Jurassic World Movie Blurb by Shale June 12, 2015 This was the BIG movie this week, projected to do good at the box office and possibly break records. The aggregate critics on Rotten Tomatoes give it 70% fresh and 87% of audiences liked it. What I find interesting is the Critics Consensus: Jurassic World can't match the original for sheer inventiveness and impact, but it works in its own right as an entertaining -- and visually dazzling -- popcorn thriller. That was exactly my thots on this movie as well as most sequels. Four movies of my lifetime that blew me away were Star Wars (1977), Alien (1979), Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) and Jurassic Park (1993). Their sequels - not so much. They didn't match the inventiveness and impact of the original. However, I will say this movie is better than the other two sequels in this franchise and is structured much like the original, with a money-making venture to show even bigger and more frightening dinosaurs to the public that somehow goes awry and ppl get eaten by the escaped monsters. This movie opens 22 years after the Jurassic Park tragedy and the island has been rebuilt with huge pens and aquariums to display the even huger dinosaurs. These are not the originals. As you recall, the dinosaur genome had to be spliced with other existing reptiles and amphibians to fill in the missing genes. Over the past two decades they have gotten this down to a marketing science to produce the larger and more vicious dinosaurs to keep the public coming back. So, instead of just a mere Tyrannosaurus Rex, they have now created ''Indominus Rex.'' Just like the original movie, there are a couple of kids in this one, nephews of Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas Howard), the parks Operations Manager. Zach (Nick Robinson) and his younger brother Gray (Ty Simpkins) were sent by their parents to stay with their aunt and enjoy the dinosaur experience. There is a bit of infighting within the corporate world on the island between Claire, Vic Hoskins (Vincent D'Onofrio), head of security and Owen Grady (Chris Pratt), a Velociraptor expert who is training them to take commands. Owen sees them as living animals whereas everyone else sees them as a commodity or in the case of Vic a potential weapon. Owen, Claire & Vic Trying to See Who's Alpha Owen has made some progress getting the Raptors to see him as the Alpha of their pack instead of a snack - which shows briefly as he rescues a co-worker who fell into the cage. Owen the Alpha Velociraptor Well, as mentioned earlier and in the trailers, the biggest, meanest and smartest land dinosaur manages to escape, snacking on a couple of workers in the process. Everyone is going thru their procedure to recapture this monster but one mistake after another just feeds it more. Shooting the Big One (We're gonna need a bigger gun) Of course the two nephews are out in a really neat "hamster ball" rolling with the friendly herbivorous dinos and are not aware of how dangerous it is about to get. Kids in Hamster Ball This was a fun movie to watch and for any kids who have not seen the original 22 years ago will likely be blown away by it. Just us old jaded folks who have seen it before and can't be amazed anew by the CGI special effects like we were the first time.
I'm going to see this shortly but I'm already a bit undecided on the creation of a new dinosaur in regards to gene splitting. To me that's just too far fetched and unrealistic. I also think it's a cookie cutter idea with little to no imagination. Of all the sci fi thrillers over the past decade with evolutionary being and aliens etc. I mean they even tried to evolve the Terminator. Time to get back to basics if you ask me, and basics for dinosaurs are the same dinosaurs we all grew up with as kids. Just my opinion. I'll still see this of course. But I already think the story line is off putting and I will no doubt scoff at the plot.
I agree why not just go with Spinosaurus Aegyptiacus who could eat T-Rex for breakfast - Can't get any more menacing than that and it actually existed. Hotwater
The look of the dinosaurs is still going by what science thought 40 years ago Raptors would have looked more like big chickens, feathers etc Its kind of annoying. Theres like about 6 movies i want to see at the moment, not enough time for all of them, and this is sixth on that list
No the raptors in Jurassic series are based off the more recent Utah raptor appeal. It is true that smaller raptors may have been feathered like, but the much larger Utah Raptor was a completely different animal altogether. Though I'm not sure about what it is meant to look like nowadays. But honestly, I like the dinosaurs to look like they did when I learned about them, so I like the reptilian look. Plus people need to realize that many dinosaurs did not live in the same time period at all.
OK guys, I never knew this would be such a controversy. I didn't want to spoil it but the big baddie is spliced with multiple different animals and since it is not a real dinosaur, supposedly has traits of all these other animals. Bottom Line - It is fiction. I found it funny that real paleontologists got their knickers in a knot over this. From Wikipedia: [SIZE=12pt]Controversies[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Scientific accuracy[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]A Twitter post attributed to Trevorrow stated there would be no feathered dinosaurs in the film. While the first Jurassic Park film was lauded by paleontologists for depicting dinosaurs accurately and in line with the science of the time, based on current knowledge, changing the public view of dinosaurs as slow and giant lizard-like reptiles, Jurassic World is being criticized for purposely ignoring new discoveries and knowledge, with several dinosaur experts calling the film a 'dumb monster movie' for failing to include new discoveries about the creatures, such as some dinosaurs being covered with feathers or proto-feathers like Tyrannosaurus rex and Velociraptor and the way velociraptors held their front limbs. Since the film's teaser trailer release, many paleontologists expressed their disappointment on Twitter, Facebook and their own blogs, calling the dinosaurs that were featured a retrograde step from the original Jurassic Park. In response to these criticisms, Trevorrow said that "the film is scientifically 'inaccurate' because it is a science-fiction movie and not a documentary." A faux review on the film's web site speculates that the use of amphibian DNA to fill the gaps in the dinosaur DNA (a plot point in the original novel and film) prevented the dinosaurs from growing feathers.[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Spinosaurus[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]In popular culture[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Spinosaurus appeared in the 2001 film Jurassic Park III, replacing Tyrannosaurus as the main antagonist. The film's consulting paleontologist John R. Horner was quoted as saying: "If we base the ferocious factor on the length of the animal, there was nothing that ever lived on this planet that could match this creature [Spinosaurus]. Also my hypothesis is that T-rex was actually a scavenger rather than a killer. Spinosaurus was really the predatory animal." (He has since retracted the statement about T. Rex being a scavenger.) In the film, Spinosaurus was portrayed as larger and more powerful than Tyrannosaurus: in a scene depicting a battle between the two resurrected predators, Spinosaurus emerges victorious by snapping the tyrannosaur's neck. [/SIZE]
I saw this yesterday and I did enjoy it. Totally full of crap though lol and it could almost be the very first original Alien film with the whole circus surrounding the military to use raptors as a weapon. way too much like the alien saga IMO. Didn't expect the baddy to go down like he did, literally.
I really enjoyed Jurassic World. While it was quite silly at times, and the writing wasn't nearly as spot on as the first film, it was a damn fun cinematic adventure. I will be seeing it again before it leaves theaters.
One of the things I did not like was at the end where, I think the raptor was "blue", it seemed to head nod at the trainer as if to say "you run and hide we'll finish this". That kinda annoyed me. Like I get they're trying to build a relationship between the raptor and it's trainer but seriously? About as lame as when predator became friends with that chick in AvP. Lameness. I knew the bad guy would be able to lower his heat to avoid thermal camera and as the movie went on and got stupider I thought it'd be spliced with human DNA too at some stage. When I think about it though there wasn't that much dinosaur action but I think it recreated that awesomeness of the first film. I thought the park itself looked awesome. I wish they'd do it in real life, I'd definitely go.
I agree with the raptor moment at the end - melted cheese all the way. I LOVED how much they paid tribute to the first film.
Took my boys to the drive in to see this. We all likes it. I didn't think I would. I could relate to the nephews as did my boys. (Not the being chased by dinosaurs part). Loved seeing the actor Law and Order as the 'bad' guy.
OMG....there was a line of cars for 30 minutes last night to see this opening night at the drive in theater last night.....I was at a diner at the window and the whole time I was there, cars were inching their way to the theater.
Finally got around to see this yesterday Was alright, but it was pretty much the same story again New theme park, biggest dinosaur breaks loose, a bunch of people get eaten And the look of the dinosaurs still annoys me, hard to make out in some scenes.as its just a screen full of grey flesh The CGI with the eyes, much better in this one, and Chris Pratt more fun than Goldblum or ONeill
I finally saw Jurassic World today and it was pretty good. It's what I expected; a bigger theme park with the director serving up a human/dinosaur smorgasbord for Indominus Rex [SIZE=10pt]Hotwater[/SIZE]
Our interest in Dinosaurs is obvious; we've been around for 5 million years, they were around for 135 million Hotwater
I enjoyed the film, it seemed like it had elements of every previous film in the Jurassic Park series but on a grander scale. I didn't find it too cheesy, certainly not like Lost World. Although the product placement was rampant, particularly in the first half of the movie. I actually enjoyed the 'taming' of the raptors. I was thinking I might find it pretty hokey, because I heard about it before seeing the movie and I hope it's not something they rely on in any sequels. However for this movie, the raptor taming provided a bit of nuance in the dinosaurs, which was unique and not really seen in the previous movies, which was basically herbivore dinosaur 'good', carnivore dinosaur 'bad'. The special effects were quality and the main reason to see the movie.
I could have done without the raptor factor; The entire series of movies emphasized that man cannot control the natural predatory instincts of the dinosaur, then sudden he become bosom buddies with the raptors - right Hotwater
The movie was entertaining for me and I really liked it. However, not as much as I loved Jurassic Park and the movie will never match the first one in a million years. I'd also like to mention that the dinosaurs look kind of... out of place. It didn't look as real like the dinos in the first movie. I mean, I heard that the guy who did the previous dinosaurs had died so they went full CG for the movie except for the T-Rex but still. It looked kind of odd and at the time I couldn't quite put my finger on it.
