No ‘Jaws’? Seeing ‘Jurassic’ for free not a worthy substitute

If I had actually paid to get into see 'Jurassic World,' I'm sure my reaction would have been much like this.

If I had actually paid to get into see ‘Jurassic World,’ I’m sure my reaction would have been much like this.

For Father’s Day, the family went to see the 40th anniversary showing of Jaws. The kids have never seen Jaws, and as it’s my favorite creature flick, we were ready for some bloody fun.

Unfortunately, the theater had not received the film in time for the showing we were attending. We were bummed, but the manager offered us – and what seemed like a fairly long line of people hoping to see Jaws – the opportunity to see any other movie for free. As my son has been dying to see Jurassic World, we chose a 3-D showing of the dino flick.

So here’s my 11-word review of Jurassic World: It wasn’t worth the price we didn’t pay to see it.

Sure, the dinos looked cool, and seeing them in 3-D added a little oomph. I’m not sure that was ever a concern, though. The problem with the Jurassic series has never been the over-sized, newly un-extinct reptiles. Beyond the first film in the series, it’s always what has been going on with the humans that causes problems.

Same here. The two brothers, shown above, are serviceable. However, these kids are pretty much just the two from the first movie, subtract one white girl, add one white boy. Instead of hanging with their grandpa who owns the park, they’re hanging with their aunt who runs the park. Instead of riding around in a jeep before a grumpy dinosaur sets them on another path, they ride in a gerbil ball before a grumpy dinosaur sets them on another path. And so on. The writing and the plot are some seriously lazy, weak fucking sauce. And it took four extremely overpaid people to come up with this lazy, weak fucking sauce.

You’d hope, of course, Chris Pratt might be able to save the film. And had they let Pratt be Pratt – or, in this case, Indiana Jones, since that’s who he looked like throughout the flick – that would’ve worked. Instead, they gave him no real sense of humor and tried to make him a sensitive yet macho-posturing bad guy with nothing but rote, obvious lines to spew. Bryce Dallas Howard fares worse, because her character is supposed to be a stiff, so she has even less to work with than Pratt. Their romantic coupling at the end is trite and unbelievable. There’s more chemistry between Pratt and the CGI predators than there is between the human leads. Hell, there’s more chemistry between Pratt and corporate soldier baddy Vincent D’Onofrio than there is between Pratt and Howard.

No more Jurassics for me. Period. … But I still can’t wait to see Jaws.

Advertisements
Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2 thoughts on “No ‘Jaws’? Seeing ‘Jurassic’ for free not a worthy substitute

  1. Marc says:

    I’m still in shock how bad this movie was / how much money it made anyway / how many people actually enjoyed it.

    • adamlaredo says:

      I’m with you. I think some of the attraction is just the spectacle, the dinosaurs and FX, which should work for the kids, but I’m not sure why – other than to take their kids – an adult would think this movie is a good idea to pay theater prices for. Thanks for the comment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: