Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom

gmisk

There are some reactions online and they are generally good....but I remember there being the same for Batman vs Superman....
https://screenrant.com/jurassic-world-2-fallen-kingdom-early-reactions/

El Duda

gmisk wrote: »

Ah you never know good director so we will see.
The reviews for jurassic world werent horrendous in fairness.

Tbf, one of the trailers for Jurassic World made it look dreadful and it turned out decent.


That said, there's not much in any of the fallen Kingdom trailers that excites me aside from the shot of the mosasaur in the ocean with the surfers.

SimonTemplar

Sad Professor wrote: »

Embargo ends June 5th, i.e. the day before UK release. But it's not out in US until the 22nd.

Nobody cares what the reviews say for films like this. First film was a huge success, so the sequel is mostly likely review-proof. Dinosaurs eating humans is the perfect antidote to superhero and SW fatigue.

I'm hoping Mission Impossible at the end of July will provide that. I thought the last one was superb, and with the same director returning and an awesome ensemble cast, I have very high hopes.

jaxxx

El Duda wrote: »

Tbf, one of the trailers for Jurassic World made it look dreadful and it turned out decent.


That said, there's not much in any of the fallen Kingdom trailers that excites me aside from the shot of the mosasaur in the ocean with the surfers.

I must be one of the only ones who didn't like Jurassic World. How ill prepared they were for a large dinosaur breakout (using non-lethals what-the-actual-foop like), following of the most boring kids in cinema history, said kids not getting eaten by the indominus, that Claire one running in them heels, velociraptors 'obeying' a human, the only entry into the indominus' paddock was big enough for the bloody thing to escape from, why was there no human sized doors, STUPID!


It was alright but... those things really pi$$sed me off. It did score some points back because of the mosasaurus though. As for JWFK.... meh. That shot of the mosasaurus in the ocean you mentioned, yeah that looks cool. Can we get a JW movie though that pays some love and attention to the herbivores? With even just 10 minutes of peace and tranquility without some therapod rampaging around wrecking the place. #NoLoveForHerbivores

AMKC

So seen this today. Really enjoyed it. Would give it 8 out of 10. Some more humour would have been nice. There was some good parts and some sad parts in it as well as plenty of twists in it. It was much better than Jurassic World. It was bang on 120 minutes long and the cinema I went too had 18 minutes of trailers beforehand. So not too bad. No extra bits after the credits but I did not stay till the very end of the credits.

PTH2009

Saw it today really enjoyed it, few corny bits but the effects and the story were top notch

BlitzKrieg

Just back from it.

Found the film quite dull, it really does rethread a lot of ground from jurassic world, Chris Pratt and Bryce Howard somehow have even less chemistry in this one, in fact they barely talk to each other for most of the film outside of a joke or pushing the plot forward, no conflict or anything between them. There's no big set piece that defined the earlier films every spectacle feels like it's being rushed through to get you to the next one.

It's not as bad as Jurassic world, this one is better directed, not as mean spirited or cynical and the secondary characters have more to do and nowhere near as annoying.


Saying all of that for those that saw it:

Is 2/3rds of this film based on a rejected Lost world sequel script? So much of this film feels like it should be tieing to the lost world and not jurassic world. They quote John Hammond from The Lost World and his quote is throughline for the film's themes and crisis, the whole conservation plotline makes little sense post jurassic world where they had gone cloning mad, but makes more sense post the lost world where there no more cloning and Ingen was gone, also the fact that Isla Sora (which is mentioned in the film bringing up more questions) actually had a thriving eco system compared to jurassic world where they outright stated that there was only 1 raptor and 1 t-rex left.

the whole make an attempt to conserve the dinosaurs makes more sense following the lost world. The whole congressional hearing also makes more sense based on the ending of the lost world too. Ian Malcolm's cameo feels like it's a small part of him actually being a major role in the film. Bryce Howard feels like she's playing Sarah harding from the lost world in this film not her character from jurassic world. How characters react to the dinosaurs line up more with the lost world too.

The entire sequence in the mansion I am convinced is the bones of the long dead dinosaur human hybrid soldier script, the grand daughter's plot line makes more sense if she was used as a basis for this cross breeding which would actually fill out her character arc (and explain why the film's villain insisted on getting her back) it genuinely feels like they cut her plotline short and put the indominious Rex and Blue in to fill that gap. Her action at the end and the indoraptors odd obsession with her makes more sense from this perspective. The entire climax again makes more sense if it was Ian Malcolm and Sarah Harding with that dileama over the button and not Chris Pratt's character. If it was Ian Malcolm and Sarah Harding throughout the film I suspect that's why there is a void of character interaction between Pratt and Howard, a chunk of the film's script was taken up with them at odds over Malcolm testifying to let the dinosaurs die.

It bugged me throughout my walk home, this film feels like a large chunk of it was meant to follow the lost world, all made more awkward because Jurassic world tends to ignore that the lost world happened

GavRedKing

Have tickets to see this tomorrow night and after the last one, I'd have honestly preferred to give this a swerve but herself wants to go.

I've already got it in my mind that its going to be pretty poor but I'll give it a go, not expecting much but happy to switch the brain off for 2 hours or so.

brianregan09

I hated the last one , but I loved this , reallly enjoyed it and kept me enthralled the entire run time

ancapailldorcha

It's fairly predictable fare though there is a part of me that found the smaller dinosaur antagonist a bit refreshing. After the last film, I was wondering how big they could get away with making the dinosaurs.

NUTZZ

AMKC wrote: »

So seen this today. Really enjoyed it. Would give it 8 out of 10. Some more humour would have been nice. There was some good parts and some sad parts in it as well as plenty of twists in it. It was much better than Jurassic World. It was bang on 120 minutes long and the cinema I went too had 18 minutes of trailers beforehand. So not too bad. No extra bits after the credits but I did not stay till the very end of the credits.

There actually is a post-credits scene, but it's very brief and uneventful.

It's basically a shot

of two pterodactyls making it to Las Vegas and landing on the replica Eiffel Tower.

Okami_shinobi

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Just back from it.

Found the film quite dull, it really does rethread a lot of ground from jurassic world, Chris Pratt and Bryce Howard somehow have even less chemistry in this one, in fact they barely talk to each other for most of the film outside of a joke or pushing the plot forward, no conflict or anything between them. There's no big set piece that defined the earlier films every spectacle feels like it's being rushed through to get you to the next one.

It's not as bad as Jurassic world, this one is better directed, not as mean spirited or cynical and the secondary characters have more to do and nowhere near as annoying.


Saying all of that for those that saw it:

Is 2/3rds of this film based on a rejected Lost world sequel script? So much of this film feels like it should be tieing to the lost world and not jurassic world. They quote John Hammond from The Lost World and his quote is throughline for the film's themes and crisis, the whole conservation plotline makes little sense post jurassic world where they had gone cloning mad, but makes more sense post the lost world where there no more cloning and Ingen was gone, also the fact that Isla Sora (which is mentioned in the film bringing up more questions) actually had a thriving eco system compared to jurassic world where they outright stated that there was only 1 raptor and 1 t-rex left.

the whole make an attempt to conserve the dinosaurs makes more sense following the lost world. The whole congressional hearing also makes more sense based on the ending of the lost world too. Ian Malcolm's cameo feels like it's a small part of him actually being a major role in the film. Bryce Howard feels like she's playing Sarah harding from the lost world in this film not her character from jurassic world. How characters react to the dinosaurs line up more with the lost world too.

The entire sequence in the mansion I am convinced is the bones of the long dead dinosaur human hybrid soldier script, the grand daughter's plot line makes more sense if she was used as a basis for this cross breeding which would actually fill out her character arc (and explain why the film's villain insisted on getting her back) it genuinely feels like they cut her plotline short and put the indominious Rex and Blue in to fill that gap. Her action at the end and the indoraptors odd obsession with her makes more sense from this perspective. The entire climax again makes more sense if it was Ian Malcolm and Sarah Harding with that dileama over the button and not Chris Pratt's character. If it was Ian Malcolm and Sarah Harding throughout the film I suspect that's why there is a void of character interaction between Pratt and Howard, a chunk of the film's script was taken up with them at odds over Malcolm testifying to let the dinosaurs die.

It bugged me throughout my walk home, this film feels like a large chunk of it was meant to follow the lost world, all made more awkward because Jurassic world tends to ignore that the lost world happened

It's following on from a plot point towards the end of Jurassic World.

before I start, I will admit that the following information should have been explained during both Jurassic world and Fallen kingdom, instead of being being put into promotional websites.

I'd say about half of script might be, as the opening scene is a variation of one of the original endings for Jurassic park. <https://movieweb.com/jurassic-park-alternate-ending-storyboards-helicopter/>.

The Lost World still exists as canon Colin Trevorrow stated this back in 2015

Question: Can you say if you’re going to be dealing with the other islands at all?

Colin Trevorrow: No, this is all set right here. And we’re not ignoring the other two films but, being that they took place on another island, this is–we’re focusing on the history and the future of this island.

< http://www.slashfilm.com/colin-trevorrow-jurassic-world-interview/2/>.

The cloning issue is to do with the Gene Guard act <http://jurassicpark.wikia.com/wiki/Gene_Guard_Act&gt;

The Dinosaurs on Isla Sorna were almost wiped out due to a few new species introduced illegally, like the Spinosaurus. Any remaining Dinosaurs were captured and moved to Jurassic world before it opened, by the Masrani group.

Sunny Dayz

Planning on going to see this tonight - is it worth going to in 3D or is 2D perfectly fine?

bkrangle

I saw this on Wednesday in the 4DX screen in cineworld

The movie itself was ok. I preferred it to Jurassic World in that it tried to something a bit different and wasn't just a rehash of previous films. There were some nice set pieces and occasional slivers of ideas but overall the film was rather dumb.

As for seeing it in 4DX, overall I enjoyed this experience but it wouldn't be to everyone's taste. The format seemed almost uniquely suited to watching a Jurassic Park movie - the movement of the seats, gusts of wind and water spraying added a bit of fun to proceedings and synced up very well with what was on screen. I can imagine though that this would detract from other cinema experiences, although a more subtle approach could be good for horror movies.

OU812

I enjoyed it. Can’t beat the JP/JW movies for mindless fun, but I thought they revealed the twist way too early.

Did anyone notice the kid’s eye doing a weird thing toward the end?

Johner

Saw it yesterday and thought it was decent enough, nothing special but worth the watch.

McLoughlin

OU812 wrote: »

I enjoyed it. Can’t beat the JP/JW movies for mindless fun, but I thought they revealed the twist way too early.

Did anyone notice the kid’s eye doing a weird thing toward the end?

Its hinted/suggested that the kid is part dino ....

pixelburp

This is probably a weird question, but does the script make any nods towards Bryce Dallas Howard's footwear choices? Howard running around in giant heels became a bit of a running joke during the conversations around Jurassic World, and have wondered if the sequel's writers would resist a little wink towards that

SimonTemplar

pixelburp wrote: »

This is probably a weird question, but does the script make any nods towards Bryce Dallas Howard's footwear choices? Howard running around in giant heels became a bit of a running joke during the conversations around Jurassic World, and have wondered if the sequel's writers would resist a little wink towards that

The character is literally introduced with a close up of her shoes

Loughc

Maybe I’m mad or grumpy after a full screening earlier full of talking kids but I hated the movie.

Once it went off the island It fell flat for me. Some of the CGI was ropey as hell the scene where blue jumps through the window looked like stop motion animation.

The storyline felt like Jurassic World and The Lost World rehashed. The hunter villain seemed like the hunter from The Lost World.

And the ending was

shrugged off when it should have been treated like a catastrophic event. Literally thousands will die as a result of them being set free

And Ian Malcolm’s cameo at the end was cringey af.

OU812

McLoughlin wrote: »

Its hinted/suggested that the kid is part dino ....

That's the impression I got, also the fact that they kept referring to

the need to have a "Mother" that the clones would respect - supposed to be "Blue", but I think Blue is more emphatic to "Owen" because she comes from the same DNA Profile as "Lucy"

.

Considering it's tracking for a €140m opening weekend & doesn't open in the USA & China for several weeks, I think a third chapter is guaranteed & a

grown up Lucy, will be what the plot revolves around

What if these movies are actually a prequel to

& the dinosaurs that escape evolve into the dinosaurs of the TV show which is actually set millions of years into the future???

SimonTemplar

I can actually see them going down the route of the recent Planet of The Apes trilogy with Blue as the Caesar character being exposed to some "genius" chemical. It sounds so stupid, they might actually do it.

speedboatchase

OU812 wrote: »

I enjoyed it. Can’t beat the JP/JW movies for mindless fun, but I thought they revealed the twist way too early.

Did anyone notice the kid’s eye doing a weird thing toward the end?

Was the original Jurassic Park "mindless fun"? I thought it was extremely well-made and raised interesting ethical debates (I still bring up the "just because you can, doesn't mean you should" Sam Neil argument).

My issue with the movie as a franchise is that there's nothing you can really do after you do the 'dinosaurs run amok in the park' story. Jurassic World was smart in that sense and earned insane box office figures for going back to that well. This world wasn't built to be a universe, or span multiple sequels. 
As someone who checked out of Westworld (also Crichton-written, originally) in the current season, it's clear that nobody really can come up with a compelling storyline for after an entertainment park endeavour turns nasty.

OU812

speedboatchase wrote: »

Was the original Jurassic Park "mindless fun"? I thought it was extremely well-made and raised interesting ethical debates (I still bring up the "just because you can, doesn't mean you should" Sam Neil argument).

Well made but mindless fun at the same time

Optimalprimerib

pixelburp wrote: »

This is probably a weird question, but does the script make any nods towards Bryce Dallas Howard's footwear choices? Howard running around in giant heels became a bit of a running joke during the conversations around Jurassic World, and have wondered if the sequel's writers would resist a little wink towards that

It was like a shoe commercial there were that many shots of feet.

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote:

This is probably a weird question, but does the script make any nods towards Bryce Dallas Howard's footwear choices? Howard running around in giant heels became a bit of a running joke during the conversations around Jurassic World, and have wondered if the sequel's writers would resist a little wink towards that

Wasn't there reaction to the original in relation to the unsuitability of the shoes she wore.

People like Joss "I gave actresses speaking parts in my feminist TV shows in exchange for sex" Whedon had issue with her character and how she was dressed and portrayed.

nix

Deleted User wrote: »

People like Joss "I gave actresses speaking parts in my feminist TV shows in exchange for sex" Whedon had issue with her character and how she was dressed and portrayed.

ehhhhhhhh What?

nix

nix wrote: »

ehhhhhhhh What?

His wife recently wrote about how he has spent decades preaching what a feminist he is when in reality he has used his position to cheat on her and take advantage of numerous women: https://www.thewrap.com/joss-whedon-feminist-hypocrite-infidelity-affairs-ex-wife-kai-cole-says/

On the set of Buffy he is alleged to have used his position to of power to sleep with young female employees while at the same time creating this idea that he was some hero for his portrayal of female characters.

5star02707

I actually enjoyed the movie, typical popcorn movie with some wow factor. Nothing beats the original as I loved it as a kid and watched it often.

GavRedKing

I've no idea where theyre going to with a 3rd film, I'm assuming this will make close to a billion so a 3rd will be made regardless of quality.

Now, I didnt like JW but was willing to give this a go and it was alright, I'd say a solid 6/10, I actually, in retrospect, preferred JW to this.

The opening few minutes with the mosasaurus was promising but it went downhill pretty quickly, IMO.

It all got convoluted with the Indo Raptor and its fascination with the child and then the child releasing the dinosaurs into the world, it made no sense, even if she said "theyre alive, like her", by all accounts, the dinosaurs would be rounded up and killed or captured within hours of being set free into the world

.

It felt like Pratt was phoning it in for large parts of the film and there was far less chemistry or charm between himself and Howard.

As I said, for a 3rd outing,

dinosaurs in the city or the child being part dinosaur

will be awful, awful tripe but I'd expect the film to be made regardless because $$$$$$$.