alexander-rumpf

As a young boy, dinosaurs were the greatest thing on earth (well, the greatest thing that once WAS on earth) for me. I knew most of their names (like Gray in JW) and had my plastic dinosaurs fighting themselves, evil, and sometimes also good. You can imagine my excitement when I first saw Jurassic Park and I was truly blown away by the idea. I still somehow wish that I could actually experience the events in the movie, although I understand the critic that the author of the novel, Michael Crichton, wanted to express. Much of that critic is lost in the third sequel to the original movie, 22 years after its original release, at least it's hidden very deep in the plot. The scientists have created a new super- species, filled the missing pieces of DNA up with genes of amphibians that all have certain survival-powers, and it all goes terribly wrong, much because the dinosaurs are being underestimated as they always were. So is it a reboot of the first movie? At least a bit. They are referring to the first movie all the time, examples: A control guy wearing an Jurassic Park shirt proudly says he got an original shirt (shown in part 1 several times) for $150 from eBay, they run through degenerated original buildings and one time the kids even drive an original van that they repaired competently. New park-owner Masrani says that John Hammond told him on his death bed to "spare no expense", which was one of the funniest scenes in the movie, yet Masrani doesn't want to commercialize the park too much. That's where the movie starts being perfectly self-ironic: one control guy (the one with the classic shirt) jokingly suggests, in order to please the investors, to name newly bred species after companies, "so how about Pepsi-Saurus"? The movie indeed is full of product placements, I counted at least 9 brands and logos that are shown or mentioned during the film. So what is the purpose of the movie? Mainly, I guess, it's meant as a nostalgic, yet up-to-date experience/excuse for all those fans who were bitterly disappointed by the Parts II&III. It's exciting, contains a little love story, it's got wit, social criticism and excellently animated dinosaurs. It shows that 22 years after Jurassic Park, movie heroes are still being chauvinist and women are still stronger and braver as they are pictured in most (other) movies. And, finally, it fulfills every fans biggest desire: man and dinosaur, at last fighting side by side. That's probably why I'd give it an even better rating than the original Jurassic Park movie, although of course classic scenes like the shaking water glass will probably never be outperformed. Résumé: Director Colin Trevorrow manages to create an enthralling and visually stunning homage to the original which at some points brilliantly steps out of the shadow of its role model and finally puts the conciliatory end to the dinosaur universe that we, the fans, truly deserved.

Honestly, I can't understand why this movie only got 6.x/10. Maybe the German dubbing was extraordinarily well done? Like, better than the original? I don't know. It's not even that I'm a Luc-Besson-Fanboy or something - I found "The Fifth Element" pretty annoying, although Bruce Willis is one of my favorite actors. So why did I like "Lucy" so much? First off, the movie starts and is right away enthralling. Scarlett Johansson plays a rather shy girl on vacation or whatever in Taiwan, who is forced by her acquaintance-of-last-night to transfer a mysterious briefcase to a scary gangster boss, incarnated terrifyingly convincing by Min-sik Choi. It turns out the briefcase is full of drugs, a bag of these drugs is planted into her stomach, leaks, the overdose gives her full-access to her brain capacity, REVENGE! All in the first 30 minutes, as I remember. What sounds like an "ordinary" action movie story line is fed with (I admit, pseudo-)scientifical information by Morgan Freeman and behavior-study like scenes of animals interacting, and after a short while, it's anything but an ordinary action movie. The more Lucy can control her brain, the more transcendental her abilities become, the more she is in control of her environment, mentally and physically. In "Lucy", Director Besson deals with the most urgent questions of humanity, with the existence of something transcendental, 'where do we come from?', 'what defines our lifes?', 'where do we go'? After this altogether, I left the cinema stunned and contemplative. Yes, the movie might have some goofs and flaws, but in the end, the message is unbeatable.