Re: JURASSIC WORLD: REBIRTH - July - Overperforming Box Office Estimates
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2025 11:03 am
Right, and they had to walk back the insipid ending of the last JURASSIC WORLD movie (which truly sucked) by putting the creatures back in a specific habitat that makes narrative sense for the viewer. Who wanted to see "dinosaurs across America"?
The more you look at it, this series is really "up-classed Godzilla" with the same kind of appeal. Nobody told Toho to stop after making several dozen of those. I don't see Universal stopping either, especially because I think it's some way for Spielberg to throw a bone to the studio, thanking them for never remaking/resurrecting JAWS while pumping them with PARK sequels which he's fine with collecting checks for.
As far as this movie goes, Amblin tried to throw these eco-messages into these pictures but what works is straight ahead jungle action and this setting/environment is where the material plays best. Add in that Edwards has a sense of style that hacks like Colin Trevorrow will never have and at least you have a fun, highly entertaining picture made with skill and without pretension. Koepp's script was also tight, like he actually cared, and that showed also.
I mean, what else can you do with dinosaurs? It's like the alien or predator. Unless they start having them talk or start having human characteristics -- which Spielberg wanted with the whole "military dino-soldier" concept that he initially wanted in III and has skirted around ever since in different installments -- they've maxed out the limit. So you either go with it -- and I'm a fan, I admit it -- or you're bored and you don't. And I respect the latter also.
Either way some of the collective critical reviews on this are some of the worst I've read in a while. It's like the kool-aid drinkers got together and decided, "nope, NOW is the time I draw the line in the sand and say I'm bored with these films." Especially since some of these same critics thought THE LOST WORLD was better -- and it isn't, I contend that film is one of Spielberg's career worst and I even rewatched it a year ago. It's wretched from its script to Kaminski's ugly-ass cinematography and poor performances; simply having his name attached gave it some kind of credibility but it's an utterly miserable sequel on nearly every level. It's also an appreciable improvement on the WORLD movies also, in terms of filmmaking prowess, set-pieces, cinematography and score.
It's not a classic, I don't even hugely disagree with your take and everything Paul says about lowering the bar and such is true -- but still, I can't say I didn't enjoy it. I knew exactly what I was going to get, and it gave it to me in a superior package than most (any?) entries of this series since the original. Some of these I have never wanted to revisit -- but this one I'll gladly rewatch, and that counts for something.
The more you look at it, this series is really "up-classed Godzilla" with the same kind of appeal. Nobody told Toho to stop after making several dozen of those. I don't see Universal stopping either, especially because I think it's some way for Spielberg to throw a bone to the studio, thanking them for never remaking/resurrecting JAWS while pumping them with PARK sequels which he's fine with collecting checks for.
As far as this movie goes, Amblin tried to throw these eco-messages into these pictures but what works is straight ahead jungle action and this setting/environment is where the material plays best. Add in that Edwards has a sense of style that hacks like Colin Trevorrow will never have and at least you have a fun, highly entertaining picture made with skill and without pretension. Koepp's script was also tight, like he actually cared, and that showed also.
I mean, what else can you do with dinosaurs? It's like the alien or predator. Unless they start having them talk or start having human characteristics -- which Spielberg wanted with the whole "military dino-soldier" concept that he initially wanted in III and has skirted around ever since in different installments -- they've maxed out the limit. So you either go with it -- and I'm a fan, I admit it -- or you're bored and you don't. And I respect the latter also.
Either way some of the collective critical reviews on this are some of the worst I've read in a while. It's like the kool-aid drinkers got together and decided, "nope, NOW is the time I draw the line in the sand and say I'm bored with these films." Especially since some of these same critics thought THE LOST WORLD was better -- and it isn't, I contend that film is one of Spielberg's career worst and I even rewatched it a year ago. It's wretched from its script to Kaminski's ugly-ass cinematography and poor performances; simply having his name attached gave it some kind of credibility but it's an utterly miserable sequel on nearly every level. It's also an appreciable improvement on the WORLD movies also, in terms of filmmaking prowess, set-pieces, cinematography and score.
It's not a classic, I don't even hugely disagree with your take and everything Paul says about lowering the bar and such is true -- but still, I can't say I didn't enjoy it. I knew exactly what I was going to get, and it gave it to me in a superior package than most (any?) entries of this series since the original. Some of these I have never wanted to revisit -- but this one I'll gladly rewatch, and that counts for something.
