Jurassic World

"God creates dinosaurs, God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man, man destroys God, man creates dinosaurs." Malcolm was right again in a way he never considered because when you think about it, the scientists at Jurassic Park never truly created dinosaurs. They just brought them back from extinction genetically. In "Jurassic World", a new hybrid species created and I ask the same question that Owen does: Why? This movie will entertain a lot of people but for die-hard fans of "Jurassic Park", they will probably be let down. The success of this movie is not a surprise because it has been over a decade since the last installment in the franchise but does anyone even remember that there was a "Jurassic Park III" and how bad it was? I was skeptical from the start concerning this fourth movie and now that I have seen it, I am waiting to see if this film has lasting impact and I don't have much faith in that. Sure there is a sequel but "The Amazing Spider-Man" franchise is slowly being erased from public consciousness. The plot of "Jurassic World" took a back seat to the action but at least the film has some good points unlike the third film.

"Jurassic World" had a great premise with the park fully operational, an idea from executive producer and original director Steven Spielberg. I would have been easily entertained if another Nedry-type character sabotaged the park causing havoc. Instead, the filmmakers made a few too many changes to the franchise in order to appeal to a modern audience and this further separates the franchise from the first and second movies. Spielberg never set out to make a Godzilla movie back in the early 90's. He wanted to show the world something they had never seen before: organic dinosaurs. The reason why he abandoned stop motion dinosaurs in favor of CGI is because of the level of realism and because he is a perfectionist director. I don't think the filmmakers on "Jurassic World" pushed the envelope of filmmaking and if they were trying to, they lost sight of the importance of the plot. The theme of the movie does hearken back to that of the first two installments: can you create and control nature for financial profit? The third film threw this theme out the window but fortunately; "Jurassic World" resurrects it. Another common aspect in most Jurassic films is the entrepreneur trying to capitalize on exhibiting dinosaurs. Hammond in the first movie was well-meaning but ignorant while Ludlow in "The Lost World" was heartless. Claire in "Jurassic World" is so focused on how to keep the park a success that she fails to attend to the needs of her family members or see the dinosaurs as living animals. The filmmakers did give some attention at the start of the movie to establishing the new park but not enough attention. The audience sees the attractions through the eyes of the two boys but they are the only main characters that have come to the island for the first time. In "Jurassic Park", the main plotline involves newcomers Alan, Ellie, Ian and the grandchildren with Hammond as an escort. "Jurassic World" spends more time on the Owen/Claire plotline and they work at the park. Without a character reminiscent of John Hammond and by focusing more on the employees, the "awe and wonder" factor of "Jurassic World" is lacking. Not only is there a missing sense of grandeur with this sequel but also the story is sacrificed for other elements like action. Just like "Jurassic Park III", there weren’t enough moments in the film for the audience to take a breath. Hoskins' plan is a nice part of the story but this is also overshadowed by the action. A velociraptor even interrupts Hoskins as he explains his motive. Fans like me have a voice in this movie by means of Lowery. He seemed to be more in love with the past version of the park and I like that. I accepted the fact that Velociraptors could be trained thanks to Chris Pratt's performance but I liked these dinos better as villains. In the climax, I wasn't frightened of them because I could tell that they would be redeemed. This may not be a full-blown monster movie but more like animals going up against a monster. I am grateful for what happens in the end battle but it was almost like watching all of "The Lord of the Rings" and having Gandalf show up only in the final battle. The fact that the boys' parents are divorcing seems like such a powerful emotional anchor on which to base the story on. It could have been as powerful as Dr. Grant's broken relationship with children but the filmmakers on this fourth installment did not capitalize. The emotional turmoil that Gray is experiencing is downplayed. He is overly excited one moment at all the attractions and crying the next. What's more, none of the issues of the children or their parents appear to be fully resolved by the end of the show. Human relationships yielded the spotlight to the dinosaurs and this isn't smart storytelling. Dinosaurs no longer exist but we all have relationships that we can liken unto fictional relationships played out on movie screens. The one between Owen and Claire wasn't developed in a believable way either. First of all, this kind of love story is cliché: man and woman have a rocky past but their adventure together causes them to fall in love. If you are going to attempt something we have seen over and over, you better find ways to make it original like chemistry between the actors. Come to think of it, why do you need a love story in this franchise? There was no obvious love story in "Jurassic Park" and neither in "The Lost World". For example, the relationship between Dr. Grant and Ellie in the first movie was more plutonic than romantic and it was already strong before they came to the island. I am glad that more attention was given to human drama in "Jurassic World" than in "Jurassic Park III" but I was still let down.

I think the filmmakers also missed their own message that the dinosaurs are animals, not assets. Some analogies will help explain what I mean. Director Colin Trevorrow has stated that the Indominus rex, the hybrid dinosaur at the center of the film's story, is symbolic of consumer and corporate excess. He also makes comparisons to the fact that in an age where so much is possible, we are still not satisfied. I see this as both good and bad for society. Kids have access to toys that their grandparents couldn't even dream of but ironically, the grandparents had more fun camping as children in the 60's than their grandchildren playing with an iPod in this decade. We are becoming a desensitized society and this is certainly the case with special effects in movies. We will never forget the first shot of "Star Wars" or seeing bullet-time in "The Matrix" but these days, movies are becoming less and less spectacular. It is not because special effects are decreasing in quality necessarily but rather increasing in quantity. The whole film has impressive effects but surprisingly, the special effects of the first movie were better. Even the 3D was only so-so on "Jurassic World". I think a big reason why the special effects in "Jurassic Park" still look real is because they were quite simple. They had to be considering that era of digital filmmaking. Today, just because anything is possible with a computer doesn't mean you should neglect more important aspects of filmmaking. This brings to mind another Malcolm quote: "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should." I think the fourth movie went a tad overboard with special effects and that some restraint should have been exercised. Robotic dinos were constructed and used for this film but CGI was relied upon more heavily. Apparently, motion capture was also utilized but I feel that crossed a line as well. For "Jurassic Park", the animators studied actual animals in order to animate the dinosaurs and footage of the animators running around like Gallimimus was only used to replicate physics. To have actors performing dinosaurs by means of motion capture ironically takes away some of the realism of their performances in my opinion. Isla Nublar in this sequel is reminiscent of what we saw in the first movie but not enough for me. "Jurassic World" may have been shot on film as opposed to digitally but it appears like there were some color enhancements done and that prevented me from being able to connect the setting of this movie with that on "Jurassic Park". I lived in the Philippines for two years and the best way I could describe the jungle to my family and friends back home was to have them look at "Jurassic Park". Isla Nublar no longer feels like a real island due to the use of today's digital technology. This fourth movie has mostly daylight scenes and not enough night scenes. The T. rex's first scene in the original movie was awesome in part because of the darkness and rain. I made mention of how poor the eyes of the dinosaurs were on "Jurassic Park III". These filmmakers have gone to the other end of the spectrum in one scene because the eyes were too expressive on the dying Apatosaurus. I expected it to talk at one point. It is great in this scene that Claire finally sees the dinosaurs as animals but it would have been even better for her to voice her feelings in this moment. This is yet another example of a storytelling flaw of this sequel but it is not the last. The Indominus has stalking scenes much like the T. rex did in previous films but the level of suspense is low partially because of pacing problems and also because of the quality of the CGI. Having said all this, I have less of a problem with how much CGI was used to create this sequel than with how technologically advanced the park itself is. This movie takes place 22 years after the events of "Jurassic Park" which is the same amount of time it has been since the release of the first movie and technology has advanced a lot faster in the film universe than in real life. The technology seen in the original film was advanced for 1993 but it either existed in the real work or was at least plausible. Take the sonar device in Montana, the interactive CD-ROM or self-driving vehicles as some examples. I did not like the tech in the Hammond building or the Gyrosphere because it took away from the realism that I was hoping for that we experienced in the first two Jurassic movies. I am betting that some would call me hypocritical at this point due to my admiration of the Star Wars prequels and so be it. I can only defend myself by saying that those three movies had special effects that produced a sense of awe and wonder. Also, the story of the Star Wars prequels was not sacrificed.

Owen was the best character in the whole film thanks to the performance of Chris Pratt. I accepted his character, much like the characters from the first film but one actor cannot carry a whole show on his back. It was cool to see B.D. Wong back in the franchise and he did a good job reprising Dr. Wu. I haven't seen Vincent D'Onofrio in a movie since "Men in Black" but he was better in that film by far. Ty Simpkins also did a much better job in "Iron Man 3" probably because he got to play a better character in that show. To have Colin Trevorrow go right from independent filmmaking to directing a sequel of one of the greatest sci-fi films of all time seems too much of a leap. He made some good changes to the script once he agreed to direct so good for him. I think however that he directed this film like a reboot, even though he would probably disagree with that. He voices Mr. DNA in this movie by the way. Another small cameo is Brad Bird as the voice on the monorail. He is the director of "The Incredibles" and many other popular movies. He expressed a desire at one point to direct this movie and I think I would have preferred him. The score from Michael Giacchino was pretty good. He didn't try too hard like Don Davis did for "Jurassic Park III" in trying to sound like John Williams. Giacchino is a big Williams fan and you can tell because he uses the classical themes sparingly and only when it felt right to do so. Giacchino would later do this all over again with "Rogue One" and I felt he did even better scoring that film. One returning filmmaker from the original film was Phil Tippet. At one point during the production of "Jurassic Park", he was in charge of the stop motion animation that was replaced by computer-generated dinos. He was kept on nevertheless as a "dinosaur supervisor" and he has the same basic role this time around. Some of the writers on this film by the way worked on "Rise of the Planet of the Apes".

This movie is becoming one of the highest grossing films of all time and it was the first movie to make more than $500 million worldwide on its first weekend. It has also broke over 20 additional box office records but I bet back in 2015 that those records wouldn't last long. "The Force Awakens" (also released in 2015) and "Infinity War" saw to that, breaking almost all of those 20 records set by "Jurassic World". Also, have you ever noticed that some of the most enduring movies of all time start out as modest successes and then blow up in popularity over time? These "Jurassic World" films could just be a fad. "Jurassic Park IV" has been in the works since that last film was released in 2001. At one point, the story involved Dr. Grant and Dr. Malcolm investigating the dinosaurs making their way closer to the mainland by means of offshore islands. Hammond was also going to be in the film and that is a version I would have really enjoyed. The project however kept having trouble getting off the ground. According to the late Stan Winston, who was in charge of creating the robotic dinosaurs in the previous films,"[Spielberg] felt neither of [the drafts] balanced the science and adventure elements effectively. It's a tough compromise to reach, as too much science will make the movie too talky, but too much adventure will make it seem hollow." I love this quote because in my opinion, "Jurassic World" was hollow. Sometimes when an idea isn't working, it might be an indication to try something different. When Michael Crichton died in 2008, Kathleen Kennedy (who was a producer on the first three films) felt that maybe it was a sign to not mess with the idea of a fourth film. I wish that had come to pass because while "Jurassic World" had potential and wasn't terrible to view, it was nothing like "Jurassic Park". Not only is Indominus rex symbolic of our society but also it represents the movie in which it appears. It is a hybrid of the carnivores that made the first movie so great, which wasn't such a good idea for the safety of the park. In trying to create a new attraction, the operators of Jurassic World destroyed their park. In trying to reboot a franchise by doing something cool instead of smart, the result was far from perfect. "They're dinosaurs. Wow enough." Laying all criticism aside, this was still a decent film compared to "Jurassic Park III".

3 Stars