MovieChat Forums > Jurassic Park (1993) Discussion > I don't get the appeal of this movie

I don't get the appeal of this movie

posted 8 years ago by kepotaz
12 replies | jump to latest

I saw this movie the first time it came out. I was 12 or maybe 13 and even then thought it was just ok, but didn't feel the need to rewatch it. I just recently rewatched this after over 20 years and it just felt corny and mediocre. The special effects were probably revolutionary back in the day and I guess there's some sense of spectacle that some people appreciate, but as a story this is just another disaster movie with the novelty of dinosaurs instead of hurricanes or some other more common predators, and the characters aren't very memorable or interesting either. Many of the scenes and the way they are shot seem corny and feels like the movie hasn't dated well. Jaws and Raiders of the Lost Ark are true classics, but at it's core this is just a mediocre movie, imo. Plus I found the kids really annoying.

[–] foxhound-37781 8 years ago

As far as movies go, I think it's pretty epic and I still enjoy watching it (I watch it roughly once a year). but when you compare the movie to the book, you have to ask the question. What the hell was Spielberg thinking?

There's SO much of the book that's cut out i can't even begin to tell you. So many amazing scenes from the book that just plainly SHOULD have been in the movie.

If you want the true Jurassic Park experience, do yourself a favor and read the book, it runs rings around the movie.

[–] Cult_of_Kibner 8 years ago

What the hell was Spielberg thinking?

He was thinking "I need to worry about making a good movie, not reproducing a book". I like the book but I don't agree that it's any better than the movie, let alone run rings around it. Sure there are good parts that were left out of the movie, but there were also parts I loved in the movie that were nowhere to be found in the book.

[–] malley321 8 years ago

I have to disagree with you about the characters being mediocre and forgettable. Hammond, Malcolm, Muldoon and Nedry have become iconic, and Grant and Sattler weren't your typical movie heroes either. They were much more down to Earth and realistic. As for why it's great, there are a lot of reasons for this. It has a lot of legendary scenes that are hard to find in today's movies, like the first brachiosaur scene, the T-rex breakout (still one of the most suspenseful scenes I've ever seen), the raptors in the kitchen, etc. Plus, I love the theme of scientists trying to control nature and realizing that it is out of their power. Jurassic Park has more heart, soul and intellect then the vast majority of adventure films out there.

[–] successor13326 8 years ago

You and me both. Each time I've seen the flick, it gets worse and worse (I only watched it a few times because I like dinosaurs and tried desperately to see what people like about it...frankly, I can't see why anybody likes it). The story is so thin it's nearly transparent and the characters are one-dimensional cliches from top to bottom. Plus, the whole anti-science/man-shouldn't-play-God theme really rubs me the wrong way.

I bet if Roger Corman or some other B filmmaker had filmed the exact same script, people wouldn't give Jurassic Park the time of day. The film's only saving grace are those amazing dinosaur effects. Take them away and there's nothing of any real substance left.

[–] pimp4u 8 years ago

I watched it for the very first time tonight. I was shocked at how poorly done the whole thing was. Seemed to be produced for an audience of 10-year-olds. I have no idea how it got to be as popular as it was.

[–] cristiweb2 8 years ago

I guess seeing dinosaurs in 1993 was a big deal.

[–] sander1982 8 years ago

Guess there weren't enough hot chicks in it for you?

[–] PreachCaleb 8 years ago

the characters aren't very memorable or interesting either

Well that's just not true at all. Malcolm in particular was a standout. So much so that he was brought back to life in the sequel by the author and Goldblum became the lead.

While you might not dig it, a vast majority of audiences did. It's still hailed as a great adventure movie.

Seize the moment, 'cause tomorrow you might be dead.

[–] gottaluvafriend 8 years ago

Everyone's entitled to his own opinion.

[–] ipacac22 8 years ago

It's called the Spielberg appeal. His name is attached to it therefore it sells tickets. Also there is the heavy nostalgia factor for those of that saw it when we were kids on its release. To add to this, for the year it came out the special fx were pretty mind blowing.

[–] dalton-22403 8 years ago

I somewhat agree. Remove the awesome (especially for their day) dino-effects and John Williams' fantastic score, and it's a pretty mediocre movie.

However, it DOES have those awesome dino-effects and Williams' score. That's enough to make the movie memorable for me.

[–] Honeybefine 8 years ago

I actually feel like Jaws fits the disaster movie with a twist. I never like Raiders, either. I have mixed feelings. As a child, I loved JP. I'll be the FIRST to admit, if they didn't have great effects, no one would remember anything of this movie besides the premise (which apparently wasn't all that new. Some guy claims Crichton stole his idea. Basically, Crichton also ripped off Carnosaur.). It drags at times, many of the characters are too flat and unlikable, much of the plot doesn't make sense (especially with the sequels) on subsequent viewings, and the movie has no tone (one minute it's a feel good movie then it's nightmare fuel and for no purpose). TL;DR: It's not a great film and was never meant to be. It's better than a B movie. Also, if I could only pick ONE movie to see movie theater style and then never see a movie that way again, this would be it. This isn't, even was I was younger, a film I watch over and over again on my tv/computer.