EssenceStory Well Deserved Praise

Melanie Bouvet The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Keira Brennan The movie is made so realistic it has a lot of that WoW feeling at the right moments and never tooo over the top. the suspense is done so well and the emotion is felt. Very well put together with the music and all.

Cassandra Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Sjoerd Jonker 'The Story is used before', SO WHAT!? Does that mean that this movie does not deserve any credit at all? Than what about Star Wars? Does Episode 7 not deserve any critic, since that story is almost a entire copy of Episode 4? Because I can't find THAT in the rating. In fact it has rather a surprisingly positive effect, but for me it has not got any effect at all that they reused the story in Episode 7. Who cares these days that the structure of a story is told again in a different location, with different personages, because if someone did care, than that person has a higher niche in watching movies than the diets of the finch species from the Galapagos isles. A reused story is NOT equal to bad. It is equal to low-budged. A good sense of logic in the story + appealing approach + a well characterization of the personages and what they stand for, will eventually make a perfect movie. Episode 7 sucks at all three and that is why Episode 7 of Star Wars is just BAD! Dinosaur however does this exactly right. For starters this story is not based on countless coincidences unlike episode 7 from Star Wars... No, this is about a story of a young Iguanodon, that coincidentally landed on an island as egg miles away from his home nest on the continent. Coincedentely the lemurs(which definitely evolved millions of years later) that live there decided to raise him as their own and coincidentally there is lands a meteorite nearby the coast of the Island and coincidentally the Iguanodon survives along with the lemurs who are most dear to him. It is as hypocritical as it sounds (only the beginning has big coincidences), yet this does not come even CLOSE to the conditions in The Force Awakens, because there almost every event happens with coincidence, from the beginning to the very end. Also the choices of the characters happen to be very random an illogical, unlike Dinosaur. The approach of Dinosaur is rather dark than most family films nowadays. The message was clear that life is cruel and that only the strong will survive in the harsh conditions, just like in real nature. Furthermore we experience Migration in difficult times, Predation and Catastrophic nature events, I must say that Disney did not took a small risk in this, since it happen to be a family film. Yet this darker approach ironically works, just like 'The Lion King'(father died),'The Land before Time'(mother died), 'Bambi'(mother died), 'Finding Nemo'(mother died + all eggs except Nemo). You are more likely to watch a movie again that has this approach than a child-friendly one, because it was something you did not fully understand in your childhood, which makes it interesting. The characters are good! The personality and the choices made by them match excellent in what they stand for and that is something many movies fail at. Aladar: A soft hero that wants nothing, but helping others, because he has learned that cooperation is the best way to keep a group together. Kron: A rival leader that wants nothing, but controlling the herd with only the strong numbers. Neera: A nervous and forced subject that needs a boost to be able to come up for herself. Bruton: A fierce warrior, that in the end does have the courage in doing the right thing. These are characters that have more or less the most meaning to the story and probably also the most likable ones, because the expression of these characters are so convincing, that make you care in an instant. In conclusion: Dinosaur is a good and a hugely underrated movie, with strong classic characters, good animation and outstanding music, nothing more to be said. The only critic that I understand is that the story needs to have a little bit more depth, because it felt a bit too straight forward. But I can't understand that someone says: The story is bad, because it is used before.

SnoopyStyle An Iguanodon egg is lost and travels a long journey. It's eventually taken by a Pteranodon to an isolated island populated by lemurs. The egg hatches and they name him Aladar. Years later, Aladar has grown up with the tribe of lemurs. Meteors rain down. One large meteor devastates the island and blow Aladar and others away. He and the lemurs escape the scorched island. They encounter new dinosaurs, both friendly and predators.The CGI looks great and realistic. It is top-notch advanced work for its time. The story is less compelling and very straight forward. It may be too scary for little kids. The characters are functional but not that memorable. The lemurs are not the most distinguishable. Also there is a problem with pairing almost modern looking lemurs with dinosaurs. I don't think it's scientifically sound. This is visually great but a lackluster story.

felix-bergman I honestly don't see why people are so upset whit this movie. Yes, there is talking dinosaurs, but how are you supposed to understand them otherwise. Mute dinosaurs walking around wouldn't be interesting at all and remember, this is a kid's movie. And yes, the animation might not be as good as in Jurassic Park, but this is a fully animated movie, JP used a mix of animatronics and CGI inside an otherwise live action movie, and in a interview I saw, Spielberg (or if it was a special effects guy, I don't remember) said that they would use the animatronics when ever possible and only cover up rigs and refine movement with the computer 'cause the CGI models looked like crap in comparison the robots. And yes, the story has been used before, but so has the story in most films we're watching today, only in varying degree and in different mixes and it's not like Disney is known for their originality story wise. As good as everyone of their Classics are based or inspired by other works.Personally I love this movie. The CGI is still good, and at times more realistic than many rushed animations we see today, the characters are fun to follow, unlike Land before Time were they were unbearable and made me hate the movie (even as a kid the first one was never my favorite) despite a similar story to Dinosaurs', which I by the way like, and the moral of it is a really good one.

The_Film_Cricket Watching the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park I remember wondering how magnificent these creatures might look in a film set in their own habitat showing us how they might have lived. Hearing that Disney was working on such a film my heart leapt. What a magnificent idea, I thought, a film that will show the majesty of these creatures using CGI to bring them to life.Then I saw the trailer and learned that the dinosaurs spoke, my heart sank. Why would you want to great pains to create real backgrounds, using all the state-of-the-art computer animation at your disposal to create these incredible looking dinosaurs only to dimish them with not only human personalities but modern-day sensibilities and catchphrases. Possibly because it's easier to sell toys at a fast food restaurant when the characters are cuddly and have names (but that's just a guess).I began looking for the moments in between when the dinosaurs didn't talk and there aren't many. The story is fine (it actually has more story then any of the recent Disney animated flicks) with the dinos moving across the desert following a devastating meteor storm.I imagined how this film might look on an IMAX screen at 45 minutes with no dialogue and more realism. Wow, how magnificent would that have been?