With the new ‘Jurassic Park’ film, ‘Jurassic World’, coming
out this week, it’s the perfect time to look back upon the original trilogy of
films that it spawned from. It all began not on the big screen but on the page
in 1990 when Chicago, IL born author Michael Crichton published his ‘cautionary
tale’ science fiction novel, ‘Jurassic Park’. It became a best-seller and three
years later, legendary director Steven Spielberg brought Crichton’s story to
film. That film ended up becoming one of the most iconic films of its time
while also being responsible for setting landmarks in the use of CGI. During
its initial release, it grossed over $900 million worldwide, becoming the
highest-grossing film of all time until ‘Titanic’ ended up beating that record
four years later and becoming the first film to gross over $1 billion. But
‘Jurassic Park’ would eventually join the billion dollar club as well thanks to
two separate re-releases in 2011 and 2013, the latter being a special 3-D
re-release. The film would then be followed by two sequels in 1997 and 2001.
The former was a result of fans demanding that Crichton and Spielberg make a
sequel while the third film, not directed by Spielberg, was an original story
inspired by story elements that were unused in the last two films. However,
both films, while financially successful, didn’t fare as well with critics and
audiences compared to the first film. But are either of these films ‘as bad’ as
some put them out to be? That’s what we’ll be finding out today as I look back
upon the soon-to-be quadrilogy that is ‘65 million years in the making’; the
‘Jurassic Park’ trilogy.
JURASSIC PARK (1993)
Really what more is there to be said about this film that
hasn’t already been said before? We all know how this summer blockbuster from
the master director that is Steven Spielberg became one of the most iconic
films of all-time and was responsible for revolutionizing the use of CGI, which
in the case of this film actually does still hold up pretty darn well today.
All of this results in some truly amazing visuals that produce both awe and, in
some cases, terror at the same time. But as Spielberg noted in
behind-the-scenes videos for the film, his goal wasn’t to make a ‘monster
movie’. Instead, there’s a more naturalistic feel to these dinosaurs and that
is where the film’s sense of terror really shines. Now some critics have noted
that while the effects are amazing, the character development for the film
isn’t as strong. Now I don’t 100% agree with that, even though I will concur
that there are definitely some characters that don’t get anything to do in the
story. But then you have the main group of characters and they’re pretty
memorable; Sam Neill as the initially gruff Dr. Alan Grant, Laura Dern as
fellow scientist Ellie Sattler (who gets more to do in the film than in the
original novel, making her a pretty badass female lead), Richard Attenborough
as the misguided but kind creator of Jurassic Park John Hammond (another nice
change from the colder persona the character had in the book), and of course
Jeff Goldblum as, well, arguably the standout character of the film, Ian
Malcolm (“That’s, that’s chaos theory.”). Even 22 years after its initial
release, the original ‘Jurassic Park’ still stands as one of the best films of
its time, effectively capturing the imaginations of all who watch it.
Rating: 5/5!
JURASSIC PARK: THE LOST WORLD (1997)
After the massive success of ‘Jurassic Park’, both Steven
Spielberg and Michael Crichton were pressured by fans to make a sequel. So in
1995, Crichton published ‘The Lost World’ and two years later, Spielberg
adapted it to film. This time around, instead of a dinosaur ‘theme park’, the
story revolved around an expedition to a secondary island where the dinosaurs
were originally engineered, Isla Sorna (AKA ‘Site B’). However, it seems that
all that fan pressure may have hurt the film in the end as ‘The Lost World’
didn’t fare as well with critics and audiences. However, I think it’s actually
rather underrated. Now I’m not saying that it’s ‘as good’ as the first film.
The writing is not really as strong as before, the characters aren’t ‘as
memorable’ as those in the first film, and there are a few instances where they
make stupid decisions that more or less directly result in trouble, like taking
a baby T-Rex, even though they’re trying to help fix its broken leg, resulting in
the ‘parents’ coming after them. Still, despite all that, ‘The Lost World’
still manages to capture the same sense of awe and terror that the first film
did so well. There are still quite a lot of pretty awesome dinosaur-related
sequences, from the scene where the main characters are trapped in an RV that
is about to go over a cliff to the climax where a T-Rex is brought back to the
United States and goes on a rampage through San Diego. So in the end, ‘The Lost
World’ may not reach the same lofty heights of the original film, but it
definitely is better than what the internet puts it out to be. Spielberg’s
direction is still as good as it’s ever been and the effects are still
excellent. Bottom line; this is definitely one of the more underrated films of
the 90’s… I mean if anything it’s better than its sequel (you’ll see why in
just a sec).
Rating: 4/5
JURASSIC PARK III (2001)
For the third film in the series, Joe Johnston (‘Captain
America: The First Avenger’, ‘The Rocketeer’) took over directing duties from
Spielberg and instead of being based off of a book by Michael Crichton, the
film instead was an original story that used elements of the previous two
novels that weren’t used in the films, like an attack sequence on a river and a
sequence involving Pteranodons. But like its immediate predecessors, ‘Jurassic
Park III’ fared poorly with critics and audiences. And unlike ‘The Lost World’,
I kind of have to concur with them on this one. ‘Jurassic Park III’ definitely
is the weakest of the franchise. It has the least memorable characters in the
series and, for the most part, none of the major set-pieces in the film really
stand out that much. So in short, ‘Jurassic Park III’ is the least memorable installment
of the franchise… but I don’t really ‘hate’ it. I mean, this was actually the
first ‘Jurassic Park’ film that I ever saw. I saw it at a friend’s house when I
was about six (yes, I watched a PG-13 rated film at that age) so I do have a
bit of a personal connection to it. While I don’t necessarily like it as much nowadays,
there are still some good things about it. There are two major standouts in the
cast. The first is, of course, Sam Neill, whose return to the franchise as Dr.
Alan Grant is very much welcome. The other is Trevor Morgan as Eric, a young
kid who is shown to have survived on Isla Sorna for eight weeks after a
parasailing incident ended up with him getting lost on the island, hence why
the main plot of the film revolves around Grant being brought to the island by
Eric’s parents in order to rescue him. The practical dinosaur animatronic
effects are still pretty darn good… the CGI not as much this time around, but
it’s not that big of a deal. And at the end of the day, ‘Jurassic Park III’ is
the shortest entry of the series at just 93 minutes so it’s not overlong. So in
short, ‘Jurassic Park III’ may be the most forgettable installment of the
series, but I still enjoy it for the most part.
Rating: 2.5/5
No comments:
Post a Comment