To me this movie is a metaphore for where our capitalist system is willingly taking us to but at the last minute and at the expense of those who don't make it, we save ourselves.
Am I the only one who thought Vincent D'Onofrio did a great Brian Dennehy? Made me miss Brian.
3
No. The resemblance was astonishing.
I kept watching hoping it would get better then it ended. It's not bad but it's not great either. i went through a range of emotions from lord help me to why am I here... I think most kids will love it though.
Jurassic World leaves a bitter taste because, in 2014, the film appears to establish yet another movie set in Costa Rica without featuring a prominent Latino character. At a time when women directors figure at less than 4% and Hispanic female directors are nonexistent, Jurassic World's director had all of ONE credit before getting hired. So what is the message from the powers that be? We are kibble? Migdia Chinea UCLA MFA TFT 2012.
2
Hispanic directors, actors, etc. should be grateful they were not included in this mess. There are better ways to earn a paycheck.
A bloated, by-the-numbers, boring exercise. The fact that it's steamrolling its way toward record box office numbers is flat-out depressing.
Hands-down best scene: Irrfan Khan and B. D. Wong's debate/confrontation. Chris Pratt DOES hold the proceedings together, despite what others say. Totally forgettable movie.
Hands-down best scene: Irrfan Khan and B. D. Wong's debate/confrontation. Chris Pratt DOES hold the proceedings together, despite what others say. Totally forgettable movie.
I went to see this movie despite the tepid review. I mean, dinosaurs!, what could be more exciting. Well, the script was so dull, so formulaic. We've seen dinosaurs eating people and destroying everything around them. Now we need to see a good story. And, alas, this one is not. The characters are totally one-dimensional. The tiny romance between the two leads is basically non-existent. (I mean, Chris Pratt! At least let him take his shirt off in a couple of scenes.) And yeah, great special effects, but so what?
Alas, my hope was that Indominus Rex would eat all the humans on the island and then escape off the islands to eat the rest of the world. Now, there's a story!
Alas, my hope was that Indominus Rex would eat all the humans on the island and then escape off the islands to eat the rest of the world. Now, there's a story!
4
‘Jurassic World,’
tbh this a good movie it sold 500 milllion view on the first day all the parts are good better then the last one they had made the first time people says its a waste of mone but really not i reall enjoyed the graphic through the movie it really caught my attentions this movie is the greatest flim of all time
tbh this a good movie it sold 500 milllion view on the first day all the parts are good better then the last one they had made the first time people says its a waste of mone but really not i reall enjoyed the graphic through the movie it really caught my attentions this movie is the greatest flim of all time
Film or ad? You decide:
“It will eat you alive.” 3D, IMAX or whatever new innovation might one day be able to chomp you in the comfort of your cinema stall. The only thing threatening Tarzan and Jane, sorry, Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard (yes, that really is her name) is the legacy of the past. Fans of the franchise have a similar fetish fest to Bond fans after Skyfall. All the old favourites come out to play – sadly no Richard Attenborough – just swap the DB9 for a Jeep with a ’92 number plate. Oh yes, and Javier Bardem for an indominus rex as the bad guy. Both have nice teeth.
For those who thought Skyfall lurched into pastiche rather than appreciation, Jurassic World is firmly in the former category. Gory, yes, but director Colin Trevorrow daubs the franchise in the blood of its former glory. Much like BD Wong’s mad scientist, Trevorrow wants to make Jurassic Park bigger, better and cooler; in short, take it from a Park to a World. First impressions are low key to say the least. Alton Towers, even with its death traps, has nothing to fear from the south american islet (actually Hawaii) that forms Jurassic World. Anyway, the fun to death ratio is far higher here. It is more Longleat, as over 22,000 paying punters become prey for the prehistoric.
Read more at:
https://rorymcinnesgibbons.wordpress.com/2015/06/17/jurassic-world-a-rev...
“It will eat you alive.” 3D, IMAX or whatever new innovation might one day be able to chomp you in the comfort of your cinema stall. The only thing threatening Tarzan and Jane, sorry, Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard (yes, that really is her name) is the legacy of the past. Fans of the franchise have a similar fetish fest to Bond fans after Skyfall. All the old favourites come out to play – sadly no Richard Attenborough – just swap the DB9 for a Jeep with a ’92 number plate. Oh yes, and Javier Bardem for an indominus rex as the bad guy. Both have nice teeth.
For those who thought Skyfall lurched into pastiche rather than appreciation, Jurassic World is firmly in the former category. Gory, yes, but director Colin Trevorrow daubs the franchise in the blood of its former glory. Much like BD Wong’s mad scientist, Trevorrow wants to make Jurassic Park bigger, better and cooler; in short, take it from a Park to a World. First impressions are low key to say the least. Alton Towers, even with its death traps, has nothing to fear from the south american islet (actually Hawaii) that forms Jurassic World. Anyway, the fun to death ratio is far higher here. It is more Longleat, as over 22,000 paying punters become prey for the prehistoric.
Read more at:
https://rorymcinnesgibbons.wordpress.com/2015/06/17/jurassic-world-a-rev...
At least the original (Jurassic Park) had wonderful actors (Jeff Goldblum's irony alone was worth the price of admission). This just follows the usual plot: "they got loose!" What did you expect? The actors react in not-so-convincing green-screen horror (what did you expect?). Boringly predictable without anything particularly remarkable in special effects.
Oh, many dinosaurs had feathers and raptors were small (though just as lethal). Now that (with the addition of some good acting) might have made a different movie.
Oh, many dinosaurs had feathers and raptors were small (though just as lethal). Now that (with the addition of some good acting) might have made a different movie.
I walked out halfway thru. what a wast of money, for me and fiilm
3
Kudos to you for having the guts to do what I didn't lol. That is 2h 4m I will never get back.
Hopefully it was shot digitally, so no 'film' was wasted.
Hollywood refuses to answer the serious question about how many dinosaurs were injured or killed during the filming of this movie. PETA advocates boycotting the film until Hollywood comes clean!
My friends all recently saw Jurassic World, and the loved it. They told me that I would like it, but I am not into dinosaur movies. I saw this article and wanted to see what the movie was like and get an idea of it. The movie looked better than the Jurassic Park movie. Jurassic World seems very efficient and thought through. This article made me want to go see it with a group of my friends.
The thing that captured my eye and got me hooked into this article was the movie review trailer. In that video, it seemed like only good thing were said about this movie. The people made it seem like an adventure by its self. This article was a very interesting article and hooked me right in!
The thing that captured my eye and got me hooked into this article was the movie review trailer. In that video, it seemed like only good thing were said about this movie. The people made it seem like an adventure by its self. This article was a very interesting article and hooked me right in!
This is the most narrow, formulaic film franchise in motion picture history. Every entry must absolutely follow the same simple formula: people go to an island to makes dinosaurs, dinosaurs get loose and kill people on the island, people and at least some dinosaurs survive somehow. It's like a slightly more entertaining version of Gilligan's Island.
2
The Times review was too kind. The STORY is a hodge-podge of subplots bolted onto the main Jurassic Park redo. The "battle of the sexes" is done straight, even though the stand-off between the protagonists is laughably retrograde. In Park, the leads work with the main survival plot. In Indiana Jones, the humor of Marion saving Jones's hide as much as he does hers offsets the fact that the love relationship is nonessential. But in Jurassic World, the setup is played straight, accenting how superfluous it is. Some plots go nowhere: the possibly divorcing parents; the militarist seeking to use dinosaurs for some undefined cause.
The DIALOG is embarrassingly amateur, with lines such as "There was a dinosaur here." and "If we do this, we do it my way." Compare with Park's interjection of Darwinian-Nietzschean thought: "God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man. Man destroys God. Man creates dinosaurs." The childish quality of the dialog isn’t necessarily planned dumbing; it seems as good as it gets with Trevorrow.
Howard and Pratt display all the expressive ACTING range of a stick. In contrast, Park had the advantage of great actors in every role, and Spielberg’s directing.
The FRIGHT SCENES in World lack the intimacy of, say, the kitchen scene in Park, where every move of the children is choreographed with those of the two dinosaurs. Fear is personal, it doesn't involve a cast of thousands running from a sky of computer animated flying carnivores.
The DIALOG is embarrassingly amateur, with lines such as "There was a dinosaur here." and "If we do this, we do it my way." Compare with Park's interjection of Darwinian-Nietzschean thought: "God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man. Man destroys God. Man creates dinosaurs." The childish quality of the dialog isn’t necessarily planned dumbing; it seems as good as it gets with Trevorrow.
Howard and Pratt display all the expressive ACTING range of a stick. In contrast, Park had the advantage of great actors in every role, and Spielberg’s directing.
The FRIGHT SCENES in World lack the intimacy of, say, the kitchen scene in Park, where every move of the children is choreographed with those of the two dinosaurs. Fear is personal, it doesn't involve a cast of thousands running from a sky of computer animated flying carnivores.
1
You didn't include Laura Dern's coda to the Darwinian-Nietzschean thought/speech: "Dinosaurs destroy man. Woman inherits the earth."
And you can bet she ain't wearing high heels.
And you can bet she ain't wearing high heels.
4
One of the worst movies ever made, in just about every sense. Terrible ideas, premise, story, writing, casting, acting, and execution. That it is setting attendance records is an indictment of so many things.
7
I liked it. It was well-acted and beautifully crafted. The special effects were spectacular without detracting from character, plot details and the moral core of the story. I was reminded somewhat of Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" (the book, that is).
I could not help laughing at Owen's comment about Claire's "ridiculous" shoes. I could totally relate as I ride public transit to work every day and have done my share of chasing after city buses in such shoes. The contrast between Owen's grease-soaked scruffiness and Claire's pristine white clothing without a single hair out of place was humorous.
I could not help laughing at Owen's comment about Claire's "ridiculous" shoes. I could totally relate as I ride public transit to work every day and have done my share of chasing after city buses in such shoes. The contrast between Owen's grease-soaked scruffiness and Claire's pristine white clothing without a single hair out of place was humorous.
The mantle is heavy and Jurassic World is a bit too immature to step up and carry it effectively.
Product placement distractions aside, the real stumble comes from the characters, most notably Claire. Laura Dern’s line “dinosaur kills man, woman inherits the earth” brought us solidly into the fold and let us enjoy the irony.
Product placement distractions aside, the real stumble comes from the characters, most notably Claire. Laura Dern’s line “dinosaur kills man, woman inherits the earth” brought us solidly into the fold and let us enjoy the irony.
1
not only is the character of claire a sexist throw back, but the two kids who are in peril are both boys. in the original Jurassic Park, the two siblings were a boy and a girl, both with passions and useful knowledge in their own ways. and they looked out for each other, the girl's computer skills came in handy, the boy knowing the difference between "veggie saurs" and carnivores being useful. we are backsliding all the time. what are male movie makers afraid of?
6
Ms Black, let me introduce you to Ms Migdia Chinea above.
I love Ms. Dargis. I really do. But what can you expect from a dinosaur movie?: people running to avoid getting eaten. Isn't that a metaphor for life? I was surprised Ms. Dargis was the reviewer for this movie because she is a great writer and intellectual. But once in a while it's important to take a vacation, get down, get funky and loose, and enjoy the visual spectacle. Isn't that what movies/films are about? If you are interested in character development, go to the theatre instead of the cineplex. Or go watch a boring cheesy indie or foreign movie. There's a reason why the whole world prefers Hollywood: it's an escape.
4
As Forrest Gump said, 'stupid is as stupid does.' There have been movies like this that weren't so stupidly insulting, THE THING, ALIEN, the original KING KONG, so a valid precedent has been set to do films like this with intelligence. What is unforgivable is the contempt that the filmmakers have for the audience, bad camerawork and lighting, horrible hair and makeup, incoherent geography, obvious characterizations. The only merit the film has is the incessant energy, knowing that this scene will end soon and something else will take place. The references to other films are shameful. Having said that, it's still more enjoyable than other recent atrocious films, SICARIO, and STEVE JOBS that give nothing to the audience but incoherence.
I enjoyed the movie, but what was the faulty premise that a one of a kind Park on a remote island would need to havethat a 1 of the kind park remote island would need
I still enjoyed the heck out of this movie. After the first 20 minutes or so I was on the edge of my seat. Of course it doesn't compare to the first, which was a groundbreaking event for the visual senses. However, if a sequel, reboot or whatever you want to call this comes close in delivering the thrills and excitement of the first, than this movie definitely delivers. From listening to NPR on the way to work this morning, apparently the rest of the world has voted with the tune of 524 million over the weekend in worldwide ticket sales, thereby making it the biggest grossing movie over a single weekend in history. Folks, it's a roller coaster of a ride. Enjoy.
1
The Jurassic Park movies have long been family favorites at our household, with many viewings of all three films. We took the family to see JW on opening day, and all of us enjoyed the film immensely, as much as the earlier three. After reading negative reviews of JW, I re-watched Jurassic Park. My memory was confirmed that JP has as much clunky dialogue and obvious scene set-ups as the new movie. Nonetheless, both movies are great scary fun, with a little bit of social commentary, just right for my proletariat movie taste. In JW, we get to see the fruition of Malcom's warning in JP about the hubris of Hammond and his park-building team. IMO, JW is a welcome addition to the series.
1
This movie is brilliant for what it is; stimulating your senses. It was produced for IMAX 3D and quite frankly it was an incredible visual experience. You don't go to watch this movie expecting to see a performance that merits an Academy Award for best acting. You go to watch huge dinosaurs destroy and eat things in 3D.
6
I just watched Spielberg's Jurassic Park for the first time last week. I thought it was horrible even giving credit for the technology that was available back in the day. This review could easily apply to that movie as well.
1
because you watched it last week, and not 1998 when it was released with no other point of reference.
1
Many films are enjoyable whenever you see them, THE GODFATHER, JAWS, CHINATOWN, ALIEN, CITIZEN KANE, THE SEVEN SAMURAI, hundreds more. Films don't have to be of their time.
I've never been a big fan of Spielberg's. He lacks restraint. If more is better then more and more and more is better better. Occasionally it leads to some genuinely iconic film moments like the bicycle and the moon.., but more often it leads to scenes that you wish would just end without slopping another bucket of icing on top of all the glop already there. I've known it from The Color Purple on.
Spielberg is responsible for more movie theater boredom in my life than any other director. He is sort of an anti Ed Wood. Wood had no idea how to put together a movie but had a quirky personality and point of view that at least make him entertaining. Spielberg makes movies like a robot makes a car. Both obviously know what they are doing with equal levels of personality and humanity.
To call this sort of time-wasting "mind blowing" is an insult to the mind. "Mind blowing" refers to something interesting that rattles around in your head and makes you feel out of the flow of time for a moment. "Terminator", "2001", and "The Matrix" are examples. When the point of the movie is little more than the equivalent of your uncle jumping from around a corner yelling "boo!" call it "Id blowing" if you must call it something.
To call this sort of time-wasting "mind blowing" is an insult to the mind. "Mind blowing" refers to something interesting that rattles around in your head and makes you feel out of the flow of time for a moment. "Terminator", "2001", and "The Matrix" are examples. When the point of the movie is little more than the equivalent of your uncle jumping from around a corner yelling "boo!" call it "Id blowing" if you must call it something.
1
You thought ET, Shindler's List, Jurassic Park, Jaws, Indiana Jones, Saving Private Ryan, Close Encounters and Lincoln were (perhaps not as a whole, but using your words) boring??? But you thought the Matrix was mind blowing? That sounds rather disagreeable....
3
Anybody who was not transported for 2.5 hrs the first time they saw The Matrix is lying or dead. Shindler's List was maudlin paint by numbers filming. ET was maudlin anti-science claptrap. Jurassic Park, you must be kidding. Close Encounters was mind numbing. Give him a pass for SPR and Lincoln, though Lewis probably saved his bacon. The only Spielberg movie with any originality at all was Raiders. Everything else is derivative hack that could very well have been directed by his dentist.
I'm not lying and I'm not dead, MATRIX was boring, as was RYAN and especially LINCOLN. JAWS was epic entertainment as was E. T. For your information, RAIDERS was really a George Lucas concept and production with Spielberg as a director for hire. They were both transformative filmmakers and game changers but that was long ago and far away.
The boys couldn't stick to AN emotion, let alone convey one. The product placement was a 2x4 over the head. The 'tension relievers' were as funny as the Jimmy Fallon bit - or to say, 'not at all'.
That said, you're not going for the dialogue or even the story. It's the graphics. The 3D was decent, but in the end scene I couldn't tell the T-Rex from the D-Rex at all.
With DBox and 3D, I will say, it wasn't worth $21.75 per ticket.
That said, you're not going for the dialogue or even the story. It's the graphics. The 3D was decent, but in the end scene I couldn't tell the T-Rex from the D-Rex at all.
With DBox and 3D, I will say, it wasn't worth $21.75 per ticket.
Well, I love dinos but I can't say that the computer graphics by itself make this a good movie. The cliches are horrible and mind-blowingly stupid, just simply insulting. They could have made a movie called Jurassic Wars with no people in it, would've been better!!
2
Thanks to Ms Dargis- your points are spot on. I saw JW yesterday. I loved the dinosaurs, thought the rest was just stupid. I am of the opinion that a summer movie can be entertaining without insulting 50% of the population. Joss Whedon knows how to do it, Christopher Nolan does too.
1
Less than 5% of the population go to movies regularly so it's tough to insult 50% of the population.
1
I viewed the movie with my wife Friday night and we loved it. So what if the dialogue is stiff, so what if the characters wooden? Dinosaurs are cool, and this flick has oodles of them involved in multiple activities liking giving rides to little kids, being trained for combat, grabbing clueless citizens, and best of all battling each other! We are ready to book a trip to Jurrasic World to enjoy the park!
8
Granted, the whole "Jurassic Park" franchise has been mostly a 22-year merchandising campaign (& the original "Jurassic Park" is still the benchmark), but if the movies have accomplished one positive thing, it's this: dinosaurs are now viewed as having been living, breathing animals with that people can identify with. (As a kid growing up in the '70s, even the best attempts to portray dinosaurs had them come across as dim, statue-like monsters, with the science being a complete afterthought.)
If we gain an understanding of how these top-level organisms lived (& what led to their demise), we can have a better understanding of where we stand amid the sixth biggest extinction in world history.
If we gain an understanding of how these top-level organisms lived (& what led to their demise), we can have a better understanding of where we stand amid the sixth biggest extinction in world history.
3
Reviewers care about Joss Whedon imposing his dogmatic social agenda on characters in silly, disposable films -- really? Still?
These films are like video game porn. Ah, but they are entertaining for many Where's the harm? It's all make believe right? Well, no. . To make even virtual mayhem and grisly death entertaining for youth and clueless adults is a sad sign this empire is now in the post Caligula stage.
So, not a fan of the heels?
5
Aren't these types of movies along with slasher horror films just porn for perverse viewers? Viewers sat in the Coliseum's stands to see humans torn apart by lions. What's the difference here? It's the same appeal to those who want to see others die in grisly ways.
.
.
There are two kinds of people in the world: People who will watch any movie with a good monster in it, and people who don't understand the people who will watch any movie with a good monster in it.
Pass the popcorn!
Pass the popcorn!
3
This movie was exactly what it needed to be. No more, no less. Part (JP1) fan service, part action, part comedy, all fun. Period. Anyone expecting this deep introspective thriller like the original was deluding themselves. The self commentary was perfect, the action was pulse-pounding, (most of) the characters were engaging, and the finale was perfect.
I remember reading comments before this was out like "the t-rex is gonna battle the indominus and win!" "nah, the raptors are gonna kill it, that's what the trailers have been building up to. " "wouldn't it be sweet if the mosasaur took him out somehow!?"...
I rest my case.
I remember reading comments before this was out like "the t-rex is gonna battle the indominus and win!" "nah, the raptors are gonna kill it, that's what the trailers have been building up to. " "wouldn't it be sweet if the mosasaur took him out somehow!?"...
I rest my case.
1
It's a movie, for crying out loud. About dinos and the grand-kids loved it.
2
Jurassic World is a thoroughly entertaining and interesting movie with lots and action and thrills. Ms. Dargis, the pseudo intectual, focuses her annoyance at
Claire's high heels instead of appreciating the movie for what it is: a highly entertaining movie. Go see it and enjoy it...
Claire's high heels instead of appreciating the movie for what it is: a highly entertaining movie. Go see it and enjoy it...
6
Ms. Dargis might've chosen a better forum to air her pent-up angst towards mainstream culture and, apparently, the men who made this movie. As it is, this uninformative piece, with it's casual traces of misandry, says more about the author than it does about the film. I came for the latter, and it appears that I wasn't alone.
3
M. Dargis likes to think she is an auteur. She is not. JW is not meant to supply philosophy or wisdom to its audience, or realism, but the script is superior to the preceding JPs, the actors are better than the ones in earlier JPs (especially the kids), and it's fun. We almost didn't go because of her review, but then we remembered that her reviews are often way off base.
4
I had low hopes watching the trailer and the plot line of a new genetically extra modified super dinosaur. Of course I had to see it, and it was better and more entertaining than I had thought. Huge fan of the first installment of course. I actually think the sequel, Lost World, was a great follow up. It had really well timed suspense, new elements to add to the story, and still good characters. The third was absolutely horrendous to me, so unbelievable. I like that this new one kind of dorky played homage to the original. And I found it really hard to believe the whole training the velociraptors, but at times some of the story line almost was convincing me.. until the end. OMG, the ending was ridiculous. I won't say in case someone hasn't seen, but then they threw any logic out the window. Same thing happened at the end of the third movie. I kind of think there were enough things to build on the make this movie better, but weren't developed well enough. They could of played up the brotherhood a little more, yeah not make her so flip flop easily from corporate machine to nurturing parent figure, him not so always right macho figure, those sexist elements. I guess I was surprised I was okay with the new dino, just needed to add more fluid better writing to tie it in, better character development. Dinos were fun though.
1
Normally I would never comment on a film review, but this one really caught me off guard. I almost picture this reviewer having a smug look on her face writing this piece while she nitpicks what would otherwise be non-issues with an amazing film for the sake of giving it a negative review. Hands down, Jurassic World was a blast to see in the theater. Everyone was into it, on the edge of their seat, and having fun. The film was literally non-stop from beginning to end. My show was sold out, and no one left that theater unsatisfied. I can't believe this review, honestly. Jurassic World was a BLAST to see.
1
I actually signed up just to let this "critic" know how disgustingly pretentious he/she is being. If you went into this movie having any kind of delusions that it would match or exceed the original, you're downright insane. Jurassic Park showed us dinosaurs for the very first time in a way no one had ever seen before. That kind of cinematic wonder is never going to exist again. Deal with it. Get over it. Move on. However, anyone who had true respect and love of the first movie, which Manohla Dargis clearly does not, will find a well crafted movie with entertaining thrills, characters, action, and just enough homage to the original without spilling into fan servicing nostalgia. Any true fan of Jurassic Park will be giddy in their seats during every scene. Monohla Dargis, stop reviewing movies if you're going to be a cynical, pretentious twit about it.
2
Forget the humans. What about character development of the dinosaurs. Were they abused as children? Are they upset because they were brought back to life after 100 million years of extinction? Are they irked because they did not get any royalties from Sinclair Oil or from Spielberg's other films? Do they feel bullied by T. rex? Are they jealous of the mammals that came after them?
1
Thank you, M.D. for your spirited and intelligent review. It was a joy to read. I don't understand people who complain that reviewers want a movie to "mean something." Not that Dargis said that. She didn't. These shallow people don't seem to get that everything means something and when it doesn't seem to, madness can occur. I also don't understand people who throw at the reviewer, "you won't keep people from seeing it," as if that were the reviewer's intent. Have a little faith! Most of all I laugh at those people who say of the reviewer, "It's just their opinion." Well, duh. But it's an opinion unlike yours that is full of education, experience, devotion and passion. Most reviewers want something fresh, something smart, something that moves the heart without a waterfall of sentimentality, and, hopefully, something truly funny that provides a new vision. Well, that's a lot to ask for, but let's not dash the reviewer's hope for they hope for all of us. Jurassic World provides none of that and Jurassic Park provided only a smattering of it. Let's be done with dinosaurs! Unless they come in space ships. That would be different!
1
Howard's un-movable helmet hair looks ridiculous in this romp!
1
In Howard's unmoveable hair and pristine white clothing I saw satire. She was supposed to look "ridiculous"---a throwback to escapist Saturday matinees of the 1930s and 40s.
I've been wanting to see Jurassic World, but after reading this article I have began to be more interested in it. Knowing what goes on behind the scenes makes me amazed. It's amazing how real they make the movie look. This article makes me look forward to seeing the movie.
2
Spotting the "heels" is to become the new beer-shot game. Best line "watch your six - there's a new alpha in town". Or "run". Movie was thin gruel. No suspense. Best scene is when the nanny gets it - I mean 6 dinosaurs to kill one nanny? - writer must have had a bad experience with his English nanny. Well written review by Ms. Dargis. Kids loved it though. Luckily we were on the other side of the theater laughing at how bad a flick this is. Impressive box-office numbers tells you somethin'.
1
This cinematic spectacle desperately needs more FEATHERS.
2
Sorry folks, it was terrible. Running through the forest in high heels and white, tight dress. The woman in this movie is portrayed as a complete idiot. She outruns a T-Rex in heels. The screenplay was lame. Every scene was predictable. The romantic leads don't like each other at first. What a surprise. Communications that suddenly don't work. Two stupid kids in a DINASAUR park who break the rules. Slovenly guard that gets eaten. For those who say don't take it seriously and it is just summer fun, that was Jurassic Park. It was total fantasy and very well done and had some intelligence to it. This is drivel. My 12 year old loved it, as a 12 year old should. If an adult liked this movie, well......can't say much for your taste in movies.
5
I don't think that any of the things you dislike about this movie were intended to be taken seriously.
The first movie will always be the best. The scale and realism - in 1992? - was unprecedented. Let's stop using it as a comparison.
This movie, when viewed outside the lens of the first one, is quite good. Far better than JP 2 or JP 3. It isn't meant to be a limited-appeal film with a shoestring budget that wins Oscars but only makes $50m. It doesn't attempt to be artsy or independent or thought provoking. It aims to entertain on a mass scale, adults and kids alike. It aims to distract the viewer and immerse him/her in a fantasy. It aims to make its audience happy. And it does that very well.
This isn't a a thinking movie. This is a popcorn movie. And unlike so many "Best Pictures," it will entertain millions.
This movie, when viewed outside the lens of the first one, is quite good. Far better than JP 2 or JP 3. It isn't meant to be a limited-appeal film with a shoestring budget that wins Oscars but only makes $50m. It doesn't attempt to be artsy or independent or thought provoking. It aims to entertain on a mass scale, adults and kids alike. It aims to distract the viewer and immerse him/her in a fantasy. It aims to make its audience happy. And it does that very well.
This isn't a a thinking movie. This is a popcorn movie. And unlike so many "Best Pictures," it will entertain millions.
4
and make billions....every baseball game isn't great..and some are..this was a satisfying sequel..
Clearly if Ms. Dargis were one of the screenwriters involved in the project, it would have been a far superior piece of high art, rather than the soulless dreck it is now.
And surely she'd have been able to tuck the word 'galumphing' into the script somewhere, just as she frequently does in her reviews...'galumphing franchise reboot'...'harrumphing, galumphing middle-age', and so forth.
It's a good word. Keep using it.
And surely she'd have been able to tuck the word 'galumphing' into the script somewhere, just as she frequently does in her reviews...'galumphing franchise reboot'...'harrumphing, galumphing middle-age', and so forth.
It's a good word. Keep using it.
3
Another juvenile junk film for the juvenile Americans who wander through each day with cell phone in hand mindlessly texting whatever brain blurb they think their "friends" need to know or taking selfies to reassure themselves that they actually do exist and are "important."
Call it what it is money-making junk. The dinosaur obsession in so-called adult Americans is embarrassing because it means that those adults are endlessly trapped in an eight year old brain.
If you aren't an archeologist, dinosaur obsession is weird.
Call it what it is money-making junk. The dinosaur obsession in so-called adult Americans is embarrassing because it means that those adults are endlessly trapped in an eight year old brain.
If you aren't an archeologist, dinosaur obsession is weird.
1
When I first read Ms. Dargis' review, I thought it was simply another one of her lugubrious overly-intellectualized grenades hurled at her usual enemy - anything developed by an American entertainment studio. Then I saw the film. Turns out she was right. At one point, I even considered leaving (whenever the hyperkinetic brothers shared the screen). Charmless, wooden, written by committee, shot by committee, characters whose emotions ran the gamut from A to B - all of it. As the title suggests, it's gone from a park to an entire world. Nothing new here, just more of it. Aside from Mr. Pratt, there is really nothing to recommend. Last night, I had to think hard to remember how I spent my day. Oh, yeah - I saw Jurassic World. Once it was over it completely dissolved from my consciousness. Apologies to Ms. Dargis.
11
Hello to you dino movie buffs piling on the critic--it's a movie REVIEW, not an infomercial! Dargis isn't calling you stupid for liking the film. She's providing an analysis of the film's quality according to generally accepted cultural criteria. Sequels rarely live up to the original in artistic quality--once a movie has proven itself to be a hit with mass audiences, the goal becomes revenue production at the expense of originality.
13
Can't wait to see it, despite the review. I'd rather watch dinosaurs wiping out humans than those superhero movies. Yuck.
4
All of Ms. Dargis points are well taken. That being said, I took two teens to see the movie and they loved it -- as did I. As a popcorn movie, it delivers.
BTW, in the end, it is "the stiff"/Dallas Bryce Howard's character who saves the day when "the life force" Chris Pratt's character has played his hand and is out of options.
BTW, in the end, it is "the stiff"/Dallas Bryce Howard's character who saves the day when "the life force" Chris Pratt's character has played his hand and is out of options.
5
I'd have to revisit the first movie but I seem to remember being disappointed. Manohla Dargis seemingly gives it 'classic' status compared to this new incarnation. I generally avoid all Hollywood movies, they're predictable and disappointing. I'd welcome an escapist and fun experience, but even that seems impossible.
The sexism in this Jurassic one is surprising. I was watching the first Jurassic Park the other day and the constant accusation of sexism hurled by Dr. Ellie Sattler (played by Laura Dern) at the male scientists. Perhaps Hollywood believes we are past the sexism post or the 4th wave of sexism is all about high heels and silliness all over again!
4
I'll tell you why the character development of the humans in this movie was just as awful as that of the ones in Jurassic Park. Because the movie is about dinosaurs. Really? Does that two-by-four of a revelation really need to be said here? I'm appalled by the sheer lack of contextualizing of this writer and the writers of the comments. This isn't a film for literary majors. It's a film for animal trainers and science enthusiasts. It's a film for people who go on vacation to theme parks and not Cap Juluca with their nanny and kids at home. The New York Times should have done some contextualizing of their own and chosen a different critic for this movie. This is as pathetic as reading a food review by Stephen King.
8
JP2 wasn't that bad.
1
Once again we have the haughty Miss Dargis informing the masses of her disgust for popular entertainment! And yes there are those in the audience that equally agree with you. NO ONE is FORCING ANY ONE TO SEE THIS. It It is what it is.
Its not the pretentious Boyhood or the self parodying of film satire of Birdman. Nor is it meant to be. Thank God, its not the idiocy of Spy.
People always amaze me- they criticize w/o seeing and are often times just as condescending as Ms. Dargis is.
Whatever respect I had for her opinion AND IT IS her opinion, I dismissed a long time ago when she reviewed 2 Fast 2 Furious and was unnecessarily critical of the late Paul Walker
Its not the pretentious Boyhood or the self parodying of film satire of Birdman. Nor is it meant to be. Thank God, its not the idiocy of Spy.
People always amaze me- they criticize w/o seeing and are often times just as condescending as Ms. Dargis is.
Whatever respect I had for her opinion AND IT IS her opinion, I dismissed a long time ago when she reviewed 2 Fast 2 Furious and was unnecessarily critical of the late Paul Walker
8
No one is forcing anyone to read the review, either.
There is a startling amount of ignorance in this article, especially considering the info I found about the movie with minimal research (which the writer obviously couldn't be arsed to do since they were to busy fuming over Bryce wearing heels):
The three core concepts of the film (a park in full operation, a hybrid dinosaur, and raptor training) all came from Spielberg.
Spielberg personally chose the director.
Spielberg approved the final cut of the film.
The studio was actually pretty hands-off on the whole production.
And yet this author sings the praises of Spielberg as if he had nothing to do with Jurassic World and everything would have been better if only Spielberg directed it.
The three core concepts of the film (a park in full operation, a hybrid dinosaur, and raptor training) all came from Spielberg.
Spielberg personally chose the director.
Spielberg approved the final cut of the film.
The studio was actually pretty hands-off on the whole production.
And yet this author sings the praises of Spielberg as if he had nothing to do with Jurassic World and everything would have been better if only Spielberg directed it.
5
Perhaps the author might have sung the praises of the original book, although a good deal of it was lifted (if not plagiarized) from a number of other better ones, The again, it's nothing but a dumb-down movie, which, i agree, one needs once in a while- although i still have an issue with the original when the head scientist (can't even remember the actor's name) tells the kids while they are up in a tree it is ok to pet a large dinosaur because it's a vegetarian. Same logic would apply to hippos or water buffalos today. Good luck with those. Then again, as i keep telling my kids "it's only a movie." Get over it. Frankly, Spielberg was at his best in the original Blues Brothers, as an actor, not director. He's there. You just have to pay attention at the end..
Dopey, wooden and predictable characters, but so what? It's a DINOSAUR movie! Enjoy it for what it is, an exciting action adventure with thrills galore. Why does every movie (not "film") have to MEAN something?
I love watching what I like to call "grown-up movies" but once in awhile, it's nice to put the brain in idle and just enjoy the thrill of being eight years old again, and I'm sure many viewers agree.
I love watching what I like to call "grown-up movies" but once in awhile, it's nice to put the brain in idle and just enjoy the thrill of being eight years old again, and I'm sure many viewers agree.
33
Unfortunately, lately the ratio of "grown up movies" to brain candy has become decidedly skewed in the direction of the latter.
Agreed...thoroughly enjoy it. Plenty of action. And best of all, no one was texting during the movie. A fun popcorn summer movie.
After the combination of thrilling action (with practical effects, no less) and intelligence of "Mad Max," the laziness of "Jurassic World" can't be accepted as action movie nonsense. Please don't appreciate films with blatant female passivity/helplessness, male dominance and offensively flat characters. Not to mention product placement and brutally bad dialogue ("hey dude send me some texts with your smartphone on your vacay"). Don't let executives and studio people be lazy. If they're going to feed us crap, at least ask for it to be layered and tasty.
4
"Blowing minds rather than, you know, telling a good story ..." describes the whole drug and cheap thrill addled mass psychology our 1% indoctrinators via the media have created to steal our wealth and freedom. And we are so distracted looking at our cell phones and playing video murder games that we don't realize the rich and powerful are selling our heritage out from under us via their "fast track trade agreements" and mass immigration flood of "harder working" of 10's of millions of immigrant-slave invaders.
8
I was a bit disappointed with this movie, mainly because I had high hopes for it. I remember seeing Jurassic Park in '93 and was completely blown away. The second two were alright but nowhere near the suspense of the first one. After years of hearing on-and-off news of a new Jurassic-film, I was happy to see this one materialize, especially with Chris Pratt taking the lead (playing a character who relies more on his instinct rather then being a learned scholar, trusting on his education to get where he needs, an interesting take on a bigger issue whether education should trump everything when it comes to evaluating a person for he is capable of).
However, I felt this movie went rather fast through all the prior history of what was the base for Jurassic World (the old park vs. InGen vs. where we are today) but this is hands down a great summer blockbuster with a new attraction that certainly delivers. Without spoiling too much, I felt that there was a certain connection to another movie franchise in regards to weaponising living things and believing that humans are in control of it that I thought was very intriguing.
However, I felt this movie went rather fast through all the prior history of what was the base for Jurassic World (the old park vs. InGen vs. where we are today) but this is hands down a great summer blockbuster with a new attraction that certainly delivers. Without spoiling too much, I felt that there was a certain connection to another movie franchise in regards to weaponising living things and believing that humans are in control of it that I thought was very intriguing.
1
When I was a kid, around a million years ago, I watched a silent movie called "The Lost World" starring Wallace Beery and a group of stop action dinosaurs.
Since then, I've watched just about every movie even smacking of dinosaurs (Aficionados will remember the 'Valley of the Gwangi" which had 2 of my favorite things; cowboys and a T.Rex!).
So forgive me if I really don't care if the "Jurassic" movie "series" is short on acting but long on really well done giant reptiles. The deinonychus, t, rex and, apparently, genetically engineered GIANT t, rex are the stars; people are just the food!
Since then, I've watched just about every movie even smacking of dinosaurs (Aficionados will remember the 'Valley of the Gwangi" which had 2 of my favorite things; cowboys and a T.Rex!).
So forgive me if I really don't care if the "Jurassic" movie "series" is short on acting but long on really well done giant reptiles. The deinonychus, t, rex and, apparently, genetically engineered GIANT t, rex are the stars; people are just the food!
28
You remember incorrectly: Valley of Gwangi had an Allosaurus (a big carnivore that lived a few million years earlier), not a T-Rex. It also had Ray Harryhausen, the all-time kind of critters prehistoric and otherwise.
1
Sorry; that should read "the all-time KING of critters..."
An allosaurus, one of the worst pests of the ancient world!
A self-sufficient, intelligent career woman with an upper-level job who also learns how to defend herself and her family - not sure why Ms. Dargis has such a problem with that concept. Perhaps she prefers the "Real Housewives" model, with women swearing, wagging their fingers, spouting "don't you disrespect me" - yet who do virtually nothing with their lives.
More to the point, the movie is titled "Jurassic World", not "The Life and Times of Claire Dearing". Note to the author: in the real world, there actually ARE women like this. It's absolutely true.
More to the point, the movie is titled "Jurassic World", not "The Life and Times of Claire Dearing". Note to the author: in the real world, there actually ARE women like this. It's absolutely true.
11
So Ms. Dargis, did you like the film?
15
"Dolling Claire up so preposterously is a glib tactic, although it’s unclear if the filmmakers were trying to tweak politically correct sensibilities or thought they were being clever, or maybe both."
Actually it's a harkening-back to the first movie. With the typical Spielberg movie, the idea is never to hint at anything if you can deliver the same message to the audience with a fist to the face. So in "Jurassic Park" the cowardly greedy prissy lawyer (who in the novel was actually the company's PR man; the lawyer character was a pretty good guy) walks around ridiculously on a tropical island in pressed Bermuda shorts matched with a dress shirt and formal necktie.
The Claire-in-high-heels labeling (with fist duly delivered to audience face) is no departure from this. The hack director brought in for the project, and the writers, studied the template carefully.
Actually it's a harkening-back to the first movie. With the typical Spielberg movie, the idea is never to hint at anything if you can deliver the same message to the audience with a fist to the face. So in "Jurassic Park" the cowardly greedy prissy lawyer (who in the novel was actually the company's PR man; the lawyer character was a pretty good guy) walks around ridiculously on a tropical island in pressed Bermuda shorts matched with a dress shirt and formal necktie.
The Claire-in-high-heels labeling (with fist duly delivered to audience face) is no departure from this. The hack director brought in for the project, and the writers, studied the template carefully.
2
Best I can tell, the reviewer likes Spielberg, doesn't like this movie.
11
Saw this movie last night with the whole family. I enjoyed it, but my husband felt it was just Jurassic Park 1 recycled, which, to be honest, it was. None of the newer movies will ever be able to match up to the wonder we experienced when we saw the first JP (nor the tension and dread in the scene where the raptors hunt in the children in the kitchen). If you expect highbrow, don't watch this movie. But if you just want to enjoy the dinosaurs running around eating things and wreaking havoc, and the humans with a couple of good zingers this was a good 2 hours of entertainment with a soda and a bag of popcorn. Besides, even though it didn't match up to JP1, it was much better than both 2 or 3.
18
I'm never sure about these movies, the ones that focus on effects and putting actors in silly circumstances and then pulling them out with some cinematic trick -- like the magician and the assistant. It's refreshing, though, that there's no woman who mysteriously becomes nearly nude through the movie (see "King Solomon's Mines"). We don't go to these movies for the plot or popcorn. Rather, we go to see the effects. Steven's very good at effects. Enjoy the cinematic wonderment. Never mind the little man behind the curtain. It's all Oz.
5
Well, this movie sounds awful. No surprise, really.
Just like Jaws and the terrible sequels that strove to destroy its legacy, Jurassic Park is a cinematic classic undercut by its boring, cliched successors.
Just like Jaws and the terrible sequels that strove to destroy its legacy, Jurassic Park is a cinematic classic undercut by its boring, cliched successors.
1
If the therapod dinosaurs don't have feathers (and the velociraptors aren't the size of a turkey) I will refuse to see this film.
3
This is actually directly addressed in the movie; because of the gene splicing required to clone the dinosaurs at all (remember how they used frog DNA to fill in gaps in the first film?), they are actually not meant to be accurate representations of dinosaurs. "These have always been theme park monsters."
3
Manohla-
Thank you for the fulsome review. Is it possible to get burnt out from movies that are "visually stunning" but are otherwise devoid of good storytelling? It seems so, because the mixture of physically impossible, ear-splitting, plot-less and script-less antics, carried by a pseudo-emoting, philosophy/morality-spouting cast, can be endured for only so long.
AO Scott's "San Andreas" comment about yawning and reaching for the popcorn when the Golden Gate bridge shook and broke apart is an apt description of how far (or how not far) action movies have gone.
Thank you for the fulsome review. Is it possible to get burnt out from movies that are "visually stunning" but are otherwise devoid of good storytelling? It seems so, because the mixture of physically impossible, ear-splitting, plot-less and script-less antics, carried by a pseudo-emoting, philosophy/morality-spouting cast, can be endured for only so long.
AO Scott's "San Andreas" comment about yawning and reaching for the popcorn when the Golden Gate bridge shook and broke apart is an apt description of how far (or how not far) action movies have gone.
5
I watched the first Jurassic Park the other day and was amazed at the pacing and character development. Steven Spielberg is brilliant, and brings a child-like wonder to filmmaking. I wish he would have had an active role in the making of Jurassic World. Perhaps it wouldn't have been so obviously profit and branding oriented. Because we didn't have cheap CGI in 1993, more focus had to be on story and character, which takes writing, re-writing, and re-writing again to get it right. Anyone notice how the tentpole movies today are driven by special effects and not good narratives? What happened to good writing? Since Chinese movie-goers are poised to take over as the biggest driver of box office profits, maybe the studios don't think story is important to them. Spectacle is all the studioes care about. Please come back, Mr. Spielberg.
4
And bring the dolls and little kids with You.
the cynicism of the franchise hustle nicely exposed here.
2
Absolutely right, ththe reviewer has courageously seized on a viewpoint never before expressed. Brava! Brava! Some sort of prize immediately!
What's really astounding is the scale of human endeavor and financial commitment that goes into what turns out to be cinematic rubbish. This sequel may make the expected box-office fortune around the world, but that doesn't make it a remotely good movie, just cash-generating junk. I remember the impact of the original "Jurassic Park" when it played to enormous audiences lined up around the block, kids and adults. It had something (as did "Jaws" 18 years earlier) sorely lacking in so many successors jammed into the CGI/summer blockbuster category: Intelligence, both in the writing, the character development (except for the 2 insipid kids playing Hammond's grandchildren), the sharp dialogue, and the pivotal, essential direction. Spielberg may "exec produce", whatever that means, but without his hands-on direction, his signature "footprint" isn't visible. Instead, you've got technically brilliant Dino-Shlock.
22
The critics can pan this movie all they want but it's not going to stop people from going to see it. And it won't stop this movie from becoming possibly the biggest block-buster of the summer.
9
Until the next one comes along...
No, they won't stop it because it's already a brand, but my question is -- where are the grandchildren, Lex and Tim? It would've made sense to have them somewhere involved in the movie, or at least, have Pratt play Tim or play his or his sister's (Lex) son. They messed up the continuity with the two sequels, and they didn't make it continuous with this new edition; however, good the action is. Lucas did a good job with the way he instilled much of the story within his characters in Star Wars -- along with the continuity, but this franchise seems to lose all former character connection. You don't see Wal-mart being run by Jones -- you see Waltons. So why aren't any Hammonds running this? And to be clear -- I'm speaking of the humans, so they could've put any T-Rex and it would've been just as entertaining.
1
I read as far as "clomp clomp clomp"...my heart flipped and I immediately ordered tickets for tonight. If the dinosaur genre has finally become darker and more horrorish...thank heavens for that. I could not stand those cuddly Spielberg dinosaurs. Now...if there is just a scene where the pretty blonde falls down and the dinosaur descends on her, I will be in heaven.
15
You buy the tix; I'll buy the popcorn!
3
You won't be disappointed. It was awesome.
As a guy who grew up watching previous 3 installments, personally i feel this movie is a let down. “every time we’ve unveiled a new attraction attendance has spiked.” might hold good for the younger generation who sees these wonders for the first time.
I Haven't seen JW yet,but I wanted to comment on the original and why I suspect the reviewer compares it unfavorably. JP was based on a Michael Crichton novel that had a reason behind it,and it wasn't just ubiquitous greed.It blamed scientists who didn't think about what they were doing,and Ian Malcolm was that conscience,as well as Grant and Sattler.Even Hammond is complex,he rails against the lawyer who sees the park as for the 1%,as misguided as he is he has some depth.The beauty of Spielberg is he kept that center in JP,while having the spectacle,too and the wonder.This sounds like it is cartoon,with the evil corporation and bad dinosaurs,where is the center? I hope it is more fun than this review,that the dinosaurs are cool,but it seems,shallow compared to JP.
1
If one is bright enough to wonder why a movie that spends over a hundred million dollars to be made has such "ridiculous" and "stupid" dialogue, one merely need understand liberalism.
..hats off to Jerry Seinfeld ...it's about time, dude..
..hats off to Jerry Seinfeld ...it's about time, dude..
In the previous JP movies, the dino's only ate republicans who dissed evolution ... look it up.
If one is bright enough to wonder why a movie that spends over a hundred million dollars to be made has such "ridiculous" and "stupid" dialogue, one merely need understand conservatism.
Oh look - it makes just as much sense!
Oh look - it makes just as much sense!
1
Big ticket blockbusters are what drives the movie economy. Without them, producers, directors and actors would not be able to create low appeal "artistic" films. Jurassic World looks to be a "popcorn" movie best enjoyed with a date. It's not aimed at the small population of those, such as our movie critic, who pine for a lovely, nuanced story and beautiful cinematography.
4
a blockbuster can still have charm, character and a real plot. look at "Jaws", "Indiana Jones" even the current "Avengers" "Thor" and "Iron Man" movies... the idea that a "blockbuster" needs nothing but noise, spectacle, big breasts and big pecs, is what makes movie making souless today.
1
For the many shortcomings described here, why aren't the four writers of the screenplay mentioned? Why does all of the blame fall on Spielberg and the director? The script itself is the problem. Yes, Spielberg produced, but so did six others. This movie was made by committee, which is always a bad sign.
9
just the fact that there are 4 writers, as a critic friend of mine says, is a bad sign. and, sadly, film is totally a director's medium... as an actor, you have no choices as to which take of a film is used, how they director wants you to convey the scene, etc. all the other production designs which may fall under the producer's pervue mean nothing if the director has the heavy touch of a false, mechanical hand and a lack of a feel for the characters.
Just watched it. Disappointing load of crap.
the other two sequels are far superior.
Predictable, lame story, bad effects, no character development and I couldn't wait for it to end. Absolutely horrible.
the other two sequels are far superior.
Predictable, lame story, bad effects, no character development and I couldn't wait for it to end. Absolutely horrible.
5
I agree. It was awful, in part because there wasn't a single likeable character other than Pratt. The two kids were awful. And the FX were pretty lousy at times.
Easily the worst of the series.
Easily the worst of the series.
3
Ugh, another review lamenting sexism and feminism (in the form of high heels, no less)? Can we leave the lame grad school PC deep-dive out of it and stick to film criticism? Citing a tweet by Joss Whedon, a lame filmmaker who this reviewer is known to favor (inexplicably), does not bolster her case.
2
Really, is it necessary to play the "God" card here? Surely the folly of greed or hubris (yes I understand the irony of using the word) driven man acting irresponsibly, perhaps even idiotically, is clear enough to omit the belief based modifier.
The first movie in this series had moments of wonder and beauty mixed in with those of terror and havoc. Predictably the sequels have grown darker and more sanguinary as the carnivores have completely taken over. What we've ended up with is yet another horror-film franchise not much different from Freddy and Jason but with much more expensive visual effects. Is this really what you were aiming for, Steven?
27
I, too, missed the wonder and beauty. And frankly, for all the advances in special effects, the decades-old CGI of the original still seems more believable to me today than this state-of-the-art tech. Because it's not a question of the tools at your disposal so much as a question of how you use them.
4
i agree. i just rewatched the original Jurassic Park, and the wonder of the dinosaurs and their totally believable *aliveness* (possibly because some of the work was animatronic/puppets -- not just CGI) was moving and added to the terror that came later. also, the characters may have had some stereotypes (the lawyer, the wheeler dealer park owner, the greedy fat guy) but they had enough of their own humanity and character -- and relations of all sorts with the dinosaurs -- that they came across as believable as well. i enjoyed 2 and 3, though the wonder of the first one *still* comes through 22 years later, as it never did again.
1