Jurassic World

Year: 2015 

Genre: Summer Blockbuster

'Corporate felt genetic modification would up the 'wow' factor'

It's a somewhat sobering thought when you consider the original Jurassic Park was released over twenty years ago back in the early 1990's. Computer generated imagery was relatively new at the time and had only really been seen in the the 'Terminator' sequel a couple of years previous. By putting dinosaurs on the big screen, Spielberg became the first on record to effectively utilise it to place photo realistic CG creatures in front of nineties cinema audiences.

The original spawned two sequels that were both instantly forgettable and hugely inferior to their predecessor. In 2002, a fourth instalment of the franchise was announced that was originally slated for a 2005 release. Ten years later, several re writes of the script, multiple changes in the production team, and 'Jurassic World' is released to cinema audiences. 

The majority of you will already be familiar with the plot. Richard Attenborough's vision in the original for an all singing, all dancing real life dinosaur theme park has been in business for several years, but business is flagging. The share holders decide that it needs a new star attraction to boost revenue, and create a genetically modified 'super' dinosaur. As luck would have it, the imaginatively titled 'Indominus Rex' escapes, and operations manager Bryce Dallas Howard is instructed to use the skills and experience of velociraptor trainer Chris Pratt to take it down and kill it.

So how does the movie compare to the now iconic original?

There's been a lot of water under the bridge since early nineties cinema. Audiences are familiar to computer generated imagery, almost to the point of saturation. It's no longer the spectacle it was back when the original was released, and herein lies the problem. How do you meet modern audience expectations when the original broke the mould, and set an almost unsurpassable 'wow factor'.

The answer is ultimately, you can't. All that director Colin Trevorrow could do (and has done) is make everything bigger, louder, faster, and just crank up the spectacle as far as modern CGI techniques allow him to. There's giant crocodile-like Mosasaur in an unbelievably deep man made aquatic feature. There's a huge pterodactyl cage. The Indominus Rex is bigger (and louder) than the centre piece T-Rex of the original. This time round, instead of a relatively small cast and in enclosed set pieces, the whole of Isla Nublar is open to thousands of swarming crowds. Everything about 'Jurassic World' is more, more, more.

Sadly, this extra style does not equate to extra substance. The CGI and animatronics honestly haven't really changed much since the 1993 original. The dinosaurs don't look 20 years more convincing than they did in 'Park' mainly because they already looked fairly good to begin. That's not to say they look fake, they just don't look any more real than they did before. The two leads do a relatively good job with the scripts that they are given; in particular Chris Pratt, who is rapidly becoming the new Harrison Ford. I was glad to see Dallas Howard's overly confident operations manager gain a bit of humanity in the latter half of the movie, and the chemistry between them is believable (but only just).

One thing to note. This is a LOT grizzlier than any of it's three prequels. In line with Trevorrow's philosophy that more is better, the body count has been stepped up ten fold. There was a couple next to me who's noticeably agitated child was clearly scared during the films darker moments. It just about scrapes it's 12A certificate. Cara wanted made me delay publishing this review until she could write a footnote.

As far as spectacle goes, it does the job. Substance wise, it could have been better.

3.5 stars.

Footnote.

Before i go any further, I should point out that I refuse to watch anything which makes me scared or overly upset. I am the wimpiest person on the planet. When I was a youngster, Scooby Doo Seaweed Monsters, and the 'Poirot' theme tune scared me. The opening credits of 'Tales of the unexpected' were petrifying. You get the general idea. Fast forward to my thirties and not much has changed in that respect.

I thought it would be just like the Jurassic Park series - a family film about a few dinosaurs escaping their pens. But no. No, no, no, no, no. The aim of the new theme park is to 'scare and shock' and that is exactly what the film set out to do too. And, with a viewer as wimpy as me, it succeeded. It's like Jurassic Park has grown up. Although not particularly gory, the film contained roughly a zillion deaths. It was relentless. The fear of being caught and killed was ever-present and I found it distressing. It was loud and fast and without escape. People were dropping like flies so much that at times it felt like a disaster movie. It wasn't a bad or rubbish film, I didn't hate it; it's just a bit strong for sensitive souls who like films about pretty flowers, unicorn glitter and rainbow dust.

Mark pointed out that because I refuse to watch anything remotely scary, I have no tolerance level for it. (Like a teetotal person getting drunk on one drink.) Never a truer word said.

Spy. Guest reviewed Cara Clarke :)

Year: 2015

Genre : Action / Comedy

Editors preface 

Sometimes it's nice to take a back seat and let other folk do the dirty work. I actively encourage those amongst you who feel they have the talent, to guest review on my blog any films they get to see before I do. Here's Cara's angle on 'Spy', which we caught at Dudley Showcase last night. 

Dunk 

I’ll start at the beginning with the opening sequence and credits. The start of the film follows Jude Law’s character, a suave British spy much like James Bond. ‘Spy’ is a comedy film and during the opening scenes I became concerned it would be nothing more than a spoof of the Bond films. The credits succeeded in strengthening this impression with a big theme tune running alongside the typically abstract, Bond-esque shapes floating across the screen. When the main body of the film began I was relieved to see it was a comedic espionage film in its own right. Phew!

Melissa McCarthy plays desk-bound intelligence officer Susan Cooper; she is to Spy’s Jude Law what Chloe is to Jack in the brilliant series 24. Being office-based, McCarthy’s identity is unknown to the ‘baddies’, so she is sent into the field as an active agent. I won’t drop any plot spoilers, but as expected, in the end everything works out fine and dandy. 

McCarthy has the lead role with a likeable character. Her facial expressions are amusing, she plays the more tender scenes honestly, and her action sequences are believable. She is a good actress and I’ll follow her career with interest. However, it is Jason Statham who steals the show. He plays an old-school spy and - surprisingly - handles a comedy performance well. In essence, his role is a parody of Statham’s tough guy image and pokes fun at himself. Miranda Hart pops up throughout the film as McCarthy’s goofy buddy. I am a big fan of Hart, but here I felt she was the weak link in the chain. Her character wasn’t integral to the plot and didn’t generate as many laughs as the others. Also, I felt slightly distracted watching her – my eyes were constantly drawn to her hair. Her thin, whispy locks have suddenly become luscious and thick. A wig, I wonder? The new hairstyle is probably part of the same game plan as her recent weight loss – a makeover to help crack America.

Cast discussion aside, the film itself is actually pretty funny. The script is witty and the story moves along at a brisk pace. I laughed out loud several times, as did everyone in the auditorium. It is directed by Paul Feig who also directed McCarthy in ‘Bridesmaids’ a few years ago. Having seen both films I could see similar themes: the female lead, the type of humour and the constant dropping of F-bombs. Despite these similarities, unlike ‘Bridesmaids’, ‘Spy’ is definitely not a chick flick. At times the plot seems a little convoluted as the multiple layers of undercover double agents become almost absurd. It’s worth remembering that this isn’t a film you watch for the plot, you watch it for the jokes, and in this respect it does not disappoint. I’d happily visit the cinema to watch a sequel of this.

3.5 stars out of 5.

Mad Max, Fury Road

Year : 2015

Genre : Action 

Let’s throw this out there first of all. If you like your films quiet, contemplative, and profound, then ‘Fury Road’ is definitely not the film for you.

 I can openly admit to never seeing any of the Mel Gibson originals back in the 80’s, so I came to Fury Road with a blank slate. Set in a barren post apocalyptic Australia, Tom Hardy from ‘The Dark Knight Rises’, and soon to open biopic of the Krays, ‘Legend’ plays Max Rockatansky. Whilst on the run from the War Boys (a group of bald scavengers riddled with radiation sickness led by Hugh Keays Byne), Hardy’s Max joins forces with Charlize Theron, also on the run from the War Boys convoy. She is trying to smuggle a small group of concubines back to her place of birth. Together they must outrun the War Boys, or destroy the convoy. Whichever comes first.

 Strip everything away and at its core, ‘Fury Road’ is a two hour car chase. There are several things about it though, that raise its bar well above the baseline that it so easily could have ended up being. Modern audiences are used to breathtaking CGI. It is no longer the spectacle that is was ten years ago. Depth of character, and to be more specific, characters that audiences actually care about are what separate modern Summer blockbusters apart from one another. It is in this aspect, that ‘Fury Road’ succeeds. We already know that Charlize Theron can hold her own on the big screen after seeing her play female serial killer Aileen Wuornos in 2003’s ‘Monster’. Her Ripley-esque Imperator Furiosa heroine is given just as much screen time as Hardy himself and if anything, becomes the protagonist of the film after it’s half way point. It makes a refreshing change to see a strong female lead alongside an equally strong male, and Theron is one of the few Hollywood actresses who has the big stage gravitas to carry off the part.

 The chase scenes between the War Boys and Hardy / Theron are the bread and butter of this film though, and Australian writer / director George Miller’s radial camerawork is exceptional during these parts. If there ever was a movie that truly deserved the ‘rollercoaster ride’ label, it would be this one. Accompanied by a booming soundtrack, they are very much reminiscent of Spielberg’s camera work in the Indiana Jones movies. You probably won’t see much better this year.

 So is there anything to find fault with? Well yes. The first fifteen minutes of the film is are a bit non descriptive, as audiences are thrown in head first with very little explanation as to why Max is where he is, or how he came to be. Some might say that Hardy’s character is a bit too melancholic for his own good, and needed a couple of comedic moments to balance the scales.

 Also, the casting of Rosie Huntington-Whiteley. Why?! Have the producers never seen a Michael Bay film? It was just too much of a contrast to Theron’s Furiosa, and felt unrealistic given the film post nuclear war backdrop.

 A little bit more plot explaining the background, and this would have been a five.

 Four stars.