65 Movie

[Faelrin]

The director thinks the designs are "scientifically tangible"

They're out here making Jurassic World Dominion's designs look documentary worthy at this rate.

[Stegotyranno420]

The director thinks the designs are "scientifically tangible"

They're out here making Jurassic World Dominion's designs look documentary worthy at this rate.

The conspiracy theorist in me says he was paid by that director to make a movie so bad people would be grateful for JWD 

[Gwangi]

The director thinks the designs are "scientifically tangible"

They're out here making Jurassic World Dominion's designs look documentary worthy at this rate.

If nothing else movies like 65 at least serve to remind us of how much worse it could be.

[Stegotyranno420]

The director thinks the designs are "scientifically tangible"

They're out here making Jurassic World Dominion's designs look documentary worthy at this rate.

If nothing else movies like 65 at least serve to remind us of how much worse it could be.

It couldve been worse John

[Gwangi]

Another review. This one from Dan Murrell (a proficient reviewer) is pretty forgiving and appears to give you a good idea of the sort of movie you're getting here. I'll still check it out if it comes to streaming services but I'm certainly not going out of my way for it.

[suspsy]

Well, 65 took in a pitiful $5.4 million this weekend, which is a 54% drop in revenue compared to the previous weekend when it came out. Given that it had a budget of $91 million, this is now truly a confirmed flop.

[Over9K]

I have yet to see 65, but the ads make it look like it's a SYFY/Asylum schlock turd, despite Adam Driver's presence.

I think we're learning here that Adam Driver does not have the box office clout that someone maybe thought he did.

[Paleo Flo]

Just saw a clip...oh man, what a mess!
These dino-designs are simply awful to me.
Dinosaurs don't deserve bad movies like this.
So, I will save the ticketprice and will not have a waste of livetime.

[Carnoking]

Well, $4.50 of that 5.4 million came from me this weekend. Saw a matinee screening yesterday and I've got some thoughts.

Spoiler

After perusing reviews and reading about the troubled production of this film, I went in with some low expectations. The trailers promised an action sci-fi B-Movie where Adam Driver shoots a space gun at ugly dinosaurs and I didn't bother hoping for anything more. That's probably why I found it to be a surprisingly decent watch.

A majority of the reviews I got to talked about how "boring" the film was (paraphrasing of course), but I didn't get that impression. There was a decent level of intrigue and dread in the first act, serviceable plot of necessity in the second act bolstered by the later revealed dramatic timer of the impending meteor impact, all focused around a heartwarming character dynamic between Adam Driver's Mills and Ariana Greenblatt's Koa. Perhaps critics wanted more dinosaurs and more *PEW**PEW**PEW* but I actually felt the quiet moments between the action that focused on Mills and Koa really carried the film.

But okay, to address the elephant in the room, yes, the dinosaur designs are atrocious. Not even in a cool way. They're just downright abhorrent. I'm all for unique creative spins on designs to make them distinct (although Prehistoric Planet proved you can make icons out of scientifically accurate dinosaurs  ) but they don't even manage that much, and a majority of these things are hardly even recognizable as any dinosaur I know. The worst part of that being that these didn't have to be dinosaurs on a prehistoric Earth, that decision had 0 bearings on the film as a whole, but that specific story vision still creates certain expectations that the filmmakers did not even come close to achieving. Really, anytime a "dinosaur" was on screen, I got so distracted by how terrible they looked from a design standpoint that it really killed the experience for me.

The upshot here is that the "dinosaurs" were not at the forefront of the story. They're in there enough (it's the original Jurassic Park model, about 12-15 minutes worth of dinosaurs in the entire runtime) but the real focus here is more on the journey of Mills and Koa, and that's good because these two absolutely carry the film in their performance. The argument could be made that we've seen this whole "reluctant parental figure guiding an innocent child to safety" done much better elsewhere, and that the whole idea is getting played out at this point but darn it if I didn't find the quiet moments between these two charming and I was genuinely invested in their struggles. It probably helps that I'm a sucker for character relationships that involve a language barrier, but overall, there's so much more of an emotional anchor in this film than there has been in any of the World films and I actually cared about and worried for the characters here (what a concept).

As far as the action scenes involving the creatures go, they were... fine. They felt a bit too here and gone, rinse and repeat, and probably could have benefitted from some additional buildup, either in the moment or throughout the film. The movie's only 90 minutes long, I think most examples had plenty of room to build the tension before launching into attack scenes, especially when it comes to the climax. It also doesn't help that, with few exceptions, the action scenes weren't really used to further the characters in any substantial way, and as a result it doesn't feel like the characters changed for the better thanks to these harrowing experiences. I hate to keep comparing this to Jurassic Park, but the T. rex breakout scene isn't just awesome because it's a T. rex breaking out of a paddock, it's awesome because it's the first real step we see Grant take in changing for the better when he risks his life to help the kids. There's nothing in the action of this film that comes even close to that, which is probably why I felt the more intimate moments were more effective.

As a whole, when comparing this to the most recent dinosaur films (The World Trilogy) I found this to be the largely superior offering. Again, not a high bar, but the characters had more emotional depth to them, and there was enough tension to keep me invested in the story which is probably why this film could take its time and have quiet, charming scenes that tugged just enough on the heart strings to do the job as opposed to going the key jingling route of throwing dinosaur after dinosaur onto the screen for a majority of the runtime. It feels weird to say that the "dinosaurs" were the worst part of a dinosaur movie and that I'm glad there weren't too many "dinosaur" moments but that's where I'm at with this one.

[close]

The TLDR version of that is, I went in with very low expectations and despite plenty of dumb creative choices, I found myself pleasantly surprised by how much heart was in this movie. We've seen it done better elsewhere, but it's enough to carry an otherwise negligible hour and a half sci-fi action film. Oh, and I loved the music 

[Carnoking]

Well, 65 took in a pitiful $5.4 million this weekend, which is a 54% drop in revenue compared to the previous weekend when it came out. Given that it had a budget of $91 million, this is now truly a confirmed flop.

As far as the question of box office goes, I've seen conflicting reports on the budget of this film with the lower end being 45 million and the upper estimate sitting at 91. I'm not sure if the film started at 45 Million before reshoots ballooned it up to 91, or if that 91 accounts for marketing, or if the film cost 91 million before marketing, or what. How much it cost at this point is fairly moot though given that the box office is nowhere near either of those marks. Right now it feels less a question of if it will lose money and more so a question of how much it will lose.

That said, this is a rare case of a post 2020 Hollywood film that will be screening in China, and it does not release there until the 31st, so we could see a small swell from international markets. I also have a hunch this movie will find a second wind on streaming. At an hour and half, it's a fairly undemanding watch to pass a Friday night in with friends.

I have to say though, I am disappointed that a movie like this has to bank on foreign markets and streaming to hope for any modicum of success. Regardless of how one feels about this movie in particular, a mid-budget standalone genre film feels like a rarity in the modern movie-going landscape, and I'd certainly hate to see such films go the way of the dinosaurs if audiences aren't turning out.

[Carnoking]

Deleted

[Faelrin]

I'm truly wondering if the terrible designs and lack there of actual dinosaurs hurt this film too. It definitely pushed me and likely others away from watching it. I think they had an interesting concept but I really do think they squandered it with their careless disregard for the animals that once lived here. I mean there's a big reason things like the Jurassic films and Prehistoric Planet made bank. Otherwise why even bother to set the film in this time period if not to take advantage of that? One of the reasons I enjoy playing Ark is the survival elements, and all the (genetically modified) prehistoric creatures.

To quote Dr. ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park "Ah, now eventually you do plan to have dinosaurs on your, on your dinosaur tour, right? Hello?", or in this case the film.

[CityRaptor]

I just realized something in another thread: since the designs are rip-offs and hideously deformed, could they be AI generated?

[Carnoking]

I just realized something in another thread: since the designs are rip-offs and hideously deformed, could they be AI generated?

This makes an obscene amount of sense.

[PumperKrickel]

I just realized something in another thread: since the designs are rip-offs and hideously deformed, could they be AI generated?

According to IMDb the creature designs are by Daniel Carrasco, who strongly opposes Ai generated art.

[DinoFan2010]

I found a render of the 65 Raptor 

[Stegotyranno420]

I just realized something in another thread: since the designs are rip-offs and hideously deformed, could they be AI generated?

According to IMDb the creature designs are by Daniel Carrasco, who strongly opposes Ai generated art.

It's probably because it looks exactly like his works...

[Paleo Flo]

just terrible...in a not cool way

[Cretaceous Crab]

I finally watched it today. My son wanted us to buy it on digital so...yeah.

Even with low expectations, I still couldn't bring myself to enjoy it much.

Spoiler

Aside from the creature designs, there were a handful of plot holes and unanswered questions.

For starters, I felt the whole "millennia before man, there were other civilizations" element was very vague and could have used a little more backstory. This may have helped lay a better foundation as to why Mills had to go on this mission.

Secondly, if it was an exploratory mission, why was Koa brought along?

I'm not going to beat the dead horse about the creatures, but I probably would have liked the film more if they had just called it another planet instead of claiming it was Earth 65 mya. That would have justified any weird or outlandish critters they came up with, because it would all be alien monsters.

In summary, I think someone wanted to make a Dinosaur movie that wasn't JP/JW, and wanted to make it their own....but just failed horribly. I feel the whole "other civilizations" was a weak and poorly constructed plot device to justify putting a person on Earth 65 MYA without using time travel.

Since they didn't have much cost for actors (I think only 4 people in the entire film), it was a waste to not make the dinosaurs & other fauna more accurate, in both behavior and appearances. I think the pterasaurs were the most accurate creatures depicted.

But the environment was very believable and the relationship between Mills and Koa was a pleasant subplot.

One other thing I liked about the film was that it was a lot less like the book I am writing than I originally thought!

[close]

[dragon53]

This is a review of the bluray 65.


LINK: https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/65-Blu-ray/334328/#Review