Subject: REVIEW: JURASSIC PARK

From: [email-masked] (berardinelli,james)
Date: 15 Jun 93 14:27:19 GMT

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

				   JURASSIC PARK
		       A film review by James Berardinelli
			Copyright 1993 James Berardinelli

Rating: 8.7 out of 10 (A-, *** out of ****)  

Date Released:  6/11/93
Running Length:  2:06
Rated:  PG-13 (Violence)

Starring:  Sam Neill, Jeff Goldblum, Richard Attenborough, Laura Dern, 
	   Joseph Mazzello, Ariana Richards
Director:  Stephen Spielberg
Producers:  Kathleen Kennedy and Gerald R. Molen
Screenplay:  Michael Crichton and David Koepp based on the book by 
	     Michael Crichton
Music:  John Williams
Released by Universal Pictures

     On a small island off the coast of Costa Rica exists a most
unusual animal preserve by the name of Jurassic Park.  Operated by
dinosaur lover John Hammond (Richard Attenborough), Jurassic Park is
the first of its kind.  Its population of creatures includes
brachiosaurs, dilophosaurs, tricerotops, velociraptors, and a
Tyrannosaurus Rex, each of which has been cloned using the latest
technology that takes DNA from dinosaur-biting prehistoric insects
preserved in amber, and uses that DNA for the re- creation.  When the
consortium funding Jurassic Park become concerned that all is not as it
should be, Hammond is forced to call in three experts:  paleontologist
Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill), his partner, paleo-botanist Dr.  Ellie
Sattler (Laura Dern), and the brilliant-but-cynical mathematician Dr.
Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum).  When the trio arrives at Jurassic Park,
they are astonished by what it represents.  It doesn't take long,
however, for astonishment to turn to horror.

     First of all, for anyone who's wondering, given the current state
of technology, the situation postulated in JURASSIC PARK cannot
happen.  Not only do the necessary cloning techniques not exist, but
the likelihood of retrieving dinosaur DNA from an amber-encased
prehistoric mosquito is extremely small.  While insect specimens have
been unearthed, for there to be dinosaur DNA, circumstances demand that
the mosquito had bitten a dinosaur shortly before its fatal
imprisonment, and the chance of that is slim, at best.

     Nevertheless, the enjoyment of any movie is hardly predicated by a
factual premise.  The apparent realism of some of Crichton's
pseudo-science imbues JURASSIC PARK with a grounding that is acceptable
in our high-tech world.  After all, to weave a dinosaur fable in this
day and age, science--not fantasy--must be the driving force.  The
science may not be real, but it must sound good enough to allow a
suspension of disbelief.  In that, this film (and the book that spawned
it) succeeds.

     Of course, the special effects help immensely.  They are so good,
in fact, and the dinosaurs look so real, that I half expected to see
"dinosaur trainer" during the closing credits.  Instead, however, honor
should be heaped upon the creators of JURASSIC PARK's primary screen
presences (all apologies to the actors).  Stan Winston, definitely not
a stranger to this sort of film (his recent credits include ALIENS and
TERMINATOR 2), is credited with the live-action creatures.  Dennis
Muren gets his due for the full motion monsters.  Phil Tippett is the
"dinosaur supervisor", and Michael Lantieri presides over the creature
effects.  All-in-all, the wizards at ILM have done an outstanding job,
giving us by far the most impressive and believable monster movie of
all time.  Nothing compares.

     Would that the story is the equal of its execution.  To begin
with, Crichton's book, while filled with fascinating ideas and
entertaining moments, hardly holds together as a top-of-the-line
adventure story.  The ending is especially problematic, resulting in a
forty-page denouement that drags slowly to an anticlimactic
conclusion.  As a result, a script based closely on the book is bound
to suffer from some of the same problems.  Despite numerous small
changes and omissions, the movie JURASSIC PARK is very much faithful to
its printed inspiration.  Perhaps Michael Crichton's involvement in the
screenplay has something to do with this.

     The biggest weakness of the novel is characterization, and the
same flaw is fully evident in the screen adaptation.  There are a few
exceptions.  The scenes between Alan and Ellie at the beginning are
well-done, with the affection between them evident from the start (a
change from the book, where the two were never a couple).  This is as
much a tribute to the acting of Sam Neill and Laura Dern as to the
writing.  Also noteworthy is a scene where Ellie confronts Hammond,
who's eating a dish of ice cream in the midst of the crisis.  Here, we
get a sense of what's going on inside the old man's head.  In the book,
he's a mixed-up fanatic, but in the film, he's made into a sympathetic,
albeit eccentric, figure.

     Interestingly, some transposition has gone on between Hammond's
two grandchildren.  Tim (Joseph Mazzello) is still the dinosaur-lover,
but the screen's version of the boy is younger than his sister Alexis
(Ariana Richards).  The flip-flop in age creates a difference in their
relationship and they come across as closer and less-adversarial on
screen.  Also, here it's Alexis, not Tim, who's the computer whiz.

     The plot is little more than a cleverly jumbled-together batch of
formulas.  As I mentioned before, JURASSIC PARK is, reduced to its most
basic level, a monster movie.  Thrown in for good measure is the human
interest story--the growing relationship between self-confessed
child-hater Grant and his two youthful charges--but this part of the
film worked least successfully for me.  Also, there isn't an effective
ending.  Too much is left dangling, demanding that the lion's share of
the resolution be confined to the imagination, but at least the movie
avoids the book's plodding conclusion.

Nevertheless, I doubt that there are many who will go to JURASSIC PARK for 
     its characters or story.  Rightly so, crowds will flock to the
theaters screening this movie so they can ooh and aah, jump in their
seats, and root for the overmatched humans against the big, bad
dinosaurs.  When it comes to adventure, JURASSIC PARK is a
roller-coaster ride.  With thrills and action in the tradition of, but
not up to the level of, ALIENS and RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK (another
Spielberg picture), this is an exciting and energetic film with a
number of shocks but few letdowns.  Even those familiar with the
written work can't help being drawn in to the pulse- pounding
exhilaration of the chase as the Tyrannosaurus menaces two powerless
electric cars and the trapped humans inside.

     In the end, JURASSIC PARK succeeds because it's good
entertainment--a fun night at the movies.  Unlike something of the ilk
of CLIFFHANGER, which also boasts a lot of action, there's some
intelligence behind this picture.  JURASSIC PARK isn't great art, nor
is it classic cinema, but at least we don't feel like the producers and
director are more interested in getting as much firepower and death
on-screen as they can without giving a thought as to whether anyone in
the audience has a brain.

     Not having seen all of the summer's offerings (THE LAST ACTION
HERO is still a week away), I can't say how JURASSIC PARK will rate
overall, but I will admit that, in my opinion, this is the first
big-budget film in a long time to live up to its pre-release
reputation.  Sure, the movie isn't perfect, but it delivers--perhaps
more than delivers--what the average viewer will expect from it.
Summer has long been known as the season for action/adventure films,
and JURASSIC PARK falls firmly into that category.

     Because of the nature and scope of this movie, I would encourage
anyone with more than a passing interest to catch JURASSIC PARK in a
movie theater.  It will lose a lot on the smaller TV screen.  Without
the grandeur of a stereophonic sound system and sizeable picture, much
of this film's impact will dwindle away.  The dinosaurs will still look
real, but there will undoubtedly be some who, upon viewing JURASSIC
PARK on video, will wonder what all the fuss is about.

     To this praise, let me add a final word of caution.  While the
violence in this film is not particularly graphic, it is apparent.
People aren't shown getting gored or ripped apart, but the movie makes
it perfectly clear what is happening.  Parents considering taking young
children (under around 10 years of age) to JURASSIC PARK might be
advised to see the film first.  There are certainly a number of scary
and potentially-disturbing moments which, while they add to the spice
for older viewers, may be inappropriate for younger ones.

- James Berardinelli ([email-masked])