Hey, all. "Moriarty" here. Once again, it is my great pleasure to present to you the ramblings of a true Evil Genius, a man who has accomplished far more profound Evil than I. He is a pioneer... some might even say a visionary. His Cranial Screw-Top Method has proven invaluable in my own ongoing work. He saw a film tonight that he really didn't like, provoking him to scribble the following. Remember... he suffered so maybe some of you won't have to.
Greetings to the charming and delightful Mr. Knowles and to my esteemed colleague Moriarty.
Dr. Michael Hfuhruhurr reporting in from Hollywood Boulevard. After suffering through "Battlefield Earth" last Friday (an experience not unlike that of a self-lobotomy performed using old rusty garden tools) I decided to stay in Tinsel Town to do some cranial studies on Scientologist in hopes of pinpointing exactly what it is that triggers such an extreme devotion to L. Ron Barbarino. I was about to call it a night and head back to my temporary cranial lab set up at the Moriarty Spa when I came upon a group of people gathered in front of Disney's El Captain theater. I soon learned that they were having a special industry screening of their new computer animated movie called "Dinah Shore." This set my heart aflutter. I was a huge fan of Ms. Shore's and couldn't wait to see how they would recreate her via modern computer technology. I was secretly hoping for some graphic sexual depictions. Needless to say, I just had to get in.
Luckily I discovered that one of the ladies checking people in was a former client of mine. I had replaced her husband's brain with that of a sea turtle and they have been happily married ever since. So getting in, as they say, was a no-brainer. Ha!
The lights dimmed, the curtains parted and I soon realized my mistake. The main title said "Dinosaur." But I was far from disappointed. The dinosaur cranium, after all, is one of my favorites. And dinosaur movies ain't that bad either.
My dear folks, they should've called this movie "Dino-Bore" because it was insufferable. I am quite certain that it was ghost written by L. Ron Barbarino himself and I suggest that this film (along with his "Battlefield Earth") be including in the next Brain-Numb-A-Thon. And my unenthusiastic response to this picture isn't just because I'm a tired, old cranial surgeon. No siree. I glanced around and saw that most of the little kiddies in attendance (those who didn't fall asleep) were restless and squirming through the entire movie. They were so not digging it.
The "Dino-Bore" plot is simpler than anything ever cranked out of the Disney studios. And for the biggest chunk of the movie nothing happens except for goofy looking CGI dinosaurs wandering through a barren desert (modeled after the Disney bank account after it emptied anywhere from $200-$300 million dollars into this sleep aid). There's not much you can say about the story because there's not much there. What little that does exist is boring, tedious, unadventurous, uninspiring, unfunny... and shamelessly recycled from "Tarzan" and "The Lion King."
This movie seemed to be little more than an exercise in CGI animator dick-waving. Look! We created life-like fur that blows in the wind! Look! We created believable reptilian skin texture! Look! We created a windstorm! Look! We created a realistic night sequences! Look! Rain and wet creatures! And my response to these magnificent achievements in computer animation: so what? Where's the story? Where's the entertainment? I'm not going to "ohh" and "ahh" just because I'm seeing state-of-the-art computer animation. But I'll "ohh" and "ahh" a bunch of hand puppets if they're telling me a kickass story.
If the filmmakers were going to spend this much money on a CGI dinosaur movie they should've at least made the dinosaurs look real. Then, at the very least, we would've been transported back in time to see what that world looked like. The recent Discovery Channel special did a far better job of that. One of the reasons that "Titanic" was such a huge hit, I believe, was that it stuck us all on that damn boat. Whether or not you liked the story or Leo's acting, you couldn't help but marvel that -- "Holy Shit! I'm on the fucking Titanic! This is what it would have been like!"
"Dino-Bore" didn't do that. Instead we get a whole bunch of goofy, cartoon-looking CGI dinosaurs (with state-of-the-art reptilian skin!) It is a complete waste of the tool's potential. If you're gonna serve up cartoons then save yourself a load of cash and just make "The Land Before Time" again. To go to all the trouble and expense of creating a cartoony Jurassic world seems like an exercise in wastefulness. Of course, then we'd all miss out on seeing the little monkey's fur blowing in the breeze (stroke, stroke, stroke...)
CGI: Can't Get Interested.
Call me an old fuddy-duddy, but Willis O'Brien's primitive King Kong effect is far more engaging, interesting and believable than anything in this $300 million CGI demo reel. In fact, I'd take O'Brien's Kong against any CGI creature that I've seen. Ever.
Having said that, I would like to pose a topic of discussion for all of you readers. Namely, when (or when not) to use CGI. And how much to use. Because, to me, that is the bigger issue involved here.
It is my most humble opinion that CGI is best used when it serves a story, not when it is the story. "The Matrix" and "Jurassic Park" are examples of the former. "Phantom Menace" and "Dino-Bore" are examples of the later. Can you imagine what the original "Star Wars" would have been like had Lucas had access to CGI? First: no Peter Cushing. He would've been replaced by a Neimodian-looking creature. And Chewie? He would've been agile and cat-like, able to leap great distances and climb up walls 'n stuff. And probably no Storm Troopers either. I suspect the Battle Droids would have made their debut in ANH.
But what about "Toy Story" you may ask? That was all CGI. Does the great cranial surgeon opposeth the use of CGI in those two kickass flicks? For God's sake NO! The "Toy Story" films worked because they brought inanimate objects to life. CGI served the story by allowing us to visit a brand new world -- the world of toys from the toys' point of view. In fact, as I recall, whenever a "human" or "real" element was introduced into those stories it seemed to take me out of it just a tiny bit. That's why they were kept to a minimum, I suspect.
And if "Dino-Bore" had been about squishy, plush Dinosaur toys come to life then the CGI wouldn't have been as bothersome. But the filmmakers would still have a crappy narrative to answer for.
As it is, "Dino-Bore" is a big waste. A waste of money, a waste of time, a waste of effort and a waste of technology.
All the CGI folks need to reflect upon the warning leveled at Atomic scientists in the 50's and 60's: just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
Unless, of course, Dinah Shore is involved.
| 
