Jurassic World

From our readers

Audience reviews (3)

9 ratings · user score 7.3

1. SH

   Shikhar VermaJun 2015

   5/10

   There's less teeth and more roar, and all the roar comes down to form a big sack of cheesy thrills and popcorn fun. I am sorry to report, but Jurassic World is a humongous disappointment. Even though anything I say here will not mean anything as the film will make copious amount of money at the box-office. But someone needs to govern the cause of calling this catastrophic mess what it really is: A big, clumsy, cheese-ball that has all ingredients of greatness but even with 4 writers on board, couldn't cook up a film that can be even called a 'great-monster-film.' While Jurassic World is far better than the third Jurassic Park film and Star-Lord (Chris Pratt) does his very best in bringing out his A-game, its eventually the stupid writers who are to be blamed. Yes I know the film is meant to be enjoyed, yes I know I have no right to hurt all those people who used to shit their pants back in 1993 and just can't say anything wrong about what the film is; it doesn't cover up the fact that the film has a premise and a screenplay that could have been written by a five-year old playing with his monsters in a kindergarten classroom. Jurassic World relies far too heavily on the tried and true and decidedly cliched plot points of a monster movie. From its young protagonists Gray and Zach (Simpkins and Robinson), who are vacationing in the allegedly "safe" corporate theme park run by our very own Irrfan Khan with an even stupider Saudi/Iranian (or whatever the fuck it was) fake accent. To the very stupid Beth (Bryce Dallas Howard) who runs things over at the park, and also runs all through the film in her high-heels. Only when things can't get even more unintentionally funny: she has a change of heart almost half way through the film, instantly. Then there's Wilson Fisk (Vincent D'Onofrio) doing his own funny bit of being an asshole. But primitively its the dinosaurs whom Mr. Spilberg made us love that are the baddies. The film tries hard to get you to love a few of them, but except for a scene or two everything else feels so washed-out of human or animal emotions that you don't give two shits about it, sooner or later. Talking about the 'Oh Waooh' factor, this monster film does have its moments. Somewhere in the first half I found my jaw-hanging when the Indominus rex; a playful, intelligent and over-all destructive dinosaur gets away from the leash. But these moments come up randomly and the homage that director Colin Trevorrow wishes to give to the age old franchise don't hit the right spot. I still remember cheering up in joy when I was a kid. Jurassic Park films have a huge impact on me and while I was never expecting anything similar here, the film plays with your emotions of getting there, and never getting there almost simultaneously. Which makes this even less appreciable with every passing second. The comic relief from the mayhem is quite good and Chris Patt tries real hard to make this one work but when you simply don't have intelligent people in the writing room its destined to be a train-wreck. There's a scene in the film where a small velociraptors runs towards a bigger one trying to help him out. I wouldn't lie but the way this specific scene has been portrayed, takes you back to the old Suraj Barjatiya films where the family dog runs in slow-mo on seeing that the master of the house is back home. There's another one where a dinosaur looks at his human-alpha and almost gestures saying "I got this under-control." Its moments like these which make you love the film for all the wrong reasons and that's not what I expected from the film. Final Verdict: Jurassic World is an enjoyable fest for the first timers, specially the kids. For others it has moments of joy and moments of utter stupidity. Watch it at your own risk, you might end up enjoying it for all the wrong reasons. (ALSO PUBLISHED IN JAM MAGAZINE)

   Read more

   Report
2. -M

   -Mohit Arora-Oct 2015

   7/10

   Assets being fed, Assets being controlled, Assets in containment, Assets out of containment. Calling dinosaurs as "assets" is such an understatement. As Dr. Alan Grant in the '93 original said, "Can't just suppress 65 million years of gut instinct.", the same holds true even today. John Hammond has passed on the baton of the park to Mr. Masarani, very well portrayed by Irrfan. The park now is bigger and better two decades later. Instead of the tour cars, we have tour gyrospheres; there is dolphin show style dinosaur show (of course sans the dance), there are interactive screens and elephant-like dinosaur rides for kids and the control room is much more technologically advanced. And well, the dinosaur too is meaner and hence the name : Indominous Rex. Because people want something with more teeth and something "bigger, better and louder". The makers fully achieve what they wanted to achieve in terms of the visual appeal. The park, the facilities, the array of creatures all look sublime. Some of the moments in the Spielberg version like the one where T-Rex crushes the car with kids trapped inside them have been recreated as per the latest setup which do bring back the nostalgia. There are enough blockbuster moments involving the I-Rex, Raptors and other dinosaurs to keep you at the edge of the seat. Claire's assistant being thrown around by dinos and the climax sequence are two such which need special mention. And Indominous Rex is one bad ass dino with capabilities of couple of other creatures (including T-Rex) all rolled into one. Yeah, take that T-Rex! Chris Pratt is a stud. He doesn't look one bit the researcher he portrays esp when he is riding that bike, but carries off his character with a charm and wit at times. Irrfan as Mr. Masarni is a cool customer. He is an upright park owner and a cool pilot. Though his chopper passengers are afraid when he is the pilot but he has always "got it". Since its a reboot, comparisons with the Spielberg version are inevitable. Claire realises it quite early in the movie that "No one's impressed by a dinosaur anymore". Jurassic Park had a big first player advantage. And with Speilberg at its helm, it fully played to its advantage thereby creating some scenes which are etched into our memory to date. Jurassic World on the other hand fails to create that big an impact. And it has its fare share of plot holes like missing an effective evacuation plan for a park this big, and the park owner approving certain things without his knowledge. Further, the first half doesn't really create those wow moments which the '93 version did. And I totally failed to understand why Irrfan's character has been given that puffy-eyed, unshaven and tired look. Being an owner, he could have been presented in a much better way. However, its the second one hour and especially the last half an hour which really lifts the whole movie. I watched it in 2D but I think 3D could be better given the scenes involving dinos are not chaotic. Plus one might enjoy the scale of the park better in 3D. In a nutshell, Jurassic World can be watched for its blockbuster moments despite the fact that it doesn't leave the same impact as Jurassic Park did. P.S. : Don't watch it with your 5 year (or less) old kids , the I-Rex and the Raptors can be very scary to them smile emoticon *Spoiler Alert* T-Rex and the Raptors have their Godzilla moment in the climax which leads to another recreated scene in the end from the '93 saga.

   Read more

   Report
3. AJ

   Ajay lawyerJul 2017

   10/10

   it feels v r entering in to new world

   Report