Master Index of Archived Threads


Jurassic Park (1993)

1/2

1 votes

*

0 votes

*1/2

1 votes

**

1 votes

**1/2

2 votes

***

1 votes

***1/2

3 votes

****

1 votes

****1/2

1 votes

*****

0 votes

Edgy MD Feb 25 2011 08:41 PM

Two paleoscientists and a mathematician are summoned to a Central American island to give a professional opinion on a natural preserve, only to find out it's operator has used cloning technology to bring dinosaurs back from the extinction. Power shuts down in the park, everything goes pear-shaped, and children are placed in grave danger.

Ceetar Feb 25 2011 08:45 PM Re: Jurassic Park (1993)

wow, it was that long ago? I think it was pretty classic. at the forefront of scary new cloning stuff and new technology and whatnot. (like most of Crithton's stuff actually..)

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 25 2011 08:52 PM Re: Jurassic Park (1993)

I gave it 2 stars, thought on it, and gave it 1.5. Stupid, implausible and who cares?

Vic Sage Feb 25 2011 09:12 PM Re: Jurassic Park (1993)

i gave it 2.5, just cuz i love Jeff Goldblum and the dinos are pretty cool. but otherwise, what Bucket said.

Edgy MD Feb 25 2011 09:16 PM Re: Jurassic Park (1993)

Stupid? Well, it's an action film. Implausable? I think the last 18 years say otherwise. Scientists are about to start breeding wooly mammoths. Who cares? Well, it goes a long way --- through the character of Ian Malcolm --- to try to get folks to ask questions about new technology before unleashing the wonder. It also bangs a signature Speilberg drum, trying to remind folks of the importance of prioritizing family. So it sure wants you to care. I give it two puntos for the second-tier John Williams score alone.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 25 2011 09:28 PM Re: Jurassic Park (1993)

Give me a break. This flick was 99% an excuse for a billion dollars in special effects and 1% a Big Message delivery system.

Edgy MD Feb 25 2011 09:35 PM Re: Jurassic Park (1993)

Well, I wouldn't argue with that. But that's true of a lot of films --- most even --- and some of them are still OK. Like Titanic and maybe Mary Shelly's Frankenstein, you get the idea that if the filmmakers really believed in the message of the danger of man's hubris, they'd've not made these films in the first place.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 26 2011 04:59 AM Re: Jurassic Park (1993)

I gave it 2.5. Fun, but vapid. Few characters in film have ever annoyed me as much as Goldblum's Ian Malcolm. He seemed more of a New Age nutjob to me than a scientist. His "life will find a way" mantra was ludicrous. You have a population of only females? Well, they'll breed anyway! Life will find a way! If that's true, then why do species go extinct?

metirish Feb 26 2011 06:43 AM Re: Jurassic Park (1993)

Goldblum is annoying in the every role I think , always plays that hyper active guy.....I enjoyed this if memory serves , Sam Neill and his staring saved it probably. I mistakenly watched it recently with Lorcan and well it was a bit scary for him, I need to remember he's three. The effects still looked good, it was a huge deal at the time wasn't it?

Frayed Knot Feb 26 2011 06:58 AM Re: Jurassic Park (1993)

My vote = ** ... but only because I was feeling generous. Good special effects surrounded by cartoon characters.

metirish Feb 26 2011 07:22 AM Re: Jurassic Park (1993)

Are people voting now looking back or voting what they felt at the time?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 26 2011 07:27 AM Re: Jurassic Park (1993)

If you're going to try and make a suspenseful, ultimately meaningless popcorn fantasy/thriller and you've got workmanlike source material, only with a fantastic premise... this is who you want involved, and the sort of stuff you want in it, right? Three stars. You can see the tricks and the Williams-driven ups-and-downs coming a mile away, but they work (as do Goldblum and most of the supporting cast). Jaws it ain't, but it's an effective amusement park ride, still.

Edgy MD Feb 26 2011 07:31 AM Re: Jurassic Park (1993)

That's pretty much where I am, except to say that casting Neill and Dern and Attenborough were off-book choices that were just as effective as the obvious ones. That said, what an impressive spread on the voting.

TransMonk Feb 26 2011 08:07 AM Re: Jurassic Park (1993)

I thought the production was groundbreaking at the time. Like many tech-based movies, it really doesn't hold up almost 20 years later...though the CGI still looks better than some blockbusters released just last year. The acting is hokey and the "message" is ham-fisted at best. It spawned two unnecessary and shitty sequels. Jeff Goldblum is pretty awesome, though. And it is a fairly typical Spielberg action flick, which are usually better than the Cameron, Bay, Bruckheimer pieces of poo.

Frayed Knot Feb 26 2011 08:26 AM Re: Jurassic Park (1993)

metirish wrote: Are people voting now looking back or voting what they felt at the time? I didn't like it much at the time and have probably seen only snippets of it since. I also never saw any of the sequels (for the most part I HATE sequels) so it's not like those are having any after-the-fact negative effect on my vote

metirish Feb 26 2011 08:46 AM Re: Jurassic Park (1993)

Frayed Knot wrote: metirish wrote: Are people voting now looking back or voting what they felt at the time? I didn't like it much at the time and have probably seen only snippets of it since. I also never saw any of the sequels (for the most part I HATE sequels) so it's not like those are having any after-the-fact negative effect on my vote You definitely do not want to see the4 sequels, rubbish.

metirish Feb 26 2011 07:12 PM Re: Jurassic Park (1993)

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: If you're going to try and make a suspenseful, ultimately meaningless popcorn fantasy/thriller and you've got workmanlike source material, only with a fantastic premise... this is who you want involved, and the sort of stuff you want in it, right? Three stars. You can see the tricks and the Williams-driven ups-and-downs coming a mile away, but they work (as do Goldblum and most of the supporting cast). Jaws it ain't, but it's an effective amusement park ride, still. I wanted to comment on this after some thought , it holds up better than Jaws IMHO , at the time Jaws was a sensation but on a viewing a few years back it was nearly laughable, the effects just don't hold up and the suspense wasn't the same , which is to be expected.

Frayed Knot Feb 26 2011 07:39 PM Re: Jurassic Park (1993)

Jaws as compared to JP = Worse fake critter but much better humans

Willets Point Feb 26 2011 08:00 PM Re: Jurassic Park (1993)

Jaws is great because it's not about the shark. The makers of the sequels never got this.

Vic Sage Feb 28 2011 09:53 AM Re: Jurassic Park (1993)

I wanted to comment on this after some thought , it holds up better than Jaws IMHO... i think you needed some more thought.