When creating a dinosaur chase movie, the key is to come up with a good premise that answers the question - how do the humans find themselves being chased by extinct animals? Not one of the sequels to Jurassic Park offered a premise that can be described as good or interesting or thoughtful or not Jurassic Park's premise warmed over; they all sprinted in the opposite direction. Oak Street took that lesson to heart and landed on "random time bubble swaps chunk of 1982 Detroit suburb with same chunk of land from dinosaur times." Ok...it's nowhere near as clever as cloned-dinosaur theme park, but it's also nowhere near as stupid as mutant dinosaur military auction. But it's easily good enough for us to suspend our disbelief and enjoy the show.
That show centers on the Platt family. They are seemingly the ideal middle-class nuclear family consisting of husband Greg (Ewan McGregor), wife Denise (Anne Hathaway), teenage daughter Audrey (Maisy Stella), and teenage son Brian (Christian Convery). They even have a scruffy, troublemaking dog named Starbuck. So, when the proverbial (dino)shit hits the fan, we're preprogrammed to root for them. There's no reason to introduce family strife, right?
Wrong. I'm sure there's a narrative reason for all families in all movies to have family issues, but I have yet to hear one that actually matters. And all is definitely not right with the Platts. Greg has lost his job with one of the big auto companies, kept it secret from the family, drinks too much, and has resorted to delivering pizzas to make money. Denise is angry and frustrated with Greg because she's not stupid and has eyes. Brian accidentally broke a kid's arm and is anxiously hiding out from the kid's vengeful older brother. Starbuck keeps digging holes in the neighbor's yard and that neighbor has a gun. Audrey wants to go to college to study astronomy and is a lesbian – neither of which is inherently a problem. But it's 1982 and society gave extra side-eye to a smart, motivated female who doesn’t fit the misogynistic mold. The point is that none of that stuff matters once the running and screaming begins.
Oh, that stuff comes up again, but none of it furthers the plot at all. It's good for a little character building, but mostly just serves as annoying little sidetracks when there's a break in the action. For example, that older brother does find Brian (well after the time bubble swap) and beats him up a little bit. But his little brother gets him to stop and they run away, never to be seen by cameras again. We don't know if they get eaten, find another time bubble and escape, or accidentally step on a butterfly which leads to a future where Earth is ruled by cyborg octopi. And since they aren't used as a plot device to grant Brian absolution, or allow the Platts to escape being a T-Rex snack, why introduce this subplot at all?
The good news is that's the extent of this film's problems. And they are truly small problems, particularly considering they consume precious little time of the film's brisk ninety-nine-minute runtime. In fact, the film as a whole is quite good and very entertaining. You see the thoughtfulness of the filmmakers early in the excellent pacing of the film. The family dynamics are set up rather quickly, then a solid amount of time is spent building up to the reveal of their situation. The film does an excellent job of feeling like a slow burn without making the audience think "get to it already." And the thoughtfulness shows itself throughout the film. Action scenes that don't come off as contrived. Excellent CGI of the dinosaurs and surrounding environment. Subtle displays of Denise's strength and Greg's weakness (Denise is always driving when they jump in cars). Great camera work, one example in a living room scene where the Platts are discussing their plight and the camera angles nudge us through each character’s perspective.
But perhaps my favorite examples of the thought and care put into the film are a bunch of tongue-in-cheek winks at the audience that the movie is not that serious about itself. Nothing so direct as quipping or breaking the fourth wall. Instead, we have karma rearing its head on multiple characters to resolve earlier conflicts in fun and relevant ways. The film almost intentionally ignores early setups (Audrey's Carl Sagan fandom and general nerdiness do not lead her to the eventual solution to their problem). And a scene where Denise asks Greg to pose for a photo in front of a couple of non-threatening creatures so she can "remember this absurd situation forever." I see what you did there, Denise. Well played.
If, like me, you're tired of an endless string of garbage Jurassic sequels, The End of Oak Street is the cure. It's entertaining, it's clever, it's exactly the kind of popcorn flick on which to end the summer. Even if it doesn't end with an octopus with robot arms.
Rating: Don't ask for any money back. The "absurd" scene is worth it alone.
Posts
