with Arlo's problems get the better of him, if only for a moment, as one of the last things he does, and that it is Buck more so than Henry who helps Arlo understand what his fears really mean). I also can't help but feel the short shrift given to the "what if the dinosaurs survived?" conceit limits the movie's world in harmful ways, rendering it hard to really invest in or understand (forget Arlo's family, what in the world are the Rexes herding those buffalo for that couldn't be better/faster achieved by just flat-out eating them then 'n' there?), especially given the atypical ways in which the story uses violence. I'm all for heavier action content in animated movies, to be clear, but it does leave me a bit troubled how this movie tacitly approves of some unsettling choices on the part of its protagonists (I'm thinking in particular of the final moments of our lead pterodactyl). Without a clearer sense of just what kind of world this is, those choices feel awfully hard to grock to.

    Thank goodness for those visuals, though. Honestly, I'm weirded out by how many people are weirded out by the contrast between the hyper-realistic envrionments and the openly-rubbery, cartoony look and feel of the characters; it feels so very intentional, at all times, and the effect, to me, is less "Uncanny Valley" and more a classic sort of "cel characters on top of painted backgrounds", a rather unique place for CG animation to go. Besides which, the environments are just so gorgeous, and the characters just look so great, that I would forgive it any oddities for those individual strengths alone. I agree very much that the character design work here is great; even the minor players, like the rustlers or the Pet Collector, have a fantastic visual personality to them that even with their fairly one-note characterizations and brief screentimes, they can't help but make an impression. The characters who really do receive focus, meanwhile, flourish wonderfully; Arlo, as you say, is just absolutely great, likewise Spot, and I also really loved the Rexes; they all just have this great, broad range of emotions and reactions that helps carry the story even through its rougher patches. That's on top of the movie's frequently wonderful use of imagery; the scene where Arlo and Spot help teach each other the concept of Family, for example, is probably the strongest scene in the whole movie to me, while the visual parallel the movie draws between Arlo and his father at the end is clever in just the right way.

    But those strengths feel like they're fighting an uphill battle against a story that, at its core, is more than a little broken, and for me, it consistently undercuts the movie even during its high points. I think we're in agreement that this is mid-tier Pixar, but to me, it's more of a 7, maybe even a 6, than an 8.

    --Sssonic

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ha! I knew Arlo would respond!

    Nobody has asked this yet: Thoughts on Sanjay's Super Team, the short?

    Sadly, I think this will remain the 2nd best of the 2010s (which started in 2011 TS3 fans), maybe 3rd if Coco dazzles. But I see little promise in Finding Dory, TS4 actively destroys my head canon on Bo's fate and I am one of the few who finds the Incredibles morally repulsive (not because of some Ayn Rand bull either. I believe Syndrome was truly heroic and that had he succeeded he would have made the world a better place. By contrast, Mr Incredible learns the wrong lessons from his adventure and proceeds to make the world worse for everyone except him.) Oh and there's Cars 3.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This is still definitely a "wait for DVD" case for me, but Oh my God, the title to this review... (Enter your favorite hearty applause gif here.)

    ReplyDelete
  7. it's so weird how incongruous the environment is to the characters in this movie, but it somehow works. it's charming in way that it plays out like a child's imagination, playing with their own stuffed dinosaur toys against the setting of the real world.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This sounds much more up my alley than Inside Out, which I tried watching twice but fell asleep both times. With the 3D glasses on. It was so boring and aimed at little girls, something I've never been and do not care about even a little.

    I was once, however, a little boy infatuated with dinosaurs, so I'll definitely give this a shot.

    Also, was I the only one who got very uncomfortable at the thought of people essentially not being in control of themselves, and wholly under the influence of those emotion-beings? And if the emotion-beings have a falling out with each other or die, is that how ppl become brain-dead vegetables? There's a seriously fucked up horror story hiding just under the surface of that film.

    ReplyDelete
  9. And that's not even getting into all the screwed up shit ppl do in their own privacy... Like in the bedroom. Or how about murderers? The longer I think about Inside Out, the less likely I am to ever watch it again.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I haven't seen this yet, I just want to put in another vote for Monsters University being better than its reputation. Compared to every other American animated film from 2010-2014, MU is amazing. The first How to Train Your Dragon is the only one to compete with it, and I find MU far more charming and better animated. It's just that Pixar can do better that makes it seem mediocre in comparison.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This was easily the best dinosaur movie I have seen this year. I did actually tear up at one point.

    And it was, on so many levels, gloriously photorealistic. There was one exception to that for me. The waterfalls just felt off. Water does not fractalize like that in those quantities.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yeah, add me to the list of people who were disappointed by this one. I would definitely give it a 6, and that would be almost solely for the visuals (which obviously we all agree are astounding.)

    It's funny, I had no problem accepting the cartoon characters living on those gorgeous backgrounds, but I just could not accept the world-building of this film. It's the same reason I don't like Cars. I have the same problems that you mention and Eric talks about above, but they bother me more than either of you.

    Of course, I probably would have accepted that a bit better if I were emotionally invested in Arlo's story at all. But all of it just seemed so full of cliche - the parents aren't sketched out at all, beyond "old and wise," and Arlo himself seems to be primarily defined by being a scaredy-cat.

    Yes, if this were a Dreamworks film, I'd probably have liked it more, but I still wouldn't be able to give it an 8/10.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Add me to the list of people who are baffled by Monsters University being considered any kind of "bad" movie. Brave I liked despite its pretty large flaws, while Cars 2 is an inexcusable parade of constant Mater and apparent anger at the viewer for daring to be annoyed by Mater. Monsters University though feels like a whipping boy, it's a totally charming movie and I'm fine with Pixar making movies that don't all shake me to my core. I hope I'll be able to enjoy this one, knowing that it's a pretty simple children's movie.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Just caught this last night. Your review is spot on, Tim. The standard Disney kid loses parent and sets out to conquer fears set up had me deeply worried (as did the terrible design on Arlo's parents) but the convincing characterizations of Arlo and Spot salvaged everything. Add in the stunning backdrops and the truly bizarro touches-- a deranged triceratops cult figure, the wild west T-Rex sequence, graphic bug and varmint murder, truly terrifying villains-- and it handily overcame its obvious structural and conceptual flaws. Also, I bawled openly twice. Even Bing Bong didn't elicit such a flow, I'm ashamed to say.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ok, now I've seen it. I basically agree with everything Eric Mason says above. It's world-building makes zero sense--but at the same time, its sheer weirdness gives it a certain fascination. Plus it's gorgeous and sweet. I liked it, but it's got problems.

    But I loved Sanjay's Super Team. How wonderful for Pixar to do something so personal and culturally specific! And soo much better than Lava it's not even fair.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The Sanjay Super Team was pretty good in my opinion. It's true that one is taken aback by its highly personal nature, but the visuals are pretty cool and the animation is probably the best of any Pixar short. I think had they just concentrated on the dream part, people would have liked it far more.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This is honestly the first Pixar movie I didn't care for at all.


    It's the most generic plot it can be - character has to get from point A to point B and some friendship develope on the way... which would be fine exept honestly most of the things on the way where just boring and whenever there was an idea or a character that felt interesting it vanish from the movie as soon it appeared.

    There are some creature designs that looks neat, I enjoyed the part with T-rexes and that little cave boy got a laugh or two but that wasn't nearly enough to save this movie. I seen Pixar shorts from which I got more...

    ...speaking of which - Polish distributor sucks! After one week they remove the short infront of the movie (Sanja's super team) becouse some mom's where complaining that it's to viollent and scary fro children... WHAT??? :/


    ReplyDelete

Just a few rules so that everybody can have fun: ad hominem attacks on the blogger are fair; ad hominem attacks on other commenters will be deleted. And I will absolutely not stand for anything that is, in my judgment, demeaning, insulting or hateful to any gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion. And though I won't insist on keeping politics out, let's think long and hard before we say anything particularly inflammatory.

Also, sorry about the whole "must be a registered user" thing, but I do deeply hate to get spam, and I refuse to take on the totalitarian mantle of moderating comments, and I am much too lazy to try to migrate over to a better comments system than the one that comes pre-loaded with Blogger.