“Jurassic World” is that years-later sequel that attempts to recreate the legacy of the original, but falls short in its method. Though not a complete disaster, due to some interesting new ideas that are hinted upon throughout the scope of the film, it nonetheless suffers from many of the more popular blockbuster flaws. Colin Trevorrow, its director, clearly idolizes Steven Spielberg’s 1993 classic, and often homages it throughout his film. But “Jurassic World,” unfortunately, is not destined to have that same impact.

The Start of a New Franchise?

“Jurassic World” takes places chronologically following the original “Jurassic Park” trilogy. John Hammond, who started the first park, has now had his dream brought to reality, and a real-life dinosaur theme park now runs on Isla Nublar. Years down the line, though, even the thrill of seeing long-extinct dinosaurs brought to life has lost its appeal, and so the operators of Jurassic World decide to create a new attraction to spike visitor numbers. That attraction? A 50-foot, genetically modified super-dinosaur, who is part Tyrannosaurus Rex, part camouflaged lizard, and who knows what else. Does this sound like a good idea to anyone?

As to be expected, the new dinosaur, called an Indominus Rex, soon escapes and starts to wreck havoc throughout the park. It is up to dinosaur expert Owen Grady (Chris Pratt), and operator of the park Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas Howard) to stop the animal before it harms the 20,000+ visitors still on the island.

The story of “Jurassic World,” much as the original, is essentially a monster flick within the confines of an island. As such, you have the usual monster tropes – the frantic, running crowds, the band of survivors that get away time and time again, the desperate screams of those that aren’t so lucky. Though a movie rated PG-13, it actually does get quite intense at times, sometimes just as much so as in the first “Jurassic Park.” The way that it differs vastly, though, is in its presentment of that intensity.

Anyone who grew up in the 90’s could tell you, shot for shot, that scene from “Jurassic Park” when the two cars get stuck outside of the T-Rex cage – the slow build-up of the T-Rex approaching the fence, which is first heard as just a vibration on a glass of water, the shock of the lamb’s leg falling on the car windshield, and then, of course, the monster itself, with its deafening, ear-shattering roar. It’s a moment in film history that is rarely rivaled. And “Jurassic World” is no exception.

The introduction to the monster in “Jurassic World” does not have nearly as much of a slow, tense buildup. We see the monster for the first time, then, minutes later, she has escaped and has gone on a killing rampage through the park. We also see her in her entirety almost right away, and realize that she isn’t even half as scary as she could have been. Suffice it to say that it is a disappointing introduction, which dooms the film almost from the start.

Bland, Uninteresting Characters

I hate to keep comparing “Jurassic World” to the original film, but it just serves as such a good example. The original film is distinguishable not only by its slow but sure tone, but also because of its characters, who we actually get to know and care about throughout the scope of the movie. Alan Grant (Sam Neill) is a kid-hating professional archaeologist, yet by the end he has won over the favor of both of John Hammond’s grandkids. John Hammond (Richard Attenborough) is a dreamer, who by the conclusion of the film finally realizes his flaws. Even the two kids themselves start out as naive, but eventually learn that they are more than capable of being strong and independent on their own, seen in how they outwit and survive an attack by two giant raptors.

Here, though, the only two characters that I care about are those played by Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard. And it’s only Howard’s character that really even seems to have a somewhat interesting arc. The relationship between the two of them is also not very well-developed, although the two actors are not really to blame.

Pratt, who starred in last year’s hit “Guardians of the Galaxy,” here plays a more serious role, although he does have his fair share of sarcastic wit. His character is what you would get if you combined Alan Grant and Ian Malcolm from the first film: intelligent, calm under pressure, and, above all, skeptical. He knows everything there is to know about dinosaurs, but, unlike many of the others, immediately recognizes the Indominus Rex as a bad idea.

Howard plays a humorless, money-mongering park operator, though we eventually learn that she is much more street-smart than she initially appears. The two actors play well off each other, bringing some much-needed enthusiasm to an otherwise lacking film.

The two kids with them? I’m not sure if I even remember their names. Trevorrow was clearly trying to create a similar type of situation as the kids in the original film, but he doesn’t go nearly far enough with it, and they are left as empty shells. Maybe it would be help if there was a scene similar to the raptors in the kitchen in the first “Jurassic Park,” but unfortunately there is none to be found.

A Sign of Our Times

As I mentioned, “Jurassic World” is not a complete disaster. Though it may appear, from the outside, to be just noise and monsters, there is actually much more that it says about our current state of mind, at least when compared to the original film. In “Jurassic Park,” the idea of creating a dinosaur park is heavily looked down upon. As the characters mention, these animals have been extinct for millions of years, so what right do we have to bring them back to life, and, in addition, how could we possibly know what to expect or prepare for?

20-odd years later, “Jurassic World” exists, and people simply accept it as so. There are even those, such as Owen Grady, who go out of their way to stick up for these animals that, according to some, do not have any rights because they are extinct and wouldn’t be here without us. But they don’t know that they should be extinct, and so, like real animals, they have to be cared for in the proper way. Grady does his best to do so with his raptors, who he cares for so intently that they trust him as one of their own.

So if dinosaurs are now legitimate in this world, what is crossing the line? That would be the creation of the Indominus Rex, which is a result of gene splicing with several different species, effectively making a super dinosaur. Dinosaurs in their plain form are accepted as okay, but genetically altering them is going too far. And the negative consequences can clearly be seen, since not long after its creation it turns loose on the park and destroys the mostly balanced ecosystem that had existed up to that point.

It presents an interesting idea – how far is too far? Though we seem to have much more of an acceptance of modern technology now than when the first “Jurassic Park” came out, there still seems to be some ideas that we are just not ready to accept. Gene splicing and alteration of our own species could be a legitimate possibility in our future, but it doesn’t seem to be one that people are accepting of, at least not yet. It is for this reason that “Jurassic World” is actually an interesting reflection of our times; that is if you look beyond the mindlessly boring CGI dinosaurs that swarm through much of the film’s second half.

Conclusion

To conclude, “Jurassic World” is not nearly at the level of classic blockbuster as the original film, which not only had a much more defined tone and pace, a more elaborately presented story, and more interesting characters, but it was also unlike anything else we had seen at the time. Now, with untold numbers of blockbusters that litter the movie theaters every summer, “Jurassic World” is just another one of them that may be easily forgotten in a year or two. There is, though, at least something deeper at the heart of the film, which reflects not only our times but also the potential future of the franchise, which could hopefully be headed in a positive direction.