Game of Thrones: Season 6 - My thoughts

Oh, Game of Thrones, what has become of you?

If the end of season 5 was a hint that without Martin's material this show was beginning to crumble, season 6 has completely and utterly proved it.

A show that was completely unpredictable, yet flawless in its internal logic, reasoning and character motivation/development, has now become ‘just another action series’ where huge explosions and shocking deaths are used to cover up sloppy writing and a clear panic over the show’s direction.

It would be unfair to say that season 6 hasn’t given us some great moments; from the revelation behind Hodor’s ‘hodoring’ to the surprise suicide of Tommen after the destruction of Baelor’s Sept, there have been good scenes throughout – but that makes it all the more a shame when the season as a whole can’t manage to shrug off the feeling that without a book to read from, Benioff and Weiss are clearly drowning in the world that Martin has created.

Sticking out like a sore thumb throughout season 6 has been the poor character motivation and development. Peak behind the uninspired dialogue and it’s clear to see that the characters are acting simply because the plot dictates they must. Of course, all TV characters are written, but good planning and writing leads to characters that feel real, characters that act based on their personalities and situation, and characters who, most importantly, act with a consistency true to their created selves.

Sadly, the main cast this season have lost their complexity and individuality, and the lazy dialogue leaves little to the imagination, serving only as a means to move the show along instead of to actually entertain.

On the plus side, the action sequences still amaze. Big budget effects and a range of directors cleverly chosen to handle the more action-oriented episodes have meant we’ve seen a host of great scenes. The battle of the bastards being a big highlight to the end of the season, as was the White Walker’s attack on Bran and crew, with the undead horde crawling like spiders bringing fright, dread and excitement in equal measure.

Still though, even these scenes are often let down by a lack of consistency and verisimilitude, with events often making little sense and characters popping up here, there and everywhere as if travel in Westeros features teleportation. From Varys hopping from Meereen to Dorne and bizarrely back again only to set sail for Westeros (a trip that would take months and see him sail across oceans in harsh conditions, remember), to various characters hopping between the north and the south as if there’s a local train line connecting the two.

Do you remember when, back in the early seasons of the show, great stories and events unfolded in Game of Thrones because characters were travelling. Remember how Tyrion’s arrest at the hands of Catelyn and their subsequent journey to The Eyrie actually gave us some of the best moments of the season? Remember Arya’s torturous trip from The Red Keep to The Wall, a trip she never completed but one that saw her character develop in a spectacularly violent, realistic and intriguing way?

It’s such a shame we now find ‘fast travel’ used so often as a means to hide the poor writing and planning of the show – switching between characters has become a cheap trick used to disguise lengths of time or to distract us from where a character is so we won’t notice where they’ve gone to.

It may seem as if these points are niggling – to be fair, some are – but when a show is grounded in such a great, fantastical world and when it features characters so well written that they seem like old friends, to watch them become caricatures of themselves and to watch all of the complexity and cunning of the show melt away becomes simply painful.

Sure, season 6 of Game of Thrones was still good television overall, it entertained, it enthralled and it made us tune in week after week – but then, 6 seasons in that becomes kind of a given. We all want to know what will happen at the end of this saga; we all want to see characters die, others live and we all want to know just who will be sat on the iron throne at the end (or whatever’s left of it). It’s just sad that by the time the finale rolls around and we hear the music play out for the last time, we probably won’t care much at all.

My thoughts on 'Captain America: Civil War'

Captain America faces off against Ironman in 'Captain America: Civil War'...

I’m feeling much too lazy to write a full review of Captain America: Civil War, so here is a list of some of my unfiltered, spewed out in any order and, most likely containing spoilers, thoughts:

• Spider-Man was awesome. He’s not in it a whole lot but within that short time they really nailed his character (it makes me feel sorry for Sony who had two movies to do the same and just failed… magnificently).
• I really liked the smaller scale of this movie compared to the comic book story. It’s not better per se, but it works better for the film; having the fight centre on Cap' and Ironman feels very natural and the other characters take sides that align with their viewpoint and mind-set as you’d imagine they would (mostly).
• That being said, it’s not a ‘Civil War’ in any sense of the word, more like a small scale ‘Civil Dispute’ – but I get why they didn’t choose that as a title…
• It’s great to see that in a movie as massive as this, character still comes first, and when shit hits the fan the consequences focus more on how people are affected rather than just using action sequences to blind people with explosions.
• The action sequences are there though, and they’re really kick-ass. Okay, sometimes there’s a little too much shaky-cam, but the choreography is excellent and the Russo brothers handle the myriad characters very well. The airport fight is really fun, crazy and very well shot.
• Spider-Man really is awesome.
• Ant-Man is really great too, and this movie almost does a better job of the character than the actual Ant-man film, perhaps because he plays a side character role, which I feel suits his character better than main part.
• As with a lot of Marvel films (or comic book films in general), the actual villain of the film is pretty underdeveloped and fairly menial, he’s put there to make certain things happen which then happen, and little more. Still, he’s better than a lot of them, and I actually felt some sympathy for him, even if he isn’t the main point of the movie.
• Black Panther is really well handled in this film, and they manage to establish his character very quickly but without it feeling rushed. I was concerned he’d feel like the odd one out, the one nobody really knew or cared about, but he actually fits in very well and will definitely have a bigger role to play in the future.
• Spider-Man. Is. Awesome.
• This film is actually quite emotional, and when it really kicks off, there are some great moments when you really feel the connection these characters have to each other, and how the events of the movie have changed them forever.
• The ending though, I felt was a bit on the ‘light’ side. Even just one important character dying would’ve added a lot, even if it was accidentally or something.
• Still, overall this movie is very fun, very well made and actually does a good job or bringing together a competent story, deft characterisation and thrilling action into a cohesive whole. It’s not perfect, but it’s very good, and compared to the other properties in the MCU the Captain America series is going from strength to strength.
• Oh, and Spider-Man is awesome.

Spectre: Review

Spoiler alert: Plot elements for Casino Royale, Skyfall and Spectre are detailed throughout this review so watch the films before reading!

'Spectre' starring Daniel Craig (directed by Sam Mendes)

I have to admit, I went in to Spectre thinking that I wouldn’t like it very much. It’s not that I doubted Mendes’ ability as a director, or Craig’s performance as Bond (he is, actually, my favourite Bond), it was because I felt that Skyfall could have been a great end to this version of the Bond character.

When Casino Royale was released in 2006 it marked a reinvention of the Bond series. Daniel Craig’s Bond was younger, fitter and more brutal than any past incarnation. From that tense, black and white opening sequence to the memorable final scene, it charted Bond’s rise to Double 0 agent and detailed the actions and betrayals that would form the cold, calculated yet damaged Bond that will surely come to define Craig’s time as the character.

With Skyfall, both the script and direction revelled in this darker and grittier take on Bond. If Casino Royale was the creation of Bond for a new age, Skyfall was his death and rebirth (and yes, I’m going to casually skip over Quantum of Solace as if it never happened because… well, it shouldn’t have). Skyfall built brilliantly on where Casino Royale ended with Bond returning as an aging, damaged man. Not only was he put through gruelling physical punishment, but the fragility of his mental state was also laid bare as the ghosts of his past were dug up.

Bond is tested both emotionally in Casino Royale (top) and physically in Skyfall (bottom)

In a stark comparison then, Spectre takes all of these elements and pushes them to the side as it retreats back to the classic Bond formula of old. The weary Bond of Skyfall is replaced by one much stronger and fitter, and the naïve romantic from Casino Royale is swapped for the womanising and irresistible Bond reminiscent of the Roger Moore era.
The personal and human elements of past films have also been substituted for a more typical world-saving, globe-trotting plot that sees Bond and MI6 fend off against a worldwide terrorist organisation. It is thrilling, action packed and most of all fun, but it feels out of place when compared to Craig’s previous outings and the version of Bond that was developed in those.

Despite its different direction and my initial reservations however, I tried to keep an open mind for Spectre, and as such found it to be an enjoyable action romp and technically a near perfect film. Craig’s performance is still on point, and Christoph Waltz is both thrilling and chilling as Oberhauser/Blofeld, it’s just a shame he isn’t given anywhere near enough screen time as he should have been.
The action sequences, and there are a lot more compared to Skyfall, are exhilarating and Mendes clearly enjoyed the more outlandish scripting for these segments. From an alpine chase sequence featuring a wing-less plane to a brutal and tense fist fight on a train, there is variation, excitement and a sense of physicality throughout. The opening sequence during Mexico’s ‘Day of the Dead’ festival also deserves a mention for its stylish long take opening shot and great visual design.
I also really enjoyed seeing more of Ben Wishaw’s Q this time around, still suitably bookish but wittier and busier than he was in Skyfall. Certain characters were underdeveloped however, with Andrew Scott’s ‘C’ largely one dimensional and Monica Bellucci’s Lucia essentially useless.

Spectre’s plot was something that I also liked, but sadly it wasn’t utilised effectively. Surveillance plays a large role in the story and is a topic very relevant to today’s society. In Spectre, Waltz’ Blofeld has created a global intelligence network easily capable of besting any government effort. He has total control over information and poses a clear threat, and yet Spectre never really goes anywhere with this.
At one point in the story Blofeld has captured Bond and Madeleine Swann (played brilliantly by Lea Seydoux). He shows off the extent of his surveillance network to the pair but then does nothing useful with it. I was expecting him to ‘out’ Bond to the world as a dangerous rogue, and to place MI6 and other national security agencies in chaos by turning public opinion against them, but instead he performs some admittedly brutal yet seemingly ineffective surgery on Bond before getting blown up. For all of Blofeld’s careful plotting and patience, he ends up doing very little.
This unsatisfying tail off is something that also affects the film’s subplot, involving M’s defence of the Double 0 program to C, Blofeld’s secret apprentice and head of the Joint Intelligence Service. C wants to abolish the Double 0 program due to its archaic nature, believing surveillance and digital technology to be the future. In the end though, after having his ‘Nine Eyes’ surveillance network shut down rather easily, he is killed off and nothing more said about the uncertain future of Double 0 agents. Spectre takes one of its most interesting elements and fails to create any tension or excitement with it, which is sadly a theme all too similar throughout the film.

Christoph Waltz' Blofeld is a chilling but underused character

 

These issues with the plot come down to the script, and it’s here that Spectre also falls apart in other areas. As I mentioned, Spectre harks back to the older Bond films in its style and format, but by doing so it creates problems for itself by failing to reconcile this lighter, more classic approach with the grittier and darker elements of the previous films.
In Casino Royale we saw Bond as a professional yet vulnerable agent, his womanising ways replaced by calculated, focused and efficient work. The entire third act of that film is given to his developing relationship with Vesper and her eventual betrayal. Far from the typical, objectified Bond girls in the older movies, this relationship was integral to the plot and to Bond’s development as a character.
Similarly, Skyfall decided to flip the Bond formula on its head by showing Bond as a man, one with faults both mental and physical. His declining skills with weapons and his age have an active effect on his work in the field and create consequences for himself and others.
Both of these films were filled with detailed characterisation that created the most fleshed out and interesting Bond to date.
In Spectre however, this same Bond is constrained by the older, tired formula from the pre-Craig films. He’s a womaniser and an unbeatable action hero. He jumps from one action scene to the next with little consequence, and yet we’re still given elements of that deeper, darker past. As Spectre tries to marry the two elements together it doesn’t quite fit and inevitably fails. Where Casino Royale and Skyfall redeveloped Bond for the modern era, Spectre instead takes us backwards to places we’ve already been.

For all of my issues with it though, Spectre isn’t a bad film, and is definitely a fun and exciting action movie. It’s engaging, well made and funnier than a lot of previous entries. But as I said, I went in to Spectre thinking that Skyfall was the perfect ending to the Daniel Craig era of Bond films, and I left thinking exactly the same thing. Had the Bond franchise been put on hold for a few years, returning with a new Bond and a new style, it would have worked much better than Spectre did. As it stands though, Spectre is entertaining but pales in comparison to previous films in this era of the franchise.

This Is England '90: Review

Warning: Spoilers ahead for This Is England from the film through to the finale of ’90.

'This Is England '90'

When This Is England was released in 2006 many regarded it as Shane Meadows magnum opus; in terms of style, theme and dramatic heft it represented the culmination of Meadows' foray into British working class life and effortlessly blended humour, tragedy and romance into something that felt quintessentially British and easily recognisable as a Shane Meadows film.

'This Is England' (2006)

Fast forward nine years and for many (myself included) This Is England is still Meadows' definitive work, only now the small budget indie feature is part of a sprawling drama series comprised of the original film and three television ‘spin-offs’, This Is England ’86, ’88 and ’90.

As a Meadows’ fan and with This Is England topping my list of indie films at the time, I was dubious when ’86 was announced. Meadows' had never done television before, and though This Is England didn’t wrap everything up in a nice little bow, it did end with such force and poignancy that a spin-off could have easily cheapened the film and ruined its uniqueness and charm.
Thankfully though, ’86 was a brilliant miniseries and Meadows' handled the transition from film to television masterfully, creating a show that felt as distinctive as the film and yet whole-heartedly a story that belonged on the small screen.

With the release of ’88 Meadows’ again proved his worth and showed that the story of Shaun, Woody, Lol and the gang was far from over. With a clear passion and focused sense of direction ’88 felt as fresh as This Is England did in 2006 but with a sense of welcome familiarity.

And so, three years after its planned release in 2012, This Is England ’90 comes to our screens as the fourth and final chapter in the series. After so many years and with previous series reaching critical acclaim going back for one last time was both a smart and dangerous decision. Still, with Meadows' previous track record was there really any need to worry? 

No. No there wasn’t.

This Is England '90 is a triumph of British television drama. Not only was it a satisfactorily meaty drama to delve into, but following on from previous Channel 4 dramas such as Utopia and Humans, it also served as a reminder that there's just as much excitement to be found in the lives of a group of working class friends as there is in international conspiracies and foreboding visions of our future.

This Is England ’90 focuses on three main stories: Woody, Lol and Milky have to deal with the trials of parenthood whilst also preparing for Combo’s release from jail; Kelly’s world is thrown into disarray as past truths about her father’s death come to light; and Shaun has to deal with moving on from Smell whilst trying to find where his future lies after dropping out of college.

The gang are pushed to their limits yet again as the drama unfolds in 'This Is England '90'

Meadows' handles these separate strands well with each story weaving together and splitting apart naturally. The same is true for his handling of the main group, they come together and apart as friends do, with most characters fitting nicely into their roles. Shaun’s change from main to side character is done well and he still feels very much a key part of this world. Joe Gilgun and Vicky McClure are brilliant as ever in the shoes of Woody and Lol, handling the brunt of the stories main drama and creating a key couple for the series to revolve around. Chanel Cresswell is also very strong as Kelly, a character who takes centre stage towards the end of the series as her life spirals out of control.

Perhaps most impressively though, is how Meadows' manages to handle such a sprawling story in such a focused and detailed way. This is due in part to his knack for keen characterisation and strong visual storytelling, but is also aided by the format, with each of the four episodes taking place during a season of the year. Through this mechanic Meadows’ is able to let the characters and drama breathe, which lets us absorb both the action and lingering consequences whilst keeping the pace fast and the story on edge.

There are some elements to ’90 however that don’t quite work. The comic relief duo of Flip and Higgy seem a little too much like caricatures, as do Woody’s parents and their live-in surrogate daughter Jennifer, making scenes with them feel out of place against the rest of the series. Still, it’s understandable that Meadows’ would want to put some comedy into the mix, and these segments are usually short and well spaced out.

Both Flip & Higgy and the Woodford household feel at odds with the rest of the series

Those slight complaints aside, nearly everything within This Is England ’90 is on point and both dramatically and emotionally satisfying. As the finale draws to a close and Kelly is welcomed back into the group we see the gang smile, hug and dance the night away. After nine years of watching these characters grow up and take more than their fair share of trouble, it’s a satisfying send off.

Well, for all except Milky, now saddled with the guilt and trauma of having played a part in the death of Combo. As the rest of the gang enjoy themselves Milky is left to drink away his guilt and we’re left knowing that he’ll never be able to overcome what he did.
In those original final scenes of This Is England Milky is the victim of a violent and unstable Combo’s attack, and here he’s once again the victim in a completely different yet equally painful way. As the series draws to a close, and it seems the right decision for ’90 to end the saga, Meadows' gives us that tragic, poetic, ironic end which, considering the subject matter and topics covered here, is completely fitting of the series and undoubtedly an emotional one for any fan.

The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time: Thoughts on the play

I caught The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time at the Bristol Hippodrome during its 2015 UK tour, and in short, I bloody loved it.

The book (written by Mark Haddon) is one of my favourites, and I was actually quite apprehensive about the stage adaptation. For those who haven’t read the book and know nothing about the story, Curious Incident follows fifteen year old Christopher Boone, who has an Asperger’s-esque condition, as he tries to uncover the mystery of his neighbours murdered dog, Wellington.
What it’s really about though, is Christopher’s relationship with his father, the secrets of his past and the confusion of everyday life for someone living with autism. The narrative is framed as a book that Christopher is writing for a school project and during his meetings with Siobhan, his school mentor, we uncover the larger story elements that all kick off with Wellington’s murder.

The reason I was apprehensive about the adaptation is due to the presentation of the book. We read from Christopher’s point of view, and within it he draws diagrams and maps and pictures to show his understanding of the world around him, or lack of when it comes to people and social situations. I was interested in seeing how this was adapted to the stage, but if I’m honest, thought that the play would miss the charm and originality of the book. Thankfully though, I was very wrong.

Diagrams from the book showing Christopher's confusion at emotions

The stage version of Curious Incident is incredible, in no small part due to the amazing set and lighting/sound design utilised in the production. The set is designed like an open cube, with both side walls, the back wall and the floor all covered in grid lines and mentions of time and space.

What’s so magical though, is how this cube comes to life. Throughout the production various parts of the set open to reveal hidden doors, compartments and props and both the floor and walls also project words and images. These are accompanied by lights (both large beams that frame the set and by little LEDs housed along every cross-section of the grid pattern) which change and pulse for various scenes.
The effect is truly mesmerising, and during scenes in which Christopher talks of his dreams or struggles with the confusion of the world, the set itself becomes a character, reacting to and anticipating the movements of the actors – the technical crew of this production deserve a round of applause to say the least.

This technical element is also complemented by the use of models in the first act. As Christopher’s story develops he begins to build a model railway and the further his investigation takes him from home the more the railway village expands until the entire stage is covered in model houses, landmarks, tracks and people. It’s a lovely, simple and incredibly effective way of bringing an entire town to the stage, and watching Christopher methodically assemble the town together bit by bit against the backdrop of heavy, emotional scenes is engrossing.

Another aspect of the production that I found so spectacular is the actor’s movements around the stage and with each other. Not only do the cast navigate the sprawling model village and various other props with deft precision, but for large chunks of the play the entire main cast remain on stage and as Christopher explores the world they pick him up, flip him over, hold him in the air, press against him or send him up against the walls to walk along them. The choreography is excellent and so imaginative that it’s impossible not to smile watching these scenes take place.

It’s this imagination, which runs through every aspect of the production, that makes it such a joy to watch. From the cast to the models to the set itself, every element is perfectly designed to work together and successfully bring Curious Incident alive.
Most importantly though, the play takes the greatest message of the book and successfully brings it to the stage, the message that it’s okay to be different. Through watching the play you get an idea, even just a glimpse, of what the world can be like for someone with autism (or any disability/disorder/condition) and that is both the book and plays greatest asset.

Oh, and there’s an adorable puppy as well.

Jurassic World (sponsored by Samsung): Rambling Review

I’m going to ‘review’ Jurassic World, but to be honest I’m really just going to ramble on about it. I warn you now, this will feature spoilers and I’m also not going to run through the plot properly, so if you haven’t seen it, read the Wiki summary first!

 

I went in to Jurassic World with deep cynicism and the feeling that I was going to be hugely disappointed. I came out somewhat pleased, which was surprising, but also somewhat disappointed, which wasn’t so surprising. It’s not that Jurassic World is a bad movie, in fact I really enjoyed parts of it and felt overall that compared to Jurassic Park III it was a return to form, but it still didn’t come close to reaching the brilliance of the original.

Generally I enjoyed Trevorrow’s direction more so than his writing with Derek Connolly. There were plenty of great moments filled with suspense and the action sequences were well choreographed and suitably chaotic and thrilling. Sadly though, the script didn’t share this same polish, and was filled with mistakes both large and small which kept distracting me from the fun and enjoyment of the film.

To highlight such mistakes, I want to talk about a relatively small yet suitably eye-rolling one, Bryce Dallas Howard’s character Claire and her choice of footwear for the entire movie: high heels.

Now I get it, she’s the director of the park: a business women, numbers and log sheets (a fact the script drums into you at every possible moment). My problem though, is that it would have been easy for her to be wearing a pair of flats and still come off as a professional and job orientated person. I mean, admittedly no one is looking much at her feet, but if there are any Tarantino-esque fetishists out there, would she be just as professional for wearing a pair of sensible shoes rather than heels? Would she still be awkward and out of touch with her nephews? Would she command the same aura of control and coldness? Yes, of course she bloody would. She’d still be the same character, the only difference is that when she tries to cross Jungle terrain or outrun a T-Rex it would be simply unrealistic instead of unbearably stupid and unrealistic.

Yes Claire, RUN, run in your impractical shoes...

To be honest, this is my main problem with the script and film as a whole; the lack of realism in both actions and characters (and yes, I’m talking about realism within the verisimilitude of the Jurassic Park universe).

You’ll probably still remember the epic chase sequence from the first film where Malcolm, Ellie and British Crocodile Dundee are being chased by a T-Rex in their little gas-powered Jeep: the T-Rex easily catches up with the trio and nearly kills them. In this movie, Claire is able to outrun the same dinosaur on foot, and in heels. Sure it’s a cool slo-mo sequence with dramatic flare holding and suspenseful music, but the entire scene makes no sense.

This tendency towards the unreal infuses the entire movie, and often I felt like these moments were written in just to solve the problem of ‘how to get the characters from A to B’ - I get the need for them to reach B, I just wish more time was spent on the reasoning.

Take, for instance, the moment in which Claire’s nephews, the typical asshole older brother Zach and younger, smart yet troubled Gray, are cruising around in a Gyrosphere. A message pops up telling them to stop and go back, yet our duo decide that VIP wristbands equal ‘do whatever the fuck we want passes’. Coming across a huge metal gate which has clearly been damaged and broken, they again decide to ignore all common sense and ‘take it off road’ - I mean seriously, you’re in a theme park filled with giant, meat-eating dinosaurs and when you see a feck-off huge gate that’s broken you decide to plow onwards?! I get that Zach is a bit of an uncaring jerk, but this is just sheer stupidity and only exists, in my opinion, to get the duo out of the safety of the park and into the wild.

Later in the film, after an admittedly cool scene in which the pair come across the original park’s welcome centre, they decide to fix up one of the decades old, unused Jeeps from the first movie. That’s right, these same kids, all about their smartphones and cushy modern lives, are also wicked good mechanics that are able to fix up a disused Jeep. Even though, moments later, Chris Pratt’s Owen remarks on how the hell they managed that even though we see him tinkering with a bike earlier in the film. He’s a hands on, rough kind of guy and yet is stumped by a car engine, but no, these kids have it down - I mean, kids are the future after all, and apparently can do anything when it’s convenient for the plot.

Now I could go on and on about mistakes and nonsensical moments like that (such as multi-billionaire park owner turned action hero Simon Masrani, who decides that he and only he can fly a helicopter to take down the big bad dinosaur), but, instead I want to discuss one plot point in particular that becomes increasingly important and yet is exceedingly dumb: the weaponising of Owen’s raptor gang.

Essentially, Owen is an ex-navy guy who has been tasked with training the raptors for the park. He’s been with them since their birth and has established himself as the alpha. This clearly bad guy though, Hoskins (and you can tell he’s bad because his name is Hoskins and he’s all cocksure), wants to take them and use them in the military. His reasoning is that when a ‘real war’ breaks out drones and other military tech will be easily hacked and so the only hope is to take uncontrollable, man-eating dinosaurs and put them in the field. It really just doesn’t make sense.

Owen even states that he doesn’t control the raptors, but rather has a relationship with them, and them with him alone. Apparently though, Hoskins is blind to this obvious fact and goes on to put the raptors in the field ‘with or without’ Owen. I mean, with or without him? Without him they would just eat everyone and everything, we’ve seen this in the past movies, so why doesn’t he get that? Well, again, because it’s necessary for the plot.

All of these elements (and the many, many more I haven’t mentioned) take what could’ve been a great movie and rejuvenation of the franchise and turn it into an average summer blockbuster with inevitable, unimaginative sequels (more on that later). This is a real shame, because despite all of my complaints, Jurassic World has plenty of great moments.

I liked the scene early on when Owen hides under a car and covers himself in petrol to disguise his scent from the freshly escaped Indominus Rex; it’s clever, original and gives his character a nice edge. Similarly, I enjoyed the scene where Zach and Gray find themselves in the middle of a fight between the Indominus Rex and an Ankylosaurus. It’s a thrilling sequence and it was really fun to watch the Ankylosaurus thrash its tail around and bash the kids around like a really dangerous game of pinball (hey, there’s an idea for an app tie-in).

The sequence in which a flock of Pterosaurs wreak havoc on the park and attack the visitors was again, very cool and really what we should have seen more of. I will say at this point though, the torturous death of Claire’s assistant (and Zach and Gray’s babysitter), Zara, was very over-the-top and needlessly gruesome for such a minor character. That kind of death belonged to someone like Hoskins who instead gets eaten off screen (how thrilling).

One scene in the film which I was dreading actually turned out to be one of my favourites. Watching the trailer and seeing Chris Pratt lead a group of raptors on his motorbike just made me groan; it looked ridiculous and I simply didn’t like it. In the actual film however, it’s ridiculous yet also really fun and given the circumstances it makes as much sense as it was going to (though I still don’t like how Owen’s motorbike glides easily over tough, jungle terrain - but whatever).

When the raptors finally face off against the Indominus Rex it was great to see everyone’s shock when they start to communicate and watch Owen’s horror as he realises the Indominus is part raptor. It was a cool moment and I wasn’t expecting it, and though I feel the raptors turned back to Owen’s side a little too easily, it was nevertheless a fun and tense sequence.

Something I did find odd though, and again this goes back to issues with the script, is the sheer lack of focus and emotion evident when some of the raptors died. Earlier in the film Owen and Claire come across a dying Apatosaurus (having been attacked by the Indominus Rex for sport) and the pair comfort it as it dies. Not only does the animatronic head look incredibly good (sadly one of the few uses of practical effects over CGI in the film) but it was also a nice moment in which you can see Claire grasp that these animals are ‘real’ and alive.

So, when the Indominus quickly kills two of Owen’s raptors, and also earlier when one is blown up, the lack of emotion from Owen and the lack of focus given to these deaths felt really strange. I cared more about the Apatosaurus than I did the raptors, and they’re basically the best characters in the entire film.

Generally I feel the problem with Jurassic World is all down to the script and how it feels rushed. The tone is all over the place, there are numerous mistakes that detract from the world of the film and mar the enjoyment of it, and the character development is uneven. I didn’t find myself caring too much about any of the characters, and all of the mopey, soppy kid bits were just annoying.

I also really missed the focus on ethics and morality that the original Jurassic Park had. Even though it was a blockbuster film, it actually brought up major themes like our effect on the planet, our perceived control over nature (“YOU NEVER HAD CONTROL, THAT’S THE ILLUSION” – you go Ellie) and the morals of what we should do compared to what we can do. In this film, all of that is side-lined because hey, Verizon want to sponsor a ride.

Jurassic World clearly has a message in it about corporate excess and consumerism; about our desire for more, for bigger, for better – but it never really deals with the larger consequences or truly makes its point. I actually really liked how the park was full of sponsors and how corporate money was a big part of its success, but when you notice that every character has a Samsung Phone, and how everyone drives a Mercedes, the film becomes a parody of its own point: the butt of its own joke.

Perhaps these grander questions will be answered in the sequels, of which there will inevitably be many. You see, B.D. Wong reprises his role as geneticist Dr. Henry Wu, and is part of a confusing and frankly underdeveloped scheme in which he has some sort of deal with Hoskins relating back to the use of genetically modified dinosaurs for the military. Towards the end of the film (despite Hoskins being killed off) Dr. Wu escapes via helicopter with these dino embryos. So clearly there’s going to be some sort of larger story involving this deal and the application of these modified dinosaurs leading to some tragedy. Sure, it sounds thrilling, but hey, do you remember when Jurassic Park was just about a guy who wanted to run a theme park and amaze people?

I personally won’t be looking forward to the sequels, especially if their focus is going to be on US Army dinosaurs storming the Middle East mounted on quad bikes and tanks or whatever. But, taking Jurassic World on its own, as a film and not the start of a revamped franchise, I can say that I did enjoy it; I had a lot of fun with the action sequences and found a suitable replacement for Alan Grant in Chris Pratt’s Owen.

It’s nowhere near the quality of the original, and it’s a shame the script wasn’t fleshed out more because that could’ve taken this film to a whole other level, but overall it’s a fine movie and a definite improvement over the third one.