, ,

I’ve never seen Jurassic Park III, and it’s quite likely that I won’t see number 6 either. The inevitability of the contemporary big blockbuster franchise and the laws of diminishing returns set up history to repeat itself. Of course though, the whole intent of Jurassic World is to profit by reproducing earlier success.


And that sums up the setup of the movie. Both park and film exist 20 years after the first; the poor sequel and unloved third film now erased from canonical existence. A new park lives, full of more spectacular genetically enhanced dinosaur simulacra.

I’m generally fine with repetition – after all most superhero movies end up in city-wide destruction and most westerns are resolved in a shoot-out – but there’s something so niche about Jurassic World’s setting that it makes the plot feel even more of a predictable churn than, say, the latest X-Men or Spider-Man movie. I mean, what can you really do with a theme park full of dinosaurs other than have them escape and terrorise the patrons?

Despite that, Jurassic World is an enjoyable event movie, with all the thrills and spectacle in the right place. It has forward momentum, it has relatively memorable characters, and the action sequences are coherently shot and edited.

Chris Pratt makes up for any potential tedium. He has a rare leading-man screen presence that makes him eminently watchable regardless of script. When you consider the bland Sam Worthington types who were leading “this kind of thing” a few years ago, the current success and bright future of Pratt is a huge relief.

This review might sound relatively negative, but it’s not. I left the screen satisfied, and I can see why it’s been such a box office success. I’m just saying I’m not looking forward to the inevitable ‘dinosaurs in the city’ sequel. And that I’ll probably ignore the film after that all together.