By coincidence, shortly before watching this film, I came across literature about alexornis, an ancient Enanciornis bird whose fossils were found not in Alaska, but in Mexico. Even Soviet authors drew attention to the fact that enanciornis lived mainly in warm regions, but for a feature film a small indulgence can be done. Moreover, over time, the creators almost guessed - the end of the Cretaceous period.
We have always been interested and will continue to be interested in the prehistoric world, because this is the past of our home planet Earth. Nature has always been filled with joy and fear, good and bad. And this was told by those “walks with dinosaurs”, which was released in the format of the series in 1999. It is very strange and insulting that the rolling film of 2013 against their background looks like a colorful misunderstanding. For the beautiful locations and the same beautiful models of animals, the film can be thanked. As for the development of the characters, there are a lot of strange and too ridiculous moments like "sorty humor" and dialogues that refer to modernity. “They don’t like to cook”, “do sports” – such phrases are very annoying. Why they were added is unclear. It seems that the director believed that the film should be understood by the most stupid and undeveloped viewers. Yes, there are difficulties, dangers and betrayal in the story of the main character-Pachyrinosaurus, but it was possible to show survival without any tricks, as it was in the old Walks or Disney's Dinosaur 2000. Too much fun is bad, and it is important not to forget this. In addition, we have a typical story with a happy ending, the fashion for which has already begun to decline in 2013.
And yet it is good that the new “walks”, albeit not very successful, but still tell the audience about little-known extinct animals. Hesperonics, alphadon or the aforementioned alexornis, for example. It is a pity that marine animals in the film are absent, but the marine fauna has always been beautiful. The audience will even be told about the meaning of the names, and as for the Russian voiceover, it has the most unexpected blunder. The translators made a mistake not in the name of the animal, but in the name of the city - instead of "Edmonton" for some reason pronounce "Edmon".
Is it possible that a story like the one shown here actually happened? The answers don’t always lie on the surface. It’s great that movies that make us think about it come to the cinema from time to time. But looking back at other films about prehistoric life, I still say that the film is bad.
4 out of 10
After watching the trailer back in 2013, I went to the movie theater, I liked it, but I had two impressions.
1) The plot: not original and tells about the growing up of a herbivorous dinosaur, he loses his family and must challenge his enemies, achieve partnership and become a leader. For me, this stereotype is boring. While watching, I remembered famous cartoons like “earth before time”, “dinosaur”, “tarbosaurus 3D”, etc.
2)Dialogues and talking dinosaurs: I didn't think they'd talk from the trailer. And only Patchi, Khmur, Juniper and Alex are talking. I don't think dialogue is necessary. It is also strange that they talk without opening their mouths.
3) Humor: for many, the humor here is simply terrible, as is the whole film, although it goes too far, sometimes it was funny, for example, when Alex laughed at the paws of a Gorgosaurus.
(4) Graphics: not inferior to “Jurassic Park” and it is above all praise, even though the animators have to work hard to surprise the viewer. The world of dinosaurs looks rich and beautiful.
5 Characters: I like all four main characters, and Patchi is somewhat reminiscent of Littlefoot or Aladar, Juniper-Nira, Khmur-Krona or Sera, Alex-lemurs from the same “dinosaur”. But you worry less about them than you do.
Of all the characters, I liked Gorgon the most. Although it is not as scary as the Ostrodents of Earth, the Carnotavurs of Dinosaurus or the One-Eyed of Tarbosaurus, it behaves like an animal with instincts and is still so strong that it can kill even an adult Pachyrinosaurus.
6) Soundtrack: To tell the truth, I only remember the music from the trailer, and here I don’t remember everything.
7) Dinosaurs: They look real here. It's a pity there aren't as many dinosaurs as I'd like, I mean here:
-Pachyrinosaurus;
-Gorgosaurus;
-Edmontosaurus;
- Troodon;
- Edmontonia;
-Quetzalcoatl;
- Hirostinothesis;
- Hesperonicus.
(maximum 8 types).
8)Breaking 4-Wall: I was very surprised that Patchi and Alex here can communicate with the audience, despite what is happening, for example, when the frame was rewinded here.
(9) The connection with “walking with...”: many criticize him for not having Nikolai Drozdov as the narrator and for not being able to decide what the film, documentary or artistic, would be. Yes, the old walks with dinosaurs were much better, because there is no voiceover and there was Drozdov.
10) Reliability of the image: the reliability of the image here is weak, there are documentary images and art.
Bottom line:
The film turned out to be very controversial, someone liked it, someone did not, in many ways because of the dialogue, plot, humor and narrator, but the graphics and dinosaurs are on top. Not the worst movie about dinosaurs, but better it is “Jurassic Park”, “Earth before time”, “Dinosaur” and “Tarbosaurus 3D”.
Pros:
Since the release of the famous 6-episode project of the Air Force "Walk with Dinosaurs", very little time has passed when the studio began to shoot other films about prehistoric animals (and even changed the format, introducing a host for this). But a lot has changed since then (and not just technically). Since the main target audience of “Walks with...” are children, it is not surprising that the franchise has turned from a popular science film format into an entertaining spectacle with elements of scientific pop. And now, when it would seem that everything that is only known about prehistoric times was told, at the end of 2013 an animated film " Walking with dinosaurs 3D"
To begin with, I would like to note that this film has very little relation to the 1999 film. They have the same name (except for 3D). Yes, director-animator Marco Mareng worked on both projects. But, nevertheless, these are different films. At least because Walking with Dinosaurs 3D is a work of fiction, not a popular science film.
The structure of the painting surprised me. The prologue is a film where the family of paleontologist Zack (Carl Urban) goes on a hike, while Zack’s bored nephew Ricky (Charlie Rowe) listens to a talking bird about the dinosaur Patchi (which occupies most of the screen time, and is presented as a cartoon). In short, almost everything that the viewer sees on the screen is a story on behalf of the oldest bird - Alex. By the way, why the bird talks to people has remained a mystery to me.
The very story of Pachyrinosaurus Patchi, his brother Khmur, and the beautiful Juniper is not original. Even in some moments, the cartoon is frankly reminiscent of Disney's "Dinosaur" of 2000. Although it may be the fault of the pattern “a hero-loser, who eventually achieves everything, including the disposition of beauty and society.”
I found it ambiguous to modernize the cartoon. I am personally ready to close my eyes to a number of not funny jokes that will “go” to the smallest viewers (still rating 0+), the fact that dinosaurs communicate with each other in the American language (using slang). After all, it’s no different than the Ice Age franchise, where it’s all the same. But inserts with information about a particular dinosaur with an indication of its type (predator, or herbivorous) prevented you from looking. Since after a certain amount of screen time, the viewer gets used to the fact that he is watching a work of art, these scientific inserts were out of place. Also in one episode, when Patchi argued with Alex how gracefully he fell into the river, the bird as physical evidence literally rewinded what was happening on the screen. This is a pretty well-known directorial move, which, in my opinion, was equally inappropriate here. And strangely, how did the creators do without breaking the “fourth wall”?
In general, Walks with Dinosaurs 3D is quite a fun spectacle for the youngest viewers, shot in a fashionable stereo format. I don’t recommend spending time with adults.
I watched this masterpiece back in the winter of 2013, but when I signed up, I couldn’t ignore it. Let's go in order.
Plot.
Back in the summer, after watching the trailer, I thought that I was waiting for something interesting, exciting and instructive... and for a long time I was not so wrong. I can't retell stories without spoilers, but I don't need to retell them. I'm just going to give my opinion... and it's terrible. Absolutely not interesting, empty story that does not interest. And he doesn't exist at all. But let's get to the point where I'm in shock.
Screenplay, dialogue, characters.
I have not seen such a terrible scenario in a long time. I've seen a lot of bad movies. All the actions of the film are absolutely leaky, unrelated and unnecessary. In the film, one thing happens, and everything on the screen looks terribly boring. And I knew that when I was 9. Now for dialogue. They're worse. Horribly idiotic, stupid, not funny dialogues that will be hell to your ears. Now for the characters. I don't remember any of them. You don’t care about the heroes in the whole picture. In addition, the whole movie with dinosaurs is terrible voiceover.
Humor.
I'll be brief. It's terrible (like the whole movie). The authors tried to amuse the viewer, but it came out... Even the kids won't like it.
Animation.
The only bright spot in this hell. The animation is very beautiful, realistic and lively. Dinosaurs, nature, everything at the highest level. But I think if it's that bad in a movie, a beautiful cover doesn't change anything.
Bottom line.
It's a disgusting movie. It could have been much better. It was the first time my family and I hadn’t watched the movie. I spent a lot of money in vain (I thought the movie would be cool and went to Imax). He was afraid to go to other movies. Even the bad movies I watch right now are not as miserable as that miracle. Don't look at it under any circumstances.
Pachyrinosaurus. It means fat-nosed lizard. Herbivorous.
Could make a great documentary. It is not known that ...
What's the plot of this movie? It is typical of dinosaur cartoons. The growth of the main characters, migration and occasionally battle with predators. While watching, I was constantly reminded of “Earth before the beginning of time” and “Dinosaur”.
The plot of the film is like cartoons. So this isn't a cartoon? On many sites, Walking with Dinosaurs 3D doesn’t appear as a cartoon. Including here on the Kinopoisk in the column "Genre" orphanishly flaunts the only word - "Family". Although IMBD says it's a cartoon. Anyway, personally, I defined this creation as a cartoon. And the prefix "3D" in the name in different sources (that is, there is no). But it probably depends on the format of the film at the box office or on the disc. As well as the prefix “3D” can be used to avoid confusion in connection with the existence of the eponymous mini-series.
The main characters are like characters from a movie about teenagers. Most of their conversations and behaviors don’t seem to fit with the Cretaceous. But all the other characters look like ordinary dinosaurs, and, most importantly, since they do not talk, they look more natural.
Absolutely unnecessary inserts with a baby voice that says the name of the dinosaur, which means this name, and a herbivorous he or a predator (as if it is difficult to guess what a dinosaur eats). In short, as much information as in the title of my review. The only useful information is about the Gorgosaurus, and then the bird will tell it, at the same time mocking its small front legs (some will laugh with it, and someone will not like it at all).
Humor in general is quite weak, and in general it would be better to do without it. It was funny in some places. For example, when describing the Gorgosaurus again, the bird says:
His powerful legs accelerated him to speed I don’t know what, but he was definitely faster than you.
But more often jokes were like this:
Keep in mind that they smell fear.
- Sorry, it's not fear. Juniper, how are you?
I think I'm getting into someone's fear.
By the way, how they talk. No way. They say it, but they don’t open their mouth. “Dinosaur” had facial expressions and dinosaurs spoke with their mouths, not voiceovers, and it all looked quite normal. But then the creators did not dare to choose whether the film will be more documentary, where dinosaurs would rather not talk at all, or more artistic, where dinosaurs could talk “normally”. And in the end, of the two, we see the third as the worst. It feels like we hear the thoughts of dinosaurs, not their speech.
Was there anything interesting or original about Walking with Dinosaurs?
Well, first of all, picture quality. No complaints. It looks definitely better than the Tarbosaurus shot two years earlier.
And the second is the main characters. No, no, of course not their characters, dialogues, actions, which often positively distinguish the characters (for example, in dramatic films). I mean, who are these characters, and they're Pachyrinosaurs. There is a certain amount of originality here. Previously, we could already see as the central characters of the iguanodons in “Dinosaurus”, in “Earth before the beginning of time” – long-necked and several other species of dinosaurs, including the Triceratops Cera and her relatives, and in the aforementioned “Tarbosaurus” in general, in my opinion, for the first time the main character was a predator. But the creators of “Walks...” decided to take ceratops, and from many ceratopsians they chose Pachyrinosaurs, which did not have horns.
Well, of course, with such “originality” you can stamp cartoons about dinosaurs as on the assembly line, without caring about their quality, and simply replace the main characters with new species. And in fact, after watching this cartoon / film, it seems that it was made. I didn’t expect much more from him.
So, having watched this film Walk with dinosaurs 3D, I want to note right away, was not thrilled.
The plot for such a film is typical: from the birth of a baby dinosaur to the moment when he becomes the leader of the pack. Boring and uninteresting. After 15 minutes, I wanted to know the ending. There are few dinosaurs here, I mean species. They showed a maximum of 5-6 species. Originally I thought it would be a 2000 Disney animated movie. But I was wrong. This film was created with the support of the Air Force, respectively, it will be a semi-documentary with animated graphics, but not in the spirit of the classic Walk with dinosaurs, which is a little upsetting. This film is suitable for children.
In order for dear readers to understand the essence of the title of my review, I note from the very beginning that slash - this slash, in a fanfiction environment where they write their works on games, films, etc. - denotes the relationship between characters. So, the new film type came out really the product of the joint feelings of two of the greatest cartoons of my childhood, and not the most successful, although not the worst. And certainly not "walking with dinosaurs," which does not smell here. But here we go.
1) Why is this not a "walk"?
Because it's a cartoon. Improperly drawn cartoon. It is impossible to call this a documentary history, physically impossible. At least because dinosaurs talk here, and not just among themselves. The bird has the gift of speaking to man. Are you serious? Remember the superb preamble with landscape changes, with a return to the past in the performance of the Air Force TV series? It’s also a childish moment.
Speaking of childishness. "0+"? This is a not rating of "Walking with..." In the original (in the Russian box office – for sure) the series had 12+, not turning into 16+ just because all the characters were drawn on the computer. The old Walks were a harsh narrative, not shying away from showing the viewer the cruelty of the Mesozoic era. Here everything is nice and calm, there is no blood, there are almost no deaths, those that are shown mostly behind the scenes. This is a not documentary. Absolutely.
Finally, the characters here are essentially children. Yes, Walks also featured scenes of growing up, Australopithecus Blue (Blue) was generally a child all the time, as well as a baby indricotheria - this is me, of course, about Walking with Monsters. But the new Walks is also a children’s narrative, with clichéd children’s problems, which, in my opinion, is impossible in documentary cinema.
And yes, I almost forgot. It's not Drozdov. And that ruins the whole impression of the movie. The old "Walk with ..." I still perceive only in his translation. And yes, I wanted to go back to that carefree time when my dreams of becoming a paleontologist were not crushed by the harsh reality. I want to be the kid I was back then, but sadly, with this movie, it won’t work. No, because it's not Drozdov's voice. It remains only to drink tea and fall asleep under the old “walks”, along the way moving on to the continuation of this opus.
2) Social issues raised in the film
The point is quite short, but it hurt me. I am not talking about the children who appear to us as Pachyrinosaurs. I'm talking about that fifteen-year-old guy through whom the preamble is made. I'm not far from his age, and I have the same problem. I've watched all the movies about dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures twenty times, and I know a lot about them. But I have nowhere to go in a country where the national treasure is not old veterans, who, alas, are fewer and fewer, not cosmonauts, not science, not medicine, not education, but Gazprom. So for the introduction of the film I put a solid ten.
(3) Graphics
Up high. Ten out of ten. This is the best documentary image since Planet of the Dinosaurs, but it's completely unsuitable for a cartoon. The creators apparently attached the audio track at the last minute. There is nothing more to say.
4) Image reliability
Medium. On the one hand, clearly documentary footage, on the other, they are also seasoned with dialogue, clearly cartoonish. Seven out of ten.
5) Plot and characters
The plot here loses absolutely all documentaries and even cartoons of earlier years. And above all, all Walks with..., except those that tell about the Paleozoic - there he is clearly weak, but there are clearly charismatic characters who, in order to prove their charisma, do not need to talk. These are such, I will not be afraid of this word, personalities of the animal world, as vegetating in the shadow of reptilian colossus cynodonts of the "New Blood", a flock of Liellinosaurus "Spirits of the Ice Forest", the same half-uzube - smilodon from "Sabre-toothed", a female basilosaurus from "Killer Whales". Other characters clearly sounded tragic notes – all the characters in “The Death of the Dynasty”, Big Al in the eponymous “Ballad...”, the male ornitocheir from “Giants of the Sky”, over whose fate I still stealthily shed stingy male tears. Characters have died or lived, but I remember and love each of them as close friends.
The same story with the hero of the "Dinosaur", Aladar (or how is he there?), the same story with the magnificent five "Earth before the beginning of time" - Tiny Feet, Cera, Ducky, Ship and Pitri. You fall in love with them and worry about them. And the problem is that there are no such characters in the new Walks with Dinosaurs.
First, the characters here are clichéd and exaggerated. Typical teenagers who think not about survival, but about their petty problems. Yes, there were such moments in Earth, but there were problems common to everyone, not individual bickering of male alphas. Here, even adult heroes behave like teenagers, except perhaps the parents of GG.
Secondly, the terrible performance of predators is the dream of a vegetarian. They are clearly negative here, and stupid before, sorry, fools. Carnosaurus in "Dinosaurus" had charisma, were clearly negative and really terrible way, in "Earth...", I repeat, there were good Ostrotooths, one of them the heroes even almost re-educated, but biology took its course. In “Walk with Dinosaurs 3D” there are no impressive negative, like Hannibals, lecturers of the animal world, nor half positive villains.
Third, humor. Why is he here? Why do you want humor in documentary? I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Besides, he's rude. I was, you know, embarrassed to sit with people close to me when dinosaurs talked about raining feces. Do the creators think the children deserve it? I don't think so. The kids deserve a good movie. No humor, but good and good. And best of all - in the translation and voice of Drozdov. I don't accept anyone else.
6) Soundtrack
I don't remember at all. If the melodies from the screensavers of the old "Walks with ..." I remember on the first note, these - never. The dubstep theme Electro from the New Spider or the opening music of “Pacific Rim” clearly win against this background.
7 Outcome
Not the best way to use money. I could have done better. But for returning to the topic of dinosaurs, for raising the social problem (p.2, if anyone forgot) - praise. If it were called Earth Before 3D Time. A new story, I wouldn't even pick on it. But the series "Walk with ..." I will not allow to defame this way. A tough movie with controversial charismatic characters should not turn into a children's cartoon. However, 9 out of 10 for raising this topic and for graphics. And given that there hasn’t been anything on the big screen about dinosaurs since the third Jurassic Park, I’m quiet. Worth watching.
To begin with, I wanted to go to the movie theater. I really wanted to. But for some reason I decided: maybe I should watch the trailer, read reviews? And to be honest, I did it for a reason. A couple of months later, I saw the movie go online. So I decided to look, "Why not?" I haven’t seen a dinosaur movie in a long time. To be honest, I was ready for a negative review. But the fact that it will be really negative, I did not expect. Why is that? So let's start:
Plot: Painfully beaten and sucked from the finger. The story of a dinosaur named Patchi is painful. Boring? Unfinished? I've seen this before somewhere... The only thing I liked here was the fight of the dinosaurs for the herd (but let’s not reveal all the cards!)
Graphics: I loved it here! Everything the director touched, I loved it!
Dialogue: terrible! They don't match their... Manners? Mouth? How do I say that? You seem to say one thing, but you see another. Besides, the dialogue itself is terrible! What's the "porridge rain"? What's with "No, they're just very funny feet"? I'm afraid that will remain a secret.
Music: Honestly, I haven’t memorized a single melody! I don’t think there’s any music here!
Dinosaurs themselves: what to say, the graphics at the height, look great. But as a dinosaur lover, I didn't like the improbability of what was happening. First, the action was 70 million. Years ago, the landscapes must change. Somehow! And here is NO change, although one of the screenwriters was a man from past walks! I only noticed 3, I would like more.
Bottom line: 1 ball for dinosaurs, 1 for graphics and 3 for dinosaurs, total
5 out of 10
Bad, expecting more, much more.
P.S. I did not expect to meet people here, there are very few notes here, and in general... If you want to teach children goodness and show dinosaurs, then I advise you to look at the Earth before the beginning of time or Dinosaur.
Why spend $80 million on Walking with Dinosaurs 3D, if Walking with Dinosaurs already exists, though 15 years ago... and in TV format... and without 3D... and with Drozdov? Hmm. Distracted. Why release them on the same day as the Hobbit, at least on the Russian market? Why? This question did not leave me while watching the film.
Why, and most importantly, for whom this pseudo-scientific blockbuster of the Cretaceous period? Dinosaurs were popular during Jurassic Park. Now they are only interesting to paleontologists and kindergarten-level children, who recently saw them in an encyclopedia. For the latter, it is done, which is clearly hinted at by the rating 0+.
But the trouble with these “walks” does not carry any useful information to young minds. It tells the story of a loser with a hole in his head and courage in his heart, who turns from an outcast into a pack leader and takes the best dinosaur. A story beaten to the point of impossibility, but when you consider the young age, it should roll, they haven't seen it yet. However, if the parents show the child good cartoons from the time when they (the cartoons) were cute and kind, the child must have seen the Earth before time. It’s not exactly the same story, but it’s 100,500 times better which way you look.
What's worth one poop humor, I know it's for the kids to understand, but who can be raised on this, sorry, shit? Those who will then “switch” from domestic “comedies” and other low-grade toilet humor? Flat, very flat. It would be better if the lizards did not talk at all, everything would be much better and completely understandable. They talk to each other without opening their mouths!! Which creates cognitive dissonance, because it's clear that I don't understand shit. Why do that? Is that an inner voice? Do they communicate with each other by telepathy? Why do they growl and make other animal sounds? Explain, I am not in kindergarten for a long time, I do not understand!!
Do not, really, remove the dialogues, music (inserted completely out of place and terribly selected), leave only the picture and sounds of nature, and even better let the narrator, Drozdova, be right here and let him tell interesting facts about the reptiles shown. The more the hundred shows everything is great, good 3D coupled with excellent graphics, gives an amazing effect, as if we are there, and watching them, alive. Of course, I can not vouch for the reliability, but it looks very plausible.
If your child is just obsessed with dinosaurs and everything related to them, go! In all other cases, if you really want to watch Tyrannosaurus and Co., watch the mini-series "BBC: Walks with Dinosaurs" or the cartoon "Earth Before Time", more useful both in aesthetic and scientific terms.
4 out of 10
I think walking with dinosaurs is kind of a new word in cinema. Symbiosis of feature film with popular science. Fortunately, modern technologies allow you to create a visual picture of anything and anyone with a stunning effect of reality.
The story of Pachi, Alex, Juniper, Khmur and K is not a cartoon, not a fairy tale, but a full-fledged feature film in which, in addition to the adventure plot and chattering animals, there is a meticulously worked out entourage and a very detailed (although told in an accessible - and sometimes humorous - form) story about what our planet, its inhabitants and their habits were like millions of years ago. The creators showed us everything we had just read before.
I think it's amazing. Can we expect less from the Air Force? So I can see why Carl Urban took a tiny role in this movie, which is so wonderful that it's nice to join.
The only thing I want to warn you about is that it is better not to drive very small (under 7-8 years old) children on the "Walk ..." yet. They, as I saw today, are not interested in all this wonderful cognition. Well, unless your child is very developed, likes when you read him adventure books, and in front of the TV freezes not on, for example, “smirks”, but on elephants, rhinos, dragonflies and meerkats on Animal Planet, Viasat Nature or NatGeoWild. A child like this will enjoy "Walking with Dinosaurs" even at three.
The only thing I know about dinosaurs is that they were huge and roaring loudly. And from that point of view, the film is very cool!
Thanks to this film, I heard many unpronounceable names of dinosaurs, which, however, did not remember.
In general, despite the fact that this film is produced by the Air Force, it is more of a fairy tale film. It's a beautiful fantasy.
This is a very touching story of the smallest dinosaur, with a defect, which, however, became very important due to great courage.
It is a struggle for survival during migration. But about wild animals plot and not think, it is worth watching any movie on Animal Planet: eat, sleep and try not to die.
It’s a bit embarrassing what dinosaurs say with their mouths closed. I expected Babe-style conversations -- facial expressions. Not everyone talks about it. Of the huge number of different dinosaurs, they say only: the main character, his brother, the friend of the hero and the friend of the hero. Only 4 characters. The same mother and father of the hero only growls.
The narrator is the ancestor of the modern crow - Alex. A very peculiar character: interrupts, laughs, gives unnecessary comments. The character is clearly superfluous.
I wouldn't be taking school children to this film as part of a history program.
But for the beautiful landscapes and cool graphics
I’ll start from afar, because I associated the Air Force channel with a quality mark. This concerned both documentary programs and their full-length films, which showed live people facing the elements. What can we say about the documentary program “Walking with dinosaurs”, which at one time literally “blowed up the air” and everyone, literally everyone, watched this scientifically informative program about dinosaurs in their natural habitat. Oh, it was time. But years have passed. My interests changed somewhat and I stopped paying attention to the products of this famous studio... until a full-length film about the prehistoric era and its inhabitants was announced. I won’t say that this project was the most anticipated film of the year, but one of the most anticipated is certainly and what came out was so out of my sight that I somehow feel nothing about it. Well, that's "walking with dinosaurs."
The story follows an inquisitive Pachyrinosaurus named Patchi who dreams of dangerous adventures, true love, and devoted friends. And so, as is usually the case in this kind of film/animated Patchi, along with his grumpy brother are involved in dangerous adventures that risk ending tragically.
Speaking about the fact that the picture was beyond my expectations, I did not crook my soul at all, for the simple reason that looking at this “masterpiece” you wonder what audience this cartoon is designed for? In the cinema, he goes without age restrictions, and in order to emphasize this circumstance, the film is constantly trying to joke, regardless of the situation in which the characters of the picture are. Patchi got out of the nest and, sorry for my French, shit on him? It's a joke. The heroes fell behind their own pack and their father was killed in front of them? Let's put in a joke! Obviously, to emphasize the drama of the situation, how else? The heroes were attacked by predatory dinosaurs and the situation looks hopeless? Oh, I got it! And let's put in a bird that at that moment will eat some carrion, it's so fun! What? The overall storyline, in which Patchi will grow above himself, will find the girl of his dreams and devoted friends? Come on! Let's put in a couple of jokes borrowed from Petrosyan. The audience will appreciate it! And the problem is that the viewer didn't appreciate it. There were eight people with me, including small children. When the credits started, I was the only one sitting in the room. And yes, I myself was passionate about leaving the show, but I have a principle – no matter how terrible the film was, I will watch it to the end in the hope that the film will be an interesting idea or something remotely resembling it. This may be the wrong approach, but I can’t do it any other way.
So what about the "interesting idea" in this picture? She's not. I expected that if this is a picture from the BBC campaign, then the viewer will be told about the habits of dinosaurs, about their natural habitat, about interesting facts from their lives and much more, but all that the narrator has is to tell the name of the dinosaur, how it is translated and what it eats. You might think that the viewer himself would not guess what the magnate eats, whose mouth is full of razor-sharp teeth. He's fucking chewing pot! Although sometimes the narrator finds insight and he begins to share details that contradict everything we know about dinosaurs. Did the Pteranodons have no natural enemies, and they ruled the sky? Three haha! Birds were the natural enemies of these dinosaurs and they were the full rulers of the sky, but not the pteranodons. It is a shame not to know this, it is a shame.
As for the heroes of the picture, you do not believe them. At all. In order not to be unfounded, I will give a couple of examples. In a distant childhood, I saw a full-length cartoon “Earth before the beginning of time” (If I remember that now there were about twenty full-length films and they still continue to come out, so if you are interested, I recommend you to read it). The main characters were dinosaurs who were trying to survive in this difficult world and find themselves. And I believed these characters, because first of all, each of them had a well-developed character that influenced their decision-making, and secondly, dinosaurs had facial expressions. There is neither one nor the other in the film. Unbelievable, isn't it? A chic picture, dinosaurs look like alive, but the creators forgot to screw them both facial expressions and character. And the situation does not save even an attempt to perceive “Walks with dinosaurs” as a documentary, because the voice of the narrator is annoying, as well as annoying inappropriate jokes and the fact that the voice actors confuse emotions and from such literally ears wither.
As for the musical accompaniment, the melodies that sound in the film are good, but they are absolutely out of place. None of the musical compositions is able to emphasize a particular situation, let alone cause the viewer any other feelings besides overwhelming boredom.
Summing up, I want to say that in addition to a beautiful picture in this film there is nothing good - the story is not interesting, the characters are cardboard, the humor is primitive, and the narrator is annoying. So if you want to see a good movie about dinosaurs, then watch a TV series from the BBC or review Jurassic Park, and this movie is a waste of time.
3 out of 10
Yesterday, the Esentai Mall premiered the documentary “Walking with Dinosaurs.” This film in IMAX format immerses in 3D reality 70 ml. years BC, allows you to feel a sense of prehistoricity and thirst for adventure and survival of dinosaurs. The film tells about the adventures of the herbivorous Pachyrinosaurus Patchi, who will face many dangers from birth to adulthood. On the way of growing up, he will meet love and hatred, opposition to carnivorous and omnivorous dinosaurs in the struggle for survival in the cruel prehistoric period.
After 14 years, the Air Force decided to release the documentary Walks with Dinosaurs, which in the 90s in the number of six episodes were successful in its time. In terms of entertainment, the film is not inferior to the film Jurassic Park by Steven Spielberg. The stunning detail of the characters and landscapes of Alaska are very mesmerizing and leave a pleasant feeling of the time. I want to note that the filmmakers decided to abandon the colloquial facial expressions of the characters and the sound is superimposed superficially. This technique adds realism to everything that is happening, although at first it may seem unconventional.
Walking with Dinosaurs is an informative and kind film for all ages and genders. The film has a lot of educational for children and funny for an adult audience.