Evie Totty: “It was ok.”
The second movie in the second trilogy of the Jurassic series - based on books by #MichaelCrichton - was good... until it wasn't.
Featuring a heartbreaking first half of animals in danger on _one_ of the islands where the dinosaurs live... the second is about greed and betrayal... and ultra science.
Regardless - some intense action scenes and ... kind of a happy ending. Except (SPOILER ALERT) you've got dinosaurs running around the PacNW now. I suppose the third will deal with that. .This review contains spoilers. Reveal it.
− December 30, 2018 • more by Evie • log in or register to reply
Want to join the discussion? Log in or register to reply.
Scott Hardie: “It was ok.”
This movie is smart on a micro level and really dumb on a macro level. It gets a lot right in its technical choices, like aiming the camera upwards in many of the shots of the dinosaurs to lend them an awesome majesty, and giving us lots of close-ups of the humans and dinosaurs to foster an emotional connection. It also wisely changes its setting for the second half because the tropical island was getting old, creating maybe the world's first hybrid dinosaur/haunted-house horror film. The studio demands another marketable Jurassic movie by the numbers, and yet you can feel the filmmakers straining to serve something new to the audience.
But there's just no escaping the fundamental flaw in the story that none of the characters should keep rescuing, freeing, or reviving these dinosaurs. Imagine several consecutive sequels to A Nightmare on Elm Street in which Freddy Krueger has once again been contained or destroyed after great loss of life, but then some military guys are like "he'd make the perfect weapon!" and they trick the heroes into reviving Freddy again only to get slaughtered, and you have the feeling of watching the Jurassic series at this point. Even the heroic characters believe in saving the dinosaurs that keep trying to kill them, which is just too much to swallow. And the villain's motivation? Money, apparently in the low nine figures. Guessing from the immense mansion and facility depicted here, plus the investments in bio-science and mercenary work, plus other assets like an entire second tropical island, the estate that he manages must be worth billions, but sure, he'd go to all of the trouble in this film just to make a minuscule fraction of that. And the story is based on a glaring retcon, that John Hammond had an equal partner who was somehow never mentioned until now.
I enjoyed some of the movie, like the production design of the house and a funny line by Chris Pratt that got me to laugh. But I can't recommend it, because the series seems to have nothing to say nor any point to its existence. Whatever moral message it carried was successfully delivered by the excellent first film in 1993, and everything since has been an empty cash-grab of steadily decreasing quality.This review contains spoilers. Reveal it.
− June 8, 2022 • more by Scott • log in or register to reply
Want to join the discussion? Log in or register to reply.
write your own review of Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom
Other Movies from 2018
293 comments
128 comments
13 comments
6 comments
3 comments
2 comments
