Tuesday, 16 February 2016

Jurassic Park Review

Click here to read my previous review of the Departed

So next on the list is a film I originally wasn't going to review, as I've already seen it.  However, I recently finished reading the book, so I thought I would watch and review the film adaptation.  Jurassic Park is number 309 on the top 1000 films of all time.

Based on Michael Crichton's 1990 novel of the same name, Jurassic Park is a theme park like no other.  It is run by John Hammond (Richard Attenborough) an eccentric, but kind-hearted billionaire who has funded the creation of genetically altered dinosaurs.  Just as the park is about to be opened to the public, Hammond's investors demand that it receives validation from paleontologist Alan Grant (Sam Neill) paleobotanist Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) and mathematician and chaos theorist Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum.) Little do they know that things are about to go terribly wrong when the disgruntled programmer Dennis Nedry (Wayne Knight) sabotages the park's computer systems.  Making up the supporting cast are B.D Wong as Chief Geneticist Henry Wu, Samuel L. Jackson as engineer Ray Arnold and Martin Ferroro as the game warden Robert Muldoon.

One reason why I didn't like the novel as much as I thought I would, as I don't think it was paced that well.  I thought that the beginning was bogged down in exposition and character development and I was relieved when the film cut out most of these details.  On IMDB I read that writer David Koepp cut out most of the character exposition, as he couldn't care less about hearing about their lives and he didn't think the audience would care either.  I think this was a smart choice to make and it led to an improvement of the film's pace.

Spielberg did well in balancing the film's science and action scenes.  At no point did it feel like one was dominant over the other.  There was just enough science to provide necessary exposition and it was distributed evenly throughout the film, rather than being concentrated in one place.  The suspsnse built well with lots of small climaxes that helped progress the narrative.  From Genarro to Nedry's deaths to Sattler discovering Arnold's severed arm, the film isn't short on scares.

Another welcome change is John Hammond's character.  In the novel, he is portrayed as ruthless, uncompromising and antagonistic.  However, his film counterpart is much more lovable and sympathetic.  This is partly due to Richard Attenborough's portrayal of him.  He is selfish and unlikeable in the book, but within the film, it is difficult not to feel sorry for him.  In contrast to the text, he isn't motivated by material profit, but rather a desire to leave something behind for others to enjoy.

I also really liked the supporting cast.  Wayne Knight was great as the corrupt weak-minded software programmer, Denis Nedry.  In the novel, he is lazy, greedy and malleable.  From his workstation being a mess to his desktop background being a picture of a half-naked woman, these qualities translated well over into the film.


Samuel L. Jackson was an interesting choice for the role of Ray Arnold.  It was a vast contrast to his more action-based roles in Pulp Fiction and Star Wars. Yet, I think that the role suited him.  He was cool, calm and in control of the scene.  I also loved the close-ups of the cigarette that was continuously hanging out of his mouth.  This was a small, but very effective touch.

One thing I didn't like was how Henry Wu's character was simply reduced to an exposition piece before being written out completely.  In the novel, he becomes a key component in saving the park, yet he is very much marginalised in the film.  As the Chief Geneticist, I feel that he is too important of a character to be brushed aside.

Lastly, God, I hated the kids. Granted they were annoying in the book, but they were insufferable in the film.  From Tim's irritating over-enthusiasm to Lex, there were no two characters I wanted more to be tor apart by the velociraptors.  In fact, I think they should have been killed and better characters like Muldoon or Arnold should have been spared.

Rating: Awesome

A great summer block-buster.  Entertaining, iconic and action thrilled.  You don't need to be a scientist to understand it, but rather have an endelss amount of patience with two annoying children.  Jurassic Park was a great look into the life of the other great creatures who once ruled the Earth.

1 comment:

  1. It's a long time since I read and saw Jurassic Park. I would agree with most of your comments, but had forgotten that the book started slowly with too much exposition.I also disliked the John Hammond character. There's no such thing as a kindly billionaire.I also didn't like the oily Ian Malcolm character. Tony

    ReplyDelete