"Jurassic World" Revives Extinct Franchise

Early in "Jurassic World" -- which has roared into theaters 22 years after the original "Jurassic Park" first hit the big screen -- one of the protagonists jokes that people aren't impressed by dinosaurs anymore because consumers want everything to be bigger. Luckily for viewers, the bigger-is-better mantra doesn't detract from what this movie accomplishes. A rare Hollywood intelligence is on display here: not just in the film's sci-fi roots about genetic modification and humans versus nature, but also in its reverence to and reinvention of "Park" and the previous (albeit lesser) sequels. "Jurassic World" is a textbook example of the perfect summer blockbuster: fun and thrills with a side of smarts.

"World" takes us to a time and place (22 years later, naturally) where the utter failures of the well-intentioned first park still sting, but not enough to keep The Powers That Be from trying again. In this fictional world, those failures have become the stuff of legend. Merchandise from the original venture are rare online finds that bring both bragging rights for the buyer and the scorn of colleagues who think the items are in poor taste. As for the park itself, business is booming, and operations manager Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard) is busy overseeing the upcoming launch of the latest attraction. A genetic hybrid, Indominus Rex, has been bred as the ultimate predator -- vicious AND intelligent -- but the lab's splicing and dicing has given the creature some unforeseen advantages over its creators. As Claire consults with park colleague Owen (Chris Pratt) about whether the world is ready for such an animal, Indominus makes its move... just in time for a visit by Claire's nephews.

Contrary to louder, dumber big-budget affairs like the recent "Transformers" franchise, "Jurassic World" succeeds in large part because it works on two important levels simultaneously. The first level, of course, is the nostalgia factor. Will a movie whose success is largely predicated by its own legacy and reputation be able to resonate with the generation raised on the original film while still appealing to the current crop of audience members? In this case, the answer is a resounding yes.

Though it continues the story started in "Park," "World" proudly blazes its own trail while staying true to the witty, nimble, and action-packed spirit of its forerunner. Passing mentions of John Hammond (the "spare-no-expense" entrepreneur behind the first park) and brief glimpses of the animated, talking DNA strand from the original film's tour guide video were rewarding chuckles for observant moviegoers. We aren't treated to a scene as memorable as a lawyer being eaten off a toilet, but all of our favorite dinosaurs are back for more carnage, and clever twists mean that their functions in the story are not as predetermined as they were the first time around. Full disclosure: I also got serious goosebumps when the now-iconic instrumental theme was heard for the first time. (Recurring motifs from John Williams' score are present, but they have been re-orchestrated slightly to fit with Michael Giacchino's new music.)

The second measure of success is the legitimacy factor. Is this a movie that can stand on its own merits when considered away from its franchise? The premise is so intrinsically linked to the earlier titles that it's harder to be objective. However, from the perspective of plot mechanics and technical achievement, the answer is a more qualified yes. Borrowing from the great tradition of slow-burn blockbusters like "Jaws," the movie takes its time building suspense through the introduction of characters and the exploration of its environment before really letting it hit the fan. In a much-appreciated touch of restraint, the Indominus conveys its enormity by rarely being shown in full at first, keeping the actors and their surroundings to an appropriate scale as they avoid (or fail to avoid) its teeth and claws.

Pratt gives us further proof of why he's the go-to young action star of the moment. His physicality and rugged charm carry the movie even when the dinosaurs steal the show. Howard is admittedly less convincing in her role, since her workaholic character struggles to be sympathetic and human even in these dire circumstances. I'm inclined to give her bonus points, though, for performing all of her running and rescuing stunts while wearing heels!

I particularly enjoyed the sly commentary about corporate intrusion on the natural wonder of the park. Though the entrance pavilion is full of prominent brands, stores, and chain restaurants (they even have a Starbucks!), the employees debate where to draw the line when it comes to sponsors naming the exhibits or even the dinosaurs themselves. Speaking of those dinosaurs (they are the real stars, after all), the movie itself is beautifully made. The 3-D presentation is detailed and immersive without looking overly processed, and the use of surround sound is incredibly effective in making you feel like you're right there on the island, down to every last dino-sized leaf rustle and footfall. The movie is truly a multi-sensory experience that demands to be seen in a theater.

Which brings me to my next point, probably the only significant contention that I have with the film. "Jurassic Park" was groundbreaking in the history of special effects, both at the time in 1993 and by today's standards. Its pioneering, award-winning use of CGI combined with stunningly lifelike animatronics made the far-fetched premise seem authentically possible. "Jurassic World" does employ many of the same techniques and still to great effect, but it leans a little too heavily on the computer-generated elements. The dinosaurs were much more fearsome when it looked like they were actually stomping in front of the camera rather than being more dots and pixels (however well-formed) in the foreground. "World" never strays into the wildly cartoonish CGI pitfalls of "Avatar" or the generally despised "Star Wars" prequels, but it does take away from that initial, awe-inspiring movie magic that will never be captured in quite the same way thanks to today's era of glorified digital cinematography.

By having just enough in common with its primary successor without retracing its steps, "Jurassic World" is the sequel that "The Lost World" (1997) and "Jurassic Park III" (2001) should have been. My chief concern in the film's conclusion, which leaves open the possibility for yet another sequel, is the direction that such a movie would take. While my theories about how a next chapter would hypothetically play out involve some pretty spoiler-heavy details, I can safely say that they would have to tread VERY carefully to avoid rehashing the mistakes of the other sequels. We've already seen the test run of the park fail, the alternate testing island was visited not once but twice, and now the operational park has failed. "Lost World" even gave us a taste of dinosaurs in the "real world" when a T-Rex escaped its cargo ship and hit the mainland, rampaging through San Diego and jumping the shark (or dinosaur, as it were) in one of the silliest plot devices ever conceived on film, "Jurassic" or otherwise.

Will these scientists and corporations ever learn? The central lesson of the movie (and the franchise) surprisingly parallels the state of filmmaking as an industry: even when armed with the most cutting-edge technology, humans will never be able to completely control the forces of nature. There are only so many ways to tell this kind of story, but if they keep making them as entertaining and edifying as "Jurassic World," I can think of worse ways to spend a hot summer day in a cool movie theater.