NOTE IMDb
4,6/10
2,4 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueA young boy and his family embark on a series of adventures when the boy finds some mysterious eggs which hatch to reveal a brood of baby dinosaurs.A young boy and his family embark on a series of adventures when the boy finds some mysterious eggs which hatch to reveal a brood of baby dinosaurs.A young boy and his family embark on a series of adventures when the boy finds some mysterious eggs which hatch to reveal a brood of baby dinosaurs.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
Peter Vasquez
- Jefe
- (as Peter Mark Vasquez)
Kyle Pittman
- Kid
- (non crédité)
Frank Welker
- Dinosaurs
- (voix)
- (non crédité)
Avis à la une
In one sense, I kind of liked this movie because of a 'mindless', positive atmosphere it sort of conveys. I had a problem with an aspect of the plot, but more about that later. First, the characters were a little goofy and one dimensional. The 'good people' had similar physical and character traits and the 'bad people' had similar physical and character traits ... hmmm. The basic storyline was OK (pretty simple and standard) - nothing too exciting or objectionable. The main attraction was, of course, the miniature dinosaurs - kind of a nice fantasy element to have. However, they had a very minimal presence in the movie.
Outside of that, the movie kept a brisk pace and didn't get too bogged down in any one place. I liked this about the movie.
The problem I had with the plot had to do with the the idea of "stealing". I think this movie may not have been thought out enough - something's wrong especially if this is a kid's movie. I'll keep the next sentence abstract to not be a spoiler (skip it if you're worried). The 'good guys' do some stealing and they don't have the same info the audience has - so it's just stealing and that's kind of a bad thing for a kid's movie.
Overall, if you have kids, because of a questionable plot aspect I'd consider passing. However, this whole movie is pretty low key anyway so it may not matter. Pass this one if you have any other interesting choices.
Outside of that, the movie kept a brisk pace and didn't get too bogged down in any one place. I liked this about the movie.
The problem I had with the plot had to do with the the idea of "stealing". I think this movie may not have been thought out enough - something's wrong especially if this is a kid's movie. I'll keep the next sentence abstract to not be a spoiler (skip it if you're worried). The 'good guys' do some stealing and they don't have the same info the audience has - so it's just stealing and that's kind of a bad thing for a kid's movie.
Overall, if you have kids, because of a questionable plot aspect I'd consider passing. However, this whole movie is pretty low key anyway so it may not matter. Pass this one if you have any other interesting choices.
Moonbeam is interesting because with it Band finally admits the childish nature of his comic booky stories and his trademark whimsical tone, now without the irruption of sex and violence present in the average Full Moon outing.
A nauseating sitcom family dynamic is at the center of the picture, injected with the derivative dilemmas of children's fiction, even with a trite and underdeveloped backstory of grief that sometimes comes up whenever the script requires it (this whole "missing parental figure" thing also troubled the child protagonist of The Seven Faces of Dr. Lao (1964), where the void was also filled by a showcase of special effects and stop motion). A charmingly naive fantasy tale done in a post-Spielberg/Dante era, with the rowdy spirit found in the tamest scenes from Gremlins (1984) but without the satirical perversion of childish iconography and subjects. Band's film maintains it's purity and childishness without allowing it to be contaminated by dreadful morbidness, grossness or violence of any kind, every punch and firearm shot is clean and harmless, every "adult" joke is safe and restrained, every conventionally attractive adult that's single falls in love with another one, and every piece falls into place without any problem or trouble. There's no place for verisimilitude in the childish fantasy.
The real stars are obviously the David Allen-made micro-beasts, who engage in the typical disastrous misadventures and cutesy little shenanigans these movies require. Dino-puppies extracted from the likes of Beethoven (1992) and its sequels. Perhaps one of the most interesting things is the way the Bands portray the dino-doggies, with a crushing ordinariness, their reveal occurs with the utmost cinematic casualness, from one shot to another, one cut it's all that's necessary to reveal them, as opposed to the typical Spielbergian procedures seen on Gremlins, where the search for a particular effect and emotion forced the direction to employ shots specifically constructed and timed to convey a certain feeling (the tilted and moody shots of the Gremlins hatching for example) but Band opts to dispose of all of that, never even accentuating an emotion. The reactions humans have to seeing the dinosaurs are no different. There's no true questioning of the little creatures aside from simply pointing out their strange appearance in the house. The small reptiles are shot and framed as simply another element of daily life, inhabiting the frame as naturally as any puppy or cat does. Never seen with strangeness or making them disturb the world created. There's no place for the questioning of the fantastical in the childish fantasy.
The old school model seems transported from the 50's and 60's, mostly untouched, perhaps out of the inability of father Band to adapt to the times, or perhaps the son's nostalgia is the one responsible for such backwardness. As with most of Band's catalog, the core is an old model that becomes slightly modified by the popular tropes of the time, but it's mostly undisturbed by modern sensibilities or worries.
Prehysteria has no objective other than purifying the children's film, while Jurassic Park (1993), Gremlins (1984) and Goonies (1985) pushed the limits of the subgenre, maturing and occasionally pouring a few drops of meanness and intensity into their stories, Band brought back naivety to it, a deliberate and shameless naivety, always conscious of it's tone and with total conviction to it, self conscious but not self deprecating, proud of an obsolete cinematic infantilism.
The best and most fitting start for Moonbeam.
A nauseating sitcom family dynamic is at the center of the picture, injected with the derivative dilemmas of children's fiction, even with a trite and underdeveloped backstory of grief that sometimes comes up whenever the script requires it (this whole "missing parental figure" thing also troubled the child protagonist of The Seven Faces of Dr. Lao (1964), where the void was also filled by a showcase of special effects and stop motion). A charmingly naive fantasy tale done in a post-Spielberg/Dante era, with the rowdy spirit found in the tamest scenes from Gremlins (1984) but without the satirical perversion of childish iconography and subjects. Band's film maintains it's purity and childishness without allowing it to be contaminated by dreadful morbidness, grossness or violence of any kind, every punch and firearm shot is clean and harmless, every "adult" joke is safe and restrained, every conventionally attractive adult that's single falls in love with another one, and every piece falls into place without any problem or trouble. There's no place for verisimilitude in the childish fantasy.
The real stars are obviously the David Allen-made micro-beasts, who engage in the typical disastrous misadventures and cutesy little shenanigans these movies require. Dino-puppies extracted from the likes of Beethoven (1992) and its sequels. Perhaps one of the most interesting things is the way the Bands portray the dino-doggies, with a crushing ordinariness, their reveal occurs with the utmost cinematic casualness, from one shot to another, one cut it's all that's necessary to reveal them, as opposed to the typical Spielbergian procedures seen on Gremlins, where the search for a particular effect and emotion forced the direction to employ shots specifically constructed and timed to convey a certain feeling (the tilted and moody shots of the Gremlins hatching for example) but Band opts to dispose of all of that, never even accentuating an emotion. The reactions humans have to seeing the dinosaurs are no different. There's no true questioning of the little creatures aside from simply pointing out their strange appearance in the house. The small reptiles are shot and framed as simply another element of daily life, inhabiting the frame as naturally as any puppy or cat does. Never seen with strangeness or making them disturb the world created. There's no place for the questioning of the fantastical in the childish fantasy.
The old school model seems transported from the 50's and 60's, mostly untouched, perhaps out of the inability of father Band to adapt to the times, or perhaps the son's nostalgia is the one responsible for such backwardness. As with most of Band's catalog, the core is an old model that becomes slightly modified by the popular tropes of the time, but it's mostly undisturbed by modern sensibilities or worries.
Prehysteria has no objective other than purifying the children's film, while Jurassic Park (1993), Gremlins (1984) and Goonies (1985) pushed the limits of the subgenre, maturing and occasionally pouring a few drops of meanness and intensity into their stories, Band brought back naivety to it, a deliberate and shameless naivety, always conscious of it's tone and with total conviction to it, self conscious but not self deprecating, proud of an obsolete cinematic infantilism.
The best and most fitting start for Moonbeam.
People can say that this was a bad movie, but I completely disagree. I thought that it was cute, although the dinosaur effects could've been better (ever see Jurassic Park?). Well, they wanted the movie to be cute and seem harmless, so they couldn't give the same vicious effects as "Jurassic Park". This movie is great, if you like animal movies (with dogs or cats) you might not like this movie, but if you like family-oriented comedies and dinosaurs, you might like it. I liked it, and I hope that somebody else does too.
If you are a six-year-old boy who's into dinosaurs, you will love this movie. If you are anybody else, you'll be rolling your eyes about every 15 seconds. If you want to start picking on things like the acting, the special effects, the dialogue, or the absence of a coherent plot that makes even the slightest amount of sense, you'll have plenty of material. If all you want is a safe dinosaur fantasy movie for your kid, it will do just fine. That said, there's a lot of kids' entertainment out there that's much smarter, and some of it is even bearable or enjoyable for adults. Unless your child is in an uncompromising dinosaur mood, you're probably better off looking for something else.
I really liked this movie if others don't like it, well they are not a kid at heart, I thought of the dinosaurs was cute , the action great, the comedy funny, the actors great, the story line was great too and just about every thing about it, and it was a very good movie for kids and for the adult who are a kid at heart too, but I think it is ashame that they didn't put it on DVD. They put the 2 movies that came after this one on DVD, so why not this one too? I haven't seen the other two movies yet but i think this one really should have been put on DVD too like the other 2.
I liked it too, and I hope that somebody else does just as much as I did too.
I liked it too, and I hope that somebody else does just as much as I did too.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesThis film was Austin O'Brien's first lead role.
- ConnexionsEdited into Les dinosaures enchantés au golf (1995)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Prehysteria!?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Durée
- 1h 24min(84 min)
- Couleur
- Mixage
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant