More Confounding Film Ratings (Part Two)

Part One: https://cccmovies.blogspot.com/2026/04/confounding-film-ratings-part-one.html

 

Last time I mainly looked at violence and coarse language as factors in what determine a film’s rating, and how sometimes a rating can seem too harsh or oddly forgiving. Another factor that determines a film’s rating is sex and nudity, which the ratings associations are much quicker to condemn with 18-A or R-ratings or even the dreaded NC-17 if either are prolonged or graphic enough.  

In part one I covered a movie I showed to a class, but I remember when I was in school being shown Romeo and Juliet (1968) in grade nine English class and all the boys grimacing at the scene when Leonard Whiting’s Romeo gets out of bed and his bare buttocks is shown without cutting away. I also remember gawking at Olivia Hussey’s exposed breasts, but in retrospect, I find it insane that either actor was shown nude at all, not just because of the film’s rating, but because they were both underage when the film was shot. The ratings for this movie hurt my brain. It’s 18-A in BC (understandable), but PG in Manitoba/Ontario, and originally rated G in the US, then only bumped up to a PG in 1973! I think the argument was that the nudity was so brief it wouldn’t bother many viewers. I also think my teacher went off the American rating when considering which version of the movie to show our class.  

Romeo and Juliet’s nudity really isn’t that graphic, and while the film obviously deals with the sexual relations between the characters, the nudity itself is not overtly sexual—a distinguishing factor that the ratings associations watch for. For example, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002) is rated R in the US/14-A in Canada, mainly for coarse language and violence, but there’s also a scene of full male nudity from the back, which I remember walking in on at age seven while my parents were watching it and being very confused by, as Sam Rockwell hides behind a fridge door to cover himself. It’s not sexual nudity, so no 18-A rating here in Canada. There’s one very famous movie from my lifetime, though, that somehow got away with a PG-13 rating despite featuring a level of nudity that has earned pretty much every other movie I can think of an R.

James Cameron’s Academy Award-winning Titanic (1997) is, surprisingly, one of few films from the director that features much notable nudity, and yet is also one of the few that isn’t R-rated. The other nude scene from him that comes to mind is in The Terminator (1984), which is also rated R for repeated profanity and bloody violence. Titanic carried a price tag of 200 million dollars, so I suspect the more accommodating certificate was negotiated in order to turn a greater profit, and I’m sure that helped immensely, but I’m also sure some viewers were taken aback when they saw Kate Winslet’s breasts, buttocks, and even a hint of her pubic hair. It wasn’t the first time she had decided to bare it all for the camera, and it wasn’t the last time, either, but it is curious that the MPA decided to overlook such explicit nudity this one time. Regardless of how brief it is, the nature of the nudity is still pretty sexual, which is the primary red flag for the MPA when it comes to uncensored human anatomy. Titanic is another of those instances where the rating varies in Canada. It’s 14-A in BC, but only PG in Alberta and Ontario.

I remember picking up on the fact that Deadpool 2 (2018) was rated 14-A in Canada whereas the first Deadpool (2016) carried an 18-A rating—the higher age rating being less common for most movies in general, but especially uncommon for superhero movies, even with that much swearing and violence—and correctly predicted there would not be as much sex or nudity in the sequel. I’m certain the overt female nudity in the strip club scene in Deadpool is what earned it the more restrictive rating. The ultra-gory violence, though? Oh, yeah, that’s fine. Occasionally, non-sexual nudity can still make its way into a movie with a rating lower than an R, such as with The Fifth Element (1997), Critters 2 (1988), and Dragonslayer (1981). A weird exception, though, is John Hughes’ directorial debut, Sixteen Candles (1984). It’s 14-A in Canada, but only PG in the US (from a pre-PG-13 era), with uncensored female nudity! It’s not part of a sex scene, but Hughes clearly meant for it to be provocative. Most of Hughes’ movies had appropriate ratings after this, except for Weird Science (1985), which somehow snuck some more nudity in and got away with PG-13.

Another exception to the rule of thumb for nudity is the Canadian film Atanarjuat: The Fast Runner (2000). This is another one I’ve shown to students for its educational value, having first seen it myself in a film class in university, but I only show it to grade twelve students because of one scene in particular with full frontal male nudity. It’s not sexual in nature, but it certainly is explicit! The male protagonist runs completely naked across the frozen tundra for several minutes, and later, there is some female nudity as well, though ironically not during the sex scene, which is mostly obscured through low lighting. Atanarjuat is rated 14-A in Canada, but R in the US.

I remember buying the DVD of the classic dinosaur film The Valley of Gwangi (1969) and laughing out loud at the rating it sported on the back. It was rated G for General Audiences! This means anyone of any age can watch a T. rex devour people off horseback, kill other dinosaurs, complete with blood oozing from their fatal wounds, and even violently kill an elephant which screams in agony! But it’s all okay because the special effects are dated and there’s no coarse language or nudity, so it couldn’t possibly upset anyone, right? I get that ratings are supposed to protect viewers, in a sense, and give parents an idea of how to guide their kids, but I find it funny when the rating fails to do so sometimes. I was sure caught off guard by the bare buttocks of a cave woman in When Dinosaurs Ruled The Earth (1970), considering it had a G rating, too!

Zombieland (2009) confused the hell out of me for years by making me misremember what Anaconda (1997) was rated. Emma Stone has a line about her first R-rated movie being Anaconda, and for a while, I was gaslit into thinking it was among my own first R-rated movies, too, but that line was a flub. It was rated PG-13 in the US and 14-A in Canada. In that same genre, I saw Deep Blue Sea (1999) at age eight, because it was only rated PG, and it wasn’t long after that I saw Lake Placid (1999), which was 14-A, but I rented it from the video store with my mom, so was able to watch it no problem. Both were pretty violent, and both were rated R in the US, but why the different ratings in Canada? I can’t think of much to differentiate them in terms of animal-on-human violence, but maybe there was a little more profanity in Lake Placid? I can’t keep up with this nonsense.

I’ll probably find another reason to come back to movie ratings again one day, but I think this is enough for now. There are plenty of other movies with far lower ratings than what they should have received, given their content, but not as many movies rated higher than necessary, I find. For more reading on movie ratings, click the link below!

https://cccmovies.blogspot.com/2023/11/do-people-care-about-movie-ratings_20.html

Confounding Film Ratings (Part One)

 

Anyone can give a movie a rating in terms of a review, but a movie rating in terms of its certificate, which dictates the age of the audience members who are allowed to see it, is decided upon by certain organizations, and can have a big impact on the financial viability of a film when its distributed. Recently, I came across a movie that jumped out to me as an anomaly, in terms of its rating. When I was younger, I always thought of movie ratings as being part of a strict grading system, but over time, I’ve discovered there are numerous exceptions to the many rules and a plethora of oddball ratings for movies that, if the rules really were so strict, should have been rated differently.

I’ve written about movie ratings before, and I’m yet again coming back to the topic, but this time, it’s far more complicated. I’ve never before fully explained the rating system that I grew up with, which is different than the ones many others did, even within my own country. All the advertisements I saw for movies always had the epic trailer voice guy say “Rated PG” or “Rated PG-13” or, most severe and foreboding of all, “RATED R…” because those are standard in the United States set by the Motion Picture Association (MPA), but in Canada, ratings depend on the province you live in. For British Columbia, we have General (G), Parental Guidance (PG), 14 Accompaniment (14A), 18 Accompaniment (18A), Restricted (R), and Adult (A).

When I was a teenager, I started to discover there were movies people my same age couldn’t see in theatres in the US without their parents because they were rated differently. Many movies that are very violent, action-packed, and full of cursing will be rated R in the US but only 14-A in Canada. If you could pass for age 14 (not hard at 12 or 13 for many kids), no one questioned you seeing movies like The Matrix (1999) or The Conjuring (2013), or Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) with just your friends. I recall seeing a few 18-A movies with my mom or dad in accompaniment, but it was rare for any movies to ever be R-rated at our local theatre—R-rated in terms of the Canadian R, which is more restrictive than 18-A, comparable to the US’s NC-17.

Country and rating systems aside, there is usually consistent correlation between the way a movie gets rated in the US and Canada, but then there are some anomalies that, for whatever reason, the ratings board were laxer with. Case in point: The Martian (2015) is rated PG-13 (PG in BC), so the expectation is that it only has one use of the F-word at most and nothing too violent or crass. Matt Damon as main character Mark Watney utters a hearty “fuck” after doing gruesome surgery on himself to remove a metal spike from his abdomen in the first twenty minutes, then a couple scenes later he says, “Fuck you Mars” and I was completely taken aback. It wasn’t just because I hadn’t seen the movie in years (and happened to be showing it to a grade eight class, having forgotten how intense the first twenty minutes really were), but how did the MPA let this slip past? It’s been a well-known rule for years: any more than one F-word gets a movie an R-rating in the US, but The Martian is a rarity with two clearly spoken instances, plus the implication of many more when Watney sends some frustrated messages to NASA and the expletives are left unspecified.  In Canada, I’m not sure there is a specific number of F-bombs that can be dropped before 14-A turns into 18-A.

I both love it and hate it when movies get to break the rating rules—love it because it often comes as a surprise when you’re watching and perhaps enhances the film, and hate it because it reminds me of how arbitrary, contradictory, and often pointless the rating system ultimately is. When I was a kid, I didn’t think it was a big deal to get to sit down with the family and watch The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966) for the first time. I didn’t know what it was rated, and my parents didn’t seem to care. It was a western with some shooting violence, and I grew to appreciate the movie far more when I was older, but at the time, it felt pretty tame, especially compared to something like Aliens (1986), which I watched for the first time around the same time.

My younger cousin later pointed out to me that The Good, the Bad and the Ugly had an R-rating, which seemed a bit extreme to me, but it gets even more confusing. The two-disc special edition DVD has a 14-A rating, but the Blu-ray says both R and 14-A on the back. Historically, it was given an M certificate in 1969 (meaning for Mature Audiences only: part of the earliest version of the MPA’s rating system), then it was re-certified and given an R-rating in 1989. For the time it was made, sure, I guess I get it, but nowadays, it would get the frequently used PG-13 at most. It used to be that movies like Jaws (1975), Poltergeist (1982), and Gremlins (1984) pushed the limits of PG (which led to the creation of PG-13), but now PG-13 pushes the limits of what often leads to an R-rating. There’s a phenomenon called “ratings creep” which highlights how movies are generally more violent and explicit than they used to be, and people are becoming desensitized by it all as more and more movies rated for younger audiences are becoming more intense than movies from the past.  

A prime example of PG-13 pushing the boundary is 2004’s Alien vs. Predator. The prior Alien and Predator films had all been rated R, and AVP could have (and should have) easily been given the same rating, but the studio wanted to ensure a higher box office gross, so two main tactics were employed: show minimal human blood and have minimal cursing. We get the singular, impactful use of the F-bomb from main character Alexa Woods (Saana Lathan) after she realizes the last surviving Predator intends to blow up the alien horde: “Well, I hope it kills every fucking one of 'em!” But then, a little later, she tries to quote Arnie from the original Predator (1987), only isn’t allowed to quite say the whole line. “You are one ugly motherfu—” and then the blast of her gun cuts off the rest.

More recently, we’ve had Predator: Badlands (2025) bring the franchise back to PG-13 for the first time since AVP, however it felt less neutered in comparison given that there were no human characters to be maimed and killed, and like AVP, the creature-on-creature action is still incredibly violent and unrestrained. Violence has always been a point of contention for people who take movie ratings seriously; how come young viewers can be exposed to blood and dismemberment but saying the F-word more than once constitutes increased adult guidance? Red human blood in particular will result in a more restrictive rating if the quantity is great enough, which is why films like AVP, Badlands, and even more intense horror examples like Evil Dead 2 (1987) and From Dusk Till Dawn (1996) will use different colours for blood so the censors won’t come down as hard on them.

There are plenty more mystifying ratings for movies, including a whole other topic that I haven’t even touched on yet as far as what influences a movie’s certificate, so stay tuned for more, because this is going to be a two-parter!

Project Hail Mary: Page to Screen

This isn’t really a movie review, but rather a more specific look at Project Hail Mary, which I will start off by saying I highly recommend seeing, especially in IMAX if you get the chance, because while it is still early in the year, it is already one of my favourites, and will be a tough act to top in the coming months. It might just end up being my favourite movie of 2026. It’s a unique film for me because I read the book mere weeks before it came out—hence this specific examination.

I haven’t read an anticipated film’s novel source material prior to release since Dune in 2021, and I’ve never experienced seeing scenes from a book play out on screen nearly exactly how I had pictured them as I read them until now. This isn’t going to be strictly a compare and contrast between the book and the movie adaptation, either. I would call Project Hail Mary an extremely faithful adaptation, with some elements simplified, diminished, or skimmed over, but nothing major lost from page to screen. I’m going to use some shorthand from this point on. If I’m talking about Project Hail Mary the film, it’s PHM: F. If it’s Project Hail Mary the book, it’s PHM: B. If it’s the book version of the protagonist I’ll say Book Grace, and if it’s Ryan Gosling, I’ll say Movie Grace.

A microscopic alien organism called Astrophage is depleting the sun, so a project (“What you Americans would call ‘long shot’”) is fast-tracked to send three astronauts to a distant star called Tau Ceti. For some reason, it’s the only nearby star that hasn’t been affected by Astrophage, and when the Hail Mary gets there, schoolteacher Ryland Grace is the only one still alive. “Why is a schoolteacher in space, question?” This is just one of many questions the amnesic Grace has, but a question he answers pretty early on is whether or not we are the only intelligent life forms in the universe. A strange alien from the planet 40 Eridani has also come to solve the Astrophage problem, but instead of a hostile rivalry, the two species work together to save their worlds—and kind of become best friends in the process.

For all its scientific and technical details, the book is not overly complicated, nor is it excessively descriptive. Ryland Grace provides first person present tense narration, and it was clear from the beginning that a charismatic actor was needed for the lead role in order for the film to capture the essence of the narrator and also carry the film for the majority of the runtime. I think Ryan Gosling deserves an Oscar nomination because he is Ryland Grace. He somehow managed to pull off being funny in the exact way that Book Grace is funny while also bringing genuine emotion to key moments and keeping every scene engaging even when it was just him floating around the ship or talking to the screen. He shows his full range as an actor and makes you care about his mission to save humanity. I would be remiss if I didn’t also mention the perfect casting of Sandra Hüller as Eva Stratt: the anchor to the earth parts of the story. It is as if she walked off the page and onto the screen.

I think it’s impressive directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, along with screenwriter Drew Goddard (who also adapted author Andy Weir’s first big novel, The Martian, and was nominated for the Oscar for best adapted screenplay), were able to keep the film entirely from Grace’s perspective without having him narrate the film, which is an easy method film adaptations often default to. He records some video logs (mainly in the second act) as a way to capture some of that narration from the book, but there’s an effective balance of him talking to himself, talking to the ship, video logs, and talking to the other most important character, who doesn’t even have a face.

I was curious about how the alien Grace calls Rocky would be realized on screen and how they would handle the communication between the characters, but two key creative decisions around this were significant reasons why the film worked so well for me. Grace translates Rocky’s sounds in what I would call “movie time” (meaning very fast, like probably way too fast—even in the book it comes off as pretty easy for them to learn how to understand each other) and for a time the audience has to read the text of Rocky’s translations with Grace, then Grace cycles through some voice modulations until settling on a voice for Rocky, and by the end we get a few subtitles because Grace and Rocky can understand each other’s languages. It was every version of how I had hypothesized they would adapt this aspect of the book. Rocky was also mainly a practical effect, which looked great and moved quite realistically for how outlandish his design is.

One change which I found curious was to Rocky’s background. In the book, he’s described as an engineer, and in the movie, Grace calls him a mechanic. I’m not sure why this change was made, but in the book it’s clear how he’s able to create everything for Grace without much trouble and why he survived the trip to Tau Ceti while the rest of his crew perished. Speaking of perishing crew members, in the book it’s much clearer why Grace is the sole survivor of the Hail Mary and the details around why he ends up on the ship in the first place also have more clarity. Had I not read it before seeing it, I suspect I would’ve rated PHM: F a little lower, but these missing details didn’t bother me since I already knew them, and nothing is changed, plot-wise.

Some of the specificity around Movie Grace’s doled out memory recall is a little unclear in the later stretches of PHM: F, but I think the important narrative part (without spoiling it) is captured for the emotional impact to hit at the end, which is what matters the most. PHM: B is a lot clearer about what he can and cannot remember, and when specific memories come back to him as the narrative unfolds. I can imagine that was a tough aspect to capture in a visual medium without bogging down the runtime. There weren’t many big changes or additions to PHM: F that I picked up on, but a few details Gosling added in to his performance I appreciated. I don’t recall Book Grace ever casually referring to the ship itself as “Mary” but I like that Movie Grace does this a few times. It reminds me of other famous sci-fi ships like MU/TH/UR in Alien and Hal in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Speaking of those films, PHM: F makes some nice references and tips of its cap to other space films without being too blatant. Some critics have pointed out how unoriginal itis, but even a few of those critics admit it puts a fresh spin on familiar concepts.

I can see how some of PHM: F might seem familiar for those unfamiliar with the source material, but I found the book quite refreshing for how it takes a science-based approach to a doomsday scenario through the eyes of a character who is definitely not someone who considers himself a hero despite his intellect and problem-solving abilities, and couples it with first contact in a way that’s realistically optimistic without it being too cutesy. The hopefulness of the story is very compelling, and the film captures this, but also does something different I didn’t experience in the book: makes space feel fascinating and terrifying at the same time. I didn’t expect to feel total existential dread and genuine emotional turmoil over the same span of time in which a little rock guy makes the whole audience laugh for saying “fist my bump” more than once. The concept for the alien life (not just Rocky but also Astrophage) is highly original. I would now have to consider Rocky one of the all-time greatest cinematic aliens, and that is a significant feat considering all the incredible examples to come before him, but he’s unlike any other alien in any movie I’ve ever seen.

Project Hail Mary models why I love books and movies for different reasons. PHM: B moves at a different pace, handles the amnesia trope pretty effectively, and provides ample detail to make the whole thing feel grounded despite the nature of the plot. PHM: M has a version of Ryland Grace I like slightly more, is well paced despite being over two-and-a-half hours long, and has a far more moving ending (for me) that still ties directly into the source material and maintains the themes from the book. Both are extremely funny, in some similar ways, but also in different ways. Despite both telling the same story, they provide different ways of experiencing that story. This is why I can’t definitively say “the book was better” as is often the cliché spoken of a film adaptation of an enjoyable novel. Both have unique strengths over one another and share many of them as well.

What I would recommend is seeing the movie first, and then if you even remotely enjoyed it, go read the book after. I do not regret reading it so close to seeing the movie for the first time, but I actually do envy those who got to (or will get to) experience the big emotional moments on the big screen without knowing what was coming or how certain events were going to play out. Reading the book will be like getting a written director’s cut that builds on all the details the movie didn’t have time to delve into (or didn’t necessarily need to) in order to tell the story. Conversely, I found the movie rewarding to readers for including subtle hints and details from parts of the book that viewers who haven’t read the book probably wouldn’t notice or pick up on in terms of significance. Despite what my blog may make it seem, I’ve always been even more of a book guy than a movie guy, but when a story like Project Hail Mary brings the two storytelling methods together with such synergy? That, for me, is peak.  

Dinosaur Planet: A Retrospective Review

 

Dinosaur Planet (2003) Miniseries Review

Dinosaur docudramas have experienced a resurgence in recent years, with Apple TV’s three seasons of Prehistoric Planet, BBC’s “reboot” of Walking with Dinosaurs (in name only), and two shows from Netflix: Life on Our Planet, and, most recently, The Dinosaurs. When I was a kid, the two main TV networks in the business of dino docs were BBC and Discovery Channel, with a clear difference in quality and style between them. BBC made hit after hit, but Discovery was more hit or miss. One of their early 2000s triumphs, though, was a four-episode miniseries advertised as an epic primeval drama to rival even BBC’s Walking With…shows, originally airing in the US around Christmas in 2003 and the following year in Canada, when I first saw it. Dinosaur Planet, though a relic of an earlier period in paleo-TV, is still interesting to look back on, and at the time, it was one of the best of its kind.

Each episode focuses on a different dinosaur protagonist in a different place and time, though all of them occur during varying points in the Cretaceous period. “White Tip’s Journey” follows a female Velociraptor in the Mongolian desert trying to join a new pack and raise her young. “Little Das’ Hunt” is about an adolescent Daspletosaurus and his pack following a herd of Maiasaura living among many other species on the Elkhorn Range as a volcano threatens to erupt. “Alpha’s Egg” shows the hatching and maturing of a South American longneck Saltasaurus in tandem with her primary predator, an Aucasaurus called Dragonfly. Finally, in “Pod’s Travels” a Pyroraptor gets stranded at sea and washes up on a European island with dwarf versions of the species he’s used to living with, making the usually small hunter a giant outcast.

I think it’s telling of the show’s quality that many fans cite different episodes as their favourites; there doesn’t seem to be any clear consensus on what the best episode is. I remember the specific order in which they aired in Canada because I recorded each episode on VHS and watched them over and over again before I ever bought the DVD. First was the White Tip episode, which I think is the most well-rounded in terms of storytelling, environmental depiction, and dinosaur interactions, then Das’ episode, which was my favourite as a kid, then Alpha’s episode, which used to be my least favourite, and Pod’s episode last, which is not the best in terms of environmental depiction, but does have perhaps the most sympathetic “character” of them all.

One of Dinosaur Planet’s biggest scientific and aesthetic triumphs over its contemporaries was its depiction of feathered theropods. I remember being shocked and taken aback when I first saw White Tip because it was the first time I had seen a full motion Velociraptor on my TV screen that didn’t look like the lanky reptilian design copied repeatedly from Jurassic Park. I wasn’t sure I liked it at first, but once I watched the episode, I bought into this far more realistic version, and it started a mind shift for me, in terms of how I viewed these particular dinos. By the time I saw “Pod’s Travels” I had accepted feathered dinosaurs, but it would be quite a long time before people who were not nearly as obsessed with dinosaurs as I was got with the program…and then Jurassic World did the paleontology community no favours by bringing back the same featherless, inaccurate raptor designs from the first three movies. Some of the Dinosaur Planet CGI is a bit iffy at times, but it’s pretty visually consistent, and a few shots from certain episodes are actually quite impressive. The one I distinctly remember being used in the advertisements was the shot of the Tarascosaurus from Pod’s episode roaring as blood seeps from its jaws.

For all its scientific accuracy and bold creative choices, though, it still gets a lot of things wrong that could have been avoided even with the scientific knowledge of the time, and the series as a whole is emblematic of a running fault through all of Discovery’s dino docs. No, I’m not even talking about how the predators are always roaring and chasing after anything that moves and battling purely for dramatic spectacle, I’m talking about cutting away from the ancient recreations to feature a person talking about them. I find it less distracting in Dinosaur Planet compared to other Discovery documentaries like this from around the same time, but it still frequently interrupts the pace of the show and feels tonally dissonant. BBC’s dino docs always stayed in the setting of the prehistoric world and worked the science in through narration alone, relying more on visual storytelling and education, but Discovery Channel never committed to that same format. Even as a kid, that was why I found Walking with Dinosaurs superior, and BBC documentaries in general far more interesting and rewatchable compared to American ones.

Some of the scientific inaccuracies range from postures and movements to names and designs for certain species, with some creature models being recycled between episodes. The one error that used to really bug me (and still does) is the presence of grass, particularly in Pod’s episode. In the behind-the-scenes documentary included on the Walking with Dinosaurs DVD, it’s explained that grass hadn’t evolved yet during the Mesozoic era, so the filmmakers were careful to choose real world locations that closely resembled prehistoric conditions, with the most accurate plant-life possible. The Dinosaur Planet creators did not have the same eye for detail, and while many of the locations are quite impressive, it’s more akin to Jurassic Park with choosing plants, to quote Ellie Sattler, “because they look good.” It may have also been a budgetary issue; sometimes CGI was used to alter the environments, as well, which can make some shots look overly artificial. Of course, these relatively small details aren’t going to bother the majority of viewers (especially in 2003), but a lack of exciting dinosaur action and interesting interactions would have, and they didn’t skimp on those parts of the show in the least.

To get into each episode a bit more, one of the reasons “Alpha’s Egg” was not my favourite was because of how slow it often felt compared to the other episodes, given the main dinosaur is a plodding sauropod. It has one of the slowest chases I’ve ever seen in a show like this: two carcharadonotsaurs pursuing Alpha’s herd across the plains. It also comes off as a little hokey to have one particular predator growing up alongside one particular prey animal and building up to their inevitable clash as adults as a form of tension. It just didn’t feel that believable to me, even as a kid, but when I look back on this episode now, I find it actually has a lot of highlights, such as the horrific massacre of the baby saltasaurs early in the episode and the final clash between Alpha and Dragonfly at the end. While the intermingling of Alpha and Dragonfly may be a bit manufactured, I do kind of like the parallel stories as a way to alternate between seeing two different species in the same environment.

Even though Alpha’s wasn’t a favourite, I still enjoyed every episode of Dinosaur Planet as a kid, but now, “Little Das’ Hunt” doesn’t thrill me the same way on a repeat viewing. I loved seeing all the new Cretaceous species, including Daspletosaurus, which was a tyrannosaurid that lived before the more famous T. rex. On that note: I like that Dinosaur Planet gives a sampling of some very popular dinos like Velociraptor and Iguanodon throughout but mainly showcases species that were far less known at the time. Little Das is an inexperienced hunter and, like in “Alpha’s Egg”, his story is tied to someone else's: Buck and Blaze, two inexperienced young duckbills. The episode has some other supporting roles with the flying Quetzalcoatlus and a pack of Troodon, but it’s mainly focused on the stop-and-start pursuit of Daspletosaurus hunting the mixed herd of duckbilled Maiasaura and ceratopsian Einiosaurus.

While I do still enjoy this episode, especially with the devastating volcanic eruption in the climax wiping out everything on the Elkhorn Range, there are a few silly moments throughout, mainly from Das being clueless, and it’s a bit tedious, with the pursuit drawn out for nearly the entire runtime. This episode has some of the best visual effects, though, with the Daspletosaurus looking nearly as good as the T. rex from Jurassic Park in some medium daytime shots. The Troodon designs look kind of cursed, though, and of all the dino protagonists from the show, Das gets highly anthropomorphized and isn’t as endearing, comparatively, to White Tip or Alpha or Pod. All of the show’s predatory leads are given excessive humanistic qualities, really, which I think makes the show work better for younger viewers, though it doesn’t shy away from some of the bloody violence, which newer dino docs seem to be averse to showing.

There’s something very charming about Pod’s episode with the way it almost becomes a prehistoric version of Gulliver’s Travels. We see him in his normal environment before a tsunami wipes out his family and home and he washes up on a new island that he must explore and figure out, taking the audience along on the adventure. There’s an animatronic puppet used for when Pod is clinging to life on a log adrift at sea, which is one of the only moments where practical effects were used over CGI, and it’s quite noticeable because he looks so different from the computer model. This is another area where Walking with Dinosaurs had a major leg up over even the best of Discovery Channel’s dinosaur recreations. BBC consistently used an effective blend of computer animation and practical effects to bring creatures to life, whereas Discovery relied primarily on CGI, which never quite reached the same quality or believability. Though the effects in Pod’s episode are not among the best, the pacing, variety of species, and interactions are all great, making it one of the most consistently entertaining episodes.  

I can’t finish this review off without addressing one last majorly notable trait of Dinosaur Planet: the narration. The paleontologist it cuts to before commercial breaks is Scott Sampson, and he provides some fairly interesting insights in each story, but the dramatic recreations are narrated by American actor Christian Slater, who has some rather memorable lines in a couple episodes. I wouldn’t say he does a bad job, but sometimes what he says kind of shatters the illusion of being back in the Cretaceous and sounds unintentionally cheesy or silly. In the White Tip episode, after a male Oviraptor tries to win over a female, Christian chimes in to say, “Gotta give him credit for trying!” It’s quirky narration, but not always unwelcome. It almost makes it feel like he’s watching alongside the viewer and making commentary, such as in the Das episode when Das loses track of his mother and sisters. “Hunting for your family is a major pain. How could they run off like that?” Auditorily speaking, the soundtrack and sound effects are the best parts, with some roars reused from the earlier Discovery show When Dinosaurs Roamed America, but many of the roars I heard for the first time in this show, and would recognize in numerous other shows to follow as Discovery recycled them to no end.

Dinosaur Planet is a pretty epic dinosaur docudrama, yet it’s almost more intimate at times than the original Walking with Dinosaurs or other more contemporary shows like it, with its close focus on four well-characterized dinosaurs and their struggles to survive. It gets a bit fantastical in some respects and obviously looks dated in comparison to the visual designs and animation quality of newer shows, but I find it’s still worth coming back to in the same way that Walking with Dinosaurs still is, too, despite not carrying the same gravitas. The episodes are a bit longer with a bit more filler, but the blending of science with focused storytelling gave Dinosaur Planet a unique enough angle that it still stands out as an accessible, compelling prehistoric miniseries in its own right. 

 

Related - Walking with Dinosaurs (1999) Review: 

https://cccmovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/walking-with-dinosaurs-1999-review.html