For decades, seeing a dinosaur brought gasps of disbelief. Audiences flocked to theaters, wide-eyed, to witness creatures thought extinct roam the Earth once more. The Jurassic Park franchise, born from Steven Spielberg’s masterful touch, tapped into a primal sense of wonder. It blended awe-inspiring visuals with genuine scientific curiosity and gripping tension. However, the latest entry, Jurassic World rebirth, suggests this once-mighty cinematic legacy has not just evolved; it has fundamentally lost its way. This new film feels less like a continuation and more like an admission of creative exhaustion.
The initial impact of seeing a living dinosaur in 1993 was profound. Viewers experienced that moment through the eyes of Dr. Alan Grant, a seasoned paleontologist utterly overwhelmed by the sight of a Brachiosaur. His reaction—stunned silence, tears, leaning on a railing for support—mirrored the audience’s own awe. It was witnessing the impossible, something that should not exist, presented with reverence. Fast forward to Jurassic World Rebirth. A long-necked herbivore escapes into New York City. How do people react? Not with wonder, not with terror, but with annoyance. They lean on their car horns, frustrated by a prehistoric creature blocking traffic near the Brooklyn Bridge. After years as zoo attractions, dinosaurs in this world are neither marvelous nor menacing. They have become ordinary obstacles.
Bringing back David Koepp, a screenwriter from the original films, might have signaled a return to form. Instead, his involvement feels perfunctory. The plot of Rebirth is remarkably thin. It’s described as “skeletal” or “desultory,” like a video game synopsis missing the actual game. A pharmaceutical executive, Martin Krebs, hires mercenary Zora Bennett and paleontologist Henry Loomis. Their mission: track down and collect blood samples from the three largest dinosaur species. The supposed justification? Their unusually large hearts might hold a cure for human heart disease. This premise is flimsy; the film itself seems to give it minimal thought. It’s a plot device designed solely to get characters to dangerous locations.
The original Jurassic World introduced hybrid dinosaurs, like the Indominus rex. Rebirth doubles down on this concept but with surprising apathy. The film features numerous genetically modified creatures. Many aren’t even given names, dismissed perhaps as “Mutadon” or “Distortus rex.” This casual approach dilutes their impact. When a creature appears, are viewers meant to marvel at a scientifically rendered Mosasaurus or Quetzalcoatlus? Or are they just seeing another generic mashup without identity or context? The laziness in naming and distinguishing these creatures feels palpable.
Director Gareth Edwards has studied Spielberg, including specific nods to Jaws in his staging. For instance, a boat sequence deliberately employs camera work reminiscent of Spielberg’s classic thriller. However, critics argue Edwards misses a key Spielberg lesson: whose eyes we see through matters more than what is seen. Spielberg understood that perspective drives emotion. A character’s reaction guides the audience’s feeling. Rebirth prioritizes showing creatures everywhere over showing compelling human responses to them.
Blockbusters often get compared to theme park rides, aiming for thrills. But the best rides blend excitement with genuine fear and consequence. Rebirth attempts this balance, even introducing children on a misguided pleasure cruise through dinosaur-infested waters to amp up peril. Yet, the film ultimately lacks the courage to put its main characters in real jeopardy. Disposable secondary characters are fed to the beasts while the protagonists remain largely unscathed. This undercuts any potential tension. The story of Brokeback Mountain, according to author Annie Proulx, shows how even a character’s death, delivered off-page and through another’s trauma-shaped imagination, can serve the story’s deepest meaning and resonate powerfully with the audience. Douglas Adams achieved a similar effect in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, deliberately killing a character (the whale) solely to make the audience care deeply, contrasting with arbitrary deaths in TV shows. Rebirth‘s approach to character peril feels arbitrary but fails entirely to make the audience care about those lost.
The proliferation of unnamed, genetically muddled creatures in Rebirth feels almost like an act of cinematic passive aggression. It’s as if the film is shaming the audience: “We’re making up dinosaurs because you lost interest in the real ones.” But the issue isn’t the audience’s waning interest in dinosaurs; it’s the movies that have lost interest. The original Jurassic Park was fueled by scientific discovery. Alan Grant, recovering from the shock of seeing living dinosaurs, is giddy at answering paleontological questions. In Rebirth, paleontologist Henry Loomis joins the expedition hoping to see dinosaurs outside preserves. Yet, there appears to be nothing new for him to learn. He merely states known facts, like spinosauruses being amphibious. The spark of scientific inquiry that grounded the original film is extinguished.
Jurassic Park famously used minimal CGI – perhaps just four to six minutes in total – alongside practical effects. This was partly due to the technology’s cost and time commitment but also stemmed from Spielberg’s “less is more” philosophy, honed by experiences like a malfunctioning mechanical shark on the Jaws set. Necessity fostered invention, leading to iconic, impactful shots. Rebirth, however, saturates the screen with digital dinosaurs. While the technology is far more sophisticated now, their constant presence diminishes their significance. The more you see these creatures without a strong narrative or emotional anchor, the less impact they have. They might provide fleeting scares, but the original sense of awe has completely vanished. The effectiveness of a film like Contagion, for example, didn’t rely on showing the virus everywhere constantly, but on focusing on specific points of transmission and human response, demonstrating how careful technique can create immense tension and impact.
The film’s portrayal of characters also lacks depth. While Scarlett Johansson and other talented actors are present, their performances, or perhaps the material they are given, feel constrained. Discussing actor Keanu Reeves’ enduring appeal, critics point to his blend of virility, vulnerability, and ability to be an “active listener” on screen, making even complex action roles feel human. Rebirth‘s characters, in contrast, feel like functional pieces moved around a board, lacking the visceral humanity or the compelling perspectives that draw audiences in and make them emotionally invested in who lives or dies.
Ultimately, Jurassic World Rebirth fails to recapture the magic of its predecessors. It’s a film with a weak plot, underdeveloped characters, generic creatures, and a fundamental misunderstanding of what made the original so captivating. The wonder is gone, replaced by apathy. The scientific intrigue is absent, replaced by flimsy pretexts. The stakes feel low, and the overuse of visual effects paradoxically makes the dinosaurs less special. For many fans, this latest installment is a colossal letdown, a clear sign that perhaps this once-iconic franchise has simply run out of compelling stories to tell.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is Jurassic World Rebirth considered a failure by critics?
Critics largely view Jurassic World Rebirth as a failure because it lacks the core elements that made the original Jurassic Park successful. Specific criticisms include a weak and uninspired plot (described as “skeletal”), flat characters, apathy towards its own creatures (especially unnamed hybrid dinosaurs), a failure to create genuine stakes or compelling peril for main characters, and an overall absence of the wonder and scientific curiosity that defined the first film. The film’s direction is also cited for missing key lessons from Steven Spielberg’s approach to perspective and tension.
How does the portrayal of dinosaurs in Rebirth compare to the original Jurassic Park?
The portrayal of dinosaurs differs dramatically. In Jurassic Park, the first sight of a dinosaur evoked profound awe, disbelief, and even tears from characters, mirroring the audience’s wonder at witnessing the impossible. In Rebirth, dinosaurs have become commonplace; an escaped herbivore in New York is treated as a traffic nuisance, not a marvel or a menace. The film also features many unnamed, generic hybrid species, contrasting with the original’s focus on identifiable prehistoric animals and their biological details, suggesting the franchise itself has become apathetic towards the creatures.
Does the movie feature new types of dinosaurs?
Yes, Jurassic World Rebirth introduces several new types of dinosaurs, particularly genetically modified hybrids. However, critics note that many of these creatures are not even identified by name in the film. This lack of distinction and naming contributes to the overall criticism that the movie treats its dinosaurs with a sense of apathy, blurring the line between real prehistoric animals like the Mosasaurus or Quetzalcoatlus and made-up creatures like the “Mutadon,” diminishing their potential impact and the audience’s ability to engage with them as distinct entities.
