How good of a movie is Jurassic World?

RAPTOR-401 - I have a feeling that the director was trying to evoke a more "I'm hot stuff" feel for Zac. However, you are right when you state that it came off in a stranger fashion than was likely the intent. Fortunately, however, we will not (hopefully) have to deal with then likes of Zac in the next film! :)

Honestly I place this film more on level with the unfairly maligned Jurassic Park 3, with Jurassic Park as the far away masterpiece and The Lost World trailing far behind in second place. Jurassic Park 3 and Jurassic World are neck and neck behind that for different reasons--This is if I had to rank them anyway.

I think the more Jurassic World sits with me the less I like it. The same thing happened with me and the way I look at Godzilla '14 to some extent. Unlike Godzilla '14 I find less and less reasons to revist Jurassic World.

While I enjoy the direction Jurassic World took the franchise in, with the really over-the-top ideas and it's unfettered supporting numskulls, I'm not entirely sure the meta-filmmaking worked. The Indominous Rex is largely supposed to represent the film's existence: Unnecessary, but bigger, faster and wilder because that's what audiences want. So Trevorrow practically admits the movie is catering to everything wrong with modern blockbusters today. Alright...

Then, to pay some overzealous respect to the original film, the Indominous Rex gets defeated by the original stars of the Jurassic Park franchise and the two creatures it was created from: The T-Rex and the Velociraptor--As if to also admit its an inferior product to the original.

There's some kind of reflexive genius in the stupidity of the film's execution. It's almost like Trevorrow tried to make a bad, stupid movie just to nail a point home. I'm not suggesting that's what he intended, but it sometimes comes off that way and I think if the film were trying to make a comment on modern blockbusters and "bigger" sequels it needed to be done with more finesse. And that would include better dialogue, more practical effects, a stronger emotional base (Masrani dies, who cares?) and less left field plot elements. (OH! Their parents are getting a divorce. OH! It's blended with Raptor DNA!)

As it stands the strongest emotional element in the film was the nostalgia with the old compound--Something that will have less impact on repeat viewings because it doesn't rely on an emotional core that Jurassic World established. It relies on what we remember about another movie. We need more than that chew on and statements on blockbusters aren't enough.

@Gman- Well I mean the movie was still good, but I think it's above Jurassic Park 3. I mean I still like the third movie and enjoy the CGI, and I do find it to be kind of a fun movie to watch but I still think it's the least best of the whole series.

Jurassic World had plenty of stupid things, granted, that's part of the reason why I felt like writing the topic. And sometimes it's not that bad to give the audience what they want. I mean after the sixth and hopefully final Jurassic Park movie comes out, that will definitely be enough.

Another problem that I had with Jurassic World is that it missed so much it could explore the past sequels did not such as dinosaur migration. especially showing how the raptors made it to Costa Rica by the beginning of the first novel. It could have explored more of any possible "dark" history and secrets of Hammon and Site B.

But it just focused on just having some monster and nostalgia- which is great, but as you say will get old with each re-watch.

I feel Trevorrow was just trying to create a fun summer movie that wasn't meant to be deeply analyzed, but now it's trouble seeing that there's too many "fans" of JP now, and I have an actual bad feeling it may give fans like me a bad rep.

However I still felt the movie was better than Jurassic Park 3. It left more potential, such as what will happen to the park and the dinosaurs on Isla Nublar, where Jurassic Park 3 didn't leave much to wonder or question about, except the hinted migration of the pterodactyls and the fate of the Spinosaurus.

When I watched Masrani's death I still find it kind of emotional, I found his character to actually have a good personality and mindset. (My sister actually thought (somehow) it was racist that they killed him off...)

Hopefully the people making Jurassic World 2 will understand what worked and what did not work in Jurassic World and make a better movie. Jurassic World is a good movie, kind of an interesting story, but it's a movie that the more you think of it you realise a lot of it is really stupid. Especially raptors in the military... Still won't get over the cringeworthy villain, Vic Hoskins.

Also, Jurassic World was kind of annoying with sudden attempts at plot twists, like you mentioned. I found it really illogical that just because I. rex has raptor DNA suddenly it can talk with the raptors like good friends... I mean if you put a alpha wolf in front of several chihuahuas, the alpha wolf isn't gonna just bark commands and force the dogs to serve it... That's not how DNA works. (I use that example since dogs of course have extreme similarities to wolves genetically.)

But the movie certainly does not deserve all the high praise it's getting.

I think Jurassic Park 3 edges out Jurassic World by a couple of hairs largely based on special effects artistry and technique. This was some of the last of Stan Winston's animatronic work and, most certainly, the last of his wizardry on a Jurassic Park film. This is something Jurassic World desperately needed more of. Even the animatronic Apatasaurus was overlaid with some CG which was disappointing. The amount of sub-par to par CG in a Jurassic Park movie has never been more obvious and it really took me out of the film. Compare that with the Spinosaurus attack on the airplane which gave actors more to interact with and looked something with weight was really attacking.

Again, I don't mind the camp factor about the movie and the direction it went. Raptors being used for the military? Sure! Spliced dinosaurs? Go for it! Sounds fun! Dinosaurs teaming up to defeat a spliced monster? Sounds like fun. My issue is that the execution undermines its own integrity--Practically admitting its by-the-numbers mindless, inferior material instead of genuinely enjoying itself as a reimagined monster movie. Yeah, the original Jurassic Park is a masterpiece. We get it. We didn't need the reminder, we didn't need the nostalgia and reflexive nods about inferior sequels.

Granted the movie's still fun regardless, but the emphasis on what it is and is not is retroactively eyerolling.

And I agree, Hoskins was a bit too much...

A point I also missed was that on the effects. Jurassic Park 3 at least still had that realism to it that will never look fake to me, like The Lost World and Jurassic Park.

Then with Jurassic World were many times the CGI was great and other times made me cringe and miss Stan Winston. (Most of the Jurassic World fans I know probably never even heard of him.)

I mean the reason why the raptors in the military bothered me was because Jurassic Park did thinks that would be logical if it were to happen. But it just sounded way too stupid to me. The more I think about it the more it just annoys me. VIc Hoskins and his constant lines about "Raptors running the battle line" and "them on the enemies side" just just made me sigh on the inside.

When I rewatched it I realised the movie dealt way too much with the original Jurassic Park and the novel. I get it, the movie was a masterpiece, I get it that scene with Nedry was funny and scary, I get it Rexy is awesome, I get it the original park was cool, I get it some of the book scenes were cool, etc.

However it still was fun but if I were to watch it a third time will be quite a while from now.

I thought it was good, the high heels never really bothered me.

How funny, today I decided to watch all the Jurassic Park films. I got to say, I totally agree and hear where you're coming from...though compare it to other movies today, and well, you can see why it's so great. Otherwise, the day the movie was on theaters, I never glorified it. Which I find it completely unfair to have people call the other sequels horrible and crown this one better. I love them all the same, cause it's funny how each sequel equally missed a long shot to make each on par to the first. However that's not to say each sequel did not stand out and aren't unique from one another.  

@Levian- First off, it's nice to see you back. (I thought you were gonna be gone forever, lol)

That is somewhat true, but there are plenty of films that were really good such as the Planet of the Apes reboots. I'm not crowning sequels but I do think The Lost World was a better sequel while Jurassic Park 3 was the least best sequel. Although in the past I've berated Jurassic Park 3, I do it out of fun mainly and I don't mean everything I say about it.

Jurassic World was good, but as I said already I stand by it doesn't deserve all the extremely high praise it gets.

I feel some of these points are a little nitpicky. Whenever viewing a film that isn't a documentary a certain amount of suspension of disbelief is required to watch the movie and enjoy it. This would be like watching the original and saying that filling in the genetic code with frog DNA is completely ridiculous and would never work and any way, shape or form. The movies job is to keep its story within a decent margin of the level of disbelief it's asking you to have. That being said I don't think most of these things are too far away from what the film expects to to be able to accept when watching it.

The raptor training isnt something I was ever fond of all the way from the previews that showcased it. That being said the film does establish they don't have control of the raptors. Owen entering the Raptor cage the first time showcased this with him barely escaping with his life. That being said later the film 180s and the Raptors ultimately choose him over something that is much closer to their species. Overall I'd say well executed at first, lacking later.

The raptors and their use in combat seemed pretty obvious to me. Dogs the military have had a variety of roles some more successful than you seem to give them credit for. The raptors and dinosaurs overall seemed like more of a offensive idea. The concept in my mind would be that essentially if you can point them in a direction they do the rest. The way the military is currently working with the idea of unmanned fights like drones ect suports this idea. The difference is the unmanned things they use now cost millions of dollars each whereas these raptors after the first batch can self sustain and breed as they have been shown to do in past movies. This means it's a cheaper alternative to the unmanned crafts, and not to mention the mental toll it would have on opposing sides having pretty much monsters charging at you. Not saying this is 100% legit, but it's not without some credence.

I wouldn't put the characters too much lower than any Jurassic Park movie. They aren't strong, but they filled the roles they needed.

I think the romance aspect is funny since if you watch the original there's absolutely no chemistry between Alan and Ellie that on screen. Their scenes together are almost cringeworthy and while Owen and Claire aren't the best at least something appears to be there.

The final scene and raptor/Irex communication didn't really bother me. 

Overall I agree with the bad CGI, and that the movie is by no means great, but definitely enjoyable. Still behind the original by a huge margin, and kind of sits with the other 2 for me.

@401: Haha yeah, thanks for the welcome back! xD 

I'll never abandon this website or community, it's one of the best there is! Plus, I enjoy a good chat with fellow Park fans. There are really smart people here, and it's fun to see their point of views. Anyways, I get what you're saying bud. You should watch Honest Trailers: Jurassic World. It pretty much said most of the subjects you mentioned. x) 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8tmJbaFuYM 

@Durp004- Well first off in the original film to be fair not much was known about DNA and hwo the field of genetic engineering would play out. In a way they "Guessed" on many things. It wasn't till after that scientissts realised that the way Jurassic Park cloned their dinosaurs would be impossible and wouldn't work today, even with technology advancing constantly. Granted there is of course gonna have to be some suspension of disbelief with the science of the film.

But Jurassic World required too much from me. I mean of course there must be some success with training animals in the military but remember those animals are domesticated, they have been with humans for literally thousands of years, co-evolving with each other. The movie did show Owen was never in control but how I saw it was that when he met with him they would have killed him anyway, without more than a second of hesitation.

But it would also cost a lot of money to put suits on the raptors to protect them from gunfire and bombs, not to mention the enemy side could just find a way to disguise themselves as the raptor's allies, or they would just find some way to trick the raptors.

All in all the raptors in the military I think would have been okay had it not been for Hoskins mentioning them walking into the battlefield with equipment and weapons every 20 minutes... As Gman said earlier, he was a bit too much.

However I disagree with what you say with the characters of the Jurassic Park movies. In Jurassic Park the characters had interesting personalities, Ian Malcolm being a pretentious, sarcastic, humorour personality. Alan Grant seemed responsible and a respectable man. Ellie Sattler seemed liek a happy woman that tried to enjoy everyone she met. John Hammond was a naive man who wanted to do something great but didn't realise his mistakes until it was too late. Muldoon was a very cool character who did his role excellently. I coudl go on and on about how the characters are well thought out and protrayed, but Jurassic World's characters weren't really like that.

Jurassic World's characters were kind of mediocore and boring. Owen was just some guy who was respected for his accomplishments... And uh he likes women. Claire was some CEO (I think...? Legit forgot...) and she didn't like family too much. The kids were just kind of there... Not that much emotion. Masrani I found to be charasmatic, that I will give credit. And the other characters I don't even remember too much... Some characters I foudn to not even be one dimensional, such as that girl in the control room...

The romance in JP was very small and the movie didn't focus on it. All it did was establish that they were a couple. They had similar careers and interests. And then in Jurassic World there really is no reason for Owen and Claire to jook up... I mean besides working a job involving the JP dinosaurs, what similarities do they share?

The CGI... Some parts were really good, and then some parts would make Stan Winston roll over in his grave. Especially being a sequel to a movie that is still praised for its everlasting realism that started a new "era" so to speak in special effects.

Of course I enjoy the movie, but I mainly made this discussion because I thought it's getting way too much praise.

@Levian- I have been on this site a little over 2 years now and that's why I check in regularly, to be able to talk with people who are united in the love of JP, lol.

I saw that Honest Trailer before, and the only thing I disagreed with was him saying Jurassic World was the best sequel, (but even then that's my opinion and many well argue that JW made a better sequel) but it was still funny and couldn't be more true.

I was going to debate those points, but the amount of typing I would need would be pretty tedious so I'll just say the problem with Jurassic World lays more with its pacing, use of locations, and average to subpar effects moreso than the Characters and ideas the film brought forward that you listed imo.

I PRESENT TO YOU A NEW QUESTION!

Why didn't Rexy just eat the meals people just standing there? She ate Gennaro and tried to eat every other person in the area, but why now did she not want to eat them? Does she not like the taste of people or..?

@Durp- The pacing was really quick and other times seemed to slow to me. The effects of the final scene I found to be really cool, though.

@Sci-FiKing-

I was wondering the same thing before. Perhaps she wasn't hungry that time or Rexy turned into an unbridled racist.

^Maybe she has a secret flare collection...