BySam Wells, writer at

To check out my review of this movie on YouTube check out the link here:

My review:
Since 1993, the Jurassic Park movies have played a big role in revolutionising cinema, showing us a whole new side to the industry previously unseen.
A movie about dinosaurs on an island wreaking havoc? It sounds amazing. For a while (until the release of Titanic in 1997) Jurassic Park was the highest grossing movie of all time. People all over the world enjoyed this beautiful piece of cinema. However, the sequels, The Lost World: Jurassic Park and Jurassic Park III, caused disdain for the franchise within the community because of the poor quality of these films. So when it was announced there would be a 4th film in the franchise there was both excitement and concern over the reception it would receive.
Now right off the bat we can already tell that this is going to be a mixed movie. So I have listed below for you my likes and dislikes about the film.

Good things:
1. Chris Pratt's character - I loved him in this role. I enjoyed seeing the relationship between him and the raptors. It gave a compassionate side to his character which I feel like the film needed a lot more of.
2. The new dinosaur, named the Indominous Rex, is absolutely brilliant. The creativity of the CGI department caused this dinosaur to resemble the stuff of nightmares. Its role is to create havoc on the island which it does by communicating with the other dinosaurs.

Bad things:
1. Vincent D'Onofrio's character - I hated the living hell out of this fella. He attempts to militiarise the dinosaurs for the use of battle in areas across the world such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia etc. I felt he was a pointless character who was irrelevant to the plot of the film. For me, he was the male version of Dolores Umbridge from the Harry Potter movies and like her, could easily have been disposed of a lot earlier.
2. The gaping plot hole of the story is "why are people being allowed back to the island when the previous 3 movies are completely based around why this might not be the best of ideas?" But no it's not explained at all. It created a lack of continuity as there is no mention of the previous disasters on the exact same island from earlier movies. This is particularly strange given that this is supposed to be a direct sequel to Jurassic Park III.
3. There is way too much focus on the human characters. As we all enjoy a good bad guy like Heath Ledger's Joker, one way to improve this movie would have been more screen time focused on the ferocious, human-eating dinosaurs rather than the somewhat weak plot of the human characters.
Claire Dearing plays the central character who runs the park. Her two nephews are played by Nick Robinson and Ty Simpkins.
Nick Robinson shows less facial expression than Kristen Stewart and the Slender man and his character has nothing better to do than stare at girls all day whilst not seeming to give a crap about being surrounded by live dinosaurs.
Ty Simpkins' character on the other hand seems to be nothing more than an over excited annoying little brat. I mean I'd understand that you're actually going to see creatures that died out 65 million years ago back alive again and that would get you pumped and excited, but he keeps on talking about every single dinosaur out there and it felt like I was in school again being forced to learn about stuff that's just unnecessary for the duration of the experience.

So in the end guys like I said, there were some good points as well as bad. Frankly, in my opinion, it should just stay as it is and the Jurassic Park franchise should end it there and make no more movies. It genuinely feels like this was a forced sequel that no one asked for.

Final grade: C
Worth seeing? If you want to re-live childhood nostalgia or have an excuse to make out with your partner in the dark then I say go for it bro!


Latest from our Creators