John Hammonds Flea Circus

Rating: 1/10 (12 June 2015)

Sorry that it is unprofessional and hammy, but - rant is what I need, rant is what I do- mutiny, anarchy- lets go.
Ah. Where do I begin? That I have lost faith in humanity? Michael Crichton is spinning in his grave, grieving. Critics praise this Reboot... To be "suitable for new generation" I feel sorry for that new generation. 1993 Jurassic Park is an all time classic. This is a very poor B-class movie. Like Ouija or Age of Extinction - or any other CGI heavy summer flick that will trend for a week, then is sold in Pound Shops. But I waited for it. Since 2001. 1993 is an all time classic, it had great characters, it was based and explored science- genetic engineering in time when it was just a myth- the effects were groundbreaking, moral suitable, humour dry and dark but indirect- it was classic. This is a poor parody that tries to be funny (it isn't). CGI is apparent to such extent, if JP1 was out now, it would've beaten it by mile. I laughed a lot- because of the bleakness of the story (If this was on TV, when Pratt and dinosaurs "talk", in first 10 minutes, I would've considered switching it off). My little paleontological heart broke in million pieces, but, at least they have subtly mentioned bird evolution, but rest- caricatures- flying reptiles rampaging, eating people (fish eaters, sorry), dinosaurs talking to em that hybrid thing (bleak design)(ignore), by the end two dinosaurs and a marine reptile "team up" to defeat the "baddie" dinosaur, yeah, that's the plot. I would've said it is for three year old audience, but then, there was a five year old sitting close to me and she fell asleep. Gah, these dinosaurs really didn't have anything to eat. This movie underlines world dinosaur and associates them with blood thirsty, giant scaly monsters. While in fact, majority of dinosaurs were size of a pony, many of carnivores possibly scavengers, and chunk of sauropods covered in feathers. This creates wrong image for entire field, 1992 movie inspired generation of palaeontologists; while this may trend as an app buy-in-game trend for five year old, and be forgotten as soon as identical new thing emerges. John William tune was underused, and anyway, something of such superiority should not be used in this thing. There was no "ahh! Lovely" Scene which is so trademark to the trilogy. (and The William theme should play in that scene.) I would've given it points if it was there. Because the theme on its own made my eyes wet. My favorite aspects were the call backs to the first movie, such as John Hammond sculpture, visit of the old visitor area, the blurred copy of Ian Malcolm book, Dr Henry Wo, that talkative DNA double helix. But it was in form of Easter eggs, not enough. There was a lot of repetitive dull humour, which was both corny and in all ways funny-not (actually it was funny, because of its badness?). The actors are terrible, but that may be fault of the poor paced, Cartoon script- (Lego Movie had more realistic characters.) Chris Pratt was better as Emmet, than this Owen guy (you named him after a palaeontologist? You sly things) who was an oh ah Raptor whisperer. Gah, this hurts.
Other interesting points -Cuttlefishes make a re-appearance as nightmare inducing monsters (first one being in the Avengers movie), I actually think they are cute, always look happy -Remember PS1 game JP: Warpath? I want to play it again -Jimmy Fallon cameo... That made me happy. -If there is going to be a cinema-sin counter, this movie would require two twenty minute videos to count all the ridicules -But imagine this billionaire guy being played by Robert D. Jr. Imagine. "World is shredding to pieces. But don't look at me like it is my fault." "People are dying, but, hey, look DINOSAURS" -Product Placements -Beats make a reappearance -Much of this movie felt like Mercedes Benz expo -I would've preferred to be on that expo -Steven Spielberg, I am loosing faith in you buddy, stop "producing" stuff like this -Amblin logo had a nice make over
This one- they, they put JP banner on fire, that's a great metaphor for entire movie.
Recently I have broken my star system because Birdman was "too great to fit into the category". This movie broke my system again because I want to give it a negative numbers. It is a 20/100 movie, but, personal damage slices it to -10/100. Congratulations Hollywood.
And don't riposte with: "You don't know what fun means", "Treat it as a stand alone movie", "It is just a summer flick". Because this movie is an original follow up to the original much more thought provoking movie, and it should at least try and live up to its intellectual standard. There's a difference between a good movie, and a good movie with excuses.