Tuesday, 16 June 2015

Jurassic World (2015)


"We have an asset out of containment!"

Something tells me that the 'Jurassic Park' franchise should have just stayed a fossil...

22 years after the events of Jurassic Park, Jurassic World is now a fully functioning theme park. In order to bring in new customers, a new dinosaur is created which backfires horribly.

I was totally surprised at the hype that was suddenly upon us with the release of 'Jurassic World' with it being 22 years after the original film, with a sequel that wasn't as good as the first and a third film which should never have been made in the first place. I'm pretty sure I could have happily lived the rest of my life without a 4th Jurassic movie and after seeing the film? I'm still sure I could have happily lived the rest of my life without seeing a 4th Jurassic movie.

What I actually really enjoyed about the film was the park itself. It was very well thought out and was exactly how I imagined the park would look when I originally saw 'Jurassic Park' when I was young. It feels like a Disney theme park and, if it was to happen in reality, Disney would probably own it... 
It had the merchandise stands, the food stalls, the attractions and the rides that you'd want in a Jurassic themed park. It is all geared towards the experience, much like Disneyland, and you really get that it's a worldwide phenomenon. Kudos to the filmmakers for this vision of the park, they nailed it in that sense. Although, being that the events of 'Jurassic Park' still happened before 'Jurassic World' I don't understand how, legally, the park could still be opened... Just saying...

I thought some of the humour in the film was good and some of it really reminds you of the spirit of the original. The entire audience was laughing which was nice. 
Chris Pratt had a lot to do with this and he's altogether decent as the leading man. He's become very popular lately and there are rumours that he is to play Indiana Jones in yet another reboot. After seeing him in this, I can understand why. He's a good hero, he's got charm and humour with the action abilities to go with it. He even managed to do the slide under the closing gate, perhaps this is a glimpse of what is to come?

I would like to see him play something other than his character from 'Guardians of the Galaxy' but I don't see that happening anytime soon, he does it so well.

Unfortunately that's about as far as my praise can go with 'Jurassic World'.



The plot of the film is totally predictable, generic and as clichĂ© ridden as you like.

One of my main issues with 'Jurassic World' is that the trailer revealed way too much. There are some pretty significant plot points that are revealed in the trailer that completely ruin parts of the film. You know exactly what is going to happen in the big scenes because you've already seen them in the trailer. This then ruins all of the tension and the drama that they try to create in these scenes which really takes you out of the movie. 
With such a big blockbuster there should be little doubt that there will be people filling the seats without seeing 20 odd trailers first.

Alongside huge plot points being ruined in the trailer, you already know a mile off what's going to happen and how it's going to play out. It isn't subtle and you can guess it from the start. Predictability is a massive flaw in any film and, when compared to the original, there's just no contest. The original 'Jurassic Park' had bucketloads of tension, drama and thrills which is poorly imitated in 'Jurassic World'. I guessed it about 20 minutes in and it played out to what I thought. This definitely indicates some poor writing, there could have been other (and better) plots that could have taken the franchise in a fresh direction or in a more unexpected direction at least.


There are a lot of references to the original film which was fun at first but only a handful would have been sufficient. Instead, you are constantly reminded that you are watching a film and are taken out of the story with the amount of "subtle" references and winks to the audience. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the first few but they become tiresome when you're an hour and a half into the movie. I would have loved to have had them all out of the way in the first 20 minutes so that I could sink into the story and forget that I was in a cinema. If I wanted to be reminded of the original film, then I would just watch the original. I understand that it's a sequel so you don't need to bludgeon me to death with it. 

Combine the references with the unlimited supply of product placement and it becomes very hard to actually get into the plot with all of the distractions. Mercedes were the only cars available in 'Jurassic World' apparently, alongside Beats headphones and the trusty Coca-Cola ads. Chris Pratt even manages to take a moment out of a scene to take a big sip of Coke before he continues with his lines. For me, all this just blocks me from actually getting into the plot but if you can get past that then fair play to you.


Bryce Dallas Howard as Claire is just an embarrassment as a 21st century female character. She plays the manager of the park who is asked to look after her nephews who have come to visit the park. She's a poorly written female co-lead whose main worry of the film is about her own maternal instinct. 
She's ridiculed when she tries to be strong and is undermined by her inability to avoid falling in love with Chris Pratt. She inexplicably manages to run away from a T-Rex in heels... She also trudges through a prehistoric jungle in them for the duration of the film, I've seen women on a night out in Glasgow that couldn't last pre-drinks in their heels so how she managed it in 'Jurassic World' is nothing short of amazing. 
Poor show from a film that had the perfect opportunity to have a strong female lead like Ellen Ripley in 'Alien' or Sarah Connor in 'Terminator'. I would have liked to have seen the roles reversed, to have Chris Pratt as Claire's character and have Bryce Dallas Howard as the badass dinosaur keeper/trainer who has to save the day.
There was a harmonious groan from the audience when the on-screen kiss took place and it was a testament to how ridiculous it really was, because all you really need in life is a good man to take care of you right?



It's not a good sign for a film released in 2015 when the effects in 1993 look better than today. The best parts of the effects in 'Jurassic World' were the practical effects. 


Why is that? 


It's because they're real! They look believable! 

The rest of the CGI in the film, in comparison to the practical effects, look very fake because you just don't believe it. Granted, the big fish that eats the shark in the trailer looks great and obviously couldn't be done practically but what was so great about the original 'Jurassic Park' was that the CGI was only used when the filmmakers couldn't do the effect practically. Unfortunately this philosophy is long extinct now and has been replaced by CGI everywhere. It's sad to see because it was spawned by a film that opened the doors with the use of CGI. If it had used more practical effects and less CGI then it could have been a fitting homage to the original and still look great. Technology has come a long way in 22 years and I'm pretty sure a lot more of the CGI could have been done practically.

What I find ironic about the film itself is the fact that it centres around the parks issue of bringing in more customers to the park by creating this super-mega-ultra dinosaur. Everything has to be bigger and better and it backfires on them. This seems to be the case with 'Jurassic World' because after the first three movies, instead of coming up with something original and innovative, they just opt for a bigger dinosaur than the last in an attempt to bring in cinema goers. It's a slap in the face to the audience when the park-goers are demeaned for coming to a bigger attraction which is exactly what the filmmakers have done with the film. It is now a slippery slope because it has had one of the biggest opening weekend ever at the box office, so far it's just $2.8 million shy of 'The Avengers' in 2012. This could well take over 'The Avengers' but nonetheless this means that the door for another sequel has been opened (which was announced literally just after the opening weekend) which I'm sure will sprawl into another 3 or 4 movies... 
How much bigger does it get? 
Will it be an even bigger Indominus Rex than before? Where does it end?

Money, money, money.

Ultimately, 'Jurassic World' is generic. It's a relatively good time as far as blockbusters go but I wouldn't look too deep. It has some laughs and there are enough dinosaurs to keep you occupied but as far as being on the same level as 'Jurassic Park', it isn't even in the same league. There's not much of an attempt to do anything spectacular with the film to make it different or unique. Instead, there's a big dinosaur that is set loose in the park with an excessive amount of CGI. The actual park was the best part of the film and Chris Pratt saves it. This was a fantastic opportunity to breath life into a dead franchise and return it to the glory of the original film, to capture some of that magic with technology they didn't have in 1993. They could have taken it in so many different directions with the park being opened up but instead they go the easy route of just having a big, DNA spliced, CGI dinosaur to wreck havoc. 

I always attach the trailer at the bottom of these but, in this case, I'd recommend you don't watch it unless you've already seen the film...






No comments:

Post a Comment