Film Review - Jurassic World

I never expected another Jurassic Park movie to get made, seeing as how it's been over a decade since the last one. Honestly, I was happy to let the series rest in peace when I heard that the next movie could contain gun-toting velociraptors. Despite this, I still had no reservations about seeing the movie when it came out. I regretted not seeing the original for its re-release and I wanted to see at least one Jurassic Park movie on the big screen in my lifetime.

What I finally saw was something that, while different in some ways from its predecessors, was ultimately very similar; it's a fun movie and in some ways even an interesting one, but it's still hampered by lapses of logic that I felt almost insulted to be asked to accept. Business as usual, then. I will never say that this movie (or any movie) requires you to “turn your brain off” to enjoy it, because why pay to put yourself in a coma? There are interesting things here beyond the dinosaur action, and even if you find nothing good to say about it, at least it will make you appreciate better movies.

Jurassic World takes place twenty years after the first incident on Isla Nublar, where John Hammond's dream has become a global reality (the movie takes place in a divergent continuity where “Site B” doesn't exist). The general public have, however, become bored with dinosaurs and the park is forced to come up with new, exciting attractions. (Judging from the size of the crowds, I'd say the park is doing just fine, but hey, those InGen executives have to eat as well). The park has started creating new dinosaurs, including an Indominus rex which they hope will scare both kids and parents alike. Unsurprisingly, the super-duper smart predator escapes its enclosure and goes on a rampage through the park. Now Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas Howard), a senior member of staff, and an animal trainer named Owen Grady (Chris Pratt) have to track the creature down.

I'd say the best thing about this movie were the performances. Pratt and Howard made for an engaging lead duo and I liked watching their opposing personalities clash. I wasn't sold on the romance though, as I felt it was forced and not needed. The two worked fine when they were just playing off each other on how the park should be run, or how the Indominus should be tracked. I thought the two boys were a bit annoying at the start, as at this stage they were just cliches: the moody teenager and the wide-eyed youngster. I did like watching them try to survive the forest, though. Ultimately, they were alright. Aside from the two leads, Vincent D'Onofrio was a highlight as Hoskins, the opportunistic security chief. It was nothing we hadn't seen before, but he was still fun to watch in a hammy Nedry-ish sort of way.

While the performances were great overall, the characterisation was quite a letdown. Most of the character arcs felt unoriginal or else were recycled from the past films: a divorce backstory; an adult who can't relate to kids; a villain who wants to exploit the dinosaurs and suffers a grisly fate. I was disappointed that after over ten years of development, the movie would still trot out the same storylines and expect us to be satisfied.

One thing that did feel fresh though was Owen training the velociraptors. This was something I loved watching as it felt new and expanded on the first movie without feeling like a gimmick. We've known from the start that the raptors have been intelligent and here we see they're even intelligent enough to be trained and form relationships with the humans. The fact they even gave them names made them seem more like characters in their own right instead of monsters. I found this a much better attempt to humanise the raptors than Jurassic Park III.

That's not to say it was perfect though. The twist where the raptors join the Indominus was a huge misstep in my opinion. It just didn't make sense. I know they're both are intelligent, but since when do predators form alliances, especially when they're of different species? To me, it felt like the movie was afraid to go too long without the raptors trying to kill people. This was a shame because I felt this went against the movie's attempts to give the raptors more depth, and instead fell back on the old stereotype of them as cold-blooded killers.

In a similar vein was the scene where the pterosaurs attack the tourists. It was a well-shot scene and I was glad to see the movie take advantage of its huge cast, but it still made no sense. Unlike the Indominus, which was meant to be psychotic, I can't see the reason why these relatively small creatures would attack prey that was much bigger than them. At least in JPIII, the Pteranodon were big enough to take on people and were trying to feed their young. This movie doesn't give any explanation for the pterosaurs to attack a crowd of people other than to have an action scene.

Back to the raptors, things get even more confusing when they turn against the Indominus in the climax, again with little to no reasoning. If they were willing to fight to protect Owen, why did they betray him in the first place? And as for the T-Rex ... I'm sorry, but that “meaningful look” between Blue and the T-rex just felt like fanwank to me. Once again, predators don't form alliances. The previous attempts to humanise the raptors worked because they felt organic; this was the scriptwriters getting too enthusiastic playing with their action figures.

The Indominus was ok but nothing revolutionary. It was everything you'd expect from a huge predatory dinosaur, but in the best possible way. The tension and action was well-executed whenever it was onscreen. I liked how they gave it a personality as the Indominus tries to figure out its place in the world, bringing up the damaging effect captivity can have on animals.

This leads me to the Frankenstein theme where, once again, the movie lectures on humanity's arrogance when it comes to nature. I liked that it tied back with Michael Crichton's novel, where the dinosaurs' DNA was also tampered with to make them more sensational. They even brought back Dr Wu (B.D. Wong), except here he's defending the practice instead of criticising it. To see a neutral supporting character from the first movie go all mad scientist was ... interesting. I admit, his confrontation with the park's owner, Simon Masrani (Irrfan Khan) works because of Wu's connection with the first film. I can see Dr Wu developing a god complex when he's been playing God for twenty years. The scene just wouldn't have had the same potency if it was some completely new character. That said, this is still a stark contrast with Wu's character from the first film, and I feel like a little explanation from the script would have made that bit more believable. I certainly would want to know why Wu thought it was a good idea to create a giant super-raptor when he already knows what normal raptors are capable of.

And Wu's not the only person who's weirdly written here. Masrani is probably the worst-served by this script's characterisation. He's a walking contradiction. He gives his scientists free reign to create frightening new attractions, then acts horrified by what inevitably happens. He claims the park is meant to remind us of how small we really are, even though using genetic technology for the sake of the theme park says the exact opposite. He's a weird blend of the book and film versions of John Hammond. We're meant to see him as a kind philanthropist, but he's also happy to tinker with creation to boost sales.

This ultimately hurts the film's message about humanity's arrogance, because the very person who claims to abbhor those practices embodies them at the same time. A story can't seriously convey a message when its characters keep contradicting themselves. Like with the raptors, I give the film props for ambition, but the attempt still comes across as clumsy.

So that's Jurassic World for you. I wasn't expecting the movie to be perfect (none of them are), but this series means so much to me that there was no way I could not go see it, which I'm sure is the case for many people. For action and themes, it's a mixed bag. The performances are pretty strong though. See it if you're a completist, but otherwise you aren't missing that much.