Arrow-right Camera
The Spokesman-Review Newspaper
Spokane, Washington  Est. May 19, 1883

‘Jurassic World’: Average becomes the new norm

Dan Webster

If you haven't yet seen the latest dinosaur thriller, "Jurassic World," you might be interested in the review that I wrote for Spokane Public Radio. Or you might just want to settle for my one-word description: meh.

Anyway, a transcription of my review follows:

Only someone who has never stepped on a film set would think it’s easy to direct a movie. And truth be told, it’s far harder to direct a good movie.

Even in this day and age of advanced computer graphics, one thing hasn’t changed: The interplay of character, dialogue and narrative upon which a movie is based. If even one of these factors fails, the whole production is likely to fail as well.

Steven Spielberg knows this better than most. He took the first shots at three different action-movie franchises: “Jaws,” “Raiders of the Los Ark” and “Jurassic Park.” And it’s not even close: These were each respective franchise’s best episodes, outshining even the sequels directed by Spielberg himself.

I make this point after seeing “Jurassic World,” an attempt to reboot the dinosaurs-live-again series that Spielberg began in 1993 by adapting Michael Crichton’s best-selling novel. Starring the likes of Sam Neill, Laura Dern, Jeff Goldblum, Samuel L. Jackson and Richard Attenborough, “Jurassic Park” remains the gold standard of dinosaur-horror/action flicks. The characters (mostly scientists) are smart, the action in each separate sequence builds to a tension-filled climax, and the computer graphics – even 22 years after the fact – still hold up.

Now, let’s examine what Colin Trevorrow has done with “Jurassic World.” It would be unfair to say that Trevorrow has failed, even if this is only his second theatrical feature, his first being the clever 2012 independent film “Safety Not Guaranteed.” After all, the special effects are state of the art, which in this era of Michael Bay mania is about all an average audience seems to want.

So the fact that the other ingredients – characters, dialogue and narrative – are merely average hasn’t stopped the film from smashing opening-weekend box-office records.

But average they are. The characters either boast little charisma (the obligatory child actors), are portrayed as vacuous (Bryce Dallas Howard’s corporate shill) or as vacuously heroic (Chris Pratt’s sweat-stained velociraptor trainer). The dialogue is barely above the “You can’t ever tell your mother about this” level. And the narrative structure is full-speed-ahead with hardly a moment for reflection before – in the words of Goldblum’s character in the first “Jurassic Park” sequel – “there’s running and, um, screaming.”

This is fine, for what it is. But I’m reminded of the scene in Spielberg’s original of the kids being attacked by a snarling T-Rex where the tension builds inexorably until, when the jeep falls toward them as they and Neill’s character frantically climb down a tree, I almost laughed with delight. I’m also reminded of how good Pratt was as the wisecracking Star Lord in “Guardians of the Galaxy,” which begs the question: If you’re going to cast a talented performer only to hamstring him, why cast him in the first place?

So, yes, “Jurassic World” is breaking records. To me, though, that’s just a sign that Hollywood has won. Our expectations are so low we’ll watch anything moderately well made as long as it features scales and sharp teeth. Especially when rendered in 3D.

Below: What would happen if you subbed weiner dogs for dinosaurs?