Jurassic World (June 2015)

[HFCS]

Assuming it isn't very good as people are saying, why can't a revival of a sequel ever be any good? Here are a few off the top of my head that were pretty highly anticipated but ended up underwhelming/awful:

Jurassic World
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Chrystal Skull
Dumb and Dumber too
Anchorman 2

If Star Wars: The Force Awakens ends up sucking, I'm done going to revivals altogether.

Star Wars: The Force Awakens will likely have an appropriate amount of disappointment as opposed to the steaming pile that were the prequels. It still won't measure up for many even if they nail it which I actually think they might based on watching Abrams's Star Trek movies again after seeing the SWTFA trailers.

I honestly think any of these action movies are going to seem trivial for 5-10 years with Mad Max: Fury Road out there. It kind of divided the genre into typical action/adventure and a new level of intensity. Star Wars will try to be more than just action likely. Any movie trying to be just action has the bar set INSANELY high now.

 

[madguy30]

JP hasn't ever really been about the acting though. People watch JP movies for the dinosaurs, and for the most part they didn't disappoint. I won't spoil too much, but the hybrid-dino seemed a little too Hollywood for me. Just a lean, mean, technologically advanced killing machine. I like the classic T-Rex and velociraptors much better. I'd even take the Spinosaurus from JP3 over this new creation, but oh well, made the story a bit more compelling.

Nitpicking, but I believe even the original JP put a Hollywood spin on the raptors (or maybe didn't quite get the name right)...I've read where they were much smaller and feathered. The original JP made them out to basically be a reptilian pack of aggressive wolves.

 

[xboxfever]

Nitpicking, but I believe even the original JP put a Hollywood spin on the raptors (or maybe didn't quite get the name right)...I've read where they were much smaller and feathered. The original JP made them out to basically be a reptilian pack of aggressive wolves.

Actually scientists/archaeologists have recently come to the belief that almost, if not all dinosaurs were feathered.

 

[cyclone1975]

I have a 7 year old who loves to watch the original JP and is dying to watch this one (thanks to the overwhelming marketing campaign). Any insight on bad language and whether it is too intense for little ones?

 

[Cyinthenorth]

One of the reviews I read compared the quality of Jurassic World to Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull. That made me sad. As far as the other movies, I think Anchorman 2 and Dumb and Dumber Too were doomed to fail from the start. There's no way they could have lived up to the originals.

While I agree that Dumb and Dumber To could never live up to the hype of the original, I really had no quarrel with the film. I still found it hilarious and entertaining, Daniels and Carey haven't missed a beat over the years. Only negative for me was realizing how much they've aged and how sad it made me feel.

 

[Cyinthenorth]

Actually scientists/archaeologists have recently come to the belief that almost, if not all dinosaurs were feathered.

Nitpicking, but I believe even the original JP put a Hollywood spin on the raptors (or maybe didn't quite get the name right)...I've read where they were much smaller and feathered. The original JP made them out to basically be a reptilian pack of aggressive wolves.

Yeah, this kind of goes along with a quote from the movie where Dr. Wu mentions that the appearance of some, if not all, dinosaurs in the park has been altered to make them appear more menacing or "cool" to park visitors. It's quite likely this was also the case for the original park

 

[cyrocksmypants]

I have a 7 year old who loves to watch the original JP and is dying to watch this one (thanks to the overwhelming marketing campaign). Any insight on bad language and whether it is too intense for little ones?

There is quite a bit of swearing (for a Spielberg film) but not much compared to your regular movies.

I can only think of one scene that felt fairly brutal, but other than that it was your typical JP violence.

 

[HFCS]

As a 90s videogame/movie nerd I remember the build up and marketing/merchandising blitz for the original movie was so insane. Also weird that the second movie got a lot of attention and the third it's like it never existed.

The video games especially were weird. Every single system, no matter how obscure got a Jurassic Park game. Sega alone made 5 completely different games just for their own systems.

 

[theantiAIRBHG]

Ms A just informed me she bought us tickets to go tonight! Awwwww yissssss.

 

[carvers4math]

I have a 7 year old who loves to watch the original JP and is dying to watch this one (thanks to the overwhelming marketing campaign). Any insight on bad language and whether it is too intense for little ones?

I'm probably not the best to answer this since my kids were all at least 11 before they saw the original. I don't remember much in the way of bad language. The violence was similar. Husband and I sat in the front row with a bunch of little kids since that was the only place there were two seats left together but none of them seemed disturbed by it or anything. Then again, we saw a guy bring a five year old to Looper in our small town.

 

[HFCS]

Yeah, this kind of goes along with a quote from the movie where Dr. Wu mentions that the appearance of some, if not all, dinosaurs in the park has been altered to make them appear more menacing or "cool" to park visitors. It's quite likely this was also the case for the original park

That would **** me off they actually could bring real dinosaurs to life and then f'd with them to make them fake anyway.

 

[cyrocksmypants]

Here's my review:

It wasn't bad. Out of the four, I'd put it as the second best. I thought Chris Pratt was amazing. Jake Johnson and his female counterpart were good as well (good comic relief). Other than that, the acting wasn't superb (but it's a Jurassic Park movie, it's not supposed to be.)

The little kid annoyed the crap out of me. Luckily, the kids didn't have as large of a role in the action as I thought they were going to, so that helped ease it a little bit.

I hated how they gentically changed the composition of dinosaurs and created a new one, BUT I thought it was realistic because that would totally happen these days.

I hated how they were training the raptors, because raptors were always what made the first one so thrilling. BUT, in real life, I could see them totally trying to train raptors these days as well.

So, they brought raptors back (good) but domesticated them (bad). T-Rex wasn't in the forefront so much like in the second movie (good) but was practically non-existent for most of the movie (bad).

And the ending, while entertaining, was pretty cheesy.

It wasn't that intense with moments, but it was still an entertaining action flick. I don't regret going to the theaters to see it. I'd probably give it a 6.5ish out of 10.

 

[CyFan61]

I was entertained but I didn't love it. I was constantly thinking about how stupid all of the characters were. But you aren't there for characters. You're there for dinosaurs, and they were cool.

 

[CyForPresident]

Saw it last night and really enjoyed it. Typical summer blockbuster, but much better than any Avergers/comic book movie or any Michael Bay movie. Chris Pratt makes the movie enjoyable

 

[CyForPresident]

And the science is god awful. The idea that you could just throw 7 different species genomes in a test tube and get a super dinosaur is laughable at best. Never mind they use the wrong terminology too.

 

[cyrocksmypants]

And the science is god awful. The idea that you could just throw 7 different species genomes in a test tube and get a super dinosaur is laughable at best. Never mind they use the wrong terminology too.

This is where you could tell Crichton was missing most. He was always so good at all of the scientific jargon.

 

[theantiAIRBHG]

I like what they did with the raptors. The female lead is worthless.

 

[klamath632]

I have a 7 year old who loves to watch the original JP and is dying to watch this one (thanks to the overwhelming marketing campaign). Any insight on bad language and whether it is too intense for little ones?

Most of the eating of humans takes place behind cover (cars, walls, etc.). There are more than enough blood sprays however to get the idea across of what just happened. I think it might be too intense for a 7 year old.

 

[ImJustKCClone]

Ohhhhh, yesssssssssssssssssssssss!!!

I was entertained. Then again, I went to be entertained. Sometimes you just need to quit the comparisons and the limited accuracy in the science and just enjoy the ride.

The younger by was virtually identical to Tim in the first movie - more brains than maturity.

As far as the 7 year old going, it really depends on the kid. If your kid loves the original, there wasn't much in this one that was more gory or profane than the first one.

 

[Cyclones01]

Saw it tonight and thought it was awesome. It was never going to be on par with the original, but it was a worthwhile sequel