Jurassic World - Part 10

[Iceman]

Saber-toothed cats hunted in packs. I can't believe they haven't gone there yet.

 

[Marvolo]

I feel safe in assuming that Pratt's character would have made sure it didn't just remain in that tank and starve to death. At the very least he would make sure it was euthanized peacefully instead of the very painful starvation death.

 

[divan]

A user named DrDoom in the site that shall not be named posted a review of this. Now, I don't agree with everything he says but it's just a wonderful piece of writing and nails a lot of things I believe are worth posting.

Nostalgia can be an extremely powerful force. I believe that nearly everyone can agree with this statement, but regardless, it is a concept that still warps our ability to perceive what we see before us because of how certain experiences shape our worldview. Countless people around the world will defend what media they experienced in childhood as "timeless" and "untouchable" despite probably never being willing to go back to it (how else do you explain people defending the quality of the original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon? Have you watched an episode recently?) I myself am no stranger to this phenomenon, because for me, Steven Spielberg's landmark 1993 release of Jurassic Park was one of those experiences that influenced every aspect of my childhood. I would watch the movie almost every day for months at a time, and would swear that it was the single greatest thing ever forged by human hands.

However, there is another side to this story, because when I was still a young child, I would just as vehemently defend the film's 1997 sequel, The Lost World, also directed by Spielberg. I was young, impressionable, and I loved dinosaurs, so how could I not think that it was a fantastic movie? However, I grew older, and by the time Joe Johnston's 2001 release of Jurassic Park III rolled around, I started to rationalize the concept of nostalgia. I finally saw The Lost World for exactly what it was: a poor movie, and proof that even a master of cinema like Steven Spielberg can fail to deliver. It is filled with cringe-worthy moments, the script is asinine at best, the characterizations are sloppy and the finale sequence, cool as it might have looked in trailers, stretches the suspension of disbelief far beyond its breaking point. These were all things that I had to learn for myself after having a relationship with the film for around half a decade.

Now, you may be wondering why I am starting off a review of Jurassic World with a digression about my personal history, and this is why: I want to establish a theoretical framework that will show why I feel about Jurassic World the way I do. I want to show that nothing is above reproach, criticism or reconsideration. I feel that a lot of people throw around words like "timeless" and "untouchable" far too often, which is just another way of them reaffirming that their nostalgia for something that came previously overrules anything that comes later, with many people using these words to describe Jurassic Park prior to Jurassic World's release. Am I saying that Jurassic Park is a bad film? Absolutely not. Unlike its sequels, Jurassic Park holds up incredibly well, and it has earned its place as a classic of genre cinema. However, unlike my four year old self, I no longer believe that it is a perfect film (the finale still makes no sense given that there's no way that the T-Rex could slip inside the main pavilion undetected), nor that it is impossible for it to be surpassed. With all of this in mind, let's now dive in to the most recent installment in the franchise: Jurassic World!



Jurassic World takes place two decades after the original film, and smartly retcons both The Lost World and Jurassic Park III from the timeline. For director Colin Trevorrow, the first Jurassic Park is the only prior entry in the saga, and this allows him a great deal of freedom to take the franchise in the direction he wants to. The film establishes early on that the Jurassic World park has been open for some time now, and that despite the original Jurassic Park being a tragic upstart, the new park is an unprecedented success. There are now twenty species that have been rescued from extinction, and you only have to take a look at the crowds and their reactions to see that Jurassic World truly has become a worldwide phenomenon. The reveal of the park is a spectacular eye-opening sequence, showing off a wide variety of creative attractions, such as interactive hologram education programs, Mosasaurus feeding shows and even a petting zoo where children can ride and freely interact with baby herbivores (which is a subliminally brilliant way of instilling a sense of trust of humans in the young animals). The beginning of the movie shows that John Hammond's optimistic dream of a "Jurassic Park" can be fully realized, with a statue of Hammond himself in the central pavillion that stands as a reminder of the life and death of the man whose dream made it all possible.

However, in the words of the immortal bard, "there is something rotten in the state of Denmark Jurassic World", and that happens to be the exact opposite of Hammond's optimism: cynicism. Hammond himself said that he wanted to "capture the imagination of the entire planet" with Jurassic Park, and in that area, Jurassic World has succeeded. Still, while the giant crowds and wide smiles indicate otherwise, the people running the park have largely grown cynical about the whole enterprise, and this can be seen in three characters who exemplify the different aspects of Hammond's dream. When John Hammond envisioned Jurassic Park, he imagined that it could fulfill three functions: a lucrative business, a scientific revolution and an entertaining display that can create wonder and awe in its patrons, and the movie has a character that represents each of these aspects, those being Bryce Dallas Howard's Claire Dearing (business), B. D. Wong's Henry Wu (science) and Irrfan Khan's Simon Masrani (wonder), who inherited ownership of the park from Hammond himself.



Each one of these characters has, in a way, deviated from Hammond's optimistic dream by becoming cynical about their respective aspect of the enterprise. Claire believes that tiny drops in attendance indicates that the park requires a drastic shift in how they operate, which causes her to sign off on a plan to genetically engineer new dinosaurs to try and recapture the public's attention (you only need to look at the numerous crowd reaction shots to see that she's dead wrong). Wu has since come to accept that the dinosaurs that he has created have never been scientifically accurate in the first place (a brilliant nod to the discovery of new understandings of dinosaur biology in the two decades since the original film), and thinks of the beings he's made as monstrous genetic melting pots that have whatever DNA that is required spliced into them. Masrani, who is not quite as cynical as the other two, still makes it clear that he's become extremely concerned with both how his park and his legacy is perceived, as well as being dismayed with the profitability of Claire's business and the difficult scientific ethics of Wu's work. A dream that was filled with optimism twenty years ago has become muddled and corrupted by internal politics, bludgeoning bureaucracy and the bottom line.

However, while all of this is going on in the background, Jurassic World knows that (for the most part) it should tell a simple story. The main crux of the plot involves siblings Zach (Nick Robinson) and Gray (Ty Simpkins) Mitchell going to visit the park for the weekend under the care of their aunt, Claire. During this time, Owen Grady (Chris Pratt) a park ranger and velociraptor trainer, is brought in for consultation by Claire on the development of a new attraction: the first genetically engineered dinosaur, the hyper-intelligent and extremely aggressive Indominus Rex. When the Indominus unsurprisingly breaks loose, Owen and Claire attempt to stop the creature and save Claire's nephews before it's too late. Like the original film, there are a handful of small subplots, such as one involving Vincent D'Onofrio as InGen security head Vic Hoskins, who wants to turn velociraptors into bio-organic weapons (did Hoskins previously work at the Umbrella Corporation?), but the expertly paced script is smart enough to ensure that the subplots weave themselves so as to serve the main survival plot, and not the other way around.



The main cast of characters are all played by actors who know exactly how to get into character for a genre film like this, and so the acting from the main group is very well done. Chris Pratt is instantly likeable as a more serious action hero than in Guardians of the Galaxy, and Bryce Dallas Howard shines through as the true protagonist, because Claire is the one who gets an actual character arc (which mirrors the arc that Sam Neill's Alan Grant went through in the original movie). D'Onofrio, Khan and Wong are all very talented and do well with what they have, but their roles as supplementary and relatively simplistic characters don't allow for much range to be displayed. Special mention must be given to Robinson and Simpkins, who manage not only to avoid being terribly annoying and useless additions, but actually surpass Lex and Tim Murphy from the original film in terms of believability and charisma.

The plot itself is weaved via a string of well-paced sequences, including typical chase scenes but also some slower and more methodical moments that give the chance for the characters and scenery both to breathe and to naturally develop. There's a fantastic character moment with Owen, Claire and an Apatosaurus that does more for their characters than a lot of the dialogue, as well as some very exciting action set-pieces that highlight some of the lesser known creatures in the Jurassic Park pantheon. The Indominus Rex is also a great addition to the franchise, being a terrifying and entertaining monster who serves as a far more effective villain than the Spinosaurus did in Jurassic Park III. On top of all this is a truly jaw-dropping finale, which I won't spoil but is worth the price of admission alone.



However, not everything that Jurassic World does is executed to its fullest potential: the "romance" subplot is a bit of a non-starter, a few of the jokes fail to hit and there's a plot twist about two-thirds of the way through the movie involving the velociraptors that doesn't make much sense given that it contradicts some of the logistics established earlier in the film. However, these quibbles are really very minor in the grand scheme of the movie, not detracting at all from the fact that Jurassic World is a wildly entertaining and very well-produced piece of genre fiction. To top it all off, Michael Giacchino's musical score is excellent, using pieces of John Williams' iconic original work while also producing some wonderful new pieces to go along with this new take on the franchise.

So, ultimately, does Jurassic World succeed? I would say it absolutely does. It gathers up the ideas established in the original film and actually takes them somewhere new, rather than middling about like the previous sequels did. Not only that, but it also has some fascinating subtext lying in the background, which is the reason I brought up the optimism vs. cynicism points earlier. Jurassic World is a film that shows how the cynicism of its characters is what ultimately leads to the downfall of their dreams, and in a way it asks its audience to consider their reaction to their own nostalgia by challenging them to look beyond their preconceived notions of what it can achieve. Nostalgia can be a good thing, but it can also be a terrible thing, for it can keep you shut off from what the future can bring without you even realizing it. Is Jurassic World better than Jurassic Park? In some aspects it is, and some it isn't, but I don't think Jurassic World is about that. It's not about rankings, it's not about statistics and it's not about percentages. Jurassic World is about the value of optimism, and how we, as an audience, should try and embrace the future and the wonderful things it may bring. In my mind, there is nothing more Spielbergian than that.

 

[DA_Champion]

I saw Jurassic World, it was really dumb but also really fun. I think this is what it might have felt like for adults watching Emmerich movies in the 1990s.

The Indominus Rex did not allow itself to be captured to infiltrate the enemy base ... it pretended to escape in order to bring the enemy into its base and break out. LoL. Reversing tropes are fun.

There is a scene directly copied out of How to Train your Dragon 2. When the Indominus-Rex strives for Alpha-ness ... it's like they plagiarized that entire story arc from the movie lol.

I dug Bryce Dallas Howard's character arc ... she changes so fundamentally in the span of a single day ... lol, that's not conceivable at all. At the beginning of the day she is a stereotypical uptight career woman, I think they might have gone for the career woman stereotype to give a sense of 1990s nostalgia. At the end of the movie, she is an independent warrior who shoots first and asks questions later ... great character arc for a single day.

Bt the movie had some good parts. It started off truly painful in the first thirty minutes with the phoney music playing, and the manipulative use means of infantilizing the audience by having us empathize with a six year old who is eager to discover everything. At that point, I decided to embrace that this was a B-movie, in the style of Independence Day, Battleship, and Alien vs Predator, and then I was able to enjoy the movie. We see some military porn and some monster fights, it's cool. At the end of the movie, the T-rex lets another dinosaur go out of respect because they fought together in battle ... lol.

Grade: B

 

[antonydelfini]

Finally was able to watch it.

Not as intelligent and majestic as the first one, but it has an infectious sense of fun. A worthy sequel.

Jurassic Park 9/10
The Lost World 6.5/10
Jurasic Park III 5.5/10
Jurassic World 8/10

 

[jmc]

So I finally got a chance to see this film today. Having watched the first Jurassic Park film in the cinema only two years ago really hits home just how much every follow up film in the series has failed to capture what made that film so good, and sadly Jurassic World follows in those footsteps. To be very blunt, this is a B-Grade movie with a $200 million budget, filled with one dimensional characters, few genuine scares and some inadvertent laugh out loud moments.

First, this film does so much to remind you of the first film yet fails to understand what made that film great, it was essentially a horror film at its heart, it built up tension and wasn't afraid to toy with your mind. This one is a monster movie, which is fine, however there's nothing really done with that concept that we haven't already seen before. No suspense, no memorable scenes, no build up to anything, nothing even remotely terrifying, just more of the same but with a new dinosaur. Worst of all there's unintentional humour in this one.

The characters in this film are terrible. And not just terrible, completely incompetent to the point where you wonder just how they managed to keep this Park incident free for so long. I've never wanted to see so many people be eaten before in my life given half the dumb choices they made. I half expected some of the characters to inadvertently make themselves more delicious prior to being eaten by falling into a hot dog stand and covering themselves in mustard and barbecue sauce. The original film might not have had much of a plot but the characters were interesting and well developed, and at the very least they showed some brains. The only remotely smart one in this film is Pratt's character, but that seems to come more from default than anything else. Everyone else are cardboard cut outs, what their names are I couldn't honestly tell you.

As for the dinosaurs, they are about the only real highlight of the movie. Frankensaurus is a glorified T-Rex. I never liked the concept from the beginning of a genetically engineered dinosaur and nothing in this film seemed to justify that other than it meant T-Rex gets to be the hero. The Raptors I wasn't a fan of, that species has always been the most terrifying in the series and whilst they didn't go so far as to train them the danger they've always possessed was greatly diminished. In all honesty I was open to the idea of controlled raptors but the nonsense with the military really was bordering on jumping the shark.

Despite all of this though, I actually had fun with the film because at the end of the day it's a B-grade SyFy channel movie disguised as a Hollywood blockbuster, and for the rest of my life I'm going to make fun of it. A glorified straight to DVD rental that you watch when you need a quick laugh or plastered with alcohol. Possibly the most hilarious thing that was said in this film was by the military dude when his team was evacuating the embryos out as the park - 'Someone has to keep Ingen profitable', this despite the fact a several billion dollar class action lawsuit is coming the company's way. That just summed up the logic behind this film, and I wouldn't have it any other way because I've come to accept nothing is going to ever match the original film because the concept doesn't lend itself to genuine continuation, so just do what ever bat **** crazy stuff you want from here on in. If it's as nutty as this one I'll probably enjoy it.

An unintentionally hilarious 6/10.

 

[DA_Champion]

JMC you never disappoint.

 

[Supernova]

The original can never be replicated or bettered because it was lighting in a bottle like in the case of many other original films. I laugh with some of the negative reviews citing how better the original is, its suppose to be. Theres only one mona lisa. Just be happy we got a decent sequel that beat the freaking Avengers 1 and 2 financially.

 

[divan]

...at the end of the day it's a B-grade SyFy channel movie disguised as a Hollywood blockbuster, and for the rest of my life I'm going to make fun of it.

This is hilariously ignorant.

 

[jmc]

It's also my opinion. You're free to disagree.

 

[divan]

It's also my opinion. You're free to disagree.

It's not about agreeing or disagreeing. Comparing this to a SyFy film shows ignorance in every aspect of filmmaking.

 

[jmc]

And you're latching onto one aspect of my entire review to counter argue.

 

[divan]

And you're latching onto one aspect of my entire review to counter argue.

I'm not trying to counter-argue because, as you said, you're free to have your opinion about the movie and I'm not going to try to convince you to think otherwise.

I just found that particular sentence to be, well, ignorant. Not saying you are. Maybe it's just the heat of the moment. Maybe it's not.

 

[jmc]

I'm not trying to counter-argue because, as you said, you're free to have your opinion about the movie and I'm not going to try to convince you to think otherwise.

I just found that particular sentence to be, well, ignorant. Not saying you are. Maybe it's just the heat of the moment. Maybe it's not.

Well, I put my case forward in that review as to why I feel that way.

 

[divan]

Well, I put my case forward in that review as to why I feel that way.

Sure, and you make good points but then you say "it's like a SyFy movie" as oppossed to saying "I found it to be like a SyFy movie" or "I couldn't stand it".

Comparing something we don't like to something that's considerably worse and almost universally seen as "******" is the easiest way to validate one's opinion beyond the thoughts of the rest.

With the exception of the poor characters (and even then, you bring them to the point of biased exageration - you could argue they aren't that far of from the characters of the original) all the other complains you make are extremely subjective. Yet you treat them as facts.

No suspense? A lot have pointed out that I-Rex' escape, its subsequent encounter with the AMC and the encounter with the Gyrosphere are three very suspensful scenes, well-constructed in their use of image and sound that prefer to imply instead of showing everything onscreen. No memorable scenes? Then I must have gone to the wrong third act. Or the wrong finale. No build up to anything? Sure, that mus be why the I-Rex spends the movie almost completely hidden until showing himself to the kids (and is still kept hidden in much more scenes after that). The I-Rex is almost universally considered to be a highlight and yet you call it a glorified T-Rex (admitting that you never liked the concept in the first place doesn't make you more objective) and same with the controlled raptors which are have been generally seen as a potentially-wacky concept but one that was pulled off succesfully. You also ignore every strengh, even in weaker areas (the Apatosaurs scene is a great character moment, for example).

But the thing is, I don't really care about you disliking, even hating, the movie. It's a flawed movie and there are enough flaws for some people to dislike it. At the same time, it's got enough strenghs for people to like it - It depends on whether you like some things more than others, story vs storytelling, logic vs spectacle.

But you act as if it's universally ******. You talk in absolutes, instead of trying to be more moderate. Your signature says that fans acknoledge screw-ups and fanboys make excuses, well, haters make excuses, while someone truly interesting inreviewing a film will be able to see its strenghs (even if they don't embrace them) as opposed to making excuses and comparisions to SyFy.

It's a pet peeve of mine. You've got pet peeves that prevented you from enjoying the movie in a way that wasn't Rifftrax fodder. Well, fine, but that sentence is my pet peeve and I wanted to point out I found it ignorant. Plain and simple.

 

[DA_Champion]

What's the in-story explanation for the intelligence of the I-rex?

I kept expecting a reveal that it had human DNA.

 

[Baneis8feettall]

What's the in-story explanation for the intelligence of the I-rex?

I kept expecting a reveal that it had human DNA.

Spoiler

He is part raptor. His DNA is engineered to be a weapon.

 

[DA_Champion]

Spoiler

He is part raptor. His DNA is engineered to be a weapon.

Why does that make him smart?

The I-rex lured humans into his cage so that he could get out, which makes him as intelligent as the Joker in TDK since he reversed the trope. He knew to flip that giant Turtle-like dinosaur on its back. He knew to remove his tracking device.

 

[Greens]

Why does that make him smart?

The I-rex lured humans into his cage so that he could get out, which makes him as intelligent as the Joker in TDK since he reversed the trope. He knew to flip that giant Turtle-like dinosaur on its back. He knew to remove his tracking device.

Yet it somehow didn't know to kill Pratt after its escape. Not so intelligent after all.

 

[DA_Champion]

Yet it somehow didn't know to kill Pratt after its escape. Not so intelligent after all.

I didn't say the I-rex was God, but it is supremely intelligent.

The I-rex has had zero intellectual stimulation and its life ... and it figures out to disable the heat signatures in the cage, put claw marks on the walls, so it looks like it got out, so that humans can get in, so that it can get out.

That's an extremely complex plan.

 

[Greens]

I didn't say the I-rex was God, but it is supremely intelligent.

I know. I'm just pointing out an inconsistency in the film. This beast is crazy smart, but a little bit of gasoline was enough to deceive it.

 

[Supernova]

I know. I'm just pointing out an inconsistency in the film. This beast is crazy smart, but a little bit of gasoline was enough to deceive him.

The I rex grew up in an enclosed area with little interface with the world besides being fed so I can believe when pratt covered himself in gasoline the I rex would be confused by a scent he never experienced before. Hes only smelt humans pretty much and the sibling. Its not like they walked by it everyday with yankee candles and other smells.

 

[Lord]

Edit: ups wrong thread

 

[ShadowBoxer]

My friend at work told me there was an Easter egg in this movie that takes a jab at JP 3's Spino killing the T-Rex. During the finale when Claire lures out the original T-Rex, we see the bones of a Spino in the T Rex area. Basically saying the T-Rex is still the king or queen of the JP food chain lol. I saw the movie twice and missed that both times.

 

[Silvermoon]

I probably sound like a nitpicker, but I-Rex is a SHE/HER not a HE/HIM

(pretty sure all of the dinosaurs at the park are still created to be female)