We don't go to very many movies. Quite honestly, there aren't many we would pay to see any more. My wife and I don't just want to see action and special effects. We don't care for 3D for the sake of 3D. We don't want to see something without a plot, something that will embarrass us, or something too graphic. What I want is a story - something that will make me think, something that will build, characters that develop and change. I don't care for many of the freshest actors, and can't even identify that many of them.
Still, when we read Jurassic Park 25 years ago, we had to see the movie version. Full surround sound was something new, and we took advantage of it, sitting in exactly the recommended spot in the theater, and it paid off. It was a movie in which viewers vocally reacted, and it was fun to watch even if it wasn't the same as the original novel. That book turned us on to Michael Crichton's other books, which always employed the same literary tool - that of putting together teams of scientists and professionals to explore something unknown, whether it be a submerged spacecraft in the ocean or the hidden ancient ruins of a jungle. Crichton had a distinct way of making science fiction plausible, and he crafted his stories with plot and characters in mind.
But Crichton did not have a hand in the new incarnation/sequel known as Jurassic World. We knew that going in.
Still, when we read Jurassic Park 25 years ago, we had to see the movie version. Full surround sound was something new, and we took advantage of it, sitting in exactly the recommended spot in the theater, and it paid off. It was a movie in which viewers vocally reacted, and it was fun to watch even if it wasn't the same as the original novel. That book turned us on to Michael Crichton's other books, which always employed the same literary tool - that of putting together teams of scientists and professionals to explore something unknown, whether it be a submerged spacecraft in the ocean or the hidden ancient ruins of a jungle. Crichton had a distinct way of making science fiction plausible, and he crafted his stories with plot and characters in mind.
But Crichton did not have a hand in the new incarnation/sequel known as Jurassic World. We knew that going in.
Still, this was a wild ride. More richly developed characters would have been nice, but the science behind the story provided enough believability that it satisfied us. Jurassic World made us believe that velociraptors could be trained and tamed to a degree, that superdinos could be genetically-engineered, that a company would "spare no expense" to continually push the envelope to attract more and more paying customers. On top of these things, we also loved all the nostalgic nods to the original movie.
That being said, the graphic and intense scenes warranted a PG-13 rating for this movie. I suspect the same story could have been told, with care to only indirectly handle the more gratuitous scenes, garnering a PG rating. And the box office would not have suffered for it. I didn't need to see flying reptiles tossing a lady through the air, fighting over which would get to eat her. I didn't need to see characters being bitten and swallowed to understand that was what was happening. The director could have captured all of those same ideas with a little more creativity and discretion.
For this reason, I would not recommend Jurassic World for children under 13. After all, that's what the rating indicates, isn't it? I'm sure I'll meet many nine-year-olds who have seen this movie though, and I will happily discuss our opinions of the picture and where we think the next installment will take us.
That being said, the graphic and intense scenes warranted a PG-13 rating for this movie. I suspect the same story could have been told, with care to only indirectly handle the more gratuitous scenes, garnering a PG rating. And the box office would not have suffered for it. I didn't need to see flying reptiles tossing a lady through the air, fighting over which would get to eat her. I didn't need to see characters being bitten and swallowed to understand that was what was happening. The director could have captured all of those same ideas with a little more creativity and discretion.
For this reason, I would not recommend Jurassic World for children under 13. After all, that's what the rating indicates, isn't it? I'm sure I'll meet many nine-year-olds who have seen this movie though, and I will happily discuss our opinions of the picture and where we think the next installment will take us.
