Review of The Real Jurassic Park (1993) by Zach F — 19 Jun 2018

There's a line in a trailer for the upcoming sequel Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom in which Chris Pratt's Owen Grady asks, "do you remember the first time you saw a dinosaur?".

I do.

It was twenty-five years ago, back in 1993, when I watched the original Jurassic Park in theaters for the first time. I was nine years old, and the dinosaurs seemed so real. It wasn't so much the CGI, though that was state-of-the-art and holds up shockingly well. It was the wonder of seeing something for the first time, the spectacle and power of prehistoric life on the big screen.

With that in mind, and the imminent arrival of said sequel, it felt more than appropriate to revisit Jurassic Park as it celebrates its silver jubilee.

The movie was such a landmark, its easy to forget it was based on an equally successful book by Michael Crichton. The relatively simple story didn't change much from page to screen. You all know it anyway:

Idealistic promoter recreates hundreds of dinosaurs with preserved mosquito blood; group of scientists travels to exotic island for sneak peak at theme park of the resurrected beasts; things go terribly wrong; those visitors that don't get eaten spend the remaining time running and screaming.

It's funny-based on this description, the movie sounds like a disposable piece of horror schlock. Nothing could be further from the truth. But how?

Let's start with the most obvious reason-it was directed by Steven Spielberg. And this at a time when he was in his prime, the king of Hollywood. He'd already made Jaws and E.T., and still had future hits like Saving Private Ryan and Lincoln to come. But while he delivered with expected, well-rounded expertise, there's one aspect of Spielberg's approach that's worth highlighting above all others.

It stems from the fact that Jurassic Park the novel is darker and more violent than the movie. In fact, James Cameron (The Terminator, Aliens) nearly nabbed the rights to direct the film instead. By his own admission, his version would've been more intense and graphic-closer to the source material, and almost certainly rated R.

That would've been interesting, but hardly suitable for most nine-year-olds. That's where Spielberg comes in. As with Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Raiders of the Lost Ark and War of the Worlds, he possesses the special ability to create tension for all ages. Whether a child or adult, when you watch his movies your pulse is racing, nerves consistently brought to the brink but never over the edge. You leave the theater not afraid, but exhilarated, a smile of sheer energy spread across your face.

But he doesn't do it alone. There are so many other reasons why, a quarter-century later, Jurassic Park still feels new. Take John Williams' legendary score, which nearly upstaged the dinosaurs themselves and remains popular today. Or the way David Koepp's underrated script peppers in saving doses of humor ("I'm always on the lookout for the next ex-Mrs. Malcolm").

Who were Sam Neill, Laura Dern and Jeff Goldblum before this movie? Certainly not household names. They were never really movie stars, either. Instead, they were-and are-skilled actors that lend Jurassic Park an envious on-screen pedigree among summer blockbusters. And despite many modern complaints of 'annoying' child stars, Ariana Richards and Joseph Mazzello have consistently avoided such a label. The credit is theirs, displaying a genuine combination of fascination and fear, making them simply what every actor hopes to be-part of the movie.

Like Star Wars, Terminator 2 and Toy Story, Jurassic Park broke technological ground. But also like those movies, it connected with its audience beyond mere scale and pixels. This is why, twenty-five years later, we keep coming back to the original. And why its next twenty-five will roar just as loudly.