*Spoilers ahead*
Just saw this movie. As a fan of the first movie and both of Crichton's books, I'm not quite sure what I think yet. It's definitely the second-best of the franchise (I can't like The Lost World: Jurassic Park having read Crichton's book, because as film adaptions go, that one can only properly be described as an atrocity), and overall a pretty good film for what it is. But I feel like there was a lot of wasted potential.
My favorite thing about Crichton's books and the first movie is that they're not just about dinosaurs. There's certainly tons of dinosaur content in them, all of which is excellent, but there's also plenty of discussion around the relationship between man and nature, whether man can control nature or whether life really does always "find a way." A lot of this is, of course, because of Ian Malcolm. Who Jeff Goldblum plays fantastically. But there's also a lot of other intelligent viewpoints on these questions that are integrated seemlessly into the plot, from characters like Hammond (who brings in the total opposite viewpoint to Malcolm), Grant and Stadler.
Jurassic World has tons of opportunity to make these conversations more interesting. The whole velociraptor training aspect brings a new aspect to the conversation about the relationship between man and nature. On top of that, we have a new category to deal with: heavily genetically modified creatures. There's such an opportunity for the film to take a look at how such a creature can possibly fit in with other, natural beings. Not to mention the questions brough up by the implication that the Indominus Rex includes human DNA. And, to its credit, the film touches on these topics. But I think there was a ton of room to go more in depth by having a Malcolm-esque character along with a couple of other people to have some dialogue talking about these things. As it is, the intellectual aspect of the film is lacking and it's really rather glaring to me as a missed opportunity.
My other main gripe is the ending. We never find out what happens to InGen or to Isla Nublar. I suppose the insinuation is that the island is now abandoned and will go back to the dinosaurs. But it would have felt like a better ending if someone had said a few words about what the ending means. Again, the whole death of the Indominus at the hands of the Tyrannosaurus and Velociraptor (which, I agree with others, was a totally awesome moment and the best of the movie) was a really big statement about the role of the natural world compared to that of the artificially created dinosaur. This may seem like a minor thing, but the near-total lack of reflection among the characters over the monumental issues posed by things that happened in the film was really a big detraction for me. It's a lot of what separated the first Jurassic Park from any other monster movie. Part of what is so breathtaking about that film is the way that specific events reflect ideas proposed by characters in the movie. I think a lot of moments, like the very last frame, would have had a far bigger impact for me if the characters had grappled with the bigger topics lurking behind the action.
I have a few other complaints, like the fact that the characters really weren't all too compelling for the most part (another sharp contrast to the first movie, where practically every character is really interesting to me). On the whole, though, I liked the movie pretty well for what it was. I'm just disappointed, as a fan of the intellectual elements of Crichton's original works, that this installment missed so many opportunities to be smarter and thereby, in my opinion, more compelling.
Topic: Jurassic World (Read 34052 times)
