Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom hit cinemas this week with an explosion of teeth, scales, lava, and increasingly tenuous plot points. WIRED's Andy Vandervell and Victoria Turk suspend their disbelief and dissect the latest film in the Jurassic Park franchise, which, like a genetically-modified dinosaur, is starting to stray a bit too far from its original DNA.
Looking for more movies to watch? Check out WIRED's guide to the best films of 2018.
Warning: this article contains significant spoilers for Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom
Victoria Turk: All right, so we're back at Jurassic World, except now the tables have turned and the dinosaurs are the ones in trouble, as the volcano on Isla Nubar threatens imminent eruption. Our heroes set out to rescue the de-extincted from a second extinction - which we're supposed to believe is a good idea. What were your initial thoughts, Andy? Did you enjoy the film?
Andy Vandervell: This is by far the silliest film of the series. It's always been summer blockbuster material and not the thought-provoking chin scratcher people sometimes imagine, but... it works. I was convinced I hated it at times, but by the end it won me over. How about you?
VT: I'd say that's about right. You know I love all things Jurassic Park and this delivered a good dino hit - but it was definitely very, very silly. Almost too silly. I suppose it's hard to keep topping yourself on film 5, and there's only so many times "huge scary dinosaur gets eaten by huger, scarier dinosaur" can fly as a crucial plot point. Let's start out with the storyline - it's a fresh take on what a Jurassic Park film should be, and I have to say, it meant some pretty epic visuals in the first part of the film, what with all the streaming lava and dramatic water scenes.
AV: Fresh-ish. I'm not a massive fan of this constant "we've invented a new dinosaur and this one's really scary this time" schtick. Stick with the classics: why can't we just have a really angry diplodocus, eh?
But yeah, visually it's incredible. I didn't think I could still be impressed by CGI dinosaurs, but I totally am. Visually, it's superb. Some of the bits with lava were a bit iffy, but it really delivers on the big screen effects. It's totally worth seeing it at the cinema, especially if you're a fan of the series.
VT: Oh man, the new dinosaur! That was my worst bit. This film follows Jurassic World in introducing us to a genetically-modified dino, this time called the Indoraptor (a hybrid raptor and Indominus rex, naturally). But the fake dinos are getting a bit too far from reality - to me, the Indoraptor seemed more like a fantasy dragon or Godzilla or something, which kind of defeats the whole joy of the Jurassic Park series in the first place.
And I am totally with you on an angry diplodocus - this film, like other Jurassic films before it, really draws a line between the carnivorous dinosaurs (generally bad) and the herbivores (good). But, like, wouldn't being accidentally trodden on by a diplodocus actually be a very scary proposition? I'm a bit tired of the hunter-prey dynamic between dinosaurs and humans and I think there could be some really cool things to play with in future in terms of human-dinosaur interactions... but I digress. So once we're off Isla Nubar, we find out that - surprise! - all is not what it seems, and not everyone has dinosaur rights as their top priority. What did you make of the whole dinosaur militarization plot, with the baddies trying to sell off the remaining living dinos in a black market bidding war?
Read more: Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom and the long history of dodgy dinos
AV: Well, this is where it almost lost me. I mean, it's downright dumb. It all felt a bit "How to train my murderous dinosaur" but, no matter how well-trained, the idea of using a dinosaur in combat is so stupendously dumb it almost ruins the film. Some really great action, visual gags and decent performances from Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas-Howard (back for their roles as Owen Grady and Claire Dearing) rescued things for me, but I can see other people losing interest.
The key question, for me at least, is can the franchise rise above cheap, predictable plots like this, or is big, dumb fun about all we can expect from a concept that's been squeezed of most of its entertainment value?
VT: Hahaha OK, I think lots of people are with you on that one. I don't mind the basic idea of the combat dinosaur plot; it's an obvious one, but it carries the "humans are actually more destructive than dinos" torch pretty well. But it did get way too ridiculous. Which plot point was least believable to you - the T-rex-to-raptor blood transfusion; the idea that you could keep a dinosaur menagerie in a stately home without anyone finding out about it; or that the last living Ankylosaurus would sell for a measly $10 million?
AV: The T-rex-to-raptor blood transfusion was utterly bonkers, but that's the kind of film and series it's become. I'm struggling to see where this goes next.
VT: Oh, but we know where this goes next Andy! Because that ending gives a whole new meaning to "Jurassic World"!
AV: Right, let's talk about that. It makes sense as an ending, but I can't get excited about the possibilities for the future. It's all a bit Godzilla meets King Kong with dinosaurs. It's been done to death already.
VT: So the idea is the dinosaurs have escaped (thanks to some meddling from an obligatorily precocious kid) and now they'll live side by side with humans. This could go many ways before the next film, I suppose. Part of me is absolutely revelling in the absurdity of it all, because it is so gloriously ridiculous. But part of me is terrified that this is going to turn into a totally different franchise and lose all appeal. Anyway, didn't only one of each species escape, so they'd just die out? I don't know. I did love how they still tried to make out like it might not be a totally insane idea to save the dinosaurs at the end. How many times, guys? This never ends well.
I realise that we've got this far without hardly mentioning any of the human characters or actors, which probably says a lot about the film...
AV: Yes, although that does make some sense. This series has never been about interesting characters and, to their credit, Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard do really well with very slim material. I could live without the supporting cast, frankly, and I wonder if this film would even work without Chris Pratt. He's like the new Tom Cruise, but funny.
VT: I thought both the main characters were less annoying in this film than the last one - they weren't quite as stereotyped as the macho-male and career-woman. The two new characters, Daniella Pineda's veterinarian Zia and Justice Smith's hacker-type Franklin were utterly forgettable.
AV: Yes, but I've got to say the child character was surprisingly not-awful. There's an interesting twist (though also ridiculous) backstory there, too.
VT: Yes, that was such a promising hint at a deeper, more intriguing story - but blink and you miss it.
AV: This gets to the nub of why I think this film is a dead end for the franchise, though. It was fun. I was entertained, but it feels like they're desperate to find new ways to reinvent the series and none of the options are good. I think it's time to let the dinosaurs rest.
VT: Say it isn't so! I will always have time for dinosaur silliness, but I agree, it could benefit from being stripped back to basics. You know what my ideal next film would be right now? Only a few dinosaurs survive. Some dino-friendly folks decide to build a sanctuary for them. Then they think, hey, why not sell tickets for the public to come and see these amazing animals? Call it Jurassic... Zoo?
AV: I think you've just proved my point there, Vicki!
This article was originally published by WIRED UK
