Premise: 22 years after the original Jurassic Park failed, the new park (also known as Jurassic World) is open for business. After years of studying genetics the scientists on the park genetically engineer a new breed of dinosaur. When everything goes horribly wrong, will our heroes make it off the island?
I’m not sure I’d have the most positive things to say about this film other than the fact that the graphics are sublime! The new and old dinosaurs are exceptional.
I’ve recently become part of an advocate for film & literature at my local school (I’m a secondary school teacher) and have subsequently joined a monthly film club. I must admit that I was hesitant and somewhat skeptical to watch this film surrounded by a group of students. It did, however, make the watch more enjoyable — mostly because the eye-rolling predictability was somewhat lost on them. (“I know why they wouldn’t tell us what it’s made of…”)
On its release I was certainly worried that the film was so popular; the reason being is that I think it is a very misogynistic film. 5/6 of the directors and writers were male and I would like to add a note that the person credited with the character writing (Michael Crichton) is also male. I have no qualms with a male-heavy crew, that has never been the issue. I’m bothered purely by the lack of a decent female role-model in this film.
The lead, Claire, was utterly ridiculous of the most part of the film; she was complaining about running in heels and a business suit… she cheesily rolled up her sleeves, pathetically tied something around her waist and did this whole “ready for action” thing – only to be a running and screaming powerless woman in need of rescue by her big hunky boyfriend. Also, both children were male, why? Why did the main three characters who actually managed to contribute to the plot and the solution have to be male? I really do think I would have felt less insulted by the film if they’d successfully included a woman within the plot. (Don’t even get me started on the woman who was supposed to be looking after the children – Karen, was it? Eugh!)
Initial opinions from the students (and I’m paraphrasing); it’s a good stand alone film but didn’t have the same feel as the original. They felt that this was mostly due to the fact that the original was filmed mostly at night with a lot of rain but this one was fundamentally more colourful. Think they’re trying to hard – they had to create a make believe dinosaur in order to adhere to blockbuster expectations and people becoming accustomed to the drama in current films. The SFX were amazing but the amount of the blood was a bit unnecessary. Perhaps these films are just made for slightly younger audiences? But then my argument would be don’t pick a classic film where an older generation that saw the original would want to enjoy it.
Edit: Someone added that they might’ve made this film for the original fans to watch with their children.
I do have an additional thing that I should be thankful for – the ‘easter eggs’ and throwbacks to the original! I enjoyed that because it wasn’t all done in a cheesy terrible manner. Some of the nods to the classic were subtle and tasteful – I loved them. Overall, I wish that I’d not been able to predict everything.
By the way, I’m not naïve enough, to realise that the film wasn’t taking itself seriously.– but it didn’t stop it being irritatingly formulaic.
I love blue!