Sascha Tesch

I came across this movie by chance one night late on the tv. I checked the review in the tv guide and thought it would be an adaptation of one of my favourite plays by Shakespeare: Richard III. However, when I noticed that Roger Corman directed and the guide labelled this movie a horror movie I had mixed feelings. Corman turned the story of Richard Gloucester who "gets rid" of those who stand between him and the throne of England. Corman does that in accordance with the way the people are put away with in the Shakespearean play, but (of course) with greater detail. Plus, Corman focuses more on theoccult aspects - Richard haunted by the spirits of those he killed. However, during the whole movie it does not quite become clear whether those ghosts are real or just hallucinations of Richard's poor soul. Vincent Price - once again - gives a superb villain, very reminiscent of Boris Karloff (who I think played Richard, as well). A perfect movie for dark, chilly nights, with fog and storm outside, and a blanket to crouch underneath.

Dinosaur had me at mid-expectation. When I go watching a Disney-movie with my girlfriend I expect light, humorous entertainment. I enjoyed, Hercules, Tarzan, and Mulan, along with the others on video. I expected a similarly pleasing experience with Dinosaur. I was surprised by the seriousness of the movie. The visuals were amazing. Impressive camera angles, nice pans and a soundtrack that I found very good - but that's a matter of taste, I guess. The animations might not have been flawless, but what would you expect with *speaking* dinosaurs? Dinosaurs from different periods were wildly mixed, along with a few mammals. But this was a movie, not a documentary. I expect to be entertained, not educated. (My recommendation for a documentary: Walking with Dinosaurs) I found Dinosaur in a few instances maybe a bit too strong for young kids in the depiction of violence.

Someone commented that the movie would have gained a lot if the dinos hadn't been speaking. And that reminded me of the French movie The Bear (I hope that's that title in English) in which a baby bear is orphaned and struggles for survival in the French mountains. The movie involves almost no speech, only the occasional narrator and a few words by humans that the bear (unfortunately) encounters. I think Dinosaur could have worked very well without spoken dialogue, too, maybe even better.

Some people criticized about the plot. The script was modelled as a western movie with dinosaurs and if you go into the movie with that knowledge you quickly recognize the patterns - trek, dangers, rivalries about leadership, etc.

Whether you like it or not depends on what you are looking for. It is NOT a realistic documentary-style movie. It is also NOT a Disney-movie in the style of Pocahontas, Mulan, or Aladdin. The plot is NOT of the depth of War and Peace or a Stanley Kubrick movie. If you keep that in mind you can expect to be well entertained by an adventure story with exciting visuals.

When you see the movie that adapts your favorite work of literature you have high expectations. You have a picture of the scenes, locations and characters in your mind, and hardly ever a movie comes close to those images. Likewise, I found the 1954 movie War and Peace very disappointing. I was prepared for a similar experience before I saw the two-part movie by Russian director Sergei Bondarchuk. And was surprised. Still, the seven hours' version still omits many facets (including the almost satirical epilogue) of the original 1600 pages work of Leo Tolstoy. But never before lived a movie up to the images of my mind like this one. The actors, the locations, must have been picked very carefully, because they are very close to how they are depicted in the book. In more than one instance I had the feeling that my imagination had been brought to the screen. But it isn't the faithful rendition of the material alone that makes this movie so unique and wonderful. The broad scope of emotions, the grand scale of the aristocracy's parties with all their luxury, the battles with tens of thousands of extras, the impressive burning of Moscow, the actors who don't act but live the plot, it all adds to the wonderful experience of this film. This movie is highly recommended to any true lover of Tolstoy's book, who is interested in Napoleonic history or simply anyone who likes deep, moving, impressive movies. For anyone interested in Napoleonic history, I also highly recommend Bondarchuk's Waterloo, from 1969/70.