Dinosaur (2000)

Ebert finds the film technically impressive but limited by its familiar story. He singles out the realistic-looking computer-animated dinosaurs and their integration with live-action backgrounds for praise.

The review’s overall verdict is unavailable in the accessible page text. Its metadata praises the breathtaking opening view of prehistoric Earth.

The page identifies this as a New York Times film review, but the review text is unavailable. Its verdict and any specific praise or criticism cannot be confirmed from the page provided.

Newman finds the film’s story and character strands thin, despite its striking technical achievements. He particularly praises the convincing CGI backgrounds and the sweeping visual set pieces.

The review finds the film a safe, enjoyable family spectacle, though its impact fades after the technical novelty wears off. It praises the visual spectacle while faulting the story for feeling like a flashy cartoon.

Phipps finds the film a major animation achievement but a forgettable, formulaic Disney story. He singles out its spectacular animation and prehistoric imagery for praise, while criticizing its conventional plot and overly contemporary dialogue.

McCarthy finds the film a technical marvel but says its story and gentle sensibility lack dramatic force. He praises the photorealistic dinosaurs and landscapes while faulting the predictable, emotionally thin plot.

Denby finds Dinosaur imaginatively constrained and its message overly simplistic. He praises the detail in the computer-generated creatures, especially the lemurs’ hair and the dinosaurs’ expressive cheeks.

The critic finds the film largely unsuccessful and lacking memorable scenes. They single out its unconvincing animation, weak characterization, and barren-looking landscapes for complaint.