Trevorrow alternates between beating you over the head with his paper thin characters and making an sickly imitation of classic scenes and story lines

Rating: 2/10 (15 September 2015)

This movie stinks.
Here's the positives - I'm getting them out of the way because this review is going to tear shreds off this movie. It looks nice - the way that the KFC Dirty Double looks nice. There's nice cinematography - really nice at times. A couple of nice lines - "monster is a relative term" was probably my favourite. Jimmy Fallon has a funny cameo. Sound like I'm nitpicking for positives? I am. This movie STINKS!
Jurassic Park is one of the most profound cinematic experiences in the world. It is soaring, majestic and thoughtful. The Lost World is also terrific - not quite the original, but Jurassic World doesn't even lick the sequels boots, let alone the original.
Lets start with reason number one. The first two were made my Steven Spielberg, one of the best directors who has ever lived, period. He knew how to balance deep characters with huge spectacle - he'd been doing it for almost 20 years. Whose this Colin Trevorrow dude? He's directed four things, including a TV Movie, a short film, and a documentary. But hey, I'm not one to be prejudiced against rookie directors - some are naturals, like Ben Affleck or Joel Edgerton. Unfortunately, Trevorrow's style is completely imitative. The whole film feels like a cheap knockoff of Spielberg's classic, kind of like when you open a pack of fake Pokemon cards. It looks real - to an idiot - but you know its not and you stand there feeling crestfallen and disappointed.
All through the film you'll see shots from the original and think "oh, you're recycling that shot again. Nice, very original sir." I swear, after the sixth or so time they did that close up of the side of the Rex's face, I was yawning at a moment that can give me chills in the original. The more intimate moments also feel botched - such as an overly dramatic first scene in which Zach and Gray's parents bid them goodbye, which gives the feeling that the kids are being sent off to the country during a war, not going on a week long holiday! Trevorrow has no idea what to do with Jurassic Park's glorious score, teasing it constantly but only giving us a big taste once - during a non-reveal of buildings. You know when Spielberg used that swell? During the banner fall at the end of Jurassic Park. Now that was good.
Boy can you tell the screenplay was written by committee, as opposed to a brilliant novelist. One moment Pratt is hissing at Howard, the next he's flirting with her. The characters are always changing - Irrfan Khan's Dr. Masrani, introduced in his first scene to be John Hammond's natural successor - asking about the dinosaurs welfare and the customers having fun whilst gently admonishing Claire for being uptight and delighting in flying his helicopter. Just two scenes later, he is established as a money-grabbing businessman, far more in sync with Peter Ludlow from The Lost World.
I never bought the film's premise for a moment - people sick of dinosaurs? But they're no different to elephants, says someone. Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but zoos aren't exactly out of business for lack of interest. Meanwhile there's Pokemon Master Chris Pratt and his loyal band of velociraptors (Pratt has nothing close to a character arc in this film) and some kids (a shameless attempt to replicate Tim and Lex) have a thrown together storyline that I barely followed or paid attention to. There's a single scene where Gray reveals their parents are getting divorced with absolutely no context, and is never mentioned again. Zach is a brooding hunk whose character arc is followed so explicitly he might as well have turning signals as he moves along.
I saw the original Jurassic Park (and the Lost World) over a year ago, and I can name every character from Alan Grant to Denis Nedry. I saw Jurassic World about twenty minutes ago and I've forgotten nearly every name already. Chris Pratt, Vincent D'Onofrio and Bryce Dallas Howard have almost nothing to work with, stuck with paper thin characters that you can see clean through on a mildly sunny day. But don't worry, Trevorrow will beat you over the head with it anyway - Pratt is introduced in a glowing halo of light to tell us that he's our protagonist whilst Howard robotically recites park statistics to her boss so that we know she's a cold businesswoman. I found her performance disappointing too - during a scene where its a near foregone conclusion that her nephews were eaten, she reacts just a little less emotionally than you would if your dog ran away. Ty Simpkins and Nick Robinson are utterly unbearable, screen time spent on Robinson sniffling and Simpkins staring dumbly at pretty girls. Jake Johnson got raves for being funny, but I found him to be pathetic whose character arc ends in a romantic rejection. Nice.
There's a lot more wrong, but I'll wrap up my rant by talking visuals and action. In 1993 Spielberg blew our minds. In 2015, I swear we've gone backwards. Its nice to look at, but its not real. Spielberg set the bar and Trevorrow swatted futilely at it as he soared somewhere beneath it. There's a couple of cool action throwdowns and even a pitched battle, but they are all disappointingly short.
Long and the short of it - don't watch this. I'm going to rewatch the original to cleanse my pallet.
P.S. I knew about the stupid heels going in. But what I didn't know was that Owen himself mentions it BEFORE all the chases began! WTF?