MovieChat Forums > Jurassic World (2015) Discussion > Embarrassing.

Embarrassing.

posted 8 years ago by gooachooyumyum
63 replies | jump to latest

I really expected this movie to have no higher than a 4/10 on IMDB. I can't believe it has a 7.1. I guess Hollywood has succeeded in conditioning people to enjoy unoriginal sequels filled with CGI garbage. Does nobody realize this movie was produced to make a quick buck? There is absolutely nothing original in this film, and I was literally embarrassed watching it. I predicted the entire plot in the first 5 minutes, because almost everything in this movie had already been done in the first 3 Jurassic park films. The acting had me face-palming every 10 minutes, and the script could have easily been written in one week by a college student with introductory to film knowledge. Even the CGI - which is the focal point of this movie - looked worse than the first Jurassic Park made in 1993. I had to remind myself several times that I was not watching an animated film...

*sigh*. As long as people keep paying money to see this stuff, Hollywood will keep producing it... Someone sitting behind a desk is seriously laughing at us all for paying to see this trash. "Just throw another super-sized dinosaur in the movie, have it escape and eat some people, call it Jurassic Park, and we will make a fortune!"
-a rich producer sitting behind desk

[–] kmags84 8 years ago

7.1 isn't a High Score on here, it's only 59 on Meta if that makes you feel better...

But, after a 2nd and 3rd viewing, I actually think it holds us ok. I'd go mid 7 but scale up to 8 because of imdb ratings system. The Cinematography is the best of the series. Yes, the CGI was too much but that's inevitable nowadays. I still think it served it's purpose. Not sure what anyone would expect?

[–] Ashaod43 8 years ago

I watched it last night on cable, first time since seeing it in the theater where I was disappointed. I did enjoy it a bit more probably since watching the force awakens which I was hyped for and that was a total rehash garbage as well. This is rehashed as well with no originality but they at least made more action in it even though some of the trained dino's were absolutely stupid. Yeah raptor training so their house friendly. it's a shame that they cant do something more original but it is JP 4. I guess you run out of ideas.

[–] gooachooyumyum 8 years ago

7.1 isn't a High Score on here, it's only 59 on Meta if that makes you feel better...

The average film rating on IMDB is 6.38, so 7.1 is above average. Godfather, the highest rated movie on the site, has a 9.2. That is only 2.1 higher than Jurassic world. I've been a member of IMDB since 2003, and rarely have I seen a movie like this gain higher than a 6.0 (although it is becoming more common lately). Like I said, I think it is because Hollywood has conditioned people to enjoy CGI-fests with no original storytelling whatsoever.

But, after a 2nd and 3rd viewing, I actually think it holds us ok. I'd go mid 7 but scale up to 8 because of imdb ratings system. The Cinematography is the best of the series. Yes, the CGI was too much but that's inevitable nowadays. I still think it served it's purpose. Not sure what anyone would expect?

I don't understand why people say this movie has good "cinematography". The only effort put in to this film was by a bunch of guys sitting behind a computer creating CGI that is no better than something made in 1993. Just because there is a lot of it, doesn't make it any good. The movie Aliens, made in 1986, looks far more realistic - and there was no CGI in that film. The directors back then had to literally create everything from scratch, without the use of computers. Nowadays, Hollywood just has to hire an army of computer nerds to compose a movie, and people give it an above average rating. Such a shame...

[–] kmags84 8 years ago

CGI and Cinematography are 2 entirely different things...

Funny that you use 'Aliens' for comparison, considering Cameron is literally BUTCHERING Cinema with each film he makes. I could imagine the crap that he'd put on the screen if this was his project. CGI is what it is. Sure, I love Practical Effects and if they could have Raptors running 40mph through a Jungle and look realistic, I'd love it... But it's not happening. Neither is a 100+ foot Sea Monster. I have the ability to be critical of films where necessary. I knew this would be mostly CGI and I accept that. Blame Cameron and Lucas for forcing the hands of every other Studio and Filmmaker to go that route. As long as the films that don't require CGI aren't getting it, I can deal with it. Doesn't mean the action scenes aren't decent enough to enjoy.

As far as ratings go, 7.1 is still low, no matter what the "Average" film is rated. I see films in the 6 range that are FAR superior to some in the high 7, low 8 range. It's all subjective. I still wouldn't call this Highly Rated though.

[–] gooachooyumyum 8 years ago

CGI and Cinematography are 2 entirely different things...

Not really. It depends on how you define it. According to the Oscars, CGI falls under the category of cinematography. For example, a scene that was previously filmed on site with cameras and sets by a cinematographer is now often accomplished using CGI, but both are viewed the same way. Of course, there is debate about having the Oscars split up cinematography and CGI in two different categories. If you feel CGI is in a different category, then what exactly are you referring to when you say that Jurassic World has "good cinematography"? There is very little cinematography to speak of if you are strictly referring to camera work and visuals WITHOUT the use of CGI...

All of this debate about cinematography is redundant however, because the movie has no other redeeming qualities. The acting is atrocious, and the script is incredibly predictable and boring from beginning to end. Even the CGI - which is supposed to be the highlight of this film - looks worse than previous Jurassic park movies.

As far as your comments about Cameron are concerned, I don't really see the relevance in this conversation. I am merely comparing individual movies here, not directors. It is well known that most directors get worse at making movies over time, so there is no debate about that. The fact that Cameron has fallen in to the CGI "death trap" does not change the fact that Aliens was a classic. It still stands the test of time, and I saw Jurassic World steal several ideas from it.

[–] kmags84 8 years ago

And using Minatures and shooting everything in the Shadows can't always be done like in 'Aliens' or 'The Thing' for example, it's impossible to create giant Dinosaurs and put them in am Open Area and have it look reasonable. Spielberg found that out himself with JP.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] go-yankees 8 years ago

Instead of facepalming I was eyerolling every 10 minutes. I hated this movie so much.

[–] vidville 8 years ago

yeah it was crap.

[–] LouAbbott 8 years ago

I could go on and on about Jurassic World and its badness, but, you put in a nutshell how I feel about this film: "It was crap."

[–] Scorpio_Sewer_Moon 8 years ago

ya I'm with you this was schlock, I have trouble understating how people even see it as a real movie.

I couldn't imagine a better fate than a long and lustrous winter! 

[–] matt21-690-602571 8 years ago

Really?...you expected Jurassic Park 4 to have a 4/10 rating? Basically on par with something like Sharknado.

Really?...you had to remind yourself periodically, "now remember, this is not a cartoon"?

Lay off the hyperbole

[–] seifer999 7 years ago

Yes, it was as bad as Sharknado and the other Asylum films. Not hyperbole, but unfortunately reality.

[–] nigelpryor-11440 7 years ago

yeah the OP sounds like some corny goof ball if he was really sitting there saying "its not a cartoon.. its not a cartoon!" LOL All sitting there talking to himself and actually face palming and all that .. This goofball takes movies way too seriously.. What did he expect a movie called "Jurassic World" was going to be about? I love the original Jurassic Park but its not some amazing piece of film making either.. The only thing ground breaking about Jurasic Park was the CGI dinosaurs.. the script and everything else was pretty standard action adventure that had already been done 100s maybe even 1000s of times before.

[–] jsagotsky-1 8 years ago

Boy you go on and on.

There is a simple explanation, people like a lot of bad movies.

Also, I think IMDB fans like violent and fantasy movies. Just look at the highest ranking movies, The Godfather movies, The Black Night, Pulp Fiction, Fight Club. Hey, I like all those movies.

You were face palming? What a wuss.

[–] gooachooyumyum 8 years ago

It's amusing to me that the people who defend Jurassic World attack my posts instead of giving reasons why this film is good. I guess that proves my point that there are no qualities to speak of.

Oh, and jsagotsky, I never said the highest ranking movies on IMDB did not deserve the ranks. I was simply stating an obvious fact that this movie is very overrated. I can only sit around for so long while all these mindless CGI flicks get above average ratings. Heck, I've only created maybe 10 threads on IMDB since 2003. I usually keep silent about this stuff, but I had to know which people actually enjoyed this film enough to give it a score of 7-8.

[–] jsagotsky-1 8 years ago

Excuse me, I didn't say it was good. I thought it was bad. I said people on this site like lots of bad movies.

But what are you about with face palming? Scared of CGI dinosaurs? Despite all the chomping, I don't think I saw any blood, ever.

[–] gooachooyumyum 8 years ago

Excuse me, I didn't say it was good. I thought it was bad. I said people on this site like lots of bad movies.

I didn't say you did. The first paragraph in my last post was geared toward Matt and the others who were attacking my posts (I should have specified). My second paragraph was for you.

[–] RickyDeg 8 years ago

Despite all the chomping, I don't think I saw any blood, ever.

http://screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/Jurassic-World-Easter-Egg-Blood-Drop-Chaos-Theory.jpg

(wasn't CGI-blood...)

"...I reserve the right to change my opinion on a movie at any point in time."

[–] whatsthisnow 8 years ago

But what are you about with face palming? Scared of CGI dinosaurs?

You "facepalm" when something is cringe-inducingly bad or embarrassing, not when you're scared of something. You need to brush up on your internet lingo...

[–] jeffreydominiquepol 8 years ago

I did. Both enjoy it and rated it an 8.

You ask for reasons why this film is good. I don't know, I'm a viewer, not a critic. Here are my reasons why I enjoy it:

* it's the 4th movie, so an overused title. But it has it's own originality, so far as that's possible: the Park's improved infrastructure, safety measures, management. But Dinosaurs will be eating people, and some will survive a happy end. That's why you go watch it. Don't expect mobsters strangling each others over familiy trivia in a dinosaur blockbuster, please.
* it's ultimately a science fiction movie. Although the science is wrong (wich is ALWAYS the case in science fiction films except for "Demolitian Man"), but it brings it's science convincingly. That's what makes a science fiction, not actual science. It'd be a documentary if it had factual science.
* it brings the right emotions. Where many of todays sequals completely forget to bring you the emotions of their original parts, this one had many of the same feels to it on many different occasions in relation to the original movie. While being a different movie in itself.
* it is a clear sequal! It relates to many of the original Park's features, including the intact lab, the dining hall area, the island outlay, the fences (bigger, better, yet still faulty) and the Park's founder's original vision.

I've watched it 3 times in the past year, and it hasn't bored me yet.

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

* it's ultimately a science fiction movie. Although the science is wrong (wich is ALWAYS the case in science fiction films except for "Demolitian Man")

The Stallone/Snipes movie? 

[–] Tsavo 7 years ago

For the record, the first two films actually had some pretty good science, though the second film was better on that front. The third tried to have science, but Horner was slipping off the deep end by then, and the 4th movie outright disregarded science, though it at least offered a better reason for it than I had expected.

"From a phylogenetic perspective, we are all fish!"

[–] RickyDeg 8 years ago

Agree on almost everything you said.

For me this entry was a missed opportunity at invigorating the series. They had a long time to work on this and a decent budget, yet this is the best they could muster? Typical lazy Hollywood cash-grab film-making. The only things I appreciated where some of the camera work and the original score.

"...I reserve the right to change my opinion on a movie at any point in time."

[–] TooDarnLoud 8 years ago

100% agree with the OP. I was hoping for more and after about 20 minutes i began to think "okay fine, this is just going to be a dumb movie with big set pieces, so just try and enjoy it for what it is" - but honestly an hour or so in and I couldn't even accept it for that. It really is an embarrassing load of dross, and everyone involved should be really ashamed of it. Did not one person think to say "are you sure this is a good take?" or "does this bit of the story make sense?"

[–] stepalex 8 years ago

Completely agree, a weak and unnecessary remake of the original, much like The Force Awakens - another over-rated, abysmal rip-off of a previous movie

[–] wylierichardson-966-922691 8 years ago

But you knew going in that it was going to feature CGI dinosaur action. What exactly were you expecting INSTEAD?

[–] gooachooyumyum 8 years ago

But you knew going in that it was going to feature CGI dinosaur action. What exactly were you expecting INSTEAD?

My expectations were very low, and even then I was severely disappointed/embarrassed. This movie is a sequel to the great 1993 film that had a good story, decent acting, and better looking dinosaurs - so I have to judge this film based on that. I wouldn't have started this thread if the movie had a 4/10 on IMDB, or at the very most a 6/10. The big question here is not what I was expecting with this film, but why on earth people are rating a "CGI dinosaur action film" a 7.1/10.

[–] Tsavo 7 years ago

People do not seem to want movies that make them think anymore. Almost every time a film comes out that is meant to make you think, most people call it pretentious and worthless, and do everything they can to decry the film. Then, ironically, whenever a film comes out that film goers actually do call intelligent and thoughtful, it actually tends to be pretty pretentious, from my experience.

That said, Jurassic Park had a lot of thought behind it, but it was blended so well with the action that it appealed to most people. Meanwhile, when The Lost World: Jurassic Park came out, it was more science heavy, and people complained about it being stupid, though I honestly consider it the only really good sequel in the series.

Either way, I remember when even big budget blockbusters (like Jurassic Park) actually had a lot of action, but care was taken to flesh out the characters, and there was actual meaning to the writing in the best cases. In the average cases (like Independence Day), we at least had well written characters who were funny, perhaps a little cliche, but they behaved and acted like real people, and where enjoyable to watch.

Modern blockbusters on the other hand, seem to have completely stripped all of that away, with Marvel Movies being amongst the worst offenders. There is no real meaning, and the characters aren't even that believable, in context. They're pretty hard to relate to, which leaves the emphasis on only the action and CGI. To be fair, some Marvel Movies do better than others, but the trend is clear, and honestly, I thought Independence Day 2 was an excellent example of this trend.

"From a phylogenetic perspective, we are all fish!"

[–] alienzuel 8 years ago

Everyone has an opinion, so for yours to be valid mine has to be too. Period!