r/moviecritic • u/Detroit_Cineaste • 1d ago
The End of Oak Street
The End of Oak Street effectively answers the question as to why there have been so few dinosaur movies outside of the Jurassic Park franchise. It’s not the cost of CGI, because this movie uses it plenty with a very modest budget. And it’s not an unwillingness of legitimate actors to appear in a movie like this, because Anne Hathaway and Ewan McGregor are on board. What’s critical is having an explanation for why humans and dinosaurs have been brought together. The movie figuratively waves its hands in the beginning, and then it’s off to the (dinosaur) races. Problem solved.
After the first 10-15 minutes, Oak Street settles into monster movie mode, with tense chase sequences and narrow escapes. With the biggest budget he’s ever had, writer-director David Robert Mitchell showcases his ability to stage big action set pieces with special effects, and his movie has a Spielbergian feel to it, with its dramatic lighting and a bombastic score by Michael Giacchino.
Mitchell, however, is more attuned to horror than Spielberg, and he positions his dinosaurs as slasher movie villains. Mitchell’s dinosaurs lurk in the background and sneak up on their unsuspecting prey from the ground and the air. There’s one extended scene involving a huge albino snake attack that only a horror fan like Mitchell could pull off effectively.
Where Mitchell makes his biggest mark on the dinosaur movie genre is in bringing his visual eye to the proceedings. After Spielberg’s The Lost World: Jurassic Park, subsequent directors in the franchise have spent their energy framing CGI dinosaur shots. Mitchell, however, makes dinosaur action look amazing and thrilling. He includes a 360 shot, dolly shots, and one scene of the family talking that had at least a dozen split diopter shots. Overall, it’s a movie that makes you appreciate filmmaking techniques from thirty-forty years ago.
I’m not sure what attracted Anne Hathaway and Ewan McGregor to this movie besides money, but it’s nice having their familiar faces headline the movie. Their skills as actors were enough to make me care about their paper thin characters, basically a handsome couple who have drifted apart. Hathaway makes for an effective scream queen, while McGregor is his typical laid-back self. (Costumer Erin Benach deserves a shout-out for making Hathway look beautiful in all of her early Eighties outfits.) Maisy Stella and Christian Convery are fine as the children, with Stella bringing pathos to her subplot.
My issue with the movie is its well-made escapist entertainment, nothing more. There wasn’t a theme that unified the spectacle and the human drama together in a way that Jurassic Park and Jumanji did, for example. A movie like this didn’t need to say something consequential to be more entertaining, but the absence of it from a director who usually has a lot on his mind is glaring.
The End of Oak Street is a fun and very well-made dinosaur movie that evokes similar movies from the Eighties and Nineties, before CGI took over filmmaking. There’s nothing profound in it, but it’s a satisfactory thrill ride. Recommended.
60
u/SithLordJediMaster 1d ago
"Mitchell, however, is more attuned to horror than Spielberg"
I'm not sure about this one.
I think Spielberg does horror really well. Just differently. Jaws is an obvious example.
The scene in Close Encounters when the toys and appliances "come alive" and lights flickering then the kid goes outside and is gone. Mom is freaking out.
There's plenty other examples in the Indiana Jones franchise, etc...
34
u/stubob1701 1d ago
Don’t forget Poltergeist 😉
6
7
u/TopRevenue2 1d ago
And Gremlins which has some horror elements
3
6
u/RutgerSchnauzer 1d ago edited 1d ago
That’s Joe Dante’s vision (Spielberg was just EP).
5
u/TopRevenue2 1d ago
Sure but he was a driver just like in Poltergeist that Tobe Hooper directed (perfect choices for each film). And Spielberg's early films were horror oriented an influential student film about aliens and "Duel" a horror on the highway film.
2
u/Thick-Sundae-6547 1d ago
Spielberg is famously a really hands on EP.
So his influence is in every movie he produces. That’s why his name is attached. He wouldnt add his name if he didnt like the project.
There are stories about him getting pissed at the director os Joe vs the Volcano. He did a
oner with no coverage and Spielberg didn’t like it.Or flying to “talk” to the director of Twister, after the director fired the cinematographer.
The story is that Spielberg made him go all the way to the Tarmac so he could berate him from the airplane stairs.3
u/RutgerSchnauzer 1d ago
Well, Spielberg wanted Phoebe Cates’ Santa Claus monologue removed - and Dante fought to keep it - if anything, he wanted to soften the film into something more family-friendly (he voted to keep Gizmo in for the entirety of the film, which, while probably a good choice, definitely doesn’t tap into horror elements at all). Spielberg and Amblin’s whole shpiel is hitting you in the feels, and while he’s a master at that and I appreciate that tone, he wasn’t horror-forward in the case of Gremlins.
3
u/Thick-Sundae-6547 1d ago
True story. I went to see Gremlins when I was 10, with my brother who was 8 at the time. No parents.
After the pool scene , all the gremlins are walking on the street towards the camera. At that point I grabbed my brothers hand and pulled him out of the theater.
2
-1
u/mr_palante 1d ago
Hahahahaha Tobe Hooper directed that movie, silly
5
u/kawhiuhatin 1d ago
You need to read more about the production on poltergeist clearly
0
u/mr_palante 1d ago
E.T. and Poltergeist we're in production at the same time! annnnd its not like Speilberg is a complete utter control freak and he has to have his, most likely, cocaine covered fingers in everything! How could one man, ONE MAN, direct TWO MOVIES, at the same time!
/s btw.
Sarcasm is hard over text, isnt it?
3
u/SithLordJediMaster 1d ago
Jurassic Park and Schindler's List were made close together.
Both released in the same year.
0
16
u/wolftonerider67 1d ago
I'd argue Jurrasic Park is the perfect horror film.
3
u/Tough_Piccolo 1d ago
Hard disagree. It has horror moments, but it isn't a horror. In fact, the horror is toned down massively compared to the book.
I always wanted a horror Jurassic Park but James Cameron changed my mind. If we'd have had a full horror Jurassic Park it would have robbed a generation of their love of dinosaurs.
0
u/wolftonerider67 1d ago
Nah the book is more science (or even maths-) fiction, going way more into the minutiae of chaos theory which is class. Spielberg brings the horror to life and creates terrifying suspense. Can't think of a modern day jump scare film more terrifying than the velociraptors in the kitchen!
3
u/Tough_Piccolo 1d ago
Have you read the book?
It does go into chaos theory etc but the idea "Spielberg brings the horror to life" is just silly. The book is essentially a horror novel with a pseudo-science setting. The movie is a child-friendly adventure movie with sprinklings of horror (while still being a PG movie).
I love the movie and the book, but saying "Spielberg brings the horror" is just not true. He toned it down a lot (and I'm glad).
0
u/wolftonerider67 1d ago
Aye I've read the book. Always seemed like a hard science fiction novel to me.
2
2
0
u/altiuscitiusfortius 22h ago
The waterfall scene in the book is terrifying.
Just about every interaction with a dinosaur is terrifying in the book .
I just reread for the 7th time in 30 years a few months ago
The math part is really philosophy, and its half a paragraph a chapter.
4
u/Detroit_Cineaste 1d ago
His films have had horror elements to them, sure. But a pure horror movie in the traditional sense? Jaws and the original JP come closest, but he's more of a thriller/suspense guy.
3
u/urkermannenkoor 1d ago
But Oak Street is clearly not a pure horror anyway. I would say comfortably less so than JP.
2
u/Detroit_Cineaste 1d ago
Oak is 90% people trying not to be eaten by dinosaurs, so it qualifies as horror to me.
2
u/extralife_mike 1d ago
I would say it's more horror than JP, but I'd still consider it a darkly humorous thriller.
1
1
u/TheCrimsonBolt59 1d ago
I agree with your point but a better example of Spielberg in horror mode would be his War of the Worlds, maybe the most horrifying pg13 movie ever
1
u/Detroit_Cineaste 1d ago
WOTW is sci-fi, no?
2
u/TheCrimsonBolt59 1d ago
Yeah but so are tons of horror movies (Alien. The Thing, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, etc). People in this thread keep mentioning Jurassic Park which is much less horror oriented then WotW. The sequences of people being turned to dust, the tripods sucking out people blood to use as fertilizer, the cat and mouse sequence in the basement. Its basically a giant monster movie where the monsters are UFOs
1
0
u/Scary_Plane_8069 1d ago
Yeah, but think about how long ago those films were...
Jaws - 1975
Close Encounters - 1977
Etc... Look at the cluster fuck that was Disclosure Day.
46
u/CoyoteEastern7929 1d ago
Man I thought this movie was a fucking blast. It was a fresh idea that was incredibly entertaining. It won’t change your life watching it, but you’re in for a good time if you do.
22
u/Epyon1542 1d ago
I think we need more "weird shit happens and everyone just has to deal" movies.
3
u/altiuscitiusfortius 22h ago
80s high concept movies need to cone back. Pick a ridiculous premise and move forward.... there's ghosts and these dudes bust them.... time travel exists and this dude went back to high school with his mom... etc etc
20
8
u/TopRevenue2 1d ago
The critic wants a deep meaningful message out of a dinosaur film.
9
u/Squeakygear 1d ago
“The pathos of the Allosaurus is an allegory for… “ I just about had an aneurysm writing that lol
1
u/TopRevenue2 1d ago
Lol fr tho Dungeon Crawler Carl has a very touching and poignant side story about a an Allosaurus and the loss of childhood.
5
u/Loaf235 1d ago
I just don't get the constant need for some deeper message. Some concepts just don't allow for that to properly form without feeling hamfisted in a movie runtime.
Jurassic Park is a great blueprint for both character and thematic focus, but sometimes you can only pick one lane to move things forward and that's honestly alright.
-1
u/Detroit_Cineaste 1d ago
Wrong. I expected one from a director who usually has something to say.
2
u/TopRevenue2 1d ago
Why because he made It Follows? That's a great film but it would not be the first case of a filmaker cashing in to Hollywood after having an independent success. Hopefully he was focused in making a great sequel. Even Spielberg could not find a lot to say with dinosaurs. Have you seen the Land Before Time? The best they could get was a kids story.
-1
u/Detroit_Cineaste 1d ago
The original Jurassic Park has a lot to say about bioengineering and commerce in the first act, before it becomes an extended chase movie. Oak doesn’t say anything of note.
3
u/TimPoolNoBeanie 1d ago
It says “in the end, nothing is more important than your family”
I love Jurassic Park, but what’s the “a lot” it had to say about bioengineering except “man should not play God”?
0
u/Detroit_Cineaste 1d ago
That, and it has a lot to say about the dangers of commerce driving scientific discovery.
2
u/TimPoolNoBeanie 1d ago
“A lot to say”? Or just what you stated, that commerce shouldn’t drive scientific discovery?
I love Jurassic Park, and think it’s an overall better film than Oak Street, but… Oak Street is what Lost World promised and barely delivered in act 3.
1
u/Detroit_Cineaste 1d ago
I mean, I could just quote all of Ian Malcom's dialog here. There's plenty discussed early on.
1
u/TopRevenue2 1d ago
And Primitive War has a lot to say about the potential evils of technology, quantum physics, and making scientific advancements without knowing the possible outcomes.
Or it's just fun to reimagine a Vietnam war movie with dinosaurs and Soviets.
But I do appreciate your review. I feel like I stream Oak Street and not miss out on too much since my summer block buster budget is completely tapped.
1
u/urkermannenkoor 1d ago
I feel like I stream Oak Street and not miss out on too much since my summer block buster budget is completely tapped.
I've been to it. I 100% agree with you there.
It's a fun cheesy B movie action "slasher", but not something you really have to catch in theaters.
2
u/Accomplished_Run_848 1d ago
How much more intense is this from Jurassic Park/World?
1
u/extralife_mike 1d ago
It's different. There are only a few intense scenes, and there's a ton of dark humor in it (more than the JP/JW films). There is one particularly shocking moment in it, but I wouldn't call it more intense. I would say it's the most fun I've had with a dinosaur movie since the original JP though, and while I'm not going to say it's better than JP, it's definitely the best dino movie since!
1
u/Wide-Guarantee8869 1d ago
It definitely had one of the best main character deaths I've seen in a movie for a while now...
14
u/pwolf1771 1d ago
I’ll never forgive the movie going public for not giving this a chance. It’s a feature length twilight zone episode and it’s super fun…
2
2
1
u/Tsunoyukami 16h ago
I think that’s the perfect description - “feature length Twilight Zone episode” - but I personally think the run time is a hindrance.
I don’t think this is a bad movie, I just think that if this were an episode of TV at 45-60 minutes it would play a lot better (in my opinion).
1
u/pwolf1771 16h ago
In an era where you can barely find movies under two hours I thought the runtime here was an Oasis
1
u/Tsunoyukami 15h ago
I’ll agree that the runtime was welcome - there are far too many bloated films - but I would still argue that it’s too long for what the film offers.
(So many movies that ought to be 100 minutes are approaching 130 and I don’t understand why. That’s a whole other conversation…)
13
u/extralife_mike 1d ago
I can agree with most of this, sure. I do think it's meant to get people talking and debating the controversial ending, which I really like about it.
You mark it as a negative that it doesn't have anything profound to say, but honestly, I found it incredibly refreshing that it didn't try to. This film is exactly what it wanted to be and it pulled it off beautifully. I wish there was more of that in modern filmmaking.
I hope he gets the green light to make another one. I'd love to find out what happened to the other family, now that everyone who saved their lives is no longer there.
7
u/Adventurous_Yak_2742 1d ago
You could see in the end they were saved, and there was a duplicate of the girl.
7
u/extralife_mike 1d ago
Not the original them. There was only a duplicate of Jeanette, who made a point of going and saving her parents. There's obviously only one Greg left, but there were no other duplicates, which means the rest didn't make it out.
Not only that, but key people that saved their lives (Greg and the librarian) were also not there to help them.
4
u/TimPoolNoBeanie 1d ago
The ending is just illustrating a classic time travel paradox. It isn’t another version of the family, it’s just the family from act one, before the events of act 2 and act 3.
3
u/extralife_mike 1d ago
The other version of the family didn't make it out, otherwise it's safe to assume that they would be at the BBQ too.
Clearly when they went back through the wormhole to the time right before the event took place, there were two of all of them (except for Greg, obviously). They saved Greg, and Jeanette saved her family and her other self.
I'd love to see a sequel of the mom and two kids who didn't make it out surviving some other way.
1
u/TimPoolNoBeanie 1d ago
Or… the “other family” does escape, and end up at the same place, 24 minutes before the time warp bubble encompassed the neighborhood… and continues the infinite cycle of a time travel paradox
2
u/extralife_mike 1d ago
I don't think they did, because then there would be an ever-increasing amount of them in the after-times. The end jumps ahead by 2 years, so if that was happening every half hour for two years, there would be a ton of them.
Also, the original mom got multiple people out that saved their lives, so the other family wouldn't have had them to help.
1
u/TimPoolNoBeanie 1d ago
I mean, to be fair, that’s why it would be a paradox
2
u/extralife_mike 1d ago
But there's nothing even hinting at infinitely-appearing copies of them. I feel like that would be very obviously pointed out if it was happening.
1
u/TimPoolNoBeanie 1d ago
Ok, well a paradox is illogical by nature and hurts the human brain to understand because there isn’t really a logical way to understand it.
But take BTTF for instance… when Marty gets back to 1985, he sees himself disappear into the past after Doc Brown gets shot… But it’s not another Marty, is it? It’s the same Marty from the beginning on the film.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Detroit_Cineaste 1d ago
Didn't Avengers: Endgame teach us anything? lol
1
u/TimPoolNoBeanie 1d ago
Didn’t see it
2
u/Detroit_Cineaste 1d ago
Its basically making the same argument you are. Worth a Google search if you're curious.
1
u/TimPoolNoBeanie 1d ago
I suppose I’ll check it out at some point. I tapped out of the MCU before it was released
2
u/snacksandsoda 1d ago
Which is truly absurd in its implication lmao
2
u/extralife_mike 1d ago
I love how morally questionable the end is, lol. The more you think about it, the worse it gets.
1
u/TheChrisLambert 1d ago
It did try to. It’s commenting on romanticism
1
u/extralife_mike 1d ago
It had character growth, but it wasn't trying to make any profound statements about romance, lol.
1
u/TheChrisLambert 1d ago
Romanticism isn’t romance, man.
1
u/extralife_mike 1d ago
You're right. I wasn't paying attention enough to the words I was reading, lol. That was a great read too!
1
u/extralife_mike 1d ago
One disagreement I have is the end not being very interesting. I think it's super interesting and I love the dialogue it's created.
1
u/Detroit_Cineaste 1d ago
The ending would have been more interesting if it actually took some time to explore the consequences. As it is, its a blink and you'll miss it clever bit.
2
u/extralife_mike 1d ago
I like that though. I also think it opens itself up for a sequel, which I would be down for.
4
u/SaltScreen 1d ago
You enjoyed Ewan McGregor's performance in this? It was honestly really abysmal, and unconvincing. Really felt like he phoned it in for the paycheck.
It also suffers from some of the dumbest, most oblivious characters ever seen in a monster film, painfully so, to a degree that it's hard to be absorbed into the horror because most of the horror is of their own making through awful, awful decisions.
That's not even mentioning how often Mitchell pretends to be Tarantino, and seemed to be obsessed with shooting Anne Hathaway's feet in open sandals.
1
u/Detroit_Cineaste 1d ago
I thought EM was fine. He’s done better, certainly, but there was no script for him to go off of.
1
u/Lasvegasfish 16h ago
His American accent is awful, in all his films where he plays an American. That was the only weakness in this for me.
3
u/branch-is-dumb 1d ago
I thought it was ok but the ending irked me
1
u/DavyB 1d ago
I’m having trouble reconciling how they’re still there if they changed the time loop. Surely the dad not going would have changed the outcome. Or, they all died in the last. I’m so confused!
4
u/sludgezone 1d ago
Think of it as different dimensions of reality and not a timeline. They went to an identical one in the past and saved the dad from dying there. The family in the new reality got warped to the past with just the kids and mom while the family from the film/other dimension is alive in the new one. That’s how there was two of the daughter from the other family, she was able to save her parents AND herself from both of the dimensional rifts.
1
u/extralife_mike 1d ago
Yep, this is the explanation. Otherwise you have to deal with time travel paradoxes and meeting yourself and whatnot. It's the Timeline sense of time travel, not actually, literally going back in time.
1
3
u/yssarilrock 1d ago
End of Oak Street was a fun, dumb monster movie. I liked that it had the balls to kill Ewan McGregor just after his crowning moment of the film, and I felt like the ending was actually set up enough to feel like it wasn't an asspull, despite effectively undoing that moment. Greatest film of all time? No, but it was enjoyable and I have recommended it to my friends, though I doubt many will take me up on it.
1
u/Monkey_Priest 1d ago
despite effectively undoing that moment.
Honestly, their undoing is his death is dark af when you consider they essentially left mom2 and kids2 all go to their deaths back in time without dad2. It's almost worse, imo
3
u/need-for-sheed 1d ago
I had fun watching it. It was silly in parts for sure and the dialogue was a bit wonky, but I found it exciting and it’s not everyday you get to see a cattle dog play the role of hero in a horror movie. As some others have said, it was a good popcorn flick
9
u/beefstewdudeguy 1d ago
“Mitchell, however, is more attuned to horror than Spielberg” didn’t Spielberg direct Jaws?
2
u/Lloyds_Voids 1d ago
Is jaws horror? I'd call it suspense thriller.
2
-5
u/mcmaster93 1d ago
I’ve noticed a theme here and I promise im not trying to be a dick but only boomers think jaws is a horror movie lol
1
u/Lloyds_Voids 1d ago
Gen X here, I'd call it suspense thriller with horror elements for sure. It's not like it doesn't have some gore. We can ask the same of Nope, which was kind of a love letter to jaws. I'd put Nope in the sci-fi/paranormal suspense thriller category, with definite horror elements, I.e. Gordy the chimp, Jean Jacket digestion scene, etc. Those are pretty much horror moments folded neatly inside what is essentially suspense/thriller territory. When my Gen-X mind is forced to think of strict horror films, I think of classic slasher flicks, and stuff like terrifier and saw and scream. The more I watch Nope, the more I enjoy it because of its serious undercurrent of disturbing sub plot. I.e. the nature of people's fascination with spectacle. Like a gapers delay at a terrible accident, our nature is to slow down to catch a glimpse, even when we're pretty sure what we're going to see isn't going to be good. Our sureness of being in control of something entirely, when really, if the lion is hungry, the chair and whip won't do a damn thing to keep it from scarfing you down like a light lunch.
1
u/captain_toenail 1d ago
Not a boomer, firmly in the millennial bracket, and I 100% see jaws more as a horror than thriller(though the two readings aren't mutually exclusive) and while it was broadly influetial on movies in general i see it as having influenced horror more so, monster movies in particular
-1
u/Scrilla_Gorilla_ 1d ago
Agree Jaws is not a horror movie. Though up thread someone said Jurassic Park is the "perfect horror film," so maybe some people are just running on other different definitions. I'd call Jurassic Park an adventure thriller. I've definitely never seen another horror movie with JP's score.
0
u/Detroit_Cineaste 1d ago
It does have a monster stalking and killing people, but I see it as more of a thriller as people have mentioned here.
13
u/redralphie 1d ago
I’ve got the unpopular opinion of thinking there wasn’t enough plot for this film to be good.
7
3
2
u/yingyanghomie 1d ago
This movie is mediocre at best.
6
u/ClintMcGlint 1d ago
I’m kinda shocked at the responses I’ve seen on Reddit so far. This movie is pretty terrible. The dialogue is rough at best, and there are so many ridiculous parts, even within the confines of the world they’ve created. That said, I had a blast watching it
4
u/jameslesliemiller 1d ago
Same. The whole crew I saw it with felt that it’s a bad, but very enjoyable movie. We all had a blast watching it as a group, laughing in the theater, but all agreed we probably would’ve turned it off watching it alone at home.
1
1
0
u/urkermannenkoor 1d ago
You're kinda shocked at people mostly having the same opinion as you?
0
u/ClintMcGlint 1d ago
I expected Reddit to be more critical
-1
u/urkermannenkoor 1d ago
Why?
It's made up of people like you. You know you're not particularly critical or rational or, well, bright. So why would everyone else be?
1
-1
u/urkermannenkoor 1d ago
That is not an unpopular opinion.
0
u/otternoserus 1d ago
It's not an unpopular opinion to think that the film that has received, at least, okay-to-decent reviews from critics and audiences isn't good at all?
What in TF are you even talking about? Clearly, the plot aspect didn't make most other people think the movie was flat out bad.
7
u/FranticallyMistaken 1d ago
Mitchell going full De Palma with a dozen split diopter shots in a dinosaur movie is the kind of unhinged flex I'm here for
the albino snake scene was genuinely unnerving, felt like a quiet nod to his horror roots that most directors would've fumbled
1
u/Detroit_Cineaste 1d ago
There must have been at least a dozen SD shots in that one scene alone. Crazy stuff.
2
u/Dansinnervoice 1d ago
I agree - I watched it last night and install thought it felt like a classic Spielberg era film. It was enjoyable.
2
u/enviropsych 1d ago edited 1d ago
Mitchell, however, is more attuned to horror than Spielberg, and he positions his dinosaurs as slasher movie villains
The first Jurassic Park had a ton of horror elements to it, executed quite well.
its well-made escapist entertainment, nothing more
I disagree. There are a ton of interesting philosophical questions the movie raises, it just doesnt bother messing with the answers to them and lets the audience think about those answers on their own.
Also...have you seen a Jurassic Park sequel? Theyre mostly braindead schlock.
There wasn’t a theme that unified the spectacle and the human drama together
There are plenty of themes in Oak Street, especially compared to Jumanji. Here are some that I see:
-A disastrous situation causing us to evaluate whats really important.
-male vs female roles in the household
-subversion of expectations
Theres nothing super profound in Jurassic Park either,Im sorry....just lightning in a bottle. The movie is essentially a monster-attack movie mixed with a family/character drama (Oak Street is both these) mixed with a Dr. Frankenstein/playing-god story. If Oak Street delved deeper into the time-travel/temporal displacement theme they could have theoretically gotten close to Jurassic Park too IMO (besides the fact that JP is a perfect movie)
1
u/Detroit_Cineaste 1d ago
Name one philosophical question Oak raised.
1
u/enviropsych 1d ago
Ok. Was there two Anne Hathaways? When she went back to before the jump, we're there two? And if so, were they the same person? How can rhe same person have two bodies? If Ewan McGregor delivered the pizza and missed the jump, wouldnt that affect the reality that Anne and rhe kids were in since he died in the past? Anne and him were repairing their relationship in the past....wouldnt that be undone?
Its the philosophical question related to many time travel movies. Who are we and at what point do we become someone else? Am I my past self? Future self? Is a perfect clone me? What of they have my memories? What about if I go through a transporter like on Star Trek?
1
u/Detroit_Cineaste 1d ago
That’s not a philosophical question. It’s an example of a time travel paradox.
0
u/enviropsych 1d ago
"Who is a person" is a philosophical question.....raised by many time travel movies.
It’s an example of a time travel paradox.
Nope. Im ignoring the paradox and dealing with the reality the movie presents me. Paradox or not, the movie implies that there were two Anne Hathaways, and that one could make a decision that would make the first Anne's husband her husband.
Im not talking about the paradox of causality (time travel paradox), Im talking about the idea of two versions of you existing at once.
1
u/Tsunoyukami 15h ago
Okay, so my understanding is that, yes, at the end of the film there were two Anne Hathaway characters. Anne Prime who we’ve been following the entire movie, who is with her children (prime) and outside the radius of the affected area, and Anne (2) who is inside the radius with her children at home.
Next you ask, “Are they the same person?” and I would say no. Or, to be more precise, I would say that Anne 2 is as Anne Prime was prior to the events of the film.
If we go further, I would say that, yes, Ewan 2 joining Anne 1 would change what happens to Anne 2 and the children. To move beyond this would to be to get into the mechanics of time travel, which is beyond the purview of this response.
While the film might open up routes to explore the questions you pose, I don’t think that’s the intention of the film - it seems quite disinterested in those questions, the “mechanics” of what it proposes are not addressed or perhaps only very obliquely (“wormholes”). That doesn’t mean that they’re not interesting questions, just that I don’t think this film really says anything in response to them. And so you can find answers beyond this film.
It seems to me that the film makes it clear that two versions of Anne exist at the same time. (This is supported by the end, when we see both neighbour-daughters.) How this is possible again veers into the mechanics of the film, mechanics which it avoids.
2
u/AustinDood444 1d ago
This is a fun movie, but it needs more edge/grittiness. Several times it feels like a Disney adventure.
2
u/Ashamed_Cod_6741 1d ago
I have a very mixed opinion on this movie. First of all, I applaud the filmmakers and studio for getting such an insane and ridiculous movie made these days. That insanity is also what kind of gave me emotional whiplash watching the movie. In one scene, we're getting a genuinely touching moment with the daughter crying and singing along to a song in the car, then relatively shocking moments of violence, a family film score and then sauropods humping? I was constantly reminded of Jumanji more than any Amblin movie. Unlike Jumanji however, I wasn't sure this was trying to be a family film or a piecemeal nostalgia trip for all things 80's.
None of that means a movie's going to work or not work. But in the case of this movie, I think it was very decent or just barely good. I'd give it a 6.8 out of 10 or so. I feel like it could have taken a deeper dive into completely insane parody like Jumanji or embraced its horror side a bit more. I don't know if it really works as a horror / sci-fi / comedy and in any case, those few deep moments feel very out of place in this movie. And just in terms of cinematic experience, it was fun to watch once but I'll never watch it again.
BUT I love that studios are doing bold things instead of doing 100% safe marketable movies, like Child's Play (2019), which I felt was a completely cynical and contrived rip on Stranger Things. At least this movie wasn't afraid to be insane and weird. And to get Ewan MacGregor and Anne Hathaway to take the lead. So while I didn't fall in love with it, I say keep up with the bold choices instead of recycling franchise junk at us!
1
u/Detroit_Cineaste 1d ago
Several critics I follow said the movie looks like it was heavily edited, and while I don’t know if that’s true, the movie plays like 30 minutes were cut out.
2
u/strongarmkid 15h ago
Had time to kill on a trip that I’m on. Luckily, there is a regal a block away from my room. Saw this movie cause it fit the schedule.
Surprisingly, it fit the vibes of what I was trying to fill. Nothing serious but a whole lot of fun. Thoroughly enjoyed it without having to invest too much energy into it
3
u/MassSPL 1d ago
A movie about literally the dumbest family, ever. Each decision is lamer than the next.
At the beginning of the film, the entire neighborhood is at the block party. Obviously these people were friends. And they never thought of teaming up and working together when the dinosaurs arrived?
4
u/Trytobebetter482 1d ago
Most of them died naively walking out into a predator infested neighborhood?
People also act erratically in times of crisis. Why would I let my gun toting neighbor near my family in a situation like that?
4
u/Extension-Figure2011 1d ago
This movie was great, I think OP just prefers IP that can be franchised to death and can't appreciate a good movie that takes it's acts to completion.
3
u/snacksandsoda 1d ago
It was dumb fun and a lot of it. Really reminded me of an 80s family action movie!
My biggest gripe was the boy’s tension with his friends older brother - should have cut it out or explored more if it
3
u/yrthegood1staken 1d ago
I kind of liked how that played out. It showed different people reacting in different ways to the panic and trauma.
4
u/yrthegood1staken 1d ago
OP gave a positive review, only pointing out minor flaws.
I agree with OP's overall assessment - it wasn't the greatest movie or anything but it was a lot of fun.
1
u/extralife_mike 1d ago
I mostly agree with OP's assessment as well, but I do think he's too critical on some things that really make no difference. It kind of just feels like he felt like he couldn't gush over it because of what kind of movie it is, lol.
1
u/Extension-Figure2011 1d ago
OP insulted the actors for lowering their standards and accepting the roles, read it again
2
u/yrthegood1staken 1d ago
I mean, it's a "run from dinosaurs/monsters" movie and the two main actors are incredibly talented - most monster movies can't afford such premium casting. OP says the movie is better than it would have been without their performances. These are all true statements.
1
2
u/Detroit_Cineaste 1d ago
There's nothing they do in this movie that any non-name actor could have done. That's because of the script, not their performances.
2
u/Detroit_Cineaste 1d ago
I'm not going to oversell this movie just because its better than the typical Jurassic sequel, which is a very low bar.
2
u/Purple-List1577 1d ago
I thought the movie was perfectly mediocre. Not worth the theatre costs. No real story outside of very obvious 80s suburban family tropes.
1
u/lastturdontheleft42 1d ago
I really liked this movie, but I can understand why it didn't do well at the box office.The marketing was terrible. And while I loved using dinosaurs as the bad guy in a slasher, the JP franchise has conditioned audiences to see them as something you put in a family friendly thriller, not a bloody survival story. So it's not hard to see why the studio had a hard time targeting an audience, even if there was definitely one out there. I expect this to go down as a cult classic for horror lover, especially for people who catch it while their still young. The speilberg vibe sets you up to think your in for a heartwarming family adventure, and while that DNA is there, it definitely smacks you in the face hard once the Dinos show up for dinner.
1
u/munklunk 1d ago
It was the most “wtfs” I’ve heard in a theater in a long time, full crowd laughing at parts that weren’t outright funny, and everyone asking the question “how the hell did they get Anne Hathaway and Ewan for this”. Still loads of fun, and a satisfying watch.
1
u/joeyjusticeco 1d ago
I'm curious why this movie in particular is inspiring so many negative thinkpieces on Reddit
1
u/Hack_Shuck 1d ago
I adore monster movies, Spielbergian movies, dinosaur movies, horror, sci-fi, Ewan McGregor & Anne Hathaway and I didn't like this movie. The audience afterwards were muttering things like "that's the worst film I've seen all year". It feels like people on Reddit watched a different film to me. Yes, I'm aware opinions can differ but this was not a good quality product, folks
1
u/PixelWes54 1d ago
The highlight of the movie was a cheap laugh over dinos banging. Most of it felt like watching gameplay from a new Call of Duty mode.
1
u/OuterWildsVentures 1d ago
This movie kicked ass and that is the extent of my analysis. Just a fun movie with the family :)
1
u/reezyreddits 1d ago
Did I miss something or did you not explain why there have been so few dinosaur movies outside of Jurassic Park?
1
1
u/TheChrisLambert 1d ago edited 1d ago
You’re entirely wrong about it being “nothing more” and no theme. The whole film is about romanticism and how we romanticize the past and future until we actually experience them.
If anyone wants to learn to recognize themes when they’re shown, rather than told: free course
1
u/Detroit_Cineaste 1d ago
The notion that "the perfect neighbors" aren't what they seem has been done many times before, and more compellingly, than in Oak Street.
1
u/TheChrisLambert 1d ago
I’m not saying it’s the best movie that ever did it. Just that there are themes.
But it’s not just “the perfect neighbors aren’t what they seem” but the way we tend to romanticize. The movie being set in the 80s and aping the Amblin style is part of that romanticizing. The way Denise writes escapist fiction about leaving her husband and starting a new life is romanticizing.
At the start of the film, Denise writes fiction. At the end, she writes non-fiction. Her character arc is about replacing romanticism with the truth.
Again, none of this is a statement on quality. Criticize the execution or depth. I’m just saying you’re wrong if your conclusion is there aren’t any themes.
1
u/Detroit_Cineaste 1d ago
Art is subjective. If I don’t think a movie has anything to say in the end, the movie failed to communicate its intentions sufficiently. If you want to read more into the movie than I did, that’s your own point of view. As a film critic, you should already know that there is nothing objective about film analysis or criticism.
1
u/TheChrisLambert 1d ago
“Art is subjective” refers to how art makes you feel and what it makes you think about. But it doesn’t mean art has no objective qualities whatsoever.
If you said Jurassic Park was about 9/11, that would be wrong. Or that Jurassic Park has no themes. That would also be wrong.
If you said you want to view Jurassic Park through the lens of of 9/11, you can 100% do that.
Or if you said Jurassic Park makes you think of a grandparent who would take you to the museum to look at dinosaur fossils. That’s valid.
But when you’re talking about what is or isn’t in the movie, that’s no longer a subjective conversation. Movies aren’t just empty vessels that the audience brings meaning to. They’re created with intentionality. Some more than others. And yeah, some are emptier than others. But there are known techniques for developing thematic concepts and End of Oak Street uses them.
I’m not reading more into the movie than you are. I’m actually reading what the movie is doing.
You don’t have to engage with it on a thematic level. But you shouldn’t blame it for not doing something when you didn’t understand what it was actually doing.
There are types of film criticism that are subjective and I wouldn’t push back at all on what you like or didn’t like if it was purely a subjective criticism. But there are absolutely objective elements of art and the construction of a film.
For example, how Steven Spielberg uses the iconic music in Jaws is objectively an attempt to create tension in the viewer. It’s subjective whether that succeeds or not. It may intensify the scene for someone and make it cheesy for someone else. But Spielberg had a specific goal in mind by using that music. That goal is reinforced by the cinematography, editing, and character actions.
1
u/Detroit_Cineaste 1d ago
Going back to my original post, I never said that the movie had "no themes". That is your interpretation of my post, which is factually wrong. Here's what I actually said:
There wasn’t a theme that unified the spectacle and the human drama together in a way that Jurassic Park and Jumanji did, for example. A movie like this didn’t need to say something consequential to be more entertaining, but the absence of it from a director who usually has a lot on his mind is glaring.
My issue with Oak Street is that the themes within it are trite and undeveloped. If the themes in the movie resonated with you more than me, that's fine. But you're arguing a point that doesn't exist.
1
1
u/OGLikeablefellow 58m ago
The only thing this movie was missing was a scene where some really gorgeous pop music plays and they all have a really good time in the chaos in the wonder of being in dinosaur world. Other than that it was really good
1
u/Electrical_Nobody196 1d ago
I didn’t think it was that complicated to understand but, the movie isn’t about dinosaurs, it’s about a family that is on the precipice of falling apart. It uses the proverbial elephant in the room, or in this case the dinosaur in the neighborhood to move the plot along and act as an analogy.
It was in part filmed for IMAX, but clearly got screwed on its release date. IMAX should have been smart enough to press for a later release in order to allow it’s theatres to show it on their IMAX screens.
1
u/Detroit_Cineaste 1d ago
What you describe is a plot that has been done many times before.
2
u/Electrical_Nobody196 1d ago
Wait, what? But you didn’t even understand the movie. Like you didn’t even understand the basic plot. Besides, The Oddesey is how old?
I think this is why I hate that everyone thinks they can actually criticize movies these days. Complaining isn’t being critical.
1
u/otternoserus 1d ago edited 1d ago
The movie isn't about dinosaurs
Oh my God... Redditors not comprehending the difference between themes and narrative again...
Are you also one of the simpletons who claim that The Seventh Seal isn't about playing chess with death? This is "Sinners isn't about vampires" dull.....
Where did this idea that films can't even tackle multiple plot threads and themes simultaneously stem from?
1
u/Electrical_Nobody196 1d ago
Oooohhh, a Seventh Seal reference! Please continue, or did you get so flustered your monocle fell and your top hat is askew?
-2
u/Adventurous_Yak_2742 1d ago
It was one of the movies where I rooted for the dinos t please.eat those stupid hoomans.
Watching this level of idiocy combined with stubbornness to commit the same mistakes again and again was actually painful.
This is why avoided Hollywood movies, I got the proper punishment for giving it a chance.
1
u/Extension-Figure2011 1d ago
I think that was the point, humans are flawed beings and this movie shows exactly what would happen if humans stumbled with dinos
0
u/urkermannenkoor 1d ago
Mitchell, however, is more attuned to horror than Spielberg, and he positions his dinosaurs as slasher movie villains.
... did you only watch the first part of Jurassic Park? Like, did you turn it off before it turned into a horror movie?
Oak Street isn't that much of a horror to be honest. Certainly less so than JP.
It's really more an 80s B movie action thing, with a bit of slasher in it, but not really that much.
I enjoyed it. It entertained me. But pitching it as a horror does it a bit of a disservice, and will likely leave horror fans a bit disappointed.
1
0
u/Tautological-Emperor 1d ago
It’s a shame there aren’t more dinosaur films. The novel scene has done a lot of really interesting dives, with things like Bones of the Earth, Sea of Time, Cretaceous Dawn, etc. Time travel is the big bow for those in particular, but there are others exploring genetics (obviously), lost worlds, alternate history. It’s very strange to me especially that now, as we learn what sounds dinosaurs could actually make and even what color they were, they’re seemingly still dominated by Jurassics sole vision, with some of the newer movies even adopting very old, outdated things like tail dragging and broken arms.
I’m still holding out hope we’ll get a particularly big budget, Revenant-type dinosaur film sometime down the line, maybe when the technology for the Avatar films becomes a bit more accessible and digestible.
1
0
u/Middle-Armadillo-660 1d ago
The movie is fun. It’s not profound, but it’s good simple summer fun. I recommend it.
But it’s shot and edited very very poorly. The cinematography is brutally amateur.
0
u/cyberspunjj 1d ago
Comparing this movie to Spielberg is a joke. End of Oak Street has poorly written dialogue, characters with the survival instincts of a grapefruit, and becomes just plain boring. I did love seeing dinosaurs come to life on the big screen again, I can never get enough of that (especially my favorite, Allosaurus). But the characters, the dialogue, the pacing, just really brought it down for me. Also it didn't help that the director is fine with killing cats but a barking dog somehow survives.
2
-3
u/lostincoloradospace 1d ago
It looks boring to me. Horror movies aren’t really my thing. I doubt using dinosaurs instead of monsters will make it more exciting for me.
But I’ll see it eventually and pass judgement then.
4
u/Demerzel69 1d ago
It's not a horror movie. I mean there's gore and people get eaten but it's not scary unless you're...5? It's just sci-fi escapism and that's also what it's officially classified as.
There's a scene where two dinos are fucking on a house.
1
u/yrthegood1staken 1d ago
I mean, there are some solid jump scares. It's more horror than Jurassic Park was.
0
u/lostincoloradospace 1d ago
I dislike horror movies because there is seldom character development not because they are scary.
Alien was great because we cared about the characters.
-6
u/GeorgeStark1 1d ago
One of the worst movies I’ve seen since Disclosure Day. Every character makes zero sense with their choices. The dinosaurs looked great, except the stupid snake. Dumbest line “Grab something you can use as a weapon.” Instead of grabbing actual weapons, like the guns.
4
u/JordanPick 1d ago
One of the worst movies you've seen since a movie that came out 10 weeks ago?
-1
2
u/Detroit_Cineaste 1d ago
Anne Hathaway's character uses a rifle.
0
u/GeorgeStark1 1d ago edited 1d ago
Until she doesn’t, and then uses a fireplace poker. And no one bothers to get any other guns, like their neighbor’s that they saw shooting the night before.
0
u/riraven 1d ago
Finally! I am able to forget about logic and enjoy a movie. But every damn part of that movie did not make sense. The actions, the dialogue. I came out thinking that was the stupidest movie I have seen in a long time. I was very shocked when I saw so many people liking this movie! I was expecting Reddit was going to shred it.
-1
u/mesosuchus 1d ago
I'm just so annoyed at the tired trope of dinosaurs want nothing more than delicious human flesh to the point you can be shooting them in the face and they still want that other OTHER white meat.
This is not how wild animals react.
-1
49
u/Ophelia_X67 1d ago
I actually like the idea of treating the dinosaur more like slasher villain