Skip to main content

The Park is Open! Is it Worth the Admission?

Well, it was better than Jurassic Park III! I think that at least was something we were all hoping to get out of this movie.
                Jurassic World is the third sequel to Steven Spielberg’s 1993 masterpiece Jurassic Park, and the first in thirteen years. Somehow despite the events of any of the other films, Jurassic World is open and has been for over a decade. But people have apparently gotten bored with dinosaurs so park owner Simon Masrani (Irrfan Khan) has authorized the creation of the genetically modified Indominus Rex. But would you know it, it breaks loose and starts terrorizing people, causing a manager Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas Howard) to bring in velociraptor trainer Owen Grady (Chris Pratt) along to rescue her nephews who are stranded in the park. There are some nice call-outs to the first film (including an appearance by Dr. Henry Wu), but there are also some parallels which go a little too far: main kids being relatives of a management figure, wonder over an ailing herbivore, etc. There are times when anyone who’s seen the first film will be able to predict the story beats, which keeps the film from being really suspenseful. There are some scary moments, but they lose tension fast once you realize how a scene is going to play out. You know which characters are safe and which ones are the redshirts.
                Many of the actors especially Howard are playing stock characters for most of Jurassic World’s runtime. She and Pratt’s character do develop as the film goes on, but they are saddled with an unnecessary romance. And there’s one supporting character who from their very first scene, you know exactly what will happen to them. It’s unfortunate the characters are so uninteresting considering people seem to forget the characters in the original film were one of its best merits. And since the first film, we’ve wanted to know what an open park would look like, and it’s nice for a while, but I think I preferred it closed. While there is something exciting in seeing hundreds of people fleeing dinosaurs, the fact that we have no investment in them makes it less effective when they’re picked off.
                And these effects aren’t helped by the special effects. Where the first film became a revolutionary technological achievement in its melding of practical and state-of-the-art CGI which still holds up better than many films since, this film relies mostly on CGI which is pretty good, but at times looks a little too much like a generic monster movie. The aquatic dinosaur is very fake and the raptors still don’t look as convincing as they did in that famous kitchen scene. But despite all this I will say a few things; it’s a great introductory blockbuster for director Colin Trevorrow, it’s somewhat fun and well-paced, and it has a fantastic climax that everyone wanted! At the showing I was at, there were cheers!
And to those cheering, they were satisfied. Some would say that this is just a great popcorn flick, but I feel a Jurassic Park film should be more than that, which may be why the sequels haven’t been that great. It should be a cinematic experience and storytelling marvel, and while Jurassic World came the closest not having the plot and structural incoherence of the second film or the sheer lack of effort of the third, it still doesn’t quite hit the mark.


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

A Stylish and Charmingly Reinvented David Copperfield

The Personal History, Adventures, Experience and Observation of David Copperfield the Younger of Blunderstone Rookery (Which He Never Meant to Publish on Any Account)  is the most important book Charles Dickens ever wrote. It is not the most famous or influential by any means (that would of course be A Christmas Carol ), but it is the book that is the purest expression of the authors’ style, identity, and worldview. It is his most personal work, semi-autobiographical in its story of the chronology from infancy to adulthood of a character who overcomes great loss and hardships to find a fulfilling life as a writer. To read David Copperfield  is to understand Dickens himself. Armando Iannucci knew this when he decided to make a new adaptation of the novel for a twenty-first century audience. He also knew that Dickens adaptations are ubiquitous at this point. Films are a bit rarer, but every few years a new television adaptation rears its head to keep the authors’ unique world an...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more