Roger Thomas

I have watched “Jurassic Park” films for the last 25 years since the first one premiered in 1993. I have enjoyed each of the first four films, some more than others. The first film is still the best, but there are several good moments in all the films.

Now we have a fifth film, subtitled “Fallen Kingdom” which has some good qualities and creative moments, but ultimately is the weakest of the quintet.

In case one wonders, my order of best to least goes like this: “Jurassic Park,” “The Lost World: Jurassic Park,” “Jurassic World,” “Jurassic 3,” and last and least is the most recent contribution, “Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom.”

Before I reveal what faults I saw in the fifth film, allow me to offer the things that are worthy of my praise.

First, the dinosaurs and all the special effects in the film look better than ever. I remember back in 1993 I got in a debate with a friend.

We argued over which film would win the Academy Award for Best Special Effects. My friend was certain that the award was going to “A Nightmare

Before Christmas.” I was sure it would be the original “Jurassic Park” and I was right.

The effects on these films, all five of them, are almost beyond compare.

These films, including the fifth one, offer the audience the closest glimpse we will ever see of dinosaurs.

I also applaud the presence of Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard. This duo of actors were in the fourth film and they have done fine work in the fifth endeavor in spite of all the other weaknesses of the film.

There is a subplot about the island where the prehistoric park used to be.

The volcano becomes active so the animals must be evacuated. The active volcano scenes are some of the best visuals in the film, with the exception, of course, of the dinosaurs themselves.

However, it is not completely good news for the film.

The major premise of the film just does not work for me. First, the audience is told that the dinosaurs are going to another island where they will live without human interference. That was just a ruse.

In reality the man who was controlling the island is planning to bring the dinosaurs to his home so he can have a huge auction for rich people who lacked nothing except a pet dinosaur.

Here was my first thought when I realized where the plot was going: no rational person would bring a bunch of dinosaurs to their home, much less their mansion, no matter how much money he or she could possibly make on the auction block.

To me, the film lost credibility long before the dinosaurs started getting out of their cages.

Oops!

I should not have wrote that because no one would ever guess that the dinosaurs escape.

I am not really revealing the plot, because all of the films have dinosaurs stampeding.

A lesser criticism of the film is that there are too many characters.

In “Jurassic Park” films there always has to be a young child.

Check.

A money hungry billionaire who wants more.

Check.

One older person who truly wants to do something good in his twilight years.

Check.

There are others, but my readers know what I mean.

We have seen these characters before and we will see them again in “Jurassic Park 6.”

With that said, perhaps it is time to retire the franchise.

I believe “Jurassic Park 5” is the weakest of the five films and I truly want this series to quit before it becomes parody.

There are some inspired moments, but not any that outshine the previous films. I have enjoyed this series, but if there are no more, I will be satisfied.

On the other hand, if they do make “Part 6,” I, like many others, will probably be there to see it.

Roger W. Thomas of Albemarle reviews films for The Stanly News & Press.