Well, at least the dinosaurs are cool.
“Jurassic World” is in theaters today, and although there is plenty of talk about the impressive special effects — with the massive prehistoric creatures inhabiting an island resort with the most interesting type of eco-tourism (that sounds nicer than “theme park”) — some critics seemed less than impressed with stars Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard. Even director Colin Trevorrow and executive producer Steven Spielberg take a few swipes.
That’s not to say everyone hated it. But the hugs doled out for the film seemed to come from the tiny arms of a T. Rex more than from the massive wings of a Quetzalcoatlus.
The New York Times’ Manohla Dargis wrote, “In reality, there’s more flab than muscle packed on this galumphing franchise reboot, which, as it lumbers from scene to scene, reminds you of what a great action god Steven Spielberg is. Too bad he didn’t take the reins on this.”
“Actors repeat their bad lines without smirking, and digital dinosaurs stomp, scatter and gulp amid product placements for Triumph motorcycles and Jimmy Buffett’s Margaritaville chain,” Dargis wrote. “There are so many plugs for Mercedes that you may wonder if the targeted viewers are studio executives.”
Here’s what some other critics had to say:
“We want to see our dinosaurs rampaging fast and furious over and over. In that sense, Jurassic World is a blockbuster of its moment. It’s not deep. There aren’t new lessons to be learned. And the film’s flesh-and-blood actors are basically glamorized extras. But when it comes to serving up a smorgasbord of bloody dino mayhem, it accomplishes exactly what it sets out to do beautifully.”
“So is the movie all that? The effects of course are tremendous and I had a great time. It doesn’t break new ground in this genre but it’s just plain popcorn-chomping fun. And like last year’s reboot of ‘Godzilla,’ this one smartly makes the main attraction monster vs. monster — or in this case, dino vs. dino — action.”
Todd McCarthy, The Hollywood Reporter:
“Despite the story’s formulaic structure and the predictable nature of its cautionary stance on playing God, the old-fashioned Saturday matinee-like pleasures stemming from resourceful derring-do in the face of mighty odds retain an appeal — if done reasonably well — which is the case here. The action only occasionally rises to rousing, and the romance, such as it is, between the watered-down Indiana Jones type appealingly played by Pratt and the corporate mouthpiece less engagingly embodied by Howard, never gets off the ground.”
“All in all, ‘Jurassic World’ brings the series back to where it belongs. You can watch the first one, skip the second and third, and jump straight to this one and have a better franchise. The movie is filled with dinosaurs and dinosaur action. It’s worth repeated views and deserves a spot on your home video shelf.”
“Because of all these dazzling should-be attributes, people — myself including — will enter the theater wanting to like it; craving a Proustian flashback to the childlike wonderment you felt seeing that giant, roaring T. rex stomping after bugged-out Jeff Goldblum in a Jeep for the first time. But ‘Jurassic World’ is not good. In fact, it’s aggressively bad.”
