Archive Review: Jurassic Park

I always wander is if this movie were to be released today, would I still view the same way that I did as a child with everything I know now about filmmaking and story structure.

Okay, so for the first ever Archive Review, I figured I might as well do the most nostalgic movie from my childhood. “Jurassic Park” was the first movie I ever saw in theaters – well – okay, second. The first movie I actually saw in theaters was “The Muppet’s Christmas Carol” but I don’t really remember anything about and let’s face it, it’s a lot more badass to say that “Jurassic Park” was your first.

The year was 1993, I was six years old and like most kids I had a grossly unhealthy obsession of dinosaurs. And during the peak of this obsession is when “Jurassic Park” was released to theater. You can imagine a six year old getting excited about seeing a movie about dinosaurs, but imagine a six year old seeing a movie about dinosaurs with that quality of special effects. Needless to say, my mind was blow and has been ever since. In fact I credit this movie being the main influence that made me want to get into filmmaking. It was also the first time I heard the name of someone called Spielberg.

Now I tell you all this simply to show how much of an impact this movie had on me.However I also tell you all this as a heads up that my judgment may be clouded a little due to nostalgia, but it’s been 16 years, I’ve grown up and have a better understanding of film structure, so hope now to try and approach “Jurassic Park” from a critical perspective. When you’re a kid, you don’t really question anything you see in a movie. Like Gennaro getting eaten while hiding in a bathroom. As a kid you see that and think it awesome because, well, it’s kind of funny. But I wonder if I would have the same reaction if I were to see that for the first time today or would I just roll my eyes and view it as ridiculous.

The following his how I view the film today.

As you probably already know, the film is based off of the novel of the same name by Michael Crichton. Now the film, I must say, departs quite a bit from the book (no surprise there). However depending on how you look at it, this can be a negative or positive thing. Negative for the fact that the book is way more action packed and features more dinosaurs and more frequently. The story of the book is much longer and has more content, which is something that I prefer in story. The movie simply cuts a lot out and at times maybe too much. On the positive side of departing from the novel is the fact that the human characters actually act like human characters. Now I like Crichton’s work, but with “Jurassic Park” in particular, he really has a problem with having things feel awkward. Some of this has to do with pacing and flatness of some of the characters but the main problem that I noticed was the lack of detail. More than once there will be a part where you forget which characters are actually in the scene because they don’t ever do or say anything. You’ll be reading along and then there will finally be an acknowledgment of a character that you would have known was there if it wasn’t for that one tiny sentence.

The movie does a much better job at not only pacing, but fleshing out the characters as well. It feels like the actual narration was thought out more whereas with the book it seems like the focus was the research and technical stuff. The movie actually has things like character development. For insistence, in the beginning of the movie Dr. Grant has an annoyance for kids but learns to put that aside and develop a tolerance in able to get the two child characters, Lex and Tim, out of Jurassic Park alive. While in the novel Grant lives kids for the beginning and basically doesn’t change throughout the story.

From a narrative standpoint, it’s pretty adequate. It has all the right elements, but nothing special, but enough to get the job done. Plus there a good amount of action to keep things exciting and feel like there’s content. The characters again are adequate. It’s not like this is a heavy drama or anything ,but they at least for the most part fell thought out, maybe not as developed as they can be. They are likable, well, the ones you’re suppose to like anyways. Now when it comes to technical side of thing, I have conflicting issues. One thing that I’ve always noticed is that some of the cuts, shots, beats and dialogue are done differently than what you might expect. I look at this as a good thing because it sets the movie apart from other and helps make the thing fell a little more believable (at certain times). But one the other hand this could come off a little awkward and maybe even amateurish on the filmmakers half. But I don’t think this is much of an issue since most people don’t even seem to pick up on this sort of thing, so it all must be working.

Before I wrap this up, there is one thing that I want to disgust that has sparked a kind of “who shot first” controversy. I’m of course talking about the infamous spontaneously changing ground level within the Tyrannosaur padlock. From the very first moment that the padlock is seen on the tour up till when the Rex tares down the fence and steps out onto the main road, the ground within the padlock is at the same level of the road. However, later on when the Rex pushes the explorer into the padlock and into a tree, the ground level has dropped about fifty feet or so from the main road level. Now I’ve heard many people say many different territories about this, the most common one being that in the midst of the confusion for the Rex attack, the car is actually pushed over a cliff on the other side of the road from where the padlock was. But is you really watch carefully, this is obviously not the case. (The best theory I’ve heard on this issue can be found here at this LINK.) The fact of the matter is, if you watch any of the early animatics or look at the story boards or hell even read the script, the Rex is supposed to have dragged the explorer several feet from its original location after it is flipped upside-down. So when the Rex knocks the car into the padlock and into the tree, it’s not in the same location where the Rex exited or where the ground is level with the road. Like I said this was in the script, it was in the storyboards, and it made it as far are being in the animatics, so why it was never actually made it into the finished film is beyond me.

Now I bring up this issue to make a point. I realize that when you watch the film, you’re so wrapped up into the action that you actually don’t notice this detail of the ground level changing. But the fact remains that when you look about at it there is a huge error and it should have been addressed better in the final film. There are still hints of the explanation, but that since there is still confusion, it’s obvious these hints are not enough. What I’m trying to say is its factors like these that can make the film seem rushed. Like they were trying to get through production as soon as possible, which is kind of ironic because the dinosaurs where clearly not rushed. Spielberg did of course have another movie being released that year (Schindler's List) so it’s possible some elements of production where rushed or got overlooked due to be distracted with juggling two movies.

In conclusion, this is not a perfect movie, far from it in fact. It’s defiantly not the same as I view when I was younger. I can now see the imperfections and I’m willing to call it out on that. Yet the movie has held up well, other than the computers, the films not all that dated and the dinosaurs have helped it stand the test of time. It’s still enjoyable and entertaining and even when you watch it now you get this wave of excitement that reminds me of the first time that I saw it. So in that regards it works and frankly that’s what matters most.

Why does the direction of this clip keep getting flip backward?