Jurassic World

[goose]

I didn't enjoy Jurassic world. far to predictable. not worth the hype.

 

I am not really sure how any body would want or expect anything from a Jurassic Park film beyond monsters, fun, and biting. The predictability is all part of the fun! Seriously...after dull monster movies like Godzilla, Pacific Rim and Monsters, its been great to have a silly, OTT popcorn blockbuster that just screams at you to have fun!

 

Especially great because this isn't a superhero film. Last blockbuster that kept me this entertained was Guardians Of The Galaxy. I enjoyed this one a lot more!

Totally agree here! Edited July 11, 2015 by goose

[Rushman14]

Spoiler? Are spoilers a thing in movie threads?

 

I absolutely loved the scene where they busted out the '92 Wrangler. Just a super cool tribute to the original. My buddy had an identical olive drab '92 Wrangler 4.0 Sahara. He put a Jurassic Park sign on the windshield, I miss it.

Did anyone wonder how the gasoline in that Jeep didn't turn into varnish?

 

I didn't think about it until now.

[Super25Smasher]

Seeing it tonight!

[goose]

Spoiler? Are spoilers a thing in movie threads?

 

I absolutely loved the scene where they busted out the '92 Wrangler. Just a super cool tribute to the original. My buddy had an identical olive drab '92 Wrangler 4.0 Sahara. He put a Jurassic Park sign on the windshield, I miss it.

Did anyone wonder how the gasoline in that Jeep didn't turn into varnish?

 

I didn't think about it until now.

That was one of 1,076 implausible plot features I noticed. But it Jurassic World, so gas not going bad was one of the easiest things for me to conquer in terms of suspending belief.

 

You know, how implausible so much of it is is what I actually enjoyed about it. When fantasy stories try to address the goofy aspects of their universe the whole thing comes crumbling down for me. Star Wars' medichlorians are an example of that. Speaking of Star Wars...how is real-time video transmission possible in that universe?

 

 

:P

[Segue Myles]

Looking for plot holes in a movie about dinosaurs cloned from blood found in insects?

 

You must be desperately bored or really quite dumb.

[That One Guy]

Spoiler? Are spoilers a thing in movie threads?

 

I absolutely loved the scene where they busted out the '92 Wrangler. Just a super cool tribute to the original. My buddy had an identical olive drab '92 Wrangler 4.0 Sahara. He put a Jurassic Park sign on the windshield, I miss it.

Did anyone wonder how the gasoline in that Jeep didn't turn into varnish?

 

I didn't think about it until now.

That was one of 1,076 implausible plot features I noticed. But it Jurassic World, so gas not going bad was one of the easiest things for me to conquer in terms of suspending belief.

 

You know, how implausible so much of it is is what I actually enjoyed about it. When fantasy stories try to address the goofy aspects of their universe the whole thing comes crumbling down for me. Star Wars' medichlorians are an example of that. Speaking of Star Wars...how is real-time video transmission possible in that universe?

There were that many ridiculous things? I barely noticed one or two.

[Presto-digitation]

This movie is now the 4th highest (domestic) gross money earner in history, just a tad behind the first Avengers flick.

[Segue Myles]

This movie is now the 4th highest (domestic) gross money earner in history, just a tad behind the first Avengers flick.

 

I think this proves that people miss blockbusters that don't take forever to make their point, aim for artistic credibility, or need to pause and reflect every five minutes to catch up.

 

Plus, who doesn't love the idea of a genetically modified dinosaur rampaging across a heavily populated theme park with a hot redhead and her Indiana Jones fanboy lover running around chasing after two rather dull kids stuck inside a massive glass ball?

 

I swear, of all the blockbusters I have seen in the last ten years, this is one of my favourites! It was great to go to the cinema and just be blasted with fast flowing action and fun, fun FUN!

[AndroidOnTheRun]

This movie was an incredible disappointment. It was nothing like the original. Where was the wonder and magic that made JP so great? Even the special effects seemed WORSE than the ones from 20 years ago... because in that film, they were in service of a story. In this film... they were pointless.

[Segue Myles]

This movie was an incredible disappointment. It was nothing like the original. Where was the wonder and magic that made JP so great? Even the special effects seemed WORSE than the ones from 20 years ago... because in that film, they were in service of a story. In this film... they were pointless.

 

I thought in every way it was on the same level. Same good points, same low points.

 

But this time the dinosaurs felt more like real animals, and less like movie monsters.

[AndroidOnTheRun]

This movie was an incredible disappointment. It was nothing like the original. Where was the wonder and magic that made JP so great? Even the special effects seemed WORSE than the ones from 20 years ago... because in that film, they were in service of a story. In this film... they were pointless.

 

I thought in every way it was on the same level. Same good points, same low points.

 

But this time the dinosaurs felt more like real animals, and less like movie monsters.

 

...am I misunderstanding you? The JP dinosaurs were objectively much more realistic and believable as animals, whereas the JW "dinosaurs" were literally movie monsters, barely based in any actual scientific knowledge. The pterosaurs were basically gremlins. Only the dying Apatosaurus felt real.

[Segue Myles]

This movie was an incredible disappointment. It was nothing like the original. Where was the wonder and magic that made JP so great? Even the special effects seemed WORSE than the ones from 20 years ago... because in that film, they were in service of a story. In this film... they were pointless.

 

I thought in every way it was on the same level. Same good points, same low points.

 

But this time the dinosaurs felt more like real animals, and less like movie monsters.

 

...am I misunderstanding you? The JP dinosaurs were objectively much more realistic and believable as animals, whereas the JW "dinosaurs" were literally movie monsters, barely based in any actual scientific knowledge. The pterosaurs were basically gremlins. Only the dying Apatosaurus felt real.

 

But the fact that the velociraptors couldbasically be tamed to a certain point, like wild lions and their tamers, was the highlight of the entire franchise for me!

 

The genetically altered dinosaur was a terrific idea, the thought that playful science fiction could be used to turn this franchise in yet another direction is interesting.

 

The film is not flawless. I still think that this film could have lacked menace, and explored the concept of a dinosaur theme park and the intrigue and adventure of it all, without having to resort quickly to trashing things up. This could have been a really interesting angle, less the monsters and more about the park itself. That would have taken away much of the sense of deja vu the action sequences had.

 

But considering you think the first film is the greatest ever, it is hard to know how to discuss the merits of this film, when in my opinion the first film wasn't close to perfection in the first place.

[AndroidOnTheRun]

I agree there was a lot of missed opportunity. I guess I just wasn't interested in the whole "taming the Raptors" angle... it seemed a little far-fetched to me (I know that's a silly concept when we're talking about dinosaur movies, yeah).

 

I just thought it was kind of light fare while there's a lot more going on beneath the surface in the original. Don't get me wrong; I ate my popcorn and slurped my Icee and had a great time. I was never bored, and a movie being boring is way worse to me than any other flaw JW might have.

[Segue Myles]

I agree there was a lot of missed opportunity. I guess I just wasn't interested in the whole "taming the Raptors" angle... it seemed a little far-fetched to me (I know that's a silly concept when we're talking about dinosaur movies, yeah).

 

I just thought it was kind of light fare while there's a lot more going on beneath the surface in the original. Don't get me wrong; I ate my popcorn and slurped my Icee and had a great time. I was never bored, and a movie being boring is way worse to me than any other flaw JW might have.

 

Thing is, to me, the first film was, and always will be, a mere popcorn film. The science is patchy, the script is fairly basic, the cast, as iconic as they are now to us who grew up with the films, never rise above adequate.

 

One thing I really found annoying was the sentimental streak that tarnishes nearly every Spielberg movie: the whole deal wih the kids and Alan, who hates kids, and how by the end he warms to the kids, and his girlfriend and him reflect in their glances on how far they have come...

 

It really makes the film too grounded in basic kiddie fare, I really would have loved to have seen what James Cameron could have done with this film (and many of my arguments about the lack of depth, and the cheesy nature of this film, can also be directed at his Titanic).

 

I get why you love JP. I do, but I am afraid I like the concept a whole lot more than the execution. I was six when I saw this film, and read the book (science bits and all) a couple of years later. I remember realising as a child the diference between grown up and child entertainment because of this. The film is just another typical Spielberg action movie. It has its moments but as Science Fiction, Close Encounters Of The Third Kind, ET and even the first three quarters of The war Of The Worlds were better than this (I truly don't think he ever mastered sci fi), as an action film, not a patch on Indiana Jones 1-3, as a thriller. Jaws. Nothing left to be said.

 

This is the same man that gave us both Empire Of The Sun and Schindler's List. Sorry, maybe you enjoy blockbusters more than true moviemaking, but in 1993, Schindler stole the limelight with bothe the critics and the awards ceremonies, and over two decades later, everyone still takes that film seriously, but not so much Jurassic Park.

[bluefox4000]

The JP movies are glorified B movies and that's all they ever were. The original was Ridiculous. but it's the only film in the series.......with the exception of JW'S climax......that's any fun, IMO.

 

Mick

[Segue Myles]

The JP movies are glorified B movies and that's all they ever were. The original was Ridiculous. but it's the only film in the series.......with the exception of JW'S climax......that's any fun, IMO.

 

Mick

 

Agree wholeheartedly. They are good in their own way, but they are second tier sci fi at best.

[AndroidOnTheRun]

I agree there was a lot of missed opportunity. I guess I just wasn't interested in the whole "taming the Raptors" angle... it seemed a little far-fetched to me (I know that's a silly concept when we're talking about dinosaur movies, yeah).

 

I just thought it was kind of light fare while there's a lot more going on beneath the surface in the original. Don't get me wrong; I ate my popcorn and slurped my Icee and had a great time. I was never bored, and a movie being boring is way worse to me than any other flaw JW might have.

 

Thing is, to me, the first film was, and always will be, a mere popcorn film. The science is patchy, the script is fairly basic, the cast, as iconic as they are now to us who grew up with the films, never rise above adequate.

 

One thing I really found annoying was the sentimental streak that tarnishes nearly every Spielberg movie: the whole deal wih the kids and Alan, who hates kids, and how by the end he warms to the kids, and his girlfriend and him reflect in their glances on how far they have come...

 

It really makes the film too grounded in basic kiddie fare, I really would have loved to have seen what James Cameron could have done with this film (and many of my arguments about the lack of depth, and the cheesy nature of this film, can also be directed at his Titanic).

 

I get why you love JP. I do, but I am afraid I like the concept a whole lot more than the execution. I was six when I saw this film, and read the book (science bits and all) a couple of years later. I remember realising as a child the diference between grown up and child entertainment because of this. The film is just another typical Spielberg action movie. It has its moments but as Science Fiction, Close Encounters Of The Third Kind, ET and even the first three quarters of The war Of The Worlds were better than this (I truly don't think he ever mastered sci fi), as an action film, not a patch on Indiana Jones 1-3, as a thriller. Jaws. Nothing left to be said.

 

This is the same man that gave us both Empire Of The Sun and Schindler's List. Sorry, maybe you enjoy blockbusters more than true moviemaking, but in 1993, Schindler stole the limelight with bothe the critics and the awards ceremonies, and over two decades later, everyone still takes that film seriously, but not so much Jurassic Park.

 

I really could not be of a more polar opposite opinion. The script and performances are top-notch, IMO, and I actually find Alan's arc with the kids to be more interesting now that I'm an adult (I, too, was 6 when I saw the original). It's about human evolution, and the traits that allow our species to survive despite a relative lack of physical dominance.

 

To me, this IS "true moviemaking." I don't draw a line between popular art and whatever else there may be.

[AndroidOnTheRun]

There are a lot of movies I like for nostalgia's sake. JP isn't one of them. There was so much that was lost on me or over my head when I first saw it; it's only improved with every viewing. A dense and intelligent observation of human nature. Because that's the thing; it's not just a movie about dinosaurs. It's a movie about people. It's a movie about life, in every sense, and a movie about living. Edited July 21, 2015 by AndroidOnTheRun

[Segue Myles]

There are a lot of movies I like for nostalgia's sake. This isn't one of them. There was so much that was lost on me or over my head when I first saw it; it's only improved with every viewing. A dense and intelligent observation of human nature. Because that's the thing; it's not just a movie about dinosaurs. It's a movie about people. It's a movie about life, in every sense, and a movie about living.

 

I am not convinced.

 

Sorry, but if any film released by Spielberg in 93 has any true bearing on the nature of humanity, and their capacity and will to survive, it is Schindler's List. Like, I cannot even argue that! Jurassic Park, a piece of mature moviemaking? Sorry, I do not buy it. Did you watch Schindler's List and just think, "well that was interesting but Jurassic park had far more to say about human nature and all its foibles, flaws and failings, love and life, happiness and sadness, and raw emotion and divinely beautiful attributes such as self-sacrifice, love and bravery!".

 

A kid gets jolted off an electric fence trying to avoid a T rex. A little girl, dressed beautifully, wanders around amonsgt chaos, innocent and wide eyed, seeking a place of refuge, knowing little of her circumstances but enough to know if she doesn't she will die. Shindler looks at her and knows his life of selfish pursuits is no longer his desire. A grown man, touched by the innocence of a race he is expected to find repulsive. Later we see the girls corpse sent to the flames, a nazi soldier showing no remorse as he urges more corpses to be sent along.

 

Sorry, but Jurassic Park is a popcorn blockbuster. It is nothing more than that.

[AndroidOnTheRun]

Not saying this to cause trouble, but I fell asleep during Schindler's List and have never felt like giving the whole thing another chance.

[AndroidOnTheRun]

I'm not like, arguing Schindler's List is bad or unimportant. I don't feel qualified to evaluate it, as the only time I saw it, I fell asleep.

[Segue Myles]

I'm not like, arguing Schindler's List is bad or unimportant. I don't feel qualified to evaluate it, as the only time I saw it, I fell asleep.

 

This makes it harder for me to see the depth in a film like Jurassic Park when the guy reviewing it falls asleep during one of the most fiercely raw and aggressive historical films ever released by a major Hollywood studio. It might seem deep and profound to you, and maybe it is, but my life and family history demands a little more deep, soulful meditation on what life is, and will be in years to come, than a bunch of nobodies running around a tropical island avoiding big lizards.

 

If Jurassic Park is the greatest example of moviemaking summing up the entire human race in less than two hours, then I will stick to Tolstoy's novels and tales of bitter truth, and realistic joy, thank you!

 

But I did find the dilophosaurus extremely endearing haha

[bluefox4000]

in 93 i was 8. And i was watching classics cause i had an Aunt who was a movie buff. So i already knew what a deep profound movie could be. Jurassic park as much a blast as it was........was not it, lol. and still is not.........profound or deep i mean. It's mindless fun. which is ok too.

 

Mick

Edited July 21, 2015 by bluefox4000

[Segue Myles]

in 93 i was 8. And i was watching classics cause i had an Aunt who was a movie buff. So i already knew what a deep profound movie could be. Jurassic park as much a blast as it was........was not it, lol. and still is not.........profound or deep i mean. It's mindless fun. which is ok too.

 

Mick

 

Harry Potter is better...

[bluefox4000]

in 93 i was 8. And i was watching classics cause i had an Aunt who was a movie buff. So i already knew what a deep profound movie could be. Jurassic park as much a blast as it was........was not it, lol. and still is not.........profound or deep i mean. It's mindless fun. which is ok too.

 

Mick

 

Harry Potter is better...

 

i can't be objective......cause God i'm such a potter fan. the saddest was when that film series wrapped up.

 

Books were not bad either ;)

 

Mick