I tried to turn off my brain and simply enjoy “Jurassic World.” But the film exists in a universe that bent my suspension of disbelief to the breaking point. And that made it hard to just sit back and have fun.
I did enjoy the special effects. Earlier this summer, I raved about the use of real world locations and stunts in “Mad Max: Fury Road.” At the other end of the spectrum is “Jurassic World,” which likely employed enough computer graphics artists to populate a small nation. But what a showcase of the talent laboring behind the scenes in movies today.
The creatures have a palpable weight and presence, and the textures are more realistic than ever. When a moasaurus leaps out of the water, opens its gaping maw, and bites down on a pteranodon, which in turn opens its beak and lets out a bone-chilling death cry, I believed it was happening. How do animators make sinews stretch and bend skin, or the loose bits of a dinosaur sag with the pull of gravity? Script issues aside, the dinosaurs in “Jurassic World” are a sight to behold.
The humans are considerably less impressive. I did like Chris Pratt’s character, Owen, a dino-whisperer of sorts who’s been taking part in a military-funded project to train and control the dinosaurs. There’s a tense scene in which three raptors threaten to eat a feeder who accidentally wound up in their pen, and Owen gets them to back off. “Jurassic World” is at its best during small-scale moments like this one.
I didn’t care for Claire, played by Bryce Dallas Howard. As the park’s overseer, Howard’s performance is fine, but the four people credited with writing the script painted her in the most sexist manner possible. Never mind the high heels she wears for the entire movie, even when she’s running from a T-Rex; the other characters treat her like they’re living in a bygone era. Even after Claire displays impressive firearms skills, her nephews disregard her heroism and sing the praises of Owen, the film’s male champion.
I also disliked Vincent D’Onofrio’s Hoskins, the leader of the military-funded project. The guy is a walking cliché, missing only a cigar to chomp on. When all hell breaks loose, he sees it not as a horrifying tragedy but as an opportunity to test his team’s work. Anyone care to guess his fate? Anyone?
I did have a soft spot for actor Irrfan Khan’s character, Simon Masrani, the owner of the park. The makers of “Jurassic World” ignored the “Jurassic Park” sequels and tied their movie directly to the original film by making Simon the successor to John Hammond, the creator of Jurassic Park. (I can still hear Richard Attenborough saying, “Welcome to Jurassic Park!”) Simon is a man with billions of dollars and the logic of a dodo. Not only can he barely fly a helicopter (which, tragically, doesn’t stop him from trying), he doesn’t consider Jurassic World to be a dangerous place.
How else to explain the lack of one-way glass in the pen holding his prized possession, the indominus rex, a new dinosaur his scientists cooked up in a lab to increase attendance at the park? Either he forgot this small detail, which would have kept the indominus rex from trying to eat spectators, or the screenwriters did.
I might not have liked the way Simon thought, but I liked his fate, which brings “Jurassic World” closer in spirit to the original novel by Michael Crichton than any of the other films. I read Crichton’s novel before seeing the original movie, and was disappointed by how director Steven Spielberg softened the harsher aspects of the book. That doesn’t happen here, to the credit of the screenwriters.
Finally, there are the boys, Zach and Gray, who exist merely to be chased. Their parents ship them to Jurassic World so they can chew over the details of their divorce. Claire, their aunt, is too busy to spend time with them, so she leaves them in the care of her smart phone addicted assistant, who barely notices they’re there. Being boys, they get into serious trouble.
“Jurassic World” tosses these characters and its dinosaurs into a cuisinart and presses purée. The result is a film packed with action, suspense, and spectacle but lacking common sense.
Take, for example, the scene in which hundreds of pteranodons are accidentally set loose on the island park. For the next 20 minutes or so, viewers are treated to thrilling action, but also shots of thousands of people running around outside as they try to avoid the creatures. Although they could have sought refuge in one of the many buildings that make up the park, why was no evacuation plan in place? Even underground bunkers in which people could hide from an escaped dinosaur would have made more sense than leaving your customers stranded in what amounts to a large, open air bird feeder.
So the architects of Jurassic World didn’t put safety first when designing the park. Fine. But surely someone would have thought to put more distance between the moasaurus tank and the seats that surround it. Picture the attractions at Sea World, which have seats close enough to the killer whales for spectators to get wet. Only in the case of Jurassic World, the killer whale is a humongous predator that can leap out of the water and into the park, as it does in one scene. (Since I’m being picky, I might as well ask how the park’s scientists were able to extract the DNA of an aquatic dinosaur out of a mosquito.)
I could go on, but I should wrap this up before I go too far over my word limit.
The makers of “Jurassic World” successfully cloned parts of the original film. There are moments that are as exciting as the best scenes in “Jurassic Park.” But even though they got the teeth right, this new beast doesn’t have the smarts of its progenitor. I liked “Jurassic World,” but I believe I would have loved it had more thought been put into the script.
Two and a half stars out of four. Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of science-fiction violence and peril.
David Laprad is the assistant editor of the Hamilton County Herald and an award-winning columnist and photographer. Contact him at dlaprad@hamiltoncountyherald.com.
‘Jurassic World’
has teeth, no brains
I
tried to turn off my brain and simply enjoy “Jurassic World.” But the film exists in a universe that bent my suspension of disbelief to the breaking point. And that made it hard to just sit back and have fun.
I did enjoy the special effects. Earlier this summer, I raved about the use of real world locations and stunts in “Mad Max: Fury Road.” At the other end of the spectrum is “Jurassic World,” which likely employed enough computer graphics artists to populate a small nation. But what a showcase of the talent laboring behind the scenes in movies today.
The creatures have a palpable weight and presence, and the textures are more realistic than ever. When a moasaurus leaps out of the water, opens its gaping maw, and bites down on a pteranodon, which in turn opens its beak and lets out a bone-chilling death cry, I believed it was happening. How do animators make sinews stretch and bend skin, or the loose bits of a dinosaur sag with the pull of gravity? Script issues aside, the dinosaurs in “Jurassic World” are a sight to behold.
The humans are considerably less impressive. I did like Chris Pratt’s character, Owen, a dino-whisperer of sorts who’s been taking part in a military-funded project to train and control the dinosaurs. There’s a tense scene in which three raptors threaten to eat a feeder who accidentally wound up in their pen, and Owen gets them to back off. “Jurassic World” is at its best during small-scale moments like this one.
I didn’t care for Claire, played by Bryce Dallas Howard. As the park’s overseer, Howard’s performance is fine, but the four people credited with writing the script painted her in the most sexist manner possible. Never mind the high heels she wears for the entire movie, even when she’s running from a T-Rex; the other characters treat her like they’re living in a bygone era. Even after Claire displays impressive firearms skills, her nephews disregard her heroism and sing the praises of Owen, the film’s male champion.
I also disliked Vincent D’Onofrio’s Hoskins, the leader of the military-funded project. The guy is a walking cliché, missing only a cigar to chomp on. When all hell breaks loose, he sees it not as a horrifying tragedy but as an opportunity to test his team’s work. Anyone care to guess his fate? Anyone?
I did have a soft spot for actor Irrfan Khan’s character, Simon Masrani, the owner of the park. The makers of “Jurassic World” ignored the “Jurassic Park” sequels and tied their movie directly to the original film by making Simon the successor to John Hammond, the creator of Jurassic Park. (I can still hear Richard Attenborough saying, “Welcome to Jurassic Park!”) Simon is a man with billions of dollars and the logic of a dodo. Not only can he barely fly a helicopter (which, tragically, doesn’t stop him from trying), he doesn’t consider Jurassic World to be a dangerous place.
How else to explain the lack of one-way glass in the pen holding his prized possession, the indominus rex, a new dinosaur his scientists cooked up in a lab to increase attendance at the park? Either he forgot this small detail, which would have kept the indominus rex from trying to eat spectators, or the screenwriters did.
I might not have liked the way Simon thought, but I liked his fate, which brings “Jurassic World” closer in spirit to the original novel by Michael Crichton than any of the other films. I read Crichton’s novel before seeing the original movie, and was disappointed by how director Steven Spielberg softened the harsher aspects of the book. That doesn’t happen here, to the credit of the screenwriters.
Finally, there are the boys, Zach and Gray, who exist merely to be chased. Their parents ship them to Jurassic World so they can chew over the details of their divorce. Claire, their aunt, is too busy to spend time with them, so she leaves them in the care of her smart phone addicted assistant, who barely notices they’re there. Being boys, they get into serious trouble.
“Jurassic World” tosses these characters and its dinosaurs into a cuisinart and presses purée. The result is a film packed with action, suspense, and spectacle but lacking common sense.
Take, for example, the scene in which hundreds of pteranodons are accidentally set loose on the island park. For the next 20 minutes or so, viewers are treated to thrilling action, but also shots of thousands of people running around outside as they try to avoid the creatures. Although they could have sought refuge in one of the many buildings that make up the park, why was no evacuation plan in place? Even underground bunkers in which people could hide from an escaped dinosaur would have made more sense than leaving your customers stranded in what amounts to a large, open air bird feeder.
So the architects of Jurassic World didn’t put safety first when designing the park. Fine. But surely someone would have thought to put more distance between the moasaurus tank and the seats that surround it. Picture the attractions at Sea World, which have seats close enough to the killer whales for spectators to get wet. Only in the case of Jurassic World, the killer whale is a humongous predator that can leap out of the water and into the park, as it does in one scene. (Since I’m being picky, I might as well ask how the park’s scientists were able to extract the DNA of an aquatic dinosaur out of a mosquito.)
I could go on, but I should wrap this up before I go too far over my word limit.
The makers of “Jurassic World” successfully cloned parts of the original film. There are moments that are as exciting as the best scenes in “Jurassic Park.” But even though they got the teeth right, this new beast doesn’t have the smarts of its progenitor. I liked “Jurassic World,” but I believe I would have loved it had more thought been put into the script.
Two and a half stars out of four. Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of science-fiction violence and peril.
David Laprad is the assistant editor of the Hamilton County Herald and an award-winning columnist and photographer. Contact him at dlaprad@hamiltoncountyherald.com. v