‘Jurassic Park’ Review

 

There was a time when dinosaurs were perceived as nothing more than large scaly lizards, on both the silver screen and in the real world. It wasn’t until Steven Spielberg’s earth-shattering Jurassic Park that this perception began to alter drastically. That’s not to suggest the film changed the landscape of science, of course, but rather the viewpoint of the average person and cinemagoer alike. In fact, in the decades since, the film has been scrutinised by palaeontologists for some its scientific inaccuracies. In its defence, though, some were deliberate (who actually wants to see a feathered T-Rex?), while other representations were simply drawn from the research that existed at the time.

However, there’s simply no arguing that the film beautifully portrays its toothy, leathery-skinned cast members as animals, rather than the monstrous types from all those stop-motion pictures from decades prior. With that said, the film wasn’t the first to do so, and there’s a reason why the late Michael Crichton’s now-signature book Jurassic Park drew the attention of the man behind E.T., Jaws and Indiana Jones. Upon its release in 1990, it became an international bestseller, and three years later, it would of course go on to become even more popular with the release of the film. In short, in the world of literature, the book put forth the idea of dinosaurs in a way never done before, using the basis of science, wonder and terror.

Those expecting any “tie-in” of sorts here will be both pleasantly and unpleasantly surprised. As is the case with film, the screen adaptation deviates enormously from its source material, following closely only the bare bones of the plot. It does retain most of the main characters, themes, scenes and sequences, though (bar some significant alterations). However, where the film follows a more linear and simplistic route – at least in terms of its plotting – the novel is a far more complex, detail-rich and intellectual telling of the collapse of InGen’s Costa Rican island resort where man has genetically engineered prehistoric dinosaurs using fossilised DNA.

In a nutshell, it's mostly familiar ground. Alan Grant, Ellie Sattler, Ian Malcolm and InGen lawyer Donald Gennaro are invited to John Hammond's "Jurassic Park" a year before it opens to the public. Hammond's grandchildren Lex and Tim are also present, as are villains Dennis Nedry and Lewis Dodgson. And for the most part, expect to walk the same path, too: Nedry shuts down the power in his attempt to steal dinosaur embryos, the tour jeeps are attacked by the T-Rex, the survivors must make their way back to the visitor centre, the raptors also break free, and so on. However, there are also subplots about the dinosaurs' ability to breed in the wild, as well as a race-against-the-clock scenario in which dinosaurs may already be on their way to the mainland. 

Besides an overall truly thrilling narrative, perhaps one of the most impressive elements here is that, from their first appearance, the dinosaurs are indeed convincing as animals that could exist in our world. Add to that pages of insightful prose on bio-engineering, cloning and palaeontology, and the “what if” factor pulls you in faster than a raptor would its prey. And then there’s Dr. Ian Malcolm’s “chaos theory” – the real-world practise conducted by mathematicians which the book is effectively built upon, which makes for some healthy debate on the matter of cloning in its entirety, as well as some alarming yet truthful introspection on ourselves as a species.

Putting ground-breaking special effects and nerve-shredding suspense aside, there’s no denying that the 1993 blockbuster classic Jurassic Park wouldn’t have become quite as popular without its subtext about the ethics and implications of genetic cloning, in turn owing thanks to its novel origins. And while the four movie sequels, as entertaining as they may be, distinctly lack the conviction in their continued debates on the matter, the idea of recreating prehistoric animals using fossilised DNA remains as fascinating as it has done for the past 25 years. Not only that, but you may be surprised to find that the direction the films are now taking don't actually stray that far from scenarios Crichton posits in his book. 

So, for fans of the Jurassic franchise wishing to delve a little deeper into the science and the world of Jurassic Park, while enjoying what would have likely made for an R-rated film if not for that Spielbergian magic, Crichton’s “techno-thriller” Jurassic Park is a gut-wrenching page-turner . And whether you’re a fan of the film, dinosaurs, reading, or all three, nothing can prepare you for this seamless blend of wonder and horror that was indeed 65 million years in the making…

Stay tuned for my review of Michael Crichton’s The Lost World (the hit-sequel to Jurassic Park) and Ernest Cline’s Ready Player One - also both major motion pictures directed by Steven Spielberg. In the meantime, stay curious.