Movie Review: Jurassic World

by Steve Lancaster9/19/18
This is the fifth in the dinosaur rebirth series, and by far the worst. The first movie, Jurassic Park (1993), had a plausible story line and wonderful CG dinosaurs. Even the second movie, Lost World (1997) in the series had some redeeming plot twists and again the CG Dinosaurs were the real stars.

Jurassic World, however, is as terrible as Plan 9 from Outer Space. I resisted my grandchildren’s pleading and the resulting over $50 cost to see this POS in the theaters. Even the $4.00 charge on Amazon was excessive.

The movie begins with a volcano is about to destroy the island of the dinosaurs. For reasons passing understanding, to anyone other than a dedicated PETA/leftist, a rescue effort is mounted, justified mostly because kids love dinosaurs.

The stars from the last movie return in this POS. Chris Pratt as the raptor trainer Owen Grady and Bryce Dallas Howard as the whiney redhead, (Claire Dearing). Owen is persuaded to join an expedition to save his “pet” velociraptor blue. Needless to say, the island blows up. We are supposed to suspend belief that the stars can outrun a pyroclastic flow and manage to save themselves by jumping into the ocean as the lava flows into it. Gas and temperature should have destroyed any organic matter in its way, (ask the former residents of Pompeii about that) but somehow our intrepid adventurers make it.  Some of the dinosaurs are saved and the viewer is treated to what is meant to be a heart tugging image of a brontosaurs on the dock watching the ship pull away as lava engulfs it.

The movie is a sad parody of the previous movies and the only character with any common sense is Jeff Goldblum, (Dr. Ian Malcom), who in the opening minutes predicts this is not going to turn out well. At least Jeff had the good sense to take the money for what amounts to about five minutes of screen time and run for the hills.

The plausible, but not possible, science from Jurassic Park, has become so perverted that it is laughable. From cloning dinosaurs, to creating dinosaurs, to cloning humans, this movie is a laugh filled burlesque of bad lines, bad acting, and impossible writing. All of the money for production must have been spent on CG, which I admit is very good.

Sit down with a six pack and giggle waiting for the next mad, mad, mad goof. • (85 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Movie Reviews. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Movie Review: Jurassic World

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Steve, I had read elsewhere that this movie is a complete turkey. Too bad. Thanks for the warning.

    • Steve Lancaster says:

      On second thought, its worse than anything I could write.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        One reason I enjoy old movies is that when they are bad they are a different kind of stupid. I may be right or I may be wrong. But my rationale is that when old movies are stupid, they didn’t think they weren’t being that way. These movies (by no means all of them) were cranked out like you would chocolate-covered-candies on a Lucy-and-Ethel production line. The old Westerns (including many with John Wayne) were cranked out like making sausages, mixed metaphor fillings and all. They were on a budget.

        But movies such as Jurassic World are serious efforts. There are bazillions of dollars invested in these things. According to IMDB, the estimated budget for Jurassic World was $170,000,000. With that money, think how many oppresssed white South Africans you could give a first class ticket to get out of that country.

        So when you get these truly juvenile efforts made by a consortium of hacks with unlimited budgets, this isn’t a case of not having the time and resources to do a good job. This comes down to simple bad taste.

        Okay, one can make cynical allowances for the fact that many of these truly horrible movies (almost all comic book movies fit into this category) make zillions of dollars. Maybe someone is not so stupid. But whatever the shortcomings of the first Jurassic movie (and Spielberg’s horrendously corny dialogue was all I could take at times), it was a pretty good film. It costs no more to make a good picture that appeals to two gazillion people than a crappy one that appeals to just a gazillion.

        So at the end of the day, I’m not insulted by bad old movies, such as the one I recently watched, The Seventh Veil. They were either trying something different and missed or were just kachunking them out faster than Lucy and Ethel could wrap them. But the only excuse for Jurassic World is akin to the deranged fellow who once took twelve hammer blows to Michelangelo’s Pieta. It’s willful destruction of an art form.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          One must remember that back before TV and videotapes, the makers of movies didn’t expect people to see them often, so errors and stupidity were less likely to be noticed.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            I think Steve and I (and many of you others) could sit and watch this type of movie and have a good laugh. The premise of a rescue effort to help dinosaurs (now also classified as victims and as objects useful for virtue-signaling) is hilarious. It sounds as if there’s a lot more wrong with this film than a stupid premise. I know that type. The previous (4th) film really sucked as well.

            I can abide by an artistic effort that just doesn’t click. Goodness knows, the obstacles to transferring a terrific script to actual film are daunting. There are all kinds of hands that can, and do, get involved that can ruin things (or make them better on occasion). My basic premise is this: The general taste of today’s yutes is far degraded compared to those who made movies of old — who were often the worst reprobates themselves, at least morally.

            Cite me as narrow-minded. I shan’t protest. But anyone who thinks all those horrendous comic-bookish tattoos, as well as the New Guinea-style rings in the ears, is “stylish” has no business making movies. Or, that is to say, they will market their bad taste to others with bad taste and maybe make a buck while the rest of us wonder how people can be so lame and vulgar.

            • Steve Lancaster says:

              It is also the willing suspension of disbelief. We are supposed to accept genetic science, including cloning of extinct species, and as a sidebar human cloning. All of which are unproven, unethical and unlikely under the best set of circumstances.

              In the first movie Dr. Malcolm says, “just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should”. That quote should have been embedded on every script as a warning to the producer.

              The biggest laugher, IMHO, is humans and dinosaurs out running a pyroclastic flow. Max human speed 3-4 MPH, Dinos perhaps 25-35 MPH, vs pyroclastic flow 300-700 MPH.

              Its bad feel good science that doesn’t work in any form, just like global warming.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Malcolm’s quote is needed in more places than just Jurassic Fart (oops, that was my parody of it) movies. At one point in Colossus, Dr. Markham notes that her mother considered scientists to be Dr. Frankenstein. In the end, after Colossus/ Guardian has taken over world control, they conclude that Frankenstein should be required reading for scientists.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                Steve, I liked the first movie. (The book was even better.) But the most obnoxious quote in it is from Malcolm when he says “life found a way” in regards to the fact that some dinosaurs had reproduced despite all clones being female. But — magically — just as some frogs (or whatever animal they were talking about) can change its sex, so too did dinosaurs come up with the same solution. “They found a way.”

                Okay….suspension of disbelief was not tragically wounded by that idea. We still have no idea how life came to be in the first place as well as it taking all the forms it does. People say they think they know. But they don’t. And “life finding a way” makes about as much sense as to say regarding the Brooklyn Bridge that “the two sides of the river found a way.” No. Somebody specifically built and planned the bridge. It didn’t just happen.

                That other quote by Malcolm that you mentioned is a really good one and I love that one. “Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.”

                I’m shocked, shocked to find out that humans and dinosaurs can’t run faster than 300 mph. Another pet peeve of mine is the truly idiotic scenes in the Star Wars prequels (the third one) where Obi-Wan And Mannequin are battling over the lava. In real life, I don’t know that you can come as close as even 300 feet to a full open pit of lava without protection. But movies treat lava as completely safe as long as you don’t step in it.

                Remember….this is from the same group of leftist libtards who tell us (as the idiot Harrison Ford does) that we are a culture that needs to adhere to science. Well….like the pseudo-science of global warming, Harrison? That idiot really believes in that. As for his support for not cutting down the rainforest, I’m fine with that. Maybe he and his rich Hollywood buddies could shoot more movies down there so that the people who are trying to scratch out a living could leave the trees alone.

                With movies, a little bad science isn’t necessarily fatal. But, good god, I still remember that awful scene from the maximumally over-rated movie, “Gravity,” wherein someone is at the end of a tether in space and for some damn reason it’s then end for them because they’re going to fly off in another direction or something. Here’s a recap of that moment by someone else:

                Bullock is holding onto Clooney, they’re both stationary and have the same angular momentum. But he inexplicably tells her that she has to let go or they’ll both die, at which point he gains momentum from some invisible force and is thrown into space. Even if they weren’t stationary, why didn’t she just pull him towards her? He would have just drifted past, and then could’ve grabbed hold of the rope.

                As he said: “Clooney didn’t need to die (although we’re glad he did)”.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Well, the argument in both the book and movie Jurassic Park is that there are frogs than under extreme circumstances can change sexes. This may be true; I’m afraid that never came up in biology even though we did dissect a frog. It applied to some of the dinosaurs (actually, pterosaurs aren’t considered dinosaurs, technically, but then most of the dinosaurs are Cretaceous anyway) because frog DNA was sometimes used to fill in gaps in the DNA from fossilized flies in amber.

                Remember that in the very first Star Wars movie, Han Solo points out that the Millennium Falcon made the Kessel run in only 12 (I think) parsecs. A parsec is 3.26 light years. It thus is a unit of distance, and if used to measure time would be 3.26 years. I wonder how old Han Solo and Chewbacca officially were.

  2. Timothy Lane says:

    So is this basically Plan 9 From Outer Place or Ice Pirates? Not that it matters to me, since I only saw the original movie. Despite its good qualities, I’ve never seen any reason to see the later ones.

  3. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    I saw the first Jurassic Park movie and even remember much of it. I think I saw the 2nd and perhaps third installments and can recall nothing of them. Perhaps that is a comment on my aging memory as well as the quality of the latter two films.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I definitely remember the original movie. The first scene I ever saw, after it got a Hugo nomination, was the one in which the paleontologists first saw the sauropod — and at that point I knew I wanted to see it.

  4. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Talk about bad Sci Fi. When the FBI first cleared the observatory in question, the nuts of the intergalactic net were wondering why the Feds weren’t telling us about the aliens which they knew about.

    It turns out the reason for the evacuation was much more down-to-earth. But mommy, I thought all scientists were wonderful people searching for truth and the meaning of life.

    https://www.ktsm.com/news/local/el-paso-news/child-pornography-reason-behind-sunspot-observatory-closure-according-to-court-documents/1460386237

  5. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Well, the argument in both the book and movie Jurassic Park is that there are frogs than under extreme circumstances can change sexes. This may be true; I’m afraid that never came up in biology even though we did dissect a frog.

    That’s all well and good, Timothy. This is true of some fish species as well. But can they change sexes because “they find a way” or it it programmed into them? How did they get a sex at all to begin with? For all the willful thinking of Bruce Jenner, he won’t turn into a girl….even if he has his dick lopped off one of these days.

    Yeah, I remember they said they included some frog DNA. But it’s a bit of a stretch you could splice that in. Still, we do splice traits from one species of plant to another and things like that. But an entire sex change? And, remember, it’s one thing to borrow programming from another species. It’s quite another to say “life found a way.”

    Again, aside from the remarkable fungibility attainable by micro-evolution (which, I clearly argue, is simply making use of the already-built-in system that specifically allows for this), we don’t know how any of the life we see around us came to be. No dinosaur ever willed itself to lay eggs instead of live young. No hummingbird every gained the power of flight via flights of its own imagination.

    But this kind of voodoo magic is truly what Darwinists believe. Given enough time, the Brooklyn Bridge would, of course, build itself across the East River.

    What we do know for sure is that even our limited understanding of life at the moment shows a machine with far more complexity than any operating system built by man. It is not reasonable to assume as the default position that small chance changes over time can build anything this complex….or anything complex at all.

    Regarding Han and the Kessel Run, this site says:

    The Kessel Run was one of the most heavily used smuggling routes in the Galactic Empire.[4] Han Solo claimed that his Millennium Falcon “made the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs”. A parsec is a unit of distance, not time. Solo was not referring directly to his ship’s speed when he made this claim. Instead, he was referring to the shorter route he was able to travel by skirting the nearby Maw black hole cluster, thus making the run in under the standard distance. By moving closer to the black holes, Solo managed to cut the distance down to about 11.5 parsecs.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Well, that’s all well and good for those who read wookiepedia, which I never heard of before now, or wait on everything George Lucas says. Friends who’ve watched more closely than I did say that Obi-Wan has a disgusted look on his face. This would reflect the fact that Solo didn’t know what he was talking about. But it seems that this was intended to mock Solo’s braggadocio, not a blunder by Ford or Lucas.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        This would reflect the fact that Solo didn’t know what he was talking about.

        That’s a very good point. Obi-Wan knew a bullshitter when he saw one. Whether Wookiepedia is rationalizing and fixing a blunder or not, we can make an assumption that Solo at least knew some fast methods through that smuggling corridor. Whether this was because the Millennium Falcon was a uniquely fast ship for its size — or because he steered close to black holes for shortcuts — I don’t know. But he was a smuggler and did have skills.

        Back before Lucas’ grandchildren determined the direction of Star Wars and Han could still shoot first, he wasn’t a scoundrel in the soft sense. He was living the life of a smuggler in a dangerous galaxy, and one dominated by the Empire. Killing was obviously routine. Lying would have been as well.

        But to his credit, he did get them to Alderaan…or what was left of it. He also piloted through an asteroid field. “Never tell me the odds.” People of goodwill can disagree about whether his skills were a product of a latent degree of Force in him. I think he must have had a little although I don’t think there is any official word on that. 12 Scenes That Prove Han Solo Could Use the Force

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Interesting. Solo was certainly very capable, even if he had a poor grasp of science — probably not much book-learning. He is one of the heroes, after all, not one of the bad guys.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            Han certainly started as a bad guy. But he changed.

            Solo: Rogue who joined in on a worthy cause and found out that there were more important things than always looking out for #1

            Luke: Yute who was washed onto an imposing shore by a gigantic wave of destiny…and passed the test.

            Leia: Went from a ball-buster to a rogue-lover.

            Yoda: Still clueless and giving bad advice even after all his years as a master. Couldn’t tell when the #1 Dark Lord of the Sith was standing right next to him but feels justified telling everyone else that they’re not ready to use their full Jedi powers

            Anakin: Learned that as long as you have a deathbed conversion, who cares that you help wipe out entire peaceful planets?

            Chewie: We’re lucky we don’t speak his language because he must have been saying some choice words as he witnessed all that was occurring.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              That point about Anakin is certainly a popular one. After all he’s done, choosing his son over his chosen emperor gets him apotheosized.

              And while we’re at it, shouldn’t Obi-Wan and Yoda have done something to prepare Luke for the shock he got from Anakin/Darth Vader? They quite possibly cost him his hand.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                They seemed to be making up a lot of that Force stuff as they went along. It would probably have been tough to write a manual on Dark Force self-defense.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *