Jurassic World (2015)

How do you rate this film?

  • 10

    Votes: 3 4.5%
  • 9

    Votes: 5 7.5%
  • 8

    Votes: 29 43.3%
  • 7

    Votes: 13 19.4%
  • 6

    Votes: 9 13.4%
  • 5

    Votes: 5 7.5%
  • 4

    Votes: 2 3.0%
  • 3

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 2

    Votes: 1 1.5%
  • 1

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    67
Dogs have had rather a few years worth of domestication as well haven't they ! Their first instinct isn't just to eat you !
Surely it would be easier to just genetically create a dinosaur for that purpose rather than try and train one from scratch ?
 
Raptors would suffer from the same fate of other animals they might not differentiate between humans or just "be animals". Never work with children or animals etc. The examples you give involve close human handling and often aren't quite so critical. No one immediately dies if a dog doesn't sniff out some drugs.

In WWII the Russians trained dogs to get food from under tanks. They then sent the dogs off with mines on their backs. The idea was they would run under German tanks, set off the mines and kill Germans.

You can read here how unsuccessful it turned out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_dog

It's a nice idea but all the man hours spent trying to usefully get a dog to blow up a tank could have been devoted to building a rocket or mine or artillery gun instead.

Rather than spend a huge amount of man hours trying to genetically engineer a dinosaur and then train it as a weapon just devote the equivalent amount of time creating a better drone.
 
Dogs have had rather a few years worth of domestication as well haven't they ! Their first instinct isn't just to eat you !
Surely it would be easier to just genetically create a dinosaur for that purpose rather than try and train one from scratch ?
Why even genetically engineer a dinosaur? Why not just genetically engineer a smarter dog?
 
Rather than spend a huge amount of man hours trying to genetically engineer a dinosaur and then train it as a weapon just devote the equivalent amount of time creating a better drone.

Booooooooring :p
 
Grey hounds?
Its my warped humor

Hence why I used the example of big cats. Lions etc are intelligent. How many are regularly used in military applications?

You forgetting how raptors are portrayed in JP and JP3
I'm just going of whats already been setup.

Your right, It is far fetched.
I think ill stop going to the movies. So unrealistic. :)
 
Booooooooring :p
I know it's boring but when it's a central point in the motivation of a film then the film does start to fall apart. I have this vision in that there's a meeting, someone points out it won't work and then it gets no further.

It's like The Matrix. The central point is that the humans are used as batteries for the machines as they have no power source. The sky is blanked out and previously they had used solar power. Except you never get out what you put in. All the resources creating some kind of food to grown and keep human batteries alive would be better off used differently. What exactly are the humans fed on? Other dead recycled humans? Won't work.
 
Your right, It is far fetched.
I think ill stop going to the movies. So unrealistic. :)
If you like. I don't mind a few stretches in a film. Genetically created dinosaurs are fine and doable. The idea that they can then be used as a weapon in a world where we already have drones and missiles used so human soldiers aren't in danger is far fetched.
 
Seriously though...

When i watch a film like Prometheus i find it annoying how dumb people act and writers portray things. (Still love the film but the faults annoy me)

When i watch a film like this i can step back and enjoy but not get bothered about these sort of things.
Obviously you might say im bothered by how Sonic67 sees it but im not. More amused to a point i want to comment on it :p
 
Saw today average at best bad I'd already guessed the ending from the trailers, 6/10
 
I thought it was pretty decent. Saying that, im surprised it has done as well as it has.
 
Taking the wife on Sunday, or is she taking me
Anyway, i know she will love it.
 
Limited Edition BluRay Gift Set

Contains;
image.jpg
 
I saw it on Thursday.

Here's the problem. The original Jurassic Park was thoughtful science fiction with a sense of wonderment and an emphasis on character. Jurassic World is a Frankenstein’s monster-on-the-loose film pure and simple- but set in a dinosaur theme park. Put that way, it sounds pretty fun and I think I’ll enjoy it much more the second time. But on first viewing, I have to admit to spending an awful lot of time rolling my eyes, facepalming and feeling disappointed as well as thrilled. To be honest, a lot of this film is just bloody preposterous.

One of the worst plot offenders is the painfully silly and groan-worthy ‘using dinosaurs as weapons’ subplot. Really? Its been done before, and not very well, in Alien Resurrection and it was stupid then too. The action ups the ante to ludicrous levels as the film goes on (although I did a silent ‘yes’ when they say “we need more teeth” heralding the return of an old friend from JP1). The Pterosaur attack was daft
why would they attack humans en-masse for no reason, especially if they were fleeing from danger themselves?
. The constant contrivances begin to fray ones’ suspension of disbelief -almost to Michael Bay levels- and undoes a lot of the respectful attitude to animals the first movie cultivated so well. I also thought the CG was variable- quite cartoony in other places. It’s obvious that the budget went mostly on the film’s new creatures on the block, but at the expense of other animals such as the Triceratops and sauropod herds, and also the T-Rex. They don’t always look convincing.

Stuff I liked? The I:Rex,
making a terrifying first appearance and then taking on a squad of soldiers in a fantastic Predator-esque jungle sequence. Lots of nods to that film and also Aliens (monitoring the soldier’s life-signs as they flatline one by one).
The Mosasaur is also an awesome franchise addition and a personal favourite, and the Raptors are very well done. I had no problem either with the ‘Raptor training’, and indeed the early scene of Pratt attempting to mollify his overexcited beasties was superbly done- showing them as still as wild animals that remain extremely dangerous despite a modicum of rudimentary training.

Chris Pratt’s Owen is the human highlight of the film and although his character is a cookie-cutter ‘reluctant hero with a rogueish charm’, he completely owns the role and doesn’t just repeat his Peter Quill persona. Bryce Dallas Howard’s character Claire is more developed but less interesting, and I wasn’t sure if I liked her or not. The frisson between her and Pratt has chemistry, but is at the same time extremely cliché. She’s the prim and uptight career woman and not a fan of the wild (bit of a cross between Willie Scott and Sally Albright) who pretends not to like the blokey charms of rough-round-the-edges Owen.
Still at least they don’t have an obligatory kiss. Oh wait. They do:rolleyes:. Her means of ‘stepping up’ also amount to taking off her shirt and pushing out her Lara Croft chest (her assets barely in containment ;)). She goes full-Ripley by the end of course (bravely acting as Dino-bait for the finale), but
her character is hardly progressive and seems a backward step from, say, Mad Max’s Furiosa. Despite the film passing the Bedchel test (female characters talk to each other without mentioning men), I can see why some feminists would not be Claire fans.

On the flip-side of that, the movie can be commended for showing the franchise’s first ever female character
(the hot babysitter/personal assistant) to be eaten on screen. It’s pretty special and possibly my favourite scene in the film: a wild rollercoaster (for her as well as the audience!). Zara getting gulped has been the subject of much controversy though- the main criticisms being that a) she didn’t do much to deserve it (sorry, do animals have in-built morality detectors? And what about the heroic Eddie in The Lost World?) ,and b) that it was wrong to show a woman being brutalised/ toyed with before dying (isn’t the Mosasaur that ate her also female, though?). Sorry feminists, but you can’t have it both ways; if you want equal representation in film, then women can't be exempt from being red-shirts, whether it’s deserved or not. Woman up.

So besides courting moral controversy, does Jurassic World have a lot to say? Not much we haven't already heard. There’s the usual ‘anti’ stance against militarisation, profit-driven science, and a big whack at consumerism and our insatiable clamour for ‘more’. This makes JW a curiously self-referential parody; given the film’s shameless product placement. In the end, Jurassic World is a monster of a monster B-movie that homages a host of other films such as Jaws, The Birds, Aliens, Predator, Avatar and of course Jurassic Park. Nothing less, but sadly nothing more.

6.5/10
 
I saw it on Thursday.

Here's the problem. The original Jurassic Park was thoughtful science fiction with a sense of wonderment and an emphasis on character. Jurassic World is a Frankenstein’s monster-on-the-loose film pure and simple- but set in a dinosaur theme park. Put that way, it sounds pretty fun and I think I’ll enjoy it much more the second time. But on first viewing, I have to admit to spending an awful lot of time rolling my eyes, facepalming and feeling disappointed as well as thrilled. To be honest, a lot of this film is just bloody preposterous.

One of the worst plot offenders is the painfully silly and groan-worthy ‘using dinosaurs as weapons’ subplot. Really? Its been done before, and not very well, in Alien Resurrection and it was stupid then too. The action ups the ante to ludicrous levels as the film goes on (although I did a silent ‘yes’ when they say “we need more teeth” heralding the return of an old friend from JP1). The Pterosaur attack was daft
why would they attack humans en-masse for no reason, especially if they were fleeing from danger themselves?
. The constant contrivances begin to fray ones’ suspension of disbelief -almost to Michael Bay levels- and undoes a lot of the respectful attitude to animals the first movie cultivated so well. I also thought the CG was variable- quite cartoony in other places. It’s obvious that the budget went mostly on the film’s new creatures on the block, but at the expense of other animals such as the Triceratops and sauropod herds, and also the T-Rex. They don’t always look convincing.

Stuff I liked? The I:Rex,
making a terrifying first appearance and then taking on a squad of soldiers in a fantastic Predator-esque jungle sequence. Lots of nods to that film and also Aliens (monitoring the soldier’s life-signs as they flatline one by one).
The Mosasaur is also an awesome franchise addition and a personal favourite, and the Raptors are very well done. I had no problem either with the ‘Raptor training’, and indeed the early scene of Pratt attempting to mollify his overexcited beasties was superbly done- showing them as still as wild animals that remain extremely dangerous despite a modicum of rudimentary training.

Chris Pratt’s Owen is the human highlight of the film and although his character is a cookie-cutter ‘reluctant hero with a rogueish charm’, he completely owns the role and doesn’t just repeat his Peter Quill persona. Bryce Dallas Howard’s character Claire is more developed but less interesting, and I wasn’t sure if I liked her or not. The frisson between her and Pratt has chemistry, but is at the same time extremely cliché. She’s the prim and uptight career woman and not a fan of the wild (bit of a cross between Willie Scott and Sally Albright) who pretends not to like the blokey charms of rough-round-the-edges Owen.
Still at least they don’t have an obligatory kiss. Oh wait. They do:rolleyes:. Her means of ‘stepping up’ also amount to taking off her shirt and pushing out her Lara Croft chest (her assets barely in containment ;)). She goes full-Ripley by the end of course (bravely acting as Dino-bait for the finale), but
her character is hardly progressive and seems a backward step from, say, Mad Max’s Furiosa. Despite the film passing the Bedchel test (female characters talk to each other without mentioning men), I can see why some feminists would not be Claire fans.

On the flip-side of that, the movie can be commended for showing the franchise’s first ever female character
(the hot babysitter/personal assistant) to be eaten on screen. It’s pretty special and possibly my favourite scene in the film: a wild rollercoaster (for her as well as the audience!). Zara getting gulped has been the subject of much controversy though- the main criticisms being that a) she didn’t do much to deserve it (sorry, do animals have in-built morality detectors? And what about the heroic Eddie in The Lost World?) ,and b) that it was wrong to show a woman being brutalised/ toyed with before dying (isn’t the Mosasaur that ate her also female, though?). Sorry feminists, but you can’t have it both ways; if you want equal representation in film, then women can't be exempt from being red-shirts, whether it’s deserved or not. Woman up.

So besides courting moral controversy, does Jurassic World have a lot to say? Not much we haven't already heard. There’s the usual ‘anti’ stance against militarisation, profit-driven science, and a big whack at consumerism and our insatiable clamour for ‘more’. This makes JW a curiously self-referential parody; given the film’s shameless product placement. In the end, Jurassic World is a monster of a monster B-movie that homages a host of other films such as Jaws, The Birds, Aliens, Predator, Avatar and of course Jurassic Park. Nothing less, but sadly nothing more.

6.5/10

I agree with all that (apart from the dinos as weapons) but bizarrely i still stand by my 4/5 cos i enjoyed the pants off this film
Nice review
and while im at it...6.5/10 = 3.25/5
3.2/5 feels like a good film score but not great
6.5/10 feels like a bad film score
:p
 
Last edited:
I agree with all that (apart from the dinos as weapons) but bizarrely i still stand by my 4/5 cos i enjoyed the pants off this film
Nice review

Yeah, I like all of Lucas's reviews, he's more analytical so the flaws are more amplified to his clever mind, lol.

I gave an 8.5 and enjoyed a great deal out of it. I see most people criticising the raptor relationship (or weaponry sub plot). Well I flipping loved that. Its different, I really enjoyed that new aspect. I dont care if it's ludicrous. It was fun and quite plausible enough for my low powered brain capacity :D I think its a wicked progression. I dont notice the quality of CGI either. Effects are effects, be it claymation, stop motion, cgi, or man in suit. I dont care. Dinos looked great to my eyes and they had character, that's what mattered to me. The film gave us some vintage Jurassic Park action which some cynics call formulaic and offers new refreshing spins such as the weaponry subplot which some cynics call ludicrous. Which is all fair enough. Lucas rating is most likely the most truest from a proper critic perspective.

But I think its all about how one approaches a franchise sequel. How much does one crave for the quality of the original? And more importantly, I believe, is how much is the enjoyment factor affected by reading several reviews and watching trailers? I never read any reviews and I have not seen any trailers before seeing this film. The whole raptor thing was quite a surprise in fact which probably factored into why I enjoyed it. I think everyone did enjoy something out of Jurassic World. Its just comes down to how much the flaws/implausibility negates that overall enjoyment.
 
Last edited:
Leave your brain at the door predictable charactors and plot...but brilliant popcorn movie..in fact in imax 3d was absolutely brilliant..return to form 8.5 out of ten..love it for what it is
Bluray ordered ready!
 
I agree with all that (apart from the dinos as weapons) but bizarrely i still stand by my 4/5 cos i enjoyed the pants off this film
Nice review
and while im at it...6.5/10 = 3.25/5
3.2/5 feels like a good film score but not great
6.5/10 feels like a bad film score
:p

Thing is 6 seems like a bad score and to be fair I enjoyed it more than that. But 7 seems like a betrayal of my principles.:)
 
Watched it tonight and enjoyed it, not as good as Jurassic Park but then I wasn't expecting it to be. Better than 2 and 3 by a long way though. Love the comments on here which criticise the movie for stretching reality around certain plot points when the whole concept of resurrecting dinosaurs is as about as far from reality as you can get. Enjoy it for what it is and its a good popcorn movie.
 
Watched it tonight and enjoyed it, not as good as Jurassic Park but then I wasn't expecting it to be. Better than 2 and 3 by a long way though. Love the comments on here which criticise the movie for stretching reality around certain plot points when the whole concept of resurrecting dinosaurs is as about as far from reality as you can get. Enjoy it for what it is and its a good popcorn movie.

No it isn't. That is actually the most well-explained part of the entire franchise.
 
There is a simple acid test I use to determine whether a Jurassic set-piece is any good:

"How would today's animals behave?"

The moment you acknowledge that prehistoric beasts (dinosaurs, pterosaurs and marine reptiles) were simply yesterday's fauna occupying all the same niches as modern animals; then you have a benchmark as to how, very roughly, they should behave.

Plausible:
Raptors able to follow basic commands
Pteranodon picking up a small human (eg the girl) and dropping her
Mosasaur rising up to devour whatever is above the waterline
T-Rex hunting Gallimimuses, eating a goat, eating a human
Raptors hunting and killing humans for food
Herbivorous dinosaurs quietly grazing
Dinosaurs not necessarily being visible when specatators go past in a car


Implausible:
Raptors having a conversation with Indominus rex and 'switching loyalties'
T-Rex walking up to a prominent spot and bellowing at the landscape for no ****ing reason
Flock of small pterosaurs attacking humans Hitchcock-style
Mosasaur beaching itself in order to kill bad dino and save the day
Mixed Dinosaur species ganging up on bad dino, because they are the 'goodies'
Dinosaurs having a scrap, because it's cool
Dinosaur getting inside a car, just in order that the fat douche gets his comeuppance
Raptor being outwitted by a child who's good at gymnastics
Dinosaur sneezing and showering a child with green goo.

All the films break the rules, even the first one, but Jurassic World took it a bit far for me.

I can suspend disbelief a bit further for the Indominus Rex, as the movie has already made it clear that this was a specially designed, a la carte creature with a range of special abilities. Goes back to my point about JW being a monster movie.
 
No it isn't. That is actually the most well-explained part of the entire franchise.

It might be well explained but it's never ever going to happen so it's far from reality!
 
It might be well explained but it's never ever going to happen so it's far from reality!

Why is it? Genetic engineering has limitless applications. The only thing the movies get wrong is the timescale. It isn't going to happen for a long time yet, but there's no reason why it won't happen in the future.
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom