Why 'Jurassic World' is too big to fail, but does anyway

In this franchise-dominated era of Hollywood, a sequel like Jurassic World is almost guaranteed to make a profit.

It's already projected to break records this weekend, buoyed by a strong trailer -- which suggested a darker tone than its predecessors and a wave of '90s nostalgia.

Few film fans have anything but fond memories for the original Jurassic Park film which amazingly came out over 20 years ago but somehow manages to still hold up.

While that movie was far from director Steven Spielberg's greatest, it was a master class is popcorn blockbuster aesthetics.

Essentially a monster movie with dinosaurs, Jurassic Park provided enough wonder and character (particularly from Jeff Goldblum and Laura Dern) to make it more than a mindless B-movie. The second film, which featured a charming and game Goldblum, had its moments but did little to add to the mystique. I never saw the third film -- by that point I couldn't understand the series' purpose.

Even now there really is no justification for this new film besides money -- the very premise of Jurassic Park suggests that no sequels are necessary. It's plot arc -- man tries to play God with science and learns deadly lesson -- was expressed potently in 1993. What more was there to add?

Into that state of mind comes Jurassic World, which I viewed with considerably low expectations. And I'm sad to say my low expectations were totally met -- it's a colossal bore and a letdown.

Bryce Dallas Howard in Jurassic World

I'm actually shocked so many critics I like and respect are patting this film of the back for supposedly being self-aware abut its own inferiority. I saw a film that cynically tries to trade in on our affection for the 1993 Jurassic Park and a movie so bereft of original ideas and performances I could telegraph virtually every scene before it took place.

What's most disappointing is that the director, Colin Trevorrow, made one of my favorite recent indie comedies -- Safety Not Guaranteed, a quirky, off-kilter romantic adventure that had just the kind of unpredictable nature this movie is lacking.

Sure, there are few laughs rung from a small supporting performance from Safety Not Guaranteed's Jake Johnson, but for the most part this is the safest, squarest blockbuster I've seen this year. At least the widely ridiculed Tomorrowland is about something.

Yes, there are some decent jump scares and a couple well-staged action sequences but the human element is so bad here (save for Johnson and for the most part, Chris Pratt) I didn't care. And by the time the CGI-heavy finale arrived I was numb. I've seen the T-Rex/raptor battle before and it was better the first time.

The movie is so full of absurd plot holes, inexplicable behavior and downright stupidity I find myself rolling my eyes repeatedly at the screen. The kids are annoying -- which seems to have become a prerequisite for this series. Pratt and his leading lady, Bryce Dallas Howard, don't have an ounce of chemistry, but somehow wind up together. And on that not Howard gives a Razzie-worthy performance here.

In a summer which features Charlize Theron playing perhaps one of the most refreshing female heroes in an action movie ever, we get this two-dimensional joke of a character. Her arc is essentially all about how she needs to become a mom -- stat -- and she spends the entire movie in heels.

And why does this theme park even exist at this point? The film acknowledges how several people will killed in previous iterations -- and yet the powers-that-be appear shocked, just shocked, when it starts to happen again. Naturally, the film sets everything up neatly for a sequel so we can watch Pratt nearly get killed again for two hours in two years.

Look, I am all for dumb action movies -- even the original Jurassic Park was essentially a souped up creature feature. I just think if you want something fun that won't make you think -- you're better off seeing Furious Seven.