Skip to main content

You two. You're the parents of the new world.

Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom
(2018)

(SPOILERS) One thing the Colin Trevorrow and Derek Connolly scripted follow up to their ludicrously popular Jurassic World has going for it is that it finally delivers on the promise any self-respecting dinosaur exploitation aficionado would have meted out in the first Jurassic Park sequel, rather than waiting another 25 years until the fourth. Even then, they only offer a closing-moments taster of what to expect next time. But that's been a problem with this series all over, caught between the desire to have the prehistoric beasties scare the bejesus out of youngsters on the one hand and teach them the merits of preservation of endangered species on the other (if we're to be more precise, of valuing genetically modified organisms over the natural environment, but hey, let's not quibble). Trevorrow and Connolly possibly wanted to push against those restrictive ground rules, given Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom is loaded with B-movie tropes actively exacerbated by director JA Bayona, but they ultimately lay bare their limitations as screenwriters, pulling their punches and retreading too much already well-worn ground.


More than a few reviews of Fallen Kingdom have labelled it a disappointment in comparison to its predecessor, although to take that tack, you'd have to hold Jurassic World in any degree of esteem in the first place. It isn't fundamentally very much worse than any of the earlier sequels, or the original for that matter – a vastly overrated flick whose success is based more on the photorealism of its effects than the material, an inferior Westworld rehash from Michael Crichton – but you can only go back to the well so many times, stir and repeat, before audiences call you out. We saw that by the time Jurassic Park III limped onto screens in 2000, Spielberg no longer bothering even to go through the motions of signing on; with duly reflective takings, it was the very definition of a (not-so) cheap cash-in. Jurassic World rode the wave of a new generation getting to see dinosaurs on the big screen after their decade and a half absence (at least, that's the best excuse I can come up with). That freshness of audience – indifferent to the doggedly derivative content – will be absent this time, so opting to rework much of the premise and structure of the (relatively underrated, but only relatively) The Lost World: Jurassic Park is probably an unwise move if you don’t want a "fifth time isn’t the charm" style box office drop off (see Transformers: The Last Knight or, on the dinosaur front, Ice Age: Meltdown).


Trevorrow and Connolly use Jeff Goldlbum's Ian Malcolm to warn of the dangers of playing God. Goldblum's generally a godsend to a movie; there’s a reason The Lost World is my favourite of the franchise, and it's all about his taking centre stage. Unfortunately, when I say he's used here, it's more that he's under-used, appearing in all of two scenes, pretty much bookends. Malcolm forwards the eminently sensible position that, having tampered with the order of things, nature should be allowed to run its course when the volcano on Isla Nubar erupts, so wiping out its prehistoric population (those that can't swim or fly, at any rate). The movie sandwiched in between consists of an almost schizophrenic back and forth between positions and pointing the finger, not helped any by the almost complete lack of identifying interest in its lead characters. 


Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard) continues to be blithely nondescript while offering the most perverse of motivations. She's almost infantile in her quest to preserve the creatures in the face of common sense, displaying immense naivety in taking the philanthropic offer of Rafe Spall's Eli Mills at face value and later hovering over the button that will release the dinosaurs en masse into an unguarded world. That she doesn't do it, and munchkin Maisie (Isabella Sermon) does, in no way absolves her own guilt and complicity (she did, after all, show Maisie the way), no matter how much the writers' cop-out suggests they do. 


Maisie, whose true status is the movie's worst withheld surprise, shows remarkably coherent cross-species empathy with her fellow clones – almost as if the writers had written a homily rather than a character – but it's in keeping with current trends of finding humanity in the creation and a lack thereof in the creator. Which might work if this had the depth of, say, Blade Runner, but the kid's little more than a cypher, apportioned chunks of the cutaway subplot as protagonist until Claire and Owen arrive at Lockwood's California estate for the big auction. 


The picture's backwards logic also extends sympathy to the predatory reptiles, formerly of relentlessly deadly ability (we're a long way from here). Blue is outright the hero dinosaur once again, effectively the equivalent of Arnie's reconditioned Terminator, although she's really more akin to Ripley making friends with a xenomorph (pre-Alien Resurrection, obviously); Blue only kills humans who deserve it. A prolonged – read uninvolving – sequence revolves around treating the injured Blue, which says something about his elevated status.


This "thematic" aspect also draws further attention to an unintentional stumble on the filmmakers' part, one with its roots in Jurassic World, but to an extent an issue with the entire franchise. The dinosaurs are the stars, and even in the original, the humans had short shrift (the most engaging, the aforementioned Malcolm, being side-lined in the second act, almost as if the T-Rex knew he was stealing her thunder). There's no one here to sympathise with, and certainly not engage with. Pratt sporadically raises a few chuckles – there's a sequence of superb comic timing in which, having been tranquilised, Owen must extricate himself from the path of an oncoming lava flow –  but a straight hero this straight isn't his strong suit. It's brought to particular attention where the structure unflatteringly tips its hat to Raiders of the Lost Ark (hero outrunning pursuing threat, hero hitching a ride with the bad guys to the location they've taken his prize).


In their messy attempts to imbue an ethical code on the treatment of science gone unchecked, it seems it's okay – as with Jurassic World– to treat the most abused creation with contempt. A straight clone (albeit a melange of dinosaur and frog DNA) is adorable, but anything gnarlier does not elicit sympathy. Last time, the Indominus rex wreaked havoc, to be put paid to by enemies of our enemy T-Rex and Mosasaurus. Here, there's an Indoraptor, destined to be impaled with impunity on a Triceratops skull by Blue, because it isn't a real fake dinosaur. This is the kind of quagmire, led by arch-sentimentalist Spielberg, the makers have sunk themselves in. 


Bayona shoots his Indoraptor like a classic era horror creature, all sinister shadows amid rain-lashed mansions, but he's strangely unsuccessful at ratcheting up the tension during the final act. In part this is going wanting for investment in the characters, but it's also because the structure is so sloppily cobbled together that it's hard to care about the fates of anyone or anything. It's also unfortunate that relocating a science fiction monster to a domestic setting invokes the best forgotten Alien vs. Predator: Requiem, complete with the menacing monster appearing in a bedroom. 


Part of it is also down to Amblin wanting to preserve a semblance of respectability, responsibility and restraint; in the final moments we see a T-Rex roar at a lion, and post-credits pterosaurs hitting Vegas, but there's no way the sixth movie is going to be the guilt-free, dinosaur-slaying carnage that ought to be on offer. Bayona fares better with the earlier on-island action, surprisingly (I’d have pegged it for the other way round from the trailers), eking out some tension from the volcano vs good humans vs bad humans and bad dinosaurs quandaries. An attack by a Baryonyx is much more effective than anything occurring in the latter half of the movie.


Like The Lost WorldFallen Kingdom endeavours to furnish us with some human villains, worst of the bunch being Eli, entirely evil because that’s what he is (he even wants to remain Maisie's guardian, for no obvious reason other than to spite Geraldine Chaplin's housekeeper). Spall makes it easy to loathe the character, but that doesn't excuse how tiresomely one-note Eli is. In contrast, Ted Levine has a lot of fun with mercenary Wheatley, to the extent that you end up rooting for him. He at least has a sense of humour, even if he can't survive being written into stupid situations. 


BD Wong is wasted again as Henry Wu; as with Levine and Goldblum, the movie perks up whenever he's on screen, only to struggle to re-engage once we've cut away. Justice Smith is the comedy IT guy (he' a first-rate screamer), Daniella Pineda the entirely unlikely vet (covered in tats, wearing glasses while clearly not needing them because lo-and-behold she's gorgeous), James Cromwell the retconned former partner of John Hammond (it's a Cromwell "picking up a cheque" part) and Toby Jones an auctioneer acting through prop dentures.


Fallen Kingdom has its requisite cruel kills (a tech guy escapes a T-Rex in the teaser scene, only to be gobbled by a Mosasaurus; Wheatley loses an arm before being wolfed down by the Indoraptor; Jones' Eversol flees the Indoraptor into a lift, seals the doors and breathes a sigh of relief, only for them to reopen on the same floor) but there's nothing likely to be as controversial as the death of Zara in the last instalment (less is the pity; at least it made you sit up and take notice). There's a scene in which Eli accurately points out Owen and Claire's responsibility for what has transpired, but it feels like the writers pre-empting criticisms rather than something leading up to a reckoning, thus having their cake and eating it; ultimately, we're supposed to side with our heroes because the plot demands it, rather than because they deserve it. 


Trevorrow and Connolly kind of had the right idea with Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, even if that idea was to lift the plot of the The Lost World (right down to boasting about its darker tone), but they singularly fail to make it compelling, and Bayona can't work miracles. Trevorrow, having been banished from Lucasfilm, is retreating to the safety of a $1.5bn hit for a franchise that can’t exactly say no to him for Jurassic World III, but he's the least interesting person to continue steering what was a fairly aimless ship in the first place. The Lost World made about a third less than Jurassic Park globally, and Jurassic Park III a third less than The Lost World; if Fallen Kingdom is representative, this trilogy will be lucky to chart that kind of business.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Why would I turn into a filing cabinet?

Captain Marvel (2019)
(SPOILERS) All superhero movies are formulaic to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly greater. The key to an actually great one – or just a pretty good one – is making that a virtue, rather than something you’re conscious of limiting the whole exercise. The irony of the last two stand-alone MCU pictures is that, while attempting to bring somewhat down-the-line progressive cachet to the series, they’ve delivered rather pedestrian results. Of course, that didn’t dim Black Panther’s cultural cachet (and what do I know, swathes of people also profess to loving it), and Captain Marvel has hit half a billion in its first few days – it seems that, unless you’re poor unloved Ant-Man, an easy $1bn is the new $700m for the MCU – but neither’s protagonist really made that all-important iconic impact.

Basically, you’re saying marriage is just a way of getting out of an embarrassing pause in conversation?

Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994)
(SPOILERS) There can be a cumulative effect from revisiting a movie where one glaring element does not fit, however well-judged or integrated everything else is; the error is only magnified, and seems even more of a miscalculation. With Groundhog Day, there’s a workaround to the romance not working, which is that the central conceit of reliving your day works like a charm and the love story is ultimately inessential to the picture’s success. In the case of Four Weddings and a Funeral, if the romance doesn’t work… Well, you’ve still got three other weddings, and you’ve got a funeral. But our hero’s entire purpose is to find that perfect match, and what he winds up with is Andie McDowell. One can’t help thinking he’d have been better off with Duck Face (Anna Chancellor).

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

Our very strength incites challenge. Challenge incites conflict. And conflict... breeds catastrophe.

The MCU Ranked Worst to Best

Do you read Sutter Cane?

In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
(SPOILERS) The concluding chapter of John Carpenter’s unofficial Apocalypse Trilogy (preceded by The Thing and Prince of Darkness) is also, sadly, his last great movie. Indeed, it stands apart in the qualitative wilderness that beset him during the ‘90s (not for want of output). Michael De Luca’s screenplay had been doing the rounds since the ‘80s, even turned down by Carpenter at one point, and it proves ideal fodder for the director, bringing out the best in him. Even cinematographer Gary K Kibbe seems inspired enough to rise to the occasion. It could do without the chugging rawk soundtrack, perhaps, but then, that was increasingly where Carpenter’s interests resided (as opposed to making decent movies).

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Only an idiot sees the simple beauty of life.

Forrest Gump (1994)
(SPOILERS) There was a time when I’d have made a case for, if not greatness, then Forrest Gump’s unjust dismissal from conversations regarding its merits. To an extent, I still would. Just not nearly so fervently. There’s simply too much going on in the picture to conclude that the manner in which it has generally been received is the end of the story. Tarantino, magnanimous in the face of Oscar defeat, wasn’t entirely wrong when he suggested to Robert Zemeckis that his was a, effectively, subversive movie. Its problem, however, is that it wants to have its cake and eat it.

Do not mention the Tiptoe Man ever again.

Glass (2019)
(SPOILERS) If nothing else, one has to admire M Night Shyamalan’s willingness to plough ahead regardless with his straight-faced storytelling, taking him into areas that encourage outright rejection or merciless ridicule, with all the concomitant charges of hubris. Reactions to Glass have been mixed at best, but mostly more characteristic of the period he plummeted from his must-see, twist-master pedestal (during the period of The Village and The Happening), which is to say quite scornful. And yet, this is very clearly the story he wanted to tell, so if he undercuts audience expectations and leaves them dissatisfied, it’s most definitely not a result of miscalculation on his part. For my part, while I’d been prepared for a disappointment on the basis of the critical response, I came away very much enjoying the movie, by and large.