JURASSIC PARK Revisited

Talk about the latest movies and video releases here!
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 7031
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

JURASSIC PARK Revisited

#1 Post by Paul MacLean »

Jurassic Park

A genuinely great movie, and one which I think is better today than when I first saw it.

When first released, this film was unfairly dismissed as a mere "escapist yarn" and "Westworld revisited", but there's a lot more to it than "thrills and big monsters". There's no question Jurassic Park absolutely delivers as a summer popcorn thrill ride, with spectacular action scenes and phenomenal effects work. Although CGI effects are commonplace (and over-relied upon) today, in 1993 the dinosaur effects completely wowed all of us who saw this movie in theaters. Like 2001 and Star Wars, Jurassic Park represented a quantum leap in effects technology (one that has, for better or worse, had a profound influence over the way films have been made ever since).

And yet, despite the fact that CGI is almost tediously commonplace in 2017, Jurassic Park's effects are still impressive today. Countless films made since then have had CGI creature effects -- but few look as convincing as those in this 1993 picture. Stan Winston's animatronic dinosaurs are equally impressive (and convincing) and to be honest it is still hard for me to tell which shots are CGI dinosaurs and which are practical effects. But more to the point, the effects are so well used in the service of telling a story, that I was simply too wrapped-up in what was happening to the characters to scrutinize the effects work (which how movies are supposed to utilize effects -- though few of them do these days).

But beyond the action and dazzling visuals, I salute Steven Spielberg for devoting time to addressing the moral implications of Michael Chrichton's story, when he could have just "cut to the chase" and made a shallower 90-minute adventure flick. Jurassic Park makes genuinely profound observations about the hubris of scientists working in fields like genetics. Chrichton's tale has proven disturbingly prescient, when one considers things like the stem cell harvesting debate, and the efforts currently underway in Russia to recreate a woolly mammoth.

But what ultimately makes this film work is the human element, and while Jurassic Park is already impressive as both an adventure and cautionary science fiction, the third element -- that of Sam Niel's character arc, man who dislikes kids until he is forced to protect (and finally bonds with) Hammond's two grandchildren, is what really brings it all together. For all the scenes of visual splendor and nail-biting terror, my personal favorite moment is the final scene, when Laura Dern looks fondly at Neil, and the children who sleep peacefully in his arms. Spielberg also creates this moment without dialog; the only sound is John Williams' gentle piano theme (a far cry from Bryce Dallas Howard's painfully banal dialog toward the end of Jurassic World when she realizes she does like children after-all!).

Williams' score overall is (typically) great, and enormously effective. It certainly is one of his more strident scores for Spielberg, but the two main themes are gorgeous, and his "Journey to the Island" is one of my favorite cues he's ever written.

With all due respect to Close Encounters, I think this is Spielberg's best foray in science fiction, and I genuinely consider it one of his best films. (And I also remain baffled that Universal could create a steaming turd like Jurassic World, when it was based on the flawless example of Spielberg's original.)

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34186
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#2 Post by AndyDursin »

Great review Paul!

For me, I've always been wowed by the individual set pieces and Williams' score. Never as much by the characters or the casting, though in the hindsight of JURASSIC WORLD I'm sure I would have less reservations now with a fresh viewing of it. One thing I did note was that Sam Neill was much more relaxed in JURASSIC PARK III than he was in the first film (despite the third movie's endless production problems). I never really liked Laura Dern and Attenborough and Spielberg turned what was supposed to be a "Dino Dr. Frankenstein" into a toothless grandfather with Hammond. It's easy to see why Goldlbum trumped everyone in that cast, though as we saw in THE LOST WORLD (a putrid waste, for me one of Spielberg's worst films -- I'd even prefer JW to another viewing of it), too much of him wasn't a good thing.

I do find the film lacking in some capacities. I don't think Spielberg wast as "into" the movie as he was the likes of Close Encounters, E.T., etc., as evidenced as him leaving the post-production to George Lucas while he departed to shoot Schindler's List. That was the only time in his career that happened, as he wasn't even around for Williams' sessions ("telecommuting" occasionally with a primitive version of Skype I'd imagine).

Still, for me it's a really good movie with some great moments. I don't want to sound like I don't like it, because I think it's terrific..I agree also the end is one of the best parts! 8)

Of course, Williams' music doesn't have the depth of Michael Giacchino's brilliant JW score... :lol:

mkaroly
Posts: 6214
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:44 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#3 Post by mkaroly »

The issues I had with JURASSIC PARK were continuity errors - sloppy mistakes that are above Spielberg's talent (though his distraction with SCHINDLER'S LIST provides a reason for the errors). I also would have preferred that the Hammond character be more like he was in the book - a little more "evil" instead of a misguided-but-loveable grandfather. But all in all I still enjoy the film a great deal, and Williams' score is outstanding (I saw it 6 times in the theater when it was released...a record for me...lol!). I have not seen JW and never plan to - to piggyback on Andy's comments, LOST WORLD is an abomination on so many levels - definitely among my top 3 worst Spielberg films ever.

User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 7031
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#4 Post by Paul MacLean »

I didn't know that about William Hurt and Kevin Costner. I think Hurt would have been very good in the role, but I could never believe Costner as a scientist (especially one of the world's foremost authorities in his field). I really like Sam Neill in the film, and I feel he comes across as a believable "regular guy". While he may seem "stiff" at times, I think that actually suits the character, as Alan Grant is ill-at-ease anyplace other than digging for fossils (and in particular when he's around kids).

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34186
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#5 Post by AndyDursin »

Paul MacLean wrote:I didn't know that about William Hurt and Kevin Costner. I think Hurt would have been very good in the role, but I could never believe Costner as a scientist (especially one of the world's foremost authorities in his field). I really like Sam Neill in the film, and I feel he comes across as a believable "regular guy". While he may seem "stiff" at times, I think that actually suits the character, as Alan Grant is ill-at-ease anyplace other than digging for fossils (and in particular when he's around kids).
Hurt turned it down! He was one of their top choices. That, as they say, was "a mistake", especially since he made the awful LOST IN SPACE movie just a short time later.

Apparently Spielberg went to Harrison Ford first and he vetoed it. Probably too obvious a call there, but Ford WOULD have been good for it.

Not sure how serious Costner ever was but I guess he was on their radar and would've been "hot" at that time.

BobaMike
Posts: 559
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:57 pm

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#6 Post by BobaMike »

AndyDursin wrote:
Paul MacLean wrote:I didn't know that about William Hurt and Kevin Costner. I think Hurt would have been very good in the role, but I could never believe Costner as a scientist (especially one of the world's foremost authorities in his field). I really like Sam Neill in the film, and I feel he comes across as a believable "regular guy". While he may seem "stiff" at times, I think that actually suits the character, as Alan Grant is ill-at-ease anyplace other than digging for fossils (and in particular when he's around kids).
Hurt turned it down! He was one of their top choices. That, as they say, was "a mistake", especially since he made the awful LOST IN SPACE movie just a short time later.

Apparently Spielberg went to Harrison Ford first and he vetoed it. Probably too obvious a call there, but Ford WOULD have been good for it.

Not sure how serious Costner ever was but I guess he was on their radar and would've been "hot" at that time.

I loved Jurassic Park when it came out. I have the original "making of" book, and there is some preproduction art where the Alan Grant character is depicted as Harrison Ford. Always confused me as a kid, until I learned about Ford turning it down years later.

Image

User avatar
Paul MacLean
Posts: 7031
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: New York

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#7 Post by Paul MacLean »

Had Ford (or Costner) been cast, I think it would have become a "star vehicle". I guess that's another reason I liked Neill in the role -- as a character actor he didn't dominate the film, and it was thus more of an ensemble piece.

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Posts: 9714
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
Location: Walpole, MA

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#8 Post by Monterey Jack »

Plus, had Ford been cast, it would have been pretty obvious from the start that he'd rise to the heroic occasion, whereas Neill was a fine character actor who had never had an action role before (let alone in a giant summer blockbuster), so it was more of a surprise to the viewer when this stolid man of science managed to hold his own while escorting a pair of young children through an island teeming with animals ready to devour them at any moment. Jurassic Park was really the last time a Spielberg blockbuster went for relative unknowns as opposed to "movie stars" (yeah, Jeff Goldblum had been acting in movies for over fifteen years, but, The Fly aside, he was still not a bankable movie-star presence)...he had already started dabbling with focusing an entire movie around an established star persona with Robin Williams in Hook, and in the 25 years since, he's tended to bounce between Toms Hanks and Cruise for a lot of things. Munich had no major stars (it was Daniel Craig's last notable role before getting cast as 007), but that was a raw, personal film that Spielberg obviously was not expecting to burn up the box office charts no matter who he cast.

While it would have been nice to see Spielberg and Ford work together on at least one non-Indiana Jones movie (his axed E.T. cameo aside), his presence in Jurassic Park probably would have harmed the movie, especially because it was the spectacular visual effects that brought awed audiences back to see it again and again, not star power. Plus, Ford probably would not have done The Fugitive were he cast, and that's a movie that would have been significantly weaker without Ford's excellent central performance (original choice for Richard Kimball Alec Baldwin would have brought too much of his slick, glib charisma to the part, and you wouldn't have had the wounded resolve that Ford had in spades).

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34186
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#9 Post by AndyDursin »

I'm not sure it needed a "star," and I agree about Ford (though divorced from Indiana Jones, he would've been perfect for that role), yet it still could've benefited from more assertive/charismatic actors to help anchor the human side of the movie.

Neill is serviceable, sure -- but to compare him to Spielberg's prior leading men, he's not Roy Scheider, he's not Richard Dreyfuss, he's not Harrison Ford. He just doesn't have "it." He's a supporting actor in a lead role, but between him and Laura Dern (who I truly felt was out of her league in that movie, and didn't have much chemistry with Neill either), there is a gap there that actors with more charisma -- not necessarily "stars" per se -- could've brought to the table. It's why Goldblum was the only human anyone talked about when the film was over (and why Spielberg opted to bring him back, over Neill and Dern, in THE LOST WORLD). I give Neill credit because he gives a much more confident reading of the Alan Grant role in JP III, but as a leading man, I felt he was overwhelmed by the spectacle in that film and didn't bring a whole lot to the table. Ditto for Dern. (And they were not well served by David Koepp's script -- a guy who is not one of my favorites, yet worked with Spielberg repeatedly from that point forward).

Either way, there was no mistaking that the humans played second fiddle to the dinosaurs in JP 1...that's quite the contrast from something like JAWS where the human engagement was so heavy Spielberg didn't even need the shark to maintain interest. It's what separates those two films, and a "good" movie from a great movie.

Eric Paddon
Posts: 8595
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm

Re: rate the last movie you saw

#10 Post by Eric Paddon »

I agree Andy. At the time even though I had fun with JP, I knew this wasn't in the same league as "Jaws" on the human issue. I remember one critic ridiculing Neill's Grant for his "kids have the cooties" attitude at the beginning. Neill did much better in JP III from an acting standpoint I felt. The fact that Goldblum upstaged him completely in the original is why Goldblum got the "star" turn in the next film which was a misfire because a great supporting character does not always make for a great focal point.

The change in the Hammond character people have commented on. Few people probably remember that the kids were basically swapped from the novel because Tim was the one who saved the day while Lex was the annoying younger sister who couldn't keep quiet (obvious PC change there to make Lex a budding feminist superheroine in training). It's a contrast to how Spielberg so dramatically *improved* the characters in "Jaws" from what they were in Benchley's novel.

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34186
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: JURASSIC PARK Revisited

#11 Post by AndyDursin »

I split the posts into its own thread to encourage further visibility! Might we see a return trip to (shudder) THE LOST WORLD, Paul?

Here are my last "Trilogy" reviews as of 2011 --

http://www.andyfilm.com/10-18-11.html

Eric Paddon
Posts: 8595
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm

Re: JURASSIC PARK Revisited

#12 Post by Eric Paddon »

AndyDursin wrote:Might we see a return trip to (shudder) THE LOST WORLD, Paul?
I wouldn't mind a return to "The Lost World" as in the late 90s TV series that has the dubious distinction of having its last filmed episode end with the title card "To Be Continued"! :)

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Posts: 9714
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
Location: Walpole, MA

Re: JURASSIC PARK Revisited

#13 Post by Monterey Jack »

Jurassic World is Jaws compared to Jurassic Park III ("Alan...!"). :?

User avatar
AndyDursin
Posts: 34186
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
Location: RI

Re: JURASSIC PARK Revisited

#14 Post by AndyDursin »

Jurassic Park III is also Jaws compared to The Lost World. And Jurassic World for that matter :D

KevinEK
Posts: 325
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 6:32 pm

Re: JURASSIC PARK Revisited

#15 Post by KevinEK »

I enjoyed Jurassic Park when I first saw it in theaters, but I had major troubles with it even then. It's probably grown on me a little since then, but the basic issues remain.
The condensation of the book into the movie is fine in some areas, but the focus on whether Dr. Grant is ready to deal with kids is a complete distraction from the actual plot.
At the time in 1993, I had some issues with the John Williams score, thinking the story wanted something a bit more abstract - along the lines of what Jerry Goldsmith did with Planet of the Apes.
I also had the issues mentioned above about the transformation of Hammond from a human reptile to the cuddly grampa seen in the movie.
But I enjoyed it then and now as a fun amusement park ride version of what I had read in a single sitting in the book. (Crichton's books were notorious for that effect)
My belief is that Spielberg saw the movie as a thrill ride and handled it as such - his attention at that time was much more focused on Schindler's List - and it is known that Spielberg was not as present for the Post work on Jurassic due to his work on the latter film.

Lost World is a very silly movie, particularly in its second half - but there a couple of inspired moments in the first half that kept me going for a while. The whole use of the compys, which are a big holdover from the first book was delightfully gruesome. The double trailer jeopardy bit is flat-out science fiction, but it's a lot of fun to watch, to be honest. It's after that moment that the movie starts to come apart for me. And the ending is a disaster. I remember hearing about it and thinking it sounded great to have the dinos make it to San Diego. And then I saw it and realized that was a terrible idea.

Jurassic Park III was ridiculous to me, both when I first saw it in theaters and when I had to watch it again for review.


For me, the 90s are the last place where I saw really interesting work from Spielberg as a moviegoer. His movies in the 2000s have been extremely technically accomplished - he certainly doesn't skimp on the production or the casting. I just haven't seen any of the movies actually take me to the places he did when he was working on Jaws or Close Encounters or even Raiders. His movies are extremely well-made but there's something missing - I don't know if it's the heart or if it's really just the little edge of what would make the movie compelling. Even Jurassic Park feels like a pre-made commercial product. And he seems to go back and forth between those kinds of amusement park ideas and the very serious mode, which always comes across a bit stiff.

I continue to hope that he will have a movie that will excite everyone again, but I have to acknowledge that like Lucas, he's more of a mogul than a storyteller, and that's been the case for 25 years now.

Post Reply