There's a point in any franchise when an important
question must be asked: what is this franchise? It sounds obvious. The mega
franchises that dominate the market right now make it look easy. The MCU is an
interlocking universe of superheroes. Star Wars is the Jedi and the
Force. Then again, look at the relative shortcomings of
Solo. It's easy
to lose track of a franchise and what made past installments work. Comedy
sequels have the roughest time answering this question. Remember when The
Hangover thought the franchise was the amnesia, not the rapport of three
stars, and made that awful Thailand sequel? Horror franchises are all over the
place with this. Sure, Freddy Kruger IS Nightmare of Elm Street.
Then look at the first
Halloween.
Is Michael Meyers really what makes that series iconic? The Fast and Furious
franchise restructured itself from drag racing to being about "the
Family" in order to keep it going strong, eight movie strong. And let's
not forget about Cars thinking Mater, not the racing, was the key to
that franchise in Cars 2. This always looks easy in hindsight. The thing
that defines a franchise isn't always reproducible in a sequel either. As great
as Jennifer Lawrence is a Katniss, the titular Hunger Games
are the high point of that series, which they couldn't keep falling back on.
The Pirates of the Caribbean franchise kind of has to be about Jack
Sparrow, but most people would agree that the sequels all relied too much on
him.
Then there's Jurassic Park. The obvious answer to
the franchise question is "the dinosaurs". I'm not sure that's the
correct answer though. The biggest two movies in the franchise share the same
conceit: there's a park with dinosaurs and everything goes wrong. Audiences eat
that up. Both movies (Jurassic Park and Jurassic World),
adjusted for inflation, have made over $700 million domestically. Back in 1997,
The Lost World opened huge thanks to the Jurassic Park success.
It didn't have the staying power of the first movie though when it moved the
dinosaurs from the park to San Diego. In 2001, Jurassic Park III fell
even more when it turned the franchise into a straight up adventure movie on
the island. Having now seen Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, I'm starting
to wonder if the park is just as vital to the franchise as the dinosaurs.
Fallen Kingdom takes place about three years after Jurassic World.
The island that the park is located on is about to be destroyed by a volcanic eruption,
and there's a worldwide policy debate about if it is humankind's responsibility
to save the dinosaurs or let these unnatural creations die. Claire (Bryce
Dallas Howard) is contacted by Benjamin Lockwood (James Cromwell) to join a
secret rescue mission. I don't know Lockwood's historical significance in the
franchise (has he been mentioned before?). He's a co-founder of the park, but
basically, he's a stand in for the deceased Richard Attenborough's John
Hammond. Lockwood's secret mission is to send a group to the island to save a
select group of dinosaurs before the island is destroyed. Claire convinces Owen
(Chris Pratt) to join her as well as a couple of her coworkers - token tech
genius, Franklin (Justice Smith), and paleo-veterinarian, Zia (Daniella Pineda).
They go to the island, which is in full destruction mode already. When they
arrive, they learn that the operation is much larger than they thought. Ken
Wheatley (Ted Levine) is heading up a group of mercenary hunters to collect a
lot of the dinosaurs. As you probably suspect, some nefarious things are going
on. And this is all still the first act of the movie. I won't get into what
happens next. Not because I want to avoid spoilers. I just think the rest is
pretty dumb.
I came into Fallen Kingdom with strategically
low expectations. I didn't need much out of it. I wanted some dinosaur action,
nothing too plotty, and maybe some good Pratt/Howard banter. I didn't set a
high bar, because I really wanted to turn my brain off and enjoy this. Despite
a number of issues, I enjoyed Jurassic World back in 2015. I can't say
the same about Fallen Kingdom.
I was excited when I heard that J.A. Bayona (The
Orphanage, A Monster Calls, The Impossible)
would be directing this movie. He has proven that he can execute harrowing set
pieces (the tsunami in The Impossible) and knows how to deal with
imposing, large creatures (the monster in A Monster Calls). He didn't
bring much of that successfully to Fallen Kingdom. Instead, watching
this reminded me of when I was a kid, making my first Powerpoint presentation
for a school project. I used every single transition and animation I could
find. The thing was a mess because I showed no restraint and didn't think
"big picture" at all ("What do you mean I can't use the gunshot
transition for slides about migrant workers during The Great
Depression?"). That appears to be Bayona's approach: he uses all the
things. He ends seemingly every scene like he wants it to be the iconic image
for the movie. However, that ends up diluting the effect rather than
amplifying it. Remember the shot of the T-Rex in the building at the end of Jurassic
Park when it's doing that "this is my kingdom now" roar? Imagine
if there were three or five scenes like that in Jurassic Park. Suddenly,
that scene isn't as cool. Well, that's essentially what happens in Fallen
Kingdom. Bayona totally over saturates the movie with cool ideas.
The easiest way to make this movie a lot of fun is
to unleash Chris Pratt on it. Look at Parks & Rec or Guardians of
the Galaxy. Good things happen when you let Chris Pratt riff and get loose.
For some reason, Fallen Kingdom just wants Chris Pratt to be a generic
action movie star. That's such a waste. Both Pratt and Howard are really,
really bland in this. Howard doesn't even register as the same character she
played in Jurassic World. Either of them could be replaced with someone
else without changing the movie at all*. The same goes for every other
character in the movie. They are all the generic version of their character
type. No one surprised me. I get that the dinosaurs are what put people in the
seats. Giving the movie nothing else to fall back on though leaves a slim
margin of error for no good reason. It doesn't hurt the movie at all to
populate it with interesting characters.
*Would anyone notice if they cast Channing Tatum and
Riley Keough instead?
Speaking of the dinosaurs, they disappear for a good
chunk in the middle of the movie. There's a bunch of them at the beginning in
the scenes they use in the trailers when they are all running from the volcanic eruption. The a big sequence when they inevitably get loose at the end has all
sorts of dinosaurs too. In the middle chunk of the movie, it's just a bunch of
human stuff. As I've covered already, the humans in this are pretty dull, so
the middle really drags.
Here's a criticism I don't pull out often. I hated
the music in this movie. Normally I don't notice the music the first time I
watch a movie. As long as it's mixed reasonably well, I focus on other aspects.
Pretty early on I got distracted by the score to Fallen Kingdom. It
tries way too hard to dictate the emotions of the scenes. Granted, this could
be the fault of the direction or writing not executing properly, thus making the
music feel out of place or overbearing. Whatever the case may be, it bothered
me throughout. I was shocked to see in the end credits that the music was by
Michael Giacchino. He's possibly the best composer around right now. He's done
the music for some of the best Pixar movies (The Incredibles, Ratatouille,
Up, Inside Out), LOST (one
of the best scored shows I can think of), Rogue One,
Zootopia, and so many
others.
What most surprised me about the movie was how bored
I was during the action sequences. I liked bits and pieces. The mayhem of the
volcanic eruption was appropriately chaotic. That sequence ends with a good
scene in the water when Claire and Franklin nearly drown. Otherwise, it was
hard to get into it. Bayona has a lot of dino-fighting. It's loud and fast.
They fight on rooftoops, small rooms, large rooms. Dinos fight each other. They
mow down anonymous soldiers. There are a few obviously vile humans who get
crowd pleasing demises. It's all missing one key element though: tension. Bayona
doesn't seem to realize that dinosaurs are more terrifying when they are slow.
All the dinosaurs in this run and chase and attack at all times. There's very
little filmmaking skill being employed. It just wants to throw more in at all
times. Jurassic World could get away with it because Collin Trevorrow
had an entire park to go crazy in. Fallen Kingdom lacks that fallback.
Fallen Kingdom brings the series in the obvious thematic direction it's
been going in since Jurassic Park. It's about man overstepping and
nature fighting back. Underlining that message is literally the only use of
Jeff Goldblum in this film*. The natural conclusion of the Jurassic Park
franchise looks a lot like The Planet of the Apes. The filmmakers know
what to do with the first chapter. There's this park. Things go wrong. Humans
have to survive against these dinosaurs. Audiences immediately connect with
that. As Jurassic World proved, it's impossible to mess that up, no
matter how much inept plotting there is otherwise. If you take away the park,
all that's left is the convoluted plotting. That's not good. I'm not sure Jurassic
World 3 has anywhere to go but down. There's no more park. The leads lack
any distinction. There isn't a good villain. The stakes are high, but in an
anonymous way. That's a bad formula.
*Seriously, he only has two scenes and both are
monologues. This movie is badly in need of some wry Goldblum quips.
Sometimes I hate doing reviews (I say like it's
not something I do as a hobby), because I come off like I have a stick up
my ass. I love a good, dumb movie. I don't think I have crazy high expectations
for things. I try to meet a movie at its level. That said, I thought Fallen
Kingdom was pretty dismal. Nothing in the execution worked for me. Bland
characters. The story is convoluted as a whole and contrived in individual
moments. The pacing is poor. Way too many of the dinosaur scenes were covered
in volcanic spoke or took place at night in the rain (a lazy trick to cover up
CGI). I'm looking for something about this movie that I can grab onto to
forgive the rest and I'm coming up short. I'm amazed the reviews for this
aren't even worse.
Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend
If my big issue with Jurassic World is that I
don't believe a park like that would be run so poorly, then my issue with Fallen
Kingdom is that I don't believe a secret high-tech facility would be run so
poorly. I have nothing but questions about how inept this facility is. Why does
it have brick walls to imprison powerful and reckless dinosaurs? How is one
loose dinosaur able to take down the entire facility? Why are there no guards
within earshot of where Owen and Claire
are being held; long enough for a dinosaur to repeatedly headbutt a hole into a
brink wall? Does this place have no alarms or cameras anywhere? I don't
understand how such a large scale operation could be run there without anyone
in the house noticing beforehand. I must've misunderstood this, but did the little
girl really sneak into the facility via dumbwaiter? I imagined that, right?
I don't really get the plan for luring Claire and
Owen to the island either. They need her for her handprint and him to, I guess,
get Blue to stand still for a couple seconds. Surely there's a different way to
get into the computers there than bringing Claire only for a handprint. And
what if she didn't happen to have a tech genius with her? What was the back up
plan to get in? Thank god their flight didn't get delayed by an hour or two.
There's wouldn't've been an island left. That's some lucky timing.
I got annoyed by the dinosaur auction for a lot of
reasons. The bidding seemed really low to me. Wouldn't it be smarter to breed
and sell as a renewable resource rather than sell them all off individually?
Presumably, the auction has been going on for a while before the super-raptor
gets introduced. Why is everyone gasping and afraid when they first see it? I
get why the movie decides to have them gasp. They want to make a point about
how vicious the super-raptor is. But really, that looks barely more vicious
than any other dinosaurs. A T-Rex is bigger and more naturally imposing. Does
it get any gasps? Or maybe have them gasp in terror at all the dinosaurs. That
would've been my response. I'm a little confused about the timeline too. How do
they make this super-raptor so quickly? Doesn't it need some time to grow? Were
Owen and Claire locked away for weeks or months? I don't get it.
As long as I'm really unloading, one innocuous scene
baffled me more than any other. So, the little clone girl is locked in her
room. The movie eventually cuts to her knocking the key out of the door so she
can open it. It's implied that she's been working at that for a while. So, she
opens the door. looks out for about 5 seconds, closes the door, then sneaks out
the window in her room. Why the hell didn't she start by sneaking out the
window? What was the point of showing her unlock the door?
Again, sorry for picking so many nits. It's just
rare that I see a movie that appears to be this poorly considered.
No comments:
Post a Comment