Jurassic World - Part 9

[ares834]

Pretty much on track for what they expected, $120-ish.

It should blow way past that.

 

[marty mcfly]

I thought this was a great flick. Not perfect by any means, but nothing other than Hoskins stood out as particularly goofy or stupid. Personally I thought the kids were great. They were really good actors because they acted like children their age would act. Pratt and Howard were good, but the main characters of this movie were the dinosaurs.

And I think that might be the only issue I had when comparing it to the first film. JP1 was a movie about people thrown into a world with dinosaurs, but at its core it was about people. This movie was KINDA about how people never learn, but mostly it was about dinosaurs, so I can see how people had a hard time connecting to the characters.

I did think there was WAY too much CGI in this though. JP1 was like an 80/20 split of practical vs. CG dinos, and this was 10/90. And unfortunately some of the dinosaurs just didn't look real. BUT, when they did look real, they looked and sounded amazing!

I give this movie a "B" and will definitely be seeing it again to analyze it further.

 

[Lasirius]

How do we know that

Spoiler

the T-Rex is the one from the first movie?

I can't recall them mentioning it in the movie.

 

[Schlosser85]

How do we know that

Spoiler

the T-Rex is the one from the first movie?

I can't recall them mentioning it in the movie.

It was stated on the movie's official website, plus she has the scars on her neck from the raptor in the first movie.

 

[Broseph44]

I'm gonna write a review shortly but damn did I enjoy that! There are a couple of issues for me but overall it was the film I was hoping it would be.

Brospeh, man you are gonna love it!

Glad you enjoyed it Hunter! Oh man I can't wait t:

Grabbing this game tomorrow!

 

[Lasirius]

It was stated on the movie's official website, plus she has the scars on her neck from the raptor in the first movie.

Got it, I thought I had read it somewhere some time ago. I tried looking for the scars but couldn't see them, guess I'm gonna have to go back.

 

[lukebrodyg]

Got it, I thought I had read it somewhere some time ago. I tried looking for the scars but couldn't see them, guess I'm gonna have to go back.

The scars are most evident toward the very, very end.

 

[Iceman]

I'll be seeing it this time tomorrow. Maybe a little later.

 

[lukebrodyg]

I thought this was a great flick. Not perfect by any means, but nothing other than Hoskins stood out as particularly goofy or stupid. Personally I thought the kids were great. They were really good actors because they acted like children their age would act. Pratt and Howard were good, but the main characters of this movie were the dinosaurs.

And I think that might be the only issue I had when comparing it to the first film. JP1 was a movie about people thrown into a world with dinosaurs, but at its core it was about people. This movie was KINDA about how people never learn, but mostly it was about dinosaurs, so I can see how people had a hard time connecting to the characters.

I did think there was WAY too much CGI in this though. JP1 was like an 80/20 split of practical vs. CG dinos, and this was 10/90. And unfortunately some of the dinosaurs just didn't look real. BUT, when they did look real, they looked and sounded amazing!

I give this movie a "B" and will definitely be seeing it again to analyze it further.

I agree with most of what you've said here. But, honestly, this movie is made so far after the first that I don't think you can fairly compare the two.

JP1 was made in a time when we weren't jaded by 10+ blockbusters per year and when CGI was expensive and used efficiently versus now when it can be used almost 100% of the time even when animatronics would work well.

Also, it's fair to mention the first film had more passion behind it from arguably the greatest cinematic storyteller of our time AND a book author who was also passionate behind the characters HE created; even though changes were made for the film, Crichton still was very much involved in that. That's why I think there's was much more emphasis on the human characters in the first film.

The tone of this film felt intentionally different to me. The movie didn't feel at all like the first (or even the second and third) film. They seem to be more gritty and polished whereas this movie is a product of the era in which it's made. Not that I'm slamming it for that because I think Colin knew this very well and rolled with it.

The result, at least IMO, was very good.

 

[hitmanyr2k]

You say why not?. I say because people don't change who they are at the flip of a switch. You change through many years of getting older, learning from mistakes. She changed in a split second. Look at the grant character from the first movie. He hated kids, didn't want any of his own, thought they were just annoying. By the end of the movie he had become very nurturing. He still was a bit reserved but he made some progress. And even then he still had no kids of his own. That's the point. He grew a little as a person but he didn't change completely. That's actual human progression. That's why we cared about these people. In JW everyone was a cliche. Starlord was the charming mans man. The denofrio character might as well have been twirling his evil moustache. Bryce character changed at the drop of a hat and the kid had mummy daddy issues and the teen just wanted to get laid. Even if that meant flirting with every chick he saw, despite having a GF back home. Im not rooting for people written so thin and non interesting

While I was entertained by Jurassic World (mainly because of the dinosaurs) I agree with this. JW's characters had the shallowness and the familiar annoying characteristics of a Roland Emmerich disaster porn movie. Substitute the natural disaster(s) with dinosaurs and it's a wrap.

 

[Flint Marko]

Really enjoyed this movie. It wasn't great, but it was exactly what I wanted out of a Jurassic park sequel. I'll give it a solid 7 out of 10.

 

[The Caped Knight]

Heading out to see this NOW matinée showing here I come!

 

[marty mcfly]

JP1 was made in a time when we weren't jaded by 10+ blockbusters per year and when CGI was expensive and used efficiently versus now when it can be used almost 100% of the time even when animatronics would work well.

Also, it's fair to mention the first film had more passion behind it from arguably the greatest cinematic storyteller of our time AND a book author who was also passionate behind the characters HE created; even though changes were made for the film, Crichton still was very much involved in that. That's why I think there's was much more emphasis on the human characters in the first film.

Oh most definitely. I agree. And as much as I like Trevarrow and as much as I appreciate how he wanted to pay homage to the original, he's no Spielberg. The Beard is in a class all to his own.

This was a really enjoyable movie, but character development and plot weren't the priority. It was more dinosaur porn than anything else. And don't get me wrong, I'll watch dinosaurs eat people any day of the week. But I think if they had invested more time in the characters and story the way they did with the original, we wouldn't NEED all that CGI dino action.

It's almost like the filmmakers listened to from Claire in the film and only think audiences want something bigger and louder, so they add a bunch of crazy camera angles and quick cuts. But in JP1, we don't see the Rex for like 40 minutes. And when we do, she comes out and roars. We see it in a wide shot and it is STILL terrifying more than 20 years later. That's just a higher caliber of storytelling and filmmaking.

 

[Lord]

Wasn't one of the main criticisms of the first film directed at the character? It's kinda ironic because now with so many "spetacle" films, most agree that what made Jurassic Park work were the characters.

Well the characters can't be any worse than than the ****heads that were in JP3. Manic screaming mom, dorky dad, grumpy Alan, the Boy Wonder, and Alan's partner. Oh and who can forget the cannon fodder gang of bargain-bin mercs. Absolutely riveting characters those were.

I did feel like the family chracters started to grow as the film went on, aside from Alan's partner, i think the characters grew with the experience.

 

[Loki882]

The first film's character's were archetypes, but I didn't find them to be overly cliché. I keep hearing from people who have seen JW that it's characters are:

Spoiler

BDH's character not being able to balance a relationship/have a family because she's a "no nonsense career woman" sounds REALLY cliché (and kind of insulting to all the women who can balance the two). Oh and having her running through the jungle in heels was just a dumb aesthetic choice.

 

[The Shape]

This was a really enjoyable movie, but character development and plot weren't the priority. It was more dinosaur porn than anything else. And don't get me wrong, I'll watch dinosaurs eat people any day of the week. But I think if they had invested more time in the characters and story the way they did with the original, we wouldn't NEED all that CGI dino action.

It's almost like the filmmakers listened to from Claire in the film and only think audiences want something bigger and louder, so they add a bunch of crazy camera angles and quick cuts. But in JP1, we don't see the Rex for like 40 minutes. And when we do, she comes out and roars. We see it in a wide shot and it is STILL terrifying more than 20 years later. That's just a higher caliber of storytelling and filmmaking.

Yeah.

When Claire and Owen kissed, seemingly out of nowhere with absolutely no buid-up to their "romance" and just because they had to, I cracked up.

 

[Octoberist]

Wasn't one of the main criticisms of the first film directed at the character? It's kinda ironic because now with so many "spetacle" films, most agree that what made Jurassic Park work were the characters.



I did feel like the family chracters started to grow as the film went on, aside from Alan's partner, i think the characters grew with the experience.

really? I thought it had a great buildup, thanks to its characters. What a revisionist history this is.

 

[Schlosser85]

I did find Claire really cliche and kind of a sexist stereotype. Like she can't be a professional career woman without being this ridiculously uptight humorless shrew who needs a hunky he-man to straighten her out.

 

[Octoberist]

If I was Colin, I would take archetypes and give them enough twists to make the convention a little bit different.

A good example of this is in the original JP, Alan Grant could've been a cliche but he wasn't. Thanks to the writing and Sam Neil, they made Grant its own thing. Same thing with Ian Malcolm or Elle.

 

[Loki882]

Heck John Hammond as well. He could have been the arrogant, money-grubbing businessman (like he was in the book). But Spielberg/Attenborough(rip) made him more likeable/interesting.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Glad you enjoyed it Hunter! Oh man I can't wait t:

I'll be seeing it this time tomorrow. Maybe a little later.

Looking forward to reading your reviews!

 

[Broseph44]

Hunter did your Family enjoy it?

 

[Hunter Rider]

From the first swooping shot that takes us into the park you can feel the film was made with a lot of love for the first movie, it's one of many shots or moments within the film that parallel with iconic scenes from Jurassic Park.

The first 3rd of the film focuses on showcasing the fully functioning park from both the visitors POV and the BTS POV, and I was really pleased about this, it's an aspect I hoped they'd give plenty of time to and they did. Seeing the Mosasaur show, the half glimpse of the T-Rex dining, the kids riding the baby triceratops and feeding he baby Brachiosaurus and then the Monorail and Gyrosphere events, all of it was magic!

Now I'd actually argue that the park is the films lead character, it's living and breathing and is the heartbeat of the film. Of the human characters I do think the writing short changes them to a degree. Bryce and the older kid Zack are character types when the film starts, she's socially awkward and a semi-snotty workaholic controller, while the kid is a miserable, girl obsessed *****ebag that comes off like pre "Wannabe G" Bieber.

However both of them become more likable once the **** hits the fan and while it's a bit cliche the way they rise to situation and show who they can be it does work. I am not sure the need was there to be so bluntly unimaginative with them to begin with though.

Pratt's Owen is a classic squared away hero from a time gone by, he's not a loose cannon in need of a reality check, he isn't a conflicted and tortured soul, he knows who is and is happy with who he is, he's smart, brave and competent in his work, which I actually thought worked well ad Pratt has the charisma to pull it off. Seeing Star-Lord and Kingpin jawing at each other was fun and while D'Onofirio's shady war monger was another heavy handed character type he chewed the scenery with such glee that I enjoyed him.

Here's the thing for me, I am not even going to defend the paper thin and basic characters here, but I found the 4 leads all had a likability to them as the film went on that made it easy for me to cheer for them as they tried to survive the escalating mayhem!

The story is straight forward in terms of the fact this is a disaster movie with Dinos and a side slice of industrial espionage ([BLACKOUT]Shame on you B.D. Wong![/BLACKOUT]) but why it works is the pacing and quality of the various scenarios the characters find themselves in, it's exciting adventure all the way once the i-Rex gets loose and the imagination of Trevorrow is unleashed.

While there was much trepidation regarding the i-Rex I thought it turned out to be a fearsome creation that was used to it's full potential as more layers were peeled back on it's capabilities, the oldschool monster movie way it is introduced is great.

It's hard after one viewing to say which was my favourite sequence as I enjoyed them all and the film flew by. The Gyrosphere sequence was amazing, the i-Rex vs the SWAT team was brilliant and the chopper/Avery action was superb.

My two favourite moments were probably Owen and Claire comforting the dying Brachiosaurus, and when Owen's [BLACKOUT]Raptor team turned against the i-Rex and saved him, Claire and the kids,[/BLACKOUT] with my favourite part being the 2 brothers exploring the old Visitrors center and finding the classic JP Jeep..

Then we have the big T-Rex vs i-Rex showdown and I think this was Trevorrow's crowning glory. The danger of it being an overlong and incoherent CGI slugfest were inherent, but he films it superbly from the level of the 4 main characters, which means you can really see what is happening and they give things a fantastic centering point to view the battle. Then he [BLACKOUT]finishes it off with Blue's big hero moment where he saves Rexy and the Mosasaur administering the final bite!
[/BLACKOUT]
Nothing was ever going to match the first movie, and while this isn't as strong across the board it captures a lot of the magic and wonderment while taking you on a thrilling adventure.

8.5/10

 

[Hunter Rider]

Hunter did your Family enjoy it?

It was just me and my Dad and he loved it, I think us watching JP last night really got him into it lol.

 

[divan]

Let's not talk as if the original Jurassic Park characters aren't clichés (at least from a writing perspective) - You've got the stoic guy (who doesn't want children but softens during the movie to boot), the Eccentric guy, the Santa Claus, the Wiser Girlfriend, the tag-along kids, the Generic Hunter, the Fat Bastard...

Sure, you can make a case of performances and Spielberg's direction giving them some of an edge, but from a writing perspective, they were clichés.