‘Jurassic World’ provides the right mix of nostalgia and new

During interviews to promote Jurassic World, Chris Pratt said that the original (1993) Jurassic Park was his Star Wars, the movie that showed him how special a summer blockbuster could be, compelling him to see it multiple times (on opening weekend).

Given its record box office, earning an estimated $209 million in U.S. theaters (and $511.8 million worldwide — which is a record), topping the $207.4 million The Avengers drew in 2012, it’s pretty clear that watching dinosaurs brought to life on screen again was equally meaningful to millions of others like Pratt. With those kind of numbers, older generations who wanted to get in touch with some nostalgia and newer ones hoping to be blown away by major special-effects spectacle went to the movies over the weekend.

It also probably shouldn’t be underestimated that audiences were eager to be entertained after what’s been a relatively disappointing early summer movie season. (I’d say since Mad Max: Fury Road, but if we’re talking about more family-friendly entertainment, let’s go back to Avengers: Age of Ultron.)

Something else that Jurassic World benefits from is time. It’s been 14 years since Jurassic Park III was in theaters, which has surely helped it fade from memory (along with 1997’s The Lost World: Jurassic Park). While the forgettable sequels have been, well, forgotten, the landmark original has stuck with us, allowing us to develop years of affection for it.

If you act like the past two Jurassic Park films never happened — which director Colin Trevorrow, executive producer Steven Spielberg, and the screenplay’s four writers (including Trevorrow) have done — then it’s been more than 20 years since we last visited Isla Nublar and saw CGI dinosaurs walk among us. That’s enough time for sentimentality to have taken root and for the story to have believably moved forward to a place in which John Hammond’s original vision of a theme park in which people could see actual prehistoric creatures has overcome its logistical and financial obstacles to become a reality.

jurassic_raptor

Interestingly, there haven’t seemed to be too many of the “Do I need to have seen Jurassic Park before watching Jurassic World?” questions that tend to pop up (sometimes sarcastically) whenever a big sequel comes out. That’s probably because most of us saw the original movie. It’s understood and doesn’t really need to be said. That’s certainly the foundation Trevorrow’s film is built upon. But if you hadn’t seen the first Jurassic Park, you won’t be lost here. This is a new story that stands on its own.

Of course, you’ll enjoy this so much more if you get all of the references to 1993 that populate Jurassic World. Maybe I don’t have the right perspective to see if the movie could exist without them. (But it’s not like I watched the first movie again yesterday. It’s been many years.)

But what Trevorrow and his team have done so well is use our memories and nostalgia as wallpaper for this new setting. Giving longtime fans nods to what they remember so affectionately can be an easy shortcut, relying on our sentiment to make up for what the new story lacks. (Superman Returns comes to mind.) It’s like the cinematic equivalent of “The Chris Farley Show” sketch on Saturday Night Live: “Remember when that T-Rex went after those kids the first time? That was awesome.”

Some of the callbacks to Jurassic Park are so subtle, part of the scenes that Trevorrow creates and the action taking place, that you might not even notice them until you think about it later, are reminded of them by someone else, or go back and watch the original. Others are more overt, such as the initial gate to the park, a banner for an exhibit, or one of the Jeeps used for transport. Mr. DNA even makes a cameo appearance. I’m sure there are plenty I missed and others caught, but will notice on a second viewing. Yet those references don’t overpower the screen or bring the story to a halt to make sure you notice the reference.

Given how reverential the movie is, I’m a little bit surprised — to some, this might be a spoiler, but it’s really not — that we don’t see more of the original characters from Jurassic Park. But the story occurs at a relatively random point some 20 years later. The park has been open for some time and continues to run. There’s really no reason for Alan Grant, Ellie Sattler or Ian Malcolm to suddenly show up. Hey — look who it is, everybody! But as you likely know from the trailers and ads, B.D. Wong’s Henry Wu is part of this new narrative and will likely be part of any sequels to come. And there are some new characters in roles which fulfill similar purposes for the story that they did 20-plus years ago.

jurassic_owen

Since this is quickly becoming Chris Pratt’s world — if we’re not already there — which the rest of us just happen to be living on, it won’t surprise you that he’s one of the best things about Jurassic World. Picking him to be the lead was not a bad decision at all. He’s believable as a Navy veteran (hell, he was a Navy SEAL in Zero Dark Thirty) now making his trade as a raptor whisperer, tough, noble, charismatic and funny.

Actually, I could have used some more funny from Pratt. Though he has some good quips, especially in his banter with Bryce Dallas Howard, I sort of felt like Jurassic World handcuffed Pratt the same way San Andreas held back Dwayne Johnson. Obviously, the special effects are the star here and the script shouldn’t just stop so Pratt can crack a joke. I suppose it’s a credit to him and Trevorrow for making sure he does exactly what his role calls for. I guess I can go back and watch Guardians of the Galaxy if I want to see Pratt crack wise for two hours.

Howard’s performance has been the subject of many think pieces during the past week, lamenting that she’s a caricature of an cold, uptight career woman, rather than an actual character, and seemingly just needs to meet the right man — preferably a studly, rugged dinosaur wrangler like Pratt’s Owen Grady — to melt that icy exterior and show her there’s more to her life than her job.

I get that the idea is to make Pratt and Howard the kind of I-hate-you-I-love-you pairing that made for some scorching on-screen chemistry in older films (or even more modern ones like Romancing the Stone), but it just feels anachronistic here. It seems even more outdated when the movie later pokes fun at another movie romance trope with Jake Johnson and Lauren Lapkus.

I would argue that Howard’s Claire Dearing finally gets her moment at the end, fueling the climactic moment of the story in a surge of bravery and thinking about people other than herself. But up until that point, when her character arc seems to be defined by her interaction with Grady, it just doesn’t fit well in a summer that has given us strong female heroes like Mad Max: Fury Road‘s Furiosa, Spy‘s Susan Cooper, Tomorrowland‘s Casey Newton, or even Ex Machina‘s Ava. Jessica Chastain never would have stood for this, man.

jurassic_indominus

Ultimately, Jurassic World is so meta that it’s surprising the movie doesn’t swallow itself up. The genetic hybrid Indominus rex that’s supposed to bring new audiences to the theme park and impress those that have become bored and jaded is basically this movie. Yet the key role that the dinosaurs we first saw in Jurassic Park play in this new story’s resolution sticks up for what originally established the foundation and resonates to this day. Maybe Trevorrow and the other screenwriters lay that on a bit thick, to the point that you wonder why this movie was made.

However, I’m certainly glad it was made, and I presume most who saw the movie over the weekend feel the same way. Jurassic World is a lot of fun, and may even make you feel like you did in 1993 when you saw what CGI was capable of in creating these dinosaurs. (It’s probably impossible to recreate that exact awe, though the spectacular dino vs. dino action toward the end certainly tries, and doesn’t feel at all like a digital effects overload.) Yes, the script has some issues, such as a plot point determined by people being able to control a ride for themselves, something no theme park on the planet would allow. And then there’s the character development previously mentioned.

That stops Jurassic World from being a great film, certainly one as memorable as its landmark predecessor. But it’s sure a whole hell of a lot better than the two sequels that are best forgotten, and stamps both Pratt and Trevorrow as major forces that will almost certainly have even bigger things to come. I’m eager to see what both do next. Trevorrow has already said he’s not doing another Jurassic sequel, but the pieces are in place for another movie. Hopefully, whoever takes over (with Pratt likely again in the lead) finds the right mix of fresh and faithful that this movie did.

About Ian Casselberry

Ian is a writer, editor, and podcaster. You can find his work at Awful Announcing and The Comeback. He's written for Sports Illustrated, Yahoo Sports, MLive, Bleacher Report, and SB Nation.

Quantcast