New this week... Ant-Man

Visual representation of the audience upon hearing that there may be reference to Spiderman in this movie.

 

Well the time has come for me to pay my dues as a film reviewer and look at one of the Marvel Cinema productions: Ant-Man. The problem with doing this is twofold: first of all, these movies are all given pretty close care and a huge budget - even if the money poured into this one was comparatively small (Honey, I shrunk the budget? OK, I only get two more of these...) which means that, by and large, they are all close to great, Ant-Man being no exception; secondly, I could write a review that is nothing more than a serious of "small" and "insect" puns (I won't, two more, I promise) and it wouldn't remotely affect your decision to go and see the film or not because at this point, if you're watching the Marvel movies, then you're probably signed on for the long haul - and long haul it is as these films are in no short supply (Short? Get it? OK one more...).

 

So that being said, let me play you this classic from the Marvel Movie Review Soundtrack (Set to the tune of the 1812 Overture):

 

The film looks cool and the CG's alright!

The script is funny 'cos it's Edgar Wright!

Paul Rudd is clever, there's a Stan Lee cameo!

And a character from Ultron we know!

It isn't overflowing with fan winks!

But there's enough that you can miss when you blink!

The action setpieces are among the greats!

So grab some popcorn and go see it with...YOURRR MATESSS!

 

Thank you! Thank you! Next stop, Rosebud on Broadway!

 

Seriously, though you've seen this review before. Ant-Man is better than some, not as good as others but a fun film that, when all is said and done, will be lumped into the "good" category of Marvel films.

 

But Marvel (and Disney) have dug themselves a little bit of a hole in that their other projects have been so incredible that one can't help but hold their works to a higher standard, even when those works are pretty successful on their own. So with that in mind, there are some elements of the film which didn't work quite so well.

 

First and foremost, while the script is playful and funny throughout most of the film (Edgar Wright's influence lingering after his departure from the project), the remaining holes that have been filled in by replacement Payton Reed leave the film looking patchy, oscillating between irreverent humour and stodgy forced character development. For example, there is a line early in the film that is such an obvious set up for the final scene that I almost laughed (it is a literal Men in Black-esque "See that button? Never touch that button!") which, in the hands of Edgar Wright I am certain would have been played ironically but, as it is, is tragically played completely straight.

 

The action setpieces themselves are brilliant - it's wonderful to see the destructiveness of previous Avengers films played out on egg cartons and cereal boxes. But the gag of "impressive thing looks less impressive when seen real-size" is used a few too many times.

 

Finally, from a film series that has given us Loki, who will go down as one of the better cinema villains of the era, the villain (should I say, ANTagonist? That's three! Nailed it!) of Ant-Man, played by Corey Stoll is the most cartoonishly evil badguy since the Joel Schumacher Batman movies. I know it might seem like a petty gripe given that I'm talking about the villain  in a comic book movie , but seriously, this guy makes the Green Goblin look nuanced.

Spot the bad guy. Hint: he's he one that looks like Lex Luthor.

 

Overall, as I've already said, you probably already know whether or not you're going to see and even enjoy this film. For those who will come out saying "It's amazing! Marvel can do no wrong!", I'd say, "I get why you say that, but calm down, don't overdo it." And for those who will come out saying "Well, that's it, the Marvel movies have finally run out of ideas!", I'd say "I get why you say that, but calm down, don't overdo it." And then for fun I might add, "Don't get ants in your pants."

 

That's a wrap.

 

Written by: James Tibbetts

Directed by: Eli Roth

Digital Effects by: blogger.com

Catering by: James' wife

Best Boy: Tchaikovski

All opinions expressed herein are my own but by all means feel free to parrot them to your friends as if you thought of them, I mean, it's not like I'm going to know, right?

 

There you go, internet. Now why don't you go ape over me for a while?



Rerun... Rollerball (The 1975 one, relax)

"Social Commentary! I choose you!"

 

 

Everyone remembers the first violent film that they encountered. Some snuck into the cinema to see Nightmare on Elm Street. Some were just watching post-watershed TV and were caught offguard by A Clockwork Orange or Urban Legend. Others were sat down by a parent and told, "Look, if this gets too much, tell me, but this film is awesome!" And so it was for me with Rollerball. What I remember most about the first viewings of this film is a sense of "Wow, the violent bits are fun. I don't understand the rest but I'm sure I will when I'm a bit older!" So now that I am older, and a bit wiser (shut up, yes I am), I've returned to Rollerball to see whether I can enjoy it on a new level.

 

It is the future (the distant lands of 2018, to be specific) and corporate businesses have replaced governments world wide. It is almost a utopia - to quote the film's enigmatic tagline: "In the future there will be no wars, but there will be Rollerball". Rollerball has replaced every sport and is played in practically every city on the planet. It is technically a ballgame (think handball meets fight club meets Starlight Express), but it has one significant difference: it is a full contact blood sport. The corporations use rollerball to show an ever-more bloodthirsty populace that individuality is pointless, that you can only achieve anything through cooperation, which keeps the masses subdued. We view the story through the perspective of Jonathon E, key player in the Houston team and star of the sport who, becoming the very kind of individual that the corporations fear, is asked to retire and, when he says no, the rules are changed to make the game more and more dangerous in an effort to put a permanent end to Jonathon E's celebrity.

 

If that plot summary seems a little cliche to you, well, you're not wrong. And yes, my nose wrinkles as well at a film trying to suggest that a sport (even a violent one) could be so universally loved that it would quash all individual thought (a concept actually done better in a much, much worse film The Running Man, where the game is a punishment for criminals as well as entertainment). And when the film does go for the hard-hitting social commentary, it misses "subtle" by a wide margin.

Spot the bad guy. Hint: he's the one engulfed in flame.

 

But that's kind of how dystopian sport movies are. Think about the aforementioned The Running Man, or Death Race 2000, released only months before Rollerball. Even the wonderfully made Battle Royale spends so much time building the parameters of its game that the time left for the actual message falls on the short side.

 

And on the subject of world-building, Rollerball surpasses even Battle Royale (if you know me, you know how big a statement that is). There is never a point at which the audience would realistically question the world which Rollerball inhabits, as the characters are never caricatured or overplayed. The film is not even particularly "sci-fi" (save for one scene where we see an unrealistically powerful pistol). Most importantly, the sport of rollerball makes absolute sense. The opening ten minutes of the film manage, for me, to do what cricket has failed to do in twenty-five years: concisely explain the rules in a way that makes absolute sense, without boring me to tears. The sport is so playable in fact that the cast and crew did exactly that between takes (minus the violence, one hopes, but then this is James Caan...) and the director, Norman Jewison, was horrified to learn that there was interest in starting real-world rollerball leagues.

If only J.K. Rowling had been so conscientious...

 

Combine the immersive sense of the world that is built through the film, the clear message being portrayed and some impeccable acting from the lead performers, and you have a film that absolutely deserves the praise it received in its own era.

 

The reason, however, that it is worth returning to the film today is that, forty years down the line, the movie has taken on new significance. Perhaps one of the most significant criticisms that a modern audience could have of Rollerball is that it isn't violent enough. As realistic as the game itself looks, we are asked to believe that people are literally dying to Shatner-esque faux punches and, this being the 70s, you rarely see the "blood" part of "bloodsport".

Dave's "Line Painting With My Face" business was short-lived.

 

But isn't that fascinating in itself? A film from the 70s states that one day we will be so obsessed with violence that we will cease to see the horror in it, and in the 2010s, we release The Hunger Games, bloodier by far, as a 12A? It's an interesting thought and shows, if nothing else, that Rollerball was foreward thinking enough to almost be considered precognative.

 

Overall, I'm left curiously torn by this movie. When I was younger, the violent bits thrilled me because I was young, and the talky bits bored me because I didn't understand them. Now that I have a greater appreciation of cinema and the world at large, I find the talky bits are a bit heavy-handed and the violent bits aren't quite violent enough to make the point that it is trying to make. However, given that those reactions are exactly what the film criticises in its audience, it's hard not to be completely captivated by a film that wasn't just striding ahead of its time, but skating.

 

That's a wrap.

Was that in cinemas?... Primer

"Ok, ok. I'll explain the plot one more time..."

 

In all honesty, this movie barely qualifies for my "Was that in cinemas?" segment (designed to tell you about movies that you may not have seen), because if you know me and have ever had a discussion with me about cinema, I've probably already demanded that you watch Primer. It's a film that I feel so passionately about that I've actually had to remind myself from time to time to stop banging on about it quite so much. But now that I've got a louder drum, let me play the tune once more. Strap in, swallow an aspirin, and prepare for potentially one of the most interesting and difficult movies you've ever watched.

 

The plot of Primer seems simple enough. Abe and Aaron are two brainy engineers, suffering as meaningless pawns in their day-job and trying to work out a lucrative side-project for their off hours. They create a device that is intended to reduce an object's mass but, while they succeed, they find that there is a strange side effect. The object also goes back in time. Now, these guys are not your average mad-scientist stereotypes - the kinds who invent time travel and then immediately go back and punch a dinosaur in the face - these guys are smart. They meticulously plan out the best way to optimise the use of their new invention without mucking up the timeline (spoiler alert: it involves a lot of sitting around in a hotel room for twelve hours not talking to anyone). At first it works brilliantly, the boys play the stocks just enough so that the extra cash flow looks legitimate on their tax returns, but when human error causes a blip in the timeline and nothing drastic happens, Abe and Aaron begin testing the boundaries of what they can get away with (starting with a brilliantly natural "theoretical" discussion concerning whether you could punch your boss in the face, then go back and stop yourself doing it so that you still have the experience without the consequences) .

 

Now, that may sound as generic as a time travel movie could come, but trust me when I say that this film is completely different from anything else from the genre. Do you remember that scene in Looper when Bruce Willis tells Joseph Gordon-Levitt that he's not going to sit there and explain how time travel works because it would just be a waste of time, and it's a blatant nod to the audience to say "Look, just shut up and enjoy it."? Well Primer is the polar opposite of this. You literally need an engineering degree to follow the jargon being tossed around during the construction scenes, and the dialogue of "how time travel works in practice" is so fast-paced and complicated that I challenge anyone to actually get this film on the first watching. Even XKCD, notable "smart person" comic couldn't make sense of the timeline of the film.

Already, I hear some of you saying, "Jamie, why on Earth would I want to watch a film this confusing?" The answer is that, primarily due to the complicated plot structure and the unforgiving lack of exposition or explanation, the film is more immersive than many of today's blockbusters. As the characters begin to become more and more confused, losing track of where and when they are, misremembering things and making mistakes, so does the audience. There was a moment during my first viewing of Primer when I became so lost that I thought "No, I need to rewind this and try and make sense of that last scene, I don't get it." Then, as I did so, I began to laugh. I had had to go back in time to try and make sure that I wasn't making mistakes in the timeline of the movie. In that moment, it struck me that this may be the cleverest movie I'd seen in a long time.

 

It is also worth noting that the film is incredibly well made, given the budget of $7000 (I'd call it a shoestring budget, but I rather think they didn't have money to spare on shoestrings) and particular credit has to be given to Shane Curruth in his capacity as Director, Producer, Writer, Star, Sound Designer and Editor (as well as being a former software engineer himself). It is one of these films that really does seem like an impossible feat.

 

Of course, the biggest selling points of the film are also its biggest weaknesses. There was no way that Primer was ever going to make it big in the box office because so few people have the patience for films as confusing as this one (and even fewer want to pay to see it in a cinema without the luxury of pausing, rewinding or starting over). And the small budget means that there are no big setpieces, but a lot of "talky" scenes. Indeed, it's another one of these films that you, as reader, will probably have already decided whether you are going to watch. However, while I would normally encourage people to fight that gut reaction to certain movies, on this occasion I'm going to tell you to trust that instinct. If this film piques your interest because "OO! Smart Sci-Fi!" then you will absolutely enjoy this film (and go mad trying to figure it all out), but if you are currently thinking "Doesn't this blog usually have more pictures?" then I'd give it a miss. You don't have to be smart to enjoy the film, but you definitely need to be ready to feel stupid. And as incredible as Primer is, trust me, you'll be glad that you took that aspirin.

 

That's a wraaaa...AAAH! WHAT'S HAPPENING?

 

 

"Ok, ok. I'll explain the plot one more time..."

In all honesty, this movie barely qualifies for my "Was that in cinemas?" segment (designed to tell you about movies that you may not have seen), because if you know me and have ever had a discussion with me about cinema, I've probably...

 

Rerun... Boyhood

Oh, thank God! Thank God you turned out beautiful!

 

"Unique" is one of these buzzwords that critics throw around when they mean to say "Something I wish I could see more of". However, that creates a problem for films that are genuinely unique to some degree, because, if they are successful in their uniqueness, they will immediately be emulated by other films and franchises, destroying that individuality. Think about it: The Avengers was a (mostly) unique endeavour - doing something that had never been done on that scale before and, more importantly, pulling it off. But Age of Ultron came out and the first movie became less of an individual animal. Soon, we'll have a Justice League movie and The Avengers will be made less special again. It's uniqueness is gradually degraded by people who try to copy it.

 

With Boyhood, however, a certain amount of future-proofing has been achieved. Richard Linklater set out to do something twelve years ago and, now that it's complete, you can be sure that there won't be another film to rival it's individuality for at least another decade. On a critical level, I find that fascinating. However, since this is going to be the film that, for a long time, will be "that film that was shot over twelve years", one has to hope that it is also an enjoyable film to watch. Now, unless you've been living under a rock during Oscar season, you'll probably be aware that most critics have said "Yes! It is! Why haven't you seen this film yet?!" Indeed, it is one of only eleven films to be given a Metascore of 100. But I'm going to take an unpopular stance. Unpopular because it goes against the grain of people who know this trade far better than I do. Unpopular because it contradicts the efforts of a project which I fully respect (trust me, cinema desperately needs more directors like Linklater, and more studios willing to take risks on projects like this). But mostly unpopular because, if you've read my recent Henry Poole is Here review, I'm about to be a hypocrite on the internet.

  You knew the rules when you started this! Now come out here and face us!

 

You see, I didn't really enjoy Boyhood because (deep breath) nothing much happens.

 

In terms of the plot, the film follows Mason (six years old at the movie's opening and eighteen at it's close - real-time for anyone who doesn't already know) as he grows up the child of divorced parents. It follows the struggles of his mother (Patricia Arquette) trying to support her children through the formative years of thier life, as well as entertaining a string of (almost comically) villainous husbands. Mason's father (Ethan Hawke) shows up intermittently throughout to play "cool dad who we hang out with at the weekends", gradually evolving to "mature family man but for a different family". Eventually, Mason grows up through high school and has to look towards college and the rest of his life. And...that's sort of it. The film shows that the formative years of boyhood (OH! That's why they called it that!) are extremely difficult sometimes. Your family generally loves you, but they've got their own pressures and problems. High school is scary. Not everyone knows what they want to do when they head off to college.

 

And I'm left thinking this: If I'm six, then I don't care. If I'm sixteen, then I don't believe this film actually represents me. If I'm twenty-six, then...well...I already know all that stuff that I just described. In a sense, and perhaps this is why the film didn't work for me, I think this film most applies to adults who have had to be on the outside of these experiences. As a visual medium, you are inherently left on the outside looking in, so maybe the film is for those people who have watched their children grow and learn and struggle and rejoice. Not for people like me who have just lived it.

 

On the positive side, the acting throughout is superb. It is unsurprising that of all the accolades that the film has received (and there are many - Wikipedia requires a completely seperate page to catalogue them), a considerable portion of them are awarded to the actors.

Twelve years? It's about. Damn. Time!

 

The acting spotlight is very much on Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke who manage the impossible by keeping their relationship and characterisation consistent over such a long project to the point that I'm surprised, looking at their unbelievable "family" chemistry on screen, that they never actually ended up together behind the scenes. However, the young (and then less young) Ellar Coltrane, who plays Mason, and Lorelei Linklater, daughter of the director, who plays Mason's sister, both hold up their ends admirably throughout the project. And while, yes, Mason's sullenness and his sister's brattiness get annoying at times, it never feels unreal or charicatured. And when the cast pulls together for the bigger emotional moments in the film (a particular example being when Hawke tells his son that he's sold his souped-up "midlife crisis" car, and Coltrane explains that he expected to get the car for his sixteenth birthday - the scene is played with such tension and emotion that we are just waiting for Hawke to turn a corner and yell "Kidding! Of course you're getting the car!" except that that's not how life works), they are very, very affecting.

 

That being said, the film still leaves me a little cold. While there are numerous individual moments that I could point out and say "that was well done" or "that was beautiful", the bits in between are still "that's kind of boring" and "does that really need to be in this film?" Yes, I know, that's exactly what life itself is like, and that's kind of the point of the film, but life is long, and this film is only a little under three hours, so with an average of fourteen minutes given to each year, there's just not enough time to engage. It's real but it doesn't make for a very interesting movie.

 

Unless, as I mentioned at the beginning of the review, this film isn't for me. If this film is holding up a mirror to the people around Mason as he grows up (fathers, mothers, older sisters etc.) rather than to people like me (boys growing through the formative years of their life in the last twenty or so years who started out as introverts but ended up just, unbelievably talented and attractive), then perhaps the film works on a level that I simply can't appreciate.

 

Yet.

 

Given some time, with a few more experiences under my belt - maybe a family started and a career underway, perhaps this is a film I'll come to love on a second-watching. But I think I'll give it twelve years.

 

That's a wrap.



New this week (sort of)... Jurassic World Audio Spoiler Review with David Robertson

Audio review with David Robertson of Jurassic World. Strictly for those who have already seen it as we are discussing the film in light of all those things that would spoil it for those who haven't caught it yet.

Apologies for the mucked up audio on David's end. Was my fault with the equipment setup.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzGLBXxnyuI&feature=youtu.be

The video that David refers to that I said I would link is as follows:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w-58hQ9dLk

Rerun... Henry Poole is Here

Why, yes, it is an indie arthouse film! How on Earth did you guess?

There is a genre of films which I adore but that I have real trouble talking to people about because my description of the genre is a bit off-putting: I love films where nothing happens. Now by this, I don't mean that the films are boring or that there is nothing said (indeed, they make up some of the most powerful pieces of cinema in existence, in my opinion). Rather, what I am referring to are films that don't feel the need to have big, fantastical set-pieces, but are content to limit the action to real people going through real life emotions and scenarios and, mostly, just talking about them.

I know, I really sold it, right?

My awful advertising aside, there are some truly brilliant films that fit the "Nothing really happens" genre: Garden State is perhaps the most famous. The Last Kiss or 50/50 are less well known. And then you get films like Henry Poole is Here. This is the kind of film that lives on these pretentious online lists of "Spectacular Movies That You've Never Seen" and I'm here to tell you (hopefully without pretentiousness) that I have seen it, and you should too. But you're going to need to be patient because this movie is about God.

 No, no wait! Only sort of! It's a thought piece! A thought pieeeeece!

Luke Wilson plays Henry Poole, a man who has recently discovered that he has a terminal disease and could go from perfectly healthy to dead at any moment. In his understandable despair, he decides to live out his remaining days in the last place that he can remember being truly happy: his childhood home (however, he is unable to get the exact house and has to settle for one a few doors down - isn't that the most wonderful image of the futility of man's machinations?). Henry is content to take the house as quickly as possible, specifically asking the estate agent not to worry about haggling or fixing the water stain on the outside wall, instead choosing to stay alone, wallowing in depression (and vodka). That is until his religious neighbour Esperanza (Adriana Barazza) thinks she sees the face of Christ in the water stain and that it is a holy miracle. What follows for the first half of the film is a gentle comedy which shows Henry's growing frustration at the ever expanding cult of Christians arriving at his door to see the "miracle" while he engages in a one-man-and-his-hose battle against the stubborn stain that refuses to disappear.

No, Mr Wilson, the camera is over there. Oh, forget it.

What happens around the midpoint of the movie, though, is a complete tonal shift to a deep, thoughtful and really quite emotional second half. Henry begins to fall for the woman next door (Radha Mitchell) and when her daughter, Millie (the almost too adorable Morgan Lily), who hasn't spoken in over a year touches the wall and whispers "Mommy", Henry begins to doubt his own cynicism and is left with the decision: Which is worse? To die never having experienced hope? Or to put your faith in something and have it not work?

The story really rather speaks for itself - you've probably already decided for yourself whether or not this film is for you. Where the film passes from "meaningful to some" and into "no, seriously, watch this movie" is in two things: it is a brilliantly scored film, and it has some of the most beautiful cinematography that I have ever seen on screen. Not flashy, not elaborate, just beautifully staged.

Of the music, one can only say so much in a written review. It has a host of soft indie tracks that work perfectly with the understated and mellow story. Badly Drawn Boy's Promises is a sterling example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=742uUWqB9AY There are songs in this film that give me misty eyes just listening to them, so when you add them to an emotional plot, well, you can only imagine,

Similarly, the cinematography has to be experienced, rather than explained. The example that I tell people about, however, because I think it might be one of the loveliest shots of cinema in the last ten years, is a shot from the viewpoint of the "face" on the wall on the night that Henry almost lets himself believe. Wonderfully acted by Luke Wilson, you can see how desperately he wants to touch the wall and have it heal him and so he reaches out to camera and stops just short, then slowly comes back to himself as he realises the absurdity of what he's doing. I can't do it justice, but trust me it's lovely.

All that aside, I wouldn't criticise anyone for saying that Henry's moodiness drags on for just a little bit too long in the first half of the movie and as the need for plot progression ramps up, so do the miracles, becoming more and more difficult to explain, which detracts significantly from the careful ambiguity that the film tries to maintain. And by the end, the film's main theme of "religious or not, all you need is hope" get's pretty heavy-handed. Also, it is a completely fair question (of this film and the Christian religion in general) to ask: if this is God, then how come he's looking after a few white people again, rather than, you know, those millions of needy Africans, for example? (I direct you Tim Minchin saying this better than I ever could. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZeWPScnolo)

But for all that is good or bad about the film, what I think is most interesting about it is that, in my opinion, you need to be somewhat on the fence to really enjoy the film. Staunch believers will be too mystified by the miracles (which many, I suppose, wouldn't even question) to notice the film's fairly explicit message of "belief is what you make it", and hard atheists will be too busy googling the possible medical and psychological explanations for the "miracles" to accept the film's even more explicit message of "not everything needs an explanation". It is, perhaps, one of the few niche films for agnostics (though if you are a Christian or an Atheist and feel I've been unfair there, I'd relish the chance to hear your opinion of the film). I think this point is illustrated very clearly in the critical reception of the movie which ranges from "cute and quirky" to "downright abhorrent" which seems to be based mostly on the individual critic's perception of how religious the film is intending to be.

And finally, because I know you're wondering: yes, you see the wall stain from many different angles and, no, I won't tell you if I think I can see the face. You'll have to decide for yourself whether the power of Christ resides within this powerful, interesting and underrated movie. I hope to God you get it right.

Egotistical to suggest that a deity reads your blog? Naaah...

That's a wrap.

New this week... Jurassic World

Disney's tactics for actors who run from the Marvel Universe are ruthless

Twenty-two years ago, Bill Clinton was president, Beanie Babies had just hit the market, and everyone was talking about one movie: Cool Runnings. And Schindler's List. And Groundhog Day. And Nightmare Before Christmas. Man, 1993 was a good year for movies... Anyway, amongst all of these classics, there was one film that showed the world something it had never seen before. This film took practical effects to new heights, it changed the very landscape of what we thought possible on film. It brought monsters to life before our very eyes.

Sometimes science truly can go too far

And also, Jurassic Park came out.

Jurassic Park was, and remains, one of the most ambitious projects in the history of cinema. After creating an almost perfectly realistic horror monster out of Bruce the Shark in Jaws, Stephen Spielberg wanted to up the ante again and create realistic dinosaurs using (mostly) practical effects. Not only did he manage, but those effects still hold up by today's standards. Throw in the fact that it has a legitimate environmental message and is terrifying to boot? There's no prizes for figuring out why this film is so successful.

Fast forward to 2015 (walking swiftly with lowered heads past the two failed sequels) and we find ourselves back on Isla Nublar again to see if we can invoke that same awe and spectacle as the original. The park is now up and running, but audiences are no longer impressed with your bog-standard T-Rex anymore, so InGen has created a bigger, badder dinosaur which they hope will thrill their paying customers (wow...I wonder what that might be a reference to?). Of course, the dino goes rogue and slaughters half the park (so, maybe not, then?).

Jurassic World is, unfortunately, one of those films that you can't really review without spoiling things, so as far as answering, "Is the movie good?", I'll say this: It's mostly fantastic. You should absolutely check it out. If you have any love for the Jurassic Park franchise, or action adventure movies in general, then you can add this movie to your collection, I'm certain. Perhaps, though, the more interesting question that I could explore in this spoiler-free review (spoiler-full review to follow) is "Do I need to have watched the first three movies to enjoy this one?" The answer to that is "No, not if you just want to enjoy this film. However, you absolutely must see them if you are going to catch the many, many, subtle nods and winks that this film pays to the franchise as a whole."

Dinosaurs aren't great at subtle winks...

As you may have picked up on in my brief plot summary, Jurassic World is extremely meta. I'm not kidding, if this film were any more self-aware, the new hybrid-dino would be called the Spielbergadon. Jurassic World, while desperately trying to craft itself as different enough to be it's own animal, is more desperately digging through the remains of the previous Jurassic Park films for the things that audiences loved and hated (including a scene where they literally dig through the remains of the previous Jurassic Park). This attempt at recreating the good and parodying the bad of the franchise makes the film into something of a paradox: what it gets right it gets really right, because it pays such due reverence to what made its predecessor great. On the other hand, what it gets wrong, it gets really wrong, because it is so hasty to make the "Hey, look! The scientists are cutting corners and ham-fistedly upping the stakes! Just like we did in those two sequels, am I right?", that it fails to notice that there are scenes in this film which are just as ham-fisted and ridiculous as anything out of movies two and three.

Examples: When practical dinosaurs are used, rather than CGI, they look fantastic. There is one scene in a particular in which Chris Pratt holds a dinosaur's head in his hands and the weight of the thing is obvious on screen. Beautifully done but impossible to do realistically with CG. Also, they really nail the "hidden things lurking in the bushes" thing that was so, so great in Jurassic Park.

£10 says your brain read that in his exact voice,

On the other end of things though, when the CGI is abused, it looks seriously stupid. A particularly bad offender is the scene (which is in the trailer) of the Pteradons escaping their pen. The CGI helicopter smashes through a CGI glass ceiling past a swarm of CGI pteradons and crash lands with a CGI explosion in front of a CGI dinosaur. And it all looks so fake. Now, I know what you are saying, "Jamie, this film is about dinosaurs, of course it looks fake". But I direct you back to the above GIF. That raptor looks real. It looks scary. Granted it doesn't look particularly clever, but my point stands.

In all, Jurassic World is an incredible romp for those of you who just want a popcorn muncher movie. It is a wonderfully funny and self-aware nostalgia trip to any fans of the franchise. But to those of you who were genuinely looking for this film to rise above Lost World and Jurassic Park 3, and reclaim the lofty heights of the original? This film will be an emotional rollercoaster. Jurassic World displays the best of what is good about this franchise, some scenes are on par with the first film. But it also displays the worst of what is bad about the franchise, with some scenes so ridiculous I could only laugh at the absurdity of it. And it oscillates so wildly between these two extremes that your hand will be jumping back and forth between covering your mouth and slapping your forehead.

It balances out to a movie that I would absolutely call good, but I'll tell you the problem with the movie that you're screening here: uh...it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read the screenplays that others had done and you took the next step! You didn't earn the franchise for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility...uh, for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could and before you even knew it, you had. So you, uh... patented it and packaged it and slapped on a plastic lunchbox and now, well, you're selling it, you want to sell it. And with a sequel already in the works, you can't help but think that Hollywood was so preoccupied with whether or not they could, that they never even stopped to consider whether or not they should. Food for...uh...thought.

That's a wrap.