Jurassic World

J Mysterio

:pac:

Gbear

Ride me sideways that was stupid.

Pretty, on the whole and technically competent, but I spent a large part of the film face palming.

I love big dumb films, but dumbness is the absence or streamlining of some elements of story telling in favour of action.
It's not just bad storytelling.

I guess you can give them credit for how consistently bollocks everything was - they started with camouflage but they never let up.

The bit at the end was hilarious with the whole bigger fish joke. I was half expecting Godzilla to turn up, followed by Unicron.

Presumably the only place Pratt and Dallas-Howard will stick together will be prison, where they'll be sent for criminal negligence having caused the deaths of 100 people.

BMMachine

Gbear wrote: »

Ride me sideways that was stupid.

could not have put it better

youreadthat

Liamalone wrote: »

I saw this recently, saw all the 'holes', still enjoyed it, it's only a film after all.

I sentence you to watching Jack & Jill on a continuous loop.

pah

Mr Freeze wrote: »

JW is no worse than JP

GTFO

e_e

I never care that much about box office but it makes me sad that a film like this, that so blatantly hates its audience, is now one of the highest-grossing films of all time. The first film extrapolates its maker's deep love for his audience by presenting a man so eager to please that he does not notice the ruinous, lethal mistake he has made until it is much too late. From the start, this film takes pains to point out what a stupid thing it is, both the action of characters within the movie and the movie itself. But people will line up to be eaten, and to see this movie, because they're just so ****ing dumb, not even humans but a creature comprising only mouths to shove novelty snacks into and wallets to pay for everything.

The word cynical gets thrown out a lot (not infrequently by me) but rarely has it so definitively applied to a film and the entire ethos encoded into every frame. In this movie, all deaths are jokes (with its one truly gruesome, utterly cruel death played almost as the blackest joke of all, a Rube Goldberg device made of teeth); characters fluctuate in personality to make the meanest possible choices; and sideplots exist solely to make everyone seem more insanely deluded. There are no moments of wonder, but then that is deliberate, another way for the film to make a snide point about how none of us ****ing plebes know how to appreciate anything. But Trevorrow just presents us with a lot of caged beasts waiting for their inevitable escape. Perhaps the reason it's preferable to stare at one's phone is that idly surfing on it carries the possibility of surprising the user.

I found this Letterboxd review pretty spot on, especially with the cynical contempt JW has for its own audience.

Pugzilla

Lots of dry ****es in here.

It's a movie about a zoo of cloned dinosaurs FFS.

This is easily the best of the JP sequels. It delivered what I wanted.....Dinosaurs.

e_e

Pugzilla wrote: »

It's a movie about a zoo of cloned dinosaurs FFS.

...and? Didn't stop the first film from being thoroughly well-made, thoughtful, entertaining, chilling and awe-inspiring. Everything this one failed to be tbh.

Tipsy McSwagger

Pugzilla wrote: »

Lots of dry ****es in here.

It's a movie about a zoo of cloned dinosaurs FFS.

This is easily the best of the JP sequels. It delivered what I wanted.....Dinosaurs.

Ahh to be 5 years old again.

e_e

I'd argue that 2 and 3 were at least more effective Dinosaur thrillers than even this one is, which wastes a good hour with some boring cardboard cut out characters.

Gbear

I've heard that in a lot of places that this is better than 2 and 3, and it's better in some parts, but a lot worse in others.

There's plenty of excellent parts from 2 - the truck dangling at the edge, the raptors in the long grass, the hunting of all the dinosaurs... even the T-Rex in San Francisco was a bit of craic (despite the hand on the door controller making absolutely no sense at all - presumably it crawled back over to it after the rest was eaten).
Jeff Goldblum, Julianne Moore, Pete Posthelwaite, Peter Stormare - it had a good cast as well.
If they binned the stupid gymnastics part I suspect people would look back on it more fondly.

3 was pretty bad, but it still had some cool moments, and William H Macy is always good.

This was distractingly stupid, and that brought down the level of the whole film. There was plenty of nice eye candy and a few cool set pieces, but I just couldn't go with it because I kept getting taken out of the film.

I don't think this was an example of joined-up thinking.
Weird tone with wackieness thrown in at every opportunity, jokes breaking the tension any time they managed to build some, kiddies doing kiddy things one minute and people getting fairly gruesomely eaten the next.

It was a real head-scratcher.

Beefy78

It is crazy how much it seems to be upsetting people that so many other people really enjoyed this film.

The Adversary

Beefy78 wrote: »

It is crazy how much it seems to be upsetting people that so many other people really enjoyed this film.

I think it's because it lost the serious tone/moral message the first two had. I enjoyed it, it's lighthearted and fun and you get plenty of dinosaurs for your money.

spacecoyote

The thing that struck me about this is that I can't remember any characters name, except for Chris Pratts. I can still remember the names of some of the side characters in the first JP.

Essentially it's has some entertaining scenes but is an entirely vacuous movie

BMMachine

Beefy78 wrote: »

It is crazy how much it seems to be upsetting people that so many other people really enjoyed this film.

I think theres a deeper issue going on here.

Its more "why has this really bad film done so well and is guaranteed probably a franchise of sequels when there are so many strictly better films struggling to get noticed or continued"
I think its a standards thing. Just shocking how low the bar is for what people pass as "good". But hey, Honey Boo Boo was actually real and not just a figment of our nightmares

e_e

Beefy78 wrote: »

It is crazy how much it seems to be upsetting people that so many other people really enjoyed this film.

...and yet most of the condescending remarks in this very thread are from people who did like it. One user even going "autism ffs" :rolleyes:

If you enjoyed the film then all the power to you, but I really feel that there's a lot of apologizing for the lazy film making, pandering, lackluster direction and cynical message going on here. I mean is the bar really that low that "well it's better than the last 2" and "It's a dinosaur movie!" is enough to shield Jurassic World from criticism? If that's the case just buy an Asylum film and a six-pack and get plastered at home. We don't need to throw money at something this shoddily made and insulting to the viewer's intelligence.

pixelburp

Beefy78 wrote: »

It is crazy how much it seems to be upsetting people that so many other people really enjoyed this film.

Who's upset? And why are those who didn't like this film saddled with anxiety and bitterness? Ok, there has been some eye-watering pedantry here and there, but that's standard for threads of this size; inevitably people run out of things to say so it turns into an exercise of tearing apart the minutiae, but so what?

If you can enjoy the film warts n' all, then fair play; but don't presume those who didn't do so from a point of resentment. Me? I hated this film and found it soulless, charmless dirge that completely missed the point of the first film. Mostly? I found this film boring, filled with annoying characters. It's not enough to shrug my shoulders and say 'well at least it was better than the other two sequels'. That's almost a perfect example of damning with faint praise in my book.

Beefy78

Oh come on, the rage on display (even in these last few posts) is utterly disproportionate to the supposed "crimes" of this film. Personally I enjoyed it a lot but regardless, at worst I could see it being written off as being a dumb blockbuster but if someone came into this thread without seeing the film they'd see 50% of the posts describing a car-crash of a movie with zero redeeming features, which this is simply not.

I find myself wondering if there was a second cut of the movie which some of you watched considering how far apart some of the comments are from the film that I saw.

You literally have people in here bemoaning the fact that it has made so much money as if the fact that people like this film, tell friends and maybe even go and watch it again is going to negatively impact them in any way whatsoever.

I'd hate to see the reactions of these same people to the Transformers sequels. I suspect heads would explode.

e_e

Beefy78 wrote: »

describing a car-crash of a movie with zero redeeming features, which this is simply not.

In the opinion of several posters (including myself) on this thread, it is.

I honestly couldn't tell you a single thing that worked for me in this movie.

johnny_ultimate

Bit of a 'your opinion is wrong!' vibe going on here :pac:

Anyway, never posted my full review of the film. Can't really give an anymore thorough breakdown of what I didn't like about the film:

It's hardly irregular for blockbuster films to fail to follow through on their ideas or high concepts – many films have surrendered depth as their budgets grew higher. Others simply struggled to make good on their deliciously promising, tricksy conceits. It is relatively irregular, however, for a blockbuster film to highlight and even critique its own limitations, while also failing to transcend the very traits it has expressed disdain towards. That's the unusual dissonance to be found in Jurassic World, one of the most self-aware and hypocritical Hollywood productions you're ever likely to watch.

From the off, it becomes clear Jurassic World is a film operating on two different wavelengths. The very first shot shows a hatching dinosaur egg, the creature inside slowly revealed. It's a homage to the convincingly clunky hatching sequence in Jurassic Park (which remains perhaps the greatest realisation of the modern spectacle movie), yet obviously rendered through unconvincing, cartoonish CGI – the shared burden of almost all contemporary spectacles. Yet with the next scene, director Colin Trevorrow (graduating from the charming sci-fi indie comedy Safety Not Guaranteed) changes tone. We see a young boy (Ty Simpkins) in a room covered with dinosaur stuff, feverishly anticipating a trip to the theme park where his favourite animals roam wild. In two scenes, then, we've had two conflicting registers: one of modern CG excess, the other of childlike and old-fashioned anticipation and wonder.

Over the next half hour or so, the film – unsurprisingly credited to four screenwriters – presents itself as a film comfortably in tune with what exactly it is. There are knowing attacks on marketing and corporate interference, and on-the-nose dialogue that articulates the need for ever bigger thrills to attract bored audiences. In one scene, Jurassic World visitors observe a giant aquatic dinosaur (well beyond the capabilities of an SFX team in 1993) with awe and joy – it's no coincidence that the angle chosen makes it look like they're staring at a cinema screen.

Jurassic World establishes itself, with unmistakable clarity ('subtext' would imply there's a 'sub' to it), as a film with a distaste for trends within mainstream filmmaking, and seemingly sets out to do something fresh while harking back to a better, more magical time for blockbusters. One character played by Jake Johnson wears an original Jurassic Park t-shirt while affectionately reminiscing about the park (and, with a wink, the film), while the early 1990s is frequently referenced as an altogether better, simpler time. Yet it's obvious the same old tricks won't totally cut it this time, either. Can the film play the nostalgia card while also bringing some fresh ideas to the table?

The answer is inevitably disappointing. After an extended opening act of self-reflection, everything goes to **** – both for the fictional theme park operators who foolishly thought they could contain their genetically engineered super dino, and for the filmmakers who dared to propose (promise?) potentially overcoming the limitations of a $150 million+ franchise sequel in 2015.

Where to start? The film is constantly highlighting the horror of corporate interference – even hiring Vincent D'Onofrio as a sneering InGen stooge up to no good - yet is concurrently littered with seemingly unironic product placement. It celebrates the wonders of science and reflects on the dark power of playing God (poor BD Wong, the one recurring cast member, is also reduced to corporate puppet by film's end, anticipating – the film teases – film number five). It is cynical towards empty, focus-grouped spectacle, and ultimately resigns itself to empty, focus-grouped spectacle. Depending on how much credit you're willing to give the creative team, it's almost as if they are actively making fun of the audience at times, albeit for no discernible or coherent gain.

The jarring dichotomy extends to the characterisation too. Bryce Dallas Howard plays Claire, a senior figure at the park who is meant to be looking after her visiting nephews when all hell breaks loose. She is the de facto protagonist of the film, surprisingly taking centre stage alongside or arguably even ahead of poster boy Chris Pratt. Over the course of the film, she develops into a more proactive hero, confident, assured and risk-taking after being a bit of a selfish stick-in-the-mud at the start of proceedings. Honestly, it remains a sad rarity to see a female character so prominent in a tentpole blockbuster, an especially encouraging sign so soon after the proudly progressive Mad Max: Fury Road.


But that's not all there is to Claire in the film. Her character development is tied to her effectively surrendering to a more traditional gender role – her maternal and, well, sexual instincts the factors that encourage her to break out of her shell. And that shell is already one of a confident, career driven woman – something portrayed as a negative. Somewhat incredulously, the development of her character is also symbolised directly by her continued disrobing. For no good reason, the filmmakers draw attention to her slowly but surely removing her outfit, not least in one of the most gratuitous cleavage shots in recent memory. There is an argument to be made that the gradual removal of her work clothes is done in the name of practicality, or a physical manifestation of her character changes. But put it this way: why don't the male characters end up doing the same?

The dissonance is present elsewhere. For the most part Pratt does little more than growl and get **** done, but in one scene – that one controversially highlighted by Joss Whedon – he comes across as a wisecracking asshole / borderline sex pest. The central romance feels perfunctory and unconvincing. Yet in a witty scene elsewhere Johnson's character rushes to explicitly express his feelings for a co-worker (Lauren Lapkus) during a moment of high drama, only for Trevorrow to amusingly subvert our expectations and instead highlight the silliness and creepiness of such a thing. Again, it is clear that the filmmakers are conscious of the ludicrous tropes and conventions limiting much genre film, but they seem perfectly happy to indulge in them without irony while making fun of them elsewhere.

And so we get to the spectacle – the dinosaur action. That's where the constant homages to its predecessor (The Lost World and JP3 are wisely ignored) become least flattering. There are throwbacks like the economically utilised iconic music cues that suggest the filmmakers are intimately aware of what made Spielberg's film so successful. And a handful of moments do capture some sort of majesty, maybe even magic – like the first glimpse of a dinosaur petting zoo (a beautifully loaded image), or an impressive shot that comes across as a dark subversion of that unforgettable image of that first wide shot of a dinosaur plane in Jurassic Park.

Yet for the most part the comparisons are unflattering (even if, almost by default, it's still the most interesting sequel). There's no sense of tension or weight to the action - even the build-up to the park reveal is handled with brutal efficiency in the first ten minutes or so. A handful of sequences toy with being more intimate, but feel contrived in a way the original never did (safe to say an unsupervised tour through dino-town in a glass bubble would not make it past many health and safety inspectors). One shot sees Owen and Claire nursing what appears to be a wounded, animatronic Brachiosaurus – a pleasingly weighty shot undermined when the camera swoops to encompass a clearly CG body. This isn't to say the original was not full of computer manipulation because it absolutely was, but Spielberg always made sure to offset it with some of the best practical effects work in cinema history. That's sorely missed here, hardly aided by direction that is at times is clear and coherent, but mostly bores with unconvincing, flavourless spectacle - not least a preposterously realised climactic multiple-dinosaur brawl that concludes with a T-Rex and raptor effectively affectionately winking at the nearby humans before politely leaving them to their business. It's only slightly less silly than that in action.

All this from a film that spent much of its opening act decrying the sorry state of the contemporary blockbuster. Generously speaking, it could be considered the filmmakers highlighting the impossibility of doing something original within the confines of a big studio blockbuster with a dizzying budget, sneaking a message in however they. Perhaps a bold attempt at critiquing both the audiences and corporations that maintain the business model. But it's a film that never manages to transcend that which it criticises, instead coming across as if different writers were responsible for the film's first and second halves (Charlie and Donald Kaufman, maybe?). Even if we do give the filmmakers the benefit of the doubt, accepting that they were fighting against impossible odds – what a lousy, depressing message we're left with.

pixelburp

Beefy78 wrote: »

Oh come on, the rage on display (even in these last few posts) is utterly disproportionate to the supposed "crimes" of this film. Personally I enjoyed it a lot but regardless, at worst I could see it being written off as being a dumb blockbuster but if someone came into this thread without seeing the film they'd see 50% of the posts describing a car-crash of a movie with zero redeeming features, which this is simply not.

And yet I disagree; maybe the tone of others' arguments gets heated, but the fundamental point behind them seems true to me: Jurassic World was very poor, and being better than two also-inferior sequels shouldn't really act as the barometer of success.

There definitely seemed to be a germ of some good ideas in there, the script flirted with some smart notions and avenues, but then dropped the ball each time. I can't help wonder if the director was a stronger, more influential personality would those ideas have stayed the course.

Beefy78 wrote: »

I'd hate to see the reactions of these same people to the Transformers sequels. I suspect heads would explode.

I'd like to propose a film-based variation of Godwin's law, that the longer a contentious thread goes on, the probability of a comparison involving Transformers approaches 1 :P

South Tipperary Arts Centre

should be good

Mickeroo

pixelburp wrote: »

I'd like to propose a film-based variation of Godwin's law, that the longer a contentious thread goes on, the probability of a comparison involving Transformers approaches 1 :P

Funnily enough, if you scroll up a bit you'll see the actual Godwin's law was invoked before Baywin's. :pac:

Beefy78

pixelburp wrote: »

I'd like to propose a film-based variation of Godwin's law, that the longer a contentious thread goes on, the probability of a comparison involving Transformers approaches 1 :P

Ha, fair enough, it's the obvious comparison which always springs to mind

youreadthat

I actually like the first Transformers film! It is what it is, I mean cars turn into alien robots, it's a comic book sci-fi. In that context I thought it was fun, but the sequels are certainly self indulgent and pointless stupid films.

Jurassic World has way too many face palm moments. There is no context to the stupidity, in Mad Max the insanity is part of the world they inhabit. Jurassic Park feels like a great adventure fraught with danger, with a couple of engaging characters. At worst there are one or two plot strains, but it's never stupid. Jurassic World feels actively stupid, like there's an in joke deal between audience and makers that we are in the age of the dumb blockbuster, so come along for the ride! It's not disappointing because every film needs to be deep, it's disappointing because there are good ideas and things you can do with the story, but the horrible writing and too many cooks approach to making this spoiled something that could have been great.

Pugzilla

e_e wrote: »

...and? Didn't stop the first film from being thoroughly well-made, thoughtful, entertaining, chilling and awe-inspiring. Everything this one failed to be tbh.

It must kill you to know that this film has made $1.5 billion and counting.

JW was never going to top the novelty of the first film.

e_e

Pugzilla wrote: »

It must kill you to know that this film has made $1.5 billion and counting.

The box office is neither here nor there for me. Just means a lot of people paid to see it, nothing to do with the film's quality.

Pugzilla wrote: »

JW was never going to top the novelty of the first film.

What's with this constant setting of such low bars by the people who like this movie? Very reductive to just call the first film a novelty when what made it good was more than just them having solid dinosaur effects (which in many ways are still superior to Jurassic World I might add). It's a bizarrely defeatist and negative way of looking at movies imo, I can only guess that Colin Trevorrow had the same view of the material.

Pugzilla

e_e wrote: »

It's a bizarrely defeatist and negative way of looking at movies imo, I can only guess that Colin Trevorrow had the same view of the material.

What films have you directed?

What storyline would you have used for JW ?

You call it a bad movie?
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/jurassic_world/
http://www.metacritic.com/movie/jurassic-world

Yeah not perfect, but not as horrendous as you paint it.

e_e

Pugzilla wrote: »

What films have you directed?

What's that got to do with anything? Are you saying you need to have made a movie to have an opinion on one? In that case what films have you directed?

Pugzilla wrote: »

What storyline would you have used for JW ?

It's the execution that's the problem, a director on Spielberg's level for instance could have made this material sing. Plot isn't important as much as what's done with it.

e_e

Pugzilla wrote: »

Yeah not perfect, but not as horrendous as you paint it.

Again, that stuff is immaterial to what I personally thought of the movie. I'm not gonna fall into the old appeal to consensus fallacy. Other people liking something should not change my opinion of it, if anything differing individual experiences should be encouraged or else a message board such as this is a bit moot isn't it?

Sorry, not buying this notion that I should be forced to find merit in something just because other people do.

Pugzilla

e_e wrote: »

Again, that stuff is immaterial to what I personally thought of the movie. I'm not gonna fall into the old appeal to consensus fallacy. Other people liking something should not change my opinion of it, if anything differing individual experiences should be encouraged or else a message board such as this is a bit moot isn't it?

Sorry, not buying this notion that I should be forced to find merit in something just because other people do.

Did you like Pacific Rimjob or Godzilla? If not then maybe this genre of film is not for you.....

e_e

Pacfic Rim is an example of this kind of movie done right. A good director who knew what he was doing from the start delivering goofy fun on a huge scale, it's like the big budget equivalent to a Saturday morning cartoon. The characters are likable, the message is strong and clear (none of this condescending "meh modern audience, lap this rubbish up!") and there's a love of film making there that Del Toro (like Spielberg) gets across.

Godzilla had similar (character and pacing) problems to this but made up for it by actually having great set-pieces and some beautiful cinematography. There's nothing in Jurassic World that even approaches the Hawaii or halo drop sequences there.

So no, I don't have any bias against a kind of movie. Believe me if I did I wouldn't have seen every Jurassic Park movie to date.

Thargor

http://deadline.com/2015/07/chris-pratt-jurassic-world-parks-and-recreation-1201467185/

StaticAge11

Sequel confirmed for June 22nd 2018

syklops

StaticAge11 wrote: »

Sequel confirmed for June 22nd 2018

Ah Jaysus. What next? The Lost Jurassic World?

J Mysterio

The Super T Rex, recovered, has now become even smarter. It seems someone put a dash of human dna in too, mixed with the raptor. He has begun to create an army of super dinosaurs with which they plan to invade the US.

Pugzilla

e_e wrote: »

So no, I don't have any bias against a kind of movie. Believe me if I did I wouldn't have seen every Jurassic Park movie to date.

There's only been 3 films prior to this, so hardly much on an achievement. Not really a JP fan if you thought that this was worse than JP3.

Pugzilla

e_e wrote: »

So no, I don't have any bias against a kind of movie. Believe me if I did I wouldn't have seen every Jurassic Park movie to date.

There's only been 3 films prior to this, so hardly much of an achievement.

You can't be a real JP fan if you thought that this was worse than JP3.

PhiloCypher

Blows my mind that this has become the third biggest grossing film of all time. Its like One Direction closing in on Beatles number 1 album records it just feels all wrong .

e_e

Pugzilla wrote: »

You can't be a real JP fan if you thought that this was worse than JP3.

Oh come on don't pull the "Oh you didn't like this movie? You're not a real fan!" card. It's like you're treating your own opinion as fact and you have to construe stuff about people who think differently. :P

Psst who said I was a fan anyway? The first just happened to be a film I really loved growing up, but even looking back I can tell it's a far more well-written, better constructed, imaginative and thoughtful film than Jurassic World is. Even 2 and 3 have the odd impressive set-piece and scary scenes compared to JW, which I can say I got nothing out of in terms of fun, thrills or shock.

johnny_ultimate

Pugzilla wrote: »

You can't be a real JP fan if you thought that this was worse than JP3.

Aye, he's as real a Scotsman as you'll get though. Makes a great haggis and plays a mean bagpipe solo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef1K3wYf1cM

Into The Blue

Pugzilla wrote: »

Yeah not perfect, but not as horrendous as you paint it.

Ah, it is. I'd guess it's success at the box office is down to the fact that most kids want to see it, topped off with the likes of me (old fogie) who only went to see it to relive the old days..

J Mysterio

PhiloCypher wrote: »

Blows my mind that this has become the third biggest grossing film of all time. Its like One Direction closing in on Beatles number 1 album records it just feels all wrong .

Well put

syklops

Pugzilla wrote: »

There's only been 3 films prior to this, so hardly much on an achievement. Not really a JP fan if you thought that this was worse than JP3.

Theres a straw man argument if ever I heard one. I'd back him up by saying it was as bad as JP3.

biggebruv

PhiloCypher wrote: »

Blows my mind that this has become the third biggest grossing film of all time. Its like One Direction closing in on Beatles number 1 album records it just feels all wrong .

rather this than furious 7:D infact i hope it beats avatar 100%Highly unlikely I know

The Golden Miller

PhiloCypher wrote: »

Blows my mind that this has become the third biggest grossing film of all time. Its like One Direction closing in on Beatles number 1 album records it just feels all wrong .

Bad analogy. Can't agree at all. The Jurassic Park series would be one of the older stalwarts knocking about in modern cinema, more akin to the Beatles or the Stones itself. Furious 7, Twilight, Harry Potter, Pirates of the Caribbean and all that teenager modern fluff would be more in line with One Direction. If anything it's good to see some of the old guard like JP and Star Wars retake their positions at the top

PhiloCypher

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Bad analogy. Can't agree at all. The Jurassic Park series would be one of the older stalwarts knocking about in modern cinema, more akin to the Beatles or the Stones itself. Furious 7, Twilight, Harry Potter, Pirates of the Caribbean and all that teenager modern fluff would be more in line with One Direction. If anything it's good to see some of the old guard like JP and Star Wars retake their positions at the top

Only if the "new" old guard turn out to be actual good films , which is patently not the case with JP:World regardless of how many gazillion it makes.

I stand by my analogy.

e_e

The Golden Miller wrote: »

it's good to see some of the old guard

Nope this is kind of similar to seeing an old rock band on tour today. A group of rich old arseholes trying to relive former glories and failing to get what made it so special years ago.

As for talking about the Fast & Furious movies, well they actually improved over time and for one thing have well-shot, weighty and intense action to them. They're big budget movies that don't feel the least bit cheap and lazy with regards to how they were filmed. If only all blockbusters were as ridiculously fun as Fast Five.

Into The Blue

PhiloCypher wrote: »

Blows my mind that this has become the third biggest grossing film of all time. Its like One Direction closing in on Beatles number 1 album records it just feels all wrong .

No need to worry just yet, it's number 27 when adjusted for inflation..

e_e

What bothers me more than the big box office taking is just how much we were in need of a big, silly and fun dinosaur movie and that a film this badly written and directed has a monopoly on it. For something of such a huge budget it does feel like an Asylum movie at times, only not funny (though it tries to be) enough and way too long. It's not like we get a dinosaur blockbuster every year and we all deserved better.