Category: Movies

140 Character Movie Review – #140RVW

Unsurprisingly brilliant performance by the always dependable Ian McKellen as the worlds first private consulting detective, now retired…

Spoiler-free Movie Review of Mr. Holmes:

Sherlock Holmes may well be the single most popular literary character ever created, appearing not only in the four novels and fifty-six stories of creator Arthur Conan Doyle, but also more spinoff novels, film and television adaptations than can be readily calculated. There seems to be an insatiable appetite for the consulting detective. By now we should have run out of things to say about the fellow, yet he remains an inexhaustible inspiration for so many creators, all who want to put their own stamp on the deerstalker-hatted cocaine addict from Baker Street.

The film Mr. Holmes opens in 1947, as does the novel the film is based on, 2005’s A Slight Trick of the Mind by Mitch Cullin. The story finds the titular character (Ian McKellen) long-retired from his detective practice and living a semi-solitary existence in Sussex, filling his days pursuing his love of beekeeping. Other than his beloved bees, the only constant presence in his life is his housekeeper Mrs. Munro (Laura Linney) and her curious son Roger (Milo Parker).

As the film opens, Holmes is returning from post-war Japan, where he has been searching for the Prickly Ash plant, speculated to be helpful in preventing senility. In a cruel twist of fate, the detective famed for his steel-trap mind is seeing his most powerful gift fade away with the slow degeneration of his memory. The story follows 93-year-old Sherlock as he tries desperately to recall the circumstances of his final case. Holmes has deduced that something momentous must have occurred in 1898, causing him to give up his practice, but the details are locked in his no longer trustworthy mind, and he will need help to (re)solve and close his final case.

Ian McKellen was nominated for an Academy Award for his last collaboration with director Bill Condon (Gods and Monsters), and clearly the filmmaker brings something special out of the storied actor. McKellen is simply brilliant, an absolute lock for another Oscar nomination. His work on the picture is really multiple performances, as he embodies both the confident and self-assured younger Holmes in flashbacks, as well as the frustrated and stubborn older man. It is this last part that is the most compelling, as he shows incredible depth progressing through the emotions and challenges of a man coming to terms with his fading faculties and failing body. Holmes the elder is completely at peace with his own mortality, but it is the betrayal of his mind that gnaws at him and that he attempts to conceal. There is still plenty of the proud peacock about the man.

Mr. Holmes, like all stories about the character, works best if you are a Sherlockian. The film works beautifully if you know little more about Holmes than you’ve picked up from other pictures, but there is so much more meat on the bone if you’ve read the stories. The story is masterful in working in little themes from earlier works, leading to a much richer experience than may actually be covered in a 2 hour film. I don’t mean that the story is filled with Easter Eggs (although there’s one or two that are masterful) or makes the too common error of trying to specifically reference other events – it’s not gimmicky like that. It’s more just a feeling, a tone suggesting that the story is a culminating piece in a much longer tale.

Laura Linney, also a Condon vet, doesn’t have a very large role, but it is crucial and she is unsurprisingly wonderful. She is such a gifted actress and makes you feel every bit of her presence.

The star-making turn here, though, belongs to young Milo Parker, who is captivating. Roger is a fascinating character, providing motivation for both the housekeeper and Holmes, for whom he has become an eager protégé. It’s a wonderful story tool but an even more impressive performance. The audience longs to be alongside Roger as the great detective reveals both the secrets of the apiary and the science of deduction.

Mr. Holmes is an absolute delight, from the period costumes and production design, to the score from Carter Burwell, and the gorgeous cinematography by Tobias A. Schliessler. I haven’t even touched upon the truly unique visuals from post-WWII Japan to the Cliffs of Dover. Nor the lovely supporting performances of Hiroyuki Sanada and Hattie Morahan. Discover them for yourself – go see Mr. Holmes…

Poster:

Trailer:

Bechdel Test:

Fail

The Representation Test Score: C (6 pts)

(http://therepresentationproject.org/grading-hollywood-the-representation-test/)

[schema type=”movie” url=”http://www.mrholmesfilm.com/” name=”Mr. Holmes” description=”Mr. Holmes is a new twist on the world’s most famous detective. 1947, an aging Sherlock Holmes returns from a journey to Japan, where, in search of a rare plant with powerful restorative qualities, he has witnessed the devastation of nuclear warfare. Now, in his remote seaside farmhouse, Holmes faces the end of his days tending to his bees, with only the company of his housekeeper and her young son, Roger. Grappling with the diminishing powers of his mind, Holmes comes to rely upon the boy as he revisits the circumstances of the unsolved case that forced him into retirement, and searches for answers to the mysteries of life and love – before it’s too late.” director=”Bill Condon” actor_1=”Ian McKellen” ]

Main Cast	Ian McKellen Sherlock Holmes Laura Linney Mrs. Munro Hiroyuki Sanada Tamiki Umezaki Hattie Morahan Ann Kelmot
Rating	PG
Release Date	Fri 17 Jul 2015 UTC
Director	Bill Condon
Genres	Crime, Drama, Mystery
Plot	An aged, retired Sherlock Holmes looks back on his life, and grapples with an unsolved case involving a beautiful woman.
Poster
Runtime	104
Tagline	The man behind the myth
Writers	Mitch Cullin (original story) and, Mitch Cullin (novel) …
Year	2015

140 Character Movie Review – #140RVW

Schumer’s unique voice is as sharp as ever & she gets to show some real heart. Too bad it’s an Apatow joint, which means it’s far too long.

Spoiler-free Movie Review of Trainwreck:

I absolutely love Amy Schumer. She is an incredible voice for change at a time when we need it. She follows a long line of comedians whose true gift lies in covertly shining a light on the injustices and prejudices of our society, disarming resistance by being pee-your-pants funny. I believe in time she will be as held in the same light as Lenny Bruce, Dick Gregory, George Carlin, Richard Pryor, or more recent comics like Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele.

The Comedy Central show, Inside Amy Schumer, is a fantastic showcase for the comic, who utilizes a raunchy irreverence to great effect, though even the program suffers from the hit-or-miss nature of all sketch shows. Even so, her talent wasn’t going to be limited to the small screen, so a feature was inevitable. Sadly, she has the mixed blessing of the attention of Judd Apatow.

Look, I’m not hating on Apatow; he’s a next-level talent at crafting comedy who has more than earned his success and certainly doesn’t need or want my approval. It’s just that his stuff is so damn long. Frequent visitors to this site are surely growing tired of my screeds about run-time, but I can’t help it – the length of a film has a direct relationship to the success of the picture. I can no more overlook a poorly edited feature than I could ignore poor acting.

Each Apatow directed film seems to be less funny than the previous picture, while also being longer. That’s not totally true – the run-time kept increasing sizably through Funny People but has slimmed a hair since. And it’s not completely fair to say that the films are less funny; they just feel less funny because the quality material is spread too thin.

Trainwreck may be the most blatant victim, or perhaps its merely the freshest. Because I had a great time with the picture, until I didn’t. If you had measured my laughter during the film, you’d be amazed at how blasé I was about Trainwreck on my way out of the theater. By the end, the picture made me so weary that I nearly forgot how good it was.

Like nearly every comic’s debut film, Trainwreck is a semi-autobiographical tale, filled with material from the act. While these pictures always crib from the comic’s set, the good ones rise above a simple collection of one-liners. Think The Jerk as opposed to 48 Hrs.; the former is sublime, the latter is simply a good start. Trainwreck is a success of the first variety.

Schumer stars as, well, herself, mostly. A free spirit since being instructed by her father (Colin Quinn) that monogamy is unrealistic, Amy bounces from hookup to hookup, never getting attached, in stark contrast to her married sister Kim (Brie Larson). Amy hopes to be a journalist, but has hitched her wagon to a juvenile men’s magazine, S’Nuff, run by a comically overacted Tilda Swinton. When she is assigned to do a feature on a nice-guy sports doctor, Aaron Connors (Bill Hader), her life outlook begins to change.

The leads, Schumer & Hader, are marvelous together. It’s clearly Schumer’s show, and she is non-stop fun, but Hader gets some good scenes as Bill Hader.

The cameos in the film are simply amazing, which happens when you are as hot as Schumer and Apatow. I’m not going to spoil them here, but trust me, there are some really good ones.

But the biggest praise goes to the supporting cast. The picture is nearly stolen by Colin Quinn, who is lovable in spite of playing a total jerk, leading to the films most touching moments. Yes, there are touching moments in the picture, and Schumer is actually quite moving in her scenes with her ailing father. This relationship mirrors the comedienne’s personal life, and is crucial in elevating the picture.

Now that I think about it, the picture is really nearly stolen by LeBron James, who deserves the praise he is getting for his turn as Aaron’s best friend, LeBron James. And I’m a Celtics fan, so you know I hate that guy. Well, he ruins that for me, because he is an absolute blast in Trainwreck, showing a sense of humor and charm that is completely disarming. (Chris Rock wrote some of the jokes on set.)

No, the film is really stolen by John Cena. I’d seen the wrestler in a guest appearance on Psych a few years back, so I knew he was charismatic and likable. (What sort of training do they do over at the wrestling sausage factory? Guys like Dwayne Johnson and Cena seem to know exactly how to handle themselves, putting off a sense of humor about themselves that seems never to diminish them. Impressive.) Cena bares all figuratively and literally and absolutely steals the show.

No, wait, it’s actually nearly stolen by Norman Lloyd, who at 99 is more vital than most of his co-stars.

Whatever. You get the point. There’s some great performances. And that’s what makes the film so good. It’s simply a good half an hour too long. I can’t wait to see Schumer’s next feature…

Poster:

Trailer:

Bechdel Test:

Pass

The Representation Test Score: B (9 pts)

(http://therepresentationproject.org/grading-hollywood-the-representation-test/)

[schema type=”movie” url=”http://www.trainwreckmovie.com/” name=”Trainwreck” description=”No contemporary filmmaker has chronicled the messy human experience with the eye and ear of a comedic cultural anthropologist like Judd Apatow. Hits as varied as those he’s directed, like Knocked Up and The 40-Year-Old Virgin, and those he’s produced, like Superbad and Bridesmaids, are all unified by their honest, unflinching, comic look at how complicated it is to grow up in the modern world.

Apatow has also built a history of helping break distinctive new comedy voices into the mainstream, from Seth Rogen to Lena Dunham among many others. Now, in his fifth feature film as a director, Apatow again brings a portrait of an unforgettable character, and a portrayal by a breakout new comedy star, together in Trainwreck, written by and starring Amy Schumer (Inside Amy Schumer) as a woman who lives her life without apologies, even when maybe she should apologize.

Since she was a little girl, it’s been drilled into Amy’s (Schumer) head by her rascal of a dad (Colin Quinn) that monogamy isn’t realistic. Now a magazine writer, Amy lives by that credo—enjoying what she feels is an uninhibited life free from stifling, boring romantic commitment—but in actuality, she’s kind of in a rut. When she finds herself starting to fall for the subject of the new article she’s writing, a charming and successful sports doctor named Aaron Conners (Bill Hader), Amy starts to wonder if other grown-ups, including this guy who really seems to like her, might be on to something.

The comedy, from a script written by Schumer, co-stars Brie Larson, John Cena, Vanessa Bayer, Mike Birbiglia, Ezra Miller, Dave Attell, Tilda Swinton and LeBron James. Apatow produces Trainwreck through his Apatow Productions alongside Barry Mendel (Bridesmaids, This Is 40).” director=”Judd Apatow” actor_1=”Amy Schumer” ]

Main Cast	Amy Schumer Amy Bill Hader Aaron Brie Larson Kim Colin Quinn Gordon
Rating	R
Release Date	Fri 17 Jul 2015 UTC
Director	Judd Apatow
Genres	Comedy
Plot	Having thought that monogamy was never possible, a commitment-phobic career woman may have to face her fears when she meets a good guy.
Poster
Runtime	125
Tagline	All aboard
Writers	Amy Schumer (written by)
Year	2015

140 Character Movie Review – #140RVW

Thanks to having the calming, less critical presence of my dad next to me in the theater, I’m going to take it easy on this amnesiac sequel.

Spoiler-free Movie Review of Terminator Genisys:

I already used some 2,000 words to describe the mixed bag that was Jurassic World, so that will save some time; Terminator Genisys is nearly the exact same experience. That may sound over-simplistic, so of course I can’t leave it at just that, but really the two pictures have nearly all of the same strengths and weaknesses.

Terminator Genisys is frankly not needed; no one was asking for more pictures, but they keep making them. The Terminator franchise as a whole has had this problem twice before already.

The Terminator was a near perfect science fiction picture. It probably didn’t need another film, but everyone was excited to see one. Terminator 2: Judgment Day was so good that many people prefer it to the original. (They are wrong, but excusably so.)

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines was the first picture that no one particularly asked for and the first that really felt tacked on. It’s not a bad film for all that, but it really is extraneous. And if that’s so, Terminator Salvation redefines unwanted. Absolutely the only people who were eager for another Terminator film, much less one without Ahnold were the rights holders. I honestly have almost no memory of the film at all.

It would be accurate to characterize my emotional response to the news of a new Terminator film as malaise. There’s a weariness to the whole affair, a “why is this here” feeling surrounding the film in general. Except…

I love these films. I love the franchise, yes, but more than that I love the style, the genre. I love science fiction and I love big loud summer movies and I love Ahnold. So order me up some more Predator, Aliens and yes, Terminator. I’d rather watch a bad Terminator film than a good police procedural. This last fact is handy, because by most measures, Terminator Genisys is a bad film.

Before I get into too much detail, let me explain quite simply why: the internal logic of the film is dangerously flawed. Terminator Genisys plays too fast and loose with the history and the underlying premise of the franchise to really work. The time travel feels completely off for the first time in the series. It is bad science fiction.

But is it a bad film? I don’t think so, really. I completely enjoyed it and that is, after all, the purpose of these movies. Just like Jurassic World before it, it is highly entertaining and enjoyable, even as it contributes frankly nothing to the franchise or film culture at all. Expect too much and you’ll be disappointed; expect a good time and you’ll have one.

The entire film is very much a mixed bag:

• There are appearances by some truly great actors, but they are there for little reason. J.K. Simmons is an Oscar winner – what is he doing in this tiny role? Also, I wish they had never announced that Matt Smith (the 11th Doctor) was in the film, but not why. His role is a surprise, and I’m going to keep it, but I don’t get why his appearance couldn’t have also been a surprise. I can’t and won’t explain further, but I will say that if you are a Whovian going to the movie just for him, don’t bother.
• The other actors are serviceable, nothing more.

• Emilia Clarke is so good on Game of Thrones and she shows some of that steely-eyed determination here. It isn’t her fault that she can’t fill Sarah Hamilton’s shoes. No one could. Lena Headey was great on the TV show Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, but she couldn’t make you forget Hamilton. Clarke does a good job, but the material really doesn’t give her much to work with. Jai Courtney is perfectly fine as Kyle Reese, but again, you can’t bring that tall glass of water in here to follow Michael Biehn. (Though Anton Yelchin played him last time and Brian Austin Green got to be the older brother on the TV show, so maybe the role isn’t as indelible as that of Sarah.)

• There are a few neat moments that reference the first and second films, but they actually pulled me out of the picture as I tried to remember which film they were from and whether they still made any sense with this revised story. In some ways the film is almost like a “Greatest Hits” of Terminators, what with all the different versions…
• The idea of revisiting the beginning of the original film is uninspired in concept but well-executed. (I got a particular thrill out of Kyle Reese running through the sporting goods store, complete with the theft of a pair of Nike Vandals. Did you know the production designer actually talked Nike into remaking the shoe for the film?)

• The film contains many truly dreadful CGI effects, but also the single most impressive photo-real digital human I’ve ever seen.

Let me take a moment with this one; it’s not a spoiler (though it should be – they DEFINITELY should have kept this plot point under wraps instead of prominently featuring in the trailer) that early in the picture they recreate a few iconic scenes from the 1984 film, as Ahnold and Reese go back in time. It’s kind of neat and works ok, but the real take-away is just how close we are to believable digital actors.

If you’ve only seen a few stills you probably are calling shenanigans, but believe me, in the theater it works. Ahnold from the 1984 original fights his modern day self, and while it isn’t perfect, it is extremely well-done. In a change from what you might expect, the differences are easier to spot during the action scenes than the slower shots. Enough so that I was frequently unsure whether I was looking at inserted footage from the original, a CG actor, a body double, or some combination. Now, I saw it once, in the theater so if it doesn’t hold up on further viewings or on a different presentation, my bad. It looked damn good on the first viewing…

Here’s the original…

And the new…

Terminator Genisys is something of an oddity in that it really doesn’t make any difference whether the film made any money in the States at all (which is fortunate, because it isn’t really performing well). This is for two reasons, the first of which is due to the increasing importance and reliance on other film markets besides the US. The other has to do with the rights to make a new trilogy. James Cameron famously sold the rights to the franchise to producer Gale Anne Hurd for $1 in order to get the original film made with him as director, but the rights are finally coming back to him in 2019. So the current rights holders (there have been a lot in the past 30 years), siblings Meghan & David Ellison need to make their films and make them now. That means Terminator Genisys and the not yet announced but already greenlit sequels are being churned out as quickly as possible, and that urgency shows on film already. The next time that ends well will be the first time…

Terminator Genisys left me with one new thought as I left the theater: time travel movies are useless. It’s true; while I’ve long derided time travel as a weak plot device, I don’t know that I’ve ever been so disdainful of them. Without spoiling anything, I came away from Terminator Genisys with much the same takeaway as all other time travel stories – “well, that was interesting but meaningless”. Too many time travel stories end in roughly the exact place they started; for all the exciting adventures and challenges, they generally end up putting things roughly back where they came from. Even when the actions of the characters change history, they invariably tie things up so neatly that nothing ever changes too much. It’s just a lot of running around.

Poster:

Trailer:

Bechdel Test:

Fail

The Representation Test Score: D (3 pts)

(http://therepresentationproject.org/grading-hollywood-the-representation-test/)

[schema type=”movie” url=”http://terminatormovie.com/” name=”Terminator Genisys” description=”When John Connor (Jason Clarke), leader of the human resistance, sends Sgt. Kyle Reese (Jai Courtney) back to 1984 to protect Sarah Connor (Emilia Clarke) and safeguard the future, an unexpected turn of events creates a fractured timeline. Now, Sgt. Reese finds himself in a new and unfamiliar version of the past, where he is faced with unlikely allies, including the Guardian (Arnold Schwarzenegger), dangerous new enemies, and an unexpected new mission: To reset the future…” director=”Alan Taylor” actor_1=”Arnold Schwarzenegger” ]

Main Cast	Arnold Schwarzenegger Guardian Jason Clarke John Connor Emilia Clarke Sarah Connor Jai Courtney Kyle Reese
Rating	PG-13
Release Date	Wed 01 Jul 2015 UTC
Director	Alan Taylor
Genres	Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi, Thriller
Plot	John Connor sends Kyle Reese back in time to protect Sarah Connor, but when he arrives in 1984, nothing is as he expected it to be.
Poster
Runtime	126
Tagline	The rules have been reset.
Writers	Laeta Kalogridis (written by) &, Patrick Lussier (written by) …
Year	2015

140 Character Movie Review – #140RVW

If you come in with the right expectations, you can have a good time with this summer popcorn movie. If not, you may truly hate this thing.

Spoiler-free Movie Review of Jurassic World:

Serious conflicting feelings about this one. Jurassic World is perfectly fine as the good-time summer movie that it unmistakably is, but that’s really all it is. Far from the excitement I’m supposed to feel at the kicking off of a new group of dinosaur movies, I’m sort of indifferent.

Maybe one of the reasons that I haven’t written this review before now for a movie that opened several weeks ago is that I’m struggling to elaborate on my stock answer to the question “how was it?”. “Eh, pretty good” just really isn’t a satisfactory response. Let’s see if I can do better…

The movie is completely absurd. It’s fun enough that you might not care, but it really is bonkers.

Jurassic World is directed by Colin Trevorrow, whose fitness for the job was determined by exactly one feature-length screen credit – co-writing and directing the cute little indie, Safety Not Guaranteed. That’s it. One indie film and he’s in charge of one of the biggest franchises in film history (and was reportedly in the running for another; incorrectly believed to be on the shortlist for Star Wars: Episode VII). Now if you read my review of Safety Not Guaranteed, you’ll know that I could scarcely have given it higher praise, but I don’t remember saying that this guy’s next picture should be a big budget blockbuster with its own line of toys.

Is this the end of the auteur director? Have we found an amazing new talent or have we reached the point with big franchise pictures where the director is not only no longer the most important voice on a film but increasingly just another technical position there to do the hands-on work of the producers? Can both be true?

Trevorrow, along with his writing partner Derek Connolly, does seem to be a talented young filmmaker, and the duo wrote the screenplay for Jurassic World. This is his project. So why does it feel like it was made by a group of producer and focus group-obsessed suits?

The whole thing takes exactly zero risks. Nothing is left to chance. I don’t know if it’s fair to say, seeing how Trevorrow co-wrote the thing, but it really does feel like anyone could have filmed Jurassic World.

What’s so surprising about Jurassic World is that it took so long to be brought to life. This series went through twists and turns on its way to de-extinction, and they ended up more or less where you would guess they started. The premise is so jarringly obvious that you wonder how they didn’t get here long before now.

Perhaps one of the things that makes the picture feel so “authored by committee” to me is the knowledge that they seriously planned a Jurassic Park IV film in which the dinosaurs would have been cross-cloned with humans, ostensibly to make dino-soldiers. After you’ve heard it, it’s sort of hard to un-know that, and you will always be wary of the possibility of complete absurdity around every corner.

So when the otherwise cool looking Jurassic World trailers showed superstar of the moment Chris Pratt seemingly leading a pack of Velociraptors on his motorcycle, you can understand why I was more than a little nervous.

I went into the theater with cautious optimism, though; I really love this franchise and hope for it to do well with each installment. And for the most part, Jurassic World succeeds. I definitely enjoyed it, and I believe anyone who goes into the picture looking to have fun, not pick things apart, will have a good time as well.

The premise is simplicity itself, and that’s no criticism. Ever since the high-concept idea of an amusement park with live dinosaurs was dreamed up, we’ve wanted to see this thing in full swing. Sure, the story of Jurassic Park and the succeeding iterations has always been man’s hubris and lack of respect of nature, and the inevitable problems karma has in store for such people. But that doesn’t mean we don’t want to see how that plays out.

One of the reasons The Lost World was so disappointing was because we got a glimpse of another world where the InGen Corporation tried the impossible task of controlling chaos, and then we quickly left. I want to see these controls – I love the bits in the first Jurassic Park novel where Arnold and Muldoon and Wu and Harding discuss all the problems they are having with these unknowable prehistoric animals and their attempts to control it all anyway. I want to see maps of how the whole place is laid out – I just love this stuff.

So Jurassic World was destined to at least partially please me by delivering on the promise of a fully functioning park. I can’t get enough of it – the intro could have been twenty minutes longer. I want to go on a complete tour. This is great stuff and I’m a sucker for it. When you see those reference books written in a fictional universe like Star Wars and wonder what kind of geek would find more information about a space monster interesting – me. I’m that guy. I’d love a book about how they finally got Jurassic World off the ground and what’s going on with Isla Sorna.

---

<soapbox-alert>

Unfortunately, this sort of detail is unlikely to come. Not because they filmmakers cut corners or didn’t bother to think about it – I’m sure they did. But Jurassic World is one more in a growing trend that I find terribly alarming: sequels that try to give fans EXACTLY what they want. The principle goes like this: everyone loved the first X, not so much Y & Z. So lets pretend Y & Z didn’t exist, and just pick up as if this is the true sequel. The most blatant example has to be The Terminator series, but that’s more or less what the Disney Star Wars series is doing, as well as Jurassic Park. I believe the Ghostbusters now filming in Boston is ignoring Ghostbusters 2, though I can’t confirm that yet.

I give my absolute guarantee that this approach will be employed for Indiana Jones. Not that I’m psychic – I know it because I can see how these producers think.

While I won’t personally guarantee them, I think there’s a better than good chance that these amnesiac sequels will be employed for the following franchises (in order of most to least likely):

1. Indiana Jones (100% – a mortal lock to ignore at least Crystal Skull)
2. Pirates of the Caribbean (85%; already did with the 4th picture; other films are a certainty)
3. Alien (80-85% chance they will find a way to get the space Marines back for another beautiful day in the Corps…)
4. Star Trek (80% or better; series approaching Kobayashi Maru without J.J. Abrams; may be a reboot, though)
5. Predator (75% chance of getting to da choppa without acknowledging the Gary Busey-led Predator 2)
6. Blade Runner (50-75%; it’s definitely happening, but they may keep a lot of the first film, hence the split score)
7. The Matrix (even money; depends on the desire of the Wachowskis)
8. Jaws (40%; nothing on the horizon, but I’m sure someone will do it)
9. Buffy the Vampire Slayer (25%; very unlikely for Whedon to backtrack, but you never know)
10. The Godfather (10%; almost no chance, but PLEASE! Don’t leave me with Don Connie…)

Not really counting comic book movies, which revinvent themselves every time out anyway, but Superman Returns may have been the best example of the approach – Singer truly pretended he was making Superman II. The X-Men films have done it a few times already, too…

And I’m not talking about reboots – that’s something totally else. Amnesiac sequels don’t want to reboot – they just want to pick and choose like a salad bar. (By the way – the only good examples of amnesiac sequels? Highlander and maybe one or two of the Michael Myers movies after Halloween III. Even though the movies after Highlander 2 were still crappy, no good can come of acknowledging Highlander 2…)

</soapbox-alert>

---

Jurassic World totally ignores the past two films, unless I missed something. And one of the characteristics of these sequels is that while they totally eschew the movies they don’t care for, they completely venerate whatever film they are trying to pick up from. It’s not even veneration, really, more like a slavish adherence to tone and cynical attempt to recreate the feel of the original. So Jurassic World succeeds at giving off the feel of Jurassic Park, and that’s the main takeaway.

I could go through every spot that is done right and every little thing that is done wrong, but what’s the point? This review has already gone on far too long. I’ll give you the highlights:

• Seeing the park in full operational mode is worth the price of admission by itself.
• Chris Pratt is so easy to root for that he’s fun to watch, even while he is participating in the world’s stupidest and most ludicrous subplot involving training dinosaurs.
• As soon as Vincent D’Onofrio showed up on screen the whole film got dumber. I think even the people in the theater dropped a few IQ points.
• Training dinosaurs as soldiers is Highlander 2 dumb. I simply cannot believe that this film spent over ten years in development hell and STILL couldn’t come up with a better storyline. Maybe they should have kept it simmering for another decade…
• The gyrosphere scene is totally implausible but it’s so great looking I hardly cared.

• I find it completely unbelievable that InGen is still in business after a T-Rex ate people in San Diego. They already had to introduce a new CEO in Simon Masrani (the excellent Irrfan Khan), so why not simply have a new company that bought InGen’s assets?
• I think it’s time to stop expecting great things from Bryce Dallas Howard. She’s excessively OK. If there was going to be anything more interesting happening here we would have seen it by now.

• I do like Jake Johnson in this – sort of. He gets far too much screen time for someone who really has no purpose to the story. He’s sort of the Ian Malcolm voice of skepticism, but that doesn’t really work when you are a willing employee.
• B.D. Wong is back as the only survivor of the first film that you wish had been eaten. I really like Wong, though and was honestly glad to see him back. Except they didn’t do anything to explain why, after all that had happened in the past 22 years, he still has a job.
• How many people were killed in this movie? The first film saw the deaths of four people. More isn’t more, guys…

Which brings me to my final point: you’re supposed to believe that this story is an indictment of our “more is more” culture, always wanting more, bigger, more dangerous stuff. But nowhere is this mindset more evident than IN THIS FILM’S VERY EXISTENCE. You can’t have it both ways…

For anyone still reading at this point (thanks for sticking around), I’m sure you’ve seen the film by now. Most people have, going by box office receipts. I’m not hoping to change any minds here. I’m just trying to process how I felt about a movie that so completely epitomizes my mixed feelings about moviegoing in 2015. To sum up; “eh, pretty good”…

Poster:

Trailer:

Bechdel Test:

Pass

The Representation Test Score: C (4 pts)

(http://therepresentationproject.org/grading-hollywood-the-representation-test/)

[schema type=”movie” url=”http://www.jurassicworldmovie.com/” name=”Jurassic World” description=”Twenty-two years after the events of Jurassic Park, Isla Nublar now features a fully functioning dinosaur theme park, Jurassic World, as originally envisioned by John Hammond. After 10 years of operation and visitor rates declining, in order to fulfill a corporate mandate, a new attraction is created to re-spark visitors’ interest, which backfires horribly.” director=”Colin Trevorrow” actor_1=”Chris Pratt” ]

Main Cast	Chris Pratt Owen Bryce Dallas Howard Claire Ty Simpkins Gray Judy Greer Karen
Rating	PG-13
Release Date	Fri 12 Jun 2015 UTC
Director	Colin Trevorrow
Genres	Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi, Thriller
Plot	Twenty-two years after the events of Jurassic Park, Isla Nublar now features a fully functioning dinosaur theme park, Jurassic World, as originally envisioned by John Hammond. After 10 years of operation and visitor rates declining, in order to fulfill a corporate mandate, a new attraction is created to re-spark visitors’ interest, which backfires horribly.
Poster
Runtime	124
Tagline	The park is open.
Writers	Rick Jaffa (screenplay) &, Amanda Silver (screenplay) …
Year	2015