'Inside Out': 5 reasons why Pixar movies are so powerful

I was sitting there, tears streaming under my 3-D glasses. It was happening all over again.

Even though everything I was watching was decidedly not real -- the animated universe of Inside Out -- I felt more emotion for these characters than I did for the entirely human cast of some other summer blockbusters.

Up also knocked me for an emotional loop. As did Toy Story 3. I thought maybe Pixar's remarkable run of flawless epics was coming to an inevitable close after some relative disappointments like Cars 2 and Monsters University -- but I'm happy to say Inside Out, which I saw this past weekend, is a triumphant return to form.

I've enjoyed a lot of recent animated movies from other studios (the first Despicable Me, for instance) but Pixar has, for me, been infinitely superior to its peers. Those other films might be good for a laugh and smile, but Pixar movies deeply effect my emotions, they take on grand themes -- that would be ambitious for any movie, let alone an animated one.

Inside Out is far more complex than its trailers would have you think. Besides the brilliant conceit that it dramatizes the inner workings of the mind's emotions -- fear, anger, disgust, joy and sadness -- it also delves into memories, the bonds of family, the aging process and other heavy life dramas.

And it also remains incredibly funny throughout -- which is an achievement in and of itself. How does Pixar do what they do so well and so consistently -- here are five reasons why:

1) They take their time - There are so many computer animated films these days we almost take their craftsmanship for granted, but these films are usually several years in the making and that's especially true when it comes to Pixar's output. That meticulous attention to detail and painstaking dedication is evident in all their films. They never feel like a rushed, poorly thought-out concept, They are always teeming with jokes and ideas.

2) The plots are ambitious - Which brings me to my next point. Pixar always raises the bar for the premises of their movies -- even their sequels. Think about it, each Toy Story movie adds a layer of pathos and complication that the previous film has lacked. Even some of their more mediocre films, like the so-so Brave, have something to say about relationships that is both adult and of value for kids. Inside Out is no exception, it affirms that need for all of us to indulge in our emotions no matter how painful it can be.

Inside Out

3) The voice acting is impeccable - By now we're all accustomed to stars lending their recognizable voices to animated films, but they always seem to raise their games when it comes to the Pixar films. For me, Tom Hanks and Woody are synonymous -- and in Inside Out, Amy Poehler imbues Joy with such a powerful myriad of emotions, it feels like a real master class in vocal performances. Their casting in every film is note perfect, especially in this film.

4) They aren't afraid to go dark - Wall-E took place on a decimated planet, Up kills off the protagonist's wife in it's first 15 minutes, and Inside Out centers on a depressed 11-year-old contemplating running away from home. This is not the typical kids movie fare, which is why Pixar films work so well. There's enough at stake that you can get genuinely invested in them -- in a way I doubt I could ever be in say, Minions. They also take the care to make sure their narratives are accessible to children, which is an impressive feat to say the least.

5) They are always a visual delight - In a marketplace that is truly over-saturated with animated films -- Pixar's product tends to look significantly better than its competitors. They use lighting more effectively than any other other studio. Inside Out contains a particular inventive sequence where Joy and Sadness follow the human protagonist's former imaginary friend down the rabbit hole of the abstract thinking portion of her brain, the deeper they go the more the animation simplifies itself. It's breathtaking -- and so is the movie.

Binge-watching Bond part 21: 'Casino Royale'

Now we're talking.

Daniel Craig takes the role of Bond here by the throat and gives a performance for the ages. He may be, when all is said and done, the greatest 007 ever.

Not since Connery has an actor seemed more physically plausible in the role -- but he's more than just a rough and buff guy -- he has the charm and the gravitas to pull off a stealthily challenging role.

The producers wisely eschew the corny jokes and elaborate gizmos and create the first genuine Bond character study ever committed to film.

After 20 movies, we never got to understand why 007 is the way he is -- how did he develop this cold and detached demeanor -- and become a spy in the first place.

This film and later Skyfall, make the Bond story (and mystique) clearer than ever before. He is reckless, he is ruthless -- but he gets the job done.

Everything about this production is top notch -- from the black and white, sophisticated opening to the parkour-influenced after-credits chase sequence to the water-drenched finale. The action is not just head and shoulders above the Brosnan era, it's also easier to follow and better staged.

The script doesn't waste time with double entendres; what jokes do come feel organic and well-earned. Instead it lets terrific actors like Craig, Eva Green and Judi Dench really chew into their roles.

Mads Mikkelson is the best villain a Bond movie has had in decades -- and although I somewhat missed Q, Moneypenny and the other traditional 007 supporting cast, this was a necessary break from tradition. And we do get the welcome return of Bond's CIA ally Felix Leiter, played by Jeffrey Wright this time.

Daniel Craig in Casino Royale

Hell, it even makes a card game feel exciting. If I have one quibble it's that it's a little overlong. The last act drags a bit with some drawn out scenes portraying Bond's romance with the Vesper Lynd character (Green). It may be a case of a few climaxes too many, a problem which afflicted another 007 movie I really admire, The Living Daylights.

Still, this film yet again saved the franchise and made it relevant again -- but in a totally different way than Pierce Brosnan did. The emphasis was once again on story and character -- and, gratefully, audiences went along for the ride.

My rankings:

1) From Russia With Love
2) The Spy Who Loved Me
3) Goldfinger
4) Casino Royale
5) For Your Eyes Only
6) Live and Let Die
7) Dr. No
8) On Her Majesty's Secret Service
9) The Living Daylights
10) GoldenEye
11) Octopussy
12) You Only Live Twice
13) Diamonds Are Forever
14) Thunderball
15) Die Another Day
16) Moonraker
17) The World Is Not Enough
18) The Man with the Golden Gun
19) Tomorrow Never Dies
20) A View to a Kill
21) License to Kill

Liz's take: Daniel Craig is awesome -- he's got the right swagger for the role. He's never cheesy and he's just sophisticated enough, but never prissy. I love the black and white opening of this film because it really set the tone -- it was obviously trying to elevate the material into something more than an action movie.

The film looks beautiful, the action was phenomenal -- that said I'm torn about Vesper (Eva Green) as a Bond girl. I think she was meant to be more sympathetic than she really is. The attempt to give justification for her character's (SPOILER ALERT) misdeeds felt a little shoehorned in at the end -- but she was cool. In many ways this film reminded me of On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Like Diana Rigg's character in that movie, Vesper is a more challenging and formidable love interest for 007.

I liked seeing Bond is a swimsuit. I appreciated that he was eye candy like Connery in the earlier films -- it was like 'here you go, ladies!' The film also holds up well -- the costume style is classic, not trendy, the technology is kept to a minimum -- which keeps it from seeming dated. For some reason, this one never stuck with me a lot when I first saw it -- although a few action sequences did. But seeing it again reminded me how much I enjoyed it and how much I can't wait to see more of Daniel Craig as 007.

Liz's rankings:

1) On Her Majesty's Secret Service
2) For Your Eyes Only
3) Casino Royale
4) Goldfinger
5) Dr. No
6) Live and Let Die
7) The Man with the Golden Gun
8) The Spy Who Loved Me
9) The World Is Not Enough
10) GoldenEye
11) The Living Daylights
12) Octopussy
13) Moonraker
14) A View to a Kill
15) License to Kill
16) Tomorrow Never Dies
17) Die Another Day
18) You Only Live Twice
19) From Russia With Love
20) Diamonds Are Forever
21) Thunderball

'Dope' is everything I wished 'Dear White People' was

Who would have thought that one of the funniest performances I've seen this year comes from a Victoria's Secret model, Chanel Iman?

She is just one of the pleasures of Dope, a wild romp of a movie with something real to say about race in 2015.

This film was everything I was hoping Dear White People would be but without the lack or nuance and cliches.

Yes, this is a coming-of-age movie about nerds discovering their inner coolness -- which has been an American staple since Risky Business. But -- and it's a big but -- we have never seen nerds like these at the movies.

A cast of almost total unknowns (you will recognize Tony Revolori from The Grand Budapest Hotel) play a trio of '90s-hip-hop obsessed hipsters who get drawn into a high stakes criminal operation against their better judgment.

It's a little House Party mixed with Friday, with a heavy dose of a totally original flavor all in one.

I went to this movie with almost no expectations and had a ball -- the soundtrack is great, the cinematography brings L.A. to vibrant life, and the lead performance from Shameik Moore is the stuff stars are made of. Unfortunately, this film has been dropped in the middle of the crowded summer season where it doesn't stand a chance against the big studio blockbusters.

Hopefully, this is the kind of film that will build momentum over time. It plays like a love letter to all outcasts of color of a certain age. It's tone can be erratic at times -- it veers wildly from serious to silly, but I enjoyed its edgy, unpredictable nature.

The film's nods to present-day tensions (there is a very knowing shot involving a hoodie) could read as preachy to some, but the film seems to be coming from an earnest, emotional place and I'll take that over cynical mediocrity any day.

From left to right: Revolori, Clemons and Moore

The plot of the film is arguably a little too convoluted to explain here -- but I will say that it is an intriguing mix of sex, drugs and yes, rock n' roll. Even if some of the conclusions will feel inevitable, the journey to get there isn't -- and along the way the film uncorks some terrific conversations about rap, the n-word and the Internet.

This is where the comparison with Dear White People springs to mind. I bring it up only because that film was hailed, somewhat overzealously, for tapping into the more complicated nature of race in this day and age. But Dope has all that film's strengths and improves upon them. The dialogue is more natural and the acting less arch.

Here, the director, Rick Famuyiwa, allows his characters to be more than types and express themselves eloquently, but not necessarily unrealistically. Rapper A$AP Rocky gives a terrific performance -- and deserves more screen time -- as a somewhat philosophical gangster, Zoe Kravitz is positively radiant as Moore love's interest, and I especially enjoyed Kiersey Clemons as a no-nonsense lesbian.

But the real find here is Moore -- his comic timing is as wonderful as his sincerity. His performance helps keeps the film afloat while it veers all over the place. It's a strange movie in a lot ways (with some glaring plot holes) -- we're asked to root for drug dealers and laugh at the prospect of gang violence, and yet I was too charmed most of the time to care.

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away: Celebrating 'Star Wars'

Yoda and Luke in a pivotal scene

When I think of the original Star Wars trilogy I think of genuinely magical movie moments...

Yoda lifting Luke's ship out of the swamp with the force; Lando Calrissian's euphoric scream after he destroys the Death Star, Obi Wan Kenobi deftly using a Jedi mind trick on a hapless storm trooper...

Before cynical executives started packaging our sci-fi action epics as franchises, these three films felt like a story that legitimately unfolded over three distinct films and in my mind (sorry Lord of the Rings lovers) they have yet to be topped as a trio of pop perfection.

The prequels have done much to sully our collective memories of Star Wars and while I'm hopeful J.J. Abrams' take on the saga is an improvement, it'll be hard to recapture the sheer excitement and imagination the original films do.

It's a testament to their staying power that successive generations of kids fall in love with them all over again, year after year, despite all three having been released over thirty years ago now.

Tonight, for fun and to commemorate the eventual release of The Force Awakens, I'll be viewing (or trying to): Star Wars (a.k.a. A New Hope), The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi back-to-back. Here are my lasting impressions of each film:

Star Wars

It's hard to imagine now how fresh (and strange) this film must have been to audiences when it debuted in the summer of 1977. Sci-fi had largely been about either trips to outer space or invasions from outer space, but George Lucas brilliantly created his own world, with cultures, languages, philosophies and politics. Unlike the prequels, the first Star Wars film wisely leaves many things a mystery: such as the true meaning of the force, and the evolution of Darth Vader's nature. It's a relatively simple film on its surface -- but the characterizations lift the somewhat episodic storyline into the stratosphere. 

The greatest find in this film is Harrison Ford, who arrives with so much swagger and charm it's simply shocking that he never became a movie star earlier. In this film he seems one step ahead of the entire cast (save perhaps the great Alec Guiness, who is flawless as Obi Wan). He is essentially setting up the standard by which all modern action heroes are compared. His Han Solo is cocky but careless, seemingly selfish but ultimately noble. Virtually every blockbuster's lead role owes a debt to this performance.

Star Wars is also perhaps the original film most tainted by future editions. While the special effects certainly could have used an update in some scenes, Lucas has chosen to significantly alter the intent of whole scenes of this film, stripping it of its edge completely. I am relieved that he has not excised the slaughter of Luke's aunt and uncle, but the choice to make Han appear to shoot Greedo first (forgive me if you haven't seen the film) is unforgivable. This film demands to be seen in it's original, unaltered form because it is a masterpiece, warts and all.

The Empire Strikes Back

This critically acclaimed 1980 follow-up is not only one of my personal favorite films of all time, but also is the one most routinely cited as the best by hardcore Star Wars fans. Sometimes they can take this position to the extreme point of snobbery, but I will try to explain why it's the one that resonates the most with me.

Of the first three movies, it's the most emotionally fulfilling. The three main plot threads of this film are each wildly compelling in their own way. You have one of the great movie romances between Han and Princess Leia, where near death circumstances help speed up their budding sexual tension. By the time she utters "I love you," and he says, "I know," they've both earned our affection and our sympathy. Luke's journey to enlightenment on Dagobah is no less astounding. Although the Yoda character would become a self parody in the prequels, he is a highlight here and his tutelage of Luke in the ways of the force -- to me -- form the backbone of the entire trilogy.

Finally, there is Darth Vader's arc, which isn't as expressive (due in no small fact that his face can't show emotion) but perhaps has the biggest impact. 

Thanks to James Earl Jones' miraculous vocal performance (worthy of an Oscar I'd argue), Vader's revelation (SPOILER ALERT) that he is indeed Luke Skywalker's father is one of the most indelible moments in movie history. What's more is that it comes after the most brutal and intense lightsaber fight in the entire series. It's child abuse on a profoundly rich scale. Speaking of scale -- from the ice planet of Hoth to the sumptuous vistas of Cloud City, this is arguably the most visually stunning Star Wars film. 

Although it's more character driven than its predecessor, The Empire Strikes Back doesn't skimp on visual wonders -- from the asteroid field to the encasing of Solo in carbonite, I will never forget the visuals in this movie.

Much has been made about the film's ending and how it is a "downer." I've never felt that way. Luke has defied his father -- and yes, paid a price -- but he grows up a lot from that encounter and is never the same callow youth again. Luke doubles down on the good side of the force. Sure, Solo is captured and appears to have an uncertain fate in the hands of Boba Fett, but the rebels gain a strong new ally in Lando. I think it's a story of both redemption, loyalty and growth.

Return of the Jedi

This film sometimes gets a bad wrap as being a somewhat lesser film that the other two. No one is quite throwing around Godfather III-style insults about it, but the nerd griping does start to begin here -- which I think is absurd. Return of the Jedi is an incredible film, right on par with its predecessors, and I say that without a single caveat. The Ewoks? They're funny and adorable -- and do nothing to detract from my enjoyment of this film.

That said, this film too has been irreparably damaged by Lucas' meddling. Future editions of the film have added distracting and cheesy effects to an otherwise excellent entry, the most egregious of which is a dance number featuring a poorly rendered CGI creature said to be inspired by soul singer Joe Cocker. Some have argued that Lucas' descent into trying to appeal to toddlers began here but the film has enough gravitas to beat back his more inane preoccupations.

Leia rocks the infamous 'slave girl' outfit

Curiously women overwhelmingly tell me this film is their favorite. It certainly provides Leia with a bigger piece of the action pie. Although she is saddled with an undeniably objectified role (albeit pretty hot) during the classic Jabba the Hutt sequences, she pretty much plays the most masculine half of the romance with Solo in this film. 

Her character starts to become aware of not only her true relationship to Luke but also her own abilities with the force. Luke and several other characters find satisfying closure in a film that feels like a reward for the fans as much as it is a stand alone success.

We finally get to see Jabba, I am choosing to pretend the awful rebooted scene inserted in the special edition of Star Wars didn't happen. We finally get to see the Emporer as more than just a creepy hologram. And Darth Vader is unmasked in a powerful and truly heartbreaking scene. Mark Hamill doesn't get enough credit for his acting here. While Harrison Ford steals the show in the first two films, I feel like this one belongs to his portrayal of Luke. Cloaked in black, with a much more knowing smile, we see his maturation as a man and it leaves us with a sense that all is right in the universe when the film comes to a close.

I'll be lucky enough to be viewing the 1977, 1980 and 1983 releases of these films on DVD -- in a rare cave-in to fans, George Lucas allowed them to be reissued in that form for a limited time only. Even if the picture quality isn't great, I know the movies will be,

Binge-watching Bond part 20: 'Die Another Day'

Pierce Brosnan in Die Another Day

What's not great about Die Another Day is very self evident.

It's got some seriously dodgy CGI, far too many terrible one liners and it's last act occasionally plays like a greatest hits of late 90s/early 2000s action cliches.

I get it -- it's easy to hate on this movie, but I think there's a lot to love it about it too.

Die Another Day is perhaps the most excessive and over-the-top of all the 007 films -- it's got an invisible car for Christ's sake -- but it also, at least in it's first half is a bit of a throwback Bond movie as well.

Pierce Brosnan gives perhaps his best and most signature performance as Bond in this film. He finally gets to show more of the flinty charm he's had in films outside the series here. In the opening the unthinkable happens -- Bond is captured. He gets tortured and is all but abandoned by her majesty's secret service. Bond, ready for revenge, goes rogue and in the film's most satisfying sections goes on a globe trotting journey to get back in action.

The film works great here because it both pays homage to the classic Bond films (this one marked the 40th anniversary of the franchise) but also gives it a modern action feel as well.

Halle Berry has to deliver some ludicrous dialogue here but she comes out more unscathed than Denise Richards did, and she and Brosnan do have some sparks together. That said, some of their sexual innuendo becomes cringe-inducing by the end.

There are some real laughs in this movie though -- and no, I'm talking about Madonna's much derided cameo appearance.

And some of the action sequences feel fresh and creative -- there's a dynamite sword fight, a terrific car battle on the ice and hovercraft chase in a minefield. Brosnan really sells these scenes, even if he doesn't seem like a naturally physically imposing guy. He's less pretty here and more rough hewn. It's the first of his Bond films where I felt like he had a nastier edge and seemed less like a nice guy who is just super dedicated to his job.

Unfortunately, like all four of his films it gets a little overwhelmed by pyrotechnics at the end and the plot becomes so unbelievable that it becomes impossible to get seriously invested in it. Also the obsession with the puns just galls me. That increasingly irritating trope was wisely jettisoned when Craig took the reins.

I've always had a soft spot for Die Another Day though, and Brosnan, because I guess I think they both deserve to be remembered more fondly than they are. Is it a great spy film? No, probably not. But it's still fun and diverting, which Brosnan's tenure largely was.

That said, Daniel Craig takes the cake for me, and I can't wait to revisit his first three outings as 007 next.

1) From Russia With Love
2) The Spy Who Loved Me
3) Goldfinger
4) For Your Eyes Only
5) Live and Let Die
6) Dr. No
7) On Her Majesty's Secret Service
8) The Living Daylights
9) GoldenEye
10) Octopussy
11) You Only Live Twice
12) Diamonds Are Forever
13) Thunderball
14) Die Another Day
15) Moonraker
16) The World Is Not Enough
17) The Man with the Golden Gun
18) Tomorrow Never Dies
19) A View to a Kill
20) License to Kill

Liz's take: I didn't like it. I really liked the beginning and I think the Daniel Craig ones do this well too -- it's very grounded. It was very real and gritty. But, the special effects in this one really took me out of it. They just didn't really age well at all. The sequences I liked best -- like the car chase on the ice -- I really liked because if looked legit, but the rest felt like CGI and not very good CGI, which I found really distracting.

Although The World Is Not Enough went off the rails a little bit -- it never looked bad -- and this one did. I get what they were trying to do with the two Bond girls -- Miranda Frost (Rosamund Pike) is all icy and cold and Jinx (Berry) is all heat, passion and sex. But then they had to go and pit them against each other is this cliched catty way, which left a bad taste in my mouth.

I will say I like Pierce Brosnan a lot. Daniel Craig is definitely a clear break from him, but Brosnan feels like this amalgamation of Connery, Moore and Dalton -- in a really good way. He's really sexy, he's really believable in the role. He's the highlight and shining point in the movie, everything else was like meh.

Liz's rankings:

1) On Her Majesty's Secret Service
2) For Your Eyes Only
3) Goldfinger
4) Dr. No
5) Live and Let Die
6) The Man with the Golden Gun
7) The Spy Who Loved Me
8) The World Is Not Enough
9) GoldenEye
10) The Living Daylights
11) Octopussy
12) Moonraker
13) A View to a Kill
14) License to Kill
15) Tomorrow Never Dies
16) Die Another Day
17) You Only Live Twice
18) From Russia With Love
19) Diamonds Are Forever
20) Thunderball

'Alien' vs. 'Aliens': One of the toughest debates in movie history

Alien

There are several heated debates over certain films and their sequels.

There is The Godfather vs. The Godfather Part II, where there are passionate feelings in both camps. There can be similar arguments to be made about the first two Terminator films and of course the original Star Wars trilogy.

Still, for me, the hardest one to call in terms of quality is Alien (1979) and Aliens (1986).

Both films are stone cold classics as far as I'm concerned -- although they're wildly different in tone.

Having watched them both back-to-back recently I'm still struggling to decide which film I like better. The first film is more beloved by serious film critics -- and that makes sense. Its director, Ridley Scott, is more of an artist than James Cameron, who made Aliens after his triumphant first Terminator film. But Aliens delivers relentless action that stands up alongside the best genre films of its era.

The thread that ties both films together is the remarkable leading performance of Sigourney Weaver, one of the most underrated actresses of all time. Weaver has never won an Oscar, although she was nominated for Aliens and, in my mind, she has never gotten enough credit for her breakthrough and influential role of Ripley.

Sigourney Weaver in Aliens

If it weren't for Weaver it's unlikely we'd have Charlize Theron's terrific Furiosa in Mad Max: Fury Road, or a host of other action heroines. But I digress. Which is the better film: Alien or Aliens?

I would usually say I lean towards Alien, which seems to be more psychologically complex and cinematically sophisticated. The first alien "birth" via John Hurt's chest is one of the most shocking moments in movie history and the production design is just as, if not more, impeccable than movie's released thirty years later. It's creepier and more mysterious than the Cameron film, which is probably why it was able to spawn a big budget prequel (the underwhelming Prometheus).

On the other hand, Aliens is big and brawny, with some of the most exciting and intense sequences in sci-fi history. Weaver gets to play a lot more levels of emotion here and she is totally authentic in action hero mode. Cameron takes everything that was disturbing and scary in the first film and turns up the volume even higher. But instead of being indulgent or excessive, he pulls it off. He even manages to shoehorn in a child character that isn't even the least bit annoying.

Both films have a brilliant fake-out finale where we are made to feel safe and secure, only to have the rug pulled out from under us in horrifying fashion -- Aliens' is more elaborate, but Alien's is just as effective.

They also both have enough humor to keep the audience on its toes too. Neither Scott nor Cameron are known to have much comedic timing and yet the work is always filled with a certain gallows humor and clever character choices. It's a small element, but an appreciated one.

If I had to choose I think I would pick Alien by a hair -- only because Aliens doesn't necessarily add anything new to original concept and is somewhat retrograde in the way it seeks to domesticize Ripley. Still, these remarkable movies have yet to be topped by so many films to come in their wake.

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.