Rating of
3/4
A worthy successor of the first movie.
ikkegoemikke - wrote on 06/23/15
"Monster is a relative term.To a canary,a cat is a monster.We're just used to being the cat"
Universal Pictures pulled out his magic box once again and gathered a horde of extinct dinosaurs,which are resurrected with the use of some scientific tricks, on the big screen.Looking at the box office (apparently almost $ 1 billion),it seems like everyone was eagerly looking forward to seeing those prehistoric mastodons rumbling around again.Although some scientists were so quick off the mark to prove that some things don't correspond to reality (not all dinosaurs lived in the Jura era,the velociraptors weren't bigger than a turkey and were covered with feathers,the mosquito from which the DNA was extracted, didn't suck blood and the mosasaur wasn't so big as it's portrayed),it's still a lot of fun.I was ready to be overwhelmed and before I knew it,I was looking at the bottom of my bag of popcorn,which is a good sign and a reliable value indicator when it comes to the entertainment content of a feature film.
After the amazing and impressive Jurassic Park in 1993 (Damn,that's 22 years ago),two lousy sequels were released for the Dino-crazy public. Unlike the first film,of which I can recall large parts as if I saw it yesterday,I barely can remember anything of the two successors.And let's not mention the awful rip offs that were subsequently thrown on the market (recently I gave "Jurassic City" a chance and already dropped off after 10 minutes due to lousy special effects).In "Jurassic World" they returned to the successful formula of the well-known theme park.Only now it's not an empty amusement park,which should be approved by a select group of scientists,but a crowded park where the owners want to add a new attraction.But again the end result is less attractive and cozy.It's perfectly summed up by the words of Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) in "The Lost World" : "Yeah.Ooh and ah, that's how it always starts.But then later there's running and screaming".
The two teenagers Gray and Zach,the first one is a dinosaur fanatic and the second one has more interest in the opposite sex,are on their way to the amusement park of InGen,where their aunt Claire works as a operations manager.Of course,the latter doesn't have time to babysit and she leaves them in the hands of her assistant Zara.To ensure the income of the park and meet the demands of the main sponsors,the small army of geneticists fabricated a hybrid version which would be even more frightening than the existing species.They use the genes of prehistoric predators and contemporary species.The owner of the park wants Owen Grady,the Velociraptor trainer,to check the enclosure of the hybrid.And soon Owen comes to the conclusion that once again they are playing with fire.
Is "Jurassic World" an impressive film? Yep. Did the special effects and computer animation make me drool again ? Yep. Are those fearsome dinosaurs overwhelming again ? Yep. Did it exceed the first film ? Uh, actually not quite. What makes this film memorable ? Well, the park itself for starters. A sort of Disneyland but with unparalleled attractions. The monorails, the infrastructure, the holographic displays and the overall total picture were impressive. The mosasaur was the masterpiece of this film. Superbly imaged. Both the physical appearance as his natural living space. The "gyrospheres" and the accompanying scenery is the first attraction I would like to try out. The action-packed part at the pterosaurs cage was breathtaking. But the rest of the used scenes showed similarities with the first film. A park where the situation turns out to be life threatening. Again a couple (who had a thing in the past most probably) need to bring two teenagers in safety while they are surrounded by dangerous prehistoric creatures. Even Claire imitated the dress of Dr. Sattler at one time: an unbuttoned shirt over a T-shirt.
What I didn't get while watching "Jurassic World", were shivers down my spine and goosebumps moments. Emotionally, I don't think there'll ever be another movie (with prehistoric monsters) that surpasses the experience I had while watching "Jurassic Park". When Dr. Grant turned around,peered over the valley where different prehistoric species wandered around and said "Look at that. It's a dinosaur.", my hair stood straight up. When the T-Rex left his cage and started chasing the jeep and you could see the gaping mouth approaching in the rear-view mirror. The raptors sneaking through the kitchen with two teenagers scared to death. These are all particular moments I've missed in "Jurassic World". Yes, it was terribly exciting and impressive to see. But that subtle difference was there anyway. I also missed a character like Jeff Goldblum with his dry humor and pertinent observations. And then of course the charismatic dreamer John Hammond (Richard Attenborough), who saw a fantasy collapsing. In some ways it was all there, but it didn't feel the same way.
But forget about my nitpicking and hurry to a cinema to watch this two-hour action packed, exciting and entertaining film. The success of "Jurassic World" is its link with the first movie and the overall nostalgic value. You can add the question "How did you feel after watching Jurassic Park?" to the long line of historical questions such as "Where were you when Kennedy was shot ?" And "What were you doing when the radio broad-casted Elvis passed away ?". "Jurassic Park" had a major influence on films that appeared after wards. My main conclusion is that "Jurassic Park" was far ahead when it's about CGI, because the creations at that time looked as lifelike as those in "Jurassic World". But I am quite convinced that I'll never set foot in such a park, would it ever exist in reality ...
PS. Funniest moment for me : pay attention to what a visitor does during the pterosaurs attack ... Yes, he saves two cocktails ! I almost choked on my coke!
More reviews here : http://bit.ly/1KIdQMT
