“Jurrasic World” film puts fans on the edge of their seats



Patrick Wallace

The original “Jurassic Park” movie directed by Stephen Spielberg in 1993 was a cinematic breakthrough with CGI and special effects. The movie was based on a park that could scientifically breed through genetically engineering dinosaurs. Unfortunately, the park had to be shut down because many of the dinosaurs escaped and attacked the park before it was opened to the general public. 

After the first film was released, two more followed, each depicting other genetic breeding sites and returning to the dinosaur-filled park. Finally, after 22 years, the original park is considered open to the general public in the newest installment of the movie franchise, “Jurassic World.”

“Jurassic World” focused on the park re-opening to the public, which appeared to be similar to a Disney World or Universal Studio theme park. I thought that showing the park was an interesting aspect, because the first three movies were an attempt to get to that point of opening the dinosaur filled attraction and it looked like a lot of fun to be there. The main actor in the movie, Chris Pratt, was a dinosaur expert specialized in controlling velociraptors. 

He is called to the park to determine if a newly created dinosaur by the geneticists would be safe to show to the public as a new attraction. The new dinosaur was created to scare the audience, so it had aspects of multiple different dinosaur species in its genes. However, before Pratt’s character can evaluate the dinosaur, it escapes and causes havoc for the park by letting other dinosaurs in the park loose, like pterodactyls.

The hybrid dinosaur then kills other dinosaurs for sport, because it is very smart and knows that it is the biggest and strongest animal in the park. While the hybrid dinosaur is killing other dinosaurs, it also attacks different attractions in the park, scaring the visitors. 

Besides showing the dinosaurs in the theme park, the movie depicts the politics behind the company, such as money aspects, stock profitability and the CEO’s interests. 

I did not like the politics behind the company, except for the genetic aspect to create a hybrid dinosaur to increase profitability, because the movies are meant to focus on the dinosaurs and not on the business features. 

Other aspects of the movie I did not enjoy were humans being able to control wild velociraptors and the Tyrannosaurus Rex, as well as the government trying to weaponize the velociraptor pack. 

The movie itself received good reviews, and I thought it was a good film, as well, because of the plot around the park reopening, but I felt it lacked the common theme of the first three movies, which was that the dinosaurs roamed freely around the deserted parks and the humans entered to perform some sort of mission. 

The dinosaurs also seemed to have more relationships with the humans and wouldn’t always attack them (the velociraptors and T-Rex), which in the previous movies they would have. In the original movies the velociraptors and Tyrannosaursus Rex were the most feared and dangerous dinosaurs, but in this movie they appeared to be the heroes. 

The lack of a decent story plot for the fourth movie in the series was probably attributed to the death of the author of the four books. The author always had a strong presence in the movies and made the storyline of the movie very similar to those of the books he wrote. Since Michael Crichton died, the producers were then allowed to add what they wanted to the film without any opposition. 

There has also been speculation of a fifth movie in the series to be released because “Jurassic World” ended with parts of the story plot unanswered and setting up aspects for a follow up movie. 

However, with Crichton’s death, will the movie producers be able to write a better movie instead of relying on the reputation of the original three movies to entice audiences?