Becoming What You Criticize: Jurassic World (2015)

Image Copyright 2015, Universal

[Spoilers Ahead!]

     When it first came out, Jurassic World was much discussed. As of when I write this, it’s been more than seven months since the film’s initial release, and no one seems to be talking much about it anymore. It’s a situation that rather neatly encapsulates how forgettable this movie really is.

     If the previous two sequels had shown us anything, it was that there was never truly a need for any sequel to the original Jurassic Park. True, they both had much to offer on a technical level. But in terms of screenwriting quality, the second movie was downright ludicrous, while the third was rather below average. As a consequence, neither was able to truly merit the moniker of “good film”.

    Even so, both films managed to be entertaining in their own right, if not always in the ways they were intended to be. The contrast between the high quality production values and the nonsensical, hilariously pretentious screenplay gave The Lost World: Jurassic Park a sort of cornball charm that brought the effort into “so-bad-its-good” territory. Jurassic Park III lacked some of the late 90s cheese factor of its predecessor, but it did compensate with the return of Alan Grant and a welcome awareness of the fact that it had no justifiable reason to exist outside of showcasing dinosaurs chasing people and occasionally eating them. Provided you were able to switch your brain off, they did at least make for enjoyable nonsense.

     Would that I could say the same for Jurassic World. When it was first announced, I knew that for the film to succeed at all, it needed to demonstrate the same self-awareness about its own lack of purpose that the third film had possessed, or else be as ludicrously entertaining as the second. Instead, to my great disappointment, the end result was a film that tries earnestly to be genuinely good, only to run up against a brick wall when it realizes that it has precious little new to bring to the table. While technically more consistent than either of the previous sequels, Jurassic World is also more forgettable than either of them.

      To be fair, this fourth installment does offer what on paper is the most dramatically and thematically interesting plot of any of the sequels. What if, using the technology advancements since the early 90s setting of the original film, a successful dinosaur park that manages to stay open long enough for people to become jaded and bored of living dinosaurs? To what lengths would the owners of the park go to regain the public’s attention? Now admittedly,  the idea that anyone would front the money to give such a project another go after the ending of the second film is a tough pill to swallow- still more the idea that much of the public would become bored by the finished result after less than a decade. But assuming one is willing to go with the premise, it does offer plenty of possibilities. Alas that, after a semi-promising opener, the screenplay largely squanders them for what amounts to a dull, inferior retread of the original film. Once again, something goes terrible wrong as a result of a corporate espionage plot and the worst happens. Once again, the park is shut down, presumably never to be reopened. Once again, there are two kids that need to be saved amidst the chaos. Etc., etc., etc. The movie is stuffed with structural and callbacks to the original, yet it’s barely able to summon even a tenth of Jurassic Park’s soul. [One character’s in-universe belief that “the first park was legit” only serves to bring this issue further into the open.]

     Perhaps the most egregious example of Jurassic World’s lack of imagination is its main antagonist, the ferocious Indominus Rex. The park’s new bid to regain the public eye, the Indominus is a genetic hybrid of multiple species- and not just dinosaurs. For a creature that could have looked like virtually anything, it’s bitterly disappointing to see that the filmmakers have opted for what amounts to nothing more than a really big raptor with a bland color scheme. When the beast itself is dispatched near the end, my relief stemmed not so much from the fact that the day had been saved as from the fact that it had met its demise at the teeth and claws of two infinitely more interesting creatures- and that we consequently no longer had to put up with it being on screen. As a creature, the Indominus is annoyingly dull, which is all the more frustrating since it dominates much of the movie.

    Among the few scenes in the movie that stand out is a sequence where Jurassic World’s chief geneticist explains to its owner that “bigger, faster, more teeth” is what the public wants, going on to elaborate upon the cynical, corporate mentality he knowingly embodies. In context, it’s meant as thoughtful thematic commentary. Yet on a meta-level, the scene plays rather like a cynical commentary on the movie itself. The mentality that Jurassic World ostensibly criticizes is, in fact, the mentality that dominates much of the movie. The callbacks to the original film ring hollow, like cynical attempts to cash in on nostalgia. The dinosaurs are that much less wondrous for being rendered primarily in obvious CGI, as opposed to with extensive animatronic and puppetry work augmented by computer effects like with the previous three films. And the action scenes are -barring the final fight and one or two odd moments- less entertaining than the vast majority of what has come before. Even the film’s approach to science seems cynically unenthusiastic. The previous installments may have dealt with the misuse of science, but they each offered positively portrayed scientist characters as a thematic counterbalance. No such luck here.

     All of this might have been at least semi-forgivable had the characters been memorable and/or likable enough for us to invest in. But they generally aren’t. There’s no Alan Grant, Ian Malcolm, or Ellie Sattler for us to latch onto and root for as the circumstances turn nightmarish. Instead, we’re stuck with Chris Pratt, who basically just plays a phoned-in version of himself in a script that can’t be bothered to give him anything compelling to do or say. If he was any less bored playing his character than I was watching him here, I couldn’t tell. Of the rest of the performers, only Irfan Khan manages to rise above the fog of tedium, providing a portrait of a flawed but likable man in his portrayal of park owner Simon Masrani. It’s a pity, then, that the movie underutilizes him, and then kills him off at the midway point. Once he’s gone, the last character of genuine interest is gone as well.

     An unfortunate consequence of the film’s lack of any great interest in humanity is that the action scenes feel far more nasty and callous than they ought to. Gone are the majority of the little humanizing touches that the deaths of even the extras at least vaguely affecting. For all that they served up people as dino chow for our entertainment, the previous three movies did have a noticeable thematic undercurrent that valued human life in the abstract- something that served to counterbalance things lest we feel too guilty at enjoying such carnage in popcorn entertainment. Jurassic World pays brief lip service to such a notion, but largely disregards it in execution for sequences of carnage that are more gruesome [in terms of the level of violent detail shown directly] than any the franchise has given us before, in the laziest possible way. Especially distressing is the graphically prolonged death scene of a barely developed supporting character who -inso far as she receives any characterization whatsoever- doesn’t even really “deserve it”, so to speak. When a movie can’t even get something as basic as dinosaurs eating people right, you know you’re in trouble.

     Only at the very end of the climax, when the might T-Rex makes his reappearance in order to save the day in the most over-the-top way possible, does the movie truly become the sort of “dumb fun” it should have been all along. But while it’s enough to end things on a high note, it’s nonetheless too little too late. In the end, not even the king of the dinosaurs can save Jurassic World from being a hollow, cynical-cash on in our nostalgia for a much better film.

Actual Quality: 5/12

Personal Enjoyment: 2/12

Plausible Idiocy: Jurassic Park III (2001)

[Warning- Spoilers ahead!]

     Joe Johnston’s Jurassic Park III draws almost as much ire as its immediate predecessor, if not more. It’s frequently derided as dumb, derivative, and dull, a forgettable flick with stupid characters who deserve to get eaten, and not even the talents of Steven Spielberg and John Williams to mitigate things. And then there is the minority who backhandedly compliment it by considering it “not as bad as the second”- kind of enjoyable, even. Me, I think there’s some truth in both views.

     For one thing, the film is definitely kind of dumb, with a flimsy plot constructed around what feels like the warmed up leftovers of the first two installments. At least one of the characters is annoying enough that I can see why somebody would want her to get eaten. The plot -a pair of divorcees trying to rescue their son from Isla Sorna after his parasailing venture goes awry- is pretty ridiculous. And the ending is anticlimactic, to say the least.

     With all that being said, Jurassic Park III does have a few things going for it. The biggest is the return of Sam Neil as Alan Grant. To the extent that the movie works outside of the dinosaurs, it’s largely thanks to his wonderful performance. It helps that he seems to be aware of the stupidity of the other characters [though those hoping for the sort of snarky commentary Goldblum brought to the first sequel will be disappointed- Grant isn’t that kind of character]. In fact, he’s so good here that I’d argue he’s enough to justify at least one viewing of the film.   

     Another advantage is the fact that the majority of the characters are not supposed to be professionals who know how to handle the recreated dinosaurs. They’re mainly Average Joes. Because of that, their idiocy is actually somewhat more justifiable than the idiocy of the characters in the second film. Anyone who doesn’t find the Kirbys believable has plainly never heard of the Darwin Awards.

     And finally, Jurassic Park III doesn’t make much of an attempt to justify its own existence with pretentious commentary, the way the second film did. It knows it’s just an excuse for the audience to see dinosaurs running around and chomping on people once again, and plays itself out accordingly. Admittedly, it does kind of undercut itself by killing off all of its expendable characters in the first half [the one character who “dies” in the second half is lamely revealed to still be alive at the end]. But the dinosaurs do look good, if not quite as good as in the first two. And the brisker, ninety minute runtime helps to make it more palatable.

     In the end, I guess which of the first two sequels you’re going to prefer will depend on what you’re looking for. The Lost World: Jurassic Park is the worse of the two, script-wise. But it does have somewhat better production values and more spectacular set-pieces, as well as a better soundtrack, all of which help to make it more memorable. Jurassic Park III is the more forgettable of the two, with a less memorable soundtrack and set-pieces [although the set-pieces it does have are still decent enough], but it’s also technically the better scripted-film [even if “better” still equates to below average]. Me, I enjoy both for different reasons. The second is “so-bad-its-good”, while the third is in my opinion, silly but fun; good for a rainy day. It does no harm by its existence.

Actual Quality: 5/12

Personal Enjoyment: 7/12

A Well-Polished Turd: The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)

     It’s traditional to consider Steven Spielberg’s initial sequel to his Jurassic Park a disappointment, and it’s not hard to see why. The plot is contrived and has some notable T-Rex sized holes. The characters are largely flat and stupid. The spectacle, while good-looking, takes precedence over everything else to the movie’s detriment. And the third act is flat out ridiculous, bringing the franchise firmly into B-Movie territory. All of these are, I must concede, very valid points. That being said, they are also a big part of the reason I really, really like this movie.

     I’m not going to lie; I frequently enjoy movies that are really cheesy and dumb. The Lost World: Jurassic Park is definitely both of those things. The plot, such as it is, involves a team of experts led by Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) racing to document the dinosaurs that have survived on a second island and return their documentation to the ailing John Hammond (Sir Richard Attenborough) so that he can convince somebody or other to turn it into a nature preserve in order to stop his nephew (Arliss Howard), who has taken over his company, from bringing the dinosaurs to the mainland, and…ah, forget it. It’s all very contrived, and relies on nearly every character doing the exact opposite of what common sense would dictate. And none of it truly matters in the end, as the whole thing is basically an excuse for dinosaurs to chow down on humans, thereby providing audiences with what was the highest body count in the series before Jurassic World came out.  

     Thank goodness for Jeff Goldblum’s presence in this movie, because boy, are these characters stupid. His character’s bitterly sarcastic commentary on everything borders on breaking the fourth wall on occasion, and it is delightful. It also makes him the perfect audience surrogate, allowing the nonsense to go down more smoothly. It helps that the dinosaurs still look as great as they did in the first film, and that John Williams’ music is still awesome. The presence of Pete Poslethwaite as a Great White Hunter-esque character trying to hunt a T-Rex seems almost at odds with the otherwise stupid nature of the movie, however, given that his performance is much better than the screenplay deserves. And yet in its own odd way, even the fact that he was taking the movie so seriously adds to the cornball factor; it’s hard to know whether to feel sorry for him having to be in this thing, or delighted at how his presence contrasts with his surroundings. Either way, he’s really memorable here.

     But despite the movie’s technical prowess and a handful of good performances, it’s still technically a dumb movie, which is why I prefer to watch it ironically; it’s much more enjoyable that way.

     There’s at least one thing that even an ironic appreciation for this movie can’t fix, however, and that’s Ian Malcolm’s daughter, Kelly (Vanessa Lee Chester). As a character, she’s annoying, and I just want her to go away every time she’s on screen. So my Personal Enjoyment rating is going to have to take a hit because of her presence. But otherwise, it scores very well there.

Actual Quality: 3/12

Personal Enjoyment: 11/12

A Popcorn Classic: Jurassic Park (1993)

     Much as I enjoy complaining, I thought it best that my first review be about a movie I actually like. Doing so enables me to kick-start this blog on a generally positive note, and doesn’t make it look as though I’m a perpetual downer. My choice is perhaps a safe one, but I’m not going to lie: I really enjoy Steven Spielberg’s Jurassic Park.

     In my header, I call it a “popcorn classic” and its true- after twenty-two years, Spielberg’s adaptation of what is arguably Michael Crichton’s most well-known novel has garnered a hallowed position in the annals of summer blockbusters. Which is not to say that it is completely perfect, mind you. But it does get a lot more right than it does wrong.

     The plot, in case you’ve been living under a rock for the past two decades, is as follows: a wealthy businessman and the scientists he has hired, taking advantage of recent advances in genetics, have managed to achieve the seemingly impossible- the recreation of living, breathing dinosaurs. He has placed these “biological attractions” within a park on a private island off the coast of Costa Rica, and he hopes to be open for business very soon. Unfortunately, a tragic accident has forced him to allow a team of scientists to investigate the safety of the park prior to its opening. And unbeknownst to him, an attempt at corporate espionage is about to threaten the lives of everyone on the island.

     As a piece of science fiction, Jurassic Park has its merits. Its warning against the reckless use of scientific advancement, while perhaps more muted than in the novel, has lost none of its relevancy. And if the mechanics of its premise seem scientifically out-of-date today, they were at least able to sound semi-plausible at the time.

     Nor are the characters as flat or unengaging as is sometimes claimed. Granted, they are all fairly basic. But time has nonetheless been largely kind to the efforts of the cast to breathe life into them. Sam Neil, Laura Dern, and Richard Attenborough are definite highlights. The supporting cast likewise acquits itself fairly well. Jeff Goldblum’s shtick might not be for everyone, but I absolutely love his deadpanning and quirkiness -in short, his “Goldblumness”- in here. Even the child performers do a better job than I would have expected [Spielberg, from what I’ve seen of his work, can be hit or miss with his casting choices for children]. Again, none of these characters are especially deep. But they are entertaining and largely likable, and they get the job done. Still more crucially, we’re actually given ample time to spend with them before their lives are placed in jeopardy. In an era of wall-to-wall explosions, Jurassic Park’s sense of pacing in this regard is quite refreshing.

     This brings me to the area in which this movie succeeds the most- as a thrill ride. Jurassic Park might have enjoyable characters and some nice food-for-thought, but its reputation as a classic primarily rests upon its set-pieces and its effects. This is the movie that’s known for ushering in the era of the CGI-laden blockbuster. And yet, it only contains about five minutes of actual computer effects. The majority of what we see is achieved by practical effects- puppets, animatronics, and the like. CGI is only used where absolutely necessary. Furthermore, all of the movie’s effects, both practical and digital, are fully subservient to the screenplay It is for these reasons, more than anything, that Jurassic Park ought to be praised for its effects. I am not anti-CGI, but I’m not always certain that the way it’s used in many contemporary blockbusters is constructive to the creation of good cinema. While the quality of its CGI has long since been surpassed, Spielberg’s dinosaur adventure remains a model for how to implement digital effects into cinema for the reasons I’ve outlined.

     As for the set-pieces, they are wonderful. If there’s one thing this movie is good at, it’s staging action. That and knowing when to showcase action. We remember scenes like the initial appearance of the T-Rex, the attack of the raptors, etc. because they are very well shot and staged. But a key part of their success is their placement in the movie. Most of them don’t occur until after the midway point, and when they finally do, they rely far more on suspense than gore; for all that this movie has a reputation for scaring viewers, there’s actually precious little onscreen violence. Instead, deaths are often obscured by bushes, rain, camera angles, etc. This is because here, Spielberg remembers that what you don’t see if often scarier than what you do see.

     Certainly, not everything in Jurassic Park works. If you’ve seen enough movies, you’ll know exactly who’ll live and who’ll die, which does take away some of the film’s edge; a certain change from the original book which results in fewer characters being present on the island during the inevitable dinosaur breakout doesn’t help matters. The decision to soften the character of John Hammond [the businessman] from his novel counterpart might result in a slightly less stereotypical character, but it does arguably dilute Crichton’s message a little. And there are a couple of threads in the first half of the movie that don’t receive adequate resolution. All that being said, the film remains a triumph of blockbuster filmmaking. If it’s a little rough around the edges, it’s not any less enjoyable for all that.

Actual Quality: 9.5/12

Personal Enjoyment: 11/12