Jurassic World (2015) User Reviews

Spielberg Magic, This Is Not. Still, a Visit to Jurassic World Is Worth the Price of Admission.

[jaredpahl · 7/10 · 12 June 2018]

You may have heard some critics champion Jurassic World as "The best Jurassic Park sequel", some fans declare that it "brought them back to their childhood", and others who may have made the absurd claim, "It's better than the original". Don't believe the hype. Jurassic World is nowhere close to the best Jurassic Park sequel (Spielberg's own, The Lost World: Jurassic Park, will always have that title). It is not going to bring you back to your childhood, and it doesn't hold a candle to what Steven Spielberg and crew accomplished with the original Jurassic Park. That being said, in a time of dark, self-serious, and pretentious blockbusters such as last year's Dawn of the Planet of the Apes or Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight films, Jurassic World is a refreshing antidote. Light, wholesome, and heavy on adventure, JW harkens back to the big Hollywood "event" blockbusters of the 80s and 90s. Let's just not pretend this is anything groundbreaking. The fourth Jurassic Park movie remembers to have fun with its premise, but Spielberg's magic touch is still sorely missed.

Jurassic World is the latest film in the Jurassic Park franchise in name only. Call it a sequel, reboot, or re-quel, the fact remains, this is not the same world created by author Michael Crichton and made real by Spielberg and company in 1993. All the major characters from the first three films are gone. Alan Grant, Ellie Satler, Ian Malcolm, and the rest of the appealing and memorable characters of the earlier movies are replaced with broad movie archetypes and superfluous supporting characters. With respect to our new kid characters and Vincent D'Onofrio's bone-headed military grunt, the only two characters worth noting in Jurassic World are Owen Grady, a rugged dino-expert played by bona fide movie star Chris Pratt, and Claire Dearing, an uptight scientist played by Bryce Dallas-Howard. Both are really likable in doses, and the script doesn't subject us to too much of their dopey bantering. While Owen and Claire are cliched, and ultimately uninteresting, as characters, the charm and sheer star power of Pratt and Dallas-Howard are quite enough to bolster JW's brand of disposable summer adventuring.

There's a neat little hook to the story of Jurassic World. After a re-branding of sorts, John Hammond's dream is finally realized and Jurassic Park is opened and fully operating. However, when the public begins to lose interest in seeing the same old dinosaurs, the scientists of Jurassic World are prompted to create an all-new hybrid dinosaur called the Indominus Rex. Well, you guessed it, that dinosaur escapes. Okay, so that's a clever solution to the classic Jurassic Park sequel dilemma, "How does this stuff keep happening?", but that plot line takes all of twenty minutes to peter into a chase picture, and a simple one at that. The few subplots are banal. Be it, two brothers who come to Jurassic World to spend time with their aunt, or a ridiculous plan to weaponize velociraptors (The latter of those subplots is one of the most embarrassingly stupid ideas I've seen in a movie in years), Jurassic World doesn't have much to get invested in besides big scary monsters running after people.

There is one aspect of the film that I love, and that is the design of the Jurassic World Resort. The care that went into perfecting the look of the theme park is a great deal higher than the care that went into the story or the filmmaking. Jurassic World is a living, breathing place, and it is filled with all kinds of minor details that help sell the illusion. The triceratops petting zoo, the hamster ball ride, the souvenir shops, and scores of other theme park related details are touches that I was grateful made it into the film. There are more than a few nice moments where you get to enjoy the park as it was "intended". The immersion lasts throughout, even as the prehistoric psycho-killer, and all the destruction that it brings, takes center stage.

Once the Indominus Rex gets out, and all Hell breaks loose, director Colin Trevorrow's filmmaking starts to show its deficiencies. Jurassic World is an impressive technical feat. The action is staged well, and the special effects and production designs are incredibly polished. It all looks like a million bucks (or 150 million to be exact), and it's all very fun, but when it comes to the meat of the movie, it's foolish to think that Jurassic World is anything more than Transformers with dinosaurs. In Jurassic Park and The Lost World, Steven Spielberg infused his action scenes with tension and suspense. There was a certain kind of visual poetry to the T-Rex attack in the first movie or the raptors in the grass scene from The Lost World. They were exhilarating because of their selective restraint. Without showing everything, Spielberg made scenes that were subtle and scary, and that exploded to life at just the right moments. Jurassic World's action scenes are big, loud, and entertaining, but it's all chaos, no technique. Trevorrow throws the kitchen sink into every shot. The Indominus Rex chomps up dozens of machine gun toting mercenaries, pterodactyls dart all over the screen pecking and biting everything in sight, and big, lumbering CGI beasts fight each other and destroy every last peanut brittle building around them. Sound familiar? It's the kind of Call of Duty-esque sensory bombardment that can be loads of fun to watch while you're there but doesn't leave the lasting impact of truly great action.

So it is with Jurassic World. The movie is big, bright, and fun, with lots of action and good special effects. It pleases crowds. But as with most big budget crowd pleasers, it comes with dull characters, brain dead plotting and booming CGI overload. Jurassic World left me with the exact same feeling I got after seeing Jurassic Park 3. Both movies are serviceable summer romps, full of dino-action and great visual effects, but there is simply a noticeable dip in the quality of the production. Jurassic World successfully mines from the franchise name a good B-caliber FX spectacular. For dumb summer fun, it works. But there was a time when Jurassic Park aspired to more than dumb summer fun. Steven Spielberg's first two movies had class. They grappled with ideas, they were intelligent, they showcased real filmmaking, and they were genuinely thrilling. Jurassic World is colorful and entertaining, but let's be clear, when it's all said and done, nothing beats Spielberg.

74/100

Its a Jurassic World after all.

[JDheart · 7/10 · 2 June 2015]

The 4th film in the Jurassic Park series and the second sequel that Steven Spielberg did not direct starts off well enough with enough call backs to the first film of the series but quickly turns into a monster movie with a run away super killer dinosaur that was spliced by the DNA of other prehistoric creatures for the sake of selling extra tickets. If my description of the plot Is pretty simplistic,it's because the story is that simple. So forget the dangers of science morality tales that both "Jurassic Park" and "The Lost World" gave to it's stories and just accept that the series has become a standard creature feature that just swaps out it's main monster for every new installment. The last film in the series "Jurassic Park 3" pretty much threw away the whole plot lines of the first two films just to give us a chase film with a dinosaur that was never even seen in "The Lost World" and that film was set on the same island. While "Jurassic Park 3" just went on a painful 90 minutes long montage of talking raptors, horrible scenes of family bonding and an visible annoyed Sam Neill looking like he's about to go postal on the people working on the film set, Jurassic World manages to be a hell of a lot more enjoyable experience for the viewer in terms of just trying to inject a sense of plot and continuity to this other wise creature feature.

As a standard creature feature, the movie works well and gives you your money's worth of dinosaurs doing collateral damage to property and personnel with the occasional park visitor being killed for good measure. Throw in your slack jaw good guy ( Chris Pratt) who feels that the creatures are misunderstood and works with good guy dinosaurs(I Kidd you not) to help stop the super killer dinosaur. Throw in an human adversary for our hero to fight with ( Vincent D"Onofrio) who would blow the whole island up to get this monster and add an human element like two lost children who are related to a employee at this crazy theme park who by the way has the hots for our hero and you have the entire story right there.

It's hard enough to keep a franchise going, especially when you're dealing with dinosaurs walking the earth. You will eventually hit a wall in terms of storytelling if your primary goal is to keep turning these films out with out any care what so ever. We saw that with "Jurassic Park 3" where all the plot points from the previous two films were abandon for a B Movie creature feature. "Jurassic World" tries hard to correct that by having the movie be about something a little more and try to connect itself to the first film of the series. And Its much better film for it but it still ends up a creature feature all the same.

Not a patch on the original Jurassic Park, and is an uneven film, but by far the best of the sequels

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 20 September 2015]

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

Better than the last 2

[farmerk-60673 · 7/10 · 22 June 2022]

Though I definitely think that this is better than the last 2 sequels, Jurassic World is still much weaker the the original Jurassic Park and just misses so many opportunities in terms of characters, set pieces, suspense and awe.

Worthy Sequel To One Of The Greatest Films Ever Made

[CalRhys · 15 June 2015]

Let's start this by stating how much of a die hard fan I am of 'Jurassic Park', I love that film, always have, always will. 'The Lost World' is a worthy followup, but at the same time lost the panache the first one had, as for the third entry, I'll overlook it because it just got too silly for my liking... anyway, on to 'Jurassic World'. First of all, the positives outweigh the negatives by far, so to start I shall begin with the flaws. 'Jurassic World' near enough scraps the use of animatronics that made the original films so realistic in comparison and instead overuses CGI, but that aside the visual effects are stunning. And the story, well, it's a little too far-fetched to say the least, but not to the point where it's completely ridiculous, just enough for you to have a laugh but still enjoy it nonetheless. Trevorrow's direction, Pratt's acting and Giacchino's score are all superb, and these combined make the film a worthy watch. The film perfectly blends drama, emotion and action, and when I say action, I mean full-on awe- inspiring action. The closing battle is just rife with intensity, to the extent that I was literally sitting on the edge of my seat in the cinema, it was perfectly choreographed (if maybe a tad predictable) but my heart was racing, I hadn't felt that excited with a film's conclusion for a long time. All-in-all, it's a well- executed and beautifully-crafted sequel, but will never outdo the original, the best 'Jurassic Park', but a second spot grab? I think so.

Manages to somewhat return the Jurassic Park series to it's former glory, but its still a few notches below Spielberg's first two entries in the series.

[fruitsaverer · 6/10 · 4 June 2015]

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.

The good news: It's vast improvement over Jurassic Park 3. The bad news: it's the most predictable entry in the series

[seallymorgan · 6/10 · 2 June 2015]

Fine but predictable return to form for the Jurassic Park series finds John Hammond's dream for a "Jurassic Park" becoming a reality. However, in a way to have more people come back to the island, scientist's create a hybrid dinosaur as a new attraction. But, like every Jurassic Park film in the series, things don't go off as planed and all hell breaks loose in it's aftermath. Unlike the last 3 movies however, this film is made up of mostly new characters to hold off the Dinosaurs with the exception of a small side character from the Original Jurassic Park film played by BD Wong, who to be quite honest is only there to somehow fulfill continuity from The first film to the new one. It would have made more sense to bring in some of the original leads to bridge the whole series together but that seems to be asking too much. The new characters starting with lead Chris Pratt are fine but underwritten and cliché. Pratt's character and performance is really the only bright spot of the new cast of characters but he lacks the cool sarcastic wit and intelligence of Jeff Goldblum's Ian Malcolm and The everyman appeal of Sam Neill's Dr Alan Grant. Pratt however brings his own warm, comic sensibility that does make him endearing in his own right but unlike Goldblum and Neill who brought dramatic tension to the films, Pratt gets overshadowed by the dinosaurs once the bloody carnage begins. Bryce Dallas Howard is decent but unremarkable in the uptight corporate woman with no life role and Vincent D'Onofrio is OK as the resident head of security of the park. Of course, there are two kids who plays the nephews of Howard's character who are put in the middle of the action one it begins, leading to a predictable climax that while is full of thrills, could have been seen a mile a away.

The Dinosaur effects in this film are probably the best in the series so far and while there are moments of Obvious CGI, it really does not distract from how far effects have come over the years from the first film to this one. In terms of dino carnage, this film comes in a little behind The Lost World in that department but not by much. The body count is higher here than in any of the other films in the series but lacks the tension and showmanship that Jurassic Park and The Lost World had in spades. It's however head shoulders above what Jurassic Park 3 had in those departments. Not to mention the fact that while the script for Jurassic World is fairly predictable, it does not overstay it's welcome. Unlike the underwritten Jurassic Park 3 with its very unlikeable characters.

Jurassic World is a fine addition to the Jurassic Park series. While its pretty predicable and not as good or as tension filled as the first two films of the series, it's a vast improvement over the disappointing 3rd film. However, if there should be a fifth film, they need to go beyond the new monster of the week and come up with a better script to justify this series continuing for another film.

If you're looking to sit on the edge of your seat for two hours, welcome!

[happycheese53 · 10/10 · 14 September 2015]

First of all I think people need to understand that film is a lot like music, you can't listen to a new Justin Bieber song and complain because it's not a Mozart masterpiece. And you definitely can't watch Jurassic World expecting a mind-boggling, emotional Inception type film. I would put Jurassic World in the same category as most Michael Bay films, the story line won't make you think, the characters won't go through any psychological changes but you will be thoroughly entertained by the special effects. I think it's fairly obvious throughout the original trilogy and this film that we are the visitors to the attractions, Steven Spielberg gave the parallel Earth a new unimaginable attraction, one which surprised the audience so much, it's rated as one of the best films ever. Period. Fast forward twenty two years past the films of Interstellar, Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, we as a human race have seen a lot of original, unique things, a plain old dinosaur film will not bring us the same thrills as it did in 1993. Therefore we are once again, the visitors to the attraction. We will never feel the same buzz as first seeing that T-Rex crashing the gates over, or the same chill down the neck when first hearing that Raptor shriek. However, we can still be entertained. Which is what happens throughout the film. The characters are fairly bland, there are only a couple likable ones, but they all seem to grow on you near the end, the bloodbath that is left by the new Dino is quite emotional and gives you a side to pick fairly easily, the surprises throughout the film keep it exciting and the special effects, well we are in 2015 and they did have a lot of money to spend so lets just say they are incredible as expected. If you're looking to be on the edge of your seat for two hours and trust the film to not bore you, then you have nothing to worry about, the line graph representing excitement just climbs up and up, if you're expecting another Shawshank Redemption, well please don't slate the film when it doesn't satisfy your needs. I think that films should have two ratings, one for overall, and another for it's main sub-category, for example as an overall film I'd give it a 7.5-8, it's sub-category of excitement I'd give a solid 10, a comparison to the first Transformers which I'd give an 8 for excitement and a 5 overall. Therefore I really do recommend this film for anyone who like me, enjoys special effects, good excitement and two hours to just sit on the edge of my seat and thoroughly enjoy my time. I can only say I can't wait for the second one and I'm sure you will too after you watch it.

Very good but more a remake of the first two movies than a sequel to the series.

[theladywithbrains · 7/10 · 3 June 2015]

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.

The Nostalgia is real

[reshikyrm · 10/10 · 29 October 2015]

Jurassic world is the #1 movie in America. This movie deserves the right to be called back especially with all the money it earned especially in the first week it was out. It's been 14 years since the last time I saw Jurassic Park. I never would have thought that they would be making a Fourth one and when I heard they were making a new one I was ecstatic. It brought back all the memories of the first 3 films. When the day came for Jurassic World to open it had to go see it on opening day and I did. The movie gave us the same feeling Jurassic Park 1 did "Welcome to Jurassic World". The new park looked amazing showing that John Hammond'so dream finally came true. The music was more amazing than ever, the original Jurassic Park theme was re-prised to show how much thing had changed in 14 years. The main attraction of this movie was the Indominus Rex and hybrid of T-Rex, Raptor, cuddle fish, and Tree frog and terrifying intelligence. At the end of the movie we get to see the original T-Rex from the first movie roar for the last time after the park was closed for good. This movie brought back so many memories for so many people. I can't wait for the next one.

Jurassic World complete with equally ancient clichés!

[Rob_Taylor · 7/10 · 11 July 2015]

So, I liked this movie, but boy is it full of clichés and stereotypes. My partner and I found ourselves calling out every character, what they would end up doing within moments of being introduced to them.

Seriously, there is an entire butcher's-worth of ham-fistedness in the approach to character intro's and scene building here. You'll know what will happen long in advance of it actually happening on screen.

What this does is make the movie utterly predictable and, in essence, boring. At your first viewing, you will feel like you have seen it before.

It also says something about a film featuring dinosaurs that it is at its best when they aren't on screen. I don't know how this came about, but, for the most part, the dino's are a little dull and uninteresting. They plod, they run, they roar, and all in glorious CGI. Yet they fail to evoke the same emotions that they did in JP1 or even 2.

That's not to say the human actors are a lot better, but at least they have some thin characterisation applied to them, even if it is in the form of horrible stereotyping.

I mean, military guy who is bent on weaponizing the dinos, distant aunt who has no skill with children (bet you can't guess where her story-arc evolves to?) What? Oh yeah, that's right... she does discover her nurturing instincts. Wow! You're better at this than the writers!

Don't get me wrong. It is a solid popcorn flick. But the lazy writing does it tremendous harm. I swear they have some sort of software in Hollywood that churns this stuff out. There are no surprises here. None.

Acting and Effects are capable. No one really stinks and there aren't that many obvious CGI moments (in so much as we know it is all CGI anyway, nothing shows itself about the perceptual parapet, as it were).

It is a decent watch, but expecting the expected is no longer fun when taken to this extreme.

SUMMARY: Formulaic and totally predictable. Nothing to write home about. See it, and then move on.

Brilliant

[minaluka29 · 8/10 · 7 June 2015]

I am a huge fan of the Jurassic Park franchise, it's my favorite franchise, my life revolves around it and dinosaurs. I was very nervous for Jurassic World, because it had been so so long since we've seen them back on Isla Nublar (22 years to be exact). This made me go into the film as a mainstream film fan, so I could really tell if this was a good film or not, without being bias. I was amazed by how much this film makes you feel like a kid again, it has the exact amount of nostalgia to please the fans of the franchise and enough new material to appeal to a younger audience who maybe haven't seen the first three films.

First of all, the cast which this film possess is used to great effect, with the most notable being Chris Pratt, his character Owen Grady is the perfect blend of Alan Grant and Ian Malcolm, making him likable and very quirky in how he behaves around his Velociraptors and people in general. Bryce Dallas Howard's character breaks the conventions of a female character in a film of this genre, she takes control of situations and you feel that she isn't a girl to run away from danger...apart from running away from the Indominous Rex, which I don't blame anyone for doing so. The supporting characters in the film also help it to come alive and make you think this is a real park with real lives at risk, especially Vincent D'Onfario in his role, he plays it magnificently and you can feel his tension yourself and finally Nick Robinson and Ty Simpkins as the kids in peril aren't as annoying as Kelly in the lost world, so that's an improvement to take note for.

When the first trailer for Jurassic World was released, way back at the end of November 2014, people were starting to get very worried about the effects in this film and how they will improve from the first film, the same with the use of animatronics in this film. Well my friends and fellow fans, the CGI in this film are brilliant to look at, even though some scenes you can tell it is from a computer scene, the rest you couldn't tell the difference, they used the animatronics in scenes where they were necessary which has a lot of sentimental value for the film which was a nice touch. Most people thought in this film the Tyrannosaurus would play a minor role like it did in Jurassic Park 3, but the way they utilize the old girl is brilliant, she is amazing to look at and she even has the scars form the fight with the raptors from the first film, you cannot make the T-Rex have a small role in this film, especially when she's the poster girl for this magnificent franchise. It will be hard to make Jurassic World 2 better than this one, but here is to hoping!

Better Than Jurassic Park 3, But Totally Predictable

[the_horned_owl · 6/10 · 10 June 2015]

**spoilers ahead.**

I am a great fan of Jurassic Park. I loved it when I watched it in 90s but it was a new concept back then. It had a great story and some of the best visuals at that time. It was not completely predictable and it was fun.

Fast forward 22 years and we have "Jurassic world". The story picks up after 22 years of Jurassic Park. I am not going into the details of the plot, but it is almost similar to the original Jurassic Park. We have a park where people can come and see the genetically modified dinosaurs. One of them escapes and goes berserk. Now Chris Pratt has to stop him from causing more destruction. So there is nothing new in terms of story.It is similar to some of the other movies that we have already seen.

The CGI looks really good but these days even a low budget film has some really nice graphics work. But if you are a fan of 3D, you will have some fun as it has got some really scary scenes and the effects are amazing.

It is predictable yet enjoyable. Chris Prett does a great job. In fact, he is the only person in the movie who is likable. I did not care about other characters.

Now let's talk about the negatives. There are so many things that are wrong with this film. But I have made a list of the things that don't make sense. I am not going to talk about the technical things because everything is good except for the BGM.

1- Who enters a dinosaur's territory without knowing where the Dinosaur is? they could have tracked him before entering the cage, just to be sure. and Did I mention that we are talking about a genetically modified dinosaur with the IQ of Einstein?

2- The character played by Judy Greer and Bryce are so annoying. Judy starts crying for a stupid reason ( because her sister didn't accompany the children, she works in Jurassic World, she has a lot of work to do.)

3 - Bryce does not know what logic means. There are moments where she shows her STUPIDITY. (Like - "screaming" even though she knows that the dinosaur could hear her voice.)

4 - The kids are the most stupid ones I have ever seen. I mean you are in Jurassic World. If there is an emergency then it must be something important. Get the hell out of there. But no, we have to see everything.

5- Who the hell designed this stupid spherical vehicle that the kids used? Dinosaurs could have easily destroyed it, One swing of their tail and it would China. who wants to travel in such a vehicle?

6- Chris Pratt and Bryce go out to find the children and their defense is - A GUN. What? Are you going to kill that Dinosaur with a GUN?

7- Chris and Bryce see some dead or soon-to-be- dead dinosaurs so they make sure that they waste a lot of time with them albeit they have to save the children and time is running fast.

8- Chris goes out to kill the dinosaur with a team, but only one of them has a Bazooka. Then they wait for the Dinosaur to have some giggles with the small dinosaurs. They could have brought 5-6 Bazookas with them and launch them at the same time. We saw what 1 Bazooka did to him. 5-6 could have easily killed him or at least crippled him.

9- What the hell is the deal with those 4 dinosaurs who keep changing sides?

10- I honestly could not understand what Chris Pratt's role was? He did not do anything in the whole movie except for running. He was useful at only one place - The climax. He somehow hypnotizes the small dinosaurs, but even that doesn't do anything.

11- The Dues ex machina Ending. (A big Dinosaur saves the day).

Maybe I am nitpicking but these are the examples of sloppy writing. You must avoid such things. Some scenes reminded me of Avatar and the climax reminded me of Godzilla.

Overall it is a nice movie to pass your time but it is not a must watch. It does not get anywhere near to the level of Spielberg's original Jurassic Park. but yeah, It is a great improvement over Jurassic Park 3 which was a complete mess.

The franchise has had a lobotomy

[genebathurst · 4/10 · 30 March 2019]

Dinosaurs. Amusement Park. Tourists. Disaster.

Jurassic World has them all.

Naturally, I had to see it.

The beginning holds much promise, and it gets your hopes up for the disaster to come. When it does, there are some great action sequences, especially ones with the glass ball containing the soft, chewy child centre.

Unfortunately the final act unravels into outright farce.

Chris Pratt is great as the affable yet bad-ass Raptor Whisperer. He's got an easy going charisma that could easily carry an iconic character like Indiana Jones.

Bryce Dallas Howard plays Claire Dearing, the uptight park manager, who initially clashes with the laid back Owen. Of course you know where the tension goes.

The film tries to flesh out Claire's character by throwing in her two nephews (someone and another kid), who do double duty as McGuffins.

Vincent D'Onofrio shows up as Hoskins, a villainous representative of the military-industrial complex angling to weaponize velociraptors. He's all sneers and scenery chewing, so obviously evil he's got a goatee. D'Onofrio does it well but the evil plan he's been saddled with by the writers makes no sense at all.

The director, Colin Trevorrow, said in interviews that he wanted the dinosaurs to act like real animals, not cartoon monsters. Quelle surprise! I had no idea, as he has well-fed winged dinos (or near enough to dinos) go on a crazed orgy of violence against hapless tourists. Why? Because cool action sequence!

One poor soul is even treated to the most outlandishly elongated death sequence I've ever seen, all to no end. It didn't justify anything, paid nothing back, offered no comeuppance. It was just gleeful indulgence in sadistic torture of a minor character. It was an Itchy & Scratchy moment.

Which brings us to the final act: turn off your brain before it begins.

The first movie proved you could have a smart script and dinosaurs in the same movie. After that, the IQ of the series dropped with each outing. The first one had chaos theory and amber and DNA extraction and cleverness up the whazoo. It was AWESOME.

What does this one have? Hackneyed evil plans, a clunky plot, and characters so smart they run from T-Rex's in high heels.

The franchise has had a lobotomy.

Smart Dinosaur, Dumb Writers

[grayremnant1 · 6/10 · 12 June 2015]

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.

Could have been worse...definitely better than 3

[chris47601 · 6/10 · 12 June 2015]

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.

Clumsy money grabber is saved only by the great special effects

[siderite · 6/10 · 10 August 2015]

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.

A nod to the original and even more

[alexander-rumpf · 9/10 · 12 June 2015]

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.

Great first half, but script fell apart

[Dragonsouls · 6/10 · 23 June 2015]

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

A really fun ride and I'll certainly watch it more than once!

[camrondore · 10/10 · 21 June 2015]

A really thrill of a ride. The Indominous Rex was a really cool idea and handed well. A lot of action and storyline. Most characters developed well and the last scene was a peach! However, there were some faults but they didn't destroy the film in any way, shape or form.

The park was introduced in a very modern way and the teenager was like he would be, on his phone when there are dinosaurs!!! Staring at girls of course while queuing for the Gyrosphere was also very relatable.

Glad the Trex animatronic came back...and didn't die because that would have disappointed me as it would have been a Jurassic Park 3 repeat. Though my jaw-dropped at the awesomeness that was when the Trex and Velociraptor fought together against the I-Rex. Seriously a really good film and (in my opinion) competes for the best of the four films.

One heck of a mixed bag

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 8 December 2015]

As a huge fan of the original JURASSIC PARK - I was twelve years old when I saw it in 1993, pretty much the perfect age - I was eager to check out this all-new and revamped sequel/update/reboot of the premise. At the same time, I pretty much dismissed memories of the previous two sequels, which were entirely forgettable and sub-par popcorn flicks. The new JURASSIC WORLD is one heck of a mixed bag as a film. It contains many, many flaws and parts I hated, alongside some good moments that I enjoyed. It's very similar to the new TERMINATOR GENISYS in that respect, although an improvement over the Schwarzenegger movie. The good parts of JURASSIC WORLD are invariably those which involve the dinosaurs; when the dinos are on screen, the film is fun; when they're off, it's a failure.

The main problem lies in the writing of the human characters. It took four scriptwriters to concoct this mess, and what we get IS nothing more than a mess. There are gender stereotypes and a clichéd romance straight out of a 1970s-era Mills & Boon novel. There are annoying kids throughout, one of whom is mildly creepy, the other a crying little brat. Vincent D'onofrio and Irrfan Khan are the best of the human cast, as their natural charisma comes through, but Bryce Dallas Howard is hopeless, the worst I've ever seen her. Attempts at characterisation and to make her character funny fall flat every time and as for her stilted acting...well, I was cringing. This film has a real problem with the female characters and the kids and even a good actress couldn't have done much with this character, which puts the women's liberation movement back some 50 years.

The human plots are poor and sloppily put together. The first half of the film has scale but no sense of the intricacies of running a theme park, then all of that gets forgotten about in the second in favour of a small-scale human drama. Vincent D'Onofrio is likeable but attempts to turn his character into a bad guy (when he clearly isn't) are pitiful. Plus, I hated the way we finally get to see a populated theme park with thousands of visitors, only for them to remain off screen and irrelevant for most of the time, aside from in a 5 minute set-piece, then they're forgotten about.

So, that's all the bad stuff. The good news is that the dinosaurs are great and great fun to watch. CGI effects have improved to the point when they look quite nice, particularly the underwater dinosaur. The Indominus rex is a fitting menace, although the real stars of the show are the Velociraptors, who have a sub-plot (i.e. they're tame) which could have been the cheesiest thing ever, but which turns out to be the best thing in the movie. The monster action at the climax of this movie is strong stuff indeed and it makes for far better spectacle than the recent GODZILLA remake. So, there you have JURASSIC WORLD: a mix of the great, the awful, and the generally humdrum, but it provides a fitfully entertaining thrill-ride if you do your best to ignore the pitifully written characters. NB. I also checked out the 3D edition, which adds plenty of immersive depth albeit few 'jump out' shots.

Great 3D movie

[mmcgee282 · 10/10 · 21 October 2015]

This film combines the stories taken from king Kong and The lost world,25 version.Bryce Dallas Howard Plays a Bitchy corporate executive ,who can't get with her nephews on Christmas holidays ,played by TY Simpkins and Nick Robinson, that her sister has sent them for visit,played by Judy Greer.Bryce works for a huge corporate amusement park that focuses on dinosaurs.Bryce can't make time for her nephews,so they wonder on their own.She a a troubled working and personal relationships with a dinosaur trainer and activist play by new movie star Chris Prat.Though owner and designer of the a park Irrfan Kahn ,who is more concerned about people having fun than how much profit has increased.Chris has a problem working relationship with Vincent.Vincent believes that the dinosaurs should focus on killing each other ,but, Chris believes they should be trained for peace.Well, there is one dinosaur that was create artificially ,for a new part of the park ,to be open soon.I call him T.Rex Kong. A problem arises he not following instructions and eats another dinosaur .All hell breaks loose when he jumps the wall and terrorizes the customers the customer of the park making a nice meal out of some of the worker and security guards .The dinosaurs were so realistic and were digitally created . Earlier Jurissic Park had used some puppets .The movie is made in style of an amusement park .It seems that the character development is shorter for the sake of the action.In some out takes that was shown ,flat, indicated that may be some of the shots should have been kept of the character development.It was not even.Did you see the little old fashion camera that the smaller nephew was carrying?could indicate Hollywood dislike towards home digital cameras?Chis originally did a you tube joke about him getting a job in Spielberg's next Jurassic movie .I think it was you tube.His dreams came true. Another problem was that the characters and the whole atmosphere of the movies and sets were cold and stoic.Even the kissing scene was cold and the family reunion scene,which Claire's sisters husband was played by Andy Buckley, was also not warm..E.T ,Poltergeists and Star Wars was far more Warmer.What's the problem?I am afraid it's a real world currently problems in general.Hollywood has always pretentiously serve the establishment ,for profit,then claims they serve the masses.This movie reflects our phony liberal side of big business and the wealthy running our government and exploiting the animal rights and environmentalist ,who are desperate for a quick answer to protect animals and the environment as well a s fanatics and those who have a contempt against the human race ,due to constant warmongering ,for profit and political power.This reflects pitting animals and the environment against humans ,very subtle, in this film,but,this is an outer problem.In spite of this it is an excellence film,Gorgeous sets and realistic dinosaurs ,Bryce in her 1970's hair do,which has become popular again and handsome leading man Chris Pratt.I was certainly satisfied with this movie.Both 3D and flat were good. The sound was arousing and excellent .No out of synchronizing problems here,since both images are in a folder stabled .Great for Dino fans and 3D fans. 10/21/15

Should have stayed extinct !

[pauldavidmarkov · 6/10 · 11 June 2015]

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.

Bleah

[antonioborrani · 3/10 · 3 January 2016]

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.

cool dinosaurs, lots of sexism

[allisongrabowski · 6/10 · 25 June 2015]

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.