Jurassic World: Dominion (2022)

I kinda agree it felt pretty short due to all the sleeping I was doing.

Warning, it's pretty fucking Jurassic Woke.

Animosity said:

Too short?! Isn’t it 2.5 hours lol

Click to expand...

Too short to build the storyline. Too long for a bad movie

Won't watch till it's free as per usual on streaming. Won't finish if it is too woke but will take another twatter suspension saying so.
Also there is over 3 billion pairs of women titties on this planet. She ain't nothing special, and a little red head chubby to boot.
I'm more interested to see how the mental pedos of Hollywood managed to make a movie about dinos eating people woke.
Those creative bastards.

buddy took his kids this weekend and told me today that the movie focuses on giant bugs eating all the crops or some shit instead of dinosaurs lol. is that really true? jesus

I actually thought it was pretty good and I am surprised to see pretty much all bad reviews, since I typically agree with the general consensus here on movies/tv. I would rank it above the other 2 World movies and above JP3.

Yeah the bug plot was dumb and of course there was the woke quota additions which were probably only apparent to people looking for them. The black woman's joke about liking redheads too I actually laughed at because of how ironic it was related to casting redhead characters these days.

The dinos were great though. The animatronics really stood out to me and looked good again. The dino scenes were well shot (probably because about half were homages from the 1st movie). The sound in Dolby Atmos was fantastic, especially the raptors. I enjoyed all the callbacks though some people will complain about memberberries.

This is the 6th movie in a series, you should know what to expect by now and if you will enjoy it or not. If you like dinosaurs doing dinosaur shit I think it's more entertaining than the last few.

spronk said:

buddy took his kids this weekend and told me today that the movie focuses on giant bugs eating all the crops or some shit instead of dinosaurs lol. is that really true? jesus

Click to expand...

Jurassic Locusts.

Yes.

A way too large portion of the movie is dedicated to bio-engineered locusts being used to try and corner the food market.

First 30-45m of the movie and the last 25-30 are good.

Only worth seeing if you could tolerate the last Jurassic World movie, if you thought the engineered raptor-monster hunting the cloned little girl was too much, this is that amped up. And the girl is important again.

Rime said:

Only worth seeing if you could tolerate the last Jurassic World movie, if you thought the engineered raptor-monster hunting the cloned little girl was too much, this is that amped up. And the girl is important again.

Click to expand...

Most of us thought the super predator dinosaur which requires you to see your target, point a gun at it and "fire" so the dino locks on was too much.

Janx said:

I was bored through pretty much all of this. The movies after the first have never grabbed me.

Click to expand...

That's because they all lack subtext. The first was an allegory for preparing for fatherhood, with Alan Grant being the protagonist, all under the guise of a dinosaur movie. The rest have just been monster movies with nothing really deeper to say.

To clarify, since it's not meant to be that noticeable to the general audience, the real story of JP is reluctance of fatherhood. Alan starts out not liking kids. "They're smelly", and he scares the shit outta that kid in the opening with the raptor claw. Ellie, on the other hand, wants kids, and makes it known. When they meet Ian, he asks him "you have kids?" Ian responds with "oh hell yeah, lots." Ian sees Ellie as another potential baby mama if Alan isn't up for it. When they go on the tour, Ellie insists that the kids ride with Alan because "it's good for him."

To cut a long story short, Alan moves into the father role when shit goes down. Primarily as protector. When the t-rex attacks, he's the first to act. The rest of the movie is him showing care for these "adoptive" kids and the final scene is them together as a pseudo family on the helicopter, leaving the island, with him finally accepting his role as father.

Went with a party of six, mainly my buddies and our wives/girlfriends.

i had been working outside all day and had a beer before going in. Got up 30 minutes in because I wasn’t enjoying it and wanted another beer.

My two buddies came out with me and we went back in a short time later, carrying more beers.

Best part of the film was shouting like goons at the screen.

The Morrigan said:

To clarify, since it's not meant to be that noticeable to the general audience, the real story of JP is reluctance of fatherhood. Alan starts out not liking kids. "They're smelly", and he scares the shit outta that kid in the opening with the raptor claw. Ellie, on the other hand, wants kids, and makes it known. When they meet Ian, he asks him "you have kids?" Ian responds with "oh hell yeah, lots." Ian sees Ellie as another potential baby mama if Alan isn't up for it. When they go on the tour, Ellie insists that the kids ride with Alan because "it's good for him."

To cut a long story short, Alan moves into the father role when shit goes down. Primarily as protector. When the t-rex attacks, he's the first to act. The rest of the movie is him showing care for these "adoptive" kids and the final scene is them together as a pseudo family on the helicopter, leaving the island, with him finally accepting his role as father.

Click to expand...

Don’t forget Alan pulling Lex out of the wreckage of the explorer is symbolic of childbirth

The Morrigan said:

That's because they all lack subtext. The first was an allegory for preparing for fatherhood, with Alan Grant being the protagonist, all under the guise of a dinosaur movie. The rest have just been monster movies with nothing really deeper to say.

Click to expand...

This is complete BS made up after the fact by not smart people trying to sound smart. It's not from Crichton or any of the scriptwriters for the movie (of which Crichton was also one). Shit, the Dr Grant character in the movie and book don't even behave the same way with regards to the kids.

The book and movie are, and always have been, about man's hubris and greed and our attempt to control the uncontrollable. The story originated because of Crichton's pregnant wife and thinking about his unborn child and childrens fascination with dinosaurs.

I have seen some bullshit shoveled on this forum, but damn, this is the biggest pile in some time.

OneofOne said:

This is complete BS made up after the fact by not smart people trying to sound smart. It's not from Crichton or any of the scriptwriters for the movie (of which Crichton was also one). Shit, the Dr Grant character in the movie and book don't even behave the same way with regards to the kids.

The book and movie are, and always have been, about man's hubris and greed and our attempt to control the uncontrollable. The story originated because of Crichton's pregnant wife and thinking about his unborn child and childrens fascination with dinosaurs.

I have seen some bullshit shoveled on this forum, but damn, this is the biggest pile in some time.

Click to expand...

its not complete BS, the messaging is there. hell, in the sequel, Jeff Goldblum's character has to do the same thing when he has his kid with him. directors will often throw underlying messages in their films. Wall-E isnt just about a lonely robot and a plant. its also about how man has destroyed the planet with garbage

Yeah, I don't know who put it in there, but it's there. Spielberg obviously knows how to make a great movie, hence why Crichton's stories tend to suck with other directors. Spielberg made many changes, mostly for the better.

For more symbolism, there's a great example when they first arrive on the island. While the copter is landing, Alan improvises with his seatbelt, taking two female ends, and tying them together. This is foreshadowing how a female only habitat will reproduce. Life finds a way and all that jazz.

Chukzombi said:

its not complete BS, the messaging is there. hell, in the sequel, Jeff Goldblum's character has to do the same thing when he has his kid with him. directors will often throw underlying messages in their films. Wall-E isnt just about a lonely robot and a plant. its also about how man has destroyed the planet with garbage

Click to expand...

Something happening in the second movie isn't proof of something being present in the first movie - it's simply evidence of it being in the second movie.

With regards to Wall-E, just because you were able to successfully pull a theme from one movie doesn't mean you can do the same with another.


Morrigan - please tell me 1) how many movies were written by Crichton or based upon his books 2a) how many of those movies Spielberg directed and 2b) how many of the 20 (HINT HINT HINT HINT) movies were "good"

OneofOne said:

Something happening in the second movie isn't proof of something being present in the first movie - it's simply evidence of it being in the second movie.

With regards to Wall-E, just because you were able to successfully pull a theme from one movie doesn't mean you can do the same with another.


Morrigan - please tell me 1) how many movies were written by Crichton or based upon his books 2a) how many of those movies Spielberg directed and 2b) how many of the 20 (HINT HINT HINT HINT) movies were "good"

Click to expand...

its fine man, i'm not arguing with ya. if you dont see the correlation from the multiple scenes and think everyone is imagining it, cool beans. i'm just saying that from what i have seen where Grant's wife is pushing kids and Grant shows his disdain for children with the raptor claw scene or the how annoyed he appears in the JP safari Jeeps with the kids. its established he isnt pro kids. then the T-Rex busts in like the Kool-aid Man, OH YEAH!. he immediately switches gears and is all about saving those kids and nurturing them about dinosaurs. maybe its one of those Rorschach tests where you see what you want to see, but i agree thats one of the messages they included in the film. i read the book the same year the movie came out and i dont remember much, but there are differences between the film and novel as always.

Chukzombi said:

its fine man, i'm not arguing with ya. if you dont see the correlation from the multiple scenes and think everyone is imagining it, cool beans. i'm just saying that from what i have seen where Grant's wife is pushing kids and Grant shows his disdain for children with the raptor claw scene or the how annoyed he appears in the JP safari Jeeps with the kids. its established he isnt pro kids. then the T-Rex busts in like the Kool-aid Man, OH YEAH!. he immediately switches gears and is all about saving those kids and nurturing them about dinosaurs. maybe its one of those Rorschach tests where you see what you want to see, but i agree thats one of the messages they included in the film. i read the book the same year the movie came out and i dont remember much, but there are differences between the film and novel as always.

Click to expand...

The problem is, that's not Grant's wife. They weren't even a couple. In the book there was an even larger difference in age between them.

Do you think it's possible if you misremember that, you might be misremembering other things? Or perhaps seeing something where nothing exists? Just a thought