Big summer movies simply do not get better than this

Rating: Null/10 (3 August 2007)

One of the very first things we learn during the credits after "Jurassic Park" is that it is based on a novel by Michael Crichton, and that the screenplay was written by Michael Crichton with the help of David Koepp. It's for the best that he decided to pen his first screenplay since 1978's "Coma" when "Jurassic Park" went into development because it's hard to imagine a screenplay based on his dark sci-fi horror novel being successful in the same way this screenplay was. Crichton, writing a screenplay based on his own work, opted to change the tone and much of the plot for this Hollywood production. Rather than the dark sci-fi the novel is, "Jurassic Park" the movie is a fun, relatively light-hearted action adventure, and the decision to change the tone might go down in history as one of the smartest screen writing decisions in history.
This is simply an exceptional film. Technically, it is an astounding achievement. As of 2007, fourteen years after "Jurassic Park" was released, its special affects are still excellent compared to many mainstream films. Steven Spielberg did no wrong with this film; you can't really criticize anything about it. The public likes Michael Bay because he blows up a lot of expensive stuff and films the explosions, but if one was to list the flaws in one Michael Bay film they could fill dozens of pages. But really, what's wrong with "Jurassic Park"? The answer is: nothing. You can't fault the gorgeous cinematography, as there are more greatshots in this film than all the summer blockbusters of recent years put together and you certainly can't fault John Williams' classic score. So where does the criticism come from? Some think "Jurassic Park" could've been darker and dealt more with its central theme- don't mess with nature. Some think "Jurassic Park" doesn't build suspense for long enough, and shows the dinosaurs too often. This claims are without basis because "Jurassic Park" never claimed to be a deep film with heavy subtext (there is subtext, but it is dealt with only superficially), nor did it want to be "Jaws" (more like "Indiana Jones" with dinosaurs). One thing that has to be understood is that this is an action adventure. It eliminates the majority of the science and techno-babble from Crichton's novel, condensing it to a few minutes near the start of the film. The cast is memorable, in particular Sam Neill as Alan Grant, who really reminds me of Indiana Jones in a sense. The character is adventurous, smart, and funny and I really can't imagine anyone else playing him quite as well as Sam Neill did. Laura Dern, an exceptional actress who should've won awards for certain performances in certain David Lynch films, is good here as are Jeff Goldblum and Richard Attenborough. The child actors could've been more annoying, which when speaking of child actors in general is a compliment.
There are few films in existence as exciting as "Jurassic Park", and there are very, very few, if any at all, summer blockbusters as perfectly-made and memorable as this. If you're looking for intriguing science fiction dealing with intricate themes, this is not the place for it. There is depth to "Jurassic Park", but for meditative science fiction there are certainly better options. Watch this if you want to be entertained, or just to see an example of utterly phenomenal film-making.
****/4