by Kernie » Sun Jul 05, 2015 5:27 pm
The story is somewhat lukewarm, predictable, and nothing earth-shatteringly original, but that was to be expected.
I'll try to avoid spoilers as best as possible and speak in general terms.
The concept of the Park actually being up and running was what excited me (and many others as well), since it raised the stakes above the previous entries. Unfortunately, once the big bad hybrid-dino goes on its inevitable rampage, the body count and carnage was much less than I expected it to be in a functioning theme park. With the exception of one or two sequences, the threat is mostly contained to the core group of half-a-dozen characters. Rarely are the park-goers put in the extreme jeopardy I had anticipated.
The characters are either forgettable, unnecessary, or unlikeable. Chris Pratt was the only memorable one and I felt his natural charisma carried the film. Bryce Dallas Howard has never impressed me and her character arc was so rushed and forced that I didn't buy it. The two kids are the worst... completely useless and stupid characters that only exist to give the kid demographic someone to relate to. The rest of the characters are so forgettable I can't even remember them.
As for the CGI, I actually felt the original Jurassic Park was more convincing because Spielberg only relied on CG for the wide shots. When the T-Rex and raptors were shown in close-up, he would use animatronics. While the animatronics are somewhat limited in what they can do, they look and feel tangible and real. Jurassic World has some great CG, but its relied upon too heavily and in some cases, isn't nearly as convincing as using a mixture of digital and practical effects. I did hear that World used animatronics as well, but to what extent it is unclear. Sure looked like a lot of CG to me. I spotted only a few instances that may have been practical.
In short, the film is a fun summer action blockbuster. Was I entertained while in the theatre? Sure. But the film doesn't have the scientific or philosophical depth that the original had. Jurassic Park had deeper characters that made audiences contemplate mankind's meddling with nature through science. World tries to touch upon similar themes but is a bit too concerned with getting right to the action, chaos, and spectacle.
But don't take my word for it, as I know I'm probably in the minority with my opinion.
The story is somewhat lukewarm, predictable, and nothing earth-shatteringly original, but that was to be expected.
I'll try to avoid spoilers as best as possible and speak in general terms.
The concept of the Park actually being up and running was what excited me (and many others as well), since it raised the stakes above the previous entries. Unfortunately, once the big bad hybrid-dino goes on its inevitable rampage, the body count and carnage was much less than I expected it to be in a functioning theme park. With the exception of one or two sequences, the threat is mostly contained to the core group of half-a-dozen characters. Rarely are the park-goers put in the extreme jeopardy I had anticipated.
The characters are either forgettable, unnecessary, or unlikeable. Chris Pratt was the only memorable one and I felt his natural charisma carried the film. Bryce Dallas Howard has never impressed me and her character arc was so rushed and forced that I didn't buy it. The two kids are the worst... completely useless and stupid characters that only exist to give the kid demographic someone to relate to. The rest of the characters are so forgettable I can't even remember them.
As for the CGI, I actually felt the original [i]Jurassic Park[/i] was more convincing because Spielberg only relied on CG for the wide shots. When the T-Rex and raptors were shown in close-up, he would use animatronics. While the animatronics are somewhat limited in what they can do, they look and feel tangible and real. [i]Jurassic World[/i] has some great CG, but its relied upon too heavily and in some cases, isn't nearly as convincing as using a mixture of digital and practical effects. I did hear that [i]World[/i] used animatronics as well, but to what extent it is unclear. Sure looked like a lot of CG to me. I spotted only a few instances that may have been practical.
In short, the film is a fun summer action blockbuster. Was I entertained while in the theatre? Sure. But the film doesn't have the scientific or philosophical depth that the original had. [i]Jurassic Park[/i] had deeper characters that made audiences contemplate mankind's meddling with nature through science. [i]World[/i] tries to touch upon similar themes but is a bit too concerned with getting right to the action, chaos, and spectacle.
But don't take my word for it, as I know I'm probably in the minority with my opinion.