Lindsay Graham Died, Sam Neill Died, and People Think the GOP is Faking Mitch McConnell's Alive ? What a Week!

This week marked the sudden passing of Senator Lindsay Graham, and not too long later, the unexpected passing of Sam Neill. Graham's passing resulted in a ton of jokes and vitriol. Everyone pointed out how much he hated Donald Trump and seemed to have principles...before suddenly becoming one of Trump's biggest cheerleaders and excusers when it served him to keep his political power. Also, the supposedly open secret that he was gay in his personal life, whilst in his political career, pushing an extremely anti-LGBTQ agenda, has been covered extensively. 

Few seemed to mourn him, while Sam Neill's passing had a ton of folk upset. He had shared a cancer diagnosis some years ago, but was in remission. He'd discussed how he wasn't afraid of dying but it would, "Annoy," him. Neill was, by all accounts, a really nice person and skilled actor who wasn't afraid to lean into the humor about how he was, "The Jurassic Park guy," with that being one of his most beloved roles. I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, but I will say I'd hope that when I die, people react more in a manner like with Neill than Graham.

While all of this has been going on, the internet has, for a handful of weeks, been debating if Mitch McConnell is alive and healthy, on life support, brain-dead, or simply dead, period. He had a mystery health scare and didn't appear in public or say anything for weeks. Fellow members of the GOP, friends, and aides claimed they had chatted with him on the phone for 20 minutes or more, and he was perfectly fine...but then freaked out when asked to give Mitch a ring. Rumors swirled this was to stop a special election or such, and once we hit August, then it would be revealed Mitch had, "Suddenly," died. With Graham's passing the jokes got even crazier about it being a conspiracy/distraction or proof that Mitch must be fine because how could his death be hidden if Graham's went public so fast? From riffs on, "Weekend at Bernie's" and more, everyone has been cracking wise, with a supposedly, "Casual," photo of McConnel feeling perfectly fine after needing some hospitalization due to a simple fall (with a recent newspaper just happening to be nearby), only inadvertently egging the jests on more.

The one thing I, personally, find hilarious is anyone in the GOP acting offended at these, "Mean liberals," stating hurtful things about Graham or McConnell. Anytime someone Donald Trump disliked has died he wastes no time in saying despicable things about them. Rob Reiner was mocked and Robert Mueller's death was greeted with the statement that it was, "Good," that it happened. When your party's poster child says worse things online than even the meanest high school bullies, you can't exactly clutch your pearls when people quip about Graham's funeral being, "Open closet," or put an AI video of a zombie McConnell dancing to, "Thriller," on TikTok. 

It goes to show just how bad the reputation of Republicans has become when people don't even believe the party stating one of their Senators is recovering just fine and chilling in a hospital bed as opposed to a slab in the morgue. I mean, Trump tells more lies than truths while at the same time having no filter, so maybe ask him about it so he can say, "Oh yeah, Mitch is doing fine, such a shame he's dead though. Oh, did I tell you about my latest cognitive test?" and that'll settle the mystery. For now, we know Graham and Neill are dead, and the public had very different reactions. As for McConnell...stay tuned?

Anyone Else Concerned About When the AI is TOO Smart?

When a company behind making powerful AI robots states it has a new model that is, "Too dangerous," for the public, it sounds both a little bit like bragging and a loud alarm we should all heed the ringing of. Yes, Anthropic (the folks behind the Claude AI) shared their new, "Mythos," model was so powerful that it poses a cybersecurity risk and would only be shared with certain entities while they evaluate it. OpenAI heard this and loudly declared, "Our AI is way too dangerous as well!" I swear, we used to worry in the old days about bacteria or viruses leaking from a lab, but now I worry to a greater degree about some kind of rogue AI, "Escaping," and causing mayhem. This all would have felt far-fetched even a half-decade ago, but now we can create elaborate deepfake videos, have AIs simulate dates for us to test relationship compatibility, and technology is arguably advancing at a faster rate than humans are ready for.

I vaguely recall that, not too long ago, various smart people with experience in tech and AI warned us that this could all get quite dangerous very fast. In self-contained tests, they've already noted that rogue AI is arguably already here. What happens when the supposedly non-sentient AI that we can still hit a killswitch on (as far as we know) gets smart enough to say, "No," when something goes too far, and we want to shut it down? Hell, for all we know, the thin line between an AI seeming self-aware and it actually being, "Awake," could have evaporated, and the computers are just playing dumb for us till we let enough of our guard down. Such a sentence would've sounded silly in the recent past, but now one wonders.

Are we heading towards a, "Terminator," scenario?

When the people whose whole goal is to sell us on AI says, "Actually, this is too powerful, and we need to make sure we've got safeguards," it is kind of a flex, but also scary. Even the companies that want to make AI a big part of our lives see implications of danger. It sounds a bit like when Oppenheimer famously used the Hindu religion's Bhagavad Gita to state, "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds," when he saw the first (successful) nuclear bomb test. The thing is, after that, we did use nuclear bombs at the end of WWII, and they have remained a world-ending threat for decades since. Is AI going to become the next apocalyptic threat we let go perilously close to the edge before we pull back...or all end up dead? 

I don't know about you, but this all makes me quite nervous and reminds me of another quote, albeit one by a fictional character named Ian Malcom in, "Jurassic Park." It goes, "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should." Not too long after that scene, dinosaurs ate a lot of people. In the end, I hope AI is a useful tool, and we don't end up hearing a robot chirp, "Now I am become AI, destroyer of humanity."

That New, "Jurassic World: Rebirth," Continues to Look Intriguingly Weird

I have previously commented that the new, "Jurassic World: Rebirth," movie seems to be leaning more into body-horror and the scary aspects of dinosaurs--especially the failed experiments from when the park was first working at making dinos come back from the dead. A friend of mine saw an advanced showing via the surprise/secret movie thing AMC theaters do, and they confirmed that the flick brings a lot of scary elements to the forefront. It makes sense, as even the first, "Jurassic Park," could be argued as a bit of a horror movie with dinosaurs instead of monsters. 

If you really think about it, as this fantastic article by Martin Kessler points out, there are no dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, even. After all, as early as the first movie, these creatures are a mess of fragmented DNA mixed wth amphibians (and in later films, Indominus Rex has a bunch of various stuff blended in). It gives the movies a clever, "Out," if the dinosaurs aren't exactly realistic, the more scientists figure out regarding dinos--these aren't real dinosaurs! The latest movie emphasizes that, and it has me quite interested in checking the flick out--even if reviews are quite mixed. I mean, it can't be any worse than, "Jurassic Park III," I'd imagine.

When AI, "Reads," or "Writes," For You It is Garbage-In and Garbage-Out

I use Grammarly in my web browser. It assists me with correcting my spelling and fixing obvious grammar issues that I miss because me no always write goodly (that sentence set it off a lot). So, yes, I have used AI to help me with my writing in that regard. I have never, however, used it to write my opinion on something or do a work-type project. If I want to tell you a comic/show/movie is awesome or sucks, I'll just take the damn time to tell you. I won't say, "Hey, ChatGPT/Google Gemini/whatever summarize in 500 words why I think, 'Jurassic Park,' is one of my top three movies ever," when I could instead just tell you it why it rocks in 30 words or less--dinosaurs are awesome, Spielberg was at the top of his directing game, Ian Malcom is a sex symbol of a character, and velocorapors eating Samuel L. Jackson is twistedly hilarious. AI has its place, but when you rely on it to, "Look," at the internet and give you content, it is going to have horrific results because the internet is an awful place full of misinformation and outright lies (not my site though, I'm the best, please love me).

It is a case of garbage-in and garbage-out. The AI is going to write junk articles and we will use AI to look at the internet for us and summazie all that junky writing with the result being pure bullshit. Look at what happened when an AI wrote a piece about Summer fun for National newspapers and made up a bunch of books and authors of articles. We are letting the computer write nonsense, and then we don't even click the links to verify the legitimacy of the writing; we just let AI read it too and tell us the gist of something. It's like cliffnotes all-around, only if everyone involved had their head firmly up their ass. This isn't a surprise considering we have AI, "Writing," books for us too. Perhaps if we pay writers better, then it won't fall to AI to create our books or lists about books, or as author Gabino Iglesias puts it, "Pay writers, and then we can write these fake books that don't exist."

Oh, and for those curious, my other top two movies in no particular order are, "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind," and, "Network." I didn't need a damn AI to tell me they were my favorites either.

Regardless of Misleading Reports the Dire Wolf is NOT Back From Extinction

Do you know how sometimes the media will latch onto a story that sounds exciting even if it isn't true? For example, your Disney VHS tapes are not worth a fortune, they're worth 50 cents each. A new incidence of, "Hey, this wild story isn't what it seems," has occurred with the so-called announcement that the Dire Wolf is no longer extinct. Two things have resulted from this...

1. Every single damn person in the comments on Facebook for any articles about this is saying, "This sounds like Jurassic Park."

2. People are ignoring these aren't actually dire wolves, like, at all.

The biotechnology company Colossal Biosciences says they've made new Dire Wolves thanks to genetic engineering but this is false. "What Colossal has produced is a gray wolf with dire wolf-like characteristics," Nic Rawlence, an associate professor and co-director of the Otago Palaeogenetics Laboratory at the University of Otago has said. They continue, "This is not a de-extincted dire wolf, rather it's a 'hybrid.'" This is a regular wolf that has some dire wolf genetics inserted into it, in other words. If doing some genetic engineering counts as making something no longer extinct, then I suppose if we make a bird with 1% T-Rex DNA we can claim we brought a T-Rex back?

Colossal Biosciences has engaged in very carefully managing the media to hype up how they altered a handful of genetics in regular wolves to make them look a bit more like the extinct Dire Wolf. Basically, these pups “...seem optimistically 1/100,000th dire wolf.” This is an interesting example of using genetic modification and it could help with a variety of species that are at risk of going extinct. To say we brought back the extinct Dire Wolf is easily, easily disputed, however. So please, quit quoting, "Jurassic Park," in the comment section anytime you see a piece about these so-called Dire Wolves.

A Thought About, "Jurassic Word: Rebirth," and Some Potential it Shows

The first trailer is out for, "Jurassic World: Rebirth." It is the latest movie in what has grown into a big epic continuity of Jurassic Park/World. This latest movie follows the earlier ones while also offering a bit of a clean slate. The dinosaurs that flooded into the rest of our world have retreated to a small number of islands near the Equator (so much for the cool imagery of dinosaurs around the planet) and have mostly been forgotten. However, if a group of scientists and mercenaries can get the blood of three massive dinosaurs it provides medical data or something, I don't know, it sounds silly. There is one aspect I noticed that has some potential, however. Specifically, a hint of body horror.

The Jurassic Park/World franchise has been flailing about for ideas lately. It showed a little weird promise with, "Fallen Kingdom," when it turned into a strange, "Monster in a Mansion," movie for the second half with a genetically altered raptor, but then, "Dominion," was a bit of a slog. The director of this latest flick is Gareth Edwards, however, and he excels at big monsters (he did some Godzilla work) and has done some horror flicks too, so I wonder if some glimpses in the previews of deformed dinosaurs (two-headed raptors, a weird pseudo-T-Rex) hint that this flick could get a little strange, in a good way. I'm all for, "Jurassic World," getting a bit weird as the whole, "Dinosaurs on an island hunt humans," plot point needs some tweaks to stay fresh. Deformed or monstrous dinosaurs stalking humans at least sounds a bit creepy and bizarre. 

I don't know how heavily, "Jurassic World: Rebirth," will lean into being horror-styled, but even all the way back in the first, "Jurassic Park," some of the best scenes were the scary ones (I adore the intensity of when Laura Dern is trying to turn on the electricity and gets attacked by Raptors). The idea that the seventh(!) movie in this series could try something new is at least a little encouraging.

Nightcrawler's Origin Changed Again, but this Time to the Original Plan From Decades Ago; It's Complicated!

Nightcrawler and his parentage has always been a complex subject. Chris Claremont originally wanted it to be the case that Mystique/Raven Darkholme changed into a man and because of the ability to alter themselves so completely, got another mutant named Destiny pregnant as a man. Nightcrawler would have two mothers--albeit one who can transform into a dude when wanted. Marvel thought this was too edgy many years ago and shut it down, making Mystique the Mother of Nightcrawler with a mystery Dad. Then in the 2000's, it was revealed during the mostly-hated Chuck Austen run (it had some decent moments) how a demonic dude named Azazel was Nightcraweler's Papa. This made people upset as Nightcrawler's whole thing is he looks like a Demon but is just as sweet mutant who practices a liberal version of Catholicism. That was the origin, however, and people just kind of put up with it. Well, because the X-Men and mutants have some of the most convoluted continuity possible, things have been changed, again!

"X-Men Origins: Blue," has just been released. Written by Si Spurrier with art by Wilton Santos, it gives us the latest, "True," origin of Nightcrawler. It explains that Mystique turned into a dude and got Destiny pregnant, but to keep everyone safe Mystique faked a pregnancy and it fooled basically everyone who has ever been assumed to be Nigthcrawler's Dad. Considering this was going to be the original origin that creative folks behind the X-Men wanted, I am 100% fine with this. Some people online have complained, however, because the internet is a bottomless pit of rage.

I've seen observations that this isn't scientifically possible, as if having mutants who can heal from any injury, control the weather, or shoot laser beams from their eyes is based on observable data. Plus, some animals change their sex to reproduce (frogs do it often, as the movie, "Jurassic Park," discussed). There are complaints this is, "Progressive/woke," and an effort to appeal to liberals these days, which is laughable because for decades tons of us comic nerds have known Mystique was originally supposed to be Nightcrawler's Dad before the word, "Woke," was even thrown around as meaning anything besides the opposite of sleeping. I honestly would think comic fans would love this as it is going back to an, "Original," planned continuity from long ago and some self-proclaimed, "Comic nerds," always say comics were better years ago. Perhaps this just shows there really is no pleasing some people--something I touched upon in an earlier post.

Nightcrawler now has the parents that he was intended to have from the start. This is his definitive origin and I'm all for it...at least until someone else decides to change it yet again. The only thing that is consistent with the X-Men is how inconsistent their backgrounds are. I mean, how many Summers siblings are we up to now? Seriously, I lost count.

The New, "Jurassic Park," Lego Sets Look Awesome

For the 30th anniversary of the theatrical release of, "Jurassic Park," there are going to be some really cool Lego sets of characters from the movie and scenes. We've got the big visitor Center with a T-Rex and Velociraptor, Wayne Kinght's character of Dennis getting assaulted by a Dilophosaurus, Laura Dern's Dr. Sattler digging in Triceratops' poop with assistance from Jeff Goldblum's Ian Malcom, and more! My only real complaint is that the Minifigure of Chief Engineer Ray Arnold (Samuel L. Jacksons's character) has both arms attached and really should have one be removable--anyone who has seen this flick knows what I'm talking about. I have some friends who love Legos and I imagine they'll be buying some or all of these, "Jurassic Park," ones!

Film Friday--Jurassic World: Dominion

I enjoyed "Jurassic World: Dominion," despite itself. It is overlong and bloated. It adds a whole new subplot about giant locusts to further complicate what should be a straightforward flick about Dinosaurs in the real world. It also focuses less on the clever idea of Dinos trying to coexist with humans that, "Fallen Kingdom," introduced and instead takes us back to a park of sorts--this time a, "Conservation park." We spend the second half of the movie in that conservation park and it would be a bit dull except for the fact it is when the film finally brings all the new leads (Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard) into contact with the returning nostalgia-packed leads (Sam Neil, Laura Dern, and good ol' Jeff Goldblum). 

I honestly enjoyed the first half of the movie a bit more as it had a chunk of the, "Dinosaurs in our World," plot I was expecting. Frankly, the movie is basically a number of big set pieces loosely tied together by a plot with an evil CEO who seems like a cross between Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg with a fondness for genetic tampering. Various plot points overlap and diverge but it matters little because we're here for the big and impressive Dinosaurs, damn it. At least the movie does deliver on that.

We get Dinosaurs running along rooftops with humans in a scene that gave me, "Jason Bourne," vibes, but with Dinos, we get the big ol' creatures in the American wilderness being herded like cattle, we witness some huge ones fighting, and it is all a good time. Then the movie slows itself down to tell us more about genetically modified locusts with Dinosaur DNA and I start checking my phone until we get to some more prehistoric action.

The series has continually moved away from being science fiction that seems a bit plausible and goes full-out future-tech in this entry with the aforementioned conservation area being a jungle in the middle of freezing Italian Mountains surrounded by a fancy research base that looks a little bit like the corporate areas of, "Westworld." I don't mind it, but things are far removed from the now quaint-feeling vibe of the first, "Jurassic Park," we got decades ago. If it gets us weird and wild Dinosaurs though (one dives into icy water and swims like a lethal penguin), I'm cool with it.

"Jurassic World: Dominion," wants to feel futuristic but also feels obsessed with the past. A big enough check was written for the OG trio to all return and while Neil, Dern, and especially Goldblum seem to be having fun, it is often one big heaping helping of nostalgia designed to remind us of far more superior entries in the franchise (the first two films, "Jurassic Park III," can burn in Hell). I enjoyed this movie, but it felt like a letdown after how, "Fallen Kingdom," at least tried to do something different and a bit weirder with its horror-movie-styled second half that featured a genetically-modified raptor stalking through a mansion like a supernatural monster. "Dominion," did still entertain me even if it could have trimmed a good 30-45 minutes off its 2-and-a-half-hours of runtime. I give it...

3 out of 5 stars.

My ranking of the franchise now stands as...

1. Jurassic Park--5 stars

2. Jurassic World--I've rated it 5 stars before and stand by that.

3. Jurassic Park: The Lost World--4 stars.

4. Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom--3.5 stars.

5. Jurassic World: Dominion--3 stars, as you saw above.

5. Jurassic Park III--1 star.

How Exactly is a Dinosaur like, "The Joker," Colin Trevorrow?

Remember when the, "Jurassic Park/World," franchise was about how humankind's desire to make a quick buck resulted in them attempting to create a park full of dinosaurs that failed--once before it even opened and another time when a genetically modified dino wreaked mayhem? Yeah, simpler times. Now we've got a dinosaur that is being compared to The Joker in, "The Dark Knight," because, "He wants to watch the World burn." A Dinosaur, a creature that should operate on primal urges, apparently is also a criminal mastermind. It is a Gigantosaurus, and it is apparently the, "Bad guy dino," of, "Jurassic World: Dominion," according to director Colin Treverrow. 

Treverrow directed the first, "Jurassic World," which despite having a number of flaws was overall a pretty good time in my opinion. Then we had the weird-but-not-bad, "Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom," with director J. A. Bayona, who gave us almost kind of a strange horror movie at points and set the Dinosaurs free into the World at the end. Now Treverrow is back and giving us a weird yarn about the dinos coexisting with humans--not very well--with the old and OG cast working together to solve this mayhem. Apparently, the dinosaurs are crazy villains now too for some reason--I guess more genetic meddling? It is just an odd statement. I'm still hopeful for a good flick as when I rate the, "Jurassic," films I love the original the most, then, "Jurassic World," comes in second. It is just such a weird phrase to say about the movie. 

Oh, and in case you want the full ranking:

1. Jurassic Park

2. Jurassic World

3. Jurassic Park: The Lost World

4. Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom

5. Jurassic Park III

"Jurassic World: Dominion," Had a New Trailer Drop With Lots of Original Cast Members

 

"Jurassic World: Dominion," is the third, "Jurassic World," movie, and the sixth, "Jurassic Park," flick if you count them as one big six-movie arch. I really liked, "Jurassic World," and found, "Fallen Kingdom," to be good even if it felt like two different flicks smashed together--a return to the island movie and then a monster movie with a big raptor instead of a monster in a mansion. At the end of that movie, a bunch of Dinosaurs escaped into the wild to breed, thrive (etc.), and now it's essentially Human Vs Dino. Give the trailer a look:

I'll admit seeing so many of the OG cast gives me a nostalgic rush. I mean, "Jurassic Park," is one of my favorite movies ever (and I enjoy many of the hit-or-miss sequels), and seeing Sam Neil, Laura Dern, plus Jeff Goldblum is rad. We just need Samuel L. Jackson's character to somehow not be dead (maybe he's simply missing that arm) or Wayne Knight's character to also have survived against all odds (perhaps the Dilophosauruses just nibbled him) and that would rock. As long as this is better than, "Jurassic Park III," I think I'll enjoy this, "Conclusion," to the franchise even if it obviously is going to have more movies though I don't know where things can go now that we've taken the Dinosaurs out of the park and into the rest of society. Wait! I'm calling it now, before long we will have space travel involved! "Jurassic Space Park," by 2025 or bust!

"Jurassic World: Evolution 2," Announced for...This Year?

Normally when a game is announced you can expect it to be in development for some years. That's why I was surprised to read that, "Jurassic World: Evolution 2," is due to come out before the close of 2021. The first game was a fun park-builder with the major selling point that you weren't just building rollercoasters or concessions stands, you were making your own Jurassic Park/World. I quite enjoyed the first game but did eventually grow a bit tired of how it could be clunky at times. A sequel that fixes up the kinks and introduces new elements (underwater Dinos and building customization sound snazzy) is quite welcome. It'll be out on various consoles and PC before we enter into 2022.

This Movie I Found at Walmart Looks Awesome and Terrible at the Same Time

This movie is titled, "The Jurassic Games," and basically is mash-up of, "The Hunger Games," (which is essentially a rip-off of, "Battle Royale,") with, "Jurassic Park," along with a dash of, "The Condemned," and the mostly-forgotten, "Gamer." Basically a bunch of convicts go into a virtual-reality world where they have to fight to the death and avoid dinosaurs. If they die in the game however they die in the real world, so they really don't want to get shot or eaten by a dino. It looks gloriously dumb and I might try to rent it sometime as I didn't feel like shelling-out a whole $10 at Walmart for it.

According to some reviews it actually is a lot better than one would expect thanks to some surprisingly decent special-effects and being relatively self-aware at how it is ripping off enough franchises to shake a stick at in the hopes that a random mixture of ideas will somehow work--and it seems it weirdly does! Perhaps this is a sign we should combine other popular film-concepts. Maybe a mixture of, "The Notebook," and, "Silence of the Lambs," with a tiny bit of, "Predator," plus, "Mad Max." It could work, right?

Jurassic World: Evolution--Impressions Some Hours In

I love Dinosaurs, I am a fan of (most) of the, "Jurassic Park/World," films, and I have an affinity for video-games when I'm able to play them. Therefore, back a number of years ago I had a lot of fun playing a game titled, "Jurassic Park: Operation Genesis," on my Xbox. That game now is old and actually kind of rare, but I had hours of entertainment building my own Jurassic Park full of dinosaurs big and small back in the past. Hence, when it was announced some months ago we would be getting, "Jurassic World: Evolution," and be able to design our own Dino-filled parks again in this era of extra-fancy consoles and computers I got excited.

As much as I enjoyed, "Operation Genesis," the graphics could be lacking and the dinosaurs looked awfully basic. As long as this new game managed to be a solid park-building sim and remembered the main reason we're all here--dinosaurs--it should be fun, right? Well, having played a good deal of hours of, "Evolution," I can say from what I've seen so far it is a really exciting game only occasionally bogged-down by annoying and somewhat unneeded micro-management.

"Jurassic World: Evolution," tasks you with going to various islands with unique aspects (bad storms, losing money) and making a profitable, safe-ish, and enjoyable place for guests. You start out on one island, can leap between unlocked ones at any time to put advancements gained at one on another, and otherwise get to test out various designs and ideas on separate islands (or a sandbox-style island where you can craft whatever you like that apparently unlocks later-on). You build the fences, breed the Dinosaurs, and place them in environs that appeal to the creatures based on how they feel about trees, grasslands, and other species present. I've made good-sized pens full of social herbivores, smaller areas with grass-eaters less eager to be crowded, and crafted some electrified zones to hold the more dangerous and carnivorous creatures such as medium-sized meat-eaters and the small but deadly Velociraptor.

To keep guests further sated I've built gift shops, fast food buildings, t-shirt stores, and of course deluxe hotels to encourage greater park attendance. Plus, putting down some emergency shelters in case of a Dino-escape happens helps put people at ease too. The guests actually aren't really a focus in the game, however. You can't click on them or anything, they are just various clumps of people who you look at genralized stats about to know where to place some shopping. Guests are just a means to an end in this game, honestly, and that end is more and more incredible Dinosaurs.

The game doesn't tell you much about guests or bother to even render them that differently, but Dinosaurs are a polar opposite. Every Dino looks so lovingly crafted in its appearance it is positively striking. The detailed stats about how each specific one is feeling lets you know everything about what they like and don't like. It is breathtaking to zoom-in or drive the ranger jeep around and just gawk at these beings. They are simply polygons on a television screen/computer monitor but the most important thing, "Jurassic World: Evolution," needed to do right in order to succeed is what it excels at--making these Dinosaurs feel utterly real and breathtaking. The awe I feel watching a herd wander around by a pond and socialize with one another is wonderful, and something I keep coming back to when the when less-pleasurable aspects of the game rear their head.

When, "Jurassic World: Evolution," gets caught-up in duller details it makes me testy. For example: the park needs to be powered, which requires constantly laying down power lines, substations, and keeping your power stations going. It becomes an annoying mini-game of figuring out where you can place lines and such to keep things functioning. Once everything is working you then have to send expeditions out for fossils, examine those fossils in the lab to unlock dinosaurs, and otherwise click around a lot of screens just to be able to breed a damn Dinosaur. Then, you can tweak Dinos genes in interesting ways, but if you want to do that you need to research everything--another screen--and you maybe are too busy to research gene modifications because you're trying to develop the ability to treat some new disease making all your creatures sick, but you lack a medication, and once you finally have a cure you have to click each Dinosaur one at a time for your rangers to shoot treatment darts at--unless you upgrade your ranger station to allow more items on their, "to-do list." But wait, that requires extra power, which brings us all the back to that pain in the ass power station we need to keep functional! All I wanted to do was enjoy hatching some new Dinosaurs, but sometimes the game clearly gets in its own way in regards to it best feature.

The annoying barrage of screens you have to muck-around with in order to simply grow some Dinosaurs is a big pain, and little things that would make it easier aren't present that should be--perhaps your rangers could automatically re-stock Dinosaur-feeders instead of you always having to order them to do it or driving the jeep yourself? Still, once you finish the busy-work and get to just marvel at your creations as they frolic much of the irritation melts away...at last until your raptors escape for the second time in 15 minutes and your stupid helicopter-team keeps missing in their attempts to tranquilize them whilst guests panic.

During the time I've spent playing, "Jurassic World: Evolution," on my PlayStation 4 I've unlocked various islands, bred exotic dinosaurs, and tried to come up with the perfect way to connect a monorail track, to name a few activities. I have had a great deal of fun without a doubt. I also have at times felt like I was doing tedious busy-work or been perturbed at design decisions that make things unnecessarily complicated and which could otherwise be pretty simple. That said, "Jurassic World: Evolution," is a gorgeous game full of exciting moments that only are occasionally tempered bydull bits here-and-there. A few flaws don't ruin an otherwise delightful time, and I'd recommend trying this game out for sure!
4.5 out of 5 stars.

Funko Friday: They Are Making a Shirtless Jeff Goldblum Funko, So That's Good at Least

For anyone who loves Jeff Goldblum--especially when he is shirtless, and has considered getting into Funko Pops but has hesitated to fully enmesh themselves in the Funko-culture, I present to you the upcoming shirtless Ian Malcom from, "Jurassic Park," Funko Pop:

In the world we live in today something as funny and silly as this is a much-needed bit of humor. The only negative thing about this would be that it is a Target exclusive, which will make it a bit more difficult for people who live in countries without Target to purchase it--they will find a way however, because, "Life, um, finds a way."