Dumb fun

Rating: 7/10 (21 June 2015)

Let's start by saying that, it's not a Jurassic Park film. A terrible cliché, but a series/sequel will always be compared to its predecessor(s), whether consciously or subconsciously. So let's get that out of the way first. The reputation of the first film is so positive, this film will always have had mixed reaction. However, relating to this issue, the main response from people seems to be this; it doesn't matter.
People I spoke to tried to go in to a screening without having any expectations, and this is obviously the best way to treat the film. What you get is a popcorn movie with big dinosaurs, but wasn't that what the first film was? Well, let's come back to that in a bit. The main dinosaur antagonist in Jurassic World is well designed, and suitable scary and loud. The initial carnage scenes in which it makes itself known (the dinosaur) are well paced, violent, and probably some of the most gripping scenes, setting the tone for the rest of the film. However, that tone hardly changes, and when it does, it gets more ridiculous than scary or tense, something that the first film excelled at (Though, it's strange to say the Jurassic Park 'excels' at things, because, you know, Steven Spielberg and all).
The action sequences are, expectedly, the film's strengths. Some of the individual sequences are very good, including the one mentioned in the previous paragraph, and one involving the main protagonist, played by Chris Pratt, zooming into the deep forest on a motorcycle, surrounded by a team of raptors (as seen on the trailer). However, others are absolutely ridiculous, in a kind of, "this is absolutely ridiculous" way. The finale is laughable, though still somewhat entertaining.
There's not much point in speaking about the plot, as it's sort of irrelevant (and incredibly hole-y), and the characters, well, there aren't any (the best 'characters' are easily Pratt's gang of raptors, led by the more-charismatic-than-anyone-on-screen, 'Blue'). As we know, Pratt is an entertaining performer, but here, it feels that his talents have been wasted. I would have personally liked to have seen more 'cheekiness' and more one-liners from him, but he can only work with what he's given. In relation to this, some of the dialogue scenes so corny and ridiculous (there's that word again), that you just wish it was Jurassic Park.
...OK, so I guess it is difficult to talk about Jurassic World without frequently relating it to the first film. And it's this reason as to why I was slightly disappointed by it. It's fun, sure, it's loud, it's big, it's great to look at (most of the time), it's fast. But it's not (as) scary (as the first), and, unlike the first, it's not smart. It's dumb. Dumb fun, but dumb nonetheless. Going back to what I said about it being a popcorn movie, which was also the idea for the creation of the first film, is where the problem lies. The first film has a reputation as one of the greatest popcorn movies, but it's smart. It has a minimalist, yet classic adventure plot. It has characters; it has people you care about. I know it's difficult to come out with such gold as Spielberg and crew did, because, you know, it's Spielberg and all, but why couldn't it be smart as well as fun? Why couldn't we have a great time as well as caring about the characters? There's plenty of proof out there that films can be all these things.
Yeah, I know, they shouldn't replicate any of the previous films, and they should make it their own. But simply by dumbing it down? Is that the main thing that summer blockbusters should be nowadays, as opposed to the days of the first film?
But maybe I'm out of touch.