There’s an ominous thudding; we can see the ripples on the surface of the water cup. It can only mean one thing: a newJurassic Parkmovie is on the horizon. This summer, the seventh film in the long-running franchise, and the second quasi-reboot,Jurassic World Rebirth,will roar its way into theaters. Since 1993, theJurassicbanner (whetherParkorWorld) has maintained a cultural status as one of the biggest, most ferocious Hollywood franchises, and this new installment is already drumming up a lot of excitement.
Following a blockbuster as perfect asSteven Spielberg’sJurassic Parkis no easy feat, but that hasn’t stopped a variety of filmmakers, including Spielberg himself, from attempting to recapture that lightning-in-a-bottle. Each iteration has been a box-office success, proving that fans are intrigued enough to keep giving it another go. The problem? Well, most of the sequels are bad. Not only are they bad, but they seem to learn all the wrong lessons from the original, to the degree that one must consider whetherJurassic Parkever needed a sequel to begin with.
‘Jurassic Park’ Knows When To Show Restraint and When To Give In to Spectacle
Spielberg perfects a gradual arc from wonder to terror withJurassic Park, and this is fundamentally a trick that only plays well the first time around. WithJurassic Park,you don’t even get a full, clear view of a dinosaur until the 20-minute mark. Before that, the stage is set perfectly to build up to the moment where Alan Grant (Sam Neill) steps out of the Jeep and sees the Brachiosaurus for the first time. Neill andLaura Dernplay the mix of bewildered, euphoric shock with exact precision. Their faces alone sell the majesty of what Spielberg finally lets the audience in on. The scene caps off with Dr. Hammond’s iconic line, “Welcome to Jurassic Park,” and since 1993, there have been few moments in cinema, and none of them in this franchise, that have felt as magical and awe-inspiring.
Jurassic Parksprinkles action and spectacle throughout the film in such a way that audiences won’t know or care that the dinosaurs only appear on-screen for a total of 15 minutes. The lack of wall-to-wall thrills works in the film’s favor because Spielberg’s economical storytelling choices ensure that each moment away from the action is setting up something important down the road while also getting you to fall in love with these characters. Neill was not a leading man in 1993. Dern was not yet a household name, even with the critical acclaim of her astonishing work withDavid LynchinBlue VelvetandWild at Heart.Jeff Goldblumwas the most well-known of the three leads, but even his career catapulted to a different level due to the success of this movie. Evidence of one ofJurassic Park’s greatest assets: the tight and perfectly cast ensemble.
“A T-Rex Designed By HR Giger”: ‘Jurassic World Rebirth’ Director Teases Controversial New “Dinosaur”
This ain’t your normal dino.
Past the first act,Jurassic Parkessentially follows ten characters. The three leads, Dr. Hammond and his two grandchildren, Nedry and Arnold, in the control room, Muldoon, the game warden, and Gennaro, the lawyer. All ten are equally memorable, with great performances across a spectrum of child actors, fresh stars, the soon-to-be mega-famousSamuel L. Jackson, and legendary character actorWayne Knight. Once these ten characters are set in place, the film takes on a slasher-like model where the smaller roles are picked off one by one, with Arnold’s off-screen death and discovery feeling especially indebted to films likeFriday the 13th.
As the cast is whittled down, Grant progresses on an arc of accepting and understanding Hammond’s grandchildren, givingJurassic Parka more subdued but compelling undercurrent as a film about parenthood and the responsibility of looking after those who are more curious and vulnerable.Spielberg ensures that the humanity never takes a backseat to cheap thrills, making a monster movie with a beating heart at the center. Caring about the people in Jurassic Park means that you are more frightened every time the threat of a raptor or a T. rex closes in, because Spielberg has given us characters worth rooting for.
WhenJurassic Parkdoes show us the monster, it delivers like no other movie of its kind. The mix of animatronics and CGI effects blends perfectly for an immersive technical showcase that has aged remarkably well. Even in the few moments where the dinosaurs feel uncanny and slightly artificial, the surrounding movie is built so well that the illusion doesn’t break. And where it really counts, scenes like the T. rex attacking the trams or the raptors in the kitchen still work seamlessly over 30 years later.
‘Jurassic Park’s Sequels Lack the Passion, Humanity, and Wonder of the Original
Ignoring the better judgments brought on by the Frankenstein’s Monster ideations ofJurassic Park, the notion that we sometimes create things without considering the consequences, a sequel toJurassic Parkbecame an inevitability as soon as the film’s box office landed the way it did.The Lost World: Jurassic Parkis the first sequel in the franchise, and it already shows the limitations of this story as a franchise.Michael Crichton, writer of the original novel, had not even authored a second book. It was commissioned for the sake of having something to adapt, and when you’re making something just for the sake of making it, you should begin to ask whether you need to make it at all. To paraphrase the underlying theme of the first film, spoken by Dr. Ian Malcolm,Universal was too preoccupied with whether they could make the movie to wonder whether they should.
Spielberg, who is generally motivated by a real, human drive to tell the stories he puts on screen, seemed to fall for what he thought was an easy layup coming off the one-two punch ofJurassic ParkandSchindler’s Listin the same year. What could go wrong? The film wasn’t a complete disaster, but it attempts to recapture the success by adding more dinosaurs to a recycled story concept and Spielberg working on autopilot.
Joe Johnstoninjected a little life into the franchise withJurassic Park III, which is not perfect but more focused and fun than its predecessor. Upon release, it was marked as a sign of the series continuing to run out of steam. The frustrating part of this is thatJurassic Worldcomes into the fold years later, offering a more stale and overstuffed version of what we had gotten three times over, but it hits big. The film’s success earned this reboot its own trilogy, which paid out many times over for Universal but never came close to matching the magic of the original film.
Jurassic Parkfunctions like a handcrafted, intricate clock. Many simple layers of character and storytelling and visual effects perfectly interlock into a finely tuned machine;a movie with no fat or excess, with humanity overflowing, and with just the right amount of thrills. The sequels forget about the wonder. As a viewer, the franchise plays a lot like the first movie’s structure. You start out with an awe-inspiring experience, unlike anything you’ve ever seen, but it gets more bleak as it goes on, and you’ll be asking for a refund by the end.
Can ‘Jurassic World Rebirth’ Succeed Where Others Have Not?
However cautiously optimistic fans may be,Rebirthlooks like it could be a fresh start for the franchise. If more movies are inevitable, we can at least hope that they learn from the mistakes of past attempts. With films likeRogue OneandGodzillaunder his belt, directorGareth Edwardshas experience with sci-fi franchises and large-scale monster stories.Rebirthappears in good hands, but it needs to learn from past mistakes.
Looking at another recent quasi-reboot/sequel from the sci-fi and horror umbrella,Alien: Romulusis agreat example of both what to do and what not to dowith a return to an iconic story. WhatRomulusgets right is that it borrows the aesthetic, the production design, and basic staples of theAlienfilms without making a 1:1 copy of the original. ButRomuluscouldn’t entirely save itself from poorly executed references to past films. These moments, especially the uncanny and ethically questionable inclusion of a resurrectedIan Holm, are far and away the weakest and most frustrating parts of the movie, underlining its most derivative qualities in a way that overshadows the more praiseworthy elements.
There are ample opportunities for exciting stories to be told in this world, stories that are contained and thrilling in their own right.When the IP alone is enough to get people in seats, that is your chance to do something bold and exciting, not to do the thing we saw over thirty years before. There’s no need to go out of your way to remind us of a better movie than the one we just bought a ticket to.Jurassic ParkisJurassic Parkfor reasons that cannot be replicated while expecting the same results, so ifRebirthisn’t the fresh start we need, it may be time to let this franchise go extinct.
