"Jurassic World" film review

(NOTE: This is my first ‘film review’ if it can be called that; and I will apologise now for it’s long length and rambling/ranting nature. I have really written what you might call an essay here, and I am sorry if it is hard to read. I know I have probably repeated myself to death, and I should probably have refined this review more but I was eager to get my blog going! Hopefully my reviews will improve with time, they say practise makes perfect! This is all my own opinion and feel free to agree or disagree on everything and anything I discuss.) 

Film: Jurassic World

Director: Colin Trevorrow

Genre: Science Fiction/Adventure

Release: June 2015

Summary: Jurassic World is a rumbling, roaring prehistoric thrill-ride, that also manages to be a smart and subversive blockbuster with a brilliant sense of humour. Kudos, Colin Trevorrow!

Grade: A

WARNING: SPOILERS FOR JURASSIC WORLD FOLLOW

Review: You could easily nitpick Jurassic World if you wanted to but that is beside the point. Exactly like the antagonist Indominus Rex being a product of genetic modification; this movie has been engineered to be pretty much critic proof. It knows it cannot surpass the original, it knows it is trapped by the restrictions of the modern blockbuster, and by this point it has become an unstoppable, merciless box office beast anyway. 

I did not expect Jurassic World to be so self-aware. I did not go into the theatre apprehending such a 'meta' approach to proceedings. Whilst perhaps not a meta movie in the same sense that films such as The Cabin in The Woods are, and certainly not a parody; the film is never the less significantly self-conscious. At the most, Jurassic World could be described a deconstruction of the modern blockbuster. At the least, it is still self-referential and knowing to a significant degree. After the film finished, I came out of the cinema unsure as to what I made of this tone. As I have said, I was not expecting it. In fact, I am not sure what I was expecting. I was certainly excited, being too young to have seen the original Jurassic Park in cinemas; this would be the first time I would see a Jurassic Park film on the big screen. The trailer had me fairly hyped, and to be honest, I think I just expected a standard pop-corn flick; entertaining and big on action with the added bonus Jurassic World gains from nostalgia.

Whilst Jurassic World is all of these things; it's critiquing of these tropes, for me, stands the movie apart from both similar summer blockbuster fare, and the numerous reboots and franchise revivals Hollywood feeds us: Robocop, Total Recall, Rise of the Planet of the Apes etc. Was this level of mockery hypocritical, I wondered? Was Jurassic World 'biting the hand that fed it' so to speak, in mocking the industry that created and funded it? Was the director trying to have his cake and eat it too? The film is hardly a quite, low budget indie flick critiquing big, noisy action packed blockbusters. Jurassic World is a big, noisy, action packed blockbuster critiquing big, noisy, action packed blockbusters. Was this arrogant?pompous? bitter? cynical? However, after sleeping on it, I began to feel admiration for this direction which the film's creators decided to take. I decided that Jurassic World's self-awareness was neither hypocritical or cynical: because it was self-deprecating.

The film acknowledges how much cinema has changed since 1993 and it acknowledges that audience demands have changed. Best of all, it openly admits and recognises that it is not as good as the original Jurassic Park. That it cannot be as good. Or rather, it knows that no matter it’s own quality, the fandom would never rank it above the original. So many ‘reboots’ arrogantly erase or replace the original/originals/better films in the franchise. Take Terminator Genisys, a movie which milks the love for Terminator and Terminator 2 for the sake of cheap laughs and beating you over the head with iconic catchphrases; before wiping those films from the franchise continuity. I am not saying that Jurassic World does not play on nostalgia. Obviously, a huge part of the movie’s appeal is the fondness many feel for the original. I’m not immune to the feelings that iconic music conjures. And I’ll admit it, it was amazing having John William’s theme rush triumphantly out of the speakers as the camera pans over a fully working dinosaur theme park. The last shot of the film sent shivers down my spine, as the Tyrannosaurus Rex was restored to it’s rightful position as king of the Jurassic Park universe.

Jurassic World honestly left me feeling struck with awe, and again this is where I can compare it to Terminator Genisys. The new Terminator to me feels very much like a soulless attempt to cash in on past glories. However, Jurassic World managed to fill me with the same sense of majesty and wonder that the first Jurassic Park did, and I’m not afraid to say it. Perhaps due to it being my first time seeing a Jurassic Park movie on the big screen; I was captivated by a film filled with moments that should easily become iconic. Scenes which I still haven't forgotten weeks later: The Indominus Rex escaping it’s paddock and the genuine sense of dread I felt during this scene, the pterosaurs storming the park, the final showdown, the moment where the Indominus ripped the roof of the garage and I shit my pants, and of course the aforementioned ending scene. It all felt pure Spielberg to me. The only reason I feel these moments will not go down in cinematic history, is both because of the shadow the original Jurassic Park casts; and the fact that many films today, using computer effects, can create breathtaking and amazing moments at a frequency that somewhat dilutes their impact. When the original Jurassic Park came out, it was utterly one of a kind- the first time such realistic creatures had been brought to life. However, for today’s audiences dinosaurs are nothing too special that can quite easily be created in a computer; and whilst Jurassic World’s dinosaurs do look amazing they are unfortunately no longer unique. 

However, the film does not allow this to work entirely in it’s disfavour, again seeing an opportunity to demonstrate it’s incredible self-awareness. Within the movie, the Park’s numbers are dwindling because the world has got used to coexisting with dinosaurs. As Bryce Dallas Howard’s character put it’s (to paraphrase): ‘Kid’s nowadays look at a stegosaurus like it’s an elephant’. There are very obvious parallels to be drawn here with cinema goers desensitised to the thrill of photo-realistic cgi creatures; and both in universe and out people have to be drawn back to Jurassic World by something ‘bigger, louder and with more teeth’: The Indominus Rex. Ultimately however, the Indominus is beaten by the same Tyrannosaur from the first film: an act that scorns shallow studio efforts to make every film bigger and badder; and also rather unsubtly agrees with the fandom. Jurassic World agrees that it is not as good as the original. It knows that despite it’s best efforts, the corporate designed, genetically engineered Indominus Rex cannot defeat the superior, more genuine, original Tyrannosaurus Rex. Or to put it another way, the Indominus is killed by a team-up of the more 'legit' dinosaurs. The original will always win, no matter how close Jurassic World comes. At one point a character complains: ‘Hammond's original park was legit! They didn’t need hybrid dinosaurs!’ It’s incredibly meta. Is he talking about the park within the film? Or the film itself? It doesn’t matter.

Jurassic World even finds time to poke fun at palaeontologists complaining about it's supposedly inaccurate portrayal of some species of dinosaur. The film has found some controversy amongst scientists claiming it fails to recognise new discoveries about the creatures; particularly the now well-established idea that a lot of dinosaurs were covered with feathers. However, at the end of the day Jurassic World is not a documentary, it is essentially a monster movie. And It is not ashamed to put it's hands in the air and admit this. The movie agrees that it's dinosaurs are inaccurate; but it in fact shifts the blame for this off of itself and onto the audience. Under accusations of deliberately making the Indominus excessively violent and aggressive, Jurassic Park Geneticist Dr Henry Wu hits back by claiming that he has only done with the Indominus what he's always been doing. 'Nothing in Jurassic World is natural!' he retorts. The audience expects dinosaurs to look big, scaly and scary. Nobody is scared of a giant chicken with claws. As Dr Wu puts it: 'we were going for cool, not realistic'. So were the directors of this film.

What Velociraptors actually looked like

The audience watching Jurassic World wants movie monsters so that's what they're given.This idea does not just explain the appeal of the I.Rex; it also accounts for all the scientific discrepancies in all the Jurassic Park films. Why would a Spinosaurus relentlessly pursue human prey far beyond the point of exhaustion? Because Jurassic Park's scientists deliberately engineered it to be much aggressive than it ever actually was. Yes, Mososaurs weren't actually that big, but Jurassic Park's scientists made it so enormous to attract a larger audience. Why don't the dinosaurs have feathers? Because they look scarier without, and cinema goers want to be scared. Jurassic World hits this point squarely on the nose, when Dr Wu adds that had the scientists not mixed the dinosaurs DNA with other animals they 'would look very different'. Once again, Jurassic World finds not just a clever, but a hilarious way to render any criticism of any aspect of itself mute. Bravo I say! I find it impressive myself! Of course, the Jurassic Park franchise’s very premise is what allows this self-critical tone to exist so successfully. Much like the film’s directors, the characters in the film are able to bring dinosaurs to life. Audiences within the film flock to a real life ‘Jurassic World’, and real life audiences flock to the film Jurassic World. The series was ripe for this kind of tone, and respect to the director for attempting it.

Jurassic World did not have to go in this direction. Without such a tongue-in-cheek manner it would still likely have made a stupendous amount of money, and have been a solid if slightly forgettable affair. All it had to was be better than JP2 and JP3, and hit all the action movie tropes. Whilst the film easily achieves this, Jurassic World strives for more; and I cannot help but consider the  deliberately self-conscious direction they did take a brilliant, daring and ballsy move from a major ‘tentpole’ movie. A risky move, that for me personally has payed off; and seemingly has payed off for fans the world over with the film having had the biggest opening weekend of all time; $500 million worldwide over a single weekend. Of course, this can largely be attributed to many factors: nostalgia for the franchise, amazing effects, solid acting etc. However I’d like to think a large part of what will hopefully be Jurassic World’s enduring success is thanks to it’s self-referential and self-deprecating character.

I accept that some might find it a bit much that Jurassic World mocks summer movie conventions before going on to indulge in them; but for me this is part of it’s appeal. I find it hilarious yet intriguing that the movie seems to even make fun of the audience itself. We both know what Jurassic World is, and we both know what we expect of it. Jurassic World does not fail to wink at us and laugh at itself before ticking off every cliche in the book. A blockbuster with a real sense of humour. During the finale a character even outruns a Tyrannosaurus Rex in high heels and I can’t help but see a degree of self-mockery in scenes such as this. None of it is taken seriously. Jurassic World is in on the joke of how ridiculous and absurd all this is. It knows it is a film; a work of fiction. Chris Pratt's character laughs at the supposedly scary name the scientists have come up with for their hybrid. Indominus Rex? 'Sounds stupid!' he smirks. Furthermore, he immediately points out that 'making a new dinosaur' can only end one way: badly. Of course the Indominus will inevitably escape, or else we’d have a pretty boring film. The hybrid dino is literally the catalyst of the film. Every character's seemingly stupid decision, and every miraculous turn of events (i.e. Some kids being able to start up a jeep that has not been driven in 20 years), is there specifically to drive the plot forwards. The thing is, Jurassic World is not ashamed of it's ludicrousness; in fact it practically revels in it (Although it is never quite as dumb as some moments in JP3!). Unbelievable things need to happen to set the film's events in motion or else it simply won't be entertaining. Both the audience and the studio know this, so why bother hiding it? We are here to be entertained after all.

This level of awareness ultimately mutes most of my grumbles with the plot. Sure, the whole sub-plot of Dinosaurs being used as weapons struck me as dumb, and some of the characters and dialogue was a bit silly and embarrassing. The whole affair is contrived as hell. But, whilst some film’s wholly ignore their plot holes and stupider ideas: Jurassic World knows when it is being cliched, and not so much apologises for it as mocks itself for it. Better a film do this than outright ignore how silly it is. Besides, I just can’t help but love a movie that derides blockbusters and modern cinema, before going on to tear every record in the book to shreds, and storm it’s way into the list of highest grossing movies. Jurassic World  knows how to play the game, showing itself as an expert in what it critiques. It mocks the rest of Hollywood for what it does, and quite frankly embarrasses other efforts by demonstrating how easily the blockbuster formula can be used to enormous success. Jurassic World works because it is truly aware and deconstructive of what a 21st century blockbuster needs to be. 

To conclude, I am aware I haven't talked in any great depth about the actual plot or the characters in the film. However, in this aspect I seem to agree with Jurassic World ’s creators that these elements are perfunctory to the movie’s success. I went to this movie to see dinosaur carnage, to be thrilled and scared, and to feel nostalgia and wonder; and Jurassic World did not dissapoint in any of these regards. That the movie is topped with a healthy dose of awareness and self-mockery is the icing on the cake; and enough for me to overlook it’s few flaws. This is the main idea I have tried to get across, more so than attempting a standard film review, and I hope I have been successful. Whilst the response of many will likely be something along the lines of ‘It was better than the other sequels but not as good as the original’; Jurassic World already predicted and fine-tuned itself for such a response. If this had been the first Jurassic Park film, released in 1993 or today, it would likely be just as influential and game changing as Steven Spielberg’s Jurassic Park was, and be thought of just as fondly. However, the movie does not get down on it’s unlucky timing. Instead Jurassic World turns the fact that it is not the first of it’s kind to it’s advantage; delivering a movie that is both a rumbling and roaring prehistoric thrill-ride whilst at the same time a smart and subversive blockbuster with a brilliant sense of humour! Kudos, Colin Trevorrow!