Jurassic World and its sequel are gently nuzzled at the lower end of mediocre on my scale. But what exactly incenses a guttural hatred of the product? I don’t have any real nostalgic connection to the property – I never watched the original Jurassic Park as a kid. But, I knew what it was all about and kept some of the more iconic moments tucked away in the back of my mind. The theme song itself is phenomenal, it brings upon a sense of grandiose adventure, coaxing the listener into a locked and engaged thrill ride.
But the remake/reboot/sequel? It just feels so empty and lifeless. None of the characters feel real, no matter how they try to shoehorn backstory or emotion in the most awkward moments. None of the situations build upon one another in a cohesive manner, and under the guise of the predecessor’s success, the writer creates a story that lends itself to using other characters and borrowed story elements in a fragile attempt to create purpose. The only notable takeaway character, who was used for the entire marketing campaign of Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, wasn’t even named, just Jeff Goldblum monologuing. It’s been twenty years since his character was on the big screen, and the gall to pass off the character as anything as more than a cheap attempt to force the nostalgic needle straight to people’s veins, pissed me off. And the blatant presentation choice from the director to not include any important characters in the scene leads me to believe that it was tacked on after the fact in a desperate plea to draw however many seats as they could for the movie. And the most ridiculous part? They use his monologue to bookend the movie, but it only raises questions. Masking nonsensical, canonically confusing monologuing with a likable actor saying vague, overarching statements followed with a callback to the title is some of the most egregious forms of uncaring, lackadaisical storytelling that it’s frankly insulting.
I can usually appreciate bad and mediocre movies because there’s usually something to take out of it, with the former landing as unintended comedies and the former usually showing some kind of promise just with poor execution, but what I can’t stand is a tone-deaf, bland movie that doesn’t say anything of worth. If Jurassic World ceased to exist, nothing of note would be lost.
A fundamental problem with the Jurassic franchise, at least with the direction that it’s headed, is that Universal Studios doesn’t care about why people around them love the original picture and remember it so fondly. As Simon Sinek summarized in his Ted Talk back in 2009, there are three stages to making a successful brand, and the reason why some companies seem to fail long-term is because they’re only bothered by the “what” of their business model. The superficial outer circle of a company’s mantra. For continued success, a company needs to form a mantra, an idea to surround the product or service. You’re not selling a product, you’re selling the company. People don’t go to see a Universal movie because it’s a Universal movie, they see it because of either the established actors they hire, the production company behind the movie they’re distributing, or by cannibalizing the nostalgic elements of their film series. Marvel exemplifies the “why” selling to perfection. People go out to see a movie with different directors and actors because they are so tied to the company’s path. Mediocre movies such as Ant-Man or Captain Marvel turn massive profits and receive positive reviews because Marvel has perfected a formula for its superhero franchises. They form the characters around these story and cinematic cues that add an element of familiarity, distracting the audience from any potential thoughts that might eschew the character into bland markers. They take care to introduce and implement characters into their larger narratives, as exemplified by Infinity War and Endgame.
Jurassic World fails at this. What are we, the audience, supposed to engage with when sitting in the theater? Is it the characters? The dinosaurs? The story? The cinematography? What’s the franchise’s identity? If they want to keep the franchise as a consistent franchise, something needs to shine. Anything. But every single attempt has been weak to “develop” characters and the only identity they created for their premier franchise is “peak mediocrity”. Chris Pratt is one of the most recognizable Hollywood stars. People love him for his comedic wit and sincere puppy-dog charisma, which explains why a movie with such a strange cast and premise such as Guardians of the Galaxy works so well. The director, writer understood the universe and utilized elements that would highlight Pratt’s strengths. Chris Pratt is Starlord, much in the same way that Robert Downey Jr. is Tony Stark.
However, Jurassic World completely misreads the situation, always playing catch-up and applying the wrong things for the wrong reasons. They try to insert jokes and try to bring some levity, but in awkward moments. Sure, you can have Chris Pratt make some jokes, but is it really in-line with the character he’s trying to portray? Referring back to Universal’s self-instilled competition in Marvel, Infinity War has comedic moments to ease the tension among more serious moment and it doesn’t feel out of place, because it comes from characters as either a coping mechanism or simply from their personality. Jurassic World, instead of playing into the aspect that Owen is a real person, just uses him as a conduit for their bigger, flawed ideas. Comedy is difficult, because it requires a different timing to that of dramas or thrillers, there’s an almost tangible moment to tell a joke for maximum effectiveness, but more importantly, it needs to match the source. And Owen, Pratt’s character, seemingly only makes jokes just because, and it fails/feels out of place because despite being two hours in, there isn’t enough character to have payoff.
We know nothing about the characters. Most people can’t even name the characters let alone describe who they are beyond the superficial. A big failing of fiction-based narrative movies is when the audience refers to a character by the actor’s name, showing that the actor overshadows the entirety of the film. And here’s another comparison between how the screenplays differ in something with Marvel and Jurassic World. In Guardians, we immediately get a sense for Pratt’s character. The first two scenes reveal an extensive amount of Starlord without so much as a word from him. The first one shows that he, as a child, shies away from death, unable to put on a brave face and runs from real signs of trouble, it’s an incredible emotional element that immediately empathizes with the character. The second, is a whole lot more silly, the title screen is him in a dank, abandoned land of a previously thriving civilization. But instead of being a stock “badass”, he instead puts on some Redbone and dances his way to his goal. He takes things lightheartedly and lives in this bubble that nothing can really go wrong because he has never really experience anything like that. We already get a clear view of the character in ten minutes. We are invested.
Jurassic World fails hard and goes through the same, typical tropes that are found in every other movie. The base character traits are not unique to Jurassic World, so why should we even care about the character if it’s been shown time and time again? Owen’s introduction is him outside of the raptors’ training pit, where we get a sense of what the character does and how he does it. He has a commanding tone, and from the reactions of everyone around him, they understand that what he can do is unique, but they don’t show this, they tell you. Also, everything is covered in exposition, what the character’s background is and what he’s attempting to do with his role in the park. We’re told that he has a military background, but it’s very vague. He was in the navy, but they never leverage it in any way. Owen’s style of leadership is more akin to an elementary school teacher, with firm but kind words, nothing that likens him to his military background, so why even mention it? If he were to have a military background, make it a larger part of his character from when he was introduced, don’t just make it a throwaway line. Every line needs to serve some importance in the movie, if it doesn’t, then you’re better off saying something else. It’s forgettable.
For a blockbuster series it sure does feel like it has a sense of entitlement. I think of the Jurassic World franchise as a young, spoiled heir, expects everything, earned nothing on his own merit.
Sloppy Critic 