In 1993, the world looked up in wonder as living dinosaurs rumbled across American theaters. Since then, the Jurassic Park franchise has been one of the most successful in the history of cinema…from a financial standpoint, anyway. I’ve used these films to examine first because they are, in my opinion, the perfect example of diminishment, whereas they get progressively worse as the series continues despite the epic, grandly nature of the original, which is to this day one of my favorite films of all time.
Jurassic Park (1993)
The Good: The effects, the effects, the effects. Despite a story that had little, if any, ch
aracter development, Jurassic Park succeeded because, for the first time, the dinosaurs we saw on screen were so realistic they practically breathed. It’s rare that a movie is carried simply by its effects, but JP was so groundbreaking, that the eye candy it delivered was enough to captivate audiences even now. Add that in with the fact that from a story standpoint, it’s by far the best written, best acted, most complete film in the series, and you have a true modern masterpiece.
aracter development, Jurassic Park succeeded because, for the first time, the dinosaurs we saw on screen were so realistic they practically breathed. It’s rare that a movie is carried simply by its effects, but JP was so groundbreaking, that the eye candy it delivered was enough to captivate audiences even now. Add that in with the fact that from a story standpoint, it’s by far the best written, best acted, most complete film in the series, and you have a true modern masterpiece. The Bad: The characters are just a vessel for the effects, but that really isn’t a bad thing.
Score: 9.5/10
Avg. RT Score: 7.2/10
Avg. RT Score: 7.2/10
The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)
The G
ood: See above. The Lost World ups the ante in the effects department, with more dinosaurs, more special effects shot, a gloomier, more prehistoric atmosphere and an awesome finale.
The Bad: It lacks in the story department. The science and wonder and drama from the original has all been lost. While the book was excellent, the film differentiates itself so much from it that the magic really goes away, and you’re left with a clichéd action adventure, but it has just enough brains to keep you interested, and truly feels like it belongs in the series.
Score: 7.5/10
Avg. RT Score: 5.7/10
The G
ood: See above. The Lost World ups the ante in the effects department, with more dinosaurs, more special effects shot, a gloomier, more prehistoric atmosphere and an awesome finale.The Bad: It lacks in the story department. The science and wonder and drama from the original has all been lost. While the book was excellent, the film differentiates itself so much from it that the magic really goes away, and you’re left with a clichéd action adventure, but it has just enough brains to keep you interested, and truly feels like it belongs in the series.
Score: 7.5/10
Avg. RT Score: 5.7/10
Jurassic Park III (2001)
The Good: Sam Neil.
The Bad: For some odd reason, I’m guessing to make the movie more accessible and easy to
make, the filmmakers decided to use a generic rescue mission story and figured that the effects, which at this point weren’t anything new, could carry it. Nope. JPIII is the outcast of the franchise. It doesn’t feel anything like a Jurassic Park movie and instead like a money magnet aimed at kids. If you have Jurassic Park III in your DVD collection, then you are not a fan of Jurassic Park, and as far as I’m concerned are spitting on Crichton’s grave.
Score: 1/10 (because I don’t like to give zeros)
Avg. RT Score: 5.2/10
The Good: Sam Neil.
The Bad: For some odd reason, I’m guessing to make the movie more accessible and easy to
make, the filmmakers decided to use a generic rescue mission story and figured that the effects, which at this point weren’t anything new, could carry it. Nope. JPIII is the outcast of the franchise. It doesn’t feel anything like a Jurassic Park movie and instead like a money magnet aimed at kids. If you have Jurassic Park III in your DVD collection, then you are not a fan of Jurassic Park, and as far as I’m concerned are spitting on Crichton’s grave.Score: 1/10 (because I don’t like to give zeros)
Avg. RT Score: 5.2/10
