Bracing for Jurassic World: My Personal History with the Raptors

Last updated on: June 14, 2015 at 9:25 pm by Jeffrey Overstreet

Bracing for Jurassic World: My Personal History with the Raptors 2015-06-14T21:25:57-06:00 Jeffrey Overstreet

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Just like every other moviegoer on the planet, I had a blast attending the theatrical opening of Jurassic Park in 1993. I remember laughing for joy at the blissful terror of the T-Rex’s entrance, and laughing even harder when I saw my friends Eric and Matt crawling under their seats.

But I was having fun in spite of the movie’s screenplay, which felt cheap and sentimental even for Spielberg at the time. I thought then — and I still think — that it’s B-grade Spielberg.

This weekend, I went digging for any writing I might have done back then, and could only dug up this old paragraph:

One cannot help but assume the reason the characters in the film are so scared is because they’re so poorly developed. Spielberg was so excited about directing the dinosaurs that he forgot to check the quality of the script. This is not such a bad thing, really. The corny dialogue and aspirations to social and environmental relevance seem to suit this old-fashioned thrill-fest. Who comes to this movie to be intellectually challenged? And OH MY GOODNESS, those dinosaurs are scary! Jeff Goldblum is the only human interesting enough to distract us from the creatures, which, I’m sorry, must be real. I don’t buy all this digital animation jibberish… when you see the T-Rex, you’ll agree. That’s a real dinosaur. (And while we’re on the subject, Goldblum kinda resembles a dinosaur himself, doesn’t he?) By the end of the movie, something called an “impact tremor” will be a permanent part of your nightmares, the way a fin breaking the ocean’s surface fried all our nerves in Jaws. The T-Rex should have been nominated for an Oscar.

Then came The Lost World: Jurassic Park (or Jurassic Park II). And I was not too happy about that one. I wrote:

If you liked Jurassic Park, you’ll probably like this one quite a bit less. What the first film did poorly, this film does much worse. But the dinosaurs still look great, and there are plenty of chilling action scenes.

The Lost World is the same movie… it just has more of everything. More plot holes, more completely illogical events, more things that break down when you think about them, more blood, and, oh, yeah, more dinosaurs. The dinosaurs look even better this time around, but there aren’t any sequences nearly as terrifying as the classic “introducing the T-Rex” scene of the original.

I’ll see it twice, because I think the creatures are beautiful, and Jeff Goldblum makes the most of his paper-thin character. I just can’t help but be a little depressed to see Goldblum, Postlewhaite, and Moore — three of my favorite actors — running around screaming when a good script might have given them a chance to act.

Way back in 2001, I was writing a column for Christianity Today called “Film Forum.” I would continue that column year after year after year — because it was so much fun. In it, I weighed the responses of Christian media to movies opening that weekend.

Early in my column’s run, Jurassic Park III opened. I thought it might be fun, considering the reviews coming in for Jurassic World, to look back and see what Christian media voices — and others — said about that film.

So join me for a walk down memory lane.

[This text was originally published at Christianity Today.]

•

Jurassic Park 3 was a sure financial success. (It’s made $81.4 million at this writing, six days after opening.) People love dinosaurs; no matter how poor the movie’s script, they’ll line up to see prehistoric monsters stomp through the woods and chase people. I admit it: I’m a sucker for the genre. I love the amusement-park thrill of being scared, and there’s something healthy about recognizing ourselves as we run screaming from the very trouble our own god complexes can set in motion. (My full review is online at Looking Closer.) For most audiences, though, the biggest suspense about JPIII is whether there is enough amusement in the Park.

Naysayers had T-Rex-sized complaints. Carrie Rostollan at Christian Spotlight on the Movies walked in saying, “Please let this movie be something more than eye candy.” She was disappointed. “JPIII falls flat, simply a vehicle for a long string of action sequences with no memorable moments. It’s less preachy about evolution, but it doesn’t find anything new to say, either.”

Megan Lenz at The Phantom Tollbooth demands more plausibility from her summer rollercoaster: “Are we really to believe that the collective governments, armies and scientists of the world are allowing dinosaurs to run amok on various islands in the Pacific? Are we really to believe that the members of the original Jurassic Park posse will continually and voluntarily get within spitting distance of said islands?”

On the other side of the electrified fence, Phil Boatwright reacted to the implausibility claim: “If you are searching for any kind of in-depth storyline, what are you doing in a second sequel to a movie about dinosaurs?” He’s pleased with the portrayal of “a separated couple rediscovering their love, and the more noble characters being willing to lay down their lives for others. It also has very impressive special effects, with the huge dinos looking very real, and very menacing. This film is all about action.”

Peter T. Chattaway of The Vancouver Courier writes, “Surprise, surprise … [JPIII] just may be the purest thrill ride of the summer. [Director Joe] Johnston … doesn’t waste time on preachy lessons about the evils of capitalism, the lessons of chaos theory, and the virtues of trusting in nature. Instead, he takes us, as briskly as possible, from one narrow escape to the next, and along the way, he throws in just enough new creatures to make the whole experience seem fresh again. Jurassic Park III is cynically amusing, not least when it takes digs at the previous films, and, most surprising of all, it actually may leave you wanting more.”

Other critics were on the fence. John Barber at Preview reports that “Moviegoers expecting the twists and turns of the original Crichton novel or the movie magic of Spielberg’s direction may be disappointed … but those who want action-packed fun with plenty of special effects wizardry and panoramic cinematography will find it.”

Focus on the Family‘s Bob Smithouser notes that the hero, Alan Grant (Sam Neill), “reverently alludes to Darwin and evolutionary theory, yet later comments that the dinos were created by scientists who were ‘playing God.’ So, Dr. Grant, which is it, an impersonal emergence from the primordial ooze or a benevolent Creator who can bless people?” He adds, “The writing here is actually pretty good. I liked the way a fractured family is drawn together as they try to keep from being—quite literally—torn apart.” Still, he’s not completely swept off his feet by the flying and fierce pteranodons: “Sure, audiences get plenty of dino-bang for their buck this time around, but the franchise hasn’t evolved much in eight years.”

The U.S. Catholic Conference shrugs, “Johnston reduces dialogue and characterization to throwaway status but turns in an energetic sequel whose action sequences deliver the accustomed thrills and spills.”

Taking an altogether different approach, David Bruce of Hollywood Jesus digs up traces of truthfulness in the mythic backbone of this practically prehistoric genre. “This film is loaded with metaphors,” he argues. “The film is basically about the horrors of family breakup. The dinosaurs represent the psychological traumas that the children of feuding parents must unfortunately face. Eric, with childhood resilience … goes into total isolation from everyone, and has to learn how to survive on his own … the plight of the children of divorce. Our forbidden island choices (deception, divorce, money, seduction) can adversely affect the lives of other people. There are consequences to our actions—we truly reap what we sow.”

While most mainstream critics were ho hum about the whole affair, Anthony Lane of The New Yorker turned in a memorably funny and thoughtful review. He writes, “The first two installments of Jurassic Park … were baggy and bloated affairs, a chance for [Steven Spielberg] to prove that he could still be a journeyman. They did nothing for the shape of his genius and everything for the tumult of his cash flow. Jurassic Park III is the leanest and most headlong of the series.” I like Lane’s description of the debut appearance by Spinasaurus: “The look on the face of Tyrannosaurus Rex, the hero of the previous sagas, when he encounters this new and larger species on the block is, according to film historians, absolutely identical to that of Sylvester Stallone when he first got wind of Arnold Schwarzenegger.”

Blog

Previous Post

June 14, 2015

A New Conversation with Pete Horner, Sound Designer for Jurassic World

Next Post

June 15, 2015 Torres and the Influence of David Bazan and Terrence Malick

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Blog Bloggers on "Through a Screen Darkly" Browser Coming Soon Endorsements Fiction Books Film Forum Film Reviews Inspirations Interviews Journal Kindlings Muse Movie buzz Music Reviews Non-Fiction Books radio Reviewers on "Through a Screen Darkly" The Auralia Thread Through a Screen Darkly Through a Screen Darkly - Bonus Materials Top 10 (or 20 or 100) lists Uncategorized

Select a Month June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 July 2003 May 2003 March 2003 September 1999

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was the youngest friend who rebuked Job and the other friends?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Eliphaz Zophar Bildad Elihu