"Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom" Feature Talkback (Spoilers)

Latest News

Rate this movie

  • *****

    Votes: 1 25.0%
  • ****1/2

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • ****

    Votes: 1 25.0%
  • ***1/2

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • ***

    Votes: 1 25.0%
  • **1/2

    Votes: 1 25.0%
  • **

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • *1/2

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • *

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    4

Yojimbo

Yes, have some.
Staff member
Moderator
Jul 13, 2003
33,836
Ratings
11,676 21
113
Shahdaroba
www.dcauresource.com
#1
"Life finds a way."​


Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom
Release Date:
June 22, 2018
Studio: Universal Pictures
Runtime: 128 Minutes
Directed By: J.A. Bayona
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of science-fiction violence and peril
Screenwriters: Derek Connolly, Colin Trevorrow
Starring: Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, Rafe Spall, BD Wong, Justice Smith, Daniella Pineda, James Cromwell, Toby Jones, Ted Levine, Jeff Goldblum, Geraldine Chaplin, Isabella Sermon, Robert Emms, Peter Jason

Plot Summary: When the island's dormant volcano begins roaring to life, Owen and Claire mount a campaign to rescue the remaining dinosaurs from this extinction-level event.

Related Discussion
*"Jurassic World" Talkback
*"Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom" News & Discussion
 
Jul 14, 2010
75
Ratings
42
18
UK
#2
This came out early in the UK; I saw it two weeks ago. I managed to see it without having seen a single review, tweet or even the Rotten Tomatoes score, which made a nice change.

After a really stylish and fun opening scene, it tapers off pretty severely. Dumb and dull. It does rebound a bit with a final third which is dumber still, but also a lot of fun. Couldn't go any higher than 2.5 though.

For context I enjoyed all of the previous films to some extent; first earns its classic status even if it's not quite Jaws, Lost World I think is good fun, Jurassic World was solid, III less so but I have a soft spot for it as it breezes by quite pleasantly and it came out during a (IMO) very barren time for mainstream movies.
 

Classic Speedy

Yup.
Staff member
Moderator
Reporter
May 13, 2003
40,799
Ratings
602 2
83
#3
So... based on that cliffhanger ending, are we getting a Jurassic World 3, or is it pretty much a foregone conclusion that humanity is screwed?

Anyway, this is definitely a darker movie than the previous one, both visually and tone-wise. In a way, it works considering what's at stake (the re-extinction of the dinosaurs), but on the other hand I do miss the sense of wonder that certain scenes in Jurassic Park had (and, to a lesser extent, World). I did like that the sociological themes were present in this one- the previous film dealt with using dinosaurs for the military, whereas this one dealt with the struggle of greed vs. ethics in auctioning dinosaurs to countries for massive profits.

But the film just wasn't that enjoyable. Like, there were moments in Jurassic World where I was smiling ear to ear (particularly the pterodactyls swooping down on the tourists) but I didn't experience the same here.

Other thoughts:
-The timing on this movie kinda sucks, what with the Hawaii volcano eruptions in the last couple months. Not that they could help it, but I must admit I was thinking about real life at times.
-They brought back the "dino tapping their claw" gag from the first movie. It's quick but I noticed it.
-I can't help but wonder how different the movie would've been if Congress was considering bombing Isla Nublar instead of letting the dinosaurs go extinct from the volcano.
-So, Claire is now a pro-dinosaur activist. I feel like there was a character development scene missing between the previous movie and this one. It's not impossible that she would become one, but considering she barely escaped with her life the last time, I wonder what brought on her change of heart. Owen would've fit that role better, to be honest, given that he actually had an emotional bond with the raptors he trained.
-Zia was the real discovery in this one, IMO. Every time she was on-screen, the movie immediately got more enjoyable.
-Dr. Henry Wu really became unlikable over the series, didn't he?
-Eli Mills was a villain that was easy to hate but unfortunately he wasn't much fun. He was just a massive jerk, especially to Maisie.
-The scene where the indoraptor gets into Maisie's bedroom and slowly extends its claws... it felt really contrived in its attempt to generate tension. In "real life", it would've gone after her immediately.
-The Jurassic Park theme really felt out of place over the credits. I get why they put it in there, but such a majestic, triumphant theme didn't really gel with that probably-downer ending.

Rating? I dunno, let's go with 2.5 out of 5.
 
Last edited:

Gold Guy

Ride On
Staff member
Moderator
Dec 14, 2008
20,379
Ratings
2,710 6
113
New York City
#4
So...I enjoyed this more than the first World, but that's about it.

Why is it that the franchise has so much trouble writing interesting and likable characters? Besides the original, all the films struggle with this! All the humans here are boring, uncharacteristic, or just plain annoying (comic relief sidekick guy).

This means that they can't hold their own scenes.

Fortunately, the dinosaur scenes still kick butt. The directing is a lot more intense here than in the previous film; heck, I'd say the dinosaur scenes here are the most well done since the original (this may not be a high bar).

The first half of the film bored me, but once they reached the mansion, I was actually engaged. The mansion was a nice change of setting for the franchise, and again, the dinosaur scenes were really intense, and filmed in a horror style that we haven't got in a while. Most of the villains also got satisfying deaths.

But *that* plot twist was weird, and wasn't even brought up much afterwards.

Still, an exciting second half can't save the film from a sluggish beginning, a lame cast, and a weak script. Also, between this and Independence Day 2, Goldblum is always being wasted in sequels...
 

Classic Speedy

Yup.
Staff member
Moderator
Reporter
May 13, 2003
40,799
Ratings
602 2
83
#5
I didn't like the mansion setting for the last 1/3 of the film, even though it was admittedly something different for the series. It felt a little too much like a "monster in the house" horror movie.

That said, the moment when the indoraptor fell through the ceiling and was impaled on the spike, killing it, was awesome.
 

Gold Guy

Ride On
Staff member
Moderator
Dec 14, 2008
20,379
Ratings
2,710 6
113
New York City
#6
It felt a little too much like a "monster in the house" horror movie.
I think that was intentional. The director mentioned at least once that he wanted to bring the series back to it's more scarier roots (something he said the series had lacked after the original), and interestingly, one of his earliest films was a horror film with a gothic setting called The Orphanage.

That said, I can totally see why the mansion setting wouldn't work for everyone. Still though, I do like that they're trying new locations, so hopefully the after credit scene actually means the next film will be set in Las Vegas.
 

Troy Troodon

Well-Known Member
Jan 16, 2014
2,009
Ratings
1,672 8
113
#7
It was an alright film though the tone of the film invoked a body of anger inside of me, not because the dinosaurs weren't accurate looking, (as much as that bothers me in other projects in entertainment media) nor with the main antagonists, (though they were a contributing factor) but the overall tone itself.

I don't know why, I enjoyed the film but there is something about it just invokes dismay that makes me feel so callous and vengeful. I don't know, maybe Jurassic World III may have a more uplifting feel.
 

Anti-Hero 69

Active Member
Jul 1, 2018
138
Ratings
84 1
28
18
United States
#8
I like the darker shift in tone, call backs to the first Jurassic Park, and no one really felt annoying, except for the germophobe guy. Wu's I assume death was anti-climactic and the Indoraptor I felt could have used more screentime, but I was perfectly happy with the movie, regardless.

Now, the marketing, I have a real problem with. They advertise the literal ending as the entire second half, so...wtf.
 

rggkjg1

Nov 25th or 27th 2018
Mar 2, 2002
7,036
Ratings
58
48
31
Cinemark 16 on Nov 25th
www.myspace.com
#9
I'm surprised I don't have much to say. I figured it would be another long rant on how this movie makes no sense at all like Jurassic World (see that talkback). This movie still makes no sense, but the concepts that baffled my mind the most regarding the lack of basic common sense are not implemented in the way I thought they would.

I thought a debate about whether dinosaurs should be saved or left to die would be a major plot, but it isn't. The film acknowledges it, and moves on. They don't have a right to live, that's my bottom line. I don't understand how after everything that has transpired in every film there is even a debate to be had. Humanity should be lucky that the decision was taken out of their hand and that nature once again selected them for extinction. If anyone feels the dinosaurs have a right to remain alive, then put up or shut up and go live on the island with them. Thankfully, these supporters can stand alongside the dinosaurs now that they run amok on the mainland wreaking inevitable havoc.

I thought there would be much more to this movie (even if it made no sense at all), but ultimately it's just another story about evil millionaires and corporations exploiting animals for financial gain. That could be argued that's in the previous films, but here it's blatantly obvious these are the villains and they have no noble or positive intentions for the dinosaurs. At least the "villains" in The Lost World have the same motivations as our legit villains here, but in The Lost World they aren't consumed by their greed to the extent that they'll kill anyone who gets in the way of their financial gain.

The end implies a bleak future for humanity, which I don't think is so bleak going forward. Only so many dinosaurs run amok on the mainland, and they can be tracked. So track them, round them up, and kill them. They can't breed because they're all females (I assume they fixed that problem). I highly doubt the buyers who got away with their dinosaur purchases have any kind of resources available to them to continue with genetic experiments. And those dinosaurs could be tracked, rounded up, and killed as well. While the research and technology seems salvageable to continue with this nonsense, at what point does Dr. Wu and his cronies say enough and end it once and for all? No matter how much greed consumes someone, I have to believe at some point they'll realize their failures are going to constantly be repeated and worse each time.

After everything that has happened in the entire series, what has to happen for someone to realize there is no money to be made in dinosaurs? There isn't. If no one is going learn any kind of moral, scientific, ethical, etc lesson, then someone should easily learn by now that you wont make money in dinosaurs. Period.

Whatever ends up being the last movie, I hope it ends with Dr. Wu realizing his errors and ends up the "hero" by sacrificing himself so our heroes escape. Blowing up a lab complex with him, dinosaurs, all the biological samples, all the research, all the technology, EVERYTHING, comes to mind. At least there I would feel a little relieved that in the end the people responsible (or mankind in general) try and redeem themselves for the havoc they've caused by playing god and being consumed by their greed.

So now that Isla Nublar is destroyed, do they just go back to Isla Sorna in the next one (again)?

Oh, don't want to forget that John Hammond's partner cloned his dead daughter and passed her off as his grandchild. Sighhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. I guess it was a matter of time before human cloning would be successful.

2 thumbs down. It's entertaining, but easily the worst of the series. The Meg will be better than Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom.
 
Last edited:

Anti-Hero 69

Active Member
Jul 1, 2018
138
Ratings
84 1
28
18
United States
#10
So now that Isla Nublar is destroyed, do they just go back to Isla Sorna in the next one (again)?
Sorna's not an option. Sorna is volcanic, aswell, and it would probably transpire into the exact thing that happened in this movie, just delayed by another few years. The tie-in game, Evolution, did introduce 4 other islands, however, that they could be taken to.
 

AnotherRandomGuy

The cat came back, he just couldn't stay away
Oct 29, 2016
1,150
Ratings
1,363 14
113
24
New Mexico
#13
It's a monster movie
Despite my love for monster movies, I can't help but feel hollow after watching it
Jurassic World 1 & 2 are some of those movies I kinda like less and less over time when thinking about it. Especially now, with everyone parading the original to obnoxious levels. Don't get me, I still love the original, but it's kinda annoying how everyone is just using it to quote/reference random iconic scenes for "nostalgia points".

Jurassic Park is rightfully one of the all time classic movies, but it's disrespectful to bring it up so much for one or two out of context lines. To say nothing about how everyone is just kinda blindly praising Jeff Goldblum which is also disrespectful to him as an actor. Don't get me wrong, he was genuinely great in the movie, but he's been in better movies and has taken more serious roles, so it all comes off as very disingenuous on the fan side praising him for one movie everybody saw as a child.

Made worse by Universal using him as a living advertisement based on his role in the original.
 

Anti-Hero 69

Active Member
Jul 1, 2018
138
Ratings
84 1
28
18
United States
#14
It's a monster movie
Despite my love for monster movies, I can't help but feel hollow after watching it
Jurassic World 1 & 2 are some of those movies I kinda like less and less over time when thinking about it. Especially now, with everyone parading the original to obnoxious levels. Don't get me, I still love the original, but it's kinda annoying how everyone is just using it to quote/reference random iconic scenes for "nostalgia points".

Jurassic Park is rightfully one of the all time classic movies, but it's disrespectful to bring it up so much for one or two out of context lines. To say nothing about how everyone is just kinda blindly praising Jeff Goldblum which is also disrespectful to him as an actor. Don't get me wrong, he was genuinely great in the movie, but he's been in better movies and has taken more serious roles, so it all comes off as very disingenuous on the fan side praising him for one movie everybody saw as a child.

Made worse by Universal using him as a living advertisement based on his role in the original.
Jeff Goldblum here is used just like how he was used in the independence day sequel...except Independence Day 2 was much worse than this movie and most people have already forgotten about it.
 

AnotherRandomGuy

The cat came back, he just couldn't stay away
Oct 29, 2016
1,150
Ratings
1,363 14
113
24
New Mexico
#15
Jeff Goldblum here is used just like how he was used in the independence day sequel...except Independence Day 2 was much worse than this movie and most people have already forgotten about it.
I didn't care for that movie either, but the difference here is twofold.

Firstly; Jurassic Park is far more of a beloved and influential of a movie than Independence Day ever was.
Secondly; people actually fell for it this time. I know I did thinking Jeff was going to have more of an impact on the story more than just a glorified cameo used so they can have an excuse to put him in the trailer and use him as a spokesperson when the move came out.

It feels manipulative no matter which way you slice and I don't like that.
 

19MagiswordLane

Toonzone's Crooner of Carnage, babe!
Mar 19, 2016
473
Ratings
532 1
63
23
#17
Jeff Goldblum wasn't given anything funny to say in JW:FK, which if not a crime, should be.
The whole court room scene was suppose to be (at least to Trevorrow) a serious discussion on how to handle the dinos, so he was never going to have any funny quips (save those for Chris Pratt, who's basically the new Malcolm).
 
Last edited: