T-Rex: Back to the Cretaceous (1998) User Reviews

Thanks for the Memories

[jcook56050 · 6/10 · 17 August 2013]

No, not the absolute best movie that could have been made given the resources available to the film makers, but definitely a different approach for a relatively new format - i.e. 3D IMAX size. Compared to some the things that had been done by Douglas Trumbull for the likes of Universal at a very high budget, this motion picture was quite passable for a production done on the cusp of the CGI era. And, IMAX had a tendency to hire actors who were capable of telling the story rather than distracting from the ultimate goal of education.

Let me warn you that the subject matter is educational and meant to evoke some of the possible theories and realities of palaeontology. Much of what IMAX produced for decades filled in the scientific genre of big screen learning before the Discovery Channel had hit its stride. The producers were very limited by the size of the equipment and the resultant technologies needed to bring this very expensive experience to the very large screen. These days, of course, you can do a 3D motion picture using a film camera that practically fits in the palm of the hand.

Now on to something I'll bet very few folks recognize in the story line. Listen to Ally's experience in the museum, and some of you may realize that she is either a full blown diabetic or somewhere on the edge. Many kids have this problem, and it's a real limiting factor when you go out there on a professional dig where it's possible to get lost in the canyons of the west when being overtaken by low blood sugar. It clearly explains why her father is reticent to take her on a dig. Despite his seeming distraction with work, he really does care about his daughter's well being.

Finally, I want to thank the film makers for the location of their shoot. Anyone who dares to travel the badlands of Alberta, Canada, will not regret taking a trip to Drumheller to see the world's greatest palaeontology museum, The Royal Tyrell. We've never seen anything that gets near to the quality of displays and historical information as this amazing organization. Both my wife and I have been to all the filming sites used in the motion picture, including the preparation rooms (minus the little changes they made for the film). It brought back some incredible adventures to our memory. It's the only place I know of where a walk of 100 feet will transport you one million years into the past.

okay special effects, boring story

[P1F1 · 4/10 · 24 August 1999]

I found the special effects okay in this movie however, the movie was not what I expected. The title would lead you to believe that you would see a T-Rex for more than 30 seconds in the movie.

I found the whole movie rather pointless other than to demonstrate 3D in the IMAX format and I am sure there must be more entertaining ways to do this.

I find it difficult to understand why people pay $15 NZ to see this movie when you can see a two hour feature for $10 NZ.

I look forward to the day when they start making IMAX movies with a plot that can actually hold the attention of an adult audience.

Still if this is all the writing ability required for an IMAX movie I think I might take up script writing.

Save your money, there must be better IMAX movies.

An okay watch, some weak moments

[Horst_In_Translation · 6/10 · 25 August 2015]

"T-Rex: Back to the Cretaceous" is a short film from almost 20 years ago that runs for slightly under 45 minutes. It is a mix of fiction and documentary as it gives us an insight into the world of dinosaurs and how they lived many centuries ago. The main character is played by Liz Stauber and the director is Brett Leonard. Both aren't particularly famous today anymore, even if they still work in the film industry. Occasionally, this movie looks a bit older and the story or the acting isn't really convincing I must say, but if you try to see it not as a documentary, but a 100% fantasy film, it still somewhat works thanks to the 1990s charm this brings. I would say it's not a good watch for anybody who wants to know more about dinosaurs, but just a good watch for people who like the genre and don't mind the occasionally odd moments. Thumbs up.

Lame

[achays-1 · 7 July 2003]

I won't repeat what others have so correctly said about this movie. I only wish to respond to an assertion that this movie is one that might only be enjoyed by children under 6. I took my two boys (5 and 3) to see this movie so they could see dinosaurs roaming the large IMAX screen. Instead we saw a slack-jawed teenage girl and her father walking around a museum. I don't think many dinosaur-loving 6 and unders would even like this movie. BIG DISAPPOINTMENT!!!

An awful rip-off! Virtually NO dinosaurs! Don't go!

[iago-6 · 1/10 · 2 November 1998]

This is the very worst of the IMAX 3-D movies, and most of them are pretty awful.

When you go to this movie, what do you want to see? Dinosaurs in 3-D, am I right? That's what you want to see, that's what the trailers promise you, and that is the very thing you DON'T get. There is, without exaggeration, MAYBE two minutes of dinosaurs in this 45-minute film.

The IMAX movies are made for a huge audience of kids, so they're always cramming them with wholesome stories of youngsters who are just trying to find themselves. That's great, but I came here to see dinosaurs. No. Instead we get some girl with a VERY BROAD acting style wandering around the Natural History museum at night having PSYCHOTIC BREAKS in which she thinks she's seeing dinosaurs. Which would be fine, if there were more dinosaurs. But NO... let's meet PALENTOLOGISTS! Whooo! Big excitement! PALENTOLOGISTS IN 3-D! Guess what? I could follow some crazy girl around a museum for FREE, and that would be in 3-D, too.

Which is not even to mention having to sit through the wretched "story" about how she feels neglected by her womanizing yuppie scumbag father, played by Peter Horton (formerly of "Thirtysomething") with the same smug arrogance he always has. Our protagonists mother is nowhere to be seen, so what are we supposed to think about the out-of-place and POINTLESS flirtation dad has with his pert young assistant while neglected daughter is at home? We're supposed to think that it's a lot cheaper to film bad ABC Afterschool Specials than it is to show dinosaurs.

This film is a RIP-OFF SUPREME. I actually found the IMAX website and wrote to them to complain about it (no free tickets yet). I can't even imagine that a child would enjoy this. SAVE YOURSELVES! I'VE SACRIFICED MYSELF! YOU DON'T HAVE TO! If you want to watch a rip-off of Jurassic Park just rent Godzilla.

--- Check out website devoted to bad and cheesy movies: www.cinemademerde.com

Stunning! (for all the wrong reasons)

[apocalypse later · 1/10 · 19 May 2000]

You follow the hype... "T.Rex in 3-D!" You arrive an hour early to secure the best seats. You pay the exorbitant ticket price. You put on the painful helmet. But hey, it's a 45-minute 3-D thrill ride, right? WRONG. Within 5 minutes you're having serious doubts. A lonely girl wanders through a museum (Zzzzz). Paleontologists chip stone at the camera (Wooo!). A jackass father comes to appreciate his psychotic daughter (Awww!). The acting is horrible. The writing is worse. But wait! A big finish! Three whole minutes of the same computer-animated dinosaurs you can see any weekend on the Discovery Channel! The end. The audience leaves silently. Beware.

Worst movie ever made

[bennettz · 1/10 · 11 June 2000]

Forget "Plan 9 From Outer Space." Forget "Battlefield Earth." Forget even "Star Wars: Episode I." "T-Rex Back To The Cretaceous in 3-D" is hands down the worst movie ever made. What a sorry excuse for an IMAX movie. I thought The IMAX Experience was supposed to be a good one. Apparently, someone wasn't thinking when they made this.

The plot, albeit very weak, is there. A teenage girl, obsessed with dinosaurs, hallucinates that she goes back in time to different points in history, including the dinosaur times. This movie practices the old illegal tactic of BAIT & SWITCH. The T-Rex and other dinosaurs appear in the film for less than 5 of its 45 minutes. The other time is filled with the girl visiting her idols...bone-diggers and artists...as well as even more boring scenes of the girl's dad searching for her in a museum.

DO NOT WASTE YOUR GOOD HARD-EARNED MONEY ON THIS! If you need to find a way to waste your 10 bucks (or however much it costs), drive down the road and just throw it out the window. That way, getting rid of your money doesn't take 45 minutes, and it's a heck of a lot more entertaining.

Short, but entertaining

[CuriosityKilledShawn · 7/10 · 6 May 2004]

From the bulk of reviews on this site I gather most people don't realize that IMAX is about presentation and style rather than story and content. Shot on vertical 70mm film the reels in the projection booth take up a huge amount of space, thus the running time of IMAX movies tends to be kept to around 45-50 minutes. Thus the format lends itself more towards the documentary/short movie genre. Most of the movies are factual but sometimes original stories come along. T-Rex: Back to the Cretaceous is one of them.

It came out in 1998 and when I was at the Trocadero IMAX-3D cinema in London I had to choose between this movie and another called Across the Sea of Time. I chose the latter. Which is a shame coz the dinosaurs and huge shots of this movie would have looked better in 3D.

T-Rex begins with an impressive opening shot of the camera swooping over the Arizona desert, which still looks great even on a widescreen TV instead of the huge IMAX screen. There's a hefty narration from the lead actress conveying relevant information about dinosaurs. In this respect the film feels a bit like a 10-year-old's educational program. But being familiar with IMAX movies I was expecting this. I think too many people were expecting a Jurassic Park variant.

Tho I would have expected a few more dinosaurs. In the 45 minute running time there wasn't much dinosaur action. Though there was a good amount of story that I did get into. Plus the movie has a great score by William Ross. He released a promo CD of this score but it's impossible to find.

Hey, I was entertained and I thot the brief story was quite okay. The horribly slanderous reviews on this site really baffle me. The IMAX format does not work well on DVD, you have to see these movies in the cinema. But if you have a good sound system then the DVD is still worth it.

The DVD is in 1.33:1 full frame (they are shown theatrically at 1.44:1 so there isn't much modification to the framing) with a Dolby 5.1 soundtrack that is quite impressive. A slight featurette and an IMAX movies trailer are also included.

The worst movie experience ever

[airwair75 · 1/10 · 28 August 2006]

This is the most boring, poorly conceived movie I have ever seen. It isn't even awesomely bad. Watching this movie is like being on "the machine" in the Princess Bride. Don't waste your money- your kids won't like it either. Instead of focusing on the dinosaurs, the movie focuses on the relationship between the father and daughter, but it is not even as good as a very bad after school special. To flesh it out a bit, there are some run-ins with people who studied dinosaurs in the past, but it is boring and totally contrived. About halfway through the movie, you will wish the dinosaurs would just eat the characters to get it over with. By the end, you're almost willing to let them eat you so you don't have to watch it any more.

A great 3-D experience.

[KinoKid · 7/10 · 21 December 1998]

To those who said it was a "rip off"- what's your problem?? This is low-keyed introduction to archaeology in Alberta's badlands as seen through the imaginative mind of a teenager. This is not supposed to be a third installment of Jurassic Park. The encounter with the mother T-Rex at her nest was a bit syrupy and improbable but with all those conflicting theories on origins and habits of our favourite dino, who knows.

Elegant

[Kabumpo · 8/10 · 31 December 1998]

When I saw local Shakespearean actor Liz Stauber was starring in an Imax 3-D film featuring dinosaurs, I figured she could only have done it for only two reasons, money, and to get recognition, and thus use it as a stepping stone to later projects. I was pleasantly surprised that while this film has some nice special effects on display, although no better or worse than that of _Jurassic Park_ or _Dragonheart_, this was very much unlike those two, but a children's educational film with the young protagonist, Ally (Stauber) at the center, and not as a stick-figure in a special effects reel. As Ray Bolger said about Judy Garland, she's not pretty, but in a way she's beautiful. Her voice sounds pretty bored at the beginning, but that's because she is not where she wants to be. The marvelous transitions, particularly the Buddha statues, show off Brett Leonard's (The Lawnmower Man, Virtuosity) style. The film makes beautiful use of 3-D, and does not overdo it with throwing things at you, and puts the actors right in front of you. Viewed as a children's film, it is quite an accomplishment in its 46 minutes. The artist Charles Knight is a major factor, and he has an important lesson for Ally, and for the young (and old) members of the audience. Liz Stauber went to my high school, and my theatre prof in college thought she was ripped off last year when an older actor (Marita Clarke) was cast as the female Puck over her, placing her as Peaseblossom, but here she takes the center stage, and ought to be getting a lot of calls now. Kevin Williamson already has. Take the kids. This is no special effects film, despite how it has been billed, so it may leave some people quite unsatisfied.

not worth putting on a DVD!!

[metroidphazon4 · 2/10 · 16 January 2011]

bottom line, the movie is OK.BUT the movie is way too short.if it was longer i moght have been more forgiving.though at the length the movie sits at its certainly not worth putting on a DVD! I first watched this movie by renting it.I watched it 2 times at back to back because it was so short.this movie doesn't deserve the name of movie.instead it shouldov just premiered on as a TV program.if your looking for a dinosaur movie just watch jurassic park.when it comes to dinosaur movie you can not beat jurassic park!!plus the story line is lame.a girl walks through a musium and starts thinking the dinosaurs are real and they come after her.also the acting is bland and gay.just don't give this movie a chance unless you want only 30 minutes.

amazing 3D

[cinematographer · 8 October 1998]

This being really the first full narrative IMAX film, I applaud the film-makers. The 3D aspect is taken advantage of. But unless it's viewed in 3D (which only certain theaters provide) a majority of the enjoyment will be lost.

A 3-D landscape of acne

[amcleran · 1/10 · 6 August 2004]

I should have saved my money and bought some sandwiches for tomorrow. Or, maybe given it to a homeless person on the street... they are by far the more entertaining subject.

This movie is a complete disgrace to 3-D IMAX. The technology still has some kinks to work out... it's not always 100 percent efficient in it's polarization of the images (you get image bleeding) and they seriously need to rethink the 3-D dissolve shot (talk about vertigo). But I've seen a 3-D movie that literally got me to the point of tears (Galapagos 3-D) and I am a sucker now for the rest of the crap that has been made in the format... hoping to recapture that feeling I got from Galapagos.

I've read a bunch of comments here and I feel consoled that I am not the only one who thinks it was complete crap. Much has already been said about the movie, so I won't comment on the movie directly...

What I haven't heard mention is the 3-D splendor of an ever-shifting landscape of pimples to be seen on the what, 20 total minutes of facial close-ups of the main teenage actress. I mean, if you are going to project the face of a teenager 6 stories tall AND in 3-D glory, AND for long, lingering shots... you might want to consider hiring somebody without an acne problem??? I know, you might be saying that I am being unfair... maybe I am. I actually think the girl has real potential and charisma, so if she reads this, sorry for commenting about it. It's just a serious distraction. It is true though that I was getting a kick at identifying which scenes they shot on the same day by comparing acne configurations. One scene there would be a huge pimple on the lower right side, and then the next it would disappear (with pimples elsewhere) only to re-emerge several scenes later in the exact spot it was before.

Obviously the budget on the film wasn't big enough to allow even for good acne medication for the main actress let alone a bunch of scenes of dinosaurs.

should be called, "3-D Pimple: Back to the age before clearasil"

Horrible, Horrible, Horrible!!

[darsox64 · 1/10 · 22 February 2001]

I saw this at a local omni-theater and expected to get some teenager learning a bunch of useless info about dinosaurs. Instead, I get something much worse. 2/3 of the movie is spent with scientists nobody's heard of or sappy daughter-father relationship stuff. OK, the effects were half decent, but that by no means makes it a good movie. Non-existent plot, no educational value, and no fun.

A waste of 3-D effects.

[cLoNe · 3/10 · 15 November 1999]

The story is quite dumb. Don't expect a thriller, but just some occasional bursts of senseless special effects. The 3-D effects are impressive, but not used to the MAX. When going to see such movie you do it to see some cool special effects, and there was just not enough of them there.

It would've worked much better as a documentary about dinosaurs (a-la BBC's walking with Dinosaurs) than the little silly drama it is.

SPOILERS (but not really, as the plot is unimportant): - - - There is no explanation as to why the girl is experiencing the 3D effects adventures. Here's my explanation: She's crazy.

I had much more fun watching the IMAX 3D animation trailer. I can't wait to watch THAT.

A giant piece of Dino Dung.

[johndoherty · 1/10 · 24 February 2001]

A giant piece of Dino Dung. This movie is fine if you've just come out of a Coma and can't handle any form of human stimuli. This has to be the most sterile film I've ever seen. Was the girl just crazy or did the whiff of Dino gas from the egg make all of her wildest dreams come true. I had three kids with me one hated it the other two were slightly amused. Where are the Dinosaurs that every promotion I heard trumpeted?? I counted 3 Minutes 22 seconds of Dino's in a 45 Minute film. We had a better time going out to Papa Gino's for Pizza afterwards. DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY ON THIS!!

IMAX Yes - Story NO !!!

[JediYoda-3 · 2/10 · 4 July 1999]

Even the Imax special effects and camera angles could not save this horrific story - Bad Plot, Badly Acted - The Script looked as though it was actually written by a T-Rex. When viewing this movie opt for the other IMAX choice.

A Six Story Movie Screen

[nelliebell-1 · 9/10 · 12 October 2004]

It is the general opinion had here that success need not be a big budget and a loud mouth,nor in fact must it originate from a corporate studio in Hollywood,Ca.This film has the distinction of being Canadian born with the source of its inspiration being dug up along the Red River canyon near the Alberta's.It is filmed in a clever and subtle way as to provide a story within a story.This seems to work very well in allowing for a big picture with a small budget,to tell a very interesting story. The added benefit was that the seeing of this film was seen by me in one of the I-Max Theaters and was a terribly enjoyable experience.There are many ways you might say that there are to skin a cat if you will and this is one such illustration of just how to go about it.The seeing of this particular film in a I-Max Theater was the first and Africa:The Serengeti the second such film whereby I felt compelled to allow the reader to know how worthwhile the adventure really was.It is not a big budget, however once you get a look at the photography any second guessing will come to an end. It is a very smart idea because as you are taken back in time you as a viewer never leave the Museum.The journey involves the discovery of fossils from time periods many many years ago, when it is claimed that terribly large creatures roamed the Earth.This is accomplished through looking into the very pictures and exhibits and using if you will your imagination.It all is not so terribly simple but the film fails to provide more than a skeleton of a story.There is no real ability to identify ambition as it would be present day, however the glimpse into the past is very worthwhile as the past has an ability to however illusionary,to come to life.There is a round about attempt to circumvent the film with an attempt to support Darwin theory of Evolution however in order to go back in time it would seem that she had to be on drugs.Its not pretty and all this fuss may not be really worth all the trouble.In the beginning of the film Dr. Hayden discovers what is speculated to be a prehistoric find which it is speculated further to maybe be an egg.The museum works on the find,treating the object with various diagnostic tools and as a particular day draws to a close Aly,the daughter to Dr. Hayden manages to knock over the find and a gas seems to escape from the object and provide a very real basis for the time of your life.Then While under the influence of this escaped gas Aly roams the Canadian Museum of Natural History as it is closing and everything from a Tyrannosaurus Rex to early discovers all come to life.The call is yours as to the place the drug induced hallucination provide for, however the telling of all these stories is done very well with there being an attempt or so it would seem to be right with history.It is not necessarily interesting but it does almost provide for a spectacular ability to tell a story.The film for all of its shortcomings provides a more worthwhile picture in its presentation and that is dramatic storytelling.The sound,the talk,the view are absolutely beautiful.I-Max made this film an experience and as the film moves along it does so with subtle,even unassuming grandeur.It should be further noted that the film is only 44 minutes long and is available on Digital Versatile Disc.This film will provide a interesting experience on Digital Versatile Disc however it was the I-Max that made this film so worthwhile an experience.This film and the aforementioned Africa:The Serengeti are two recommendations that are a first rate movie going experience perhaps with the I-Max format exclusively.The I-Max format has a tough job in order to sell its format and that is it has to be a big enough story line in order to make six stories worth of viewing worth the experience.The two films mentioned above are two instances where the shoe fits.Excellent all around presentation and a very inspiring movie going experience.Highly Recommended!

Unforgivable letdown

[Shawn · 3/10 · 6 September 1999]

This movie was a huge letdown for everyone in our group. The plot was wafer-thin and could have been an acceptable veneer for the special effects, except that they always cut away from the effects just when they were getting good (a sure sign that they were saving on CGI budget, which, on an 80-foot screen is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what a viewer like myself will find satisfying). The sound in this movie is phenomenal, but hardly makes up for the wasted 120 frames-per-second footage of a girl walking through a museum or the forest. Recommended only for children who are fanatical about dinosaurs.

(note 1: most everyone in our group developed headaches of near migraine proportions due to the imperfect 3D filming technology. It seems to over-converge the up-close images causing your eyes to repeatedly focus on two images that are out of alignment. Maybe it was the theatre (Luxor in Las Vegas)...

(note 2: the Into The Deep IMAX is equally awful)

Funny

[rosental · 4 September 2002]

Maybe it's because I'm not 11 years old anymore, but I watched this movie with my 9 year old nephew, and neither one of us bothered to push the still button, when we went to the bathroom. Is this the way American kids are lured into learning science? A teenager stumbling through ridicoluos scenes with dinosaurs, only to get rescued by her father, who seemingly abandoned her?

No story, poor acting except for the dinosaurs.

[jrg-5 · 4/10 · 1 March 1999]

Once again we have a movie where all the money was spent on special effects, and almost none to get a good story (at least I hope they did not pay much for that). The actors could have been good if they had had something interesting to say.

I think IMAX is a wonderful medium. Too bad it is not used to make real movies with a real screenplay.

An IMAX 3D must see!!

[Mark-H · 11 October 2002]

If you haven't yet seen an IMAX 3D film this is the one to watch!

Ally (Liz Stauber) works in the natural history museum and wants to be a paleontologist like her Dad (Peter Horton). When her Dad returns from a dig with what she believes could be a T-Rex egg, a mishap leads to toxic fumes escaping from the 'egg' which Ally accidentally breathes, taking her back in time into a fantastic example of the IMAX 3D experience through her hallucinatory journey.

The 3D effects are stunning, from the archaeologists chipping away at the rocks apparently sat on your knee to the amazing close-ups of the pre-historic creatures as they appear just inches from your face!

If, like me, you feel that the average film is too long, then you'll love this. At around 45 minutes, it's more like a long TV program than a movie so there's no chance of boredom setting in, and the continuous 3D effects throughout will leave you grinning with awe and enjoyment.

Sure, it isn't Jurassic Park, but for a short, and presumeably low budget movie with a relatively unknown cast, the effects are very good indeed and the story is simple, but nice.

This film really needs to be viewed as it was intended to be though, in 3D, so that the effects come to life and engross you into feeling you are there.

An IMAX 3D must see!!

I remember only the title

[nightwishouge · 24 January 2023]

Nothing to really say about this movie except that I remember having seen it. I was scrolling through Brett Leonard's filmography after having watched his 1995 magnum opus Virtuosity and the title jumped out at me. I remember my mom shouting, "Back to the Cretaceous!" pretty much any time the topic of dinosaurs came up for a good few years after seeing this. I guess the phrase really struck her fancy.

The reviews here are pretty negative. Probably they are correct in that the film isn't very good. I was only 11 when I saw it at the IMAX at Navy Pier, now sadly closed for good due to the pandemic. Pretty much all I remember are those sweeping shots of the desert that open the film--quite effective in large-format 3D. I knew that the movie wasn't as good as Jurassic Park, and the effects were quite cheesy, but due to the short running time and the 3D gimmick I basically viewed it as something of a combination of one of those videos you would watch in science class to fill time while your teacher recovered from a hangover and a theme park show, like the T2-3D: Battle Across Time at Universal Studios. Let's face it, you don't expect stellar acting or solid storytelling from either of those subgenres.

I guess the one thing this has over the Spielberg movie is that it knows which Mesozoic period the T-Rex lived in.