What the actual f@$#

Rating: 5/10 (20 July 2015)

Michael Crichton's "Jurassic Park" was and still is one of my favorite books. I read it when I was eight, and it quickly turned me into a dinosaur nerd. I dreamed of becoming a paleontologist, I collected encyclopedias about dinosaurs and I could name even the rarest dinosaur species you would see on TV or film. For some reason I hadn't seen the book's adaptation before I was 18 and when I saw it, I was bitterly disappointed. It was just stupid. However, when I saw it for the second time, I kinda liked it. It wasn't the book, but it was a fine action/adventure movie. Of course, the visual effects were outstanding. I even liked its' sequel. I don't think I have seen 'Jurassic Park 3', and I will probably never waste my time with it.
But I did see 'Jurassic World'. I expected it to be a funny movie with lots of dinosaurs... Well, it was definitely funny, although for all the wrong reasons. This has got to be the worst high budget summer movie I have ever seen. Nothing really works in it, not even the visual effects - they are just awful, sorry. Well, not exactly awful, the dinosaurs' moves are well done and the creatures blend nice with the scenery, but one can say the same thing about the dinosaurs in "Terra Nova" - and that is a TV show. The CGI in 'Jurassic World' lacks detail. It looks as if it was made in the 90s. Peter Jackson's 'King Kong' came out ten years ago, and its' visual effects were much more detailed. Not to mention movies like 'Avatar' - when it comes to... everything, especially visuals, it blows 'Jurassic World' out of the water with ease - and it came out six years ago. There is no excuse for 'Jurassic World's poor CGI. Its' creators had the budget and the technology to make it better, but, alas, they chose to do a half-@$$ed job with it. And that is not the movie's biggest problem.
This is just not a movie, it is a product, manufactured on an assembly line. There is not a single original idea in it - even its' title is made by combining the titles of the first two movies. The plot is almost identical to the plot of the first movie, but everything that made sense about it has been surgically removed. And this time the army is involved. The writing is incoherent, implausible and downright dumb. And, as I like to say, this is not an opinion, this is a fact. I won't spoil it, but parts of this product (as I said, I can't call it a movie anymore) are directly contradicting other parts. The acting is about as good as the writing. Yes, many good actors are involved here, but they aren't even trying. Chris Pratt is playing exactly the same character he played in 'Guardians of the Galaxy', but this time his character is written as if he is supposed to be an action hero like Indiana Jones. He doesn't have many comedic lines, and the dissonance between the way he is written and the way Pratt is playing him is just mind blowing - and not in a good way. Bryce Dallas Howard is a tiny bit better, but her character is just awful. Vincent D'Onofrio is an incredible actor, but he isn't given anything to work with here. I wouldn't even bother to mention the rest of them.
As a whole, this thing works only as a comedy. You can laugh at its stupidity. I know I did. This is why I am so generous with the rating here. 'Jurassic World' is a 3/10 movie at best, but I am rating it higher, because it entertained me.