Any movie fan worth his weight has certainly seen Steven Spielberg's groundbreaking dinosaur movie Jurassic Park. You may have seen it on the big screen when it was released in 1993, or a few years ago when it was re-released in 3D, or on video or television. Even if you haven't seen you're probably familiar with it.
The story concerned a rich old coot who bought and island in the middle of the Pacific, set up a lab facility and began engineering dinosaurs from preserved DNA in the hopes of one day opening the island as a theme park for dino-crazy tourists. Except, it was the dinosaurs that were crazy and dangerous because the cloning process also included the DNA from other species to fill in the blanks. Many people die and the hope to bring visitors to the island seems to die as well. Two sequels followed, but they are inconsequential to the new film Jurassic World.
It's twenty-two years later and the late John Hammond's dream did indeed come true as the island is now home to the Jurassic World theme park with a Main Street promenade (complete with Starbucks, Margaritaville and other major retailers) and thousands of visitors enjoying relaxing trips down a primordial river surrounded by docile, plant-eating dinosaurs, and exciting tours among larger and faster creatures in gyroscopic orbs.
Of course, dinosaurs are still being manufactured (courtesy of Dr. Henry Wu from the first movie) and designed from scratch to be bigger and scarier, something to give even the adults nightmares. The island's newest creation is called the Indominus rex, smaller than a T rex but much more frightening because it's smarter and can camouflage itself visually and from heat detecting sensors (courtesy of the designer DNA). It also hunts for sport. What could possibly go wrong? If you've seen Jurassic Park, you'll have a pretty good idea.
It seems that everyone who has seen Jurassic World so far, and with earning almost a billion dollars worldwide in two weeks time, many have, is proclaiming this one of the greatest summer action movies ever made. Except it isn't. It's fun and entertaining and the CGI dinosaurs are as realistic looking as ever, but I've already seen this movie. In 1993! The story is virtually the same right down to the two brothers (replacing the brother and sister from the original) sent to the island to hang out with their aunt (replacing the grandfather) while their parents are going through a divorce. The brothers even get trapped in a gyro orb, coming face to face with the I rex in a scene that apes the Jeep scene of the original with the siblings and the T rex.
We have a new character in Chris Pratt's Owen, but he seems to be a bit of Sam Neill and Jeff Goldblum rolled into one as he comments that building dinosaurs and keeping them in captivity is not a good idea. The one new twist to the story is Owen's ability to train the original film's stealth killing machines, the Raptors. He is their Alpha, and he can actually take them on a hunt as if they were a pack of bloodhounds. The only problem is they're just as intelligent as the I rex, so together they could spell real trouble. Pratt, however, demonstrates that his on-screen charm and charisma was no fluke in Guardians of the Galaxy.
While, to me, Jurassic World is a tad too derivative of the original, there are some bits and pieces here and there that are interesting and disturbing. The massive aquarium housing an aquatic beastie was pretty cool, and the little nod to Spielberg as it munches on a Great White was amusing. Not so amusing, however, was the film's one needlessly horrific death of a peripheral character that makes one wonder exactly what that character did to deserve such an awful demise. It really puts a pall over the film because it's so out of place.
There's also been a lot of yammering about the sexism on display in the way the film treats Bryce Dallas Howard's character Claire, the aunt who is in charge of keeping Jurassic World financially viable. It started with a tweet from filmmaker Joss Whedon (who, himself had been accused of sexism after the way Black Widow was handled in Avengers: Age of Ultron) who questioned why Claire had to be the damsel in distress. He only saw one scene out of context, and then apologized, but the issue has remained and it's a silly one. People complain about how she dressed while running through the jungle. Umm, she was working when all hell broke loose, so she would naturally be dressed business professional and wearing heels. It's as simple as that. She really didn't have time to change while being chased around the island by things that want to eat her. Claire is actually a strong female character with a high position within the company, and the skills plus a good head on her shoulders to get herself and her nephews out of danger. And she basically saves Owen and the kids (again) in the film's last act. Take that as you will.
When Jurassic Park came out, people were awed by the amazing computer generated effects combined with actual mechanical creatures that were on the screen because we had never seen anything like that before. The wow factor, at this point, is not there because we can see pretty much anything any special effects artist can imagine these days, so a few CGI dinosaurs are no big deal. The effects are still nothing to sneeze at and are quite realistic, so the film certainly succeeds in that department. I just wish someone had spent a little more time developing a new story that didn't feel like it needed to rely on the original so much. If you just want a big, summer popcorn movie, however, Jurassic World is worth the trip, even if it does give you a sense of deja vu.
