Movie Review: Jurassic World

 

 Movie: Jurassic World

Directed by: Colin Trevorrow

Starring: Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, Nick Robinson

Verdict:

Jurassic World breathes new life into a presumably extinct franchise that’s been left cold for nearly fourteen years, and while the cardboard-thin characters and somewhat shallow plot leaves much to be desired, the smart humor, acceptable action, and willingness to engage in a bit of self-depreciation are what makes this sci-fi thriller worth the price of admission.

In depth:

If you’ve walked into any movie playing in the last - oh - 9 months, then you’ve probably been hit in the face with a Jurassic World preview.  Heralded as the long-awaited(?) resurrection of the thrilling, dino-ripper sci-fi action franchise sparked way back in ‘93 with the now-revered Jurassic Park, I must admit that I was already experiencing  hype burnout without really knowing anything about it.  I mean, dinosaurs?  Again?  With the wave of truly terrifying monsters that had graced the silver screen in the 22 years since the first movie’s release, the prospect of sitting through another dino flick hoping to be scared witless seemed a little underwhelming.  It didn’t help that the previous pair of mediocre Jurassic Park sequels appeared tailor-made to poison any fond thoughts I had for their glorious progenitor.  I knew that the franchise needed a new direction - needed, in fact, a reason to limp along in its rather extraneous existence.  I just wasn’t convinced from the spotty information conveyed through the previews that Jurassic World would be this series’ second wind.  It turns out I was mistaken, for while I found nothing in Jurassic World that captured the awe-inspiring terror that was Jurassic Park - a feat, I imagine, not to be matched by any dinosaur movie in the near future - the film does, in fact, point to a possible resurgence built not on thrills and chills, but rather on good, solid action and a willingness to poke clever fun at both the franchise itself, and the wider circus that often hovers over the entertainment industry.

The story kicks off with a surprisingly quiet and down-to-earth look at Zach and Gray Mitchell, two brothers played by Nick Robinson and the young Ty Simpkins, as they’re packing their bags and gearing up to go on a trip together.  This is a far departure from the other films, which usually hits you in the face with a jump scare, or some unfortunate schmuck having a sudden lapse in common sense and becoming dinosaur feed as a result.  While a seemingly trivial detail, this quite literal change in pace not only introduces two important main characters, but also keys in the viewer to the stylistic swerve Jurassic World takes with respect to the previous movies.  If you went by their parents’ lackadaisical attitude and Zach’s generic teenage boredom, you would think they were going to a petting zoo or an aquarium, instead of the titular island-wide theme park stacked full of creatures that have been given a 65 million-year stay of execution.  But dinosaurs, it seems, are familiar enough so as to lose their “magic” for all but the most enthusiastic neophytes, like Gray. With the expectation of either imminent threat or wonder neutralized at the very start, our minds are left open on any assumptions with this new movie - a rather smart move by the filmmakers.

And sure enough, they capitalized on this by immediately taking us to Jurassic World and introducing Bryce Dallas Howard as Claire Dearing, the Mitchell brothers’ aunt, who is not an archaeologist, not an adventurer, but the park’s operation manager - a bored bureaucrat who looks at the dinosaurs and sees neither wonder nor fear, but mere dollar signs.  That the corporatization of a dinosaur theme park would be a major plot point was unanticipated, but completely logical; with so many people seeing so many dinosaurs, it’s no surprise that a certain crowd apathy which always accompanies familiarity would set in.  In fact, the park itself has been on a bit of a backslide lately as, if I can paraphrase Dearing, the average child on the street looks at a Stegosaurus in the same manner as they would an elephant at the local zoo.  In order to bring the numbers back up, they have to unveil a new “attraction” in order to reel the fans back in, which usually entails cooking up a Mesozoic abomination in the park’s genetic laboratory.  Meanwhile, across the island, Owen Grady (Pratt) demonstrates his remarkable degree of communion with a pack of Velociraptors to a group of onlookers.  Vic Hoskins, InGen’s head of security played by Vincent Philip D'Onofrio, alerts Grady that his services will be needed to test the latest genetically-modified Franken-saur, the ridiculously named Indominus Rex, but not before discussing the possible military applications of the somewhat-controllable raptor pack.

The brilliance of these particular plot nodes is in how they provide a subtle but necessary commentary on the state of both the Jurassic Park franchise in public mind, and how the general media demands for bigger and flashier effects leads to the commodification of nearly anything.  Dearing literally sees everything as commercial gain or loss, and in the beginning is never seen far from the swarm of corporate sponsors itching to learn the latest return on their investment.  On the more cynical side, Hoskins’ military ambitions for raptor foot soldiers might seem a touch silly on first blush, but plays quite well into how these scenarios have played out historically - especially when he applies the cold logic of “we made them, hence we own them.”  In fact, nearly everyone in the film represents to some extent the deadening effect mass commercialization can have on even the most spectacular of visions: Dearing and Hoskins’ views; Zach’s constant “so-over-this” attitude, even before the spectacle of a Mosasaur chomping on a great white; and the myriad of park employees who couldn’t look any more apathetic if they were handing out tickets to the local carnival.  About the only ones who have a sufficient sense of awe or at least respect for the un-extinct beasts are Gray and Owen Grady - even Simon Masrani, the flamboyant and enthusiastic owner of Jurassic World, while less concerned about the bottom dollar than about the sense of wonder and enjoyment his customers experience, corrals the commercial disaggregation with his demands for bigger, badder, and more dangerous dinosaurs.  The parallels to the entertainment industry are obvious, and require little further elaboration as they’ve been showcased in many movies since the year dot; however, it’s hard to miss the gentle poke at the Jurassic Park series and its finicky fan base.  After the major coup d'etat of the first movie, we were left in demand for more thrills that the sequels, lackluster as they were, couldn’t fulfil.  It’s true that we often weigh the mettle of any monster flick by how much bigger and scarier it is compared to the one last week, and Jurassic World lampoons this notion with surprising subtlety even as it forms the basis of its story.

Accompanying these stealth digs was an unexpected wealth of humor pervading throughout the entire film.  While cheeky, dark humor has always been a mainstay in the series, the filmmakers seemed to kick it up a notch this time around, and with a keen eye to the self-referential and self-depreciating.  Lowery Cruthers, the park’s operations overseer, is a virtual fountain of in-jokes, puns, and snide remarks to this end.  Played by comedian Jake Johnson, the tech-savvy snarker is first seen sporting an original Jurassic Park T-Shirt - apparently a hefty buy online - and while fully admitting it’s bad taste, defends his fashion choice by expressing had admiration for the “legitness” of the original park.  These reference could easily be driven to the point of annoyance, but Jurassic World generally avoids that pitfall - partly by keeping Cruthers’ appearances succinct and relevant, but also by displaying a knack for comedic timing completely atypical for a sci-fi thriller.

This surprising feat for a supposedly “meat-headed” action movie somehow comes about without distracting from its designated genre, though here, ironically, is where it fell off for me.  Don’t get the idea that there is anything terribly innovative about Jurassic World as a whole; the details around the I. Rex’s escape and rampage, as well as the course of the action, were predictable in the absolute sense.  To be fair, the same could be said for Jurassic Park, but its characters felt much more compelling, especially the two siblings Lex and Tim, who instantly drew in the viewer with their strong acting and delightful blend of vulnerability and moxy.  In contrast, the Mitchell brothers are relatively flat along the rest of the cast.  That said, while strong, 3-dimensional characters are by personal preference the apogee of any story for me, I must contend with the reality that characters can be tools for plot progression just like anything else, and while they may have been flat, they certainly were not weak; I can’t say that there was a single unintentionally unlikable person in the whole shebang, and the pervasive humor went a long way towards humanizing them.  I suppose “economical” is the best way to describe everything in this film, from the flat but believable characters, to the judicious pacing and just-right action that all made Jurassic World feel pleasantly shorter than its 124 minutes, with some highlights including Owen Grady's general badassery and Dearing's very admirable showing in this department herself, saving the day on more than one occasion despite the prim, by-the-book girly-girl exterior.

Jurassic World could have been just an average, popcorn thriller with the obligatory special effects “magic” that fails to compensate for its many other shortcomings.  But while the film was in many ways generic - though the special effects DID pull their fair share - it stands out for those subtle jabs at the film industry in general and the Jurassic Park series specifically.  No matter where you stand on it - as an “awesome” big-budget thrill ride, or as another lame addition to the canon that will never live up to the original - there is something or someone in this film to mirror your views, ensuring that even we the moviegoers cannot escape its well-executed satire anymore than we can its genetically-altered saurian antagonist.  I’m not sure how much of this was intentional, but the pieces fell into place too well to be a complete accident.

Rating: B

Movie Review: The Interview

 
Movie: The Interview

Directed by: Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg

Starring: James Franco, Seth Rogen, Randall Park

Verdict:

The Interview managed to survive the stormy political intrigue that threatened to suffocate it, but despite the surprising likability of it’s two male leads and a near-brilliant performance from Randall Park as Kim Jong-un, the film’s torturously-long comedic sequences and muddled direction ultimately prevents it from being anything more than average.

In-depth:

The Interview has been out for over a week now, so I’m probably more than a little late to the party.  To be honest, were this any other movie I probably wouldn’t have bothered with a review to begin with.  Despite this, I strongly believe that it deserves one - and not for any of the hollow claims of “patriotic duty” that’s been flung around the Internet lately.  Rather, I think the film really deserves a fair and honest review - one apart from the politics and jingoistic fervor, and without a preconceived sense of what it should have been according to one armchair sociologist or another.  See my “Interview analysis” post if you want my take on the royal mess this movie’s made over the past few months, but right now, I'll keep the focus where it belongs - on how well The Interview works by its own merits, and nothing more.  This may well be an impossible task, but I intend to give it my best.

The story should be familiar to anyone with pulse by now. Franco and Rogen play manic celebrity talk show host David Skylark and his down-to-earth producer Aaron Rapoport, respectively, who, following Aaron’s sudden existential angst born of a run in with a former classmate-turn “serious journalist,” decide to cap off their thousandth-episode by landing an interview with their most high-profile fan: the Supreme Leader of North Korea himself, Kim Jong-un.  Unfortunately, their plans get hijacked by the CIA, who want to use this opportunity to “take out” the young tyrant once and for all.  Adding to the mix is Sook, North Korea’s Director of Communications, who has an agenda of her own regarding our two witless would-be assassins.   And, as the saying goes, “hilarity ensues.”  We’re going to ignore the excuse plot, as well as the ridiculous and implausibly convenient premise; this is a Rogen/Goldberg production, after all, where suspension of disbelief isn’t just a requirement - it’s a commandment.  The real thing of note here is the surprisingly able showing by Franco as the perverted, pop-culture talking, slightly racist, and generally moronic Skylark.  While I’m normally not a big fan of Franco’s acting, I must admit that he did a fine job with his portrayal of a character that probably looked absolutely horrid on paper.  Despite Skylark’s obligatory stupidity and off-the-cuff references to brown sugar, honeydicking, and “stank dick,” (there is a context for those, but I’d rather not delve any further) he is also a good friend to Aaron and possesses an amazing degree of empathy - or at least, to the extent allowed by an intentionally-offensive comedy.  Rogen’s Rapoport almost fades into the background in comparison, serving strictly as a hyper-thin foil to the much-more interesting Skylark.  While Rogen’s character is more firmly tethered to the “plot,” such as it is, it was Skylark that kept the first 45 minutes of the movie tolerable and even enjoyable at times.

The real acting heavyweight, though, belongs to Randall Park and  his rendition of Kim Jong-un.  While the script initially called for a militant depiction of the Great Dictator, Park wisely choose  a softer, more subtle tract, elevating the character from what would have undoubtedly been a cliche to the most nuanced performance in the film.  Park’s Kim successfully blends sympathy with terror, coming off as a funny, cigar-smoking, pop culture fanboy with daddy issues before switching to a dangerously violent psychopath at the proper provocation.  Even when told that Kim Jong is a master manipulator of the press, it’s still hard not to be drawn in by his seemingly disarming and self-effacing manner, and Park’s quality acting - which, in my  opinion, would have stood out even in a more “serious” movie - made the sudden mood transitions logical and the ending interview with Skylark more believable (relatively speaking) than they would have been otherwise.

But of course, no one comes to see a movie like The Interview for its acting chops; we want to laugh, and it’s in this area - very unfortunate for, you know, a comedy - that it falls somewhat flat.  The usual Rogen/Goldberg fare is on full display:  penis jokes, pop-culture references, and the blatant homoerotic (sub)text prevalent in bromances aimed at 30-something males, so anyone watching only for the lowest comedy denominator surely  got a few chuckles out of it.   However, the usual sharp dialogue and keen timing are noticeably absent, replaced instead by cliches and long comedic sequences that take up significant portions of screen time.  One particularly painful episode stemmed from an act of stupidity on the part of Franco and blossomed into a 10-minute long scene of Rogen crawling through the North Korean undergrowth at night, narrowly avoiding tiger attacks, and having to resort to hiding a tapered missile in his anus to avoid detection from Kim Jong's guards.  While that whole thing isn’t exactly an Oscar-worthy showcase, the problem is not so much with the scene itself as with its length; 10 minutes is a long time to endure a moronic set up for a spy outing, several bad anal sex jokes, and the continued and puzzling confusion of a tiger for a large dog.  Brevity may be the soul of wit, but it’s also integral to other forms of humor, and those 10 minutes lost could have been better spent  elsewhere - even if only to give more bathroom jokes in a different context.  When you stretch a gag out too long, you lose the humor along the way, and what had  been up to that point a decently-paced bit of comedic torture starts to feel more like actual torture - and I’m amazed comedy veterans like Rogen and Goldberg forgot that simple truth while making it.

Then again, it’s hard to know what, if anything, The Interview’s creators would have put in place of these comedic wastelands, since the film seemed patently unsure of what kind of movie it wanted to be.  Many of its most vocal defenders and “anti-critics” claim that it shouldn’t be judged by it merits as a smart political satire because it isn’t one, and never had aspirations to be anything more than a silly blue comedy.  I beg to differ; I believe the film did have some aspirations towards relevant satire - in addition to silly slapstick, with a bit of entertainment mass media parody thrown in.  This attempt to wear multiple hats is, in fact, the movies gravest and most damning sin, and the one to ultimately banish it to the dustbin of mediocrity.  The development of Director Sook is a major part of the blame here, for despite a competent effort by actress Diana Bang - arguably the best after Randall Park - her character, by introducing an alternate plan to bring Kim Jong-un down nonviolently by breaking him on television and invalidating his claims to godhood among his people, added a level of potential seriousness that, by this point, the audience wasn’t willing to buy.  The overly-long joke scenes and massive exposure of Kim Jong-un were all done in support of a storyline whose ultimate culmination was...what, exactly?  A maudlin display of affection that capstones the film’s media parody? A real attempt to address North Korea’s serious humanitarian problems?  Or just a great big good-natured mess that completely overturns any potential for biting satire?  The answer -  without giving anything away to the two or three of you who have yet to see the ending - is all three; The Interview by the end completely embraces its schizophrenic tendencies, and in the process falls short of either moving satire, tongue-in-cheek parody, or even convincing toilet humor.    

None of this is to say that The Interview is a bad movie.  So long as you have adjusted expectations, it can be an enjoyable and surprisingly clever experience.  It’s the lack of commitment at the heart of its story that really weighs it down; had it worn any one of its “hats” with full confidence (and yes, that includes even the slapstick, gross-out one) it would probably have a higher rating, especially with the surprising strength of its characters.  As it stands, the movie’s befuddlement subtracts from all quarters, and despite the outcry swarming around it, I would be surprised if anyone- friend or foe - remembers it a year from now.

Grade: C