OSCARS 2026: Jurassic World Rebirth (2025)

Let us consider the following. "Jurassic World" made one billion and 671 million dollars at the worldwide box office, suggesting it was an extremely popular film. Critically, it holds a 72% "Fresh" rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Rotten Tomatoes is a broken website for many reasons but we can presume that the general consensus on "World" is that it was generally well received. The sequel was also a box office bonanza, making one billion and 308 million dollars. However, the press was much harsher towards "Fallen Kingdom," which currently resides at only 47% positive. The trend continued with "Jurassic World Dominion," which cracked a paltry one billion dollars worldwide while receiving the worst reviews yet, topping out at a putrid 29% on Rotten Tomatoes. 

 

People say these movies are critic proof and perhaps they are. However, I can't imagine that Universal execs didn't notice that the more negative reviews seemed to correlate to slightly less massive box office. Perhaps seeking a fresh perspective, a new director would board the series for the fourth or seventh entry. Gareth Edwards, already experienced with saurian CGI mayhem from directing 2014's "Godzilla," would take the wheel with "Jurassic World Rebirth." The generically subtitled follow-up wouldn't truly change much, reaction wise. "Rebirth" fell just short of making Universal another billy but still grossed a Dreadnoughtus sized amount of money. Critical reception, meanwhile, concluded this is merely the least shitty follow-up. I've enjoyed all the "Jurassic World" movies, presumably because I have no taste, so I went into "Rebirth" with few ideas as to what my reaction might be. 

It turns out Earth's current climate and the hyper-industrial era are hostile to dinosaurs. "Rebirth" sees all the thunder lizards unleashed on the world in "Dominion" mostly going extinct again. The prehistoric creatures only survive in the balmiest areas of the globe, human travel outlawed in these regions. Pharmaceutical corporation ParkerGenix needs genetic material from three of the biggest dinosaur species – the aquatic Mosasaur, the land-dwelling Titanosaurus, and the airborne Quetzalcoatlus – to perfect a heart disease killing drug. Mercenary Zora Bennett is promised an absurd amount of money to lead the extremely dangerous mission to retrieve these resources. Paleontologist Henry Loomis and old friend Duncan Kincad accompany Zora on this journey. They travel to Île Saint-Hubert, the now abandoned Caribbean island where InGen kept the mutated dinosaurs too ugly to display in the main park. Along the way, the team picks up a family – fisherman Reuben, his daughters Teresa and Isabella, and Teresa's boyfriend Xavier – stranded by a Mosasaur attack. The boat is taken out by hostile dinos as they approach the island, making an already perilous adventure riskier. Zora and the others try to survive, grab what they need, and make a last minute escape as the island reveals more deadly dino secrets. 

Universal invited David Koepp, writer of the original and most beloved film in this franchise, back to pen "Jurassic World Rebirth." He is given sole credit for the script but it's fairly obvious that "Rebirth" was actually written by committee. On-screen titles explain the current state of this dinosaur-infested world, before the cast repeats this information in laborious expositionary dialogue. The main dramatic conflict of each principal character is also explained in broad conversations early on in the film. Zora is traumatized by the death of her partner and missing the funeral of her mom. Duncan reveals a ruined marriage and deceased child in his back story during the same talk. Reuban is unimpressed with Xavier, who will prove his worthiness throughout this journey. There's never any doubt about which members of the party will become dinosaur chow. Do you think the overly confident big game hunter, Ruby Rose-like crew member, French speaking mechanic, and cartoonishly evil Big Pharma stooge have much chance of making it to the end? 

Scarlett Johansson smiles big and looks pretty in a role that otherwise asks very little of her. The rest of the cast play their roles with the cartoon simplicity demanded of the meager script. Likewise, the origin story of the latest biggest, baddest threat to grace the series feels like something that would appear in a low-effort cartoon series. Koepp attempts to cook a bigger theme into the story, about personal responsibility in making the world a better place when profit-hungry mega-corps rule everything. This results in a handful of dialogue exchanges, the most climatic of which being the most flatly and obviously stated. Every element of "Jurassic World Rebirth's" narrative was designed so that even the most clueless rubes in the audience – or folks dispassionately watching while scrolling TikTok – can follow what is happening. 

"Rebirth" does deserve credit for not going out of its way to remind viewers of the original film. This is not a "legacy sequel" burdened with shout-outs to the older, better movies. In fact, the latest "Jurassic World" most reminds me of something else entirely: Video games, specifically classic survival-horror titles. There's a clear check list of objectives for the heroes to achieve, gathering DNA from three of the dinosaur species. The successfully filled capsules float down towards the characters like power-ups falling from the sky. The cast progresses through different settings and scenarios, as if they are playing through levels. Each location contains their own environmental gimmicks: Shooting a monster from the deck of a speeding boat, repelling down a mountain side, crawling through subterranean tunnels. Different threats are found in each location, with the T-Rex wading through the river area and the massive pterosaur occupying the cliff side. Locations like an ancient temple, a rickety gas station, and an abandoned lab filled with tubes occupied by deformed fetuses are the kind of areas you'd expect to navigate with a controller. There are puzzles for the heroes to unravel too, such as freeing a vessel from an elevated wench or opening a locked gate. A box of flares might as well have a green arrow floating overtop it. Scarlett Johansson crawling around and shooting dinosaurs truly reminded me of playing "Dino Crisis," while the last act features a monstrous final boss worthy of a "Resident Evil" title. 

The impression "Jurassic World Rebirth" gives is of a risks-free blockbuster rushed through production by a studio needing to fill a summer release slot. Gareth Edwards has already proven he can make a movie like this and is fine with producer-mandated reshoots too. The execs wanted a cute, Baby Yoda-like mascot character they could sell toys of and so an adorable dinosaur sidekick meets up with the cast's youngest member. The script was written not to express a natural story but to get thrill-hungry viewers from one exciting set piece to the next. It is the definition of what Martin Scorsese called "theme park" movies. 

Maybe that is the lowest goal film can aspire to as an artform but I, for one, enjoy a good theme park ride. And "Jurassic World Rebirth" does provide those kinds of thrills. The family trying to escape the mosasaurs as their boat is wrecked is an intense thriller. The race with the same sea monsters, as ScarJo hangs perilously off the side of the boat, is extremely well engineered. The Quetzalcoatlus is a formidable and unique threat, the mountainside location making for a dynamically executed sequence. Hiding from the snapping, winged raptors in a grungy convenience store presses all the right buttons to engineer suspense. The highlight of the film involves the T-Rex stalking the Delgados through a riverbed, including a fantastic shot of the massive predator's jaws pressing through the material of an inflatable raft or squeezing its head between gaps in a rock wall. Edwards manages to bring along some of the grandeur he showed-up off in "Godzilla" too. The sequence devoted to the enormous Titanosaurs, with their coiling and whip-like tails, is a properly sweet moment of peace in the middle of the film. The Distortis Rex – the latest example of the Hollywood kaiju phenotype – shows the same fantastic sense of scale and misty awe-and-terror Edwards displayed in his previous monster movies. 

I must conclude that "Jurassic World Rebirth" is, unquestionably a corporate product. It is designed to raise shareholders' stock value, to do nothing but distract audiences enough that they go to the theater and pay for tickets. It is meant to further the value of the "Jurassic" brand in the public consciousness and to keep fans flocking to the merchandise and theme parks. Whether that means the definition of whatever the internet has decided is "slop" today is up to debate, I suppose. I prefer the term "schlock," which is far more affectionate. "Rebirth" is definitely schlock and, as far as the value of what I paid for my ticket goes, I believe it is schlock that gave me money's worth. Maybe I truly do have no taste. Perhaps I am but a simple soul that only needs to see some dinosaurs ripping shit up on-screen to be satisfied. The script is weak and the characters are flat but the special effects are excellent, the thrills come fast, and it is all delivered in a smooth package that keeps the dino-action coming at a fast enough clip. [6/10]

RECENT WATCHES: Kong: Return to the Jungle (2007)

That “Kong: The Animated Series,” a largely forgotten and deeply mediocre cartoon, got a sequel movie four years after it ended is surprising. That it received two seems irrational. Yet it is true. In fall of 2006, a special extended edition of Peter Jackson's “King Kong” was released on DVD. BKN International took the opportunity to ride those coattails one more time and see if they could squeeze a little more blood out of this particular stone. While “Kong: King of Atlantis” was practically indistinguishable from the TV show that spawned it, the second follow-up is notable for an all together different reason. “Kong: Return to the Jungle” would ditch the serviceable, if bland, traditional animation of the show for what the DVD cover refers to as “state-of-the-art CGI.” I don't think anyone will be surprised to learn that statement is misleading, to say the least.  

“Return to the Jungle” goes back to Kong Island and reintroduces us to “The Animated Series'” heroes: teenage adventurer Jason Jensen, his genius scientist grandmother, comic relief buddy Tann, island shaman girl Lua, and the giant gorilla Kong that connects all of them. Their peaceful existence is interrupted when arch-nemesis Ramon De La Porta returns. He leads a big-game hunter named Stag Hunter to the island. Hunter has built a high-tech zoo in Manhattan and intends to populate it with Kong, the dinosaurs, and other extinct megafauna that populate the island. It's all a scheme to unleash the animals on the city, so Stag can hunt them for sport and De La Porta can take the fall. Jason and his pals head to NYC to save their hairy friend from the unhinged hunter and a military eager to protect the city. 

By 2007, CGI was well established as the primary animation format for feature films. Maybe this is why the “Kong” producers decided to go this route. However, within minutes, it's clear that the budget was not available to realize this vision. At least one Letterboxd review compares the film's appearance to a PlayStation 2 game, which I think is really unfair to the PS2. “Return to the Jungle” is, simply, one of the ugliest movies I've ever seen. The models are shiny, their movements stiff and weightless. Characters seem to frequently float through the air. Any time someone interacts with another person or the environment, the two simply don't seem to occupy the same space. This results in action scenes where characters limply flop around against each other. The facial expressions are robotic and gap-mouthed. The colors are flat, the environments lacking details. At one point, the animators used pixelated photographs and literal GIFs in lieu of art design. On more than one occasion, backgrounds can clearly be seen glitching out. But that implies that the entire movie doesn't look like one long glitch...

Even if “Kong: Return to the Jungle” had fantastic writing, it would be impossible to overlook how hideous the animation is. Of course, the movie doesn't have a decent script. I can't believe I'm saying this but I don't think this cartoon respects the lore of “Kong: The Animated Series.” Despite ending the show in a vegetative state, Professor De La Porta returns without any explanation here. He showed nothing but contempt for Kong and the Jensens in the show but seems to have a begrudging respect for them now. Originally, Lua had an independent and often stubborn personality. Here, she's nothing but a fawning female lead, going along with everything the boys offer. Jason's grandmother becomes another totally subservient female figure, baking pies for the guys and dropping exposition. None of the show's other extensive mythology, like the Primal Stones or the island's history, are mentioned. I didn't think “Kong: The Animated Series” had an especially deep or well thought-out cast of characters or plotting. Somehow, “Return to the Jungle” dumbs down what was already a middling, shallow cartoon show.

Part of why “Kong: Return ot the Jungle” comes off as so didactic is because the dialogue is loaded down with exposition. In addition to simplifying already flat characters, “Return to the Jungle” goes out of its way to explain who everyone is and what their deal is. The first half-hour of this 78 minute movie is largely devoted to explaining Kong and Jason's background. That the giant gorilla is a clone of an original Kong, though seemingly not the original Kong from the 1933 movie. That Jason shares his DNA with him, that this allows the two to magically connect. The script is burdened with “As you know” dialogue, such as the repeated references to Lua being the island's shaman or Tann being the son of a billionaire. While “Kong: The Animated Series” occasionally featured an environmental message, “Return to the Jungle” really hammers home this moral about respecting wild life. Making the villain such a cartoonishly evil animal hater defangs a message that kids probably do need to hear. 

Making the previous “Kong: The Animated Series” movie a musical was incredibly distracting, not to mention embarrassing. “Return to the Jungle” kind of maintains this change, though it finds a compromise of sorts. There are three original songs in the movie but they simply play over action scenes. The heroes don't burst into song and dance, thankfully. The first song, which introduces Kong's status as king of the jungle, is even kind of catchy. The second number, played during a painfully animated flashback to Jason and the gorilla's childhood, isn't great but was tolerable. The third song, however, played when our heroes are running around New York City, made my teeth clench pretty hard. All things considered, I really don't understand the desire to make songs such a big part of an action movie about a giant gorilla. 

I'll give “Kong: Return to the Jungle” positive notices for one element: The movie returns to “King Kong” tradition by having the gorilla rampage through New York City and fight a T-Rex, something “The Animated Series” downplayed. In fact, the movie makes the Tyrannosaurus Rex Kong's biggest enemy. All things considered though, “Return to the Jungle” is extremely dire slop only suitable for the most undiscerning child audiences. In the department of computer generated hemorrhoids, it avoids being as eye-scorchingly hideous as “Rapsittie Street Kids” or those weird, low budget Christian cartoons... But just barely. It's hard to be too down on a movie clearly made with so little resources, by so few people. (IMDb only lists forty people in the entire credits.) I suspect the entire movie was rushed through production in a few months. Yet there's no way around how deeply uncomfortable it is to look at this thing. When paired with a totally half-assed script, it makes “Kong: Return to the Jungle” an intensely unpleasant viewing experience. [2/10]

RECENT WATCHES: Kong: King of Atlantis (2005)

King Kong might be one of the original giant monster movie stars. Yet, in the modern era, the enormous gorilla has too often been a second banana. The 1998 American remake of “Godzilla” was a disappointment, critically and financially. The blockbuster would, at least in the hearts of kaiju devotees, be outshined by a Saturday morning cartoon spin-off. “Godzilla: The Series” was popular enough that someone decided to cash-in. European animation company BKN International – perhaps better known as Bohbot Entertainment to old millennials like me – would create a competing cartoon based on King Kong. “Kong: The Animated Series'” original run last from 2000 to 2001, totaling forty episodes. The series would even, for a short while, air on the same network as “Godzilla: The Series.”

Much like the previous “King Kong” cartoon, “Kong: The Animated Series” took very little from the original films. The series followed a modern day clone of the original big gorilla, made by a scientist named Dr. Jenkins. The ape shares a bond, and some DNA, with her grandson, Jason. After a villain attempts to capture the gorilla, Dr. Jenkins moves him to the remote Kong Island. (I guess the name “Skull Island” was too gruesome for the kiddy crowd.) Now a teenager, Jason arrives on the island with his best friend, the meat-headed pilot Tann. There, Jason, Kong, Tann, and jungle girl Lua have a number of adventures. 

The show mostly turned King Kong into a standard action cartoon hero. Through a device called the Cyber-Link, Jason and Kong can combine into a shared consciousness. A villain named De La Porta seeks the power of the Primal Stones, thirteen magical MacGuffins linked to the history of Kong Island. He grabbed his own Cyber-Link, fusing with different animals, in other to give Kong an anthromorphized creature to grapple with in every episode. The show invented a convoluted backstory linking Kong to the lost continent of Atlantis and an evil god named Chiros, the ultimate antagonist of the entire series. A whole litany of mystical plot devices, shamanism, mythologies from all around the world, and even time travel get involved eventually. 

Despite all the ideas floating around inside it, “Kong: The Animated Series” was an extremely mediocre cartoon. The animation was bland, the character designs deeply uninspired. The ensemble never rose above being shallow cartoon archetypes. The voice cast – largely made up of familiar performers like Scott McNeil and David Kaye – did not contributed especially memorable work. Most episodes don't even take advantage of what we associated with “King Kong,” the giant ape rarely fighting dinosaurs or rampaging through cities. Instead, it had a standard structure of our heroes travelling around the world, usually foiling the same villain every week. Compared to the grotesque enemy monsters of “Godzilla: The Series,” the antagonistic beasties here are completely forgettable. I watched all forty episodes on Tubi and I've endured much shittier cartoon shows. However, “Kong: The Animated Series” has rightly been consigned to the dust bin of animation history. 

Why am I bringing this up? In 2005, King Kong would return to theater screens in the big budget and much anticipated remake from Peter Jackson. Hoping to cash-in on the hype, “Kong; The Animated Series” would find its way back onto TV around this time. Yet the coattail riding did not end there. BKN decided to resurrect the show for a short, hour long, direct-to-video movie. Two weeks before Jackson's “Kong” roared into multiplexes everywhere, “Kong: King of Atlantis” would shuffle onto video store shelves. Ignored by most, the cartoon's technical inclusion as part of the “Kong” legacy made me morbidly curious enough to give it a look.

“King of Atlantis” takes place after “The Animated Series,” though it doesn't reference any of the show's events. (In fact, I'm pretty sure it contradicts some of them.) A strange eclipse is beginning above Kong Island, worrying Lua and making Kong antsy. Jason and Tann notice strange things around the island, such as a tar pit seemingly springing to life. Soon, it becomes apparent that evil, reptilian Atlanteans emerge from an alternate timeline. They take Kong back to their world, where the evil Queen Reptilla intends on brainwashing the big ape. Jason, Tann, and Lua follow behind and team up with the local rebels, in order to save Kong and stop the evil queen.

Though it was made four years later, “King of Atlantis” basically feels like a double-length episode of “Kong: The Animated Series.” The movie does little to distinguish itself from the show that birthed it. The quality of the animation is slightly higher than the average episode. They throw in a cave bear sidekick to follow the heroes around that wasn't present in the show. This is totally standard stuff. The sci-fi setting is equal parts generic and slapped together, mixing together many different types of aliens with little coherence. The evil queen is a stock-parts villain and her sycophant henchman – literally named Scyophantis – is annoying. Jason and Lua's sexual tension carries over from the show to uninspired results. Tann becomes attached to the Amazonian leader of the rebels, in a totally last minute subplot. Kong fights some cyborg dinosaur critters after spending most of the movie moping and being bossed around by the bad guys. 

It's not much to write about. While “Kong: The Animated Series” at least didn't talk down to the viewers with obvious moral lessons, the movie does include one. Jason and Lua can't agree throughout most of the film and their bickering alienates Kong. It's only after everyone works together that everything turns out okay. How is this message communicated to the viewer? Through something that the series definitely didn't include: Musical numbers! Yes, “Kong: King of Atlantis” is somehow the second direct-to-video, animated “King Kong” musical. Let me tell you, the songs here make me pine for the lyricism of “The Mighty Kong.” The lyrics are deeply inane, the melodies annoying. Each time the characters burst into song, I felt a full body cringe come over me. Moreover, there's absolutely no reason for these songs to be included. The show never featured any singing. Why does the movie? 

In other words, “Kong: King of Atlantis” is only for the most obsessive of Kong Kompletest. With the exception of those shitty songs, it's really no worst than any two episodes of “Kong: The Animated Series.” It is also, I must point out, also no better than any episode of the series. Much like the show it's attached to, “King of Atlantis” is a project that little effort was expended on. The writing is kids show slop. The animation is unambitious. The characters and acting are lacking in any memorable personality. Unless you are really desperate to see a giant gorilla wrestle some monsters, and have exhausted all other options, there's zero reason to seek this out. I wish I could say something pithy like “But at least there's no singing and dancing” but, inexplicably, there is. You have my permission to keep doing what you were going to do with this movie anyway and ignore its existence. [4/10]

Halloween 2023: October 19th

Funny Games (1997)

If you've been a film nerd long enough, and especially if you're a fan of the dark and macabre genres, there's probably a few titles you've sworn off. Movies you've decided you're never going to watch, either because there's someone you can't stand in it or the director is a piece of shit. Maybe you object to the content or tone on some sort of moral or personal level. Maybe there are films that want to show you things you're just not interested in seeing. I've got a few of those, usually because they contain animals being killed on-screen or they sound insufferable to me. But I finally watched “Cannibal Holocaust” after years of saying I never would, so clearly my vows are worth nothing. Another film on my “never gonna watch it” list is “Funny Games,” largely because everything I read about it sounded deeply unappealing to me. Yet, if there's any time of year for me to challenge my own presumption, it's October. So here I go.

Married couple, Anna and Georg, travel to their vacation home with their young son, Georgie. As they arrive at their house on the lake, they notice something strange going on with their neighbors, who have visitors they don't recognize. Later that day, a young man named Peter knocks on their door, asking to borrow some eggs. He overstays his welcome, dropping the family phone in the sink. His friend, Paul, appears before beating the family dog to death with one of Georg's golf clubs. This begins a series of sadistic games the two boys play with the family, holding them captive in their own home, psychologically and physically torturing them. 

“Funny Games” begins with shots of the car driving through the countryside, while Anna places CDs of classical music in the car radio and has her husband guess the artist. This proceeds the opening titles playing alongside some blaring, obnoxious noise rock. It's an attack on the audience, a deliberate attempt to confront us. This might as well be a mission statement for “Funny Games.” The film is purposely constructed to frustrate viewer's expectations. Paul and Peter show up and impose on the family's home, in such a way that feels like they are imposing on us. Anytime the family seems like they might be close to escaping this nightmare, the young psychopaths always reappear. In the final act, Anna's last chance at survival is denied when the killers toss the knife she's cutting herself free with in the lake. The most blatant moment of directly denying the viewer any sort of catharsis occurs when Anna manages to wrestle a gun away from her captive and blows Peter away.... Before Paul grabs the TV remote and rewinds the scenario, reverting the film back to before this moment and making sure it doesn't happen. 

Moreover, writer/director Michael Haneke wants us, the viewer, to know that he knows he's pissing us off. Repeatedly, “Funny Games” breaks the fourth wall. Peter winks at the camera before he starts his violence. He directly addresses the audience, asking us who we're rooting for. The film concludes with the boys discussing the nature of reality and fiction. The intent is clear: Haneke is implementing the audience in the film's violence. These horrible things wouldn't be happening if we weren't watching. It's our fault. This raises the question of why we are watching this. Haneke denies us any sort of vicarious thrill from his film. All the violence and sexual menacing takes place off-screen. We're given all the torment of going through this horrible experience with Anna and Georg but none of the elements that draw us towards movies like these. This essentially makes “Funny Games” a movie that punishes the viewer for wanting to watch it in the first place. 

If you're reading this review, you probably know all this stuff anyway. It's the main thing everyone knows about “Funny Games.” Haneke's intent with the film have been endlessly discussed and turned over in the 26 years since its release. The director has made it all too clear that his hatred of cinematic violence, of deriving entertainment from others' sufferings, is what motivated him to make “Funny Games.” The question we should really be asking about “Funny Games” is: Does it work? Does the film's peevish denial and intentional baiting of the audience force us to reconsider our relationship to cinematic violence? I don't agree with Haneke's thesis. I don't think there's anything wrong with enjoying movie violence, strictly because it's not real. Films exists for a lot of reasons and to explore scenarios that we shouldn't do in real life is one of them. 

Moreover, I don't think “Funny Games” is an especially biting deconstruction of horror films or thrillers. There is largely because it's not actually devoid of entertainment value. There are, in fact, people out there who just enjoy “Funny Games” as a mind-fuck and a sadistic exercise in home invasion horror. Years later, films like “The Strangers” or “Ils” would take many of Haneke's techniques and ditch all the pretensions. This is probably because “Funny Games” can hit like a bomb sometimes. By only allowing us to hear the violent acts, not see them, the film often makes their impact harder. The pure callousness of the villains are often chilling, especially when they are actively fucking with their victims. Such as when they rattle off a number of fake origin stories for their actions in quick successions. It's a bit like what Truffaut said about war movies. You can't deconstruct our relationship with cinematic violence without making that cinematic violence compelling.

If I have any real issue with “Funny Games,” it's that I think Michael Haneke is full of shit. I don't think he actually dislikes movie violence. His movies are, in fact, often sadistic and miserable experiences. There are long, drawn-out sequence here were we watch people cry and blubber. If you watched “Amour,” you get the impression that Haneke likes exposing us to suffering. The off-handed way Peter and Paul murder their victims are too precisely constructed, too self-aware in their own cleverness, for the audience not to realize Haneke enjoyed composing them. The direction and visual composition is precise, full of long distance shots of people in landscapes or standing still. One could make the case that all of these points makes “Funny Games” a self-defeating exercise. 

And yet, I can't wholly dismiss “Funny Games” as pretentious clap-trap. As self-satisfied and smug as the movie is, you can't say that it isn't interesting. The film going out of its way to make us question our relationship with cinematic violence is something. As much as Haneke professes to hate movies like this, he's not bad at making them. In the aftermath of the torture horror genre's brief popularity in America, he would even make the movie again in English, almost precisely copying the original. Which strikes me as a far more pointless exercise. Ultimately, as pompous as “Funny Games” is – I didn't even get into the way the film indicts the media, with the killers referring to themselves by various pop culture duos or a TV screen being present in several shots – there is something here. It's a frustratingly fascinating movie, that begs us to hate it but is too well done not to intrigue in some regards. I think I'm going right back to watching violent movies though. [6/10]

The Beast of Hollow Mountain (1956)

Willis O'Brien's stop-motion work on “King Kong” revolutionized special effects, essentially birthing the blockbuster as we think of it and inspiring a legion of artists for decades to come. Yet, in his life time, O'Brien rarely got the respect he deserved. There's actually a well known cause for this. O'Brien was offered a special Academy Award for his work on “Kong,” as a category for special effects didn't exist yet. He would only accept the statue if his entire team received one too. This offer was refused and O'Brien became an outcast in Hollywood. This effected his ability to get projects completed. Specifically, he tried for years to get a movie about cowboys fighting dinosaurs made with little success. One attempt to get a story O'Brien called “Valley of the Mists” made mutated into a totally different script called “The Beast of Hollow Mountain.” O'Brien wouldn't even end up doing the dinosaur effects for the movie, his passion project essentially being passed on to a totally different crew. 

American cowboy Jimmy comes to Mexico to start a cattle ranch. While searching for some lost cows, he comes across a secluded area that the locals say is cursed. Hollow Mountain is surrounded by quicksand pits and there are reports of a monster. Jimmy attempts to get his business going, beginning a romance with Sarita, the daughter of a prominent don, and making a rival of her presumed suitor, Enrique. Jimmy also befriends Panchito, the son of the town drunk. When his father disappears near Hollow Mountain, it's the first sign that the Beast of Hollow Mountain – a ravenous T-Rex that has survived into the modern day – is getting ready to attack the town. It's up to Jimmy to stop the monster.

If “The Beast of Hollow Mountain” can be described as a dinosaur movie/western hybrid, the ratio is definitely skewed towards the western stuff. This, unfortunately, does not mean shoot-outs, rodeos, or horse chases. Instead, “The Beast of Hollow Mountain” is preoccupied with utterly tedious western-adjacent melodrama. Far more time than is advisable is focused on the love triangle between Jimmy, Enrique, and Sarita. Much of the plot is motivated by the business side of running a cattle farm and Enrique's attempts to sabotage it. The focus on Panchito causes me to assume that “The Beast of Hollow Mountain” was aiming strictly for the kiddie matinee market... Yet I can't imagine a child being entertained by such a dull story as this. The dinosaur really feels like an afterthought on a plot much more concerned with a lifeless love story and the realities of cattle ranching. 

“The Beast of Hollow Mountain” was filmed in CinemaScope and bright Deluxe color. You'd think this would be because director Edward Nassour was hoping to showcase some wide, cinematic vistas or picturesque Mexican countryside. Not so much! Much of “The Beast of Hollow Mountain” is set in the indistinct village or surrounding swamp, the titular mountain only appearing in a few scenes. Instead, the focus is squarely on the characters. None of whom are all that compelling. Guy Madison – presumably filming this during a hiatus in “The Adventures of Wild Bill” – plays Jimmy as a standard white hero, distinguished only by his need to insert himself into every situation in this small town. He never has much chemistry with Patrica Medina as the girl. Eduardo Noriega is a thinly defined, cartoonish bad guy. Mario Navarro is quite annoying as Panchito, while his dad is an unfortunate cultural stereotype that is played totally straight. 

In other words, the experience of watching “The Beast of Hollow Mountain” is waiting around for the dinosaur to finally show up. And you will wait, as the T-Rex doesn't actually do anything until an hour into this 77 minute motion picture. The dinosaur first appears as a pair of rubbery feet stomping along the ground, before the full stop-motion creature is unceremoniously revealed. The special effects are definitely not up to the standard of Willis O'Brien. The dinosaur's movements are quite stiff and jerky at times. He certainly has none of the personality that any of the saurians in “King Kong” had. Yet the film still perks up considerably once the T-Rex appears. The finale, where Madison is roping the Rex and swinging over the quicksand pit, is the only time this sleepy movie comes alive. 

“The Beast of Hollow Mountain” was a regular feature on horror host shows for years. The copy I watched was introduced by Count Gore de Vol. Somehow, it didn't show up on “Mystery Science Theater 3000” until the Netflix seasons. I guess my point is that this film has been disappointing monster kids and dino-fans for decades. Especially since the idea of cowboys versus dinosaurs should be a slam dunk. Eventually, Ray Harryhausen would realize O'Brien's vision for “The Valley of the Mists” as “The Valley of Gwangi," a much superior movie in every way to this one. Only a far too-little, too-late appearance from the T-Rex justifies this one's existence. [5/10]

The Outer Limits (1995): A Stitch in Time

Once again, I return to the nineties version of “The Outer Limits” in foolish hope that I've finally found an episode with some degree of subtly. “A Stitch in Time” is about FBI Agent Jamie Pratt who, years before, apprehended the serial killer who murdered her best friend. Now she is involved in a far more baffling crime. Bullets and fingerprints link a series of murders, all of men who performed violent or sexual crimes against women, to one person: Physicist and inventor Dr. Theresa Givens. The problem is Givens was a child when most of the murders occurred and they've been going on for decades. Pratt soon begins to suspect why that is. Givens has invented a machine that allows her to travel through time and has been using it to punish misogynist men before they commit their crimes. As Givens alters time, she is the only person aware of the changes happening and it's causing her health to deteriorate. As Pratt investigates, she is pulled into Givens' end game: To destroy the man that abused her as a child. 

“A Stitch in Time” reveals in its opening minutes that Givens is the murderer and that she's using time travel to pull the crimes off. So this isn't an episode about “who” but more about the effects of these actions. The episode is most interesting when focusing on the altering time lines. We see the changes occur after Givens performs each murder, the evidence Pratt is investigating – and even the fate of her friend – changing around her with each shift. The inevitable question this raises, about causality and paradoxes, come to a head in the final act. That's when Givens goes back to her own childhood, Pratt tagging along. That finale is fairly tense and easily the highlight of the episode, utilizing a classical stand-off set-up for a easy suspense. 

Unfortunately, “A Stitch in Time” is undermined by this program's trademark bluntness. This is obviously a half-hour about justice and the crimes women face on a daily basis. The question of whether it's right to punish a crime that hasn't been committed yet is directly posed. Meanwhile, the episode repeatedly raises the idea that men do terrible things to women and the effect it has on their mental health. It all leads to a somewhat patronizing final twist, that suggests all women are victims just a few troubles away from becoming killers. Amanda Plummer won an Emmy for her performance here as Givens. Plummer is talented but she is given some truly awful dialogue here, mostly given a wooden and overly dramatic performance. There is a pretty cool shot of someone passing through the time portal and into the past. Otherwise, this is a typically overcooked episode of a program enamored of exploring high-minded ideas through sci-fi set-ups. [5/10]

China Lake (1983)

Robert Harmon feels like one of those filmmakers who never got the career he deserved. “The Hitcher” is a stone-cold classic but few of his other films have ever gotten much notice. He's spent the last two decades making TV movies and cop shows starring Tom Selleck. This is surprising, as his debut short film – and an obvious precursor to “The Hitcher” – had a clear ACAB subtext. “China Lake” stars Charles Napier as a California highway patrolman named Donnelly. While on vacation from his official job, he drives out to the isolated China Lake area, where he idles his days away terrorizing travelers and killing anyone who offends his particular sensibilities. 

Before becoming a director, Harmon worked as a D.P. on cult classics like “Tourist Trap,” “Hell Night,” and “Fade to Black.” (And also “Nocturna” and “Roller Boogie.”) You can see this sharp eye on display in “China Lake.” The flat landscape of the Californian desert is well utilized, establishing a sense of isolation. Napier is frequently framed from low angles, making him look like the huge master of this domain. As he would in “The Hitcher,” there's several shots from a speeding vehicles point-of-view. Contrasting these fast-moving, close-up angles with the scenes focused on the wide shots of the environment creates an unpredictable feeling. We can anticipate the violence to come but we always feel unprepared for it. The dessert is beautiful – especially when Harmon films it at dawn, the sun breaking over the blue night – but it's also dangerous. An ideal setting for a horror story.

Playing corrupt figures of authorities was what Charles Napier specialized in. That talent is put to excellent use here. He has a charming smile and a sense of calm around him, which makes you feel tempted to trust him. Yet there's always an edge of uneasiness to every interaction Napier has in this film. The movie begins with an extended scene of him harassing a woman on the highway, which feels like an all-too plausible abuse of power. Later, he has a conversation with a waitress in a dinner, the audience left in suspense as we wait for his inevitable violent reaction. The peeks we get inside this unassuming but intimidating man's head gives us a look at his violent, unhinged imagination. It's a thoroughly unsettling depiction of a psychopath with a badge.

And that's perhaps what is most chilling about “China Lake.” The first scene focuses on the tedium of police work, before moving to its desert setting. The ending brings Donnelly back into this orderly scene, suggesting that he happily goes back and forth from being a public servant and being a psychopathic killer. The implication – that it's easy for a madman to find work as a cop – feels as unnervingly relevant now as it must've in 1983. The way the film is so casual about what its villain protagonist does, which is reflected in the precise editing and pulsating soundtrack, makes it clear how a position of power appeals to men like this. Thoroughly unsettling and fantastically assembled, “China Lake” is a gem. This is essential viewing for fans of “The Hitcher” and proof that movie wasn't a fluke on Harmon's behalf. Remind me to re-watch “Highwaymen” next year... [9/10]

Director Report Card: Steven Spielberg (1997) - Part One

19. The Lost World: Jurassic Park

“Jurassic Park” was a genuine pop culture phenomenon, a generation-defining hit. The movie was beloved by audiences, well liked by critics, and scooped up countless awards for its ground-breaking special effects. When a film is that beloved, audiences begin to want more of it. There was a problem. Michael Crichton, the original novel’s author, didn’t write sequels. Spurned by popular demand and the insistence of Steven Spielberg himself, Crichton dusted off a sequel novel called “The Lost World.” Immediately, Hollywood went to work on a film adaptation, with Spielberg behind the camera again. Released into theaters in 1997, “The Lost World: Jurassic Park” was another huge box office hit. It’s reception among critics and fans was more mixed. To this day, people debate the merits of “The Lost World” and in what ways it stacks up to the original.

Four years after the Jurassic Park incident on Isla Nublar, InGen’s stock is plummeting. John Hammond has been ousted by his own company, his greedy nephew taking over. Hammond retrieves Dr. Ian Malcolm, whose reputation was ruined after going public with the first film events. He reveals to an expedition is underway to Site B, the island where the dinosaurs were raised before being taken to the park. In man’s absence, the dinosaurs have run wild, creating their own ecosystem. Malcolm, still suffering from dinosaur-related PTSD, has no interest in returning. When he’s told that his paleontologist girlfriend is already on the island, he changes his mind. Trying to survive the dinosaur-infested island, Malcolm and friends uncovers a sinister plan by InGen’s new owners.

Making a sequel to a film as beloved as “Jurassic Park” would be a difficult proposition for anyone, even a proven hitmaker like Steven Spielberg. Anything he could have delivered likely would have been criticized, for the simple crime of not being the first movie. Perhaps as a pre-emptive move against such criticism, “The Lost World” functions on a time-tested sequel formula: Give the audience more of what they loved the first time. This tendency is most obvious in the decision to have two Tyrannosauruses in the film. We have a sequel with more dinosaurs, more action, more humor, and more human-on-dinosaur chaos. “The Lost World’s” eagerness to please is actually a problem. The film is so focused on delivering the goods that other parts of the story are underdeveloped. The result is an action-packed film that doesn’t satisfy the way its predecessor did.

In “Jurassic Park,” John Hammond created dinosaurs without thinking about the consequences. As dangerous as his creation became, his motivation was pure. Hammond was driven by a child-like glee to provide the world with the gift of living, breathing dinosaurs. This provided an interesting twist on the time-worn “scientists tampering in God’s domain” cliché. The funder behind “The Lost World’s” expedition have a far more basic motivation: Greed. Hammond’s penny-pinching cousin wants to refund the first park’s financial lost. He plans to capture dinosaurs and bring them to the mainland, where they will be displayed in a massive zoo. Why would anyone think this would be a feasible idea, especially after the first film’s events? Peter Ludlow, played by a sniveling Arliss Howard, is so thin and cartoonish a villain that the audience doesn’t have to question why.

The eagerness of the film’s villains to exploit the dinosaurs for profit speaks to the film’s ecological theme. The hubris of capitalism is targeted. Ludlow and his association are so hellbent on making profits that they don’t care who they endanger. By the time the bad guy actually fulfils his hair-brained scheme to bring a dinosaur to San Francisco, most everyone around him is disillusioned. Moreover, the movie is critical of anyone who exploits the natural world. There’s frequent shout-outs to Greenpeace. Man’s intrusion into Site B is seen as unnatural. By the end, even John Hammond is insisting that the dinosaurs be left alone. It’s a valid point. However, making a statement about mankind’s involvement with the world and tying it in with genetically engineered dinosaurs muddles the moral’s waters. 

Steven Spielberg made “The Lost World” after a four year hiatus, an unexpected break for the usually very busy filmmaker. During production, he expressed some misgivings about the movie. He felt like he was making a special effects film with no human heart. Re-watching “The Lost World” for the first time in years, I began to suspect Spielberg might have been making a toy commercial. A long sequence in the film’s middle section is devoted to the dino hunters InGen has hired. They track down the thunder lizards in their high-tech vehicles. The trucks are Mercedes-Benz, their branding proudly displayed. There are fold-out seats in the truck, allowing the hunters better shots. One of the trucks deploys a grasping winch in order to hold the creatures. Unsurprisingly, the extensive “Lost World” toy line revolved around the dinosaur hunters and all the fun gimmicks they could ensnare dinos with. (This ignored the fact that these characters are the film’s bad guys.) I don’t know which came first, the movie or the toys but, at times, the film feels like its in service of the marketing and not the other way around.

The film’s toyetic approach has one big attribute though: More dinosaurs! The first “Jurassic Park” allowed Spielberg the realize a dream about dinosaurs on-screen. The sequel gives him an even bigger toy box to play in. One of the first dinosaurs we meet here is the stegosaurus, a notable exclusion from the first film. The plated creature travels in packs and swings its thagomizer into a log, nearly skewering Julianne Moore. The hunters are introduced tracking a Parasaurolophus, one of the most visually distinctive dinosaurs. They also captured a Pachycephalosaurus, one of my favorites. And, yes, it does smash a vehicle with its famous dome-head. The beloved triceratops was featured in the first movie. However, it didn’t do anything other then lie on its side, sick. “The Lost World” corrects this by letting the Triceratops rampage through a camp. The tri-horned dinosaur smashes through structures and even tosses a car into a tree. It’s awesome.

The first “Jurassic Park” made the velociraptor, a relatively obscure creature before, into a dinosaur superstar. The sequel attempts another reinvention for a similarly unknown species. Compsognathus, referred to as Compies through the film, are small, relatively cute dinosaurs. They resemble saurian versions of geckos. However, their size betrays their dangerous qualities. The Compies descend on humans in swarms, slowly tearing at their flesh and eating them. A left-out element from Crichton’s first book, the film sequel devotes a lot of time to these critters. They have a fun gimmick, and are beautifully created through a smart mixture of CGI and puppetry. However, I think Spielberg and crew thought the Compsognathus was cooler then the rest of us did. Though they have a cult following, the tiny, deadly dinosaur did not crossover to the mainstream the way raptors did. 

Though “The Lost World” makes room for new dinosaurs – even sneaking in a cameo from a pterodon – it knows who the boss is. The T-Rex is given an even bigger role then before. Since the sequel is so intent on topping the original, it gives us a pair of T-Rexes. Nearly the entire first half of the film is devoted to the T-Rex. The big game hunter is eager to face down the Tyrant Lizard King. The duo, a mating pair, make a dramatic entrance into the film. They corner a research lab on both sides. After thinking they’ve appease the creatures, they continue to attack, pushing the trailer over a cliff. The extended sequence, devoted to the cast dangling inside the inverted vehicle, is one of the most intense scenes in “The Lost World.” Another intense sequence has the heroes cornered inside a cave by the dinosaurs. In addition to the mature T-Rexes, the movie also prominently features an adorable, injured, crying baby T-Rex. People liked the undisputed King of the Dinosaurs in the first movie. The sequel successfully gave us more of them.

In attempting to top the first “Jurassic Park,” Spielberg, Crichton, and their teams also made a darker, more violent film. The sequel is packed full of more explicit dino gore. A man is torn in two by the Rexes, each one grabbing a leg, splitting him like a wish bone. A scientist, based off real world eccentric paleontologist Bob Bakker, is chewed up by the dinos. Later, a pack of Compies chew up one of the villains. In a scene that honestly feels protracted and overly sadistic, he’s chewed up, blood spilling into the water. Later on, we even get a boat littered with severed body parts. In addition to the ramped-up gore, “The Lost World” is also visually darker, mostly taking place at night and in thick forest.

Since they were the breakout stars of the original, the sequel makes plenty of room for the velociraptors. An lengthy sequence in the middle of the film is devoted to the speedy creatures. They run and leap, running through a field of tall grass, pinning victims. The dinos jump through glass and wreck cars. This is cool and all but draws attention to the movie’s use of CGI, which is heavier then the first and not as timeless. The movie also makes the odd decision to weaken the raptors. In a moment of almost unbearable Spielbergian sap, a teenage girl kicks a raptor out a window with her gymnastic skills. Maybe because they were such an unexpected, thrilling presence in the first film, the raptors fill somewhat neutered here.

You know how else you can tell this is a Spielberg movie? It’s about family. Introduced early on is Ian Malcolm’s daughter, Kelly. Kelly is estranged from her mother and Ian frankly has a difficult time dealing with the precocious kid. She stowaways on the boat, travelling to Jurassic Park with her dad. She’s reluctant to accept Sarah, Malcolm’s long-time girlfriend, as a mother figure. By the end, after the ordeal they’ve been through with the dinosaurs, the trio renew their familial bond. This theme is connected with the dinosaurs. The two Tyrannosaurs are motivated by the theft of their off-spring. Once reunited with it, they are at peace. Even early on, a mother Stegosaurus is enraged by a perceived threat to its child. The film seems to suggest that parenthood is the connecting fiber throughout every world, even those of the dinosaurs.

In a movie as effects heavy as “The Lost World,” the human cast is almost unimportant. Sam Neill’s Alan Grant or Laura Dern’s Dr. Stattler do not return for the sequel. Instead, Jeff Goldblum’s Ian Malcolm is thrust into the role of protagonist. Goldblum does fine as a leading man. His nervous energy and quiet humor is actually a boon to the sequel, providing the movie with some sort of human heart. Playing his girlfriend is Julianne Moore. Moore has admitted she only took the movie for the paycheck. Despite that, she’s entertaining in the part. She has decent chemistry with Goldblum and seems to be having fun among the dinosaurs. 

The supporting cast is an interesting mix bag. Vince Vaugh, during that weird time when he was still a dramatic actor, plays Nick Van Owen, the team’s photographer. Vaughn’s smarmy attitude is weirdly at odds with the movie’s tone. Smartly, he vanishes before the last act. Playing the big game hunter is veteran character actor Peter Postlethwaite. Postlethwaite at first appears to be a thinly drawn bad guy. As the film goes on, he develops a deeper personality, learning to respect the creatures he’s been hunting. Postlethwaite is certainly preferable over Arliss Howard’s paper-thin Leyland. Peter Stromere has fun as Dieter, the greasy henchman, but the part only gives him so much to do.

I think part of the reason people were disappointed in “The Lost World” is because it’s entire marketing campaign was built around the Tyrannosaurus Rex rampaging through San Francisco. This does not occur until the very end, occupying a small portion of the two hour and nine minutes run time. I know this bugged me as a kid. Sometimes, the wait is worth it though. A homage to the 1925 silent version of “The Lost World,” the T-Rex’s rampage is deeply satisfying. People leap off docks to avoid the creature’s snapping jaws. The dinosaur flips cars, smashing his way through a video store, and chomps on David Koepp. Inevitably, the T-Rex corners the movie’s villain and viciously eats him, giving the bad guy an appropriately ironic end. The movie saves its best special effects for this conclusion. Even now, it’s an impressive display. Would I have preferred an entire movie devoted to dinosaurs attacking cities? Sure. (Though I can’t imagine it was feasible budget-wise.) Yet the movie makes its conclusion count. 

If you’re looking for dinosaur action, “The Lost World: Jurassic Park” might actually satisfy more then the original. It’s a rare moment that doesn’t feature some sort of dino-related mayhem. That’s cool and all. Really, it is. However, the sequel does lack a certain something. The character are less well received and given less to do. The story is sketchy and almost an afterthought. It’s not a horrible film. It’s actually quite entertaining at times. Sadly, it does not match up to the original. Because it is possible to have too much of a good thing, even if that good thing is a T-Rex tearing people in two. [Grade: B-]

Director Report Card: Steven Spielberg (1993) - Part One

17. Jurassic Park

I remember “Jurassic Park.” As a little kid fascinated by dinosaurs, with an enthusiasm and love for the subject that only the very young can muster, I was hugely excited for the film. I was vaguely aware of the movie being based off a best selling book. I knew who Steven Spielberg was. I knew that he was someone who created amazing cinematic visions. I had many of the toys, with their rubbery skin and “Dino Damage.” I saw the perfect poster and “JP” symbol slapped all over the place. I could even hum the John Williams theme song. When I finally saw the film, I was enthralled, frightened, and entertained. There’s no denying that “Jurassic Park” is one of the defining blockbusters of the nineties and an iconic film from my childhood. But does it hold up? 

Billionaire John Hammond has created something wonderful. Pushing his considerable fortune into genetic research, he has done the impossible: Cloned dinosaurs. The thunder lizards, extinct for millennia, walk the Earth again inside the walls of Jurassic Park, Hammond’s island-bound theme park. In order to approve the park and satisfy insurance backers, Hammond has brought in a group of experts: Paleontologist Alan Grant, his lover and fellow scientist Ellie Sattler, and chaos theorist Ian Malcolm. Partly through sabotage, and partly through the uncontrollable quality of the dinosaurs, the vacation to Jurassic Park goes horribly wrong. Now Alan and the others must escape the island before they all become dino-chow.

As a book, “Jurassic Park” sprung from the mind of Michael Crichton. Crichton’s science-tinged thrillers overcame his conservative politics to become consistent best sellers. “Jurassic Park” belongs to the old tradition of the cautionary science-fiction story. The scientists tamper in God’s domain and are punished for it. Not only is the moral time-tested but “Jurassic Park” is boldly derivative of one of Crichton’s earlier works. His 1974 film “Westworld” was about an amusement park filled with robots that go mad and begin killing people. Crichton took the same basic plot outline, added the then-hot button topic of cloning, and switched out the robots for another evergreen point of boyhood fascination: Dinosaurs. As transferred to film by Spielberg, screenwriter David Koepp, and an army of hugely talented effects artist, “Jurassic Park” became a sci-fi fantasy tinged with horror and awe.

There had been dinosaur movies made before “Jurassic Park.” Some of them where even great. However, the dinosaurs were usually hampered by obviously artificial special effects, like rubbery suits or stop-motion. “Jurassic Park” made dinosaurs feel real. To contrast with the real world horrors of his other 1993 release, Steven Spielberg wanted to get back in touch with the boyish adventure stories that made him famous. And what’s more boyish then a love of dinosaurs? Spielberg seems as in awe of the film’s creation as the audience was. When Grant and Sattler first see the Brachiosaurus, their eyes widen in wonder. So does the viewers'. The characters are amazed by the sight of a sick triceratops. Grant comments that it was his favorite dinosaur when he was a kid and now he’s seeing it with his own eyes. “Jurassic Park” is keenly aware of the audience’s deep, nostalgic connection to these creatures. The state-of-the-art special effects make them seem more real than ever before. The result is a movie that delivers on sights long dreamed about by rarely seen before, granting them with an immense amount of power.

Despite the movie being all too aware of how wonderous the dinosaurs are, “Jurassic Park” ultimately comes down against genetic experimentation. Ian Malcolm, played with the perfect amount of shivering nervousness by Jeff Goldblum, warns the scientist that things are going to get out of hand. Though awed by the dinosaurs, both Grant and Sattler are concerned that the geneticist created meat-eaters. By making all the dinosaurs female, the scientists assumed they could control the population. But, as has become a meme by this point, life finds a way. This twist is foreshadowed early on when Grant ties the two female ends of his seatbelt together. John Hammond’s character arc is that of someone who uses science irresponsibly if whimsically. By the end of the film, he’s come around, agreeing that the park was a mistake. “Jurassic Park’s” seems anti-science at first. A closer examination reveals that its in favor of responsible science and against a strictly profit-driven version of experimentation. 

“But Zack,” sayeth my hypothetical readers, “what about the friggin’ dinosaurs?” Cloning meat-eating dinosaurs may have been irresponsible, yes. Yet both the movie and the characters in the film understand the unending appeal of the Tyrannosaurus Rex, the greatest dinosaur to ever live. The T-Rex is given a worthy entrance, proceeded by a tossed goat leg and the iconic rippling glass of water. The sequence by the dam is one of the most horrific in the film. "Jurassic Park" understands the power of the T-Rex. It overturns the jeep, smashing through the glass to get to the meat inside. The overpowering roar of the creature, its sheer size, and magnificent strength are properly conveyed. As frightening as the T-Rex can be, this is also a kid-friendly fantasy. The movie includes enough whimsical humor in this scene. Such as when the T-Rex eats the lawyer. Or, during the otherwise tense chase scene, when the dinosaur’s roaring face is reflected in the rear-view mirror. There’s no denying that the movie gets the T-Rex completely right, creating a perfect movie monster.

“Jurassic Park” also put another dinosaur on the pop culture map. Before this film, mentioning velociraptor to anyone outside the paleontology field would’ve likely produced confused shrugs. Afterwards, the velociraptor immediately became one of the most popular dinosaurs around. The dinosaurs’ appearance is heavily foreshadowed. In the first scene, the raptors yank some generic dino fodder to his death. Afterwards, Grant sets up the creature’s killing prowess by traumatizing some bratty kid. The raptors actually appear suddenly in the film, their dragon like snout pushing through a hole in the wall. The movie emphasizes their supposed intelligence, such as the widely parodied “clever girl” scene or opening doors. Just as the T-Rex rules the jungle, the raptor's easily navigate the inside of the facility. They stalk the children through the kitchen, a moment that makes good use of suspense and misdirection. Later, the raptors slam on doors and leap at air vents. Though the fossil had been discovered in 1923, “Jurassic Park” made the velociraptor the sleeker, smarter, dino killing machine for the nineties.

It’s hard to overstate just how fantastic the special effects are in “Jurassic Park.” The movie revolutionized the use of computer-generated imagery in Hollywood blockbusters. Amazingly, the CGI effects in “Jurassic Park” have aged extremely well. Even though they were made in a computer, the animals still have weight, force, and an impressive amount of detail. Why do the computer effects in “Jurassic Park” still hold up, when CGI from five years ago has already started to age? Maybe its because the film smartly combines CGI and practical effects. Stan Winston, a man whose work means the world to me, created massive, mechanical dinosaurs. Puppets, animatronics, and robotics stand side-by-side the CGI. The combination is nearly seamless, making the dinosaurs seem fully plausible. The animatronics, meanwhile, are some of the greatest ever put to the screen. The movie won all the special effects award that year and well it should have.

The actors in “Jurassic Park” had perhaps a thankless job. The stars of the movie are, after all, the dinosaurs. Understanding this, “Jurassic Park” fills its cast with character actors. Alan Grant is played by Sam Neill. Neill starts out as almost coldly logical before the sight of the dinosaurs fills his heart with joy. As the situation becomes more hairy, Neill brings a sweaty, natural intensity to the part, without loosing sight of his humor. The great Laura Dern remains light and playful throughout but is also real good at panicking when chased by velociraptors. Jeff Goldblum gives, no doubt, the most memorable performance in the movie. Ian Malcolm is the actor at Maximum Goldblum, stuttering, talking to himself, getting shirtless, and filling every inch of the screen with nervous energy. He’s hugely entertaining. Grant may be the heart of the movie but Malcolm is its human MVP.

In a story filled with friggin’ dinosaurs, you wouldn’t think “Jurassic Park” would need a human villain. Yet it does anyway. Dennis Nedry is one of the most weaselly, nasally, dislikable characters in the Spielberg canon. He sabotages the park for money, backbites everyone around him, attempts to steal dino eggs, and has a bikini lady as his computer desktop image. Wayne Knight plays the part at his most obnoxious. Nedry gets his, naturally, during an confrontation with the dilophosaurus. One of my favorite dinosaur designs in the film, the creature provides Nedry with maybe the movie’s most grisly death scene. Despite this, Nedry is nothing but a plot device, a mostly annoying impetuous for everything that will go wrong.

Speaking of annoying things! How about them kids? Maybe the most criticized part of “Jurassic Park” are the kids, Tim and Lex. Tim is introduced throwing dino facts at the paleontologists. Lex, meanwhile, is defined by her vegetarianism and her smug sense of superiority. A briefly dropped line early on sets up a later moment. Lex apparently plays with computers as a hobby. Somehow, this prepares her for rebooting the island’s entire system later on. Aside from improbably screenwriting decision, the kids are easy targets. When the T-Rex attacks the Jeep, Lex flashes a light in its face. They spend the entire last third running from the raptors. It’s not that the actors are bad, as Arianna Richards was perfectly likable in “Tremors.” Even Joseph Mazzello is less shrill then the character description implies. Like Nedry, the kids are mostly a lazy plot device, existing to up the tension and provide relatable characters for the youngest viewers. I don’t wish they were eaten by dinosaurs or anything. But I’m not sure they needed to be in the movie. 

And that’s the main problem with “Jurassic Park.” The movie combines the best and worst attributes of Steven Spielberg. It utilizes his strength for creating genuine awe on-screen. His keen understanding of special effects is beautifully used. His talent for organizing action in clear ways is on display. As is his ability to generate thrills and intensity. Tugging at the movie’s heart is Spielberg’s inclination towards sappiness. The kids are too cute. Their insertion into the movie adds little. In the book, John Hammond is punished for tampering with the natural order of things. Spielberg spares him, as well as softening the character. He sees a kindred spirit in Hammond, a dreamer who also wants to make a lot of money off that dreams. “Jurassic Park” has a lot of heart, and that’s a good thing. A more delicate hand then Spielberg’s was sometimes called for.

There is still no doubt the guy knows how to make a thrilling movie. Look no further than “Jurassic Park’s immensely satisfying conclusion. The heroes are cornered in the park’s giftshop by the velociraptors. They climb down that the shattered bones of the displayed fossil in the middle of the room. All seems lost. That is until the T-Rex bust in and quickly takes out the raptors. The movie may have made the velociraptor the newest dinosaur hotshot but it also understood that the T-Rex was the king. And so the movie’s biggest threat becomes its unlikely hero. “Jurassic Park” knows when to get out too. The film wraps up not long after that, Grant and the others flying away on a helicopter. Grant looks out the window, spotting a flock of birds, the modern descendants of dinosaurs. He’s reminded of the wonder of the world, even if it sometimes risks your life.

“Jurassic Park” isn’t perfect. It’s rife with scientific inaccuracies. No, it’s not possible to extract DNA from blood millions of years old, even if it makes for a really cool image. No, splicing frog DNA with the dinosaur DNA would not help matters. No, dilophosaurus did not have a cool frill around its neck or spit poison. There’s nary a feather in sight. The velociraptors in the film don’t resemble the actual dinosaur much. They look more like Utahraptor which was, coincidently, discovered after the movie entered production. None of this matters much. The plot holes and minor gaps in logic are more distracting. Obviously, a dangerous place like Jurassic Park could never actually exist. They’d be sued out of existence even before the dinosaurs started eating employees. And it’s awfully convenient that the entire island’s infrastructure relies on one room of computers. So is only having one security expert in the whole place. Because this is a popcorn movie, none of this matters much. “Jurassic Park” delivers on what it promises. You won’t even notice most of these things on a first viewing.

Lastly, there’s John Williams’ score. I don’t know how Williams has managed to create so many iconic pieces of film music. The main theme for “Jurassic Park” is sweeping and romantic. The melody is easily hummed and instantly memorable. It suggest adventure and wonder. At times, Williams’ darkly reprises this main theme, when things start to go wrong. But like the movie itself, the music defaults back to whimsy before too long. As far as great John Williams’ scores go, this one ranks below “Jaws,” “Star Wars,” “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” “Close Encounters of the Third Kind,” and “Superman.” Yet that’s some great company to be sharing.

Is “Jurassic Park” a great movie? As a special effects film, it’s undoubtedly a groundbreaking piece of art and amazes even to this day. Its heroes are simple but lovable. The movie puts some phenomenal moments and sequences on-screen, images that will resonate throughout film history until the end of time. The script, however, is ultimately a dumb popcorn movie script. The work of its brilliant effects artist and the director’s touch for on-screen magic elevates the finished project pass its silly screenplay. When it gets down to it, we’re all here for the dinosaurs. “Jurassic Park” delivers the dinosaurs, better than any film before it and most afterwards. It reaches the dino-loving little kid in all of us and that’s something special. [Grade: A-]