Image by OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay Movie franchises can vary so much in quality. From the consistently good (if not great or fantastic) movies of Marvel Studios’ cinematic universe to the more mixed nature of the Star Wars saga, fans of a particular film series can expect some level of quality which defines that franchise. And there is perhaps no other mainstream series plagued with a lackluster vibe than the Jurassic Park series.
With the exception of 2015’s Jurassic World, none of the sequels to Steven’s Spielberg’s original 1993 sci-fi classic Jurassic Park have received any kind of love from critics or audiences. So, what better franchise to pick apart than one that is generally accepted to be bad despite one notable exception? This blog will be split into two parts, with this first half dedicated to the original trilogy of Jurassic Park films. Then, in the lead-up to the release of Colin Trevorrow’s Jurassic World: Dominion, I’ll examine the “soft reboot” Jurassic World series on its own terms before ranking all six movies in this franchise against one another. So, without further ado…LET’S GET STARTED! Jurassic Park (1993) For a summary of the production and release of Jurassic Park, click here. There are movies that stand the test of time by having cross-generational appeal spanning decades (lookin’ at you, Star Wars! 😊). And then there are movies that you apparently had to be there and experience at the time to fully appreciate why it is upheld as a masterpiece. And, in my humble opinion, the original Jurassic Park certainly falls into the latter category. To be clear, I do think that Jurassic Park is a good film. If, for nothing else, because of Spielberg and his team’s devotion to making groundbreaking special effects that managed to integrate 1990s computer-generated imagery with practical puppetry and animatronics to convince the moviegoing audience of the time that dinosaurs could work in live-action cinema. This achievement alone helps the movie deserve its status as a modern classic. That being said, I do think that the movie’s significant flaws in terms of characters and storytelling are too often overlooked despite how much they detract from the viewing experience. So, let’s pick apart what makes the first Jurassic Park movie good while also acknowledging the things that hold it back from being a true masterpiece of modern cinema. First and foremost, enough praise cannot be showered on Spielberg’s uncanny (and, in many ways, unmatched) ability to bring fantastical, supernatural, or extinct creatures to life on the big screen. Of course, this lineage can be traced all the way back to some of Spielberg’s early creature features like Jaws and E.T. the Extra Terrestrial. And he only improves his talents here both in terms of scale and sheer suspension of disbelief. While, of course, the peak of this CGI-practical combo is the introduction of the Tyrannosaurus rex stampeding out of its cage around the film’s midway point, I think that not enough good things can be said about the life-size Triceratops and the small yet nimble and menacing Dilophosaurus. In other words, I can see why kids in the theater fell in love with dinosaurs watching this movie. The other technical aspect of Jurassic Park that rightfully gives the film its iconic status is John Williams’s genre-defining score. Particularly, the theme that is played as the characters first arrive on Isla Nublar via helicopter which remains one of the defining pieces of music from Williams’s extensive, Oscar-winning career as a film composer. Simply put, ask any moviegoer to hum one of Williams’s themes and this one would almost certainly be in the top-three choices alongside something from the original Star Wars or Indiana Jones trilogies (despite him having so many other iconic themes from films like Jaws, Superman, and the Harry Potter series). Before I get to what I find less-than-excellent about Jurassic Park, I can only be fair and therefore will identify aspects of the storytelling and characters that I do think work here. For one thing, the movie manages to balance rather different tones between its first and second halves. Whereas its first hour is a (mostly) lighthearted, whimsical adventure introducing the concept of cloning to bring dinosaurs back from extinction, the second hour transitions pretty drastically to a horror-tinged survival flick where our main characters spend most of the time running from those very same dinosaurs. This successful balance is largely due to the screenplay’s effective foreshadowing of darker things to come later on in the story. In terms of the characters, Jeff Goldblum’s turn as the quick-witted and sarcastic “chaostician” (is that a real thing?!?) Dr. Ian Malcolm holds up as the most enjoyable person to watch from one scene to the next. Despite him being underutilized in the third act due to an injury, Malcolm never lets his presence in any scene be forgotten by the audience thanks to his solid jabs and one-liners. But when it comes to raw dramatic acting talents, Richard Attenborough is undeniably the best performance at work here. Not only does he work as the charismatic but doddering elderly billionaire Dr. John Hammond, but the moments of seeing more of the self-serious darkness behind the curtain make for some great hints of a deeper character on display. Furthermore, his arc as a misguided man who must confront the error of his ways due to the chaos and death that his creations cause helps the film’s deeper themes actually resonate by the time the credits roll. Unfortunately, it is here that the positive aspects of Jurassic Park come to an end for me. So, what holds it back from being (in my humble opinion) an absolute triumph of moviemaking? The pacing, for one. While I do appreciate the balanced tone from the first half to the second, the drawback of this comes with how poorly paced the film is from start to finish. Despite the more adventurous spirit of that first hour, the opening act of Jurassic Park kind of drags until the characters arrive at the park itself. But even once there, Crichton’s screenwriting (despite having written the original novel upon which the movie is based) struggles to compress the extensive genetic science needed to explain how dinosaurs could be cloned and brought back to life. Instead of the many pages of Hammond’s team of scientists delving into just that, the movie shows a childish animation of an anthropomorphic DNA strand and some brief retorts from Dr. Henry Wu (B.D. Wong) to keep the audience from asking any complex questions about how anything that we’re about to see is believable (let alone possible). Aside from the story’s structure, what is easily the weakest element of this movie is the characterization and acting. Despite being a somewhat more enjoyable leading man in the second sequel, I have never really enjoyed Sam Neill’s performance as Dr. Alan Grant here. Not only because his whole subplot about embracing future fatherhood comes off as needless and saccharine, but he also lacks much chemistry with girlfriend and paleobotanist Dr. Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern). Furthermore, both Grant and Sattler’s apparent unwillingness to question anything that Hammond is doing on Isla Nublar until Malcolm repeatedly interrogates the old man comes off as lazy writing of two characters that could have potentially been competent scientists. Instead, they just feel bland in comparison to Goldblum’s or Attenborough’s characters. However, at least Neill and Dern are good actors. Hammond’s grandkids, on the other hand, are (for the most part) completely obnoxious. Ariana Richards’s take on Lexi serves as a fine example of the stereotypical “bad child actor” in films with otherwise solid casts. When it comes to Joseph Mazzello as Tim, he has some good one liners and funny reactions but otherwise just feels like a pointless reason for Grant’s subplot (along with Lexi). If you want to Mazzello acting well, watch the HBO miniseries The Pacific where he plays Sgt. Eugene Sledge. So worth your time. And even the thing that is universally applauded about Jurassic Park—the visual and special effects—are by no means perfect. While some of the dinosaurs hold up superbly well, some of them are downright laughable. From the lackluster green-screen introduction of the herd of Brachiosaurs to the foam toy-looking legs of the Velociraptors in the kitchen scene, the movie’s special effects are certainly not unblemished when examined through modern eyes. I could go on about Jurassic Park, but I’ll leave it at this. If you want a digestible, two-hour movie about dinosaurs, feel free to check it out. But if you want an excellent story about the morality of science and man’s universal struggle against nature and our own place in the food chain, read Crichton’s original novel. And you can also just skip the first two sequels. The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) I have little nice to say about The Lost World. So, let’s get what good things that the movie does offer out of the way before tearing it to shreds. 😊 For starters, the special-effects team did not hold back despite the scenes that their creations were in are far less exhilarating than anything from the first film. Particularly, the two T-rex parents attacking the crew’s mobile home on Isla Sorna shows just how good life-size puppeteering (when integrated with CGI) can look. But easily the best dinosaur scene in the movie is the incredibly thrilling introduction of the Velociraptors that scurry through the tall grass to ambush Ajay (Harvey Jason) and the other surviving mercenaries from InGen. Simply put, it remains one of the best scenes of dinosaur killing in the entire franchise (too bad it’s surrounded by two hours of bad filmmaking). My only other real positive is the one character who not only has an arc but a satisfying one: Roland Tembo (Pete Postlethwaite), the big-game hunter hired by InGen to capture dinosaurs on Isla Sorna. While most of the other characters are surprisingly stupid given their scientific backgrounds, Roland’s familiarity with the behavior of predators in the wild makes him a fitting person to anticipate the dinosaurs’ actions. Furthermore, he seems to not hold much of a grudge against Ian Malcolm and his crew after Nick Van Owen (Vince Vaughn) sabotaged their dinosaur cages and let them all free. Instead, he helps save them from the T-rex parents, works with them to get off the island, and once InGen comes to save them he informs his boss/Hammond’s nephew, Peter Ludlow (Arliss Howard), that he has no interest in continuing to work for him. It would be easy to miss or ignore Roland’s surprisingly well-written role in the story of The Lost World. So, I thought I’d shout it out because it’s one of the only competent aspects of this film. Basically, everything else about this movie is so bad. First off, David Koepp (who co-wrote the screenplay of the original Jurassic Park) seems to have spent a matter of minutes thinking up a justification to convince Ian Malcolm to go to another dinosaur-infested island. Keep in mind that, of the first film’s cast, Malcolm was the MOST skeptical of the safety and security of Isla Nublar. So, how is he cajoled into willingly risking his life knowing about the dinosaurs? Well, Hammond’s company is being taken from him by Ludlow and so Hammond has sent Malcolm’s annoying girlfriend and paleontologist Dr. Sarah Harding (Julianne Moore) to the island to document the creatures in an effort to convince the general public that the best way to handle dinosaurs on Isla Sorna is by leaving them alone. … WHAT?!? According to the first film, Hammond really dislikes Malcolm even before everything on Isla Nublar goes to shit. So, why is he the person that he reaches out to help him with creating a dinosaur nature preserve on this other InGen-owned island? Certainly, Dr. Grant or Dr. Sattler would have at least been more amenable to such a proposition (I guess the studio couldn’t get them back for this sequel?). Furthermore, whatever illness Hammond is suffering at this point in his life has clearly turned his brain to mush for thinking that Malcolm would have any desire to do his bidding. This is beyond hubris or overconfidence, but sheer clinical insanity on his part. Yet, the real reason Malcolm ends up risking everything to go to Isla Sorna is to find Harding and take her off the island. Granted, any decent human being who hadn’t experienced the utter shitshow that was Isla Nublar would probably do the same. But, Malcolm nearly died thanks to Hammond’s experiments (not to mention seeing several others get killed). Thus, if he was anything close to sane I imagine the Malcolm that we knew from Jurassic Park would say: “Well, she was great and all but she’s pretty much dead already. So, let’s not go to that island and avoid ever encountering dinosaurs again.” Of course, if he did not there would be no movie (much to the studio’s disappointment). Fortunately, Malcolm doesn’t go alone. Not only is he accompanied by wildlife photographer Nick and engineer Eddie Carr (Richard Schiff), but his teenage daughter Kelly Curtis (Vanessa Lee Chester) sneaks aboard so that Malcolm is now responsible for her, too. All of this culminates in the entire second act on Isla Sorna being a plot driven by moronic and insane decisions that either get themselves or each other killed. Probably the most blatant example of this is Nick rescuing a baby T-rex and taking it back to their camp to fix its wounded leg. This is beyond ridiculous. If anyone with half a brain saw an injured infant predator in the wild, they would walk away? Why, you ask? Well, what if the baby’s mother or father show up thinking that you’re the one that hurt it and thus are a threat? You would think that a paleontologist would know better and force the wildlife photographer to immediately take the baby T-rex back where he found it. But, if it isn’t clear by now, the characters in The Lost World do not make sane, rational decisions despite their backstories dictating otherwise. So, the second act is a rash of stupid choices leading to a bunch of deaths. What about the third act? Does it bring it home in such a way that makes up for the rest of the film? Far from it: somehow, the movie gets worse!! This is because the last twenty minutes or so cut to San Diego where Ludlow’s crew have brought the baby T-rex and its father to the mainland for their California dinosaur theme park. There is no explanation for how this happened, but somehow all of the human crew on the ship carrying these creatures are killed. Once the boat crashes, the T-rex escapes and stampedes through the city killing several people (and one innocent dog) in the process. How is all of this chaos resolved? Well, Harding (remind you, a paleontologist) uses a tranquilizer gun to sharpshoot from a distance and knock the adult T-rex unconscious…I mean, did anybody read this script and suggest a second or third draft?!? Whatever. The Lost World is a pathetic excuse for a sequel to a movie that many consider a classic. Furthermore, it’s a poor example of Spielberg’s talents as a director on display compared to even his middle-of-the-road movies. Don’t watch it; it’s certainly not worth your time. And you’d think the poor reception to The Lost World would tell the studio that there’s no reason to make another film. But they did, so now let’s talk about Jurassic Park III! ☹ Jurassic Park III (2001) After the absolute dumpster fire that is The Lost World, can it really get worse? In my humble opinion, the second sequel to the original Jurassic Park is actually more watchable and entertaining than its predecessor. That being said, it’s by no means a perfect movie. So, let’s take a look at what makes it enjoyable but what, in my humble opinion, also keeps it from achieving any level of quality seen in the first film of this trilogy. Compared to The Lost World, this movie has a much more streamlined screenplay and storyline. In terms of coming up with an excuse to make another movie in an effort to make some money, having some returning characters from the first movie get wrangled into a desperate rescue mission on Isla Sorna is at least serviceable. I think this works better than Malcolm’s story in the prior film because there are essentially two parts to Jurassic Park’s core identity: the adventurous nature of running from dinosaurs, and the thematic exploration of the consequences of corporate greed and hubris. When The Lost World screws up the latter so much, this movie realized that it could do a little better by focusing almost exclusively on the former. And, in that sense, Jurassic Park III works as a forgettable adventure flick. When it comes to our characters, they are generally more likeable and sympathetic than any of the morons from The Lost World. On the one hand, the return of Dr. Alan Grant and the reason why he ends up going to Isla Sorna does not do nearly as much character assassination as was done to Ian Malcolm before [side note: people tend to exaggerate Grant and the “talking Velociraptor,” but despite its inherent silliness as a visual it not only conforms to the logic of storytelling but is also relevant to Grant’s fascination with these specific dinosaurs conflicting with the trauma that he experienced on Isla Nublar in the first film]. Furthermore, the people who trick Grant into flying to the dinosaur-inhabited island in the first place—middle-class parents and divorcees Paul (William H. Macy) and Amanda (Téa Leoni) Kirby—have more believable motives than Dr. Sarah Harding who presumably knew about the horrors of what happened on Isla Nublar (having heard it from Malcolm) and went to Isla Sorna anyway. These are simple changes to the characterization, but they make enough of a difference so as to improve the film’s overall quality compared to what came before it. Related to this, I found this movie’s inclusion of a child character to be much less annoying than either of the previous films. Whereas Tim and Lex from Jurassic Park are mostly frustrating for having somehow survived and Kelly from The Lost World just felt shoehorned into the plot, Eric Kirby (Trevor Morgan) is at least a competent survivor whose circumstances for being on the island were largely out of his control. Aside from just the screenplay, though, just the decision to keep the movie’s runtime short (barely over 90 minutes) helps the entertainment factor here so much when compared to the two-hour-plus runtime of The Lost World. And, unsurprisingly, the film’s special effects bringing the dinosaurs to life are (mostly) on point. The Pteranodon attack is probably the standout scene for most viewers, although I appreciate how much the pack-hunting instincts and intelligence of the Velociraptors is showcased here. Not only does it feed into Grant’s continued fascination with these particular dinosaurs, but seeing them communicate with each other in an effort to hunt down the humans trespassing on their home makes them more menacing than virtually any other dinosaur in the franchise. In all fairness, however, Jurassic Park III is certainly not a perfect movie. As it’s a part of this particular film series, it simply cannot avoid some of the pitfalls and trappings of the fictional world in which it exists. Unfortunately, the problems on display are evident from the get-go with the story’s pacing and structure. First off, why would Amanda allow her son to go parasailing with her boyfriend Ben (Mark Harelik) around a well-documented nature preserve inhabited by man-eating dinosaurs? Maybe I missed something on this most recent viewing, but there was never really an explanation from Amanda or Eric as to why this happened. Thus, the catalyst for the entire plot of this movie feels just as idiotic as the inciting events from The Lost World. Speaking of Amanda, I found Téa Leoni’s performance in this movie laughably awful (particularly the excessive screaming upon discovering Ben’s corpse hanging from a tree). Apparently, she was not nominated for a Razzie Award that year but she certainly should have been. Especially when in scenes with Macy and Neill who are pretty good actors, Leoni just makes a fool of herself by bringing nothing even close to nuance or complexity to this grieving mother whose greatest fear is to find her son’s body because of her own incompetence as a parent. When it comes to the dinosaurs at the forefront of Jurassic Park III, the undeniable weakest link is the Spinosaurus. Not only does the CGI used to bring this new big bad to life not hold up (mind you, seven years after the original Jurassic Park came out), but its opening fight with the T-rex and final scene in the lake are just lame in light of some of the other dinosaur-on-dinosaur action that we’ve gotten in this franchise before. Maybe there is a dinosaur out there that could take the place of the T-rex as the primary antagonist, but the Spinosaurus doesn’t fit the bill. And, of course, I can’t point out the flaws of this movie without addressing the astonishingly rushed and abrupt conclusion. Whereas I found Dr. Grant’s inclusion in this story as a decent opportunity for him to be a leading man in this franchise again, Laura Dern’s cameo appearance as Dr. Ellie Sattler feels so obviously shoehorned in just as a mechanism by which to save Grant and the others after their plane crashes on Isla Sorna. Despite the fact that multiple characters let us know that the U.S. or Costa Rican government will absolutely offer no aid to them, somehow Dr. Sattler has enough credibility with the U.S. Armed Forces that she is able to convince a sizeable detachment of the Navy and Marines to travel to Isla Sorna only because she hears Grant say the word “river” over the phone. How the hell does she piece together that he’s on Isla Sorna, but also the specific part of this island where this river he’s at is? All of this is to say that Jurassic Park III is not good. But it’s short, mindless entertainment that feels like a solid entry in the franchise when put up against The Lost World. Of course, neither of them holds a candle to the original Jurassic Park movie despite my issues with that film. At the end of the day, how will I remember the original Jurassic Park trilogy? Honestly, I won’t. Despite the first movie being pretty good, the two sequels are largely forgettable (albeit for different reasons) and provide no good reason to justify any more films in the series being made. Alas, there is a whole other trilogy to discuss which will be the subject of the second half of this blog. For now, though, we leave these three movies where they lie as nothing close to resembling a cohesive, three-part story but rather an example of “lighting in a bottle” with diminishing returns. Which of the Jurassic Park sequels is worse? Is Spielberg’s original movie from 1993 indeed a masterpiece or perhaps a bit overrated? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Austin McManusI have no academic or professional background in film production or criticism; I simply love watching and talking about movies. Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|