A DVD REVIEW: JURASSIC PARK III - COLLECTOR'S EDITION (Universal)

[Lexmark3200]

I was NEVER a fan of this franchise past the first original film, which I thought was one of Steven Spielberg's greatest moments, and would go as far to say as one of the best motion pictures ever made because of what it INTRODUCED us to and the way in which it was crafted; the original Jurassic Park has indeed over the years become a classic, not to mention the first theatrical release to utilize the DTS encoding system.

To me, there are some films that just have no right to be touched in terms of "sequeling" them --- The Exorcist, Jaws, and Jurassic Park instantly come to mind for me here; but, as always happens because of DOLLAR SIGNS, a sequel --- and many times multiple sequels to make a franchise --- come into a director's head, and in the case of Spielberg, he saw an opportunity to continue the Jurassic Legacy; while I didnt care too much for the second installment of the series, dubbed The Lost World, I went ahead and bought Jurassic Park III today after it was suggested by someone in another "demo discs" thread I started in the home theater forum that the DTS mix on this third installment of the series was simply house-breaking.....and he was right.

But before I get to that, I must say some things about the original Steven Spielberg dinosaur adventure. What made the first Jurassic Park so monumental was that fact that it was subject matter that was never dealt with before --- the POSSIBILITY that prehistoric DNA could be reformatted to re-create prehistoric animals in the present time; of course, based on Michael Chriton's novel, Spielberg's Jurassic Park had a great deal of scientific input loaded into it, but what makes that first film so special are moments like when Sam Neil and the other group of scientists and mathematicians, etc, pull up in those jeeps in the beginning and they look up and see the Brontos in the trees, with the Jurassic Park score in the background while the roar and bellows of the dinosaurs fill the soundstage; when we all saw this in the theater, we were all sitting there with our mouths open going "wow.....they created DINOSAURS on this island....." and you know YOU did too when watching it.....THATS what made the magic of Jurassic Park.

Once Spielberg had dinosaurs running around San Diego at the end of The Lost World, I knew this franchise had no chance and that the first film was going to immediately become a legend in cinema, which it has. But this third installment, running at (thank god) a brisk 1 hour 33 minute length, wasnt quite as bad as the second film ---- but it was bad because simply NOTHING can top the first, no matter what they try --- and I am talking in terms of character developments, plot timelines, pacing, everything. What Jurassic Park III does very successfully is up the edge-of-your-seat dinosaur chasing excitement, much of which we had to wait for in the original. This third film starts off with a bang, and keeps going and we are treated to many dinosaur chases and battles, much like the recently released Star Wars: Episode III, which lets loose the action very early on, and just doesnt let go.

In this third (and possibly not the last --- Spielberg is considering a fourth chapter) installement in this franchise, Sam Neil returns as Alan Grant, dinosaur expert, who is tricked and lured in by William H. Macy and his (we are not told) ex-wife (Tea Leoni) --- both odd choices for a Jurassic Park film because they are just both terrible actors --- a wealthy adventurous couple who cook up a story about wanting to see Isla Sorna, the first experimental island the InGen corporation was using to breed the Jurassic Park dinosaurs, and they want Grant's help in just "visiting" the island ---- but the real reason the couple is there is to rescue their son, who went down on the island in a parasailing accident early in the film with Leoni's new ******* boyfriend. Once again trapped on this island, because of a raptor attack after the plane lands, Neil and this group is faced with a smarter, stronger and faster breed of dinosaurs this time around. Actually, a few different breeds; it seems this was the island John Hammond --- the man who wanted to open Isla Nubar, a neighboring island, as "Jurassic Park" --- was secretly using to develop many different species of dinosaurs --- not just T-Rexes and raptors. And so, in Jurassic Park III we have underwater dinosaurs, flying dinosaurs, and very smart versions of raptors who sense that their eggs have been stolen by one of the guys with Macy and Leoni's group. The film moves at a brisk pace, as I said, and before you know it, you're at the end --- the way a GOOD action flick SHOULD move; the entire film is based on Neil trying to find Leoni and Macy's son on this island, which he does, and trying to survive the many dinosaur attacks, which this time come from the air and the sea, not just the land.

And again, we have brilliant CGI master Stan Winston of ILM to thank for the wild, outrageously real dinosaur creature effects for this third installment.

There is no information at this time whether or not a fourth Jurassic Park is in the works, but there have been rumors that Spielberg is interested, for whatever reason......

But the audio and video on this DVD is alone enough to warrant the purchase because both are DOWNRIGHT reference grade --- I picked this up for $9.99 at Best Buy today and it has become my current demo disc --- THAT instantly. Let me explain:

VIDEO SPECIFICATIONS:
DUAL LAYER 1:85:1 ANAMORPHIC WIDESCREEN TRANSFER

An absolutely flawless widescreen transfer, which, at 1:85:1, filled my entire 16X9 screen with no letterboxing, from Universal, not suprising for a film that debuted in 2001; the print is flawless --- no grain, no noise.....just a smooth overall look that just....well.....LOOKS like DVD should......there are some moments in the film stock that look a bit "smoky" but I think this was intentional on director Joe Johnston's behalf (taking over the directing duties from Spielberg, but with Spielberg overseeing the entire project). Most of Jurassic Park III takes place in the jungle, like the first film, so the lush greens of the leaves and trees are rendered quite smoothly here. But it's the SOUND that MAKES this DVD.....

AUDIO SPECIFICATIONS:
ENGLISH DOLBY DIGITAL 5.1 SURROUND, ENGLISH DTS 5.1 SURROUND, ENGLISH CAPTIONS, SUBTITLES IN SPANISH

Wow. That's all I can say after running this DVD's DTS track. Well, HOLY **** was more like it. THIS is reference quality audio, folks, and where I thought the mighty thumping footsteps of the T-Rex in the first film shook my system, you GOTTA experience the bass in this film.....crank it up and hold on. Any time there is a large dinosaur on the screen, your subwoofer will get a workout, as the entire audio spectrum here is loud, aggresive and downright spine-tingling......listen as the raptors and other creatures let out their loud bellows and shrieks; this will wake your neighbors if your system is up high enough. Plenty of surround usage, as the tails of the dinosaurs whip around the back channels in a startling way; the whole soundstage on this DTS mix is alive and like I said LOUD and AGGRESSIVE, perhaps moreso than most other discs in my collection or that I have ever heard. A GREAT sound mix by Universal here. But the LFE is most memorable ---- aside from Jan De Bont's remake of The Haunting on DreamWorks' Signature Series DTS ES DVD --- I have never experienced so much low end in a film in home video. The bass does not drop down as low as it does on The Haunting DVD, but my entire room was shaking when the dinosaurs were onscreen......VERY impressive DTS mix from Universal for a so-so Jurassic Park installment.

This COLLECTOR'S EDITION was packed with extra features, and again kudos to Universal for cramming (which would normally sacrifice quality a bit) such a good video transfer AND kick ass DTS mix on ONE DISC with all these extras:

-The Making of Jurassic Park III
-Feature Commentary with Special Effects Team
-The New Dinosaurs of Jurassic Park III
-Tour of Stan Winston Studio
-A Visit to ILM: Witness 30 Different Stages in an Exclusive Rare Step-by-Step Look at the Computer Graphics Created by ILM
-Dinosaur Turntables: A Spectacular Three Dimensional Look at the 12 Dinosaurs Created for the Film
-Behind the Scenes
-Storyboards to Final Feature Comparison
-The Jurassic Park III archives
-Theatrical Trailers
-Montana: Finding New Dinosaurs: A Special Visit to Paleontologist Jack Horner's Dinosaur Dig with Never-Before-Seen Footage
-DVD ROM Features Including Jurassic Park III Dino Defender and Danger Zone! Game Demos

[GMichael]

Everything you said is 100% correct. It's not the drama masterpiece that JP 1 was. But it cranked up the excitement facter in a way that I haven't seen done sinse Alien was followed by Aliens. Although it did bring out an emotional response from me when the T-Rex was defeted early in the movie. I so expected T-Rex to kick some major a** butt, and I was in shock to see him go down for the count.
The one point that did erk me was when this hugh finned beast snuck up on everyone in the sceen where the boy and family were reunited. How could something that was shaking my windows in all the other sceens manage to make no sound at all? The sat phone in his belly was all you could hear. (take off on the gator with the clock in his belly from Peter Pan I guess) And how did the others facing in his dirrection not see this 4 story baby coming at them. But I get over it fast as they all run for their lives.

Anyway, another grate review Lex. Always detailed, informative, organized and well written. I look back when I'm done and say to myself, "self, you read all that?! But it only took a few seconds." Very enjoyable.

[RGA]

The first film was good entertainment despite some astoundingly atrocious dialog and idiotic plot turns for the sake of peddling the action. Still recommended and entertaining purely on the visual stimulous. A Classic is a word too often used and this film isn't classic material in my view because it rests so stroingly on the special effects that in 20 years when the effects are surpassed all it will have to rely on is the story and the characters...and they are not strong points for this film...that is the BIG difference between this film and Jaws where the monster is not relied upon to carry the story but what the monster serves to convey to the people in the story.

The follow-ups to Jurassic Park to me were dreadful...though the second film had a few chuckles when the Dino went to the city for some lunch. The third one to me was an utter disaster with uninspired visuals -- the effects become ho-hum becuase they are no longer fresh and because the film still has banal dialogue i began hoping the Dino's would just eat the heros so I could get the hell out of the theater.

JP *** / *****
JP2 ** / *****
JP 3 *1/2 / *****

The way the ratings are going I hope there is no JP 4. Spielberg has too much talent to be doing this kid stuff. And the kid stuff he used to do was so much more inspired.

[Lexmark3200]

"Anyway, another grate review Lex. Always detailed, informative, organized and well written. I look back when I'm done and say to myself, "self, you read all that?! But it only took a few seconds." Very enjoyable."

Thanks a million, man.....this means so much to me when people reply in kind after I write these.....and thanks for the recommendation on the DVD! You were right! WHAT A LOAD OF BASS this DTS track has!!!!

P.S. I thought the ringing of the phone in the belly was kinda cool, but you were right ---- where was the bass???

[Lexmark3200]

"The first film was good entertainment despite some astoundingly atrocious dialog and idiotic plot turns for the sake of peddling the action. Still recommended and entertaining purely on the visual stimulous. A Classic is a word too often used and this film isn't classic material in my view because it rests so stroingly on the special effects that in 20 years when the effects are surpassed all it will have to rely on is the story and the characters...and they are not strong points for this film...that is the BIG difference between this film and Jaws where the monster is not relied upon to carry the story but what the monster serves to convey to the people in the story."

Well, there are MANY who I know of that DO consider the original Park a Classic by now because of Spielberg and Chriton's VISION ---- when those Brontos are eating out of the trees in the first scene we get to see dinosaurs in, to me, was moviemaking MAGIC. That scene WOWED me in the theater, and still does on DVD. Sure, effects have surpassed this film since its release, but the creature effects by Winston and ILM are STILL great looking to this day in my opinion; I have always felt that the first Jurassic Park stands on its own as a piece of Spielberg magic, much like ET, Close Encounters or even Saving Private Ryan......not getting into technicals here, its just my opinion that this film was just as landmarking.

"The follow-ups to Jurassic Park to me were dreadful...though the second film had a few chuckles when the Dino went to the city for some lunch."

Agreed; this one was ridiculous; I mean, I KNEW Spielberg couldnt resist EVENTUALLY putting the dinos in a city and have them stomping around; this was ridiculous, and the "franchise" should have ended with the FIRST ONE --- but I have argued the SAME thing about The Exorcist, Jaws, yadda yadda yadda......

"The third one to me was an utter disaster with uninspired visuals -- the effects become ho-hum becuase they are no longer fresh and because the film still has banal dialogue i began hoping the Dino's would just eat the heros so I could get the hell out of the theater."

It was a pretty shallow third installment, as my review indicated, and it comes and goes and ends before you know it, thank God like I said, but the creature effects here I thought were inspired rather than uninspired and the DTS track on the DVD is worth suffering through this motion picture alone------if you have a subwoofer, trust me, buy this disc and crank it up.


"The way the ratings are going I hope there is no JP 4. Spielberg has too much talent to be doing this kid stuff. And the kid stuff he used to do was so much more inspired."

Like I indicated, inside sources I know at Home Theater and DVD ETC magazine tell me he is considering a fourth "Park" film, but no one thinks its gonna happen.

[RGA]

The reviews are good by the way -- just a difference of opinion on the films themselves.

I bought the return of the Living Dead film yesterday and it was better than I remembered. The featurette was totally uninteresting but for $9.00Cad you can't go wrong.

What's with the lack of an insert? I hate that.

[Lexmark3200]

The reviews are good by the way -- just a difference of opinion on the films themselves.

I bought the return of the Living Dead film yesterday and it was better than I remembered. The featurette was totally uninteresting but for $9.00Cad you can't go wrong.

What's with the lack of an insert? I hate that.

Thanks for the kind words; yeah, we do seem to differ in our opinions and tastes in films greatly; but yeah, I cannot TELL YOU how many DVDs come across my desk or home theater room WITH NO INSERTS whatsoever for chapeter listings or ANYTHING.....I dont know what thats about.....but like you said, for nine bucks, RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD is worth having on DVD!! The studios are getting cheaper and cheaper with their product unless they release some Ultra-Edition four-disc super version of a DVD....

[RGA]

I personally don't think it is worth buying a dvd JUST for the sound or visuals to impress firends to show them some pyrotechnic the sub is capable of...but that;sjust me. I was guilty of that with cd when i was young.

Surely there are some tryuly good movies that have impressive sound effects and visuals to show off but also be a good movie?? Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List (the latter would certainly be musically exceptional) as it's William's most adult score).

[Lexmark3200]

I personally don't think it is worth buying a dvd JUST for the sound or visuals to impress firends to show them some pyrotechnic the sub is capable of...but that;sjust me. I was guilty of that with cd when i was young.

Surely there are some tryuly good movies that have impressive sound effects and visuals to show off but also be a good movie?? Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List (the latter would certainly be musically exceptional) as it's William's most adult score).

Well, I gotta tell ya, there are alot of people guilty of buying bad cinema for the picture and sound quality on DVD --- me included, which I did with PEARL HARBOR. For the most part, its NOT worth buying the discs if the films arent good, but I get suckered into this sometimes. But, you must also understand, in the OBSESSIVE world of home theater, where I have been a witness to, believe me, some people will show a film to family members or friends just to blow them through the back wall because of the sound effects on the disc --- BUT, for the most part, people sit down in a home theater to ENJOY a GOOD motion picture, not a HORRIBLE one.

And sure, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN is a fabulous film as well as exhibits a world-class DTS track, hands down. One of the best on the market, in fact.

[Lexmark3200]

"despite some astoundingly atrocious dialog"

I actually thought the dialogue between Jeff Goldblum and his sarcastic mathematician character in the first film and everyone else in the cast was LIGHT YEARS ahead of the dialogue that plagued the sequels.....I mean, William H. Macy and Tea Leoni were just COMPLETELY and UTTERLY WRONG for a Jurassic Park sequel; Sam Neil remaining onboard was fine.

[Kam]

[QUOTE=Lexmark3200
Like I indicated, inside sources I know at Home Theater and DVD ETC magazine tell me he is considering a fourth "Park" film, but no one thinks its gonna happen.[/QUOTE]


Actually it's been greenlighted and currently in pre-production. The Dreamworks magic crew is all on the executive production side (Kennedy/ Marshal/ Spielberg), the cinematographer from the original JP is logged on (Not Janusz, another dude), but no director is attached yet. Spielberg is rumored to return to the helm as director, Joe Johnston did part III (of Jumanji and Hidalgo fame) but written by the guy who wrote Kingdom of Heaven, at least the currently greenlighted draft that's in preproduction. No one else is onboard yet, so... it can definitely still tank as is often the case. Spielberg has the Munich games movie in production now (with Eric Bana), an abraham lincoln project greenlighted next (currently with Liam Neeson playing lincoln), and then IJ4 is supposedly next in production in mid to late 2006, BUT... that's been in preproduction hell for a while, still praying they get their act together and make it.

that's the latest scoop from my sources!!
peace
k2

[Lexmark3200]

"Actually it's been greenlighted and currently in pre-production. The Dreamworks magic crew is all on the executive production side (Kennedy/ Marshal/ Spielberg), the cinematographer from the original JP is logged on (Not Janusz, another dude), but no director is attached yet. Spielberg is rumored to return to the helm as director, Joe Johnston did part III (of Jumanji and Hidalgo fame) but written by the guy who wrote Kingdom of Heaven, at least the currently greenlighted draft that's in preproduction. No one else is onboard yet, so... it can definitely still tank as is often the case. Spielberg has the Munich games movie in production now (with Eric Bana), an abraham lincoln project greenlighted next (currently with Liam Neeson playing lincoln), and then IJ4 is supposedly next in production in mid to late 2006, BUT... that's been in preproduction hell for a while, still praying they get their act together and make it"

Interesting information, k2.......I'll have to check with some of the fellas over at these magazines that I know again, but most of these guys dont get info on what has been greenlighted into preproduction; they mainly get DVD release info marketing-wise, and they just dropped me an e mail after I had this review I just wrote for you pre-viewed by them, that a Part 4 may have been in the works....

Thanks for the confirmation from a non-DVD standpoint.......

Oh and by the way, with regard to this:

"Spielberg is rumored to return to the helm as director, Joe Johnston did part III"

I was aware that Johnston did III, as I indicated in the review; but is this going to be a DREAMWORKS release or another Jurassic Park Universal/Amblin project once again?

[GMichael]

Hi RGA,

I guess that everyone has different tastes. I enjoyed JP 1 & 3 very much. 2 not so much. Maybe for the same reasons as Lex. I loved the base and dino looked better than ever. Number 3 was full of action. 1 will alway be a clasic in my book. Even if my book is written in krayon. But some people are more into the talking part of a movie. You know, plot, story line, making me think. Not my style. I do too much thinking all day at work as it is.

As far as buying a DVD for the sound? I find myself watching some TV shows because I am amazed at the sound. Things I used to switch off in a NY second end up being on for an hour or more now that I have a surround system.

But it's nice to be able to desagree, without some of the arguing I see others do on some threads.

Have a great night.

[Lexmark3200]

"1 will alway be a clasic in my book. Even if my book is written in krayon"

Absolutely agreed. The first Jurassic Park --- and I just watched the beginning for a few minutes again ---- is simply a Spielberg Classic, in MY opinion, worthy of Jaws notiriety. That is the FIRST one we're talking about --- not the sequels. The scene where the jeeps pull up and Dern and Neil first see the dinosaurs walking around, eating from the trees, and then their MASSIVE foostep that resonates with TONS of LFE when they stomp down from the tree....man.....this scene ALWAYS gives me goosebumps, especially after the John Hammond character says:

"Doctor Grant.....my dear Doctor Sadler.......welcome to Jurassic Park......"

[RGA]

I liked the first film and recommend it so I want to be clear. Don't take my *** / ***** negatively as this would be a thumbs up. Less than 20 movies I have given 5 stars to. i think it's a testament to Spielberg that in a year when people consider Jurassic Park to be a classic I don;t even think it was his best movie THAT year. Spielberg took home the oscar on one film and took in over a billion dollars on at that time the highest grossing film ever.

My main problem with Jurassic Park is that it doesn't know what it wanted to be. All out thriller like Jaws - or kids theme park ride(indeed the plot is on this as well). The film has a fascinating book to follow which it should have followed and there are some funny one liners thanks to the Golldbloom character. The effects are wonderful.

But there are just some scenes that are too forced and fake. Right after escaping the T-Rex Sam Neil and kids are faced with BrontoSaurus...the kids are no longer scared (c'mon) and pat the thing on the head and get sneezed on for a laugh. Whcih is it going to be Mr. Spielberg? Heart pounding Jaws, or let's play with the fun dinosaurs. these and other scenes are jarring to me because it begins to lose credability and this is a real big shame because the effects are so good that Spielberg could really build a world where we suspend our disbelief. But then he stupids it up and tacks on lines like they're vegisaurus so they're firendly.

This film in some respects would have been better served with taking the following tracks:

take the T-ReX perspective as in Jaws don't show the dinosaurs for over half the film ala Jaws to create fear. Less characters and make the film scary with real tension not alleved in dumb kid talk. There isn't a single believable character in this film but cardboard cutouts and the problem gets worse in the next two films.

I still liked the film as presented and it is far and away the best of the three. Ebert I once again fully agree with which is not nearly the case a lot of the time -- but here he is IMO bang on the money. http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...306110302/1023

[Lexmark3200]

"I liked the first film and recommend it so I want to be clear. Don't take my *** / ***** negatively as this would be a thumbs up. Less than 20 movies I have given 5 stars to. i think it's a testament to Spielberg that in a year when people consider Jurassic Park to be a classic I don;t even think it was his best movie THAT year. Spielberg took home the oscar on one film and took in over a billion dollars on at that time the highest grossing film ever."

Well, people DO consider this first one a cinematic achievement AND a classic, and in MY own opinion, this was just as good an effort as his Jaws; you may not agree, but some, like me, who actually STUDIED film at New York's Adelphi University, believe it to legendary for what it was trying to do.....like I keep saying, all it takes is that shot when they arrive on Islar Nubar and the jeeps stop and we see the Brontos eating out of the trees ---- I remember the "wow" factor sweeping across the audience in the theater when this scene transcended.....it was spine tingling. I dont think it was Sir Steven's BEST film, by far, but it is one of his most looked-upon cinematic achievements in terms of his career I believe; to compare this concept to the likes of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN wouldnt even be fair.

"My main problem with Jurassic Park is that it doesn't know what it wanted to be. All out thriller like Jaws - or kids theme park ride(indeed the plot is on this as well). The film has a fascinating book to follow which it should have followed and there are some funny one liners thanks to the Golldbloom character. The effects are wonderful."

It was intending to suggest that fooling with mother nature and bringing back a species that were selected by nature for extinction SHOULDNT have been even attempted because like Goldblum's character says "Nature finds a way"........the novel version by Michael Chriton, which I have read several times, is BRILLIANT but I dont think Amblin Entertainment left out too much of his novel-to-screen adaptation; Hammond WANTED Jurassic Park to be a theme park, yes, but the point of the film is that they somehow ENGINEERED DINOSAURS from prehistoric DNA caught in the fosilized amber and mosquitoes that bit dinosaurs; this is a fascinating concept enough and is what continuously holds my attention every time that disc spins in my player. Did you know that after Jurassic Park debuted, there were news reports claiming that the technology depicted in the film actually EXISTS on a certain level --- that scientists CAN tap into DNA material perhaps that old?

"But there are just some scenes that are too forced and fake. Right after escaping the T-Rex Sam Neil and kids are faced with BrontoSaurus...the kids are no longer scared (c'mon) and pat the thing on the head and get sneezed on for a laugh. Whcih is it going to be Mr. Spielberg? Heart pounding Jaws, or let's play with the fun dinosaurs. these and other scenes are jarring to me because it begins to lose credability and this is a real big shame because the effects are so good that Spielberg could really build a world where we suspend our disbelief. But then he stupids it up and tacks on lines like they're vegisaurus so they're firendly."

To rip apart a motion picture frame by frame is the easiest thing in the world to do --- I can do this to COUNTLESS utter COUNTLESS titles that have been released. Sure, Jaws seemed to be a more serious approach by Sir Steven, but that doesnt mean that Jurassic Park DIDNT succeed on what it was supposed to do --- convince people that science could somehow (perhaps not in real life, if those news reports werent true, but according to Chriton's screenplay assistance) engineer artificially life from a totally different point in time. Imagine man and dinosaur coming face to face after DECADES of separating forces involved in the evolution process; this is what made the first "Park" so thought provoking. I think he DID in fact build a world where we didnt even HAVE to suspend our disbelief --- I WAS believing that T Rex was really eating those tires on the upside down truck like Entemman's donuts when I watched the film ---- to me, its suspending disbelief a bit, because we KNOW we are watching ILM in action, BUT, can you imagine really being there in that situation? A real life T Rex staring you down and trying to outrun it? I think he did a brilliant job in the thrills and chills department.

"take the T-ReX perspective as in Jaws don't show the dinosaurs for over half the film ala Jaws to create fear."

Didnt he do this? We dont see the T Rex until when?

"Less characters and make the film scary with real tension not alleved in dumb kid talk. There isn't a single believable character in this film but cardboard cutouts and the problem gets worse in the next two films."

Agreed about the next two films, which WERE bombs (save for that DTS track on Part III --- wow) but the kid talk you speak of had a point; Alan Grant didnt like kids, and so kids were shoved in his face as a backdrop to the story; I think this film WAS scary WITH real tension. And sure there are believable characters; so much more so than the OTHER two Park sequels, thats for sure; you didnt think the Hammond character was believable? You didnt think the conversations between Goldblum and the Hammond character were memorable? Ian Malcom: "Yeah, John, your scientists were so excited that they could, they forgot to think if they should....." and when he says, quite coyly, "All Im saying is......nature finds a way....."

"I still liked the film as presented and it is far and away the best of the three. Ebert I once again fully agree with which is not nearly the case a lot of the time -- but here he is IMO bang on the money"

I dont know; people make him the be-all end-all of cinema reviewers when much of the time, his opinions on most forms of cinema, in MY opinion and in many opinions of people I graduated film school with, are completely off the wall in certain regards. I dont put much stock in his views; its just a view, like anyone else's.

[RGA]

First Ebert is the only film reviewer to win the Pulitzer -- he teaches film school not just studies at a film school. I don't think there is a film critic out there that knows film any better -- that does not mean I will agree with him everytime but he usually makes a good case for his opinion.

Until coming here I have never met anyone that considers JP a classic. A wonderful technical achievement yes, incredibly realistic dynosaurs yes -- but a "classic." It depends on how one views the term classic. The grand idea of tampering with mother nature is not new, and it certainly wasn't Spielberg who thought it up...and they never really get into this theme SERIOUSLY, a few little one line warnings from Goldblum is hardly deep.

This is a paper thin story with largely idiotic and/or one dimensional characters thrown into a great special effects monster movie. It's not considered by most critics to be a GREAT film let alone a classic. Spielberg's other films to entertain kids and adults, Jaws, E.T., Raiders, are far superior films for the simple reason that they are not so incredibly stupid. JP is precisely why a loyt of snob critics don;t take Spielberg seriously. Luckily for him that Schindler's List is his great equalizer which will stand with any other film in history in virtually any film category. It won 7 academy awards and IMO it got robbed of 4 others and robbed of two other nominations that it should have received and didn't get.

I think Classic is a personal choice anyway -- if JP is a classic to you and you like it better than Jaws that's fine by me...but that is hardly the case for everyone and I'm betting most people. Indeed, many people only feel a film like Jaws is a classic because it set the summer blockbuster standard and changed the future of the film industry for better or worse...and then there's the whole group of Spielberg-haters who seek out anything they can to criticise him.

JP is a good movie -- but it's ONLY a good movie because of the visual special effects. Remove the impressive visuals and you are left with a mess.

[Lexmark3200]

"First Ebert is the only film reviewer to win the Pulitzer -- he teaches film school not just studies at a film school. I don't think there is a film critic out there that knows film any better -- that does not mean I will agree with him everytime but he usually makes a good case for his opinion."

That doesnt really impress me all that much anymore than when you said it before; the folks I graduated with from Adelphi University's film department in fact always agreed with me that his word shouldnt be the be-all end-all of cinema; most of views, to me, and like I said, MANY others, are quite skewed in fact.

"Until coming here I have never met anyone that considers JP a classic. A wonderful technical achievement yes, incredibly realistic dynosaurs yes -- but a "classic." It depends on how one views the term classic. The grand idea of tampering with mother nature is not new, and it certainly wasn't Spielberg who thought it up...and they never really get into this theme SERIOUSLY, a few little one line warnings from Goldblum is hardly deep."

The word CLASSIC is being a bit fogged-over here; Jurassic Park, by no means, is no way in the league of CASABLANCA or GONE WITH THE WIND.....I think all that is being suggested here is that along the lines of Sir Steven's JAWS, the film is monumental for other reasons; the word "classic" is being thrown around based on others' perception of that word....I consider it a classic of sorts for different personal taste reasons, you may not. Thats okay. But Im not suggesting it is in the league of the aforementioned films.

I never suggested Spielberg thought up the concept of genetic tampering to tap into prehistoric DNA; that was actually Michael Chriton's vision he based that off of, and I am sure it has been delved into before. But they did a fine job in the motion picture of suggesting that DINOSAURS WERE SELECTED --- BY NATURE ITSELF --- FOR EXTINCTION, aside from Goldblum's remarks; there was a theme running here through the film suggesting that we as humans just should NOT have tampered with this subject material --- it was even outlined in a news story which debuted on NBC after the film's theatrical success.

"This is a paper thin story with largely idiotic and/or one dimensional characters thrown into a great special effects monster movie. It's not considered by most critics to be a GREAT film let alone a classic. Spielberg's other films to entertain kids and adults, Jaws, E.T., Raiders, are far superior films for the simple reason that they are not so incredibly stupid. JP is precisely why a loyt of snob critics don;t take Spielberg seriously. Luckily for him that Schindler's List is his great equalizer which will stand with any other film in history in virtually any film category. It won 7 academy awards and IMO it got robbed of 4 others and robbed of two other nominations that it should have received and didn't get."

Okay; I COMPLETELY DISAGREE for completely different reasons that cant even be chronicled in the length of bandwidth space we are allowed here. This was by NO MEANS a paper thin story with idiotic characters----AT ALL. And there are many who share this opinion, whether you choose to believe that or not. Snob critics shouldnt even have a job, in my opinion, have the nerve to comment on a director like Spielberg. Schindler's List was a monumental film, no doubt about that.

"I think Classic is a personal choice anyway -- if JP is a classic to you and you like it better than Jaws that's fine by me...but that is hardly the case for everyone and I'm betting most people. Indeed, many people only feel a film like Jaws is a classic because it set the summer blockbuster standard and changed the future of the film industry for better or worse...and then there's the whole group of Spielberg-haters who seek out anything they can to criticise him."

I never ever believed or said that Jurassic Park is "better" than Jaws----in fact, I feel Jaws IS better than Jurassic Park-----the dialogue between Shaw, Sheider and Dreyfuss on the Orca is TIMELESS and ABSOLUTELY CLASSIC and CANNOT BE COMPARED to the dialogue in Jurassic Park; I enjoyed Jaws better and I think its a better film overall, BUT, I think Jurassic Park is still up in the same kind of "Spielberg Visionary" award category.

"JP is a good movie -- but it's ONLY a good movie because of the visual special effects. Remove the impressive visuals and you are left with a mess."

Okay; again, I disagree. I felt it was a good film for different reasons. It made us consider what tampering with mother nature may just do to us.

[RGA]

Here si why Jaws is loved and you say it yourself -- the most memorable and often referred to scene is what? The scene on the boat where Shaw talks about his experience in the past. There are other memorable scenes as well.

Jurassic park has NONE of this. I saw the film three times in theaters -- memorable scene is a special effects scene --- I don't care about a single character because none of them were humanly written. IMO it's simply a good movie -- not a great one.

[Lexmark3200]

"Here si why Jaws is loved and you say it yourself -- the most memorable and often referred to scene is what? The scene on the boat where Shaw talks about his experience in the past. There are other memorable scenes as well."

Of course; this is NOT disputed in ANY way; a BRILLIANT piece of cinema ---- just that ONE scene.

"Jurassic park has NONE of this."

Perhaps, but again, its not timeless in the way Jaws is --- I just believe it was monumental moviemaking for other reasons.

"I saw the film three times in theaters -- memorable scene is a special effects scene --- I don't care about a single character because none of them were humanly written. IMO it's simply a good movie -- not a great one."

Thats your opinion, and you are absolutely entitled to it......I dont think the original Jurassic Park, again, is in the leauge of SUPERB CINEMA like those aforementioned titles I listed, but I do think it was AS MONUMENTAL as a PHENOMENON as Jaws was when we're talking about Spielberg; on my DVD shelf, I look at the side bands of the Jaws Anniversary Edition and Jurassic Park Collectors Edition DVDs in the same way --- I say to myself "VERY VERY good films here.....Spielberg classics...."

[RGA]

I guess it's the word classic. To be a classic it has to be timeless. That is why I get into debates with many snob critics about Jaws...it is timeless because it has alread stood 30 years. JP in ten years will be that dinosaur movie with ok special effects and a stupid story and likely will never be shown at the late night movies on re-release. Jaws lasts because of the story -- no film built on special effects alone will last because the effects are surpassed yearly. It has to have other ingredients to last 30 years and IMO JP is a slick monster movie and nothing other than a slick monster movie. It could have been so much more.

[Lexmark3200]

"JP in ten years will be that dinosaur movie with ok special effects and a stupid story and likely will never be shown at the late night movies on re-release."

It wasnt a stupid story and I feel it may get re-release screen time.

"Jaws lasts because of the story -- no film built on special effects alone will last because the effects are surpassed yearly. It has to have other ingredients to last 30 years and IMO JP is a slick monster movie and nothing other than a slick monster movie. It could have been so much more."

It WAS so much more. You have to use your mind to tap into Chriton's screenplay.

[bjornb17]

JP *** / *****
JP2 ** / *****
JP 3 *1/2 / *****

So i guess you could say that the rating of the jurassic park movies is inversely proportional to which installment it is in the series. Following your trend, a JP 4 would have a rating of less than 1. ouch!

I havent seen the second two movies, but i really liked the first. As usual, Lexmark, your review is well written. Keep up the good work

[Lexmark3200]

"As usual, Lexmark, your review is well written. Keep up the good work"

Thank you SO much for the kind words!

[RGA]

So i guess you could say that the rating of the jurassic park movies is inversely proportional to which installment it is in the series. Following your trend, a JP 4 would have a rating of less than 1. ouch!

I havent seen the second two movies, but i really liked the first. As usual, Lexmark, your review is well written. Keep up the good work

It's rare that a sequel better the original but there are numerous examples IMO where the sequel is better than the original: Superman 2, Godfather 2, Spiderman 2, Batman Begins(basically #5), Empire Strikes Back.

Jurassic Park has it tough because the paper thin idea seems forced in sequels.