In the original and still best “Jurassic Park” film from 1993, Jeff Goldblum’s character, Dr. Ian Malcolm, memorably states, “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.”
A similar question could be asked about the modern trilogy of “Jurassic Park” films that began with the 2015 film “Jurassic World.”
It seems that the executives at Universal Studios, which is owned by Comcast (CMCSA), were so preoccupied with exploiting the famous intellectual property that it owns, that it didn’t stop to think if they should.
Based on the best-selling book by Michael Crichton, the original “Jurassic Park” was lauded at the time for its groundbreaking, immersive effects.
Kids and kids-at-heart couldn’t believe that, dang, these dinosaurs looked real. Directed with a sure hand by Steven Spielberg (the film was, remarkably, released the same year he won an Oscar for “Schindler's List”), the film balanced spectacle, action, philosophical questions about scientific morality, and some solid character work.
The only real issue was that once the central premise of the story was resolved (i.e., gotta stop the dinosaurs from eating all the humans) there wasn’t much left to do, an impression solidified with the follow-up sequel “The Lost World: Jurassic Park,” which was a hit but earned Spielberg some of the worst reviews of his career. He didn’t return for “Jurassic Park III,” a generally forgotten closer to a trilogy that didn’t seem like it needed to be a trilogy.
Universal Pictures
Why Do These New ‘Jurassic Park’ Films Even Exist?
As Hollywood became increasingly dominated by franchise films in the later half of the ‘00s, Universal Studios had a problem on its hands. Disney had Marvel and Star Wars and Mickey Mouse. Warner Bros. had DC Comics and Harry Potter. At least Fox had the rights to the X-Men, for a while, and Sony had Spider-Man.
Comparatively, Universal’s cupboards weren’t as full. So they began making “Mission Impossible” and “The Fast And The Furious” sequels on a regular basis.
The studio also tried, and failed, to create a Dark Universe to compete with the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It would have featured Dracula, Mr. Hyde and all other classic Universal monsters, but plans were scotched when the Tom Cruise reboot on “The Mummy” flamed out in 2017. (He and Universal rebounded with the decades-later sequel “Top Gun: Maverick.”)
So even though the “Jurassic Park” sequels proved that the franchise’s core concept is fairly limited, Universal Studios plowed ahead anyways, hoping that the brand name and special effects would be enough to lure audiences in.
This would prove to be correct, though as Mel Magazine writer Tim Grierson recently noted: “I know two things for sure: First, ‘Jurassic World’ is one of the worst blockbusters of recent times and, second, that fact didn’t matter one bit, because the movie made so much money, bringing in approximately $1.7 billion worldwide.”
Universal hired the indie director Colin Trevorrow, who was earning “New Spielberg” comparisons for his indie hit “Safety Not Guaranteed,” to direct, and Chris Pratt was cast to play the dinosaur wrangler Owen Grady. The internet quickly complained that Pratt had lost all the enthusiastic charm he brought to the sitcom “Parks and Recreation” in his quest to become an action hero, and that it was ridiculous that Bryce Dallas Howard’s character ran from a dinosaur in high heels.
But the film was a hit, and a 2018 sequel “Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom” followed. Now Trevorrow, who was at one point going to direct a “Star Wars” film and saw his critical reputation suffer because of the indie film bomb “The Book of Henry,” has returned for the trilogy closer.
But it would appear that critics have lost all patience with the director and Jurassic Park in general, as the reviews suggest this might be the low point for a franchise that can’t justify its existence.
Universal Pictures
Critics Really Don’t Like “Jurassic World: Dominion.”
Much talk has been of the fact that original cast members like Goldblum, Laura Dern, and Sam Neill returned for the film. But that doesn’t seem to be enough to redeem the film, which is getting tepid reviews.
How bad? Well, Consequence writer Liz Shannon Miller says they’re rooting for the dinosaurs.
Entertainment Weekly sums up the film as "a place where everyone will attempt to look surprised to find themselves in the same fan-serving predicaments of yore, some of them for the second or third time."
Mel Magazine and Grierson note that the new cast just can't live up to the originals, even if it's not strictly their fault, as it's just an inherent problem with legacy sequels.
The Los Angeles Times is also unimpressed, coming down hard on Trevorrow.
The AV Club says it's time to stick a fork in it.
At least IGN kinda likes it.
Dang, Rolling Stone, how do you really feel?
