Jurassic World: Best Jurassic Park sequel but no originality

Jurassic World is here and expected to be this weekend’s big box office winner. But while the prehistoric sequel is set to soar, did it live up to the hype? While it may have not have been as epic as the original film, “Jurassic World” did entertain and is arguably the best of the “Jurassic Park” sequels.

Cinematics (Plot, Acting, Cinematography, etc.) – 2.5

When I saw “Jurassic Park” in theaters I was captivated and amazed at what Steven Spielberg was able to accomplish. Technology was dated but served its purpose back in 1993. It wasn’t a crutch, it was supplemental to a director’s creativity. Because of this Spielberg got innovative and used animatronics to bring dinosaurs to life. This, along with many other factors is what made “Jurassic Park” the iconic film it is today.

Over 20 years later “Jurassic World” is the fourth film in the franchise but is still a failed attempt at recreating the captivation of the first film. As a standalone film I would say that “Jurassic World” was adequately entertaining, but knowing the innovative resourcefulness of “Jurassic Park,” I couldn’t help but leave the film wanting. The capabilities of today’s technologies allow us to see a plethora of dinosaurs on screen which makes for a great Summer blockbuster, but the focus on technology also left a lack of intimacy. If “Jurassic Park” could be described as a look at the park from the inside out, then “Jurassic World” could definitely be described as a look from the outside in. “Jurassic Park” laid the plot on thick and used the dinosaurs as an extension of that plot. “Jurassic World” did the opposite by saturating the film with dinosaurs and simplifying the plot. In the end, it’s just a matter of preference on which prehistoric perspective tickles your fancy.

While the continual comparison to “Jurassic Park” may deter some, “Jurassic World” did have its highlights. The special effects were fluid and extravagant like many high budget blockbusters. The new exhibits and dinosaurs brought a true theme park feel to the park that wasn’t present in the first film. Outside of the visuals, the biggest highlight of the film was Chris Pratt. Since he appeared in Guardians of the Galaxy and “Parks and Recreation,” Pratt seemed like he was on a path to have his name always tied to comedy. After seeing him in “Jurassic World,” I have to say that Chris Pratt is now a proven badass and doesn’t need the snark to survive. I had previously said that Pratt shouldn’t be Indiana Jones but his performance in “Jurassic World” now makes me retract that opinion. His character and performance are by far my favorite part of the film.

After viewing the film many should see that “Jurassic World” traded cinematic value to explore a big visual budget. The plot was stale and reused but the film did have a few redeeming cinematic qualities.

Entertainment Value – 3

As said, this is not a film to best “Jurassic Park” but it is the best of the sequels. “Jurassic World” is even indirectly self aware of this fact as it pokes fun of its status as a sequel/reboot. This in addition to the plethora of “dino-action” makes “Jurassic World” filled with nostalgic and comedic entertainment while giving us a revamped look to this prehistoric paradise.

I admit that I was very entertained with this film but even “Jurassic World” was aware of that it was living in the shadow of “Jurassic Park.” I may have rated this film’s entertainment value as a 4 or above if I was unaware of the first film, but for most movie-goers they will be making this comparison as well.

Rewatchability – 3

I see this as a film that I could watch a few times but not something I would necessarily seek out after my second viewing. Like many blockbusters “Jurassic World” was a lot of fun and it carries with it that strong “rewatchability” trait. With the amount of fast-paced action and the added bonus of Chris Pratt’s badass performance, I think “Jurassic World” is a film that you can watch a few times but not consistently.