Jurassic World
The hubs and I went to see Jurassic World last night (which you'd think I would know how to spell by now but obviously not, thank you spellchecker) and here are some thoughts...
I should probably start by explaining that the original JP is not only one of my favourite films, but has had an indelible impact on my psyche. It came out in the UK when I was 10 or 11, and before that the only other PG film I had seen was Edward Scissorhands - it was terrifying, to the point that my mum had to take me out of the cinema at least twice until my fright had worn off (given the age of some of the kids in the cinema last night, it's become clear that I was a very sensitive child *g*). Anyway. It was scary, I had nightmares, and then it kinda became an obsession. I collected the cards, I read the books, I finally watched the film all the way through, and then re-watched, and then re-watched. I wanted to be a paleontologist. Etc.
So here's the thing about the JP franchise - none of the sequels have been any good, but I've enjoyed them all because dinosaurs! There are plot holes as wide as the ocean and character stupidity abounds, but dinosaurs! Unfortunately, "but dinosaurs!" pretty much seems to sum up the combined cognitive processes of the various production teams on JP2 and JP3.
Jurassic World is... better than either of the other sequels. It doesn't have any of the original cast to carry it, so I guess it kind of had to be. But also I can honestly say part of me absolutely loved it. It was scary, I flinched lots, the special effects were great and the cinematography was just as beautiful as the original. Also, as a fan, there were lots of shout-outs to the first film, and that was pretty fun.
The problem is, there's another part of me that absolutely hated it. Because here's the thing. The original film was serious, and it had some serious things to say about science, progress and even gender. It took itself seriously and so we, the audience, were able to fully suspend our disbelief and take it just as seriously. Jurassic World is like the teenage hipster version: painfully self-aware and constantly cracking lame jokes to let you know they know it's all kinda dumb but hey! Dinosaurs, right? There was possibly a point in there somewhere about the dangers of modern consumerism, but it got pretty well buried under the snappy one-liners. And none of this is even getting into the sad upholding of the aforementioned tradition of ridiculous plot holes (just how were all those thousands of people evacuated so quickly?) and character stupidity as plot device (riding close-range with the raptor squad - great idea).
Finally, and possibly the thing that annoyed me most - Jurassic Park pretty much made a point of having gender parity among the main 4 characters, and importantly (to young me) the women were non-stereotypical and well-fleshed out. Ellie Sattler was feminine and pretty, but also a professional scientist, and fiercely brave; Lex was meek and mostly scared out of her wits, but also a hacker whose knowledge of computers saved the day. The message was clear: dinosaurs are for everyone. The single female character in Jurassic World ('Aunt Claire' is all I can remember - did she even get a surname?) spends the entire film running around in impractical clothes and four inch heels. Not that I don't respect a woman who can outrun a T-Rex in heels of any sort, or who can walk through the rainforest floor without losing one to the mud, but c'mon. Her primary interaction with another woman is when her sister slams her for not wanting children, and her primary 'lesson' appears to be about the rewards of family. How... original. (Esp when compared with the character who had that storyline in the original - that's right, Alan Grant).
None of this would be a problem, of course, if 'Aunt Claire' wasn't the sole female representative of the main cast, and what a missed opportunity to boot. The siblings, who were clearly a call-back to Lex and Tim, were both boys - why? How cool would it have been to have a little girl who could reel off dino facts like an encyclopedia? Or a sixteen-year-old girl who stared dreamy-eyed at boys and could fix a twenty-year-old Jeep with nothing but spit and hope? How much more sense would it have made for the ex-Naval animal trainer - the alpha of the female raptor pack - to be a woman? It's basically the same frustration I have with the unimaginative masses of media out there, made all the more frustrating because I never had it with the first film, and that's twenty-two freaking years old now! It's a problem entirely manufactured by the current crop of film-makers.
So. Yeah. Jurassic World is pretty good. I was entertained (dinosaurs!). It was a decent summer blockbuster. But it's nowhere near the same league as Jurassic Park, and that's a shame, because the potential was there, just the will was... completely lacking.
X-posted to Tumblr.
I should probably start by explaining that the original JP is not only one of my favourite films, but has had an indelible impact on my psyche. It came out in the UK when I was 10 or 11, and before that the only other PG film I had seen was Edward Scissorhands - it was terrifying, to the point that my mum had to take me out of the cinema at least twice until my fright had worn off (given the age of some of the kids in the cinema last night, it's become clear that I was a very sensitive child *g*). Anyway. It was scary, I had nightmares, and then it kinda became an obsession. I collected the cards, I read the books, I finally watched the film all the way through, and then re-watched, and then re-watched. I wanted to be a paleontologist. Etc.
So here's the thing about the JP franchise - none of the sequels have been any good, but I've enjoyed them all because dinosaurs! There are plot holes as wide as the ocean and character stupidity abounds, but dinosaurs! Unfortunately, "but dinosaurs!" pretty much seems to sum up the combined cognitive processes of the various production teams on JP2 and JP3.
Jurassic World is... better than either of the other sequels. It doesn't have any of the original cast to carry it, so I guess it kind of had to be. But also I can honestly say part of me absolutely loved it. It was scary, I flinched lots, the special effects were great and the cinematography was just as beautiful as the original. Also, as a fan, there were lots of shout-outs to the first film, and that was pretty fun.
The problem is, there's another part of me that absolutely hated it. Because here's the thing. The original film was serious, and it had some serious things to say about science, progress and even gender. It took itself seriously and so we, the audience, were able to fully suspend our disbelief and take it just as seriously. Jurassic World is like the teenage hipster version: painfully self-aware and constantly cracking lame jokes to let you know they know it's all kinda dumb but hey! Dinosaurs, right? There was possibly a point in there somewhere about the dangers of modern consumerism, but it got pretty well buried under the snappy one-liners. And none of this is even getting into the sad upholding of the aforementioned tradition of ridiculous plot holes (just how were all those thousands of people evacuated so quickly?) and character stupidity as plot device (riding close-range with the raptor squad - great idea).
Finally, and possibly the thing that annoyed me most - Jurassic Park pretty much made a point of having gender parity among the main 4 characters, and importantly (to young me) the women were non-stereotypical and well-fleshed out. Ellie Sattler was feminine and pretty, but also a professional scientist, and fiercely brave; Lex was meek and mostly scared out of her wits, but also a hacker whose knowledge of computers saved the day. The message was clear: dinosaurs are for everyone. The single female character in Jurassic World ('Aunt Claire' is all I can remember - did she even get a surname?) spends the entire film running around in impractical clothes and four inch heels. Not that I don't respect a woman who can outrun a T-Rex in heels of any sort, or who can walk through the rainforest floor without losing one to the mud, but c'mon. Her primary interaction with another woman is when her sister slams her for not wanting children, and her primary 'lesson' appears to be about the rewards of family. How... original. (Esp when compared with the character who had that storyline in the original - that's right, Alan Grant).
None of this would be a problem, of course, if 'Aunt Claire' wasn't the sole female representative of the main cast, and what a missed opportunity to boot. The siblings, who were clearly a call-back to Lex and Tim, were both boys - why? How cool would it have been to have a little girl who could reel off dino facts like an encyclopedia? Or a sixteen-year-old girl who stared dreamy-eyed at boys and could fix a twenty-year-old Jeep with nothing but spit and hope? How much more sense would it have made for the ex-Naval animal trainer - the alpha of the female raptor pack - to be a woman? It's basically the same frustration I have with the unimaginative masses of media out there, made all the more frustrating because I never had it with the first film, and that's twenty-two freaking years old now! It's a problem entirely manufactured by the current crop of film-makers.
So. Yeah. Jurassic World is pretty good. I was entertained (dinosaurs!). It was a decent summer blockbuster. But it's nowhere near the same league as Jurassic Park, and that's a shame, because the potential was there, just the will was... completely lacking.
X-posted to Tumblr.