It’s been 12 years since we last saw the Tyrannosaurus Rex tearing up the supposedly revamped dinosaur park in Jurassic Park III. While much better than the 50% rating it earned on Rotten Tomatoes, the movie signaled the end of the franchise. Gone were Sam Neill, Laura Dern, and Jeff Goldblum. There was talk over the last decade to reinvigorate the series, but nothing ever materialized. Then came the decision to call this Jurassic World rather than Jurassic Park IV and add all-new players to the game.
Had this movie been released in 2005 (to continue the pattern of every three years), this movie would have stunk. Even with its 2015 release date, it still could have stunk. But it didn’t stink. It wasn’t the original (93% on Rotten Tomatoes and $350 million domestically + another $50 million on re-release in 2013, not to mention the millions it earned overseas and through rentals). However, it was still very, very good. If this were the first movie with “Jurassic” in the title, it would have earned a higher rating than its respectable 71% on Rotten Tomatoes. With over $200 million drawn on opening weekend, it’s likely to smash any of its predecessors at the box office (by contrast, Jurassic Park earned just $50 million in its first weekend). Regardless, if the movie received a rating of over 65% fresh, it would probably do very well at the ticket office. I didn’t think it would do this well. But it deserves its positive reviews and its revenue. It was a very entertaining movie, and I recommend seeing it on the big screen.
Sometimes, when you see a movie that you know nothing about, you are treated with an unknown little treat – a film that will stick with you forever. Ex Machina is the movie this year. My comparison here is to the Brad Pitt/Morgan Freeman gem Seven. It was a movie I knew nothing about. I had only heard that it was a movie I must see through word of mouth. Seven probably has a place in my all-time top 25 forever. That’s how good it was. But a lot of this initially high rating was because of how in awe I was when I saw it in such a small, rickety stage theater converted into a movie theater in Lexington, VA, in the fall of 1997. Now, Ex Machina is not in the class of Seven. But like Seven, it is a gripping, carefully scripted movie that will stay with you long after you watch it. Ex Machina will challenge for best movie of the first half of 2015.
After months of hype, Wally Pfister’s directorial debut, Transcendence, received a 19% “fresh” rating on Rotten Tomatoes. I remember looking forward to this movie when I first heard about it. However, my hopes quickly extinguished when I saw how poorly it was received by critics and how poorly it did at the box office. It grossed only $23 million domestically (though it went on to gross $103 million worldwide, surpassing its $100 million budget by a hair and making it a slightly profitable movie). That movie was not disappointing at all, but maybe misunderstood. It was slow (one of its significant gripes), but honestly, not any slower than 
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 had a significant knock-on effect before it even hit the screen. And that was that the book was split into two movies. I have been having a big problem with this. It’s a three-series book. Make it a three-series movie. That’s what it would have been if the first movie hadn’t taken off and smashed the box office. I understand why the studios want to break the last book into two movies. I would do it too. But as a fan, a moviegoer, and someone who pays lots of money at the movie theaters, I have a problem paying an extra $12 when I don’t feel I have to. I know I am the exact reason for this issue. I saw the first two movies in the theater. I contributed to that astronomical gross that each of these first two movies reached. And it’s not The Hunger Games franchise that upsets me.
Interstellar is a good movie that aims to be not just a great movie but a movie that people talk about for years and years to come. I imagine that there will be a circle of fans who will do this, but I think, for the majority of people, this will be a movie that they enjoy but won’t ever think of as being unique or legendary. I think this movie tried too hard to make that lasting impression rather than just live in the moment of making a great film. As I will mention below, this movie could have been much more straightforward and, in doing so, much more effective. I felt the first 45 minutes of the movie created a cast of characters and a setting in which numerous stories could have been told, and the film could have succeeded. I say this because Interstellar is, first and foremost, a space exploration movie with overtones of the importance of human relationships and weighing what is best for society against what is best for an individual. However, I would like to know if I recommend the movie. And I do recommend it. As much as I wanted it to be great, it wasn’t. But it was still good. At 168 minutes, it is at least 45 minutes too long. And the spaceship scenes themselves are absolutely brutal. There is way too much dull talk of esoteric physics that went straight over the heads of 90% of the audience. It wasn’t needed and forced you to try to use your brain to comprehend everything that was happening. That wasn’t why I was there. I go to movies to not have to use my brain.