1,715 reviews
The original Jurassic Park still is a personal favourite, it is an enormously fun, thrilling (with some nail-biting moments) and brilliantly made film, with one of John Williams' most memorable main themes and scene-stealing dinosaurs. The Lost World has its admirers, but for me it was a major step-down and one of Spielberg's weakest films, and Jurassic Park 3 was even more disappointing.
Jurassic World is not a patch on the first Jurassic Park and I didn't quite find it the return to form that it has been touted as, but for all its faults and uneven parts it is a massive improvements on the previous two sequels and is an entertaining film in its own right that does more right than it does wrong.
First things off, Jurassic World is an incredibly well-made film, it's beautifully shot with scenery that's both colourful and atmospheric and the dinosaurs look wonderful. The dinosaurs also steal the film, not just their designs but also that they're lots of fun and are scary, their scenes are great to watch and there could have been even more than there were. This is especially true with the Indominus Rex, who is chillingly bloodthirsty, when she is stalking her prey it's enough to be glued to one's seat and then jump out of it. Michael Giacchino's music score is positively stirring, and even includes themes from Williams' score for Jurassic Park, which was just a lovely homage and fits within the rest of the scoring beautifully.
The film's homages are most enjoyable and give the film a nostalgic quality, some of it is savvy and funny and while not as much as the original there's still a good of thrills and scares to be had. The latter half is often very exciting, the film is efficiently directed, doing nicely in maintaining the tension, and the acting is good (though one does wish that the characters were written better). Chris Pratt has a likable and warm presence, as well as a nice wit, and Bryce Dallas Howard is similarly good even with the most problematically written character. Vincent D'Onofrio makes a real effort making his somewhat one-note and underused character more interesting than he deserves to be and does bring some intensity.
However, Jurassic World does contain some large problems. Not all the acting works, Judy Greer for my tastes was annoying in places and the children's acting was often too forced and their back story goes nowhere. The script and story are uneven, with the script it has its moments but it can be a bit muddled, as a result of trying to do too much at times, some of the dialogue is very weak and can induce cringes and some of the reversals are really out of place. It also could have done a much better developing the characters, because they felt very underdeveloped and clichéd, especially Claire, and any character arcs come off clumsily or aren't explored enough, particularly for the children. Owen and Claire's romance can slow the film down and does contain some forced dialogue. The story is at least never really dull, and excites more than it limps, but at the same time it does lack the wonder, consistent suspense, smartness and originality that Jurassic Park had. It does feel like a too predictable rehash at times, does feel muddled tonally, the exposition in the first half hour does go on for far too long and doesn't really say anything interesting and the ending is too silly and anti-climactic for my tastes.
All in all, uneven and not on the same level as the original Jurassic Park, but a very entertaining well made film and by far the best of the sequels. 6.5/10 Bethany Cox
Jurassic World is not a patch on the first Jurassic Park and I didn't quite find it the return to form that it has been touted as, but for all its faults and uneven parts it is a massive improvements on the previous two sequels and is an entertaining film in its own right that does more right than it does wrong.
First things off, Jurassic World is an incredibly well-made film, it's beautifully shot with scenery that's both colourful and atmospheric and the dinosaurs look wonderful. The dinosaurs also steal the film, not just their designs but also that they're lots of fun and are scary, their scenes are great to watch and there could have been even more than there were. This is especially true with the Indominus Rex, who is chillingly bloodthirsty, when she is stalking her prey it's enough to be glued to one's seat and then jump out of it. Michael Giacchino's music score is positively stirring, and even includes themes from Williams' score for Jurassic Park, which was just a lovely homage and fits within the rest of the scoring beautifully.
The film's homages are most enjoyable and give the film a nostalgic quality, some of it is savvy and funny and while not as much as the original there's still a good of thrills and scares to be had. The latter half is often very exciting, the film is efficiently directed, doing nicely in maintaining the tension, and the acting is good (though one does wish that the characters were written better). Chris Pratt has a likable and warm presence, as well as a nice wit, and Bryce Dallas Howard is similarly good even with the most problematically written character. Vincent D'Onofrio makes a real effort making his somewhat one-note and underused character more interesting than he deserves to be and does bring some intensity.
However, Jurassic World does contain some large problems. Not all the acting works, Judy Greer for my tastes was annoying in places and the children's acting was often too forced and their back story goes nowhere. The script and story are uneven, with the script it has its moments but it can be a bit muddled, as a result of trying to do too much at times, some of the dialogue is very weak and can induce cringes and some of the reversals are really out of place. It also could have done a much better developing the characters, because they felt very underdeveloped and clichéd, especially Claire, and any character arcs come off clumsily or aren't explored enough, particularly for the children. Owen and Claire's romance can slow the film down and does contain some forced dialogue. The story is at least never really dull, and excites more than it limps, but at the same time it does lack the wonder, consistent suspense, smartness and originality that Jurassic Park had. It does feel like a too predictable rehash at times, does feel muddled tonally, the exposition in the first half hour does go on for far too long and doesn't really say anything interesting and the ending is too silly and anti-climactic for my tastes.
All in all, uneven and not on the same level as the original Jurassic Park, but a very entertaining well made film and by far the best of the sequels. 6.5/10 Bethany Cox
- TheLittleSongbird
- Sep 19, 2015
- Permalink
Modernized and polished entry to the Jurassic Park series picks up 22 years after the original Steven Spielberg SyFy thriller with a fully functional prehistoric amusement park that is trying to pick up their attendance numbers by splicing the DNA of their animals in order to create a new attraction to bring in more customers. With this, they manage to create a dinosaur that is much bigger that the signature T-Rex but also much more aggressive, much smarter and much more territorial as well. So of course it does not take much time for this thing to break out of it's habitat to cause death and destruction in it's wake. It's then up to park consultant Owen Grady (Chris Pratt) and company to stop this mega dinosaur from killing everyone on the island.
While the set up is predictable as well as it's outcome, the movie still provides a fun two hours of distraction. The problem is however is that outside of Chris Pratt, whose playing an intelligent variation of his swagger character from " Guardians" No one in this movie is very interesting or likable with the slight exception of Vincent D'Onofrio, who can read a phone book and make it interesting. The script is cringe worthy in a lot of places and while technology has come very far from the original, good storytelling is far and few between. "Jurassic World" still does manage to offer a lot of scary moments of sheer terror and does provide some comic relief, which is a huge step up from the last movie of the series(Jurassic Park 3)but does not have the genuine spectacle and heart that drove Steven Spielberg's first two movies in the series (The original Jurassic Park and The Lost World : Jurassic Park).
All and all, it's a decent ride that somewhat redeems the Jurassic Park series but they need shoot higher next time other than just be a decent follow up.
While the set up is predictable as well as it's outcome, the movie still provides a fun two hours of distraction. The problem is however is that outside of Chris Pratt, whose playing an intelligent variation of his swagger character from " Guardians" No one in this movie is very interesting or likable with the slight exception of Vincent D'Onofrio, who can read a phone book and make it interesting. The script is cringe worthy in a lot of places and while technology has come very far from the original, good storytelling is far and few between. "Jurassic World" still does manage to offer a lot of scary moments of sheer terror and does provide some comic relief, which is a huge step up from the last movie of the series(Jurassic Park 3)but does not have the genuine spectacle and heart that drove Steven Spielberg's first two movies in the series (The original Jurassic Park and The Lost World : Jurassic Park).
All and all, it's a decent ride that somewhat redeems the Jurassic Park series but they need shoot higher next time other than just be a decent follow up.
- fruitsaverer
- Jun 3, 2015
- Permalink
Like it's dinosaur Frankenstein creation, Jurassic World is itself a hybrid of sorts. A bright and vibrant opening that reminds the viewer of the first time they saw the original Jurassic Park, with a voice over by the late Richard Attenborough in introducing the park visitors and the audience of the wonders of the first dinosaur amusement park. Sort of a tribute to what the first movie was about and the realization of it coming true. Then the mayhem begins and the viewer will remember the words of Professor Ian Malcolm from the first sequel "The Lost World": "Oh, yeah. Oooh, ahhh, that's how it always starts. Then later there's running and um, screaming." That's what happens after the slow introduction of the characters and story points of "Jurassic World". What good about this film that it's a slow burn, like the first Jurassic movie, then it kicks like a mule with the scares and adrenalin of "The Lost World" when the park's new attraction starts eating the tourist and it's fellow attractions. While having both Steven Spielberg's original two films as inspiration is a good way to create a Jurassic sequel, it's not original. Don't get me wrong, its very good for what it was and Chris Pratt earns his stripes as a leading man but takes too much from both "Jurassic Park" and "The Lost World" and just regurgitating scenes here and there to be taken seriously as a sequel. Plus it goes into overdrive with the scary,intelligent predator hybrid dinosaur, which comes across more like "Predator" than a Jurassic Park movie. This dinosaur hybrid kills for sport, not hunger or necessary and that pushes the boundaries of what the Jurassic Park series was about. Yes, they are wild animals but this film plays them up as good guys and bad guys then the out of its time species that did not belong into human society. With all of that out of my system, i will admit that i did have a good time watching "Jurassic World" and jumped quite a few times during a few scenes. A few inconsistencies a side, i enjoying it as what it was. While there are obvious links to "Jurassic Park" not to mention the fact that they are back to the original place of the first film, i just did not feel like it was sequel to the Jurassic Park series. More a reboot/remake of the first two movies but it could have been much worse (Jurassic Park 3 anyone?). 3 Stars. Don't expect anything original but do expect to have a good time none the less.
- theladywithbrains
- Jun 2, 2015
- Permalink
- seallymorgan
- Jun 1, 2015
- Permalink
- happycheese53
- Sep 13, 2015
- Permalink
Overall, this wasn't a dull film. It was full of action and very absorbing. It just wasn't a very intelligent film. The writers took shortcuts to move the plot in the direction they wanted, and most of the characters fluctuate from utter moron to complete genius throughout the film.
The acting was relatively dull, with the exception of Chris Pratt who played a character he's played over and over again. Most everyone else was uttering cringe-worthy dialogue throughout the film.
The story is cliché, uninteresting, and full of moronic plot holes. The idea to turn the raptors into tamable teddy-bear creatures was a terrible decision that turned potentially horrific moments into a waste of time. Couple that with a worse deus ex machina moment than the first film, and you have a veritable mess on your hands.
The most damning part of this film was the fact that the writers spent 14 years developing a story with a dinosaur written to be smarter than the writers themselves. Indominus possesses all the wit and clever thinking that could have been used to write a terrific screenplay. Next time, write a smarter story with a dumber dinosaur.
The acting was relatively dull, with the exception of Chris Pratt who played a character he's played over and over again. Most everyone else was uttering cringe-worthy dialogue throughout the film.
The story is cliché, uninteresting, and full of moronic plot holes. The idea to turn the raptors into tamable teddy-bear creatures was a terrible decision that turned potentially horrific moments into a waste of time. Couple that with a worse deus ex machina moment than the first film, and you have a veritable mess on your hands.
The most damning part of this film was the fact that the writers spent 14 years developing a story with a dinosaur written to be smarter than the writers themselves. Indominus possesses all the wit and clever thinking that could have been used to write a terrific screenplay. Next time, write a smarter story with a dumber dinosaur.
- grayremnant1
- Jun 11, 2015
- Permalink
- the_horned_owl
- Jun 9, 2015
- Permalink
As a young boy, dinosaurs were the greatest thing on earth (well, the greatest thing that once WAS on earth) for me. I knew most of their names (like Gray in JW) and had my plastic dinosaurs fighting themselves, evil, and sometimes also good. You can imagine my excitement when I first saw Jurassic Park and I was truly blown away by the idea. I still somehow wish that I could actually experience the events in the movie, although I understand the critic that the author of the novel, Michael Crichton, wanted to express. Much of that critic is lost in the third sequel to the original movie, 22 years after its original release, at least it's hidden very deep in the plot. The scientists have created a new super- species, filled the missing pieces of DNA up with genes of amphibians that all have certain survival-powers, and it all goes terribly wrong, much because the dinosaurs are being underestimated as they always were. So is it a reboot of the first movie? At least a bit. They are referring to the first movie all the time, examples: A control guy wearing an Jurassic Park shirt proudly says he got an original shirt (shown in part 1 several times) for $150 from eBay, they run through degenerated original buildings and one time the kids even drive an original van that they repaired competently. New park-owner Masrani says that John Hammond told him on his death bed to "spare no expense", which was one of the funniest scenes in the movie, yet Masrani doesn't want to commercialize the park too much. That's where the movie starts being perfectly self-ironic: one control guy (the one with the classic shirt) jokingly suggests, in order to please the investors, to name newly bred species after companies, "so how about Pepsi-Saurus"? The movie indeed is full of product placements, I counted at least 9 brands and logos that are shown or mentioned during the film. So what is the purpose of the movie? Mainly, I guess, it's meant as a nostalgic, yet up-to-date experience/excuse for all those fans who were bitterly disappointed by the Parts II&III. It's exciting, contains a little love story, it's got wit, social criticism and excellently animated dinosaurs. It shows that 22 years after Jurassic Park, movie heroes are still being chauvinist and women are still stronger and braver as they are pictured in most (other) movies. And, finally, it fulfills every fans biggest desire: man and dinosaur, at last fighting side by side. That's probably why I'd give it an even better rating than the original Jurassic Park movie, although of course classic scenes like the shaking water glass will probably never be outperformed. Résumé: Director Colin Trevorrow manages to create an enthralling and visually stunning homage to the original which at some points brilliantly steps out of the shadow of its role model and finally puts the conciliatory end to the dinosaur universe that we, the fans, truly deserved.
- alexander-rumpf
- Jun 11, 2015
- Permalink
- Rob_Taylor
- Jul 10, 2015
- Permalink
- genebathurst
- Mar 29, 2019
- Permalink
First, I am the biggest Michael Crichton fan. I have read nearly everything he has ever written.
So, the bad comes first -
1. Some of the characters (dinos included) did not fit the mold for his writing. While I found them likable, I also found them detestable as a "Crichton snob."
2. I felt like there was too much in the way of homages. A few subtle nods would have been sufficient, imo.
Other minor things like overall story development, and a few other directorial issues aren't worth dwelling on in light of a 2 hour and 10 minutes run time.
The good -
1. Chris Pratt was excellent. I'm quickly becoming a fan, and hope he can develop his skills a bit more for future roles. As my wife pointed out, he'd make a great fit for an indiana Jones reboot if the time comes.
2. The dinos were awesome. Even the new ones, as far-fetched as they seem. In this regard, the writing was right in line with Crichton. He loved to stretch the science to the very edge of being illogical, if not impossible.
3. Did I mention ALL of the homages? Many casual viewers will miss most of them. My 11 year old got a bunch but not all of them. From that standpoint, I like being able to see some of the more subtle connections, and rides down memory lane are generally enjoyable.
Conclusion -
Overall, I felt like it was worth the matinée admission of 7.50. I wouldn't have wanted to pay 10, but others may disagree. Solid action film....3.5 stars.
So, the bad comes first -
1. Some of the characters (dinos included) did not fit the mold for his writing. While I found them likable, I also found them detestable as a "Crichton snob."
2. I felt like there was too much in the way of homages. A few subtle nods would have been sufficient, imo.
Other minor things like overall story development, and a few other directorial issues aren't worth dwelling on in light of a 2 hour and 10 minutes run time.
The good -
1. Chris Pratt was excellent. I'm quickly becoming a fan, and hope he can develop his skills a bit more for future roles. As my wife pointed out, he'd make a great fit for an indiana Jones reboot if the time comes.
2. The dinos were awesome. Even the new ones, as far-fetched as they seem. In this regard, the writing was right in line with Crichton. He loved to stretch the science to the very edge of being illogical, if not impossible.
3. Did I mention ALL of the homages? Many casual viewers will miss most of them. My 11 year old got a bunch but not all of them. From that standpoint, I like being able to see some of the more subtle connections, and rides down memory lane are generally enjoyable.
Conclusion -
Overall, I felt like it was worth the matinée admission of 7.50. I wouldn't have wanted to pay 10, but others may disagree. Solid action film....3.5 stars.
- chris47601
- Jun 11, 2015
- Permalink
What a shame. This movie could have been so much better! I was completely enthralled during the first 45 min or so, and it was as if I was visiting the Park myself. The cinematography was beautiful, the attractions were innovative and the park was filled with so many extras, that it felt like a real place. There was a lot of interesting man vs. nature debate in the script as well as tidbits on the danger of technological progress. I applauded the writers at first. There were even some pretty decent character arcs but unfortunately, they never fully developed.
When the action started to pick up, things went sour really fast. If this film had maintained its serious tone, I may have scored it in the 8's or even 9's. But sadly, the director chose to include bits of cheesy comedic lines in moments of urgency, completely ruining the thrill. I cared nothing for the characters, because, it seemed as if the characters took the threats they came across a bit too lightly for my tastes, so much so, that it completely nullified Bryce Dallas Howard's excellent performance.
But hey, at least the action was better than expected and so was the CGI. I was skeptical at the fact that there were so few robotics used in this film, but it didn't matter. The CGI was that realistic. I still can't say it saved this film. I yawned a lot in the end, despite the pretty cool plot twist. This film should have been a horror film like the first 2 installments, but it chose to be a movie aimed at teens. What else is new these days with blockbuster films right?
6/10
When the action started to pick up, things went sour really fast. If this film had maintained its serious tone, I may have scored it in the 8's or even 9's. But sadly, the director chose to include bits of cheesy comedic lines in moments of urgency, completely ruining the thrill. I cared nothing for the characters, because, it seemed as if the characters took the threats they came across a bit too lightly for my tastes, so much so, that it completely nullified Bryce Dallas Howard's excellent performance.
But hey, at least the action was better than expected and so was the CGI. I was skeptical at the fact that there were so few robotics used in this film, but it didn't matter. The CGI was that realistic. I still can't say it saved this film. I yawned a lot in the end, despite the pretty cool plot twist. This film should have been a horror film like the first 2 installments, but it chose to be a movie aimed at teens. What else is new these days with blockbuster films right?
6/10
- Dragonsouls
- Jun 22, 2015
- Permalink
This is a film for families, like all Jurassic movies so far, so they have to use a pseudo-family unit as the main character. They also have to tell you how to feel at every moment with blunt soundtrack bits that leave nothing to the imagination. The evil corporation, the arrogant rich man, the uncaring secretary and the opportunist need all be punished for their sins. Not so the sexy redhead who got everybody killed in the first place or the annoying children who do whatever they feel like it while a killer dino is on the loose . God, not the children!
This sums up the plot of the film. There is absolutely no recipe for a quick buck that was not used in the movie and the rest, which is just as formulaic, is just special effects and a weird hybrid (see what I did there?) between Jurassic Park and Godzilla. Say what you will about Spielberg, the man knew subtlety.
Points for not killing the black person first. They went with the Asian.
This sums up the plot of the film. There is absolutely no recipe for a quick buck that was not used in the movie and the rest, which is just as formulaic, is just special effects and a weird hybrid (see what I did there?) between Jurassic Park and Godzilla. Say what you will about Spielberg, the man knew subtlety.
Points for not killing the black person first. They went with the Asian.
- minaluka29
- Jun 6, 2015
- Permalink
I really really wanted to like it being a huge fan of the original story and film Jurassic Park but it was missing that Spielberg magic. Some really cool effects but overall disappointing attempt to restart the franchise. Never understand why they can't try something original but have to resort to borrowing from the previous films. Even Spielberg had trouble with his sequels, with the third film in the franchise being particularly bad. Would have liked to have seen some improvements in the actual dinosaurs to reflect current thinking but they decided to stick with the same versions from 17 year ago. I think that this one Jurassic World will end being seen as better than the third film but inferior to one and even two. Direction story and acting were below par with way too many inconsistencies gets a pass from me for at least trying...probably better to save your pennies for the next summer blockbuster or you could always go and watch Max be Mad again.
- pauldavidmarkov
- Jun 10, 2015
- Permalink
- garrydsouza-27890
- Jun 10, 2015
- Permalink
- camrondore
- Jun 20, 2015
- Permalink
Upon leaving the theater, my reaction to Jurassic World was "eh it was good enough". A few days later as I think back to the movie, I remember the action packed finale and some of the great visuals but ultimately there was something lacking from the film, a soul, an identity.
Newcomer director Colin Trevorrow proves that he has the ability to to shoot involving action scenes, despite having just one small indie film on his resume. Despite this, sometimes his direction can feel flat, especially in dialogue heavy scenes where he struggles to create dynamism in the interactions of his characters. This leaves the audience uninvested in the intricacies of the story (which is highly straightforward) and simply eager to get to the next dino' showdown.
The dinosaur scenes in this film are overall fantastic, and elevate the movie to new heights. I felt like there could have been a greater variety of dinosaurs on offer here, but the ones that are in the film (especially the Mosasaur and I-Rex) deliver the goods.
Unlike the original Jurassic Park and to a certain extent The Lost World, Jurassic World presents shallow characters and tries to flesh them out in a cliché manner. For example, the divorce subplot involving the two boys that is brought up once early on in the film, and then never resolved or mentioned following that scene. Another example is the main female character Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard) who is portrayed in a negative and highly stereotypical manner for 3/4 of the movie.
Some people have criticized Irfan Khan's character but I thought his small character arc was brilliant. However the military subplot was both unneeded and implausible and should have been scrapped. Chris Pratt was decent as always but wasn't given much to work with here.
Ultimately, the movie somewhat succeeds in creating a plausible and believable world, however it would have benefited from some more confident direction and a greater focus on story and characterization over visuals. I don't really have a pressing desire to delve back into the world of the film because it ultimately felt too soulless, especially in comparison to Spielberg's original.
The movie has been marketed as an action/thriller film and it achieves this at the expense of the more subtle tension present in previous installments in the series.
That said, if you are looking for thrilling popcorn entertainment you will have a good time with this one, just don't expect a classic.
6/10
Newcomer director Colin Trevorrow proves that he has the ability to to shoot involving action scenes, despite having just one small indie film on his resume. Despite this, sometimes his direction can feel flat, especially in dialogue heavy scenes where he struggles to create dynamism in the interactions of his characters. This leaves the audience uninvested in the intricacies of the story (which is highly straightforward) and simply eager to get to the next dino' showdown.
The dinosaur scenes in this film are overall fantastic, and elevate the movie to new heights. I felt like there could have been a greater variety of dinosaurs on offer here, but the ones that are in the film (especially the Mosasaur and I-Rex) deliver the goods.
Unlike the original Jurassic Park and to a certain extent The Lost World, Jurassic World presents shallow characters and tries to flesh them out in a cliché manner. For example, the divorce subplot involving the two boys that is brought up once early on in the film, and then never resolved or mentioned following that scene. Another example is the main female character Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard) who is portrayed in a negative and highly stereotypical manner for 3/4 of the movie.
Some people have criticized Irfan Khan's character but I thought his small character arc was brilliant. However the military subplot was both unneeded and implausible and should have been scrapped. Chris Pratt was decent as always but wasn't given much to work with here.
Ultimately, the movie somewhat succeeds in creating a plausible and believable world, however it would have benefited from some more confident direction and a greater focus on story and characterization over visuals. I don't really have a pressing desire to delve back into the world of the film because it ultimately felt too soulless, especially in comparison to Spielberg's original.
The movie has been marketed as an action/thriller film and it achieves this at the expense of the more subtle tension present in previous installments in the series.
That said, if you are looking for thrilling popcorn entertainment you will have a good time with this one, just don't expect a classic.
6/10
- JerryMizner
- Jun 16, 2015
- Permalink
A dull monster movie without ideas, with all the imaginable problems: recycled soundtrack from the previous three film, poor visual effects (the '93 film was indeed better even under this aspect, and that says it all), horrible "dinosaurs" that look more Godzilla than "true" animals (and yes, it's a very serious problem that these animals don't look or/and act as real animals, at least as they're conceived to be in XXI century and not in '40s), badly-written dialogs (with a sort of "love story" that is embarrassing), characters (dull not to say stupid) and plot. All this problems all in once, and without any decency. To conclude there are the two boys, the most boring and annoying characters in the Hollywood's history.
- antonioborrani
- Jan 2, 2016
- Permalink
The visual effects and dinosaurs were amazing, but the plot was the same boring career woman finds love and realizes she actually wants kids. There's also a scene where the male love interest sexually harasses the female lead for five minutes that was played like the audience was supposed to find it charming? Some really obvious instances of sexism too like where one woman tells another it's "when not if" she will have kids and where two boys are more impressed with a man reversing a jeep than a woman taking out a dinosaur. They could have made it way better by just having the point be that the woman realizes the importance of family like they did for the two brothers. It would have tied in much better with the rest of the movie.
- allisongrabowski
- Jun 24, 2015
- Permalink