Jurassic World: So much wow! but so little wonder. (SPOILERS!)

It has now been 48 hours since I saw the fourth instalment in the dino-dystopean family thriller series. As this was more than enough time for the first park to have its first tour, be sabotaged and disintegrate into frenzied chomping it's probably enough time for me to have fully collated my thoughts on the matter.

However before I commence, I should be honest about my starting point. I love the Jurassic, so much so that it is firmly in my Top 5. This list has no hierarchy; it is thus on a par with Dr Strangelove, the extended Gladiator, Out of Africa and Jaws. Therefore, Jurassic World was always going to disappoint if it was to spar toe-to-toe with the original. No film could ever portray dinosaurs in as captivating, enthralling and scary a way as Spielberg's masterpiece did.

So, it's fair to say I had some baggage with me as I sat in my seat. Indeed, so great was this baggage that I nearly didn't go. 'It would ruin the original for me. They're going to make a mockery of a great film. Chris Pratt will live up to his name. Indominus Rex isn't a real dinosaur. There's no Dr Ryan. There's no John Hammond...' My list of woes was seemingly endless, however there was one thing that forced me prejudices and all to squeeze into those suddenly tiny cinema seats: Free tickets. This meant we could walk out and not feel like I had been ripped off - perhaps I still would?

I was, however, pleasantly surprised. There is a fair amount to like about Jurassic World. Firstly, the original music gets a great deal of airing, and not just the famous, orchestral sections; softer moments in the film are treated to the single piano playing, just as was done in the glorious first. The success of John Williams' score is that it still feels fresh, exciting and altogether marvellous. Whereas the Imperial March of Star Wars is now a cliché of evil, the trumpets, strings, horns - and piano - of JP still feel special, despite having been shackled to two wretched films in between 1 and 4.  It really is the superglue of the film.

Secondly, it is a veritable treasure trove of homages to the original over which a true Jurassic geek can salivate. Tim's night vision goggles are found, the gas-powered jeeps turn up, red flares grab the attention of a passing T-Rex and a whole host of others* all play a part. Inevitably, someone offers up the immortal line 'spared no expense'. As for the dinosaurs some crowd favourites are ready and willing to take the stage: the aforementioned T-Rex is back and so are the velociraptors and the dilophosaurus.

The actors also do a reasonable job of carrying off their roles. Nick Robinson is particularly good as the older brother, being empty-headed in the presence of anything pretty, rebellious towards authority and grudgingly heroic when looking after his brother. Chris Pratt's role passes without major calamity and Bryce Dallas Howard does a great job as the out of her depth executive who has to tie up her shirt (sexily, of course) and get muddy to save the day.

This though,  is the extent of its success. This is not a stellar cast and sadly, it didn't need to be. Part of the charm of the original was exceptional lines delivered impeccably by great actors, most notably Richard Attenborough (Hammond) and Sam Neil (Grant). By contrast, Jurassic World's script feels amateurish. We shouldn't criticise the plot, as there are limits on where to go next with the theme park and dinosaurs parameters. It amounts to: some dinosaurs are in cages. something gets out, people get eaten, some survive. This is, after all, all  the first one had to work with and it still delivers. but Jurassic Park has cracking one liners, bad jokes and perfect, quotable sections that make the audience feel as well as hear them. Not so with JW. For the majority of the film, dialogue is simply an interval amongst screaming and running. Any time dedicated to it has been spent on making catchy one liners that can be put on internet memes, and nothing more. Consequently, characterisation suffers. Many of them - and predictably, it is worse with baddies (stereotypes abound) - tick one box and one box alone. For example, the U.S. Navy chap interested in the 'raptor training (I'm sorry, I'm so sorry, but it's true. See below) has one setting: evil. In JP, Dennis was clearly evil, but we liked him, perhaps even sympathised with him, especially for his sense of comedy. We're introduced to a fat chap, sitting there eating too much, who then immediately takes the mick out of a guy for the absurdity of being so obvious by trying to be incognito. With JW, it is far too easy to dismiss those of nefarious intent. They're pantomime villains in a world of 'It's behind you!'

Yet the thing that almost brought me to exercise my free walk-out rights was the treatment of the velociraptors. Everyone loves them because they're so awe-inspiringly terrifying. (We have to put aside real palaeontology for a moment and deal purely with the 'raptors as conceived by Crichton and Spielberg.) The speed, the vocalisations, the stories that are told of them, the unseen attacks and at the heart of it all was this irrepressible urge to kill. It is an indomitable combination, yet in JW, Chris Pratt, who is working on behalf of the Navy, is seeking to train them and make them weapons of war. Of course there's an attempt at dialogue to dissuade you from thinking this is possible, and for a brief moment they fulfil their urge to eat people with gay, tail-wagging abandon, but for all Pratt's protestations, they obey his whistles and his solemn head shaking. It is such a depressing depiction of a wonderfully fearsome creature. Just as orcas are still trapped in Sea-World even if one occasionally kills a trainer; they have become no more wild with their ability to kill thusly manifested, so the raptors become glorified guard dogs.

What are we left with? Well, JW becomes John Hammond's flea circus: it is little more than an illusion, so devoid is it of substance. At the beginning of the film, much is made of the difficulties of making the Park accessible to new generations that want things bigger, faster, scarier. The film boils it down to a simple quest: The need for more teeth. So it sets about its mission in search of the gratuitous wow-factor with ever more incredible things. This film is not constrained by real dinosaurs as the first one was - oh no! The dinosaur anti-hero 'Indominus Rex' must be bigger, smarter and faster than everything. It's got to have the speed and brains of the 'raptors and the power of T-Rex, but it needs MORE! It's got to change colour and be able to hide from thermal imaging: in short? It needs more WOW! I wish I had made that up. But sadly, this genetically implausible dinosaur really is able to do all this. Yet with so much room taken by Wow, there is no room at all for the zenith of Jurassic Park's achievements: Wonder. To quote Senator Gracchus from Gladiator, 'Fear and wonder. A powerful combination...He'll bring them death. And they will love him for it'. Jurassic Park taps into the soul of everyone watching and evokes a childlike response to its dinosaurs. They are terrifying, yet fantastic. We crouch with Grant and Hammond and whisper 'How d'you do this?' and the film responds, equally softly: 'I'll show you.' It then realises the terrifying implications of humans and dinosaurs meeting. JW gives us none of that. Inspiration is limited to the predators, yet even they cannot compete to feeling the breathing of a sick Triceratops and we are treated to no expansive shots of life 65 million years ago; they're traded in for a petting zoo. Yes, there are more teeth, but I just didn't care. No amount of teeth can be a substitute for the depth of feeling evoked by the original. Once, it came close; just once. As the doors to Paddock 9 slowly spread, and a woman stood with a red flare in hand in front of something monstrous, I felt the same feeling of inferiority in the presence of superlative grandeur, but the moment was gone all too quickly.

I exited the cinema wondering why the makers hadn't paid heed to the lesson of John Hammond. Sparing no expense is no guarantee of success. Big budgets, big teeth and big dinosaurs is not enough. Without the legacy of the original, this would be an average creature feature. It's better then Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus, for sure, but even Lake Placid steals a march on it.

Fortunately, there is an admirable tenderness to its response to its more illustrious ancestor. There is a sense of understanding that this could never stand up to the original, so the best that it can hope for is to avoid embarrassing either film. This it achieves quite merrily. Jurassic Park aficionados should watch it, because it will remind them of so much that is special about the original. Everyone else? well it's got dinosaurs, explosions and plenty of baddies who get their comeuppance in suitably nasty ways. If that's all you need, it does its job.

I don't regret seeing it, but it did make me sad for the lack of respect shown to what is possible to achieve in a dino-blockbuster. Happily, there is an antidote. We got in from the cinema, went to my bedroom and put on Jurassic Park. Gallimimus were munched, Samuel L Jackson was reduced to a bloody arm and jelly wobbled terrifyingly on a spoon. On a laptop screen, and with reduced volume, Katy was far more tense and she jumped far more and more often  than she had ever done in Jurassic World. It was absolutely tremendous.

* for a few others, check out this list. It is by no means conclusive, but it works as a fun I-Spy book to the film!  http://www.zimbio.com/Beyond+the+Box+Office/articles/I9wRNSmGWMD/17+Ways+Jurassic+World+References+First+Movie