--- title: "Dinosaur: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/dinosaur/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/dinosaur" critics_score: 49 critics_reviews: 9 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Dinosaur (2000): what the critics said Critics' score 49 from 9 reviews: 1 positive, 4 mixed, 4 negative. The reviews lean towards disappointment, though most critics find substantial technical skill in Dinosaur. Praise centres on the detailed computer-generated creatures, prehistoric landscapes and large-scale visual sequences; even several negative notices admire the animation. RogerEbert.com offers the clearest positive assessment, praising the realistic-looking dinosaurs and their integration with live-action backgrounds while acknowledging the familiar story. The main reservation is that the storytelling does too little with those images: critics repeatedly describe the plot as predictable, the characters as thin and the drama as emotionally slight. The AV Club also objects to the overly contemporary dialogue. The spread is wide, but much of the disagreement concerns how far the visual achievement compensates for these weaknesses. Eye for Film is a notable dissent from the technical praise, finding the animation unconvincing and the landscapes barren as well as faulting the characterisation. ## RogerEbert.com — Roger Ebert Rating 3/4. 19 May 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. [Read the review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/dinosaur-2000) ## Time Out — WH Fi1m's normalised score 65/100 (inferred from the text). The review’s overall verdict is unavailable in the accessible page text. Its metadata praises the breathtaking opening view of prehistoric Earth. [Read the review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/dinosaur) ## The New York Times Fi1m's normalised score 64/100 (inferred from the text). 19 May 2000. 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. [Read the review](https://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/19/movies/film-review-jurassic-lark-rex-of-the-cartoon-jungle.html) ## Empire — Kim Newman Fi1m's normalised score 55/100 (inferred from the text). 1 January 2000. 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. [Read the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/dinosaur-review/) ## The Guardian Fi1m's normalised score 55/100 (inferred from the text). 13 October 2000. 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. [Read the review](https://www.theguardian.com/film/News_Story/Critic_Review/Guardian_review/0,,381373,00.html) ## The AV Club — Keith Phipps Fi1m's normalised score 35/100 (inferred from the text). 19 May 2000. 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. [Read the review](https://www.avclub.com/dinosaur-1798192382) ## Variety — Todd McCarthy Fi1m's normalised score 35/100 (inferred from the text). 8 May 2000. 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. [Read the review](https://variety.com/2000/film/reviews/dinosaur-1200462446/) ## The New Yorker — David Denby Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 21 May 2000. 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. [Read the review](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2000/05/29/herd-mentality) ## Eye for Film — Angus Wolfe Murray Fi1m's normalised score 20/100 (inferred from the text). 19 January 2001. 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. [Read the review](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/dinosaur-film-review-by-angus-wolfe-murray) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/dinosaur.md