Jurassic World (2015) - 5/10

After writing the Deep Dive for Jurassic Park I felt compelled to try to revisit some of the other Jurassic movies even if they weren't on the watchlist. More specifically, I noted at the end of the Deep Dive how none of the subsequent Jurassic movies were able to recapture the magic of the first film. Many, if not all, have been commercial successes, but critically they have largely been panned by critics and audiences. The closest the series has gotten to rising to the same heights as the original (and it's not that close) was 2015's Jurassic World. 

1. Acting 

Jurassic World is actually the first cast to feature none of the main original actors (sorry BD). That's less a compliment and more just a statement of fact. The film features a widespread list of actors but centers around two adults played by Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard, as well as two young adults played by Nick Robinson and Ty Simpkins. Together, the cast is largely okay. I think it's more a writing fault than anything else because all the characters feel pretty generic. In terms of capturing stereotypes they did fine. Howard makes Claire feel like the uptight workaholic, Pratt feels like the capable hero type, and Simpkins feels like the 'vulnerable but conveniently informed about dinosaurs' kid. Of the main cast, Robinson may have been the one that has done a bit of an overshoot. Instead of the flirty/caught up in his own world teenager, Zach feels a bit creepy and is a bit of an asshole at times. I didn't necessarily NOT describe a teenager there - but, you don't usually center a movie around that guy.

Outside of the main cast is some decent supporting work by the rest of the cast. Jake Johnson does a good job providing some comic relief, but his performance does feel a bit out of place. Irrfan Khan doesn't get much of a character to work with but he is at least compelling onscreen. Judy Greer does a lot with little screentime as the young protagonist's mother. And it's always great seeing Vincent D'Onofrio getting to cut lose with some character acting. Those are just some of the standouts too, the rest of the cast is trying their best to make it in a bloated blockbuster. 

2. Cinematography 

The film looks great. The tropical locale is great, the dinosaurs look great. There's a lot of pretty images. With that said, there doesn't feel like a ton in terms of a particular style or visual language. This is just big budget blockbuster film making - has a pretty appearance, but lacks in personality. 

3. Production/Costume Design 

I thought that production teams did a really great job on this film. They clearly took inspiration from what came before and then updated it for the modern world. For that reason the Park looks fantastic and the ideas for creating a fully realized version of Hammond's theme park feels completely realized and true to the real world. I easily buy every aspect they chose to include. 

And for all the complaints that I'm sure that I will lay out about the CGI later,  they did manage to work in some practical effects that help sell the action and some of the dinosaurs. 

4. Writing 

We're probably going to jump around a lot for this section, but let's start with the characters. I'm not sure if I could tell you any of the character's names and I literally just finished watching this movie. Everyone in the main cast just feels very indistinct. They certainly have archetypes that they follow, but they feel bland. On top of that, their interaction between each other largely falls flat. I don't care about the sibling relationship or the romance through lines and anyone that does die, does so with a giant shrug of my shoulders. I have nothing to anchor myself to if I actually wanted to care about the story, so all that is left is spectacle. And I know that this isn't the first blockbuster to prioritize 'moments' over 'character', but the character arcs are either weak or nonexistent. Claire comes the closest to having an actual arc, but even her story is basically 'My incompetence led to a disaster where people died and thank goodness there was a man around to save the day. Also I guess I care about family now since I didn't want my nephews to get eaten'. 

As for the plot, it's mostly just a retread of the original. People go to a place with dinosaurs, dinosaurs get loose, people get chased by dinosaurs, some people die, and then some people escape. However, what helped the first film elevate its plot was its simplicity, its attention to character, its ability to make you care about the dinosaurs, and its willingness to engage (at least lightly) in the philosophical concerns of something like Jurassic Park existing. 

For its part, Jurassic World is at least contemplating the relationship between capitalism and the park. Fiscal pressures are ultimately what sets the chain of events off in the first place. Yet, for all the meta commentary that this film winks at, I can't help but feeling they are simultaneously in on the joke, and completely unaware of it at the same time. For example, the filmmakers make it a point to show that capitalism and profit seeking are the reason that the Park creates the Indominus Rex. The characters and plot of points of the film are all screaming look at what valuing profit over all else leads to. How-fucking-ever, that entire message is being packaged inside a movie that's entire existence is a hollow retread of a beloved classic and doing so with a reported budget of over $200 million. I mean how are you going to espouse anti-capitalist messaging in a god damn Super Bowl Ad that was 30 seconds long and cost $4.25 million? Did any of the limited edition memorabilia include recording of the cast reading Karl Marx quotes as well? It all just feel oblivious rather than insightful. 

Speaking of retreading the original, there are parts of this film that feel like the writers had just taken their daily dose of Member Berries. And this is coming from someone who is usually a sucker for fan service. But when this film does it, it feels like it's unintentionally pointing out its own weaknesses. The biggest highlight of this for me was the finale. After watching an entire movie that centers around the unstoppable threat that is the Indominus Rex, we get to see Claire unleash the OG badass - the T. rex. And not just any T. rex, the same T. rex from the original film. It's clearly set up to be that 'oh shit this is awesome' type of moment for the film (and it kinda is). But, your whole finale is basically set up to be an epic fan service showdown, yet you're also unintentionally pointing out that you can't do better than the original. And it's hard for me to ignore the subtext of how every bite and claw swipe that Indominus gets on the Tyrannosaurus is like an insult to the original's legacy. Then, in the fight's concluding moments, not only is the T. rex (symbol of the original film) victorious, but the Indominus (symbol for the new film) gets mercilessly drowned by the Mosasaurus (the new film itself). The entire scene is basically screaming 'I can't do it any better than the OG so I'll just see myself out'. 

As for the rest of the plot, I might just be a grumpy old man, but the raptor stuff is so dumb. Like, I'm not saying it's not an implausible premise. Countries all around the world have long been researching and working with various animals for military tasks. So InGen being interested in cultivating raptors as assets is not completely farfetched. However, that entire subplot just doesn't work for me at all. And the film seems so enamored with itself when it finally comes time to for a bunch of people to go mount up and ride motorcycles with raptors looking super cool. Better yet, what was the end of that whole sequence that was highlighted in every trailer? The Indominus barks and the whole thing goes to shit after 30 seconds. Granted, the raptors do come back around in the end and decide to help Owen and the rest of the characters - but that actually makes the subversion from earlier even fucking dumber. 'Raptors dont listen to anyone, oh wait they listen to me, oh wait they listen to Indominus, oh wait they listen to me again'. Ughhh. Do better. 

5. Sound Design 

Michael Giacchino has the unfortunate task of trying to live up to John Williams' iconic score. For his part, the tracks are solid and its integration of the themes from the original are good. What throws me though is how his recording were incorporated into the actual film. I've never actually known who handles that integration piece - editor, sound supervisor, the composure, the director? Either way, there were moments that just felt off. Almost like watching a band that hasn't figured out their cues for transitioning between solos back to the original piece. The legendary trills of Williams' classic just felt mistimed with what is occurring and I don't know why. 

6. Editing 

The film clocks in with about the same runtime as the original. It also keeps a pretty solid pace throughout the plot. However, that pace also has a downside. The constant running around that kicks off pretty quickly into the plot doesn't allow for any tension. I don't mind how quickly things start since we all know where the story is going to go anyway, but the lack of quieter moments just makes the whole endeavor feel very one note.  

7. Visual Effects 

I'm not going to sit here and pretend the CGI for this film doesn't look great. All of the newer Jurassic films have phenomenal photoreal effects from some of the best VFX houses in the industry. However, there is just something missing from these newer films in terms of viscerality. To their credit, the teams did utilize a mix of animatronics and CGI elements like the first film, but the bulk of the action is done with CGI. The end result, despite looking photoreal, just doesn't have that same movie magic as the 1993 classic. I think there is a couple of different reasons why, but in the end I think it just comes down to the audience knowing none of it is real and the suspension of belief becomes harder to do. 

8. Originality or Strength of Adaptation 

I think I've made my feeling on this clear already. It is neither original or stronger than the OG. 

9. Stunt Coordination 

Pretty solid but I don't have any particulars to point out.  

10. Direction 

 I was very enamored with Trevorrow after seeing Safety Not Guaranteed, but I just can't get behind his later films. Jurassic World shows that he is a competent director, but I think he leaned to much into the blockbuster spectacle/fan service and forgot to actually make something emotionally compelling along the way. 

Legacy/Final Thoughts

Jurassic World boasts a better critical score than the rest of the series and has the highest box office gross to match. However, being the best turd doesn't stop you from being a turd. I recognize that I'm being harsh on Jurassic World at least in part due to my love for the original, but it just seems to come up short in literally every aspect. Maybe one day someone will crack the code and at least match Spielberg's classic, but it's not this one.