Jurassic Park

[Patronus]

[size=2]I've just seen this film for the first time in a long time, and now that I understand it a lot more than when I did when I was little, I love it. It's my favorite Steven Spielberg film, I believe (don't know all of his films :P).[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]I just like the thought of bringing dinosaurs back, for one thing. I don't think they were given much of a chance. And the theory that some dinosaurs evolved into birds might even be possible, as they do have some similarities (if the one's Allen pointed out exist).[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]I totally despise the kids. -_- Might just be my disliking of kids, but the girl's constant stupidty and the boy's following of Allen. [/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]Please post your thoughts on this film.[/size]

[wrist cutter]

Movies have a long history of badly portraying kids and teenagers... hell, just about anything really.

But anyway, Jurassic Park is really awesome. I liked 2 and 3 too. I know some people complained about them for some reason, but I don't understand. There are dinosaurs. Who needs plot? Character development? As long as there are plenty of dinosaurs I'm interested.

[Patronus]

[QUOTE=wrist cutter]Movies have a long history of badly portraying kids and teenagers... hell, just about anything really.

But anyway, Jurassic Park is really awesome. I liked 2 and 3 too. I know some people complained about them for some reason, but I don't understand. There are dinosaurs. Who needs plot? Character development? As long as there are plenty of dinosaurs I'm interested.[/QUOTE]
I don't think I liked 2 very much, though I don't remember why. I really liked the third one, might be the best by far. I really liked the Pteradons. Or were they Pteradactyls? Are they the same thing?

[Shwa]

I have to say that Jurassic Park has to be one of 5 many fantastic trilogies ever made in the movie world. I saw part one recently on t.v and forgot how awsome it was. two I would say is kind of funny since it brings back one of the original characters back to the island and ther eis a whole lot of trouble. Then #3 came out, that was just a fantasticmake when they brng back the archeologist guy and he's all old, but he knows how to survive on the island with the new people. My favorite would have to be #3 most definatly, #3 had so much suspence and thrills in it. ^.^

~Laters :D

[wrist cutter]

[quote name='Leh'] I really liked the Pteradons. Or were they Pteradactyls? Are they the same thing?[/quote]

You should've asked me that when I was 5, then I could've given you an answer.

[Shinmaru]

I like Jurassic Park quite a bit, and like wrist cutter, I think 2 and 3 are more than watchable, since I've seen plenty of movies that are far worse. Who could really complain about seeing badass dinosaurs onscreen? Unless you like ruining childhood memories, that is.

Anyway, I never expected really deep plots when I watched any of the Jurassic Park films - I expected a lot of action and dinosaurs hunting down some humans. I got what I was looking for, and it was done pretty well. If you're going into this movie with the expectations of a film critic, then I could see how you wouldn't enjoy them, but I like the movies well enough lol.

[Brasil]

[quote name='Shinmaru']Anyway, I never expected really deep plots when I watched any of the Jurassic Park films - I expected a lot of action and dinosaurs hunting down some humans.[/quote]::waggles finger::

Mike, you know better than that.

While the film adaptation of JP may have watered down the themes of it, JP is still very explicit about the dangers of "Playing God."

The story itself is one of man attempting to control nature, which is one of the four principal conflicts:

1) Man vs. Nature
2) Man vs. Man (1 on 1)
3) Man vs. Society
4) Man vs. Himself

Call me crazy, but Hammond's desire to subjugate nature, bend it to his will, as it were, only to have his own mortality claim him in the end is something right out of Epic of Gilgamesh. Granted, different characters live and die in the novel vs film, but Ian Malcolm's message remains, even though he may not quite survive in the novel.

See, Jurassic Park [i]could[/i] be viewed as simply dinosaurs tearing up humans, but it's really more of a commentary on human nature. We seek to subjugate and in the end, that doesn't matter, because nature cannot be controlled.

Like Malcolm says, "Nature finds a way."

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Well, the film's [i]strengths[/i] are really in the special effects department. The writing was okay, but random details nearly ruined it for me (in the first film, the mosquito they show as one they used to extract dinosaur DNA from is, well, a male). The acting was painful on top of that, especially on the part of the woman and the kids. Just horrible.

But damn, the special effects were so awesome. That was really the only reason to see Jurassic Park II and III, and I wasn't disappointed in that respect. Very, very realistic. The ending of the third, though, was way too abrupt.

[Arcadia]

[quote name='wrist cutter']You should've asked me that when I was 5, then I could've given you an answer.[/quote]
[size=1]Yeah. lol

I love Jurassic Park, and I've always liked dinosaurs for one reason or another. For a long time I was [i]sure[/i] I was going to be a palaeontologist. It's just so darn [i]fascinating[/i]! I know I've seen the first one plenty of times (and in French, no less - thank you high school), but it's been a while since I've seen the second one, although the idea of letting a tyrannosaurus loose on New York was kind of exciting. I'm pretty sure I've never seen the third movie, unfortunately.

Bean makes a valid point, though, with the "man vs. nature" theme, and the idea of "playing God" is incredibly revelant to genetic issues. In the movie, Hammond used the genes he found in old fossils and mosquitos stuck in bits of amber to recreate the dinosaurs. In real life, scientists are using genes to clone animals, they're altering genes with steroids and other weird supplements, using gene therapy to help and heal those who have specific genetic diseases, and so on. While some of it is being used for the greater good and for a better understanding of the human body, a lot of it is obviously controversial and many fear that we as humans are messing around in places we shouldn't be.

I just think it's pretty cool that the book and movie sort of cover both sides of the argument and still make it incredibly entertaining and easy to understand without actually hitting people over the head with it. [/size]

[Brasil]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade]Well, the film's [i]strengths[/i'] are really in the special effects department.[/quote]
So the film's themes mean absolutely nothing?

[QUOTE]The writing was okay,[/quote]
It was quite good, actually, far better than most of what you'd find in a science fiction/adventure film. The dialogue felt natural, it made sense with the situation, and behaved according to its respective characters' eccentricities. I don't know how you can have a problem with that. Some of the dialogue and exchanges were pretty funny, too, between Malcolm and Grant, especially.

[quote]But random details nearly ruined it for me (in the first film, the mosquito they show as one they used to extract dinosaur DNA from is, well, a male).[/quote]
A lot of the little details bother you, eh? Something that was shown in one shot, for about ten seconds nearly ruined a 2-hour movie?

[quote]The acting was painful on top of that, especially on the part of the woman and the kids. Just horrible.[/QUOTE]
On the contrary. While Malcolm was transformed into a more likeable and jovial character than his dark and almost sadistic nature of the novel, he was certainly a strong character, and Goldblum's performance is more than adequate for the role. Malcolm is, by all senses, a social reject. Look at the way he dresses, his mannerisms, etc. Goldblum fit the role, and did quite well.

[quote]But damn, the special effects were so awesome. That was really the only reason to see Jurassic Park II and III, and I wasn't disappointed in that respect. Very, very realistic. The ending of the third, though, was way too abrupt.[/QUOTE]
I agree that the special effects were indeed amazing, and the full effect of a 52-inch HDTV hits you when you watch Jurassic Park on it, but I was significantly disappointed by JPII, simply because the novel's premise was impossible, due to Malcolm indeed dying in the first book.

After the JPII fiasco, with a T-Rex lumbering through downtown LA, I lost interest in the series. The story just wasn't there anymore.