'It's not Fellini, it's a dinosaur flick' and how I WISH I saw ANYTHING but, this...

Rating: Null/10 (29 June 2015)

The latest film in the 'Jurassic' franchise is here, and It's plot is creakier then the 4 previous flick - ALL pretty much copies of the 1st film.
The makers of this 'film' follow the template for most Hollywood big-budget 'films' of the past few decades. In fact, everything which is wrong can be traced straight back to the first of these so-called 'blockbuster,' which was made by - who else - Spielberg.
Since Spielberg showed Hollywood the 'blockbuster' way, with Jaws (A HUGER film - with a huge following prior to it's release, based on the numbers of people who had read the book), Hollywood's drastically changed - from making many films, with, perhaps, one film every year, or so, which would be called 'formulaic event,' i.e., The Towering Inferno, Earthquake, etc, to now, where most of each studios' budget's concentrated SOLELY on these 'blockbusters' - one for each season' - with massive budgets, big-named actors (where a BIG percentage of these things' budget goes), so they can (hopefully) recoup ALL the money in one, big fell swoop.
Now, the following formula is followed;
If you remember Jaws, it's dialogue was sparse - the film was mostly man vs. shark, and since Spielberg had to almost entirely concentrate on the action, his (in)ability to write (even decent) dialogue was irrelevant. This doesn't mean he was/is a good writer of dialogue - he isn't. He's terrible, which - in Hollywood of today, it doesn't matter, as it's all about international sales, and since dialogue doesn't translate easily, dialogue is irrelevant.
But, action does, so, the makers' concentrate on it solely.
Keep it simple, heavy on action, and make all major characters generic - as 'translatable' - as possible; the lead hunk hero, the (at the beginning) lead woman who's 'conflicted,' the 'Mcguffin,' as Hitchcock named it (Mcguffin is something in a film which seems to be important to the plot, but, in fact, isn't) in this film, it's the kids.
Then, there's always a baddie (sorry, no spoilers),but, since that role's taken in this film by the real big (i.e; expensive) villain - the dinosaurs, the human part of the villain must be able to verbalise (at least) HIS intentions for doing what he did, or will do, etc. (it's usually ALWAYS about; money).
Here, in this film, the makers get '100,' but, all this means is, it's hollow - predictable as 'which side your toasted bread will land on the floor?
Before I continue, let me cite some lines from 2 opposing reviews, here;
'Bad acting, bad plot, terrible acting, ham-fisted approach to storytelling, horrible acting, you name it. All of this - and more - is in this movie. It's basically a remake of Jurassic Park - it's the exact same premise, with mostly the same characters. Can Spielberg think of anything else other than child geniuses? '
Now, let me share with you someone who loved this recycled, re-heated mess; 'I loved this movie. I don't understand some of the negative ratings here. This is not a Fellini movie we're reviewing. It's dinosaurs. And plenty of the'
No, it's NOT Fellini, nor does it ever pretend to be.
The point this person is missing, is staring him in the face; WHY pay the (exorbitant) price to see it in a theatre, when you can rent the 1st for a fraction of the price, as it's nothing more than the same, exact film - only different character's names.
It's like a movie 'Mad-Lib' - a fill-in-the-blank film;
 Sweet kids, one, a teen (make sure he's cute, and make sure it's 'wholesome' flirting he does), make the other kid younger, but, a genius - who'll save everyone at the last moment (the 2 aforementioned boys - one- the older - who appears to being groomed as Hollywood's latest hunk Jr.).  Male lead a cardboard copy in the Indiana Jones template macho hero (with a heart of gold), who's preoccupied by work too much to notice icy lady likes him - here played by Chris Pratt (who I really did like in the excellent, head-over-heels better than this garbage, Guardians Of The Galaxy. I would recommend THAT film over THIS dreck by far), lead woman with an icy exterior, but, inside, she's in love with male lead, and she'll have an inexplicable about- face from her initial iciness (played by the utterly charmless, interchangeable for any actress - Bryce Dallas Howard - a VEY poor man's Julianne Moore
Throw in some baddies (the always t terrific Vincent D'Onofrio (I guess he needs a pay check) is here (as an antagonist)
Popping up as a 'talking head role (literally - from her desk, to repeatedly exclaim things on her headphone mic), is Laura Lapkus as one of the park's controllers, who, if you watched Orange Is The New Black 1st & 2nd series episodes, was much better utilised in her role as a CO Susan Fischer, than here.
The dinosaur CGI's act much better than the humans, because, they - the dinosaurs ARE the true stars of this dreck (As the 2nd quote I cited - from the person who loved this said, 'is NOT Fellini, it's dinosaurs'), and to be out-performed - appear LESS artificial THAN these CGI's, is really sad.
I'm not a curmudgeon, I DO hate being pandered to, have my intelligence so mocked.
This is a picture in which ANYone watching can tell what will happen next, who will live, who will die, WAY a before it happens. It's predictable bullshit.
Your kid will love it.