MovieMeditation's Cinema Reviews

Get ready for a surprise Captain...

- I have actually only seen one Ińárritu film besides Birdman. I want to see all of his films but never got around to them. I have both Babel and Biutiful ready to watch though... The only one I have seen is 21 Grams which was quite good but it has been so long since I watched it.

Good review. I enjoyed your perspective.

The Story
In 'Whiplash', we follow the 19-year-old drummer Andrew Neiman and his targeted vision of becoming the next great genius in the elegant world of jazz music. Andrew is hard working, talented, and not the least certain about his dream, and when he is finally accepted into Schaffer Conservatory things start to suddenly look a great deal brighter. Besides, he is very much aware of the infamous conductor, Terence Fletcher, who is looking for a new alternative drummer for his band. And although Andrew feels both confident and ceaseless on the drums, you will be everything but, once Fletcher verbally anesthetize every single sense of your body, and leaves you abruptly unable to reach anywhere near the demanded musical or mental standards. Fletcher does not only test the musical skills of his students, but also their mental stability and not the least willpower. Andrew is pushed further past both his personal and practiced limits in the unpleasant company of Fletcher’s sharply controlled gesticulations. But despite this "tactless torture" of which Andrew so inhumanly is exposed to, he has no intention of “canceling his confidence”, so to speak. He knows damn well that he was born for this industry, and there is absolutely nothing, that is going to stand in the way of him and his great dream of complete and absolute success.

So how does one guarantee to give the audience the best possible "opening act" for a film of this caliber? Simple. You open with slight but persistent hits of a drum, which then gradually and in a presumptuous pace, rises to something that is almost comparable to the shots of a loud and explosive machine gun. Additionally, and in the same scene, we are introduced to the two “fighting forces” of the film – the slightly nervous and rather clumsy aspiring drummer, Andrew Neiman, as well as the almost dictatorial and power-hungry mentor, Terence Fletcher. In those short opening minutes, you already have a great grip and sense of the story, which also, through the frenetic introductory drum solo, almost virtually heralds its audience about the amazingly high and fast paced “arc of excitement”, which the film in its relatively short course is trying to squeeze to its absolute breaking point. The film and its dramaturgical execution is perhaps slightly mediocre at times, circulating around classic phrases and movie-typical habits, but still, there is definitely no way seeing past just how brain-shockingly hard-hitting it is, when it comes to the powerful and life-affirming story about a man’s dream of success.


But what, in turn, elevates the film to completely unimaginable heights, is the dualistic war between the two main characters in the wide-open battlefield of musical creation itself. A fight, that respectively provokes the worst in the conductor and the best in the artist. The combination of Fletcher’s crafty insults and Andrew’s incredible ability to take himself beyond his max-point, is what ultimately causes the film to drum away for a virtually unbridled pace, while torpedoing all mediocre melodramas in its path. Actually, this film frequently achieves the same exciting heights as a tense and nerve-wracking bomb disposal scene, which every so often adorns even the most exciting thriller dramas. 'Whiplash' gives you – together with the central character of the film – both sweaty palms, butterflies in your stomach and an almost unstoppable galloping heart rate, which pretty much falls seamlessly in sync with the fast and relentless drum beat that completely dominates the enormous soundscape of the film. When it comes down to it, you can’t do nothing but sympathize with Andrew, as soon as the intimidating Terence Fletcher strikes from every possible angle; both verbally, mentally and physically. This is a man, who is prepared to beat up the mentality of a person, to actively up the standards of a beat, all of which is originating from that exact same individual. It is both constructive and destructive, and cinematically speaking, there isn’t even the slightest of doubts that 'Whiplash' flawlessly hits almost all the right notes throughout this incredible filmic voyage.

'Whiplash' is certainly a catchy title, which furthermore can be used in an exemplary way, to describe the film itself as well as its prominent aggressiveness in more than one form. It is first and foremost a film that lashes itself thirty feet ahead in an ever-increasing pace, until finally hitting you so unexpectedly hard from behind, that you are left with something resembling a metaphorical and musical whiplash. As an audience you are more or less whipped to shreds from start to finish, until you have no clue whatsoever of what is up and what is down… And if that wasn’t crazy enough, Fletcher continues to slap you across the face with his dominant presence, in his wild and ambitious attempt to get Andrew to keep an acceptable tone – even if you can’t actually say that Fletcher does the same. This completely uncontrollable tour de force of a film is also held up primarily by moments, as well as a near perfect execution. As mentioned earlier, 'Whiplash' perhaps isn’t a miracle when it comes to either a perfectly written drama, or a total and thorough character development. But this film, however, has no doubt of what it can do, how it can do it, and how well the film actually triumphs in its close to perfectly designed plot points.


‘Whiplash’ wisely illuminates the most dominant storyline as it moves forward, and further electrifies the “insane powerhouse”, that is its two buzzing central characters. And as the story gradually progresses, all the insignificant surroundings are slowly washed away, in favor of what is most important – exactly how you would do it yourself, consciously or unconsciously, if you ever dedicated your life to such profound passion, that places itself at a level so high and ultra-advanced as that of drumming. As an audience, we have no use for excessively extended family discussions or love stories that wasn’t ever going to succeed in the first place. We know where the story is heading, we understand what it wants to do, and we gladly accept this choice with open arms – and not the least wide-open eyes, once the flaming intensity finally hits you. It isn’t Andrew Neiman, either, who in himself requires a deep character study, the point is that we must be able to position ourselves in the low stool behind the drum kit, see the awaiting crowd before our eyes, and achieve that selfsame success, which we all so eternally dream of. But until then, you should certainly use two hours or less to experience this furious emotional rollercoaster ride, withholding its very own phenomenal and cinematic dream scenario – something, which 'Whiplash' is able to elegantly orchestrate through the continuous combination of pictures and sound – and with the craziest sense of confidence, as well. And it isn’t every movie either, which can brag about having two potential and powerful finales, and if you miss this movie in the theater, you have probably made one of the biggest mistakes in your life. This is a film that exists in its own league and it should certainly be experienced up on the big screen…


The Acting
What really drives the rhythmic elements and dramatic musical sequences in ‘Whiplash’, is an impressive and explosive power performance by a dazzling Miles Teller. A seriously underrated actor, who possesses exactly the right balance between a clumsy introverted teenager and a determined strong-willed musician, and therefore, he is also perfect for the film. It isn’t difficult to buy both sides of him, containing his awkward personality as well as his impressive musical talent – especially because Teller actually drummed since he was 15 years old. However, he has never actually experimented with jazz music, although we can certainly say that this is virtually impossible to see. As soon as Teller drums away with a speed and precision that is more than impressive to look at and listen to, then you just know, that he was the right choice for the role of Andrew Neiman.


All the numerous drum solos in the film are exported explosively out of the screen and all the way down among the audiences in the cinema. This remains, however, a kind of spacious experience, which in turn can provide all the senses with a wild and intense experience. But despite of the compelling pull of this specific element, the music only reaches the outer hairs on the skin, which certainly rises due to the overwhelming impact of the film. But as mentioned earlier, 'Whiplash' is undoubtedly a complete experience, and there is certainly one person who makes sure to crawl deep under your skin – someone who might also make the hairs on your arms stand up, but in this context, it is due to a decidedly deep fear. The one I’m talking about is, of course, the angry facade behind the tempered and frightening screaming mentor… none other than J.K. Simmons!

When speaking of actors who actually dominate the screen, then there is no doubt that Simmons falls right into this exact category. It is of course a rather fantastic character, which Damien Chazelle has written, but I really can’t imagine others in the role than precisely J.K. Simmons. As an audience, it isn’t us who do the drumming, neither is it us who do the shouting, and yet, it is us who are left behind totally exhausted and gasping for air, once Fletcher dominates the big cinema screen. One could easily dive into all sorts of details while adding plenty of variegated adjectives to thoroughly describe Fletcher in a convincing manner. But honestly, I simply think that you should experience both the film and its performances for yourself. It is truly a dangerously good piece of actor’s craft, with a complete and almost perfect delivery by both J.K. Simmons and Miles Teller.


The Technical Aspect
The visual composite symphony of images that the film provides us with is just as good at keeping up the tempo, when it comes to its almost "retina rhythmic" portrayal of a story about mental and mortal success. As an audience we dive directly into a wild and jazzy universe, with lively moving camera settings, as well as intense and motion-reduced close-ups. We haven’t got the slightest of doubt at which point there is complete focus on the musical approach of the film, and when we slowly and indiscreetly moves even closer to the dramatic and unsettling intensity that ‘Whiplash’ has as well. Also, the entire spectacle is kept constantly moving by the eminent controlled editing, which actually is an artistically composed piece of rhythmic perfection in itself. A potpourri of perfect tectonic changes of tempo, delivered with a cool technical flair that simply never lets its audience or the sense of musical dominance fall to the ground.


The Soundscape
Occasionally, 'Whiplash' hits you so hard with its eccentric power-punch of musicality, that you actually have some doubt of whether it is the hasty drum beat of the film or one's own constant heartbeat, which is pounding the loudest. Despite the jazz-typical associations with the more formal and sophisticated elements, you can certainly leave both blazer and bow tie at home, once you discover how Fletcher conquers the entire claustrophobic scenario of the film, and instead presents said elegance of the genre as a devilish vibrant pandemonium. The music is undoubtedly still jazzy and great to listen to, but it is precisely this ambivalent atmosphere, which adds that extra layer of frightening unpredictability. Sometimes the film feels like a nice breath of fresh air, and other times as a wild and destructive tornado.

The jazz in the film almost has a sparkling kind of unique musicality about it, and yet there is a certain autocratic mentor present, who is surely going to make all this elegancy boil over. It is exactly this strong contrast between the exquisite jazz and the demoralized conducting that makes this film so incredibly powerful – whether it is an authentic portrayal of the genre or not. Maybe it isn’t exactly a beautifully carved slice of joy and happiness, but it is both impressive and puffing poetic in its execution, and all the grandiose scenes of the film are always presented at its most booming and not the least resounding pace. If you can’t surrender to this sensory compilation, which the film so masterfully orchestrates, then it’s all on you.

______________________________________________

SHORT SUMMARY // Words cannot describe the intense emotional heights, which 'Whiplash' manages to reach in such perfected style, that only a standing ovation is in its place. The film presents its audience with a person who is willing to go all the way, and even further, and he proudly carries his soul, heart, brain and of course the faithful drumsticks in his baggage. He seems to never look back on this ambitious quest for recognition – not even for the trail of blood, sweat and tears, which he has left behind. Maybe you have seen all this before, maybe you have even heard it before, but you have never experienced something quite like this before, that’s for sure. 'Whiplash' is an enthusiastic cinematic tour de force, and also one of the most immersive movie experiences I have had in the past ten years or so.


FINAL RATING // +

__________________
/watching movies for mark f/
MovieMeditation's Cinema Reviews // Film Diary 2015 // Letterboxd Profile // MovieMeditation's Top 50 Horror

I didn't read the review yet because I want to watch the movie first, but that rating sure looks promising. I'm watching it next weekend.

I felt the movie kind of wrecked itself at a certain point if you know what I mean.

I kind of agree with you. But it seemed as if the movie was awear of that and jus didn't care. It just wanted to continue going up and I don't mind it. I mean, overall if you want a realistic film this is not really it.

The Story
We find ourselves in L.A. during the very last convulsions of the psychedelic ‘60s, and the paranoia has slowly taken over the party like a bad trip. We begin in the small fictional town, Gordita Beach, where the enigmatic Shasta Fay Hepworth visits his disillusioned and pot smoking ex-boyfriend, Larry "Doc" Sportello, to reach out for his help. She has recently begun a closed affair with billionaire and businessman, Mickey Wolfmann, and while in the midst of it all, she got herself a lucky little sneak peak of a truly sinister plan, laid out by Wolfmann’s own wife and her new boyfriend. They will kidnap Wolfmann and then get him admitted to a mental hospital, subsequently. With a position as a private detective and a weakness for the coping abilities of his ex-girlfriend, Doc makes the big mistake of actually accepting to investigate the case. Once he takes the first step inside this perplexed and confounding mystery it is utterly impossible to find a way back to the surface again. Doc’s desperate quest for answers only leaves him with even more questions than when he began the investigation, and with every rock being turned there is simply yet another suspicious personality, yet another mysterious affair, and yet another overwhelming wave of problematic pollution, ultimately overclouding his never-ending collection of truly confusing cases.

It ought to be mentioned, almost immediately, that the plot of 'Inherent Vice' almost appears totally clear and competent in the above synopsis, which is quite impressive considering the fact that there really isn’t any – and if I were to pretend there was one, it is virtually developed in real-time as we watch it – and not in any smart or beneficial kind of way, that’s for sure. If the audiences are hungry for a nice and refreshing investigational treat in the vein of a classic detective crime-drama, they will most likely reverse themselves homeward in a state best described as decidedly dramatic disorientation. 'Inherent Vice' is indeed still a film that leaves some kind of impression on its audience – though not exactly in relation to the remarkable or the thoughtful – but rather the feeling that it isn’t the characters on the screen but those in the seats, whom have all been treacherously kidnapped, betrayed, and heavily screwed around with. Perhaps it isn’t exactly pretentious narratively nonsense we are dealing with here, but it is rather irrelevant nonsense from a director, who actually has the tendency to produce a fascinating and controlled curiosity with his audience, in relation to pretty much all of his films. Paul Thomas Anderson is, in my honest opinion, one of the best and most competent directors in the industry right now, and if he sought a renewal, a challenge or perhaps both, I’m not really sure about. However, it is relatively safe to conclude that the subtle and trippy universes found in Thomas Pynchon's novels will continue to remain a piece of “unfilmable fiction”, which is still all too inappropriate for a permanent place on the big screen.

I have great respect for the bold and ambitious attitude, which director Paul Thomas Anderson comes tumbling with, down the hip and hippy-influenced lane of a truly memorable era in time. However, you kind of get the feeling that he executes these delights while under the influence of a heavy dose of “sticky icky wacky tobacky” from the very womb of Mother Nature. But of course, I’m definitely still willing to tip my swanky straw hat out of pure and simple respect, and I will even top that off by smoothly tilting my tacky sunglasses, at just the right angle, to reveal a tiny twinkle in my eye. Yes, the film is somewhat brave, but unfortunately also somewhat unsuccessful. Even after leaving the cinema, your mind is still left in the dark, bewildered and confused over the misleading story of the film; and with a rather stubborn desire to scratch oneself furiously and frustratingly in the sideburns – those of which you have or haven’t – in the end it is simply the symbolic meaning of it that counts! It is quite clear, that there is a need for a little more than a Ph.D. to understand the latest puzzle from PTA, and the almost surreal charm is not enough in itself to keep the film from treading waters. The story simply drowns more and more as it moves forward, and at some point you are so inclined to completely abandon the story, not to mention the actual willpower to get your head around this mental and maddening storyline. Now, I would like to honestly admit that I'm far from an expert on author, Thomas Pynchon, or his supposed storytelling skills, but complex or not, there simply has to be something to grab a hold of, before your interest dissolves completely. Furthermore, I am totally deaf when it comes to the completely ridiculous statements, involving both the film and the book and the supposed entirely deliberate meaninglessness of it all, which lays out the stupid excuse for intentionally not having any control and abruptly makes a muddled movie acceptable and even admirable, all of a sudden, for exactly that. Maybe if the film served as an atmospheric and sensual piece of filmmaking, perhaps then I could surrender to a lack of plot, but the film is simply not wild or vivid enough to live only on the surface.

On the other hand, it is actually very typical for the films of Paul Thomas Anderson to go on and become even better and more competent with each and every viewing. Still, with 'Inherent Vice' it seemed as if Anderson just deliberately spilled the unfinished parts of a plot all over the script pages, and simply began to film whatever mess happened to come out of it. This results not only in what feels like the strangest and most unusual Paul Thomas Anderson film to date, but also a complete detachment from the most important values of filmmaking itself. The script may very well be bathing gloriously in the neon lights of Pynchon's novel, but when the story stands completely naked and alone in the strong colorful spotlight, it all feels a bit too rigid and routine-like for its own good. Occasionally, Anderson's film feels a little too much as a single-minded and multi-surfaced summary of the overall story, rather than a genuine cinematic execution of that same element. I have actually given the film another watch since, and even though I might learn to love it, I still stand by its quirky mess and convoluted messages being way more irritating than enjoyable, which also strengthen my thoughts about Anderson giving up on too many familiar elements – both in relation to his own works and style, as well as filmmaking itself. ‘Inherent Vice’ is heavily in need of something consistent to hold on to or turn against at least a few times throughout, and if it insists of abandoning these elements then it should have been a lot more alive, charismatic, energetic, funny, groovy or perhaps just downright crazy… Unfortunately it only touches slightly on these various elements, and without ever deciding which one to dive deeper into.

The actors in the film are certainly talented people, and their respective characters do seem rather interesting as well, but because you are never invited within this chaotic concept of a film, you simply can’t help but witness it all in a very distant way, and without much interest either. As an audience, you never quite get the chance to settle down among these vivid and fascinating characters, but are instead left behind in a state of total confusion, slowly circulating around in this two and a half hour long game of “musical chairs” in the company of various characters and side plots, existing as some sort of detached irrelevance to it all. You are pretty much just a lonely and uninvited “fly on the wall” at the largest ever stoner party of the early ‘70s, but not even the passive inhaling of heavy green herbs can mesmerize you enough as the helpless little audience member that you really are. It is simply too complex for anyone to grasp, whether being an intentional choice or not, and even if the film ends up being both outstanding and understood during a potential fifth viewing, it is still far from useful knowledge – especially for the "anti-Anderson" moviegoers who wants nothing but a well constructed film, which is at least fascinating during the first and possibly only viewing of what will most likely be remembered as “Incoherent Vice”. Because it is really way too hollow and all over the place to be a truly great film, and even if it does have some shining moments here and there, there is just nothing holding them together, and really there isn’t exactly a beginning, middle or end to it all either. Everything seems coincidental, nothing seems coherent, and you seem to not really care. That is pretty much how it goes…

In danger of delivering the world's most negative and one-sided review, there are actually some charming delights to trace down in Paul Thomas Anderson's mystifying acid trip. The film has periods of truly amusing scenarios, as well as proficient and not the least well-acted scenes throughout. Anderson seems fairly in control of the film he is making, but it is exactly what he has to work with, which ends up pulling him down – something, which he has also brought on himself entirely. 'Inherent Vice' catches a counter-comical atmosphere, which is even periodically recognizable and fairly pleasant to reside in – especially because Anderson doesn’t try to copy all movies existing in the same period in time, but instead delivers his own, as well a Pynchon's version, of a paranoia-filled and unstable life in the early ‘70s. Personally, I expect to give the film a few shots more, but normally even the most incomprehensible Anderson film tend to fascinate in such a sufficient way, that the desire to reunite with the universe quickly occurs. Unfortunately, 'Inherent Vice' just didn’t do that to me. Clearly, this is the most high-flying and far-fetched project from the director’s hand so far, and though it is fairy possible that it has a lot of implicit ideologies within it, they simply lie too well hidden under the huge pile of pretty much anything, going from A-Z and back… Well, at least until one or more watches. But still, during this first filmic investigation of Anderson’s ‘Inherent Vice’, you can’t help but feel bewildered and dizzy when standing in the haze of a massive cloud of smoke, in a concentrated attempt to define what kind of pure madness you have just witnessed. Until then, we must see ourselves float passively around in the open space of unanswered questions and cinematic insecurity.


The Acting
As mentioned earlier, one of the greatest joys of being a witness to the insane assemble of abnormal characters, existing only in places like Anderson’s 'Inherent Vice', is that you can happily jump on the bandwagon and "join" the very same lunatics in their puzzling and offbeat walkabouts. Therefore it doesn’t hurt one bit that the list of actors is both sublime and carefully selected, especially with the amazing Joaquin Phoenix starring as our main character, Larry "Doc" Sportello. He is a truly talented and underrated actor, who undoubtedly should have ran away with the Oscar award for his performance in 2012’s 'The Master’ – a film, which incidentally is also directed by Paul Thomas Anderson. Unfortunately, the Oscar committee bowed under for the typical historical and biographical importance, in the form of a good old-fashioned President philosophy, in Spielberg's 'Lincoln'. Furthermore, it had the pleasure of acting-favorite Daniel Day-Lewis playing the title role. But Oscar statuette or not, Phoenix is still an actor of his own high class, and although his performance doesn’t top the one from 'The Master', he is certainly still quite masterful in 'Inherent Vice'.

In addition to Joaquin Phoenix, we also have talents like Josh Brolin, Reese Witherspoon, Owen Wilson and Benicio Del Toro. It isn’t every one of their respective characters, which are equally dominant in relation to the number of minutes they spend in the film, but virtually the whole team does a fine job with whatever they have to work with. As mentioned previously, the script sometimes seems a little difficult for the actors to deliver in a fluent and believable way, which is both natural and charismatic as well, but ultimately this isn’t really a pinpoint that should be rocked around with all that much. Especially because we pretty much covered it already, or at least why it may be like that.


The Technical Aspect
Paul Thomas Anderson's prominent side step from the digital revolution of filmmaking seems to work relatively well here, since the timeworn but yet so flamboyant ‘70s appear to obtain a look and feel, which is almost completely faultless, with the magic and not the least value of authentic film grain and consistent color balance. However, it is still noticeably far from the most visually stunning film ever made by this director, nor does it seem like there has been thrown much focus into technical eye candy, or sharp and inventive editing; although there are indeed some positive periods here and there. Overall though, it seems as if Anderson mainly wants to let the camera linger in the characteristic and periodic state of mind, without ever overshadowing neither the characters nor story too much. But then again, the story itself does a fine job at living in constant darkness, so personally I wouldn’t mind a little more “flower power” in the visual delicacies.


The Soundscape
Paul Thomas Anderson's films often contain an ambrosial and versatile soundscape with its clear focus set on imperfect and atmospheric elements. It works not only as an independent factor, but also illustrates the tone and pace of the given scene in focus. The soundscape often goes hand in hand with the visuals in a relatively impressive way, and simultaneously pushes the very core of the story to a higher and way more ambitious level of excellence. Unfortunately though, there wasn’t much more than a shadow of this significant technique to be found in 'Inherent Vice', even if it is actually a very protruding factor in almost all his films prior to this.

On a slightly more positive note, instead we get invited into a gorgeous “period appropriate” soundtrack, contributing to what place in time the film tries to recreate for its audience. Although the chosen songs themselves exist in the older end of the musical world, it actually feels like a breath of fresh air when one of many traditional and mood-fitting tracks enters the film in grand style. Though, it must be said, that it doesn’t have quite the same “wow factor” as, say, 'Guardians of the Galaxy' from last year, and it is unfortunately not as impressive or wonderfully effective either. But of course, we have two very different films on our hands here, each with their own vision and style, so a direct comparison would be quite unfair. Ultimately, in its own squared and slightly blundering style, this soundscape is definitely a proper and controlled addition to Paul Thomas Anderson's sophisticated funk-junk, 'Inherent Vice'.

______________________________________________

SHORT SUMMARY // Paul Thomas Anderson and his refined chaos, 'Inherent Vice', is most likely going to give you something to ponder over, but if there are in fact answers to all of your questions is perhaps the greatest mystery of them all. Anderson set out to adapt the impossible, but it seems like Thomas Pynchon's novels will continue to remain in the category titled "outside of adaption". However, it is in many ways a worthy attempt, which unfortunately seems to be more respectful to the book and its author, rather than to cinema and its audience. The film may be commonsensical and coherent on its own insanely ambitious level, but even if you manage to finally understand it all at a second, third or perhaps even fourth watch, it is simply not good enough – it just remains all too frustrating in the long run to be fully convenient, and there are all too few high marks and quirky touches to keep the entire lunacy going, during two and a half lengthy hours, of a truly confused and mostly uninteresting guessing game.


FINAL RATING // -

Another stellar review, MM. Your vocabulary is very impressive, especially considering that English isn't even your first language.

I think I have a pretty good idea of what to expect from Inherent Vice thanks to all the reviews and responses. I love PTA, so I want to love the film. I'm kind of glad I never got an opportunity to see it in theaters since I probably would've been disappointed. Now that my expectations have lowered a bit, I'm hoping just to surrender myself to the experience and the characters instead of trying to make too much sense of the plot.

__________________

A great big thank you for the kind words as always, Spaulding! I really do appreciate it, no matter how big or small. A reply is much appreciated on its own, like we talked about a while ago: a reply is always better than just rep.

But yeah, I'm a huge PTA fan and tried to keep my expectations low, but yet I was disappointed. I can still see myself watching it again, but I don't see it go past anything but merely a 'good film'. It isn't great nor a favorite at all. I knew the plot was messy before going in, and yet I couldn't seem to enjoy myself. There was simply too much going on...

Thanks again, I always look forward to your replies, whether it's in my thread or somebody else's.

Great review MM. I did not love Inherent Vice like I do other PTA films but I think I liked it a bit more than you. I really don't think I found it that hard to follow. I think my problem was it was more about plot then characters and I find all of PTA films to be the opposite of that. Because it was more interested in plot then character I found the characters less interesting then normal PTA but still quite good. This movie has been compared to The Big Lebowsky. That is a movie that took me two viewings to appreciate, and I am still not head over heels in love with it like many. Maybe that is where I will ultimately land with Vice as well. Time will tell, I will be watching it on bluray soon.

__________________
Letterboxd

The Story
22 years have gone past, since a man named John Hammond had his grand wish to come true, where living and breathing dinosaurs were to walk amongst us humans, as one hell of a revolutionary tourist attraction. But before the park even got to open for tourists, the dream turned to a horrifying nightmare, and "life found a way" around the numerous technological features that would otherwise keep the dead species under deadly control. But now, the park has finally become a reality and made available to a global audience. Jurassic World is the biggest of all tourist attractions, no matter where in the world you are. But as soon as children and adults are getting more and more used to the idea of ancient animals existing on our planet, the prehistoric species suddenly becomes nothing more than overgrown elephants and enlarged crocodiles, and the hungry audience is looking for something that is bigger and more extreme than what the park has to offer. This issue encourage the managers and investors of the park to turn towards a possibility of a genetically modified hybrid, where technology of today clashes with life from the past, which makes the idea of ​​a completely new creation possible, wherein the only limit is your imagination. Not even span, spirit or species can come between Frankenstein's monster of the year 2015 – Indominus Rex. But mankind’s hunger for more than they can swallow, unsurprisingly backfires, and suddenly they have created a monster which swallows everything from animals to park visitors, and the “dream park” is once again on the verge of falling together with reality, in the most frightening way you could imagine.

Before we get started here, I must honestly admit that I was quite nervous about the giant reunion with the likable lost world. After the third film was released a staggering fourteen years ago, and almost single-handedly caused the series to dive into total extinction, it is frankly hard to imagine ever experiencing the universe from a "lost time" ever again – would we ever get to hear the iconic roar from a tyrannosaurus rex, without having to dig out and dust off the old films from our collection at home? But finally it is here, the day where our dreams come true – and not only the franchise is back on track - even the park itself is now a fully functioning theme park with prehistoric beings of all sizes, shapes and colors. But is it worth a visit? You bet it is...

'Jurassic World' is perhaps a bit systematic in its story; slightly predictable in its approach; but in return it is also enormously entertaining in its revitalizing execution of earlier extinction! Colin Trevorrow, the man who controls the fun in the park this time around, apparently knows exactly how to deliver a jaw-smashing creature feature, which makes for a jaw-dropping audience in the theater. Pretty much against all odds, the fourth film about the prehistoric lizards is a solid success, and the director has succeeded in modulating his monster vision for all generations to enjoy – whether you are young or old; fan or first-time traveler - 'Jurassic World' takes you on a turbulent trip through the tropical terrain; and I can promise you that you will at least be entertained! As I said before, Colin Trevorrow grinds every cornerstone of a guaranteed success, which eventually makes a sequel come to live. One could almost call 'Jurassic World' a chemical construction, which has been conceived from the first two films in the franchise – because this film definitely clones here and there from the past – but everything is done with tolerable respect and in favor of the sequel in discussion. I always looked at it like this: the formula for a successful sequel mainly consists of the following parts – a reimagining and present modernization of previous plot lines, a further development of the original universe, a tightening of the overall scale, and lastly, a couple of references to previous films. To those who doubt this statement, they can simply look up successes like 'Aliens' and 'Terminator 2' – both just so happens to be directed by James Cameron. Are ‘Jurassic World’ comparable to these? No, they are million years apart from each other, but the basic formula is the same if you think about it.

Looking past the places where the film stays in touch with familiar framework, there are certainly places where the framework cracks, and even a few places where it gets broken completely, which leaves a breath of fresh air for us to enjoy – or maybe I should say “a ground-shaking roar” that can be felt in the upper end of the Richter scale. In any case, there is also new stuff to be found in the film. Well, it is said, that a film is only as good as its villain, and precisely in this case it fits the proclamation perfectly. Just as with the genetic and frenetic main attraction, Indominus Rex, the film itself also took a stroll to the "laboratory" where a quantity of familiar forces was joined together, to eventually form a single concentrated power – a force bigger, crazier and more innovative, but still holds some well-known components if you choose to look for them. This is 'Jurassic World' in all its simplicity... and it works excellently!

That being said, it is perhaps only a natural progression for the series to present the park as a functioning holiday destination, where the species diversity has been doubled; technology has been tripled; while all the problems has been quadrupled. But then you might ask whether the film, during its excessive expansion, in this case will disappear deeply into a mishmash of maximum “computer chaos”, as we have come to know it from most of today's noisy blockbusters... Well, somewhat surprisingly, the answer is actually “no” in my opinion. It has somehow succeeded Colin Trevorrow to upscale the prehistoric universe as we know it, while still preserving a portion of the movielike magic and lovely charm, which the first film shaped much of its success from. There are also plenty of scenes delivered with a wink and a touch of self-awareness, which will truly take you back to the first film. It is no ‘Jurassic Park’ by any means, but it is more than what we could have hoped for since the atrocious archaeological misstep with the third film.

The Acting
'Jurassic World' is not exactly a true marvel at the actor front, but who on earth travels to "dinosaur destruction" only to observe humans anyways? I’m just joking here, because even though it is the dinosaurs who keep the whole “world” running smoothly, it is all the actors who are the actual powerhouse. Especially because this movie is far from an uninterrupted, excruciating and explosive extravaganza – there are actually dialogue-based scenes and interactions between the characters to be found – even if the dialogue can be predictable and plain; and the characters angular and unattractive. But after all, one should not weigh in too much on that particular area, and it is relatively easy to get carried away by the end of it. Particularly because the cast is pleasantly varied and filled with both new and old talents.

Someone worth mentioning is BD Wong, in the role of Henry Wu, who incidentally is the only recurring representative to appear in 'Jurassic World'. His role here is considerably larger and more interesting than in the first, which gives him the opportunity to show some abilities that travels beyond the art of concentrated egg-observation and data-detection, which was his main role in the first film. It is also a joy to see Bryce Dallas Howard back on the big screen, though I think her performance was slightly disappointing. Looking further through the cast, the film primarily consists of the newest faces of Hollywood, such as Omar Sy and Ty Simpkins, who made themselves noticed in 'The Intouchables' and 'Insidious', respectively. Finally, there is of course none other than Star Lord in the flesh – or that airy-fairy fella from Spike Jonze’s 'Her' – it all depends on how you see it. But no matter how you choose to twist and turn it, Chris Pratt an extremely popular dude at this time, and after his performance in 'Guardians of the Galaxy' there is no doubt that his talents has been a popular demand. His role in 'Jurassic World' as laid-back “lizard expert” suits him quite well, and he is an important part in pulling home this monstrous piece of work.

The Technical Aspect
Despite being pretty much stripped of practical effects, the computer-generated ones are actually so great and entertaining, that one often find oneself in complete fossil hypnosis. Especially the raptors are extremely impressive to look at, and even though I had pre-ticked the lack of practical dinosaurs on my board of problems, I saw myself being fairly amazed by the end result. But it must be said, that many of the major external buildings and interior technological architectures are all built from scratch, so there is absolutely still a sense of authenticity when you flies through the park.

Although the film more or less looks great, I had hoped for a little more technical flair and exciting executions of various scenes, coming from the director's side. Everything feels a bit too uninspired by the way it has been filmed, and although it looks quite dazzling when you are left to dwell over the beautiful landscapes, the movie itself seems to be missing a little more life and richness in my opinion. Despite the warm tropical colors, it occasionally feels slightly sterile and stiff. But fortunately though, there is enough life in the park itself to keep us all fairly happy, and after all this is only a minor complaint of contention in the film.


The Soundscape
Aaaaaaah... The feeling of unadulterated nostalgia rushes in over you when hearing John Williams' great composition from the first film. This element is certainly an important part in overturning the audience and get them to look past the problems of the film, simply because they can’t remove their focus from the familiar and iconic melody ... The soundscape is of course also filled with new pieces of music that goes perfectly with the prehistoric world, while there are also some classic dinosaurs that resonates back to their original roots. Ultimately, when it all comes down to it, 'Jurassic World' knows how to roar in the right tone!

______________________________________________

SHORT SUMMARY // Director, Colin Trevorrow, almost looks to be related to the “father of feather-free reptiles", John Hammond, if you take a quick look at his grandiose vision and not least the ability to work a theme park directly into the abyss. But of course, the latter is only a delight to the audience, and there is certainly a lot to experience with 'Jurassic World'. The film is an irrepressible animal adventure, which manages to preserve parts of the old spirit, while some fantasy-filled features is being built around it. To visit 'Jurassic World' is like a great theme park ride through heartwarming nostalgia and modern technological expertise. It feels like controlled monster mythology at its finest, and I wonder if another trip to Isla Nublar is a probability in the near future? "Yes please, one ticket to more reptilian ruin, thank you!"


FINAL RATING // +

I sat up all night with this and only got 4 reps and not one single comment... I'm disappointed.

But of course, I guess people really haven't seen it yet and want to wait off by reading reviews, which I understand. But get going then!

Skipped everything and looked at the rating. This gives me more confidence in JW

I'm skipping everything, including the movie.

This. Sorry, MM.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

Well, at least you could read the review. Especially since you aren't going to watch it anyways.

But it's cool, I understand.

I rarely read reviews of films I have no/little interest in, as JD will tell you.

I'm gonna watch the film because I want to give it a crap rating. Hope I'm (not) surprised.