Jurassic World

The original Jurassic Park still is a personal favourite, it is an enormously fun, thrilling (with some nail-biting moments) and brilliantly made film, with one of John Williams' most memorable main themes and scene-stealing dinosaurs. The Lost World has its admirers, but for me it was a major step-down and one of Spielberg's weakest films, and Jurassic Park 3 was even more disappointing.

Jurassic World is not a patch on the first Jurassic Park and I didn't quite find it the return to form that it has been touted as, but for all its faults and uneven parts it is a massive improvements on the previous two sequels and is an entertaining film in its own right that does more right than it does wrong.

First things off, Jurassic World is an incredibly well-made film, it's beautifully shot with scenery that's both colourful and atmospheric and the dinosaurs look wonderful. The dinosaurs also steal the film, not just their designs but also that they're lots of fun and are scary, their scenes are great to watch and there could have been even more than there were. This is especially true with the Indominus Rex, who is chillingly bloodthirsty, when she is stalking her prey it's enough to be glued to one's seat and then jump out of it. Michael Giacchino's music score is positively stirring, and even includes themes from Williams' score for Jurassic Park, which was just a lovely homage and fits within the rest of the scoring beautifully.

The film's homages are most enjoyable and give the film a nostalgic quality, some of it is savvy and funny and while not as much as the original there's still a good of thrills and scares to be had. The latter half is often very exciting, the film is efficiently directed, doing nicely in maintaining the tension, and the acting is good (though one does wish that the characters were written better). Chris Pratt has a likable and warm presence, as well as a nice wit, and Bryce Dallas Howard is similarly good even with the most problematically written character. Vincent D'Onofrio makes a real effort making his somewhat one-note and underused character more interesting than he deserves to be and does bring some intensity.

However, Jurassic World does contain some large problems. Not all the acting works, Judy Greer for my tastes was annoying in places and the children's acting was often too forced and their back story goes nowhere. The script and story are uneven, with the script it has its moments but it can be a bit muddled, as a result of trying to do too much at times, some of the dialogue is very weak and can induce cringes and some of the reversals are really out of place. It also could have done a much better developing the characters, because they felt very underdeveloped and clichéd, especially Claire, and any character arcs come off clumsily or aren't explored enough, particularly for the children. Owen and Claire's romance can slow the film down and does contain some forced dialogue. The story is at least never really dull, and excites more than it limps, but at the same time it does lack the wonder, consistent suspense, smartness and originality that Jurassic Park had. It does feel like a too predictable rehash at times, does feel muddled tonally, the exposition in the first half hour does go on for far too long and doesn't really say anything interesting and the ending is too silly and anti-climactic for my tastes.

All in all, uneven and not on the same level as the original Jurassic Park, but a very entertaining well made film and by far the best of the sequels. 6.5/10 Bethany Cox

Is a solid movie and it holds itself as a trilling experience for everyone. Yes, people from the original cast are not there, however there is actually not a logical reason in the time line to make them go back. Taking out this little detail, the acting is amazing and Chris Pratt holds amazingly as a main character again . Animations are better than ever and the story line even if a little prematurely developed is exciting and looks to reward the new audience as well as the hard on fans. Overall is a great movie which promise enjoyment. I loved it and I will recommend it for everyone that is a fan and for the ones that just want to see a movie that will print a smile at the end.

I just recently watched the movie Jurassic World and needless to say, it was EXCELLENT...

From the beginning to the end, there was enough action, and surprisingly, a lot of humor to find in between the action scenes. There is some gore to be found in the movie (It is a horror genre with Dino's, after all...) but there wasn't all too much graphic scenes. You could easily take your children to the movie without having to worry about blood or other gruesome things for your kids to see (WARNING: You will see some people got eaten, but as I just mentioned, NO BLOOD)

The story takes place on isla Nublar, in Costa Rica. None of the previous characters are involved in this film seeing as how John Hammond has passed away and the previous characters have nothing to do with this movie. However, the new introductions bring a few fresh faces to the genre and the story divides screen time evenly between the main characters so the movie isn't focused on 1 specific character.

If you are a fan from Jurassic Park or any Dino-themed movie, this is definitely for you.

It's been awhile I think that I have labeled a film "a thrill ride" but seriously though this film was a real thrill ride. It takes place about twenty years after the events of the first film. There is now a functioning theme park on the original island. They get thousands of guest and they have tons of money making attractions. But then the people who run the park get a little greedy wanting to make more money and bring in more people so they create a new attraction, one that is more dangerous and scarier then the T-Rex. This film was fantastic. Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard lead this film very well almost as a good as Sam Neill and Laura Dern did in the first film. The kids as well Nick Robinson and Ty Simpkins did a good job. Colin Trevorrow also was a great choice to helm this film and he did a fantastic job directing. Now yes this film was a sequel and a great one at that. It's been a long time since I have felt that a sequel is just as good as its original. This film to me is really good and just as good as the first film. The special effects were great and one of the best parts was the music. I have been a Jurassic Park fan since I was a little kid and this is actually the first of franchise that I have seen in theaters as well. So this was definitely an amazing experience for me and hearing that original score in this film literally gave me goosebumps.

As a young boy, dinosaurs were the greatest thing on earth (well, the greatest thing that once WAS on earth) for me. I knew most of their names (like Gray in JW) and had my plastic dinosaurs fighting themselves, evil, and sometimes also good. You can imagine my excitement when I first saw Jurassic Park and I was truly blown away by the idea. I still somehow wish that I could actually experience the events in the movie, although I understand the critic that the author of the novel, Michael Crichton, wanted to express. Much of that critic is lost in the third sequel to the original movie, 22 years after its original release, at least it's hidden very deep in the plot. The scientists have created a new super- species, filled the missing pieces of DNA up with genes of amphibians that all have certain survival-powers, and it all goes terribly wrong, much because the dinosaurs are being underestimated as they always were. So is it a reboot of the first movie? At least a bit. They are referring to the first movie all the time, examples: A control guy wearing an Jurassic Park shirt proudly says he got an original shirt (shown in part 1 several times) for $150 from eBay, they run through degenerated original buildings and one time the kids even drive an original van that they repaired competently. New park-owner Masrani says that John Hammond told him on his death bed to "spare no expense", which was one of the funniest scenes in the movie, yet Masrani doesn't want to commercialize the park too much. That's where the movie starts being perfectly self-ironic: one control guy (the one with the classic shirt) jokingly suggests, in order to please the investors, to name newly bred species after companies, "so how about Pepsi-Saurus"? The movie indeed is full of product placements, I counted at least 9 brands and logos that are shown or mentioned during the film. So what is the purpose of the movie? Mainly, I guess, it's meant as a nostalgic, yet up-to-date experience/excuse for all those fans who were bitterly disappointed by the Parts II&III. It's exciting, contains a little love story, it's got wit, social criticism and excellently animated dinosaurs. It shows that 22 years after Jurassic Park, movie heroes are still being chauvinist and women are still stronger and braver as they are pictured in most (other) movies. And, finally, it fulfills every fans biggest desire: man and dinosaur, at last fighting side by side. That's probably why I'd give it an even better rating than the original Jurassic Park movie, although of course classic scenes like the shaking water glass will probably never be outperformed. Résumé: Director Colin Trevorrow manages to create an enthralling and visually stunning homage to the original which at some points brilliantly steps out of the shadow of its role model and finally puts the conciliatory end to the dinosaur universe that we, the fans, truly deserved.