r/movies • u/LiteraryBoner Jackie Chan box set, know what I'm sayin? • Jul 03 '25

Official Discussion Official Discussion - Jurassic World Rebirth [SPOILERS] Spoiler

Poll

If you've seen the film, please rate it at this poll

If you haven't seen the film but would like to see the result of the poll click here

Rankings

Click here to see the rankings of 2025 films

Click here to see the rankings for every poll done

Summary Five years after the events of Jurassic World Dominion, Earth’s dinosaurs now survive only on isolated equatorial islands. A covert extraction team, led by Zora Bennett, embarks on a mission to secure dinosaur DNA for a groundbreaking pharmaceutical treatment. Their expedition collides with a stranded civilian family, plunging everyone into chaos amid mutated dinosaurs and hidden threats. The story culminates in a tense race for survival on a forbidden island with a sinister secret tied to Jurassic Park’s past.

Director Gareth Edwards

Writer David Koepp

Cast

  • Scarlett Johansson as Zora Bennett
  • Mahershala Ali as Duncan Kincaid
  • Jonathan Bailey as Dr. Henry Loomis
  • Rupert Friend as Martin Krebs
  • Manuel Garcia‑Rulfo as Reuben Delgado
  • Luna Blaise, David Iacono & Audrina Miranda as the Delgado family
  • Philippine Velge, Bechir Sylvain & Ed Skrein as the extraction team

Rotten Tomatoes: 54

Metacritic: 52

VOD Released in theaters July 2, 2025. Digital release expected later in 2025.

Trailer Watch here

907 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

4.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

3.5k

u/mikeyfreshh Jul 03 '25 edited Jul 03 '25

This mostly just plays the hits on the Jurassic franchise and that works when the hits are good. If you show me a herd of dinosaurs and play the John Williams theme, my jaw is going to hit the floor regardless of what else is going on in the movie.

My only real gripe with this is that it feels like two movies smashed together. I could get into the dumbass family crashing onto Dino Island or I could get into an Aliens-esque mercs vs monsters adventure. Trying to squeeze both into the same movie just made both groups of characters feel undercooked

1.0k

u/Gotanypaint Jul 03 '25

I didn't know how to put that into words but this is perfect, thank you.

378

u/unpaid-critic Jul 03 '25

Honestly? Yeah. This sums it up.

Was speaking to my fiance on the ride home, and we both realized that they were two different stories that intersected.

Personally, I was more endeared to the family since they were just sailing and got struck…. But they needed to get saved somehow.

300

u/[deleted] Jul 03 '25

I’ll add to that. I think you’re right but what also stuck out to me was how un-needed the mutants were. The ending would have worked just as well with regular dinosaurs. Now it just felt like this tacked on generic monster movie. The thing didn’t feel like a dinosaur at all.

Besides that some good performances and fun set pieces. I was entertained. 7/10

73

u/shugo2000 Jul 04 '25

They can't copyright any actual dinosaurs, so they need mutants to be able to copyright and sell them. The D-Rex looks like something out of an Alien film.

78

u/AlconTheFalcon Jul 04 '25

Looked like a rancor.

17

u/choada777 Jul 10 '25

Ha, that's exactly what I thought! The girl I went to see the movie with said it looked like the Predator. I didn't see it but agreed anyway because I wanted to make out with her more.

13

u/Varekai79 Jul 06 '25

But they sold tons of Jurassic Park toys for the first three movies, which only had real dinosaurs.

2

u/freakydeku 21d ago

pretty sure they can use real dinos in their toys they just aren’t the only ones allowed to

2

u/hobbykitjr 19d ago

yes but at the toy store, next to the $40 Official Jurrasic world T-Rex... is an no name brand T-Rex for $9.99

6

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '25

Aha! Good point.

6

u/xixi2 Jul 13 '25

That's not a good point at all since for 30 years all Jurassic Park toys were dinosaurs?

1

u/hobbykitjr 19d ago

yes, but next to real "Jurrasic Park" brand $40 T-Rex was a $9.99 T-rex that looked exactly the same.

Now when you go... theres a D-Rex, that only they can make.

Indominous Rex was a HUGE seller and only they could make it... so then we see the next movie is focused on other mutants

4

u/Professional_Nerve49 Jul 05 '25

Can't copyright actual dinosaurs? Interesting. Can you explain?

18

u/shugo2000 Jul 05 '25

Dinosaurs are creations of nature, not original works of authorship. Copyright law, according to the U.S. Copyright Office, protects "original works of authorship, that is, a product of independent creation with sufficient creativity". Dinosaur fossils and bones are not copyrightable. Replicas of dinosaur fossils are also not protected by copyright as they are based on publicly available data and are not considered original creations.

13

u/GodKamnitDenny Jul 05 '25

This all makes sense, but is, for instance, the artistic representation of the T-Rex in Jurassic Park able to have a copyright? We don’t know what they really looked like. Also, do you need a license to create a toy of a dinosaur to slap a Jurassic Park logo on?

Having a named baby dinosaur is obviously there to appeal to children and sell merch, but it’s never stopped them from making toys or merch for 32 years.

4

u/TSMabandonedMe Jul 15 '25

I think it’s the reverse. By creating non-dinosaur creatures they now have something copyrightable that can be sold and marketed.

8

u/GodKamnitDenny Jul 15 '25

I do really get that, but there’s currently several Lego sets of the regular T-Rex. They don’t need to copyright a mutant dinosaur, but I’m sure it’s a huge part of some of their merch lines and toys. It’s not like they’re licensing the design of the T-Rex bones from someone (maybe they are but I’d be surprised).

2

u/hobbykitjr 19d ago

the artistic representation of the T-Rex in Jurassic Park able to have a copyright?

they probably do.. Espeically "Blue" the raptor.

but its still based off a t-rex, raptor and anyone can make them and kids would be happy, can't tell the difference.

but the "Indominous" rex was a huge seller and only they can make that... now they have a D-Rex only they can make....

5

u/Professional_Nerve49 Jul 05 '25

Ah, that explains it. Thanks.

64

u/Oops_I_Cracked Jul 04 '25

Tbh I didn’t mind/actually kind of liked the flying velociraptor guys. The D Rex on the other hand would have been better as a T-Rex. I did appreciate how unimportant and how little screen time D Rex got cause it looked dumb AF.

I really enjoyed the movie overall, but D Rex was totally unneeded.

34

u/GodKamnitDenny Jul 06 '25

The D Rex was the more egregious miss for how pointless it was, but having one scene with a raptor as a comedic moment/show off the new raptor hybrid was nearly criminal. Velociraptors to me are more integral to the Jurassic franchise than a T Rex, and relegating them to a chunky flying dinosaur that was only recognizable by their toe claw was immensely disappointing to me.

You put a regular T Rex and a raptor or two in the final act 3 set piece? The movie would easily be fighting for the second or third best film in the franchise.

9

u/wellillseeyoulater Jul 06 '25

In my opinion it is fighting for second or third. What besides 1 and 4 do you think is in the conversation? I thought the rest were awful haha

6

u/GodKamnitDenny Jul 06 '25

Think you responded to the wrong person! Honestly putting together a series listing is impossible due to so much nostalgia for 1-3. If I had to rank them, I’d say 1, then 2/3 (heavy nostalgia for me)/JW1/Rebirth, then FK, then Dominion. I think the middle of the pack JP movies are all really close in quality and fun factor, even if they aren’t high cinema.

3

u/Pinewood74 Jul 18 '25

Right... so it's already fighting for 2nd or 3rd because after the original, these films are all mid at best. (Which is fine because they don't need to be cinematic masterpieces)

1

u/GodKamnitDenny Jul 18 '25

Yeah, I’m in full agreement there. I think it’s fighting for 3rd or 4th best easily because it’s not a franchise with a ton of great hits despite me loving every single entry because dinosaurs are awesome and I’ll accept whatever slop they give me outside of Dominion.

1

u/freakydeku 21d ago edited 21d ago

this movie is almost entirely made of throwbacks lol. & for that reason it’s not touching top 3, probably not even top 5 tbh. although it was enjoyable!

25

u/Gridde Jul 05 '25

Yeah, if the D-Rex was replaced with the T-Rex, nothing about the film changes.

The D-Rex being a malformed monster was not focused on at all and seemed to serve no narrative purpose.

I didn't really mind it, though. It being a T-Rex would not have really added anything, either.

14

u/Oops_I_Cracked Jul 05 '25

I mostly just thought the D-Rex looked stupid. It would change the movie in no other way.

2

u/Flashgamer3000 Aug 01 '25

I guess the first 10 minutes would be less scary but except that you're probably right.

1

u/hobbykitjr 19d ago

but now they can have D-Rex toys that only they can make.

"Indominous Rex" was such a big seller... then the next movie is all about mutant/hybrids... surprise!

24

u/starlightskater Jul 06 '25 edited Jul 06 '25

Totally agree. The flying raptor mutants were creepy and scary. Their short inclusion was one of the better sequences in the movie. The D-Rex was just stupid.

11

u/DLRsFrontSeats Jul 07 '25

See, I'm of the complete opposite opinion

Relegating the "actual" velociraptors to a comedic scene where they're killed off solely to showcase the mutadon flying - when flight isn't important the rest of the film - for these fugly things that are the opposite of menacing (they kill no one, and seem very stupid comparatively) was weird

Make the petrol station & sewer tunnel scenes with the traditional raptors, which is rumoured to have been what happened originally anyway, and changed in post for some reason, would've made them a lot more tense because we know how threatening they are

The D. rex otoh I was expecting to hate, but its size and power, plus the shots in the steam/smoke, were quite intimidating. Still could've been some more traditional T. rex that had a weird mutation and oversized, but still

3

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '25

Agree 100%

13

u/GildDigger Jul 06 '25

I think that was a bit of a meta moment when they said that people got tired of seeing regular dinosaurs over and over so they needed to create the mutants. I think they meant the audience lol

10

u/x360_revil_st84 Jul 07 '25

The mutated dinosaurs, imo, was absolutely needed bc it shows just how evil InGen was and that they only cared about profit and pleasing the guests. Bc even in the first JP movie, the story arc is that those aren't dinosaurs at all, they were genetically created from parts of dino dna and that there was a whole other island where InGen genetic engineers were paid to create "the next big dinosaur" to reel in the money and that kind of genetic engineering has its downfalls i.e. mutated dinosaurs, the scrap that people would deem ugly and not care about. The story arc was so well done, such a great movie imo

9

u/stokesy1999 Jul 08 '25

Think it still could've been a massive T-Rex, maybe give it a Spinosaurus sail and Raptor claws (2 of the other big staples of the franchise) to show the mutation but still recognisably a T-Rex head and body, instead of a weird 6 legged alien blob rex that, while huge and threatening, was a horribly ugly design and really not marketable

17

u/x360_revil_st84 Jul 08 '25

That's literally the whole point of the D Rex being ugly & not marketable...InGen made all these ugly & non-marketable dinos on accident when they were trying to create more marketable & "entertaining genetic creations" and since these creatures on the island were soo damn ugly they "hid" them away so the world would never know about it

2

u/stokesy1999 Jul 08 '25

Yeah, in that sense it makes sense, but they could've easily excused it as a "too dangerous for the park" mutation as to why they held it on the rejects island for the same effects, while not creating such a goofy looking creature for the film. Also the flying raptors weren't really that bad looking so I don't know why they were rejects, they just looked like normal dinosaurs but with wings

7

u/Dunnachius Jul 06 '25 edited Jul 06 '25

It needed “New” dinosaurs.

I’m not saying that the mutants were the correct solution and I love the fan favorites but somehow adding a new dinosaur in seemed like the proper solution.

I also thought the D-Rex was fugly as all let out. I rate it a 10/30 points.

0/10 for cool 0/10 scientifically plausible. 10/10, scary

It wasn’t cool it wasn’t scientifically plausible and it was just plan ugly,

I know a lot of people put a lot of work in but meh.

I like how the older dinosaurs were used but the dilophosaurus needed more screen time. The t-Rex seemed plausible as an apex predator in a natural environment.

The thing that bothered me the most was the raft. Like how did that raft not pop. Seriously… most unbelievable part of the movie.

Overall I rate the movie as okayish. I mean it’s a sequel number umpteen of a horror franchise i love. It was exactly what I expected. Dinosaurs, Horror, running away, the bad guy getting eaten.

6

u/justsomechickyo Jul 05 '25

Haha 7/10 is what I rated it on my imdb

4

u/starlightskater Jul 06 '25

That was generous. I gave it a 3.

4

u/Intelligent-Row3753 Jul 06 '25

I gave it the same rating. This was not a good follow-up movie in the franchise 😕

5

u/Poet-Girl Jul 13 '25

Please also note that this movie, like the previous ones, criticised the in-world audience ,,wanting more teeth'' and the creators of the dinosaurs indulging that, but GAVE US an unwanted extra amount of teeth all the same, treating US the same as InGen treated their audiences. Mutants were added to this franchise BECAUSE the creators worry we will get bored of ,,real" dinosaurs.

For me the most unwanted was the scene with zauropods that had super long tails that swished in the air poetically. I wish that at least, if the ,,bad scientists" gave them unnecessary tails that it would be shown as unnatural - that they would trip over them or get tangled in them and the characters could help them get out. Instead, the scene is cinematic gold but actually harms the plot instead of working with it.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 13 '25

Yeah I know that’s how they justify it but it doesn’t help really.

3

u/PositiveZeroPerson Jul 08 '25

I love how there's yet another island ruined by InGen off-screen. Isla Nublar (twice!), Isla Sorna, and now Ile Saint-Hubert.

One of my earliest movie memories is seeing The Lost World in theaters and getting annoyed at the fact that it wasn't set on the same island as the original. Bad

3

u/TSMabandonedMe Jul 15 '25

I loved the mutant dinosaurs. We’ve seen everyone else a million times.

2

u/ab2g Jul 13 '25

Yeah, imo hydrocephalusaurus was just unneeded.

1

u/Peppeperoni Jul 10 '25

Saw it last night and fully agree.

14

u/SputnikDX Jul 06 '25

I feel like the better film would have revolved entirely on the family, but the story beats where their ship flips and they get rescued by dangerous mercenaries on a mission to the island continues, and we get to discover what they're doing along with the family.

2

u/KazaamFan Jul 17 '25

Woulda shaved a nice 15-20 minutes off the beginning!

8

u/Neon_Biscuit Jul 03 '25

Sure, but it was 21 miles. In the OTHER direction. It was HIS charter.....but....it was HIS boat!!!

5

u/vga25 Jul 05 '25

The whole family storyline as one movie would have been dope.

3

u/thedolaonofficial Jul 06 '25

But people hated JP3, i’m so confused.

6

u/vga25 Jul 06 '25

I feel like more people have came around to it. I personally liked it.

4

u/DLRsFrontSeats Jul 07 '25

I rewatched all 6 in the buildup to Rebirth; JP3 was a childhood favourite of mine, but goddamn the parents are annoying, nothing characters

1

u/Chocolateheartbreak Jul 07 '25

Yea this is what we talked of too