Contrary to widely-held public assumptions, no self-respecting film critic roots for a movie to fail.
I'm shocked to report that, in the case of Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, I'm willing to make an exception.
This realisation — that the newest installment of the Jurassic Park spinoffs and sequels inspired not just pity or apathy, but animus — dawned on the drive home from this week's preview screening, as the foul mood that had gathered over the movie's two-hour-plus running time had curdled into simmering rage.
Granted, I'm a bleeding heart. So watching pathetic — albeit monstrously huge and, oh yeah, imaginary — creatures being threatened by molten lava, then being cruelly captured, confined and tortured by sadistic capitalists, wasn't my idea of fun. Nor was watching Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard try and fail to inject anything resembling authenticity or verve to a rote, drearily run-of-the-mill story. And, admittedly, the idea of a sequel to Jurassic World, the OK-not-great 2015 reboot of Steven Spielberg's iconic 1993 film Jurassic Park, didn't fill me with eager anticipation.
That was one reason I recused myself from writing the official review of Fallen Kingdom, which like all movies deserves a fighting chance to connect with critics and, by extension, a wider audience. But even if it didn't fill me with wild-eyed excitement, I could still be fair, judging it by the same standards I apply to every film I evaluate. Generally, those standards can be summed up by asking myself three questions: What are the filmmakers trying to achieve? Do they achieve it? And was it worth doing?