Timeless
Written: Mar 11 '07 (Updated Mar 26 '07)
|
Product Rating:
|
|
|
Pros: Special effects, action, special effects, music, special effects
Cons: They did tinker with the story, to make it a tad less horrifying.
The Bottom Line: If the horror does not bother you, this is a great action-adventure film with great special effects.
|
|
|
| dolphinboy's Full Review: |
The story: As this is one of the most well-known movies in the last few decades, I will move quickly through this section. Boy digs up dinosaur bones. Boy meets girl, who digs up fossilized prehistoric plants. Scottish multimillionaire flies boy and girl to a little island near Costa Rica, to show off his new toy, the ultimate flea circus. The "fleas" get loose, try to bite everyone, and people die. Everyone, who survives, runs away.
Okay, that was a bit . . . well, flippant. Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill) is a noted paleontologist, and Dr. Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) is a paleobotanist. Scottish multi-millionaire John Hammond (Richard Attenborough) thinks he has designed the ultimate theme-park, but needs some experts to confirm its safety for the public. He talks Grant and Sattler into flying down to Isla Nublar, near Costa Rica, along with noted mathematician ("No, 'chaotician'!") Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum). Hammond bought Isla Nublar, built a genetic engineering laboratory there, and managed to clone dinosaurs, using DNA from amberized mosquitoes, who drank dinosaur blood. John Hammond believes that, through advanced technology and multiple safeguards, he and his staff have the dinosaurs, including two of the greatest predators ever (Tyrannosaurs rex and Velociraptor), under complete control, and the park is completely safe to open for the public. John Hammond is wrong, as a few unpredictable things occur, and the little tour for Grant, Sattler, Malcolm, and Hammond's grandchildren, turns into a game of "Can we get out of here alive?"
The cast: I have seen reviews that identify the acting as the weak spot in this film, and that baffles me. Richard Attenborough's Hammond is a friendly narcissist with delusions of grandeur, but he comes off as believable to me. The scene, where he talks about his past, and the flea circus, was utterly convincing to me. Jeff Goldblum gives us a very arrogant and flippant and annoying Ian Malcolm. If you talk to twenty mathematics professors, at the highest levels of academia, you will find an Ian Malcolm (or three). I am not saying that any of the cast was deserving of an Oscar, but I do think they all did their jobs quite well.
The special effects: It has been 14 years since this film was released, and the special effects of it have yet to be surpassed. There was only one scene, where I did not find a dinosaur to be credible, and that was when the brachiosaur approached Dr. Grant and the Hammond grandchildren, to examine them. To me, the animal's face was too inflexible to be realistic.
Otherwise, the effects were incredible. It is obvious that the crew put an enormous amount of effort into making the Tyrannosaurus rex and the Velociraptors realistic in their look, their movement, and their behavior. The end result was some of the scariest critters to ever grace the big screen. The battle between the T-rex and the raptors, at the end, and the response to the victory by the victor, were astonishing.
But, nothing matched the moment of absolute movie magic, near the beginning of the film, when Drs. Grant and Sattler first see the dinosaurs. Their sense of wonder is extremely easy for viewer to share, because of the scene's beauty and realism. This scene blows me away every time I see it, and I feel compelled to rewind and re-watch it (at least once).
The music: The above-mentioned scene leads me to mention the movie's musical score. The quality, the tone, and the pace of this score, composed by John Williams, is both highly recognizable, and so well-matched to the story and the action, that it is like seasoning on a good steak: it adds a lot without overwhelming or distracting.
How it stands up: When I first saw this film, I had very recently read the novel by Michael Crichton. My first review of the film, on another site, was four stars, as I was disappointed by two things. First, several things were omitted from the film, probably to keep the film from becoming overlong. Second, the story was tweaked here and there, to make the film a bit less gory. I see the novel, Jurassic Park, as a science fiction horror story. The film version definitely has a horror quality, but the action/adventure and the science fiction components are somewhat bigger, in proportion.
But, I have now seen it about ten times, and still enjoy the experience. The special effects have yet to become outdated, despite all that has been done with computers.
The moral of the story: Michael Crichton's thesis is not a new one, but is an excellent modernization of Mary Shelley's thesis behind Frankenstein: When sciences thinks only about what it can do, and forgets about what it should, and should not, do, the results can be tragic, awful, and truly horrifying.
Recommended:
Yes
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
dolphinboy
|
 in Music, Movies, Books |
 in Books |
|
Member: Chris McCallister
Location: The Great Lakes of Michigan
Reviews written: 621
Trusted by: 265 members
About Me:
I am a psychologist, new author, and a reviewer on several sites.
|
|
|
© 1999-2010 Shopping.com, Inc.