Review: Death Takes a Holiday (1934)

For today's second review, I'm going to review a film I only discovered recently. It's an old film -- the oldest film I've reviewed so far -- which might put some people off, but I don't think it counts as a period drama because it was set in roughly the same time period as when it was made. It's also quite suitable for Halloween, though it's nowhere near as dark as you might expect.

Death Takes a Holiday is based on a 1929 play of the same name, which in turn was an English version of the 1924 Italian play La Morte in Vacanza ("Death on Holiday"). The film has been remade at least twice. It's also been turned into a musical, which is how I learnt of its existence.

At first I thought the plot was really similar to Elisabeth das Musical, but on a second viewing I realised the only similarity between them is a personification of Death falling in love with a mortal. Elisabeth is primarily a dark pseudo-historical fairy-tale, while Death Takes a Holiday is more a fantasy/romance film.

I'm not familiar with many films of the 1930s, so I only recognised two of the actors:
Fredric March (Earl of Bothwell in Mary of Scotland) as Death
Henry Travers (Clarence in It's a Wonderful Life) as Baron Cesarea

The story begins with a group of friends having a race. Disaster nearly strikes when they meet a horse-drawn cart, but no one is injured and they continue to their home. But when they arrive at the house, Grazia, one of them, has a frightening encounter with a shadow. Shortly afterwards, Duke Lambert also meets the shadow. It's Death, and he intends to take a human form and stay with the Duke's family for three days.

Death (before taking a human form) and Duke Lambert

Death introduces himself to the family as Prince Sirki, a (now-deceased) guest they were expecting. Things start to go wrong almost at once. Grazia falls in love with Death, which annoys her fiancé Corrado. Meanwhile, Duke Lambert is terrified that someone will say or do something to anger Death and bring his wrath down on them.

Death (after taking a human form) and Grazia

Oh, and nothing can die while Death is on holiday. Not even flowers.

Finally Duke Lambert tells his family the truth about who Death is. Grazia reveals she knew all along, and goes with Death when he leaves.

Death (back in his Grim Reaper form) and Grazia

So, what's my overall opinion?

The film is pretty good, and the idea of Death taking a holiday and having to deal with everyday life is an interesting one. Apart from the obvious, there's remarkably little darkness or grimness in it. In fact it can be quite funny in parts. But there's the unfortunate fact that it's a very old film, and falls victim to the problems common to old films. Awkward lines, sometimes-wooden acting, and general melodrama appear to have been par for the course in the 30s. But its age makes it easy to forgive those flaws.

Is it available online?: There's a version on YouTube, but it's such poor quality that it's hardly worth watching it. A better-quality version is available on ok.ru -- a site I'd never heard of until I searched for this film, but it appears to be a Russian-based video site where you can watch several movies from the 1930s.

As mentioned earlier, there's a musical adaptation that premiered in 2011. Some songs and clips from this version can be found on YouTube. I'd love to see how it compares to the film, but annoyingly there's no full video of it (yet).

Rating: 6/10.

Review: Lore (Podcast)

Happy Halloween from your friendly neighbourhood reviewer! 😃 No tricks, but I've a treat: instead of one review today, you'll get two!

For the first one, I'm going to do something different. Rather than review a book or series, I'll review a podcast I recently started listening to. Its subject matter makes it perfect for a review posted on Halloween.

Lore has been running since 2015, with a new episode posted every other week. Each episode describes one or more real life horror story. Some of the stories investigate urban legends, others focus on true crimes, and still others are about (supposedly) supernatural events. Sometimes it's possible that an otherworldly force or being is responsible. Other times the crimes are clearly the work of human monsters.

Among the stories covered or mentioned are well-known events like the Donner Party and Salem Witch Trials. Other, lesser-known stories include the apparently-haunted Hoosac Tunnel, and the ghost stories told of Owls Head Lighthouse.

I don't know if I believe in ghosts or not, but the podcast describes several events that make me wonder. Some events clearly have a plausible, non-supernatural explanation. The story about Robert the doll, on the other hand, is hard to explain in any way that doesn't boil down to "the doll is evil and somehow animate".

There are a few factual errors I spotted in the podcast. For example, it repeats the old story that the Salem Witch Trials were because men felt threatened by women and accused them of being witches. In reality, both men and women were tried in the witch trials, and the women were usually accused by other women.

On other occasions, the podcast goes out of its way to suggest the supernatural explanation is the most plausible, when there may or may not be a normal explanation that's just as likely.

Overall, though, the podcast is eerie, frightening, and perfect for listening to around Halloween. Warning: do NOT listen to it late at night. Painful experience taught me you will spend half the night wide awake, jumping at the slightest noise. And you'll need a strong stomach to listen to some of the episodes. Especially the one about the Danvers State Hospital.

Is it available online?: It's a podcast, so obviously it is! All the episodes can be heard here.

Rating: 6/10.

Review: Pride and Prejudice (2005)

I never thought I would re-watch or review this travesty. But reviewing the infinitely-better 1995 version put me in a P+P mood, and one of my friends was raving about it, so common sense deserted me and I began to watch it again.

I had a great time watching it. I roared with laughter at every scene. By the time the credits rolled I had a stitch in my side.

There's only one problem. It isn't meant to be funny.

There's such a long list of recognisable actors that you'd expect the film would be good.
Keira Knightley (Elizabeth Swann in Pirates of the Caribbean) as Lizzie. (Yes, really! And she's exactly as unsuited to the role as you'd think!)
Matthew Macfadyen (Arthur in Little Dorrit) as Mr. Darcy. (Another inexplicable casting choice.)
Rosamund Pike (Lady Harriett in Wives and Daughters) as Jane
Carey Mulligan (Ada in Bleak House 2005) as Kitty
Simon Woods (Dr. Harrison in Cranford) as Bingley
Claudie Blakley (Martha in Cranford) as Charlotte
Tom Hollander (Osborne in Wives and Daughters, and Cutler Beckett in Pirates of the Caribbean) as Mr. Collins (!)
Rupert Friend (Prince Albert in The Young Victoria) as Wickham
Judi Dench (Miss Matty in Cranford) as Lady Catherine (!!)
Penelope Wilton (Mrs. Hamley in Wives and Daughters) as Mrs. Gardiner
Peter Wight (Mr. Wilfer in Our Mutual Friend 1998) as Mr. Gardiner
Donald Sutherland (the evil president in The Hunger Games whose name I can't remember and can't be bothered to look up) as Mr. Bennet
Jena Malone (that obnoxious brat in The Hunger Games -- it should be obvious by now that I don't care much about The Hunger Games) as Lydia

That's a pretty long list of (mostly) good actors. As for the film itself, I'll let Mr. Banks sum up this sorry spectacle.

From the opening scene it's obvious that the director didn't even read the book. The Bennets live on a farm. A farm that appears to be falling to pieces, no less. Mr. Bennet is a mumbling dotard, Mrs. Bennet is a pretty normal woman and nothing like the hilarious harpy of the book, and Lizzie is... Keira Knightley.

Brief tangent here: I've never had a high opinion of Keira Knightley. She's one of those actresses who only ever seem capable of one facial expression, and never show much emotion no matter how dramatic the situation is. Take her (lack of) acting in Curse of the Black Pearl, especially in the scene where Elizabeth has been captured by the ghost pirates. Anyone in their right mind would be visibly terrified. But Elizabeth gives her ultimatum then holds the medallion over the ship's side while showing all the emotion of a cabbage. Her "acting" is exactly the same here.

Things get progressively worse from there.

The ball where Elizabeth first meets Darcy bears a striking resemblance to a barn dance. Caroline Bingley wears the most anachronistic outfit I've seen outside of Mozart! das Musical. Mr. Bingley is an imbecile. In fact, I seriously wondered at first if Simon Woods was deliberately playing him as... mentally deficient, shall we say. It's especially jarring because I'd watched Cranford shortly before this film. His acting there is a thousand times better.

Darcy is pathetic. If I hadn't seen Little Dorrit, I'd have thought Matthew Macfadyen was a hopelessly wooden actor. This Darcy doesn't have the pride that Darcy is supposed to have, and his insult to Lizzie lacks all the impact it has in the book. Here, Lizzie is eavesdropping from under... a flight of stairs?, and he didn't know she could hear him.

Jane is the one character who's fairly similar to their book counterpart. But that just makes me feel sorry for her, because she doesn't deserve to be married to an idiot like this Bingley.

I held out some hope that things would improve when Mr. Collins appeared. Tom Hollander is a great actor, even though he's not the first name that would come to mind if I was asked to cast Mr. Collins. But no. He's the next one to fall victim to what I've dubbed "the Joe Wright curse". It's a malady that affects even good actors, reducing them to wooden acting and unconvincing characters, usually brought on by a terrible director.

I didn't expect this Mr. Collins to be the obsequious oil slick David Bamber so brilliantly made him. I just hoped that he would be as foolish and comical as in the book. Instead Mr. Collins is a flat, emotionless non-entity who's as funny as cold soup. His proposal (which for some reason happens at the breakfast table. Couldn't make this up if I tried!) is the worst thing I've seen for months. I didn't know if I should laugh or cringe. 🤷

On and on the film drags with no end in sight. We go straight from one event to the next without time to process what's just happened. Wickham is introduced, then disappears almost for the rest of the story. Charlotte and Mr. Collins get married. Lizzie meets Lady Catherine.

Judi Dench is a magnificent actress. If you need any proof, just watch Cranford. But she isn't Lady Catherine. No one but Barbara Leigh-Hunt will ever be Lady Catherine.

Surely Darcy's first proposal will be fairly accurate to the book? Surely not even this incompetent director could make a mess of it? HAHAHA no. If there's one thing this film has taught me, it's that things will always get worse.

Lizzie learns of Darcy's interference in Jane and Bingley's romance from an unconvincing Colonel Fitzwilliam. So far so good, right? Wrong. For some reason he tells her this in church, while he's sitting beside her. Wrong. Col. Fitzwilliam is Lady Catherine's nephew, and so he -- and Darcy, and Anne de Burgh -- would have sat with her in the family pew. Lizzie, meanwhile, would have sat with Charlotte in a different pew. Instead, Lady Catherine is sitting on her own, Darcy is sitting on his own, Anne de Burgh is nowhere to be seen, and the Colonel is sitting with Lizzie, who isn't sitting with Charlotte. Argh! *makes sounds of inarticulate rage*

Anyway, Lizzie storms off (in the middle of the service?). In the rain. To a building a long way from the church. And then Darcy appears out of nowhere to propose. It ends with them screaming at each other. Then we get a really weird scene of Lizzie apparently sleep-walking when Darcy arrives in the middle of the night to give her his letter. 😖

The film drags on even longer. Lydia runs away with Wickham, something that has absolutely no emotional impact in this version and doesn't matter anyway because the whole thing's cleared up in five minutes. Lady Catherine arrives in the middle of the night?! to have her argument with Lizzie, then Darcy and Lizzie meet in their nightclothes (😕), he proposes and speaks to her father, the end. Finally! But after all that, they didn't even show us the wedding? 😑

Some films exist only to remind viewers that any idiot can make a movie nowadays -- and worse, make a popular movie that many otherwise-sensible people rave about. This is one of those films. I wouldn't mind so much if it hadn't butchered a brilliant novel. Watch this film only if you need something to laugh at.

Is it available online?: Who cares?

Rating: 1/10.

Review: Pride and Prejudice (1995)

It's about time I reviewed one of my favourite series of all time. Feel free to join me in fangirling over -- I mean, reviewing -- the amazing, the brilliant, the hilarious Pride and Prejudice miniseries! (AKA, the only good adaptation this novel has ever had.)

Pride and Prejudice is based on a novel by Jane Austen, obviously. It's her second novel, published in 1813. The series sticks very close to the book, taking whole scenes directly from it, and its few differences are usually for the best.

For many of the actors, I've only seen some of their other films/series. And almost everyone knows the cast anyway, so I won't bother listing them 🙂

I'm sure everyone knows the plot, so I'll just give a brief overview then move on to what I thought of the series.

The village of Meryton is excited to hear that a rich young gentleman, Mr. Bingley, is moving into the neighbourhood. Mrs. Bennet is especially excited because he's unmarried, and she immediately decides he must marry one of her daughters.

Mr. Bennet, Jane, Lizzie, and Mrs. Bennet. Mary, Kitty and Lydia are there too, hidden behind Mrs. Bennet's hat.

Jane, the oldest Bennet girl, falls in love with Mr. Bingley. Mr. Darcy, Bingley's friend, unwillingly starts to fall in love with Elizabeth Bennet at the same time. Lizzie hasn't a clue, and doesn't like Mr. Darcy anyway. She becomes more and more interested in Mr. Wickham, who claims to have been mistreated by Darcy.

Mr. Hurst, Mrs. Hurst, Mr. Darcy, Caroline Bingley, and Mr. Bingley

Mr. Wickham. Ugh. Every time I see this creep I want to punch that smug look off his face.

Jane and Lizzie

Added to this mess is Mr. Collins, who wants to marry Lizzie; Bingley's sisters, who don't want their brother to marry Jane; and Lady Catherine de Bourgh, Darcy's aunt, who strongly disapproves of Elizabeth.

Mr. Collins

Lady Catherine

Hilarity ensues... until it doesn't.

Lydia, the youngest and most obnoxious Bennet sister, runs away with Wickham. The family is disgraced, until Mr. Darcy insists Wickham marries Lydia. By this time Lizzie has fallen in love with Darcy, and Jane and Bingley are engaged, so both couples have a double wedding and everyone lives happily ever after. Aww 😍

Is this the greatest period drama ever? Quite possibly, though I admit I think Cranford a better contender for that title. There's plenty of comedy in Pride and Prejudice, but not much that will leave you a sobbing wreck.

P+P perfectly captures the wit and humour of Jane Austen's writing, and it's one of the most faithful-to-the-book dramas ever made. Mr. Collins, Mrs. Bennet, and Lady Catherine are all exactly as hilarious as in the book. Wickham is a perfect copy of his book counterpart from the moment he oozes onto the screen. Jane and Bingley have the sweetest, cutest romance imaginable, and Lizzie and Darcy perfectly show their gradual change from dislike to love.

There are a few things I don't like, though. The most obvious one is the costumes. Yes, low-cut dresses are historically accurate for the period. But this series takes that to extremes. Almost every single dress has a plunging neckline, and there comes a point when it's obviously not for historical accuracy.

Another thing is the portrayal of Mary Bennet. In the book, it's clear that Mary reads and quotes books because she wants to make herself look smart, rather than because she truly enjoys reading. This aspect of her character is removed from the series, where it looks like she's being made fun of because she's a bookworm. As a bookworm myself, this annoys me endlessly.

Is it available online?: It used to be on YouTube, but now there are only a few clips from it. I'm not sure if it can be found anywhere else.

Rating: 9/10.

Review: Sense and Sensibility (1995)

I first read Sense and Sensibility years ago, but I didn't get around to watching the film until a year or so ago. Which is a shame, because it means I went for years without seeing this brilliant film.

Sense and Sensibility is based on Jane Austen's first novel, published in 1811. It revolves around two sisters, Elinor and Marianne Dashwood. This version is the first (and so far only) film adaptation of the novel.

Recognisable actors include:
Emma Thompson (P. L. Travers in Saving Mr. Banks) as Elinor
Alan Rickman (Severus Snape in Harry Potter) as Colonel Brandon
Greg Wise (Sir Charles in Cranford) as Willoughby
Hugh Grant (Waverly in The Man From U.N.C.L.E. 2015) as Edward
Tom Wilkinson (Pecksniff in Martin Chuzzlewit) as Mr. Dashwood
Elizabeth Spriggs (Mrs. Gamp in Martin Chuzzlewit and Mrs. Goodenough in Wives and Daughters) as Mrs. Jennings
Robert Hardy (Cornelius Fudge in Harry Potter) as Sir John
Harriett Walter (Mrs. Gowan in Little Dorrit 2008) as Fanny Dashwood

Mr. Dashwood has just died, leaving his estate to his son from his first marriage. He was married a second time, however, and will leave his widow and three daughters with no money. So before his death he asks John, his son, to support his stepmother and half-sisters.

John's wife, Fanny, objects to the idea of giving them any money. So Mrs. Dashwood, the widow, and her daughters Elinor, Marianne and Margaret, must go to live in a cottage provided by their cousin, Sir John Middleton.

Elinor

Marianne
(I can't stand this twit. Imagine a slightly less-obnoxious Lydia, and you'll have a good idea of what Marianne's like. She only becomes marginally better later.)

Elinor is in love with Edward Ferrars, Fanny Dashwood's brother, but she doesn't think he returns her feelings. Marianne, of course, has to go and fall in love with a man who's the worst possible choice: Willoughby. (AKA Wickham version 1.) At the same time, Colonel Brandon falls in love with Marianne.

Edward

Colonel Brandon. (Am I the only one who kept expecting him to shout "ten points from Gryffindor!"?)

Willoughby, the latest in a long line of characters I dearly want to punch.

Trouble starts when Colonel Brandon receives an urgent message, followed by Willoughby leaving under mysterious circumstances. Then Elinor meets Lucy Steele... who reveals she's been engaged to Edward for years.

Lucy and Elinor

Colonel Brandon reveals Willoughby's wickedness, and Marianne discovers that Willoughby has married a richer woman. For once she has a perfect right to be upset and mope around, but her moping leads to her going for a walk in the rain and catching a fever. She recovers, but not before causing a lot of worry for poor Elinor.

After Marianne recovers, Elinor receives news that "Mr. Ferrars" has married Lucy Steele. Then Edward visits, and reveals that it's his brother who's married her. He explains the whole sorry mess (he became engaged to Lucy when very young, and in the Regency era it was virtually impossible to break off engagements without ruining the woman's reputation), apologises for deceiving Elinor, and proposes to her.

Elinor and Edward get married, and so do Colonel Brandon and Marianne. Aww 😍

My overall opinion is best described as "good, but it's no Pride and Prejudice". Sense and Sensibility is a great book, with both funny and sad moments, but it's Jane Austen's first novel. An author's first novel is rarely as good as their later works. The film isn't quite as good as the novel (because it's an adaptation and things are inevitably lost in adaptations), but it stays true to the spirit of the book.

The main thing that irritates me is the film's portrayal of Lucy Steele. In the book she's clearly an arrogant, spiteful brat. In the film, this aspect of her character is toned down and she really doesn't seem that bad. Also, the film never explains why Edward felt he couldn't break off the engagement with her, which doesn't put him in a good light until the very end.

Is it available online?: Not as far as I know.

Rating: 7/10.

Review: Ivanhoe (1982)

After a brief foray into other genres, I'm back to period drama! Ivanhoe is one of my favourite books, and one of my favourite versions of Robin Hood (even though it's not technically a Robin Hood story). So this series had a lot to live up to. Did it manage it?

First things first. This is an adaptation of Ivanhoe by Sir Walter Scott, published in 1819 and set in a fictionalised version of 12th century England. Part of the plot revolves around Wilfred of Ivanhoe, a knight whose father has disinherited him because he followed King Richard the Lionheart on a crusade. The other part is about Rebecca, a Jewish girl who is lusted after and kidnapped by Brian de Bois-Guilbert, a Knight Templar.

This version is sometimes called a film and sometimes called a miniseries. On the DVD I have, it's one really long film instead of separate episodes, so I'm going to review the whole thing as if it's a film.

There's a long list of recognisable actors.
Anthony Andrews (Sir Percy in The Scarlet Pimpernel 1982, and Murdstone in David Copperfield 2000) as Ivanhoe
Michael Horden (voice of Mr. Badger in The Wind in the Willows 1983, and Scathelock in The Story of Robin Hood and His Merrie Men) as Cedric
James Mason (Captain Nemo in 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea) as Isaac
Sam Neill (Alan Grant in Jurassic Park) as Bois-Guilbert
Lysette Anthony (Florence in Dombey and Son 1983) as Rowena
Julian Glover (Mr. Dombey in Dombey and Son 1983, and Donovan in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade) as King Richard
John Rhys-Davies (Sallah in Indiana Jones, and Gimli in The Lord of the Rings) as Reginald Front-de-Bœuf
Olivia Hussey (Juliet in Romeo and Juliet 1968) as Rebecca

The story begins with Isaac on his way to a tournament. A group of men are waiting to rob him, but he's saved by a mysterious man. Isaac thanks him by offering him a suit of armour and a horse, so he can compete in the tournament.

Isaac

The mysterious man

Watching the tournament is Prince John. Yes, that Prince John. And at least three of the competitors at the tournament are his supporters, though only because they don't want King Richard to return. One of them, Bois-Guilbert, sees Isaac's daughter Rebecca. This is the start of a lot of misery for poor Rebecca.

The terrible trio. From left to right: Front-de-Bœuf, Maurice de Bracy, and Bois-Guilbert.

Rebecca

The mysterious man arrives and challenges all three of Prince John's lackeys to single combat. He defeats them all easily.

Cedric, Ivanhoe's father, and Rowena, Cedric's ward, are watching the tournament, along with Athelstane, the man Cedric wants Rowena to marry, and Wamba, a jester. Cedric is delighted to see someone beating the Normans. Rowena, who loves Ivanhoe, wishes he was there. And Athelstane doesn't care about the tournament as long as he gets enough to eat.

Rowena

Cedric and Wamba

The mysterious man wins the tournament. Unsurprisingly, he turns out to be Ivanhoe. He's injured, but Cedric is too angry with him to help. So instead Isaac and Rebecca take him away to be treated.

Meanwhile, the terrible trio (as I've nicknamed the main villains) are plotting. Front-de-Bœuf is angry they lost the tournament, De Bracy is in "love" with Rowena, and Bois-Guilbert is lusting after Rebecca. They set out to kidnap Cedric and Rowena.

Cedric and Rowena meet Isaac and Rebecca on the road. They have Ivanhoe with them, in a sort of carriage, but Cedric doesn't know this. The terrible trio capture all of them and take them to Front-de-Bœuf''s castle. Wamba is the only one who escapes.

De Bracy tries to blackmail Rowena into marrying him. At the same time, Bois-Guilbert tries to convince Rebecca to sleep with him. She threatens to kill herself rather than let him touch her.

Rowena and De Bracy

Rebecca and Bois-Guilbert

Meanwhile, Wamba has found a mysterious black knight and a group of outlaws led by a man calling himself Locksley. (Who could this be, I wonder? 😏) They storm Front-de-Bœuf's castle and rescue the prisoners... except Athelstane, who's apparently killed, and Rebecca, who's been kidnapped by Bois-Guilbert. Front-de-Bœuf is killed and De Bracy surrenders, so Bois-Guilbert goes to the lair of the Knights Templar.

The Knights Templar decide that Rebecca is a witch who's put a spell on Bois-Guilbert, so they'll burn her at the stake unless a champion arrives to fight Bois-Guilbert for her life. Isaac goes to ask Ivanhoe to be the champion. Ivanhoe and the black knight go to Templestone, and are just in time to save Rebecca from being burned. Ivanhoe kills Bois-Guilbert. Yay! And the black knight reveals that he's really King Richard, and outlaws the Knights Templar. Yay again!

King Richard

Athelstane wasn't killed after all, and he apparently comes back to life in the middle of his own funeral. This scene isn't as hilarious as it is in the book, but it's still funny. He tells Cedric he won't marry Rowena, so she's free to marry Ivanhoe.

This bit always disappoints me. Rebecca and Ivanhoe have much more interaction than Rowena and Ivanhoe, and Rebecca honestly seems like the better -- or at least more likeable -- character. Why didn't she marry him instead? I know, I know, because she's a Jew and he's a Catholic, and such a marriage would have been scandalous at the time. But it's still disappointing.

Anyway, Ivanhoe and Rowena are married.

And Isaac and Rebecca leave England forever.

This is a bit too bittersweet to be a proper happy ending, but I suppose it's the happiest ending possible. The villains are dead (or, in the case of Prince John, have had their plots foiled), the heroes are alive and well, and there are no loose ends left.

So, my overall opinion?

It's not as good as the book. (But what adaptation ever is? Except for Cranford, of course.) But it's probably the best adaptation Ivanhoe has had to date. It keeps all the major plot points. I'm disappointed they didn't include Ulrica burning down Front-de-Bœuf's castle, but I suppose that's not really an essential part of the story. All in all it's both a faithful adaptation, and a good film in its own right.

Is it available online?: I don't think so, but I could be wrong.

Rating: 7/10.

Review: Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018)

Thought I might as well review this film immediately after Jurassic World, so here it is 🙂

It is a truth universally acknowledged that sequels are rarely as good as the original. But occasionally you'll find a sequel that is just as good, or even better, than the first film(s).

This is one of those sequels.

They brought back the skeleton logo! Yay!

Fallen Kingdom starts several years after Jurassic World. (Apparently the prologue takes place a few months after it, but the main film is set three years later.)

A group of men retrieve a bone sample from the I. Rex, and in the process set the Mosasaur free. Then the film skips forward to the news that a volcano is about to erupt on the island where Jurassic World used to be... and where the dinosaurs still are. Claire and Owen gather a team to rescue the dinosaurs. Meanwhile, we meet a little girl called Maisie, whose grandfather -- or rather Eli Mills, someone who works for him -- is sending a group to "help" Claire, Owen and their friends.

Maisie

Frankly, the first thirty minutes or so of the film are pretty dull. Not a dinosaur in sight, except in the prologue. I usually skip forward to when Owen meets Blue the Velociraptor, and the group Mills sent turn out to be traitors. That's when the film becomes truly interesting.

The traitors kidnap as many dinosaurs as they can before the volcano erupts. Owen, Claire and Franklin, one of their friends, manage to get on the ship before it leaves, while Zia, another of their friends, tries to treat Blue, who's been shot. This treatment requires blood from the T. Rex. Owen and Claire have to get it.

Blue

Owen, Claire... and Rexy

Mills murders Maisie's grandfather and has the dinosaurs brought to his house, where they're going to be auctioned off to the highest bidders. Meanwhile, we learn that there's something in the basement.

Owen and Claire are captured, then escape with the help of a dinosaur. (Yes, really.) They meet Maisie, and she tells them about Mills and Dr. Wu's plots. The auction has begun, and the thing in the basement is properly introduced.

It's the Indoraptor, another genetically engineered dinosaur, created from (mostly) the I. Rex's DNA. And it's possibly the scariest dinosaur ever to appear in a Jurassic Park film. Most of the dinosaurs are just vicious animals. The Indoraptor has a twisted sense of humour and a fondness for hunting children -- specifically, Maisie. It even smiles. This thing is so unlike a dinosaur that I began to wonder if it's supposed to be part-human. Dr. Wu (AKA the Dr. Frankenstein of Jurassic Park) made it, so it's not impossible.

The Indoraptor

The Indoraptor is what makes this film truly great. The first half is just average; no worse than Jurassic World but no better either. But from the minute the Indoraptor tries to grab Maisie from the shadows, the film takes a turn towards Gothic horror, and becomes a much better film for it.

Anyway, a mercenary's idiocy leads to the Indoraptor rampaging through the house, while our heroes try to evade it. At the same time poisonous gas is flooding the other dinosaurs' cells. Zia and Franklin try to get the ventilation systems to work... and accidentally turn on the lights all over the house, just when Owen, Claire and Maisie were relying on darkness to escape the Indoraptor.

The Indoraptor chases Maisie up to her bedroom. Owen tries to shoot it, but apparently Dr. Wu made it bulletproof. Then Blue arrives to save the day. Owen and Maisie escape out the window and end up on a glass roof. The Indoraptor chases them. With Claire and Blue's help they make it fall through the roof, right onto the horns of a skeleton below.

Blue standing on the Indoraptor's corpse

One threat's dealt with, but poisonous gas is still slowly killing the dinosaurs. Claire considers setting them free, but decides it would be disastrous. Instead Maisie frees them. The film ends with dinosaurs running loose all over America. Suddenly "Jurassic World" takes on a whole new meaning.

So, what do I think of the film overall?

The beginning is slow and rather dull. The plot only picks up when the volcano erupts. But thankfully, the rest of the film more than makes up for the beginning. The entire Indoraptor sequence is better than the second and third films combined. (Not that it takes much to be better than the third film...) And Maisie's origin is an interesting twist that raises all sorts of questions.

A lot of people were delighted by Dr. Malcolm's cameos at the beginning and end. Frankly, those were the dullest parts of the film for me. Dr. Malcolm has always been my least favourite of the characters from the original film. Why he appeared and not Dr. Grant or Dr. Sattler -- or a grown-up Lex or Tim -- is a mystery.

Is it available online?: I don't think so.

Rating: 7/10.

Review: Jurassic World (2015)

Apparently I'm plunging back into the world of science fiction/fantasy for a while 🤷

When I was a child I was obsessed with dinosaurs. The girls I went to school with were interested in Star Wars, Disney, fairies, mermaids, and things like that, but I liked dinosaurs. I covered my room with pictures of them. I read every book I could find on them. So obviously, I loved the Jurassic Park films. As I got older I lost interest in dinosaurs, but when I heard there was a new Jurassic Park film being made, I knew I just had to see it.

Why didn't they use the famous skeleton logo for the title? This just isn't the same 😞

I didn't recognise many of the actors, and honestly I didn't pay much attention to the human characters. I was more interested in the dinosaurs.

The basic plot of Jurassic World is more or less the same as every other Jurassic Park film. People create dinosaurs, dinosaurs go on a rampage, there's running and screaming, people die. It has some elements that are original, though, which makes it feel less like a remake of the first film.

Years after the disaster at the original Jurassic Park, a new park is up and running: Jurassic World. But there's a problem: people are getting tired of seeing the same old dinosaurs again and again. (This is the most unbelievable thing in the whole film. Who could ever get tired of seeing dinosaurs?) So the scientists who clone the dinosaurs have come up with a solution. They're going to genetically engineer a whole new dinosaur! And they're going to make it as aggressive as possible!

Can you see how this is going to go horribly wrong? Yes? Then you're smarter than they are.

Unfortunately, this creature is also smarter than they are.

Anyway, they make the Indominus Rex. Actually they make two, but one of them eats the other. Masrani, the owner of Jurassic World, is alarmed when he realises how terrifying the I. Rex is, so he gets his assistant Claire to ask Owen, the park's raptor trainer, to look at it. When Owen and Claire reach the I. Rex's cage, it's missing.

You can already see where this is going.

The I. Rex

The I. Rex escapes and goes on a rampage. There's running and screaming. People die. The average Jurassic Park stuff, really. But then an idiot called Hoskins has the bright idea to use the raptors to track down the I. Rex.

Someone should really have realised earlier that the I. Rex is part raptor.

The raptors and the I. Rex

The raptors turn against Owen and go on a rampage. Things look pretty bad for our heroes... but then Owen manages to regain the raptors' loyalty.

Owen, Claire, Claire's nephews, and the raptors.

The raptors attack the I. Rex, and apparently all of them die. Claire has an idea: she's going to set the T. Rex free. And then she's going to personally lead it to where the I. Rex is trying to kill Owen and her nephews. This scene is just slightly unbelievable. (Claire outruns the T. Rex while wearing high heels? Whoever thought of that has clearly never tried to run in high heels... or walk in them, either.) But it's so awesome that I don't really care.

The fight goes badly for the T. Rex at first. But then Blue, one of the raptors, appears, alive and well. And the I. Rex gets dragged off by the Mosasaur.

The picture isn't the clearest, but this is the Mosasaur attacking the I. Rex.

Blue and the T. Rex wander off, and Owen, Claire and the boys get safely off the island. Yay, happy ending -- for now.

So, what did I think of it?

I don't watch Jurassic Park films for the human characters and their problems. I just want to see the dinosaurs. The more dinosaurs, the happier I am. And judged by that standard alone, this film is one of my favourite Jurassic Park films. It has raptors, a T. Rex, a Mosasaur (alright, so that one's not truly a dinosaur, but still), and the I. Rex. It has some gory scenes. It has dinosaurs attacking people and each other. Even better, it has a fight between raptors, a T. Rex and the I. Rex. That's all I ask for in these films, so I thoroughly enjoyed it.

If you want a film with a gripping plot, this isn't the film for you. If you're like me and just want to see dinosaurs, it definitely is the film for you.

Is it available online?: Probably not.

Rating: 6½/10.