1. Reboot vs sequel - I could go on and on about how much I love the original Jurassic Park, but I won't. I will say that I watched both sequels and I don't remember a thing about them. Obviously, they weren't very good. The reason I was so excited for this one, though, is that it seemed like more of a "reboot", yet it takes place 20 years after the original - so, technically it is a sequel. Yet, it carries a parallel plot as the original - so, a "rebooted sequel" if you will? There is an awareness of the love for the original, while still acknowledging that a modern day audience needs more (just like the park-goers; we need bigger, better, scarier and no, we didn't learn the first time).
2. Give in and enjoy it - I don't really understand why one wouldn't. It turned out to be everything I wanted it to be. It's a fun summer blockbuster, with just the right amount of nostalgia to put a smile on my face. Is it as good as the original? There is no way that would ever be possible. Jurassic Park was a true original blockbuster - it was literally like nothing that had been done before. I think Jurassic World does a great job of realizing what it is, and decides to have fun. A perfect example of this is taking the most terrifying scene in Jurassic Park - the raptors/kitchen scene, and flipping it on its ass by utilizing the raptors as the "heroes". Did you ever think you would be saying "Awww....so cute!" about those same animals that probably previously gave you nightmares? It's actually genius, if you think about it.
3. Opposites don't attract - I've never been a fan of Bryce Dallas Howard, but this is probably the best I've seen her (and yet, she is still the worst part of the movie). She plays the uptight, emotionally distant woman very well. But, am I really supposed to believe in a romance between her and Chris Pratt's character? There is no way in Hell should these two people be a couple. I liked that they flipped the gender roles. Howard is professional, cold, and calculating, while Pratt is warm, impulsive and down-to-Earth. Her character has come under attack as anti-feminist, which I totally get. However, I don't really see it that way. There are women who don't like children (gasp! what a monster!) and take their careers very seriously (gasp!). I just don't think they developed the character enough, so she plays out sort of villainous. I don't think that was the intention, though, because surely, if she was a villain, she would have been given a glorious death scene. I think she's supposed to represent someone who realizes that life is worth living. Someone who kicks off her heels (ahem... metaphorically, of course) and fights for human life. She is a badass, yet she is never given that credit (and maybe that's where the problem lies). I think it's disappointing that they didn't get a female protagonist/hero exactly right, simply because the original gives us one of the best female action heroes ever, Dr. Ellie Sattler (she also gave us the best line in all of the Jurassic movies - "Dinosaurs eat man, woman inherits the Earth"). Can you think of any other female action star of the 90s that is as smart, strong-willed, and fully-clothed as Ellie? No? Can you think of anyone in present day movies? Hmmmm....? It's pretty tough, isn't it? I'm glad that I had someone like Ellie to look up to. It would have been easy to "reboot" her character, but they chose a different character. And just because she is different, doesn't make her anti-feminist. However, just because she starts to worry about her nephews (a little too late), doesn't suddenly make her ready for parenting. And just because these two people work together and survive disaster, doesn't make them a believable couple. The kiss made me cringe.
No comments:
Post a Comment