Get ready for a Pratty Nostalgia Ride in “Jurassic World” (Review)
To an entire generation of people the word Jurassic carries so much more than a scientific connotation. Instead it is associated with a since of ah and wonder that Steven Spielberg brought to so many audiences twenty plus years ago when he allowed the public to enter Jurassic Park. To a majority of early 30 somethings and people in their 20’s the Jurassic Park franchise is synonymous with their childhood’s, whether it be through the first fear they ever felt in a movie theater via the T-Rex or Velociraptor, or opening up those same Dinosaurs under our Christmas trees. Therefore the job of Director Colin Trevorrow was the sacred mission of carrying on that legacy of magic laced terror that so many of us grew up with, so does Jurassic World live up to that legacy?
In the sense of providing audiences with an original new adventure on the level of the 1993 film the answer is probably not, however Trevorrow does succeed in giving audiences an action packed nostalgia ride. While Jurassic World is not ground breaking it hits all the beats of a quintessential Spielbergian summer blockbuster. And in someways the film does improve on the original, by providing maybe the most heart felt and terrifying scenes in all of the franchise, as well as it’s biggest and baddest Dino of all the Idominus Rex.
One way this film is elevated is through the star vehicle it ends up becoming for Chirs Pratt. While originally it was an honor for Pratt to headline a Jurassic film, this film will be remembered as the one where Pratt solidified himself as an A-list star. Pratt is now just as much of bad ass as he is a comedic talent, as proven by his memorable performance as Owen Grady! Not only did Pratt elevate the film as a whole, he found chemistry with everyone he was on the screen with from Bryce Dallas Howard to the Velociraptors.
Ultimately Jurassic World is a very meta analogy of itself. While the new Jurassic World theme park may be bigger and shinier than the original, and lives up to founder John Hammond’s motto of sparing no expense, there is just something missing. Which is very reflective of the film, while it may be a great film in and of itself, it never truly transcends itself above the original.
Be sure to let us know what you thought of Jurassic World in the comments below!
2 comments
Leave a reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
What do you think this movie is missing? I don’t mean that sarcastically; I really am curious as I feel like there was something missing, too, but I can quite put a finger on it. I definitely enjoyed this film (I’d probably rate it about the same as you) and enjoyed it more than the previous two sequels, but there’s something missing from this movie that the first film had and I want to say it’s more than just nostalgia. While the original Jurassic Park had a small cast, everyone felt significant and thus every instance of death and danger felt like there was significant risk. This film had many characters but only a small handful felt significant. Too many characters just felt…disposable. To me, almost every character in the film felt like they could have been the main character. They also really used vivid color’s in both the character outfits and the vehicles to separate the people and the park from the natural environment surrounding them. I think that not only made each character stand out more but it really created a dichotomy highlighting the film’s theme of humanity versus nature (the presence of the storm also added a lot of tension, there.)
it’s tough to look back on a great movie and discuss what made it great, particularly one I have so much nostalgia for, but Jurassic Park just felt more significant. Every character, no matter how small, had somewhat of a character arc. I’m not sure I felt that way about most of the characters in Jurassic World. Jurassic Park was also filled with startlingly quiet, intimate moments that were masterfully preserved onto celluloid by Spielberg (Hammond’s speech about the Flea Circus comes to mind) which really allowed for more character development. I will say that the scene in Jurassic World where Pratt and Howard encounter a wounded animal really does work, though; maybe the film just needed more scenes similar to that?
I’m glad your review alludes to the meta nature of this film, though. I think it’s a key point of understanding and enjoying it. The film is absolutely an allegory for the nature of entertainment in general: We always have to go bigger and better! We can’t just enjoy or appreciate things just for what they are but have to constantly “evolve” them. A dinosaur theme park isn’t enough, anymore; we have to have newer, better dinosaurs and a Starbucks coffee in hand in order to enjoy them.
This was a thrillride of a film despite being flawed! Too me the Dino’s felt more important than the Characters or there arcs, and you could argue the only characters that even had an arc were the two brothers. Besides that the rest just seemed to meet a trope such as Bryce Dallas Howard as a Bean Counter, Jake Johnson as Comedic relief, or even Pratt as the prototypical action star. Now this does not mean these characters were not fun to watch on screen, they just did not seem as meaningful or impactful as those of the first film, they also lacked the chemistry of the original Jurassic Park Cast.