• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Jurassic World |OT| WARNING! Safety Not, uh, Guaranteed | RT: 71?!%

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Calamari41

41 > 38
Bernbaum said:
I re-read the book recently, and it's not that great. In the first book, all of the build-up to the island is much more gripping and every little sequence happens for a reason - the girl in Costa Rica getting bitten by a compy; the hospital that deals with a raptor attack victim; and the company investigating inGen by interviewing Grant. There's a logical sequence of events leading up to the crew arriving on Nublar, and the pace at which everything turns to shit constantly escalates.

In the Lost World, there is a bunch of exposition and the reasons for getting to the island (rescuing Levine) is completely nullified, as they simply go about studying the dinosaurs as they always intended. None of the deaths are meaningful - the two guys accompanying Dodgson were simply written in to be killed off and add nothing else to the story, and the 'good guy' death is mentioned almost off-handedly.

In the first book, Ian Malcolm's ramblings had direct reference to the events happening around them. In the second book, he is just a mouthpiece for Crichton, and just speaks very politically about the role of science in society - it's handled very roughly and just shoe-horned into the story and has nothing to do with what's happening around them. The Lost World also takes forever to get going. The trailer attack is essentially the start of the climax of the story, and the big finale is Dodgson getting kicked out from beneath a car and fed to baby T-Rexes. The climax in the first book has Grant and Gennaro hunting down the raptor nest. It's a much better as it carries genuine suspense whilst also addressing the key issue of dinosaurs breeding on the island.

I level a lot of the weaknesses of the Lost World film at the feet of the novel - there really wasn't a lot of material to work with.
Click to expand...

I just read the Lost World novel the other week for the first time, and I agree that everything just kind of happens because it's supposed to. Like, in the Jurassic Park novel, the breakdown of the park is telegraphed and built up over the course of the entire book. In Lost World, everything goes to shit
because Levine drops a candy wrapper out of the high hide and a raptor finds it and looks up. Dodgson going around poaching eggs doesn't even cause anything to go to shit for our heroes. It indirectly causes the T-Rex attack on the trailers, but that is resolved and the Rexes are gone soon after.

I enjoyed reading it, but it was more like "a short story from the world of Jurassic Park" than an actual sequel.
 
A

Anton Sugar

Member
InaudibleWhispa said:
Guardian: 4/5
Telegraphic: 4/5
Digital Spy: 4/5
HeyUGuys: 5/5
HitFix: B
TheFilmStage: B
EW: B+
TimeOut: 3/5
Slant: 2/5
Variety: Positive
The Dissolve: 3/5
Hollywood Reporter: Positive
Click to expand...

Nice! This sounds like a really accurate summary, from The Dissolve:

When it keeps moving, it works wonderfully. Trevorrow shows a gift for crafting setpieces and staging action scenes never suggested by his feature debut, the slight science-fiction-themed comedy Safety Not Guaranteed. It’s the best imitation of Spielberg since Gareth Edwards’ Godzilla last year (which was itself the best in a long while). It’s when the movie stops and opens its mouth that things get stupid.
Click to expand...

Works for me.
 
B

BowieZ

Banned
From what I understand, if you were silly enough to watch any of the spoilerish trailers, you will probably be disappointed by the lack of surprises on the day.

PS stop watching trailers like I did.
 
V

ViewtifulJC

Banned
I'll gather all the "temper-your-expectations" reviews in one place for ya'll

'Jurassic World' Is a Tyrannosaurus Mess - PopularMechanics

Do you recall the eventual look of guilt and horror on Richard Attenborough's face? In one look, the late great actor conveyed the weight of the guilt that John Hammond—the genius scientist, entrepreneur, and impresario at the center of 1993's Jurassic Park—would feel when he finally saw the result of his hubris. He should have left the dino DNA in amber; unleashing it into the world, even if his intentions were mostly benign, was a grave error.

A similar expression will reflect in the mirrors of the execs who green-lit Jurassic World. Oh, why didn't we just leave the past alone? They may not come to regret the decision for box office or licensing reasons. It's quite possible this third return to the island will be a profitable one. But from an artistic and entertainment point of view, this can only be called a disappointment. There are a few nifty moments (three at the most) and Chris Pratt remains our most likable new Hollywood star. But this does not make up for the idiotic plot, flat characters, ill-defined conflict, and rote action scenes. Jurassic World is a triceratops-sized dud.
Click to expand...

The Park Should Have Stayed Closed - Birth.Movies.Death.

If the script for Jurassic World wasn’t so terrible the movie itself might be a fascinating failure, as the film’s themes keep it in constant conflict with itself. Jurassic World is a movie that is kind of disgusted with its own existence, a blockbuster reboot that finds the whole concept of blockbuster reboots distasteful. But the intriguing push and pull of the film’s thematics are undercut by a script that is devoid of real characters and by set pieces that have the slack aimlessness of pre-viz allowed to run amok.
Click to expand...

Michael Crichton and Steven Spielberg's test-tube dinosaurs get a critic-proof reboot that's fun for a while, but not a patch on the original. - Variety

“No one’s impressed by a dinosaur anymore,” notes one character early on in “Jurassic World,” and it’s easy to imagine the same words having passed through the lips of more than one Universal Studios executive in the years since Michael Crichton and Steven Spielberg’s 1993 “Jurassic Park” shattered box-office records, along with the glass ceiling for computer-generated visual effects. Two decades and two lackluster sequels later, producer and studio have spared few expenses in crafting a bigger, faster, noisier dinosaur opus, designed to reclaim their place at the top of the blockbuster food chain. What they’ve engineered is an undeniably vigorous assault of jaw-chomping jolts and Spielbergian family bonding that nevertheless captures only a fraction of the original film’s overflowing awe and wonderment.
Click to expand...

A serviceable stab at Spielberg's franchise. - The Hollywood Reporter

Intensely self-conscious of its status as a cultural commodity even as it devotedly follows the requisite playbook for mass-audience blockbuster fare, Jurassic World can reasonably lay claim to the number two position among the four series entries, as it goes down quite a bit easier than the previous two sequels. The 14-year layoff since the last one may well have helped, in that the new film's perspective on antiseptic, theme park-style tourism and relentless commercialization, while hardly radical, plainly announces its makers' sense of humor about their own project's multi-faceted mercantile motives. Although not terribly scary, and closer to PG than R in its frights and gore, Universal's big summer action release is sufficiently toothsome to make audiences everywhere happy for a return visit to a once-wild world that superficially looks as safe and domesticated as a Universal Studios tour.
Click to expand...

2/5 - Slant Magazine

Jurassic World can't tell whether it wants to be junk food or not, lovingly poking fun at some Hollywood tropes while shamelessly indulging others. Claire's compassion and pluck come to the fore in a series of close shaves that see her saving her nephews' lives (if barely), while also losing more and more of her heretofore wardrobe. At a budget of 260 times that of Trevorrow's debut (Safety Not Guaranteed), Jurassic World's aspirations to cautionary cynicism are bound from both sides by its franchise prerogatives; the end result can't satisfy either sensibility in full. For the umpteenth time, moviegoers will be left with that magical Spielbergian appreciation for a fear of death strong enough that it can keep a family together—but that won't stop them from also wishing the kids had gotten eaten.
Click to expand...

Silly self-reflexivity dominates in Colin Trevorrow's noble attempt to sell CG dinos to a jaded modern audience. - Little White Lies

Trevorrow’s blockbuster, despite flirting with 22 Jump Street levels of winking self-reflexivity, lacks the vision or ambition to do anything more than diagnose a sickness that it’s powerless to cure. Its action sequences are bloodless and unexciting, and the theme park’s attractions — like the gyroscopes tourists use to roam the grounds, the most implausible thing in a movie that features Vincent D’Onofrio plotting to use Velociraptors to hunt ISIS — are transparently reverse engineered for their ability to motivate a set piece. As Jurassic World gets bigger, it only gets worse. Not since Spike Jonze’s Adaptation has a movie so gleefully become the thing it resents most.
Click to expand...

3/5 - The Dissolve

Much better: Any time the movie let the dinosaurs cut loose, be it in a tense scene in which the Indominus Rex (I-Rex?) menaces Claire’s nephews while they’re trapped in a gyroscope, or a chaotic stretch that finds the park terrorized by flying lizards, or a finale that only needs ineffective Japanese soldiers to be a kaiju battle. The effects haven’t really improved that much since Jurassic Park—in fact, in some scenes they’re less impressive than those of that 1993 film—but everyone involved has clearly had fun dreaming of new ways for dinosaurs to terrify humans. And for all Jurassic World’s attempts to go bigger, that’s essentially the best those first sequels could manage, too. It’s fun, but it’s ultimately more of the same in brand-new packaging.
Click to expand...

Nostalgia and Action Mask A Weak Script and Characters - Slashfilm

For a few scenes in Colin Trevorrow‘s Jurassic World, I was transported back to 1993. I was 13 years old, sitting with huge popcorn on my lap, watching Steven Spielberg’s original Jurassic Park for the very first time. Unlike the last two sequels in the series, Jurassic World has a handful of those wondrous moments in it and, for that reason alone, I found more to like than dislike about the movie. But there are things to dislike about the movie and some are pretty damning.
Click to expand...
 
B

bananafactory

Banned
From Slashfilm:

What surprises me is how much of the film is not shown or hinted at in the trailers. There are whole action sequences omitted and protected from any of the marketing I’ve seen thus far. This movie has had many leaks, with a lot of information making its way online during production, yet there are a couple unanticipated major plot turns which I did not expect and thoroughly enjoyed.
Click to expand...

Andy-Dwyer-OMG.gif
 
B

bananafactory

Banned
Rtbeoh said:
I definitely agree although the tomato meter is what most people take to be the score of the film so for it to be a solid 70% will bode well for the film.
Click to expand...

True, though it's still early so I expect that to either fall or rise before it settles

Either way I'm just happy that the movie isn't a disaster like some expected. I'm seeing it tomorrow night in IMAX 3D
 
G

GSG Flash

Nobody ruins my family vacation but me...and maybe the boy!
57% right now

Only 20 reviews right now but I honestly think it's going to end up around this :/
 
B

bananafactory

Banned
Rtbeoh said:
Lucky! There's no IMAX theatres near me so I'll just be seeing it in good ol' 2D.
Click to expand...

I don't think you'll be missing much without the 3D, doesn't sound like it's too mindblowing in this one.

I do wish IMAX theatres offered 2D films as well, they are always 3D now which is fine for me since I don't mind but some of my friends can't watch 3D
 
G

GSG Flash

Nobody ruins my family vacation but me...and maybe the boy!
Rtbeoh said:
The percentage hasn't updated for a half hour. Right now it should be at 67% but the metre doesn't updated automatically.
Click to expand...

Ah ok, i was wondering why everyone's numbers were so off from the site :p
 
T

thecouncil

Banned
bananafactory said:
I don't think you'll be missing much without the 3D, doesn't sound like it's too mindblowing in this one.

I do wish IMAX theatres offered 2D films as well, they are always 3D now which is fine for me since I don't mind but some of my friends can't watch 3D
Click to expand...

Truly. It's not fair the IMAX showings near me are only 3D. I really wanted to see it in IMAX. Tsk.
 
G

GSG Flash

Nobody ruins my family vacation but me...and maybe the boy!
WadiumArcadium said:
If you end up enjoying it, who gives a shit?
Click to expand...

I don't give a shit, but I still want it to be critically acclaimed, because then there would be a higher chance I'll enjoy it when I watch it.

Although there have been movies with really high RT ratings that I hated(looking at you Boyhood).
 
Banjotanooki

Banjotanooki

Member
GSG Flash said:
I don't give a shit, but I still want it to be critically acclaimed, because then there would be a higher chance I'll enjoy it when I watch it.

Although there have been movies with really high RT ratings that I hated(looking at you Boyhood).
Click to expand...

Why would a movie's high rating make it any more enjoyable?

I hate watching movies based on reviews. I absolutely despise The Dark Knight and I'm surprised by the amount of praise it gets yet LOVE Batman Forever and (gasp) Batman and Robin.

Just go into the theater and enjoy the movie man.
 
S

Skiptastic

Member
GSG Flash said:
]I don't give a shit, but I still want it to be critically acclaimed, because then there would be a higher chance I'll enjoy it when I watch it.[/B]

Although there have been movies with really high RT ratings that I hated(looking at you Boyhood).
Click to expand...
So you do give a shit.

Reviewing is so personal that it shouldn't matter to you. Your favorite movie shouldn't get better just because it is or isn't critically acclaimed.

Read my dislike of the film, let that be your expectations, then go into the movie and enjoy it. You'll like it a lot more, trust me.
 
F

Fuchsdh

Member
It's really interesting how much of the reviews are caught up in comments about wonder and nostalgia and pining for the good old days. Makes me think that The Force Awakens reviews will be pretty wacked out.
 
pel1300

pel1300

Member
linkman26 said:
Why would a movie's high rating make it any more enjoyable?

I hate watching movies based on reviews. I absolutely despise The Dark Knight and I'm surprised by the amount of praise it gets yet LOVE Batman Forever and (gasp) Batman and Robin.

Just go into the theater and enjoy the movie man.
Click to expand...

Wow..just wow.
 
M

More_Badass

Member
Fuchsdh said:
It's really interesting how much of the reviews are caught up in comments about wonder and nostalgia and pining for the good old days. Makes me think that The Force Awakens reviews will be pretty wacked out.
Click to expand...
I mean, it never could achieve that sense of wonder. Literally impossible. Jurassic Park was a first in cinematic history, nothing like that had ever been seen before. No CGI effects or animatronics today could match that
 
K

kaskade

Member
I wasn't really expecting it to be bad. I just wanted a fun popcorn flick and this seems to deliver in that regard.
 
G

GSG Flash

Nobody ruins my family vacation but me...and maybe the boy!
linkman26 said:
Why would a movie's high rating make it any more enjoyable?

I hate watching movies based on reviews. I absolutely despise The Dark Knight and I'm surprised by the amount of praise it gets yet LOVE Batman Forever and (gasp) Batman and Robin.

Just go into the theater and enjoy the movie man.
Click to expand...

I never said that, I just said the chances of me liking it will be higher if it's critically acclaimed. Lower chances of me having wasted my time and money :p

Reviews have no bearing on whether I personally enjoy the movie or not.
 
V

ViewtifulJC

Banned
Fuchsdh said:
It's really interesting how much of the reviews are caught up in comments about wonder and nostalgia and pining for the good old days. Makes me think that The Force Awakens reviews will be pretty wacked out.
Click to expand...

I think the biggest thing going against any Jurassic Park sequel is that the franchise is just not something conductive to sequels. It doesn't have an iconic character that will regularly get into exciting danger like Indiana Jones or James Bond or any other superhero. It doesn't have villains that appear anywhere like Mike Myers or in your dreams like Freddie Kruegar. It not something you can replicate anywhere like the thousand and one horror franchises like Final Destination and Insidious, cuz the dinosaurs are mostly confined to one island that requires untold amounts of money and brainpower to engineer. It doesn't have this big, fascinating world and lore to explored like Middle Earth or Star Wars.

Its really just that one story. They tried to get dinosaurs going on an island, it went tits up, and everybody said, "Yep, bad idea. Lets never do that again." And that should have been the end of it. BUT Jurassic Park made more money than God, so for financial reasons it couldn't be the end of it, so we got a squadron of lesser sequels with some contrived reason to go back to the island with thin characters and sequences that are never gonna match the awe and wonder of the original. I mean, the sequel lost before it even really began.

JW might be the best JP sequel, but its not exactly illustrious company. There's only so many ways you can retread the original film. Dinosaurs eat people for two hours to Michael Giacchino music, go in expecting that, probably have an enjoyable enough time.
 
S

Skiptastic

Member
ViewtifulJC said:
I think the biggest thing going against any Jurassic Park sequel is that the franchise is just not something conductive to sequels. It doesn't have an iconic character that will regularly get into exciting danger like Indiana Jones or James Bond or any other superhero. It doesn't have villains that appear anywhere like Mike Myers or in your dreams like Freddie Kruegar. It not something you can replicate anywhere like the thousand and one horror franchises like Final Destination and Insidious, cuz the dinosaurs are mostly confined to one island that requires untold amounts of money and brainpower to engineer. It doesn't have this big, fascinating world and lore to explored like Middle Earth or Star Wars.

Its really just that one story. They tried to get dinosaurs going on an island, it went tits up, and everybody said, "Yep, bad idea. Lets never do that again." And that should have been the end of it. BUT Jurassic Park made more money than God, so for financial reasons it couldn't be the end of it, so we got a squadron of lesser sequels with some contrived reason to go back to the island with thin characters and sequences that are never gonna match the awe and wonder of the original. I mean, the sequel lost before it even really began.

JW might be the best JP sequel, but its not exactly illustrious company. There's only so many ways you can retread the original film. Dinosaurs eat people for two hours to Michael Giacchino music, go in expecting that, probably have an enjoyable enough time.
Click to expand...
Viewtiful, did you see JW yet? Because that's probably the best primer anyone could ever have going into seeing this.

Anyone in this thread: read this post again, reflect on it, then go see JW and you'll have an infinitely better time.

(Oh, and don't pay extra for the 3D if you can avoid it. I didn't see anything in there that was great, and I typically am okay with 3D. But I was in the front row of my screening so YMMV. :/)
 
T

Timeaisis

Member
The mentions of the amount of action scenes disturb me. I'm not sure how much I want humans vs dinosaurs action in my Jurassic Park movie. I more want humans running away from and getting eating by dinosaurs.

Still seeing it Sunday, but some reviews are making this out like it's "Jurassic Park" updated with Hollywood's modern idiotic action blockbuster sensibilities.
 
B

Bobby Roberts

Banned
Huh. Little White Lies referenced, of all the films, Jonze/Kaufman's Adaptation.

That's kinda interesting. This movie is going to shit on the idea of all these blockbuster cliches and then go sliding into them, full speed, in the last half hour, that's what I'm being told.

Maybe the comparison should have been Vaughn's Kick-Ass instead? Adaptation is some lofty shit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Gareth Edwards set to direct new Jurassic World movie, screenplay by David Koepp
47
3K
RJMacready73 replied
A new Jurassic World movie is in the works.
2
54
3K
Trogdor1123 replied
Steven Spielberg Appreciation Thread
2
89
5K
SiriusBlack replied
Bryce Dallas Howard Was Pressured To Lose Weight For "Jurassic World: Dominion
News Drama Cringe 2 3 4
186
23K
Cyberpunkd replied
Jurassic World started life as a sequel to flawed Jurassic Park game Trespasser
Opinion Game Dev
4
1K
Rambone replied
Top Bottom