Much as I enjoy complaining, I thought it
best that my first review be about a movie I actually like. Doing so enables me
to kick-start this blog on a generally positive note, and doesn’t make it look
as though I’m a perpetual downer. My choice is perhaps a safe one, but I’m not
going to lie: I really enjoy Steven Spielberg’s Jurassic Park.
In my header, I call it a “popcorn classic”
and its true- after twenty-two years, Spielberg’s adaptation of what is
arguably Michael Crichton’s most well-known novel has garnered a hallowed position
in the annals of summer blockbusters. Which is not to say that it is completely
perfect, mind you. But it does get a lot more right than it does wrong.
The plot, in case you’ve been living under
a rock for the past two decades, is as follows: a wealthy businessman and the
scientists he has hired, taking advantage of recent advances in genetics, have
managed to achieve the seemingly impossible- the recreation of living,
breathing dinosaurs. He has placed these “biological attractions” within a park
on a private island off the coast of Costa Rica, and he hopes to be open for
business very soon. Unfortunately, a tragic accident has forced him to allow a
team of scientists to investigate the safety of the park prior to its opening.
And unbeknownst to him, an attempt at corporate espionage is about to threaten
the lives of everyone on the island.
As a piece of science fiction, Jurassic Park has its merits. Its
warning against the reckless use of scientific advancement, while perhaps more muted
than in the novel, has lost none of its relevancy. And if the mechanics of its
premise seem scientifically out-of-date today, they were at least able to sound
semi-plausible at the time.
Nor are the characters as flat or
unengaging as is sometimes claimed. Granted, they are all fairly basic. But
time has nonetheless been largely kind to the efforts of the cast to breathe
life into them. Sam Neil, Laura Dern, and Richard Attenborough are definite
highlights. The supporting cast likewise acquits itself fairly well. Jeff
Goldblum’s shtick might not be for everyone, but I absolutely love his
deadpanning and quirkiness -in short, his “Goldblumness”- in here. Even the
child performers do a better job than I would have expected [Spielberg, from
what I’ve seen of his work, can be hit or miss with his casting choices for
children]. Again, none of these characters are especially deep. But they are
entertaining and largely likable, and they get the job done. Still more
crucially, we’re actually given ample time to spend with them before their
lives are placed in jeopardy. In an era of wall-to-wall explosions, Jurassic Park’s sense of pacing in this
regard is quite refreshing.
This brings me to the area in which this
movie succeeds the most- as a thrill ride. Jurassic
Park might have enjoyable characters and some nice food-for-thought, but
its reputation as a classic primarily rests upon its set-pieces and its effects.
This is the movie that’s known for ushering in the era of the CGI-laden
blockbuster. And yet, it only contains about five minutes of actual computer effects.
The majority of what we see is achieved by practical effects- puppets,
animatronics, and the like. CGI is only used where absolutely necessary. Furthermore,
all of the movie’s effects, both practical and digital, are fully subservient to
the screenplay It is for these reasons, more than anything, that Jurassic Park ought to be praised for
its effects. I am not anti-CGI, but I’m not always certain that the way it’s
used in many contemporary blockbusters is constructive to the creation of good
cinema. While the quality of its CGI has long since been surpassed, Spielberg’s
dinosaur adventure remains a model for how to implement digital effects into
cinema for the reasons I’ve outlined.
As for the set-pieces, they are wonderful.
If there’s one thing this movie is good at, it’s staging action. That and
knowing when to showcase action. We
remember scenes like the initial appearance of the T-Rex, the attack of the
raptors, etc. because they are very well shot and staged. But a key part of
their success is their placement in the movie. Most of them don’t occur until
after the midway point, and when they finally do, they rely far more on
suspense than gore; for all that this movie has a reputation for scaring
viewers, there’s actually precious little onscreen violence. Instead, deaths
are often obscured by bushes, rain, camera angles, etc. This is because here,
Spielberg remembers that what you don’t see if often scarier than what you do
see.
Certainly, not everything in Jurassic Park works. If you’ve seen
enough movies, you’ll know exactly who’ll live and who’ll die, which does take
away some of the film’s edge; a certain change from the original book which
results in fewer characters being present on the island during the inevitable dinosaur
breakout doesn’t help matters. The decision to soften the character of John
Hammond [the businessman] from his novel counterpart might result in a slightly
less stereotypical character, but it does arguably dilute Crichton’s message a
little. And there are a couple of threads in the first half of the movie that
don’t receive adequate resolution. All that being said, the film remains a triumph
of blockbuster filmmaking. If it’s a little rough around the edges, it’s not any
less enjoyable for all that.
Actual Quality: 9.5/12
Personal Enjoyment:
11/12
