June 13th, 2015, 11:05 AM
I saw "Jurassic World" yesterday and have to say that I came away disappointed, although I think other people may enjoy it. I was disappointed because it was so formulaic and homage-laden that I kept wondering when or if the story would ever branch out on its own thread. Never happened.
Steven Spielberg slipped so many references to other things into the movie that he forgot to plan a real movie. Hollywood's fascination with the homage is sometimes harmless but in many cases just plucks the enjoyment of a movie right out of the audiences' hands and hearts.
We sat in a fairly full but not sold-out theater. The banter of the children was easily understandable, because the adults were kind of dumbstruck by the sheer stupidity of it all. Not that "Jurassic World" is a "kiddie movie". It's just that the story lurches from one implausible scene to the next.
You had the usual repertoire of unthinking idiotic decision-makers in the cast of dumb characters. Chris Pratt seemed out of place because his was the only character who ever pointed out the obvious: these animals want to eat you. Everyone else was like, "Oh, cool, dumb dinosaurs, here little dino, pretty little dinosaur, ACK--!"
It's hard to talk about the serious deficiencies in the plot without giving away the storyline -- oh, wait, you KNOW the storyline. A bunch of greedy, idiotic people revive dinosaurs from ancient DNA and put them on display for thousands of really stupid people who strand themselves on a remote island with no way off.
What bothered me most, other than the fact that the idiot corporate greed-mongers learned nothing from the last three times dinosaurs ate lots of people, is that these idiot corporate greed-mongers COMPETED with each other to see who could be the most daring and stupid at the same time.
I have no idea of what Bryce Dallas Howard was supposed to be doing in the movie. The ending made no sense because her character kind of slalomed around in pretentious subplots that had no meaning or relevance to what was happening around her. This was about the worst-written big budget movie I have seen in a long, long time.
Irrfan Khan is the only actor whose character actually demonstrates growth in the storyline. He is affable, charming, and quite an audience-pleaser. You just don't know what to think of his character, who is some sort of billionaire rich-boy John Hammond wannabe. It's a shame how they treated his character because it was the only one that looked like it was going to pull through (other than untouchable Chris Pratt's Owen).
If you have seen the first three Jurassic movies you have seen everything they utilized in this movie. There is nothing new except the facts that they have an experimental hybrid dinosaur (whose genetic makeup is so secret even the people who paid for it don't know what it is made from -- WTF is that, Mr. Spielberg?) and they finally have a theme-park loaded with thousands of gawking people who don't seem to realize that dinosaurs eat people.
How can 20,000 people have missed the first three movies in this franchise?
I must say, though, that I was quite impressed with the homages to "Dinotopia". It never would have occurred to me to take the Jurassic franchise in that direction. But, what the hey, you have to do something different and when you spend almost $200 million making an unoriginal movie you might as well give a nod to a better-made television miniseries.
I am sure "Jurassic World" will make lots of money because people like dinosaurs. But the only incorrect prediction I made as the movie unfolded concerned a dinosaur and a river. I was wrong about that. Everything else was taken from the first three movies, and "Dinotopia", almost literally.
I can't say enough good things about the movie because, frankly, I can't think of any.
Steven Spielberg slipped so many references to other things into the movie that he forgot to plan a real movie. Hollywood's fascination with the homage is sometimes harmless but in many cases just plucks the enjoyment of a movie right out of the audiences' hands and hearts.
We sat in a fairly full but not sold-out theater. The banter of the children was easily understandable, because the adults were kind of dumbstruck by the sheer stupidity of it all. Not that "Jurassic World" is a "kiddie movie". It's just that the story lurches from one implausible scene to the next.
You had the usual repertoire of unthinking idiotic decision-makers in the cast of dumb characters. Chris Pratt seemed out of place because his was the only character who ever pointed out the obvious: these animals want to eat you. Everyone else was like, "Oh, cool, dumb dinosaurs, here little dino, pretty little dinosaur, ACK--!"
It's hard to talk about the serious deficiencies in the plot without giving away the storyline -- oh, wait, you KNOW the storyline. A bunch of greedy, idiotic people revive dinosaurs from ancient DNA and put them on display for thousands of really stupid people who strand themselves on a remote island with no way off.
What bothered me most, other than the fact that the idiot corporate greed-mongers learned nothing from the last three times dinosaurs ate lots of people, is that these idiot corporate greed-mongers COMPETED with each other to see who could be the most daring and stupid at the same time.
I have no idea of what Bryce Dallas Howard was supposed to be doing in the movie. The ending made no sense because her character kind of slalomed around in pretentious subplots that had no meaning or relevance to what was happening around her. This was about the worst-written big budget movie I have seen in a long, long time.
Irrfan Khan is the only actor whose character actually demonstrates growth in the storyline. He is affable, charming, and quite an audience-pleaser. You just don't know what to think of his character, who is some sort of billionaire rich-boy John Hammond wannabe. It's a shame how they treated his character because it was the only one that looked like it was going to pull through (other than untouchable Chris Pratt's Owen).
If you have seen the first three Jurassic movies you have seen everything they utilized in this movie. There is nothing new except the facts that they have an experimental hybrid dinosaur (whose genetic makeup is so secret even the people who paid for it don't know what it is made from -- WTF is that, Mr. Spielberg?) and they finally have a theme-park loaded with thousands of gawking people who don't seem to realize that dinosaurs eat people.
How can 20,000 people have missed the first three movies in this franchise?
I must say, though, that I was quite impressed with the homages to "Dinotopia". It never would have occurred to me to take the Jurassic franchise in that direction. But, what the hey, you have to do something different and when you spend almost $200 million making an unoriginal movie you might as well give a nod to a better-made television miniseries.
I am sure "Jurassic World" will make lots of money because people like dinosaurs. But the only incorrect prediction I made as the movie unfolded concerned a dinosaur and a river. I was wrong about that. Everything else was taken from the first three movies, and "Dinotopia", almost literally.
I can't say enough good things about the movie because, frankly, I can't think of any.
