A Spirited Perfect Ten

[Bairstow]

...the pacing with the "emotional" parts of the story (the stupid divorce mini-sub-plot) were on par with the worst of Lucas' prequel work...

I actually wanted to see more of this and thought it could have been a clever way of making us feel empathy for the two rich little white boys who get to be at the world's most expensive theme park. It tapped into an emotional state I bet a lot of us are familiar with- "being at a theme park but being unable to enjoy it because the emotional weight of an ongoing event in our lives is too heavy to escape". It would have been more effective if the younger boy's emotions weren't consistently happy during the early scenes in the park where he's supposed to be brooding over his parents' upcoming divorce. Half the time the older kid is trying to cheer him up and the other time he's trying to ditch/aggravate his little brother on purpose. It felt like two completely different versions of the first act had both been filmed and then edited together. Also, was the little kid supposed to be a Rainman-style savant or something? I could never really tell.

Still a very fun movie despite the problems. Once it got rolling I had no complaints.

 

[choco choco]

Um, no. Not even close.

Well, that's convincing.

I guess that includes 60% of top critics on Rotten Tomatoes, since they all recommended seeing it.

There's a difference between having an opinion ("I didn't like the movie, because...") and just spouting hyperbole in an effort to look superior.

And I did. I wrote that I could criticize multiple things (actually everything), but I started with the fact that the filmmakers didn't know how to use the tools they had chosen themselves for their own movie (my whole paragraph about the film's look). Why don't we talk about the actual movie. Let's get into film criticism, which is not the same as film reviews (Rotten Tomatoes only aggregates the latter).

So what do you think in the movie actually worked?

 

[Prince-1]

Thanks for the correction. I heard Bay was involved so I admittedly stopped paying attention to it.

It would have sucked either way. And I like Michael Bay's movies. Most of them.

 

[PhotoDave219]

But the Transformers movies were beautiful (in fact, as a pure composer of moving images, Michael Bay is one of our best filmmakers). Blockbusters don't necessarily have to be great storytelling, but the money spent on them should appear on screen. Blockbusters should look like 150 million bucks.

Colin Trevorrow managed to make Jurassic World look cheap. Which is a very difficult thing to do with what he had.

I dont know what transformers you had as a kid, but mine werent what was on the screen.

It was neither beautiful nor compelling storytelling by any stretch of the imagination

 

[Animaniac93-98]

So what do you think in the movie actually worked?

What I or anyone else thinks is obviously immaterial to you.

You've already made up your mind, anyone who disagrees "[doesn't] know any better".

 

[AEfx]

So like Transformers? Made a Boatload of Money but was a horrible film?

I don't think JW was a horrible film, it was rather good - but it was in spite of the directorial issues. He was just trying too hard to subvert expectations - stuff that would work in, say, a more "arty" film but just was misplaced in a big budget franchise extravaganza where you want to give people what they want/expect.

In case you didn't know, Spielberg gets final cut on all Jurassic Park films.

That may be the case, but it was still directed by this guy, he was on set every day choosing the shots, etc. - and it's pretty easy to see where his stamp was.

I'm sure the actual inclusion of the divorce subplot was due to Speilberg's suggestion (it's one of his main recurring motifs), for example. But it was very clumsy and in the film it really just made the younger kid appear even more unbalanced than he already was. I actually was surprised there wasn't more talk about how the kid pretty clearly came across as emotionally unstable and/or somewhere in the Autistic spectrum - which would be fine, but I don't think that was the intention. I was in an absolutely full theater when I saw it opening night, and that whole scene just stopped the audience dead in it's tracks. Thankfully, it happened as early as it did so the film was able to recover, but "clumsy" is the only word I can use for it.

Another example of just absolutely daft directing was the T-Rex introduction. If you pick up a Directing 101 book, in the first 50 pages you'll see the very basic rules of staging and associating shots within a scene to be coherent visually. He goes from an establishing shot from inside the containment, and then jumps 200 degrees perspective to inside the viewing room and never leaves again. It's disjointed. These "rules" can be broken, but shouldn't be unless you have something better. It was just another example of "I'm not going to do what is expected, because I want to be different" - not "because I have a better idea or want to create a disjointed effect to confuse the audience". Much the same can be said for the staging of the final battle, where he did similar things.

Honestly, the most egregious thing to me was the introduction into the park - that low shot off to the side of the monorail and skipping the "WOW!" entrance was just...daft. That's one of the key "MONEY SHOTS" in a Jurassic film. And he totally mucked it up in favor of showing it from the hotel room later on. Again, he didn't do what was "expected" but replaced it with something lame, not even interesting or inventive. I was so let down at that moment. When you make a picture like that, you need to give the audience those moments they crave. And we got cheated out of several of them, which is why I think it was a good movie - very good at times - but missed being "great".

A decent FLIR system is not that expensive anymore (25,000-50,000 per unit) and could easily be mounted on the safari vehicles

Oh, I'm sure lighting systems are there - but given how difficult so much of the animal viewing already is on the safari, I just find it an odd thing to do in the dark. Maybe if they have spotlights it's easier to point out that lion sitting a thousand feet away, LOL. But I also wonder about the animals, as they don't "live" in those display environments, so that's a long day for them - and having lights shined on them can't be particularly pleasant.

I actually wanted to see more of this and thought it could have been a clever way of making us feel empathy for the two rich little white boys who get to be at the world's most expensive theme park.

To be honest, I think the film could have easily done without it - I didn't see any indication they were "rich boys" - just that they had a relative in a high position at the park which gave them such great access - but if they did it, it could have been done a whole lot better so as not to simply make the kid look unstable or that he had mental issues. It just made the whole thing impossible to relate to and just made you wonder why a kid with such issues didn't have more close supervision.

In any case, as I have said - I agree, it was a good film - it's just a shame because it could have been better with just some different decisions in four or five key scenes.

 

[AEfx]

Jurassic World is as bad a modern blockbuster as there has ever been. Immediately joining the ranks of Batman and Robin, Catwoman, Battlefied Earth, The Adventures of Pluto Nash, Wild Wild West....etc, etc.

It is OBJECTIVELY bad. There is no arguing this. People who thought it was good simply don't know any better. To use Spirit's analogy (this is his thread after all), people may like McDonald's, but that doesn't make it quality. If you don't know what you don't know, you can't tell the difference.

Well, I've been to film school - and I disagree. I think overall it was a good film, but fell short of great because of the inept attempts at "arty" directing. Not every film needs to be Citizen Kane, unless you are a total film snob boor (in which case one should know enough not to view a summer popcorn blockbuster to begin with), and in fact - that was the problem in the first place. He tried to be different, and failed at the times where he was allowed to do so.

 

[Smiddimizer]

I think it's possible Disney just made their first mis-step with Star Wars. I'll reserve judgement until we actually see it, but the director of Jurassic World would have been my last choice to helm the finale of the new trilogy. The direction of JW was the weakest thing about it. I overall enjoyed the movie, but it was a solid B instead of what could have been an A+ if not for the shoddy directing.

Sure, it made gads of money, but the pacing with the "emotional" parts of the story (the stupid divorce mini-sub-plot) were on par with the worst of Lucas' prequel work, and several key sequences were horribly staged (avoiding what you want/expect to see in an attempt to be subversive but not paying off after said subversion). Those are the domain of the director, so I hope he picks up a Directing 101 book between now and then, or at least has enough people around calling the shots to correct his errors.

Didn't hate it like some, I'd give it three stars, a solid actioner with clever dialogue and fake dinosaurs (yeah ok, "all dinosaurs are fake", thanks smartassaurus). But I'm worried too, methinks Trevorrow is better with a pen than he is with a camera. Then again JJ Abrams has the opposite problem...then again again, maybe the camp he brings to his writing makes him more suitable for SW than anyone. So on the whole, I don't really know what to expect of any of these new Star Wars. Except that the Lord/Miller Han Solo flick will probably be the best out of all of them

But I digress. I would have picked another auteurist TV creator like Abrams or Johnson (maybe extend an olive branch to Edgar Wright?) and handed story credit to Trevorrow. But hell, the guy's made two movies--for better or worse he still hasn't proven his mettle (you know, aside from making the biggest movie of the summer), he could become the next Spielberg instead of emulating him on a surface level.

 

[Andrew_Ryan]

Well, I've been to film school - and I disagree. I think overall it was a good film, but fell short of great because of the inept attempts at "arty" directing. Not every film needs to be Citizen Kane, unless you are a total film snob boor (in which case one should know enough not to view a summer popcorn blockbuster to begin with), and in fact - that was the problem in the first place. He tried to be different, and failed at the times where he was allowed to do so.

I thought it was pretty bad. The characters were so bland and forgetable. It's fine that people like it, but I just don't know how they can build a "cinematic universe" off of these characters.

The trend of justifying bad films because they are summer popcorn movies baffles me. Jurassic Park, Back to the Future, ET, Terminator 2. All great, unique, rewatchable films that have artistic integrity, and pleased the masses. People have always gone to see dumb, forgetable movies, but the money involved in these contemporary films is so massive, I wish the movies were better. It seems like a huge waste of resources and it kind of makes our generation look really bland.

I can't help but think that in the future, people will look back on the 2010s and just think we were all super boring and indulgent. Look at these lists of top grossing films from past decades. Don't you think our tastes are getting worse? The 2010s are on track to become the first decade who's top grossing film is a sequel, and a pretty bland one at that.

http://www.filmsite.org/boxoffice2.html

 

[Mouse Trap]

The MACD of $DIS suggests there is more downside to go. Had I been watching TVIX and bought on 8/19, I would have made huge money.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda. If I had a dollar for every time someone has told me about something they should've done in the stock market....

We're all great investors in hindsight

 

[Nubs70]

Woulda, coulda, shoulda. If I had a dollar for every time someone has told me that about the stock market....

If you use MACD, the chart showed a clear buy signal on Wednesday.

 

[Mouse Trap]

If you use MACD, the chart showed a clear buy signal on Wednesday.

Right. But Nothing is guaranteed in the stock market, especially technicals or we'd all be billionaires.

 

[choco choco]

Honestly, the most egregious thing to me was the introduction into the park - that low shot off to the side of the monorail and skipping the "WOW!" entrance was just...daft. That's one of the key "MONEY SHOTS" in a Jurassic film. And he totally mucked it up in favor of showing it from the hotel room later on. Again, he didn't do what was "expected" but replaced it with something lame, not even interesting or inventive. I was so let down at that moment. When you make a picture like that, you need to give the audience those moments they crave. And we got cheated out of several of them, which is why I think it was a good movie - very good at times - but missed being "great".
.

That was the shot (the hotel room shot, it's about six minutes in), where I basically face-palmed and knew Trevorrow wasn't going to pull it off. Sometimes, a film telegraphs to you just that early that the director doesn't get it. I knew six minutes in.

Anyone who has studied Spielberg's original Jurassic Park knew that he very deliberately ground his camera. Place it at eye-level, use a simple series of pan, zooms and tracks, and do not have the camera move or angled in ways that a hypothetical real visitor to an actual Jurassic Park wouldn't be able to move or angle. The camera is an anonymous human observer and what is shown on screen is our proxy eyes. The better it acts like a human, the better the illusion that we are in Jurassic Park with the characters.

The minute Trevorrow flings his camera into the free-space, having it fly in a way no human being ever has and using all sorts of God's eye viewing angles, he's broken the illusion. It's a trend of all modern blockbusters (better to show off CGI money shots) and it is a reason why big budget movies set in fantastical worlds have become less instead of more believable over time.

 

[Quinnmac000]

 

[PhotoDave219]

Behold! The PandaJesus is among us!

 

[Nubs70]

Right. But Nothing is guaranteed in the stock market, especially technicals or we'd all be billionaires.

True, but if you hit more than you miss , you will be much further ahead than stuffing the mattress.

 

[PhotoDave219]

True, but if you hit more than you miss , you will be much further ahead than stuffing the mattress.

Reminds me of a night with two Princesses.

 

[TalkingHead]

Well, I've been to film school - and I disagree. I think overall it was a good film, but fell short of great because of the inept attempts at "arty" directing. Not every film needs to be Citizen Kane, unless you are a total film snob boor (in which case one should know enough not to view a summer popcorn blockbuster to begin with), and in fact - that was the problem in the first place. He tried to be different, and failed at the times where he was allowed to do so.

I enjoyed it while I was in the theater, but however many weeks later, I have no desire to see it again. Seeing it on a big screen with a packed house, I thought it was adequately entertaining, extremely safe in its storytelling, and somewhat forgettable.

Raiders of the Lost Ark, it ain't.

 

[TalkingHead]

That was the shot (the hotel room shot, it's about six minutes in), where I basically face-palmed and knew Trevorrow wasn't going to pull it off. Sometimes, a film telegraphs to you just that early that the director doesn't get it. I knew six minutes in.

Anyone who has studied Spielberg's original Jurassic Park knew that he very deliberately ground his camera. Place it at eye-level, use a simple series of pan, zooms and tracks, and do not have the camera move or angled in ways that a hypothetical real visitor to an actual Jurassic Park wouldn't be able to move or angle. The camera is an anonymous human observer and what is shown on screen is our proxy eyes. The better it acts like a human, the better the illusion that we are in Jurassic Park with the characters.

The minute Trevorrow flings his camera into the free-space, having it fly in a way no human being ever has and using all sorts of God's eye viewing angles, he's broken the illusion. It's a trend of all modern blockbusters (better to show off CGI money shots) and it is a reason why big budget movies set in fantastical worlds have become less instead of more believable over time.

I see your point (and might even say I have a preference for the aesthetic you're describing), but it's pretty dogmatic to say there's one correct way to shoot a scene.

Personally, I think you can make a case that Jurassic World is self-consciously campy and a work of self-parody in which case "breaking the illusion" is part of the plan.

 

[AEfx]

I thought it was pretty bad. The characters were so bland and forgetable. It's fine that people like it, but I just don't know how they can build a "cinematic universe" off of these characters.

The trend of justifying bad films because they are summer popcorn movies baffles me. Jurassic Park, Back to the Future, ET, Terminator 2. All great, unique, rewatchable films that have artistic integrity, and pleased the masses. People have always gone to see dumb, forgetable movies, but the money involved in these contemporary films is so massive, I wish the movies were better. It seems like a huge waste of resources and it kind of makes our generation look really bland.

I honestly don't see it as justifying a "bad film" but simply categorizing the entertainment value, the intention of making the product to begin with. At least a product like this. I simply don't think you can judge every film based on the same criteria. That's why you will see my opinions at first blush seem contradictory, but they aren't - the thoughts are not opposing. A lot of the individual directing decisions (at least 10 of them were just...blech) didn't totally destroy the film or what I wanted from it (a view of the next generation of a Jurassic theme park, a bunch of dinosaurs fighting and everyone running for their lives excitement). One doesn't pick up a Harlequin Romance and expect or compare it to Moby Dick.

While I agree that massive studio films in general feel as if they have gone downhill, there is also something to be said for rose-colored nostalgia glasses. BTTF, ET - not meant to be "blockbusters" they just sort of became them. The difference today is that "tentpole" films are planned and the cost a quarter of a billion dollars each to make and almost as much to promote, and that means too many hands are involved creatively because of the amount of money involved. It's also of course subjective - I find T2 so disgustingly over-rated it's not even funny, it just tickles the nostalgia of folks who are in my age range because it was the first "big R-rated action movie" most of us were old enough to get into (or sneak watching it on VHS).

There have ALWAYS been bad films, the 70's/80's certainly had as many as we do today (actually more, since more films in general were produced) - the industry just didn't make them the spectacular newsworthy failures they are today because of the sheer money being spent on them. We just tend to remember the good ones, or the really really bad ones. Not all the mediocrity in between.

I'll say again - I don't think it was a "bad" film. I certainly enjoyed it, the concept was solid, the throw-backs to the first film were great, the cast was pretty good most of the time (take the divorce thing out and the kids even were rather decently likable), and in spite of my dislike of CGI over aniamatronics (or the mixture that the first film had), the dinosaurs looked pretty damn good, too. I really wanted to see more of the park itself, though - another missed opportunity IMO. But that aside, I can't wait to make my own fan edit of the film - I can cut about 15 minutes out, splice in the monorail shot from the trailer, and I'll have what to me is a pretty darn good, fun film.