Jurassic World

Yeah they said the same thing about Beatles music throughout the 1960's !

 

Most of the same critiques being thrown at Jurassic World would also describe most classic monster movies, whether we're talking about Beast From 20,000 Fathoms, Creature From The Black Lagoon or almost any film in the entire Godzilla franchise. Stock, cardboard characters, simplistic expositional dialogue, shoe-horned romantic subplot, clueless military intervention, etc. But you know what...people seem to enjoy watching monsters destroy buildings, stomp on cars, knock down bridges, munch on innocent bystanders and cause general havoc...if they didn't then we probably wouldn't have over a half century of these types of movies all printed from the same basic mold. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

To me, the Jurassic Park series are fun monster movies, nothing more, nothing less.

I go into them the same way I go into Godzilla movies, and I am never disappointed.

 

Some of you people critique monster movies like you expect Citizen Kane

 

Nope! I just expect to find them more fun and exciting than I found "JW" to be.

Wanted to love it - felt kinda bored...

 

Well your in the minority according to Rotten tomatoes

 

Fine with me. We all like what we like - I enjoy some films critics lambasted and don't care for some critics loved.

I'm guessing you're the same...

 

I can't figure out why I was so disappointed in JW. I love pure escapism as much as most people, but I guess it seemed like such a shameless cash grab. Even the story line was talking about how do we squeeze more money out of the public who have become bored with our original product. Great sound mix, though. ;-)

 

I'm in it solely fro the Dinosaurs of which I hope it delivers the beasts!

 

Terra Nova was a better concept than Jurassic World. I wonder if we will get a Jurassic World animated cartoon series? And finally, I have seen the Jurassic World toy line. It looks like cheap crap in comparison to the of original Jurassic Park toy line.

 

The new toys are very cheap. Only the bigger Indominus Rex toy is decent (and even it’s not anything that amazing). It’s weird how action figures and the like have gotten more detailed and nicer compared to the olden days, but simultaneously some toys are cheaper than ever. Hasbro in particular (who inherited Kenner and who has the Jurassic toy license) seems to feel their toys are aimed exclusively at very young kids (and I’m sure that is the vast majority of their market). The “Jurassic World” toys seem more egregious because there are a myriad of similar toy lines going back 22 years with which to compare. I don’t think the “Jurassic Park” toy lines were ever amazing, but they’ve certainly cheaped out even more recently.

I only follow this stuff tangentially, but I do know as recently as 2013 they did some “Jurassic Park” toys that were even nicer than the new 2015 stuff.

Some of the original circa 1993 toys go for INSANE amounts of money. A friend just sent me this link to a just-completed auction on eBay:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Jurassic-Park-Carnotaurus-with-Attacking-Jaws-Demon-Action-Figure-/131540662419?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1ea06f3893

$830, 46 bids for a Carnotaurus. I’m sure this is a super rare variant or something, I think the classic big T Rex goes in the low hundreds boxed, etc. But seriously! Perhaps nostalgia-fueled collectors willing to pay nearly a grand for a boxed toy from 1993 are part of what’s fueling the huge returns for the new film.

 

I went to the movie theater expecting to spend a couple of hours watching a disaster film with dinosaurs, so I'm fine with what I saw. It was fun, and that's all I wanted.

 

You went with the right frame of mind
Those searching for a Meryl Streep drama with deep meaningful dialogue will be disappointed

 

Finally got around to seeing it tonight, and I thought it was dumb and totally by the numbers. I think there's some attempts to try a few things (particularly with a couple of spectacular deaths), but the whole thing felt like one cliche after another, like they just had a laundry list of bullet points to hit. Genetic monsters out of control? Check. Cold, hardened corporate creeps? Check. Super-militaristic guys out for nefarious purposes? Got it. Cool chase scenes where the heroes narrowly escape? I think there's about a dozen of those. Crowds screaming and getting chomped on? Lots. Inept, arrogant park employees ignoring the obvious danger signs and getting ripped to shreds? Too many to count.

I was surprised by a few things. First, this movie was shot on 35mm film and 65mm film, which is a rarity these days. I also noticed that it was in kind of a weird aspect ratio, and I thought my eyes were deceiving me or the theater had screwed up. Nope, it was presented in 2.00 (!!!), which DP John Schwartzman picked as a compromise between the traditional 1.85 and the 2.40 used in theaters.

I thought the effects were all over the map -- some great, some really, really cheesy. If I didn't know better, I'd say some shots were really rushed and they let go a few early efforts because they just ran out of time. For example: some shots where Chris Pratt was supposed to be looking right into a dinosaur's eyes were off -- it was like they were each looking about half a foot in the wrong direction. Some of the composites (superimposed live-action and CG) felt like they were just pasted on, and a few of the pterodactyl effects were sloppy. And a few shots of the helicopter look way too CG-y to me, much too videogamish. And the composites with Pratt riding his motorcycle through the jungle at night, while friendly dinosaurs swarmed around him and past him, were laughably bad. (And that's a scene written more than 10 years ago in a version of the Jurassic series that was never filmed.)

But I thought the photography was fantastic, and the two kids were appealing as they stumbled in and out of trouble. The color and look of the film was beautiful and it moved at a terrific pace. Overall, I can see why the film has done well with audiences but not as well with critics (71% on Rotten Tomatoes). It's as I predicted many months ago: this is the right movie at the right time, and it's been a long time since we've seen dinosaurs run around in a movie. But storywise, I think it was pretty lame, particularly the unbelievable romance between Bryce Dallas Howard and Pratt, who felt to me like they were from two different movies. In fact, it felt like Ms. Howard was getting direction from multiple people, because she alternately seemed cold, indifferent, empathetic, brave, and concerned at different times in the movie, like they couldn't decide what she was all about. Pratt was just one note -- a tough guy surrounded by people who wouldn't listen to his expertise, despite predicting every problem about 2 minutes before it happens.

I was warned by several reviews that there's a grisly death at one point that kinda comes out of nowhere, and I was surprised when it happened. It was as if the filmmakers said, "hey! We haven't had anybody die in a few minutes! Let's do this and this and this!" And that's what happened. It's an odd moment, a very edgy, violent, almost R-rated scene in a movie that's otherwise about a PG (not even a PG-13). The whole thing is a weird mix, but I can understand why the summer audience likes it. But it really felt to me like low-grade imitation Spielberg, a film put together by committee, one that's about 1/3 pretty good, 1/3 mediocre, and 1/3 kind of lame and predictable. It's worth seeing for the 1/3 that's pretty good, but it's not the near-classic the first one was.

 

It's to hard to believe this movie is about to become #3 in all-time modern box office receipts.

 

Never underestimate the taste of the public.

 

More like it's impossible to predict what is going to connect with the general public, I thought this movie would max out at maybe $500-600 million worldwide, it's not like Jurassic World is doing anything new even within it's own series of movies. If anything it's great for the business and the theatres.

 

Young people seem to love it especially. They're all raving about it like they've never seen a Jurrassic Park film before.

 

Are you with or against the young people?

 

Obviously against. I hope a t-Rex eats them so I don't have to put up with more sh*tty copycat movies they all seem to demand.

 

What I find in a lot of film discussions, especially when it comes to box office receipts, is that many folks seem comically incredulous when something they don't like (or are indifferent to) does extraordinarily well, and then are fanboys about whatever they liked.

We can try to be objective and look at stuff that we believe should have done well or poorly apart from whether we personally like it. I still can't understand the success of "Avatar"; the success of that film is far more perplexing to me than the success of any "Jurassic Park" film.

I don't think the success of "Jurassic World" is some sort of new hallmark for the dumbing down of culture across the globe. It's success seems pretty easy to explain. Disaster/monster movie, with up-and-coming star, and then mix that up with (in its first week anyway) nothing to compete against, and then mix that up with a HUGE amount of 90s nostalgia. I think its continued success is due to it being a generally solid action film. Nothing mind-blowing, but a good, solid popcorn flick. I think the film's generally good quality has helped it sustain to where it has continued in the Top 2/3/4/5 for numerous weeks now.

I'd rather watch "Jurassic World" than "Avatar" (or most Marvel films for that matter). I'm not the only person who might have that preference.

 

Laughable. Here's the thing. You don't have to "put up with" these movies, you have the choice of NOT WATCHING THEM. If you don't watch them they have 0% impact on your existence.

 

More like never underestimate the appeal of dinosaurs. Kids love them. I know I did when I was little and they're still very popular today.

 

It's an amazing feat; a virtual remake without characters you really care for, the humour left out and the CGI largely at the same level as the original. Okay, the original isn't perfect, but it's a decent story told by a great storyteller.
This is a mediocre story told by who knows how to make action sequences (and manages to ruin a few).
The worst "Jurassic" movie in the bunch....

 

And Jurassic World just officially became the #3 film of all time today:

http://www.slashfilm.com/jurassic-world-box-office-2/

$1.522 billion and rising, just past The Avengers at a mere $1.52 billion.

I would put the movie in a "good" but not "very good" category, and nowhere near "great." A decent 2 hours of entertainment, but lots of illogic, cardboard characters and silliness. And yet... you wanna see a 2-hour movie with people getting chased by ferocious dinosaurs, you're gonna get it.

I think #3 was a far worse film than this one. Neither film had enough humor or character development, as far as I'm concerned.