Jurassic World

Chris Pratt in "Jurassic World" 

The main attraction of the new "Jurassic World" isn't a Tyrannosaurus Rex, or a raptor, or even Chris Pratt, although he tries very hard. It's a genetic hybrid, a mutation, something cooked up in a lab, the Indominus Rex. Very pale, very toothy, very aggressive. But who names a dinosaur Indominus Rex? It sounds like something from a Transformers spinoff or maybe the Abominable Snowman's distant relative. But the "Jurassic World" park needs this creature apparently. The crowds aren't satisfied with just dinosaurs anymore (if you can believe that). And just like Hollywood movies today, "Jurassic World" needs to be bigger, louder, and bloodier, in order for everyone to make more money. That's what it's all about you guys. Once again, we have a hero, Owen (Chris Pratt), with leather vest, and since its 2015, snugger pants. He knows a lot, enough to be able to wrangle and control a group of raptors, I'm guessing telepathically. Yet somehow the Operations Manager of the entire park, Claire, played by a buttoned up and bobbed Bryce Dallas Howard, doesn't appear to know much about anything, especially dinosaurs. How she got her job is never quite explained, which makes sense, she obviously doesn't deserve it. And on top of that, she's a pretty terrible Aunt to two pre-pubescent young boys, sent to the island by their parents to have fun, while they sign divorce papers. How convenient for them. The director Colin Trevorrow, and the screenwriters (credited to four individuals including Trevorrow) have somehow made a movie that not only insults women and the integrity of the original picture, but actually insults dinosaurs. How can the sight of a Brontosaurus or a Triceratops land with a thud? Barely show them, or when you do, show them dying. "Jurassic Park", when it was released 20 plus years ago, inspired a genuine awe in its audience. We came to expect no less from Steven Spielberg, its director. Technically it was revolutionary. Structurally is was tight as a drum. Remember the water glass going from still to shaking, or the scene in the kitchen? The raptor just barely peeking around the corner of the cabinets. I still have nightmares. And shockingly, the dinosaurs appeared only briefly, for approximately 14 minutes of that films 127 minute run time. And when they did, Spielberg made it count. "Jurassic World", on the other hand, inspired no such thrill, and barely any suspense. The plot is thin, the characters even more so. People die, as they should, this is a dinosaur movie after all, but the deaths happen so abruptly or in such an aggressively mean spirited way (the helicopter??), that none of the violence that should be satisfying for us as an audience had any pay off. What happened? What always happens. An ingenious idea whose story was told before, and much better, is retooled and rehashed to play for audiences today. And just because we have an actor as charismatic and swashbuckling as Chris Pratt to cheer on, and just because the CGI is so advanced nowadays that it looks more real than real life, does not mean it needs to be made again, or re-imagined or anything. None of this matters though, because it made 208 million dollars at the box office its opening weekend, more than any movie EVER. What else is there to say? Hollywood is smiling, and the audience is paying. Sadly though, I can't speak for the dinosaurs.