Subject: REVIEW: JURASSIC PARK

From: [email-masked] (Phineas)
Date: 15 Jun 93 14:29:39 GMT

[Followups directed to rec.arts.movies. -Moderator]

			        JURASSIC PARK
		       A film review by Phineas Narco
			Copyright 1993 Phineas Narco

***1/2

     JURASSIC PARK has finally opened and heretofore has been one of
the most eagerly anticipated and much talked and speculated about film
in quite a while.  Today was opening day and I saw the first showing
having purchased my tickets two weeks ago.  Surely, this opening
weekend will put a lot of money in Universal Picture's coffers.  I
arrived at the theater 2-1/2 hours before the 10:45 AM show, and there
were about 25-30 people already in line.  Amazingly, however, I don't
think the first show sold out as there were a lot of empty seats in the
theater when the movie started.  However, when I came out the line
stretched past the theater parking lot and spilled well into the mobile
home park (private property signs notwithstanding) next door to the
theater.

     PREMIERE magazine said it best when predicting JURASSIC PARK as
the number one hit of the summer (it will be) when it said that the
movie provides what people love to go to movies for in the first
place:  it gives them something they've never seen before, and that
Spielberg and company have a good track record (more or less) for
giving them just that.

     Let's face it, people are flocking to see JURASSIC PARK for
basically one thing ... the dinosaurs.  What child hasn't been at least
mildly fascinated with these ancient creatures and dreamed of what they
were like?  This is perfect thematic territory for Spielberg who revels
and excels in making movies that speak to the wide-eyed little kid in
all of us.  A lot of discussion has centered around whether this movie
is acceptable for children.  Well, I pity parents with very young
children because they will most certainly be very very interested in
seeing the movie, but will probably suffer from nightmares afterwards.
The movie is violent but--and I didn't realize this until later--it
is virtually bloodless.  Any dinosaur savaging of any kind is either
done off-screen, is obscured by something in the foreground, or
gore-less.  The only really gory part is a brief shot of a severed arm;
this movie has *far* less blood in it than Spielberg's 1975 effort
JAWS, which was rated PG, one step down from the newer rating which
this movie received.

     It's still frightening, though--because what one *doesn't* see is
often worse, in the imagination, than what one *does*, and also because
of the extreme realism of the special effects.  A kid can have fun with
a Saturday afternoon G-Rated movie like THE SEVENTH VOYAGE OF SINBAD or
any other Ray Harryhausen movie because the violence is rather cheezy
and doesn't look all that real (at least by today's special effects
standards).  JURASSIC PARK is special in that it is a ground-breaking
special effects film like STAR WARS or TERMINATOR 2 was, the kind
that comes along every few years (with increasing regularity, I might
add).  There are a lot of scenes in this movie where you really cannot
tell if there is an actual "beast" right there, live, or if it was
something added in post-production.  Half the people in the theater
were awed into silence by these special effects while the other half
was reverently  applauding them.  Those that stayed for the credits
applauded the names of the SFX technicians.

     The dinosaurs, the special effects, in fact, every technical
aspect of this movie are the real stars of it.  And yet, it doesn't
seem contrived; the movie flows seamlessly in its adventure through
this prehistoric fantasy world; you don't have the sense of some
special effects technician stepping rudely into the storyline and
saying in effect, "Look what I can do!", and yet have little else to
offer.  This, I think, was an unfortunate aspect that ruined other
otherwise good movies like TOTAL RECALL and most recently,
CLIFFHANGER.

     The dinosaurs are, in a word, fantastic, and had me practically
levitating out of my seat at one moment and staring wide-eyed with my
mouth open the next.  But more on them in a moment.

     The much talked about sound system is indeed, as I heard one
person aptly describe it, a feast for the ears.  As I understand it is
contained in compressed form on a CD-ROM and each of the frames of the
film is encoded with an unseen number which keeps the soundtrack
(music, sound effects, dialogue, etc.) in sync with the picture.    The
ambient sounds of the jungle, the rainfall, the thunderstorm and the
sounds of the dinosaurs themselves, surround you in a way never quite
attained with other systems (apparently George Lucas' THX system was
used to mix the soundtrack or else was used in some other way, as the
logo appears in the closing credits--thanks is also given to George
Lucas).  It is also very well suited to John Williams' soundtrack which
deftly captures both the majesty and suspense of the various scenes.
Especially in the "high-action" sequences, the soundtrack recalls his
work in Spielberg's CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND.  JURASSIC PARK
won't get any Oscars for acting, directing, or best picture, but it
will no doubt sweep the technical awards next year at the Academy
Awards, and will *definitely* get "Best Sound."  (But then again, I
was sure BATMAN RETURNS was going to win "Best Costumes," and it didn't
even get nominated in that category).

     The acting is largely unremarkable and yet as good as any other
Spielberg movie.  I thought the most interesting aspect of this was
Neill's character's dislike of children and Dern's character's
awareness of this, something that is obvious yet remains completely
unspoken throughout the film.

    Now... some words about those dinosaurs...

[Note--the rest of this review gives details on what the dinosaurs
looked like and other plot points.  If you would rather be surprised,
don't read any further]



The Brachiosauri and the Hadrosauri:

     The first really good look at a dinosaur comes a full fifteen to
twenty minutes into the picture (at least it seemed that long) and it
is nothing short of breathtaking.  A titanic Brachiosaurus lumbers a
few feet away from the principal characters, astonishingly graceful for
its huge size as it stands on its hind legs and nibbles on a tall
tree-top.  The characters are just a few feet away from this huge
beast, as I say, something I would be very loath to do in such a
situation as this behemoth could obviously crush a jeep like it was a
styrofoam cup.  The effect is almost perfect.  There are no matte
lines; the "effect" moves perfectly in sync with the changing angle
of the camera which looks up at this towering behemoth.  I was amazed
that you can actually see the action of this creature's muscles and
sinews, under its skin, as it moves across the screen.  If you look
closely, you can see just the slightest jerkiness of animation as it
reaches up for the tree-branches.  The skin looks a little bit too
shimmery ... but all in all, this first glimpse of one of the dinosaurs
blew my socks off.  Perhaps I've been watching videos too long as I
found myself reaching for a remote control to back it up and look at it
again.  A wonderful long shot is seen at the end of this scene of a
couple of Brachiosauri in a lake while duck-billed dinosaurs
(Hadrosauri) drink at the water's edge.  The scene is seen through
the "heat shimmer" one would naturally see while looking across water
on a sunny day, adding yet another splendid dimension of authenticity
to the scene.

     Later in the movie, we see the huge head of a Brachiosaurus as it
discovers Neill's character, and the two kids, in a tall tree.  They
playfully pet it and feed it branches.  Neill's character continually
reassures the little tykes that the Brachiosaurus is a "veggie-saurus"
and therefore harmless to humans.  This was a little unrealistic for
me ... I mean, sure it's a vegetarian, but so are rhinoceri and bull
elephants, and they are hardly "harmless," and I wouldn't want to get
too close to one.  In the case of the Brachiosaurus (which isn't all
that bright, about as smart as a cow--a very, very *big* cow), it
probably wouldn't know your arm wasn't a branch until it spat it,
severed and mangled, from its chomping jaws.  But it seems this scene
was necessary to show at least *some* dinosaurs were friendly.

The Tricerotops:

     Actually only one is shown in the film, and although it seems very
much alive (it breathes, its eyes roll, its "nose" snorts, its legs
twitch) the poor thing is sick as a dog and doesn't really move to
speak of.  This leads to a pretty funny scene involving heaping,
steaming mounds of "dino-dung."

The Gigamimi:

     These are the "gazelles" of the prehistoric world.  This is
another wonderful sight that you only glimpse briefly in the television
trailer.  A stampede of these fast-moving kangaroo-type beasts sweep
across the sun-drenched grassy plains at high speed.  Fantastic
effect.  It occurred to me while watching this that the reason so many
stop-motion effects of yesteryear don't look quite right and have that
"animated" quality to them is that they are actually shot perfectly
still in several different positions and while viewed in sequence they
seem to be moving, but there's one realistic quality of motion in
this type of animation that isn't captured in this method and that
is ... the blur.  "Real" things blur on film when they move quickly and
that is just what has been done here (I assume by computer
enhancement).  The effect is a real jaw-dropper.

The Dilophosaurus:

     This is a curious and frightening creature (at first it just seems
curious and even harmless), just a little mechanical looking, somewhat
smaller than how I visualized it in the book.  When attacking, (which
consists of spitting brown-green viscous, paralyzing, blinding, "gobs"
onto its prey) a multi-colored fan of skin opens up around its head
like that lizard that runs across the desert on its hind legs, which
the Japanese find hilarious, that you see on "National Geographic" all
the time.

The Tyrannosaurus Rex:

     You'll be looking at some of the T-Rex footage wondering how the
hell they filmed it, and that's the real acid test for a good
effect.  The Rex is devastating, horrifying, awe-inspiring, even
somewhat beautiful.  The ultimate monster--it kind of makes Godzilla
look like Barney and "Jaws" look like a tadpole.  In the scene where
you first see the beast, in its attack on the jeeps, it just about had
me climbing up onto the back of my theater seat.  The sequences with
the T-Rex are technically seamless.  What more can I say?

The Velociraptors:

     Well ... chilling.  The creatures have a cold-as-steel, evil, yet
intelligent look to them.  True predators, and very faithful to how
they are depicted in the book.  I only wish their presence in the
movie, their "character," if you will,  was more fully explored.  There
is one moment during the climax with these creatures (which I won't
give away) that almost made me jump into the aisle behind me.

    The fact that I would have liked to have seen the Raptors more
fully explored, as they were in the book, brings me to an aspect of
JURASSIC PARK that has been much discussed on Internet, and that is
how it compares to the book.

     Basically what you got here is a movie just over two hours long,
as a lot of Spielberg blockbusters are.  The producers, and the studio,
probably didn't want it too much longer than that to ensure maximum
showings in the theater for any given day were possible.  However, when
comparing JURASSIC PARK: THE MOVIE to JURASSIC PARK: THE BOOK, what
you basically got here is a telescoped, condensed, Reader's Digest
version of the book's story.  It occurred to me that to fully cover what
took place in the book (and this is true of almost all book/movie
adaptations) you were probably looking at *at least* a three-hour or
three-and-a-half-hour movie ... maybe even a mini-series.

     Before the movie was made, Michael Chrichton, the author of the
book on which it was based, said that the movie couldn't be faithfully
done for less than $100 million, and he was probably right (I would be
interested to hear what he thought of this movie).  But, there is also
the constraint of time to deal with however, and there is simply not
enough running time in a movie to deal with everything that happened
with the book.  On some levels, the book is better, for example in the
sense of sustained suspense.  I was in a higher and more sustained
state of tension while reading the book than the movie.  The book's
sense of suspense and tension is higher and more drawn out, sustained
longer, while the movie hits you with these fast, hard-hitting,
intense scenes with minimum build-up and are over relatively quickly.

     Here are some of the differences:  (Note, I do not have
the book to refer to at the time of this writing, even
though I have read it, I am doing this from memory)

     --There are *no* Compys.
     --There are *no* dinosaurs on the mainland or references to
       dinosaurs on the mainland.
     --There are *no* scenes of a little girl getting bitten on the
       beach and *no* babies are eaten or are even in the film.
     --There are *no* Stegosauri.
     --There are *no* Pterodactyls.
     --There are *no* scenes where Neil and the kids are in a canoe
       or raft.  The scene with the T-Rex swimming and attacking
       them on the raft is omitted.
     --There is *no* "waterfall" scene as in the book with the T-
       Rex's prehensile tongue groping past the waterfall for
       "Timmy."  (I would have very much liked to have seen these
       scenes, however.)
     --The entire sub-plot of Neill's character trying to get
       word to the supply ship going to the mainland that they
       have dinosaurs on board is omitted.
     --There is *no* beach scene near the end where the principal
       characters find the raptor "hatchery."
     --The island is *not* blown up at the end.
     --There are *no* tranquilizer guns used in the movie; in fact,
       the whole aspect of fire-arms is barely touched on.
     --Ian Malcolm does *not* die in the end.
     --There is *no* threat of the Raptors chewing through bars in
       the skylight above Malcolm's bed as there is in the book.
     --The ending has totally changed as far as to how the
       "heroes" ultimately escape death at the hands (claws?) of
       the Raptors.  I won't reveal how this is done, but it is
       something of a cop-out--something along the lines of, "This
       is getting onto two hours now, let's wrap this up real quick
       now".  Look up the Latin phrase 'deus ex machina' in a
       Roget's Thesaurus.

     Those are really the major differences as I remember them.

     One thing ... if this movie goes the way of BATMAN and its sequel,
it will be on video by Christmas time.  Due to the subject matter of
the film, you really *need* to see it on the biggest screen you can
find and sit close to the screen for maximum effect.

     In summation, JURASSIC PARK is a treat.  Technically it is a real
milestone, a ground-breaking film, and in the age of movies like
CLIFFHANGER, TOTAL RECALL, and BATMAN RETURNS--movies that are really
nice to look at, but otherwise a mess,  where substance takes a
backseat to style--it's nice to find a movie which is not only a feast
for the eyes and ears, but also offers engaging characters, a taut,
suspenseful storyline, and good old-fashioned chills thrills and
spills.  If you think you've seen it all--see this movie for something
you've never seen before and to feel like a kid again.  JURASSIC PARK
is a winner.

     Mr. Spielberg has done it once more.