Jurassic World Rebirth (2025) [No 3D Blu-ray] [Digital only - AVP]

[trialobite]

Just got out of this. The 3D is a massive step up from Dominion. It’s medium strong throughout. (Though its almost entirelybehind the window, so don’t look for pop-out.)

The movie, on the other hand? I’ve been really thinking this would finally be a return ti form for Jurassic Park. The original is one of the most important movies for me… but unfortunately the nearest comp for me is Rise of Skywalker. It has all the hallmarks and elements of the franchise, it has some fun ideas and cool set-pieces… but it’s all executed in the dumbest and least exciting way possible. It rushes from one idea to the next. The characters have almost no humanity and constantly make decisions that make zero sense. It’s a bummer, but it’s worth watching at least once for the 3D.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by trialobite

Just got out of this. The 3D is a massive step up from Dominion. It’s medium strong throughout. (Though its almost entirelybehind the window, so don’t look for pop-out.)

The movie, on the other hand? I’ve been really thinking this would finally be a return ti form for Jurassic Park. The original is one of the most important movies for me… but unfortunately the nearest comp for me is Rise of Skywalker. It has all the hallmarks and elements of the franchise, it has some fun ideas and cool set-pieces… but it’s all executed in the dumbest and least exciting way possible. It rushes from one idea to the next. The characters have almost no humanity and constantly make decisions that make zero sense. It’s a bummer, but it’s worth watching at least once for the 3D.

Big relief, thanks Trialobite. I was on the fence with seeing this one as it looks like more of the same. And hearing it's almost like a remake of JP3 in ways. The 3D will get me into the theater and hearing it's not milder to low medium (some medium) 3D like Dominion and Fallen Kingdom, good news.

Koepp, the writer, is the same writer that wrote Jurassic Park 1, but then also wrote Dial of Destiny Indy film, so he's been losing it maybe over the years.
He also wrote Mordecai (Depp), and Crystal Skull Indy. I'm not too hopeful with this story...

Just hoping it'll be generally entertaining. If the 3D wasn't good, I wasn't going to see this. Good to hear, thanks!

David Koepp Writer:

[Show spoiler]
Year Title Director Writer Producer Notes
1988 Apartment Zero No Yes Yes Co-wrote with Martin Donovan
1990 Bad Influence No Yes No
Why Me? No Yes No

Credited as Leonard Maas Jr.
Co-wrote with Donald E. Westlake

I Come in Peace No Yes No

Credited as Leonard Maas Jr.
Co-wrote with Jonathan Tydor

1991 Toy Soldiers No Yes No Co-wrote with Daniel Petrie Jr.
1992 Death Becomes Her No Yes No Co-wrote with Martin Donovan
1993 Jurassic Park No Yes No Co-wrote with Michael Crichton
Carlito's Way No Yes No
1994 The Paper No Yes Co-producer Co-wrote with Stephen Koepp
The Shadow No Yes No
Suspicious Yes Yes No Short film
1996 Mission: Impossible No Yes No Co-wrote with Robert Towne and Steven Zaillian
The Trigger Effect Yes Yes No
1997 The Lost World: Jurassic Park No Yes No Also second unit director and cameo
1998 Snake Eyes No Yes No Co-wrote with Brian De Palma
1999 Stir of Echoes Yes Yes No
2002 Panic Room No Yes Yes
Spider-Man No Yes No
2004 Secret Window Yes Yes No
2005 War of the Worlds No Yes No Co-wrote with Josh Friedman
Zathura: A Space Adventure No Yes No Co-wrote with John Kamps
2008 Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull No Yes No Co-wrote with George Lucas and Jeff Nathanson
Ghost Town Yes Yes No Co-wrote with John Kamps
2009 Angels & Demons No Yes No Co-wrote with Akiva Goldsman
2011 The Little Engine That Could No Yes No Co-wrote with John Kamps, Cliff Ruby and Elana Lesser
2012 Premium Rush Yes Yes No Co-wrote with John Kamps
2014 Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit No Yes No Co-wrote with Adam Cozad

2015 Mortdecai Yes No No
2016 Inferno No Yes No
2017 The Mummy No Yes No Co-wrote with Christopher McQuarrie and Dylan Kussman
2020 You Should Have Left Yes Yes No
2022 Kimi No Yes Yes
2023 Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny No Yes No Co-wrote with Jez Butterworth, John-Henry Butterworth and James Mangold[40]
2024 Presence No Yes Executive
2025 Black Bag No Yes Executive
Jurassic World Rebirth No Yes No
Cold Storage † No Yes Yes Based on his novel[41]
2026 Untitled Steven Spielberg film No Yes No Post-production
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koepp

[Just_Discovered_3D]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

Big relief, thanks Trialobite. I was on the fence with seeing this one as it looks like more of the same. And hearing it's almost like a remake of JP3 in ways. The 3D will get me into the theater and hearing it's not milder to low medium (some medium) 3D like Dominion and Fallen Kingdom, good news.

Koepp, the writer, is the same writer that wrote Jurassic Park 1, but then also wrote Dial of Destiny Indy film, so he's been losing it maybe over the years.
He also wrote Mordecai (Depp), and Crystal Skull Indy. I'm not too hopeful with this story...

Just hoping it'll be generally entertaining. If the 3D wasn't good, I wasn't going to see this. Good to hear, thanks!

I want to believe that Dial of Destiny was more influenced by James Mangold and Phoebe Waller-Bridge. But then this guy was involved in The Lost World, a film where the ultimate weapon against velociraptors was a gymnastics routine.

Jurassic Park 3 was sorta fun, it redeemed its Nedry character and the idea of the milquetoast husband making a Tony Stark style alter ego to assemble a team of the greatest dino experts + hunters was novel. But the dream sequence and the feathers on the dinosaurs are a tough pill to swallow.

For the last JP, the pillarboxing really emphasized the positive parallax, I almost wish all theatrical 3D had some pillarboxing. But having a white background around the picture traded strong enhancement to the 3D for lower picture quality.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Just_Discovered_3D

I want to believe that Dial of Destiny was more influenced by James Mangold and Phoebe Waller-Bridge. But then this guy was involved in The Lost World, a film where the ultimate weapon against velociraptors was a gymnastics routine.

Jurassic Park 3 was sorta fun, it redeemed its Nedry character and the idea of the milquetoast husband making a Tony Stark style alter ego to assemble a team of the greatest dino experts + hunters was novel. But the dream sequence and the feathers on the dinosaurs are a tough pill to swallow.

For the last JP, the pillarboxing really emphasized the positive parallax, I almost wish all theatrical 3D had some pillarboxing. But having a white background around the picture traded strong enhancement to the 3D for lower picture quality.

Dinosaurs did have feathers though.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Dinosaurs did have feathers though.

They did find some with feathers with the bone fossils, yes. That was a cool discovery. If the feathered dinosaur got bit, I can picture some feathers flying off in 3D.

[WaverBoy]

Can any of the films in this series besides Jurassic Park be considered really good movies? Or pretty good? Or even kinda good? The only one I’ve seen is JP, which is great fun and absolutely fantastic in 3-D.

[BluBonnet]

I consider his one to be a pretty good movie.

[trialobite]

Originally Posted by WaverBoy

Can any of the films in this series besides Jurassic Park be considered really good movies? Or pretty good? Or even kinda good? The only one I’ve seen is JP, which is great fun and absolutely fantastic in 3-D.

I’ve heard a couple reviewers that I respect say about this one “Can’t we just turn our brains off and have fun at a summer blockbuster??” So I guess that’s something. I really really really wanted to like this one, but I just couldn’t. (On the other side of rhe same coin, F1 was a dumb fun summer blockbuster that I did get into! Not 3D but an old fashioned good time at the cinema!)

As I said though, this one is a least worth a watch for the very good 3D!

[eagle1]

Lots of great depth in this one. I’m a die hard Jurassic fan and I actually loved the world trilogy. Will need a 2nd viewing to fully decide on this one. The Dino set pieces were incredible though and there was a lot to love and enjoy. Just a few things that didn’t fully gel with me but I think a 2nd viewing might smooth them out.

This was a wild ride in 4DX though. The Dino set pieces (2 in particular) are some of the most fun I’ve ever had in a theatre.

[emailking]

Well if it's a better movie than Dominion that's something I guess but I as definitely hoping for more. Glad to hear the 3D is great!

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by Just_Discovered_3D

I want to believe that Dial of Destiny was more influenced by James Mangold and Phoebe Waller-Bridge. But then this guy was involved in The Lost World, a film where the ultimate weapon against velociraptors was a gymnastics routine.

Jurassic Park 3 was sorta fun, it redeemed its Nedry character and the idea of the milquetoast husband making a Tony Stark style alter ego to assemble a team of the greatest dino experts + hunters was novel. But the dream sequence and the feathers on the dinosaurs are a tough pill to swallow.

For the last JP, the pillarboxing really emphasized the positive parallax, I almost wish all theatrical 3D had some pillarboxing. But having a white background around the picture traded strong enhancement to the 3D for lower picture quality.

JP3 is a good one. Just was wishing for more original ideas with this series by now, this being the 4th World film. Rebirth makes it sound like almost a reboot, but the trailer seems like more of the same stuff.

But I'll give it a chance for the 3D and hope the movie is a slight improvement. There are things I like about each movie, just wish they were more exciting with smarter humans who don't intentionally go into the most dangerous places so often. Although that is what brings tension, being vulnerable against the dinosaurs.

Originally Posted by emailking

Well if it's a better movie than Dominion that's something I guess but I as definitely hoping for more. Glad to hear the 3D is great!

An improvement sounds like it's more on track with the really nice 3D of Jurassic World 1, which has medium to some stronger 3D. Much better overall than the last two of JW2 and JW3, this new one being JW4.

Even so, it's nice they're still in 3D in theaters. I hope Turbine can get this one licensed for blu ray 3D in 2026.

[hasslein]

I posted this in deals -

Fandango $5 off 3D Jurassic World Rebirth with code JWR3D. Can only use over the weekend. I tried with AMC discount Tuesday and it said only valid this weekend although website wording does not specify that

[Telegram Sam]

Interesting comments. I wish I'd seen it in 3D, but a friend booked the tickets for a 2D screening.

I thought it was significantly the worst of the seven films: Too long, uninteresting, bland and unengaging characters. I thought that even Dominion was way better. If I'd seen it in 3D there's a good chance I'd have preferred it, and it's encouraging to read positive reports here on how nice the 3D was.

Those scenes when they're abseiling (or, I think, what most of you guys call "rappelling"?) looked like they could have massively enhanced the feeling in good 3D.

The only way I'll ever watch this one again is if it gets a 3D Blu-ray release. Jurassic World Afterbirth, more like.

[the13thman]

Originally Posted by Telegram Sam

Interesting comments. I wish I'd seen it in 3D, but a friend booked the tickets for a 2D screening.

I thought it was significantly the worst of the seven films: Too long, uninteresting, bland and unengaging characters. I thought that even Dominion was way better. If I'd seen it in 3D there's a good chance I'd have preferred it, and it's encouraging to read positive reports here on how nice the 3D was.

Those scenes when they're abseiling (or, I think, what most of you guys call "rappelling"?) looked like they could have massively enhanced the feeling in good 3D.

The only way I'll ever watch this one again is if it gets a 3D Blu-ray release. Jurassic World Afterbirth, more like.

It's no doubt a stupid film but what I am noticing is that everyone who has seen it in 3D is liking it and everyone who has seen it in 2D is not.

[Telegram Sam]

Originally Posted by the13thman

It's no doubt a stupid film but what I am noticing is that everyone who has seen it in 3D is liking it and everyone who has seen it in 2D is not.

That does seem quite telling. I should have added that the cinema* where I saw it has terrible presentation: The projector was very dim, and the screen looks like a piece of old parchment paper. This kind of thing really takes me out of it and even a high quality 2D screening might have allowed me to enjoy it more, but 3D would have been a major improvement.

*No harm in naming & shaming it, these are facts not libel. The Odeon in Bath.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by Telegram Sam

Interesting comments. I wish I'd seen it in 3D, but a friend booked the tickets for a 2D screening.

I thought it was significantly the worst of the seven films: Too long, uninteresting, bland and unengaging characters. I thought that even Dominion was way better. If I'd seen it in 3D there's a good chance I'd have preferred it, and it's encouraging to read positive reports here on how nice the 3D was.

Those scenes when they're abseiling (or, I think, what most of you guys call "rappelling"?) looked like they could have massively enhanced the feeling in good 3D.

The only way I'll ever watch this one again is if it gets a 3D Blu-ray release. Jurassic World Afterbirth, more like.

I went in with low expectations, and while I was entertained and enjoyed this movie and 3D after a skeptical start, the Jurassic Producers really could use a new writer and story developer probably, or just a new direction to tell better stories for this franchise, as there are some big flaws in the story character logic at times. Once they got into the yellow raft though, I was fully on board with the movie's continual action and monster attacks it seemed from that point forward, and the improved 3D was helping too.

The scenes over the cliff were really cool. The camera kept peering over down below a few times, which was great. The 3D, even though it could've been pushed further into stronger 3D, still looked really good there, and was a big 3D highlight of JW4.

[Interdimensional]

I saw this on Wednesday.

I was happy enough with the 3D presentation here, I can't honestly compare it to previous entries which I haven't seen in years, but my impression was somewhat better than I recall for the previous two entries, and better than I recall for previous Gareth Edwards 3D movies Rogue One and Godzilla. There were some acrophobia-inducing views down steep cliffs, and there was an effective shot from underneath a jeep, when a character took a Dennis Nedry-like turn. The vegetation-laden jungle scenes were appropriately layered.

As with Fallen Kingdom, I thought that the decision to shoot the film in scope format was a mistake. Spielberg works in different aspect ratios from one film to the next and chooses this depending on the needs of the film. For his Jurassic Park films, he went with 1.85:1. Dinosaurs demand a taller aspect ratio, otherwise you're chopping them off at the neck, and panning up from the human characters because you can't fit everything in the frame. It's not the 1960s anymore; screens aren't necessarily going to expand for scope, in many cases they contract. In 2025, it really should've been filmed for Imax. That said, most scenes were skillfully composed.

The film wasn't quite as bad as expected. I definitely liked it better than Fallen Kingdom, and it wasn't as bloated as Dominion. Most of what I didn't care for was already in the trailer. I wasn't thrilled that they decided to make it a big mutant monster movie, but I knew that going in. I liked the scenes on the island, and the T.rex river scene was the saving grace of the film. In its stronger moments, it felt more like a throwback to JP2 or 3, but with the mutants of the Jurassic World series. Any human drama they cooked up for this installment was weak and uninvolving. I was more invested in the side characters than the main protagonists.

One local cinema I was hoping to attend was completely sold out for their one afternoon 3D screening. Unusual for mid-week. I took this as a positive sign, but they are dropping 3D screenings next week. Strangely they still have 3D shows everyday that week for How to Train Your Dragon, another Universal movie that's been out a while now. I don't know what's going on there.

[Telegram Sam]

Originally Posted by Interdimensional

As with Fallen Kingdom, I thought that the decision to shoot the film in scope format was a mistake. Spielberg works in different aspect ratios from one film to the next and chooses this depending on the needs of the film. For his Jurassic Park films, he went with 1.85:1. Dinosaurs demand a taller aspect ratio, otherwise you're chopping them off at the neck, and panning up from the human characters because you can't fit everything in the frame. It's not the 1960s anymore; screens aren't necessarily going to expand for scope, in many cases they contract. In 2025, it really should've been filmed for Imax. That said, most scenes were skillfully composed.

I know the guy is one of the greatest film-makers of all time, and it's fair to say he knows his stuff. But (oh dear), but I never believed Spielberg's line about his reason for filming Jurassic Park in 1.85:1.

Most of his films during the boom years of VHS rentals/sales were shot in the more 4:3 friendly 1.85:1 format; the majority of the ones before & after that era were 'scope, and many of those anamorphic. I don't think that's a coincidence...

I've always thought the composition of his first view of the Brachiosaurus was terrible; her head was way too close to the top of the frame. (And a Brachiosaurus is about as widescreen an animal as you can imagine...)

For the first time in movie history (I think) he gave us the widescreen-friendly style of T.Rex: Prior to JP the T.Rex had been a silly upright creature that didn't look at all natural, but Spielberg gave us a much more realistic looking animal with its tail stretched out horizontally for balance.

Lastly, I'm quite positive that any decent film-maker can compose a film excellently in any aspect ratio. Sure, for the particular way he wanted to frame it, perhaps 1.85 was the better fit - but any other person might have chosen a different way of framing it for which 2.35 worked better. In other words, it's not the subject that demands a certain ratio, it's how you want to show that subject.

So, like his quote about having shot Jurassic Park with a "3D eye" when he was promoting the 3D release, or however it was he phrased it, I never took at face value his given reasons for shooting it 1.85:1. I know, much has been written & said about that, much of it by people who know what they're talking about, but I never really bought it. Like I said though, the guy's a towering genius of cinema and, I think, a better film-maker than Gareth Edwards. The way I look at it is that 'scope films aren't about chopping things off at the top & bottom; they're about widening the canvas left & right.

Anyway, I agree, Rebirth was nicely composed - and its aspect ratio was one of the few things about it that I didn't object to!

[Zivouhr]

I remember in JW4 Rebirth 3D, there are some subtle conversion errors when scanning through the plants and foliage in a panned camera shot moving to the right. It's like the conversion team at that moment, wasn't sure how to layer those leaves further back in between the other leaves, and you get a weird warping effect at one or two brief moments slightly.

Originally Posted by Just_Discovered_3D

I've found that for an, mild popout (eg: guns poking out a skosh in GI Joe Retaliation) is a lot more apparent when I move my head a bit from side to side, so if I get to see this (Cinemark's 3D showtimes here are baffling) I'll try that during scenes like that one.

Reading the post on here about this being shot in scope, did your Cinemark mask the letterboxing?

Interesting. If I move my head while a 3D pop out is paused, it seems to create a weird effect, as if the 3D was tethered to the screen a little, compared to just remaining still for a 3D pop out effect.

I don't know what masking the letterboxing would look like. Is that like hiding the letterbox bars? This one presented onscreen and I think I remember for a moment noticing the framed images didn't go all the way to the top or bottom of the actual screen, leaving darkspace letterboxing top and bottom. I wasn't paying close attention to the aspect ratio unfortunately, so I can't be sure.

[Interdimensional]

Originally Posted by Telegram Sam

I know the guy is one of the greatest film-makers of all time, and it's fair to say he knows his stuff. But (oh dear), but I never believed Spielberg's line about his reason for filming Jurassic Park in 1.85:1.

Most of his films during the boom years of VHS rentals/sales were shot in the more 4:3 friendly 1.85:1 format; the majority of the ones before & after that era were 'scope, and many of those anamorphic. I don't think that's a coincidence...

I've always thought the composition of his first view of the Brachiosaurus was terrible; her head was way too close to the top of the frame. (And a Brachiosaurus is about as widescreen an animal as you can imagine...)

For the first time in movie history (I think) he gave us the widescreen-friendly style of T.Rex: Prior to JP the T.Rex had been a silly upright creature that didn't look at all natural, but Spielberg gave us a much more realistic looking animal with its tail stretched out horizontally for balance.

Lastly, I'm quite positive that any decent film-maker can compose a film excellently in any aspect ratio. Sure, for the particular way he wanted to frame it, perhaps 1.85 was the better fit - but any other person might have chosen a different way of framing it for which 2.35 worked better. In other words, it's not the subject that demands a certain ratio, it's how you want to show that subject.

So, like his quote about having shot Jurassic Park with a "3D eye" when he was promoting the 3D release, or however it was he phrased it, I never took at face value his given reasons for shooting it 1.85:1. I know, much has been written & said about that, much of it by people who know what they're talking about, but I never really bought it. Like I said though, the guy's a towering genius of cinema and, I think, a better film-maker than Gareth Edwards. The way I look at it is that 'scope films aren't about chopping things off at the top & bottom; they're about widening the canvas left & right.

Anyway, I agree, Rebirth was nicely composed - and its aspect ratio was one of the few things about it that I didn't object to!

While commercial considerations may have added weight to the decision one way or the other at times, I would take Spielberg at his word. I would've thought it was a bit early for the VHS rental market to be a factor when he shot ET in 1.85:1, but it would've been when he shot Hook in scope. More recently he shot The Fablemans in 1.85:1, which made a lot of sense to me given for the nature of the film.

I would agree with you if you were talking about Diplodocus, but Brachiosaurus is very much the opposite of a widescreen animal. It's proportions are closer to a giraffe. It proves the point. It's a struggle to fit it in the frame.


A wider frame wouldn't have added anything to this particular scene. The best you could do is add framing elements to break up the image. A good cinematographer will find a way, and it can be planned for in storyboard, but you're starting at a disadvantage.

As it happens, I've taken thousands of photographs of dinosaur skeletons in museums across Europe and North America, which was a personal interest for many years. If you want to use that width to capture the full length of something like a Diplodocus, you have to get so far back that you're flattening the perspective. To me these were always less engaging images. In a filmmaking sense, useful for an establishing shot perhaps, but not so much for action.

A T.rex is certainly more horizontal than in the past, but that only applies visually if you're showing it in profile. If it's coming at you, a taller image is more useful. While I know in theory the screen is supposed to expand for scope format, in practice that often isn't the case, and wasn't for the 3D screening I attended. I will say the scope framing worked very well for the scenes on the ocean, which comprised a significant portion of the film.