BEFORE: I'm messing with my own timestream again, meaning that I watched this film in theaters in late June, and if my plans work out the way I think they will, I'll give myself a day off in late July by posting this review in between two other movies starring Chris Pratt - so Chris Pratt carries over from "Delivery Man", if I've done this right.
THE PLOT: A new theme park is built on the original site of Jurassic Park. Everything is going well until the park's newest attraction--a genetically modified giant stealth killing machine--escapes containment and goes on a killing spree.
AFTER: Well, they went and did it. They opened a new Jurassic Park right on top of the old one. Will they never learn that some things are better left alone? Same goes for you, Universal Pictures, re-opening an old movie franchise years after the last disaster. Will they never learn that some franchises are better left alone? In both cases, they've taken some of the old, deteriorated DNA and spliced it together, using parts from other animals/movies to fill in the gaps. Why? Because science, that's why.
Science tells us that these dinosaurs lived for millions of years, and ruled the planet for so long that they probably deserve another chance. (Curse you, meteorites!) Science also tells us that if the previous Jurassic Park movies made like a trillion dollars, the new one's going to make a trillion more. Seriously, when the people in this movie who run the dino theme park talk about how they need a new attraction, a new spectacle every few years to keep the masses entertained, it's hard to not think about the board meetings in Hollywood studios, which are probably filled with people who follow the same logic. "We need a new, bigger dinosaur with more teeth!" is not that far removed from "We need a new, bigger blockbuster with more dinosaurs!" Or cars, or explosions, or spaceships or whatever.
So this time they create a giant prehistoric underwater Mosasaurus and a new version of the T.Rex called the Indominus Rex - and they say they've nailed it this time, everything is safe, what could possibly go wrong? They re-open with a new tagline, after rejecting such slogans as "If you lived here, you'd be dinosaur food by now" and "We really think this time, if you visit the park, you (probably) won't get killed. (offer void where prohibited)"
But come on, admit it, as movie-goers, that's what we're there to see, right? People getting eaten by dinos, mostly the people who deserve it but probably a few who don't, because if we went to see a "Jurassic Park" movie where everything worked just fine, how freaking boring would that be? Every film in this franchise tries to have it both ways, namely "Oh, they're beautiful, majestic giant creatures" and "They're efficient, ruthless killing machines." Can we come to a consensus here, please?
This, to me, is a point of order - yes, recreating extinct animals seems like a noble cause, and something impressive that should endeavor to create a greater understanding of biology and paleontology. But why do they have to clone the bitey ones that want to eat people? Can't they just stick to some herbivores and make sure the park is really 100% safe? Of course, there's always the chance you could get stepped on by a giant herbivore, but I'll take my chances with that over a T. Rex. (Sorry, I mean I. Rex.)
There are other attempts to elevate the storyline, like a project to train and weaponize certain dinosaurs (because science, that's why) and a ridiculous attempt to throw a romance into a disaster film, but before long, it's back to the tried and true - a dinosaur gets loose and where you see a crowd of happy tourists, it sees an all-you-can-eat buffet. They change things up by making the villain dinosaurs from the previous films into (sort of) hero dinosaurs, but that seems almost like pandering of a sort.
But as a film, I'm sort of toggling here between respecting the visual effects and realizing that the story is patently ridiculous. The characters are not fleshed out (the kids are...just plain kids, I sort of expect more) and the dialogue is hopelessly stilted, but again, that's not why you came to the movie, you sick bastards, is it? You want to see people eaten, don't you? But why go to the length of showing us that the younger kid is a dinosaur expert (aren't they all?) if we never get to see him use that knowledge, not once, to save anyone. I credit my wife for pointing out this dangling, ignored plot point.
She also noticed that the final conflict ripped off the ending to "Anchorman", where the dog talks to the bear in the zoo. (This was repeated in "Anchorman 2", when the dog talked to the shark.) But what lesson can we learn here, besides the fact that you should spend time with your family, and not just let your assistant take them for the day? Hmm, how about "STOP BUILDING THEME PARKS WITH REAL DINOSAURS!" Because sooner or later, one's inevitably going to get loose (because science, that's why) and it will be your ass in the sling.
Also starring Bryce Dallas Howard (last seen in "The Help"), Vincent D'Onofrio (last seen in "The Newton Boys"), Irrfan Khan (last seen in "A Mighty Heart"), Jake Johnson (last seen in "No Strings Attached"), Nick Robinson, Ty Simpkins, BD Wong (last heard in "Mulan"), Judy Greer, Andy Buckley (last seen in "The Heat"), Omar Sy, Lauren Lapkus, Katie McGrath, with a cameo from Jimmy Fallon (last seen in "Anything Else").
RATING: 7 out of 10 souvenir shops
No comments:
Post a Comment