![Jurassic_Park_poster[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/6vgUHIg.jpg "Jurassic_Park_poster[1].jpg")
Generic monster movie.
I get the nostalgia: We loved it as kids. The John Williams score is great. But can we try to be objective and look at its flaws?
The characters were generic. There is no character without an invisible label attached (the scientist, the lawyer, the evil guy who gets eaten etc.,)
The sense of awe and wonder lasts only for a couple of scenes at the beginning. Then it turns to pretty boring monster-flick which we've seen millions of times already.
It could have been a great science-fiction film. But they turned it into a monster film.
The story was, again, generic. Was anyone surprised or shocked when the electric grid failed and the dinosaurs were let lose?
The dialogue about humans playing gods was all generic.
There are surprises in individual scenes but there is no surprise in the movie as a whole.
I think Spielberg did the best he could to take a stupid B-grade film idea into a big budget summer film, but there are inherent limitations to what you can do with shit material.
Thoughts?
>>71568360
>the lawyer, the evil guy who gets eaten
that was the same guy
>>71568360
You don't get to speak for me, fuckface.
is this pasta?
i bet they have 0 practical effects for the new jurassic park flicks
the only one from jw was just made for the sake of heyy we got prakticulls too guise XD
LIKE THE ORIGINAL!
>>71568360
>generic monster movie
No. You missed the point.
Hint: It's the major theme of every Crichton novel.
I'm not even a fan of Crichton, but if you want to argue films, you have to know your genre beyond the tropes.
I don't think just because something is "generic" means it's bad. It's still a competently made, memorable sci-fi/monster movie that still holds up today.
>>71568360
movies literally don't get better than JP you massive faggot
>>71568660
Pasta
>>71568698
I haven't read the books and have no intention of doing so. The movie is not terrible. It's just a b-grade concept. I think its overrated. I'd give it 5.5/10.
Speilberg has made better movies. I feel this was one of his worse pictures.
Having said that, this was better than Lost World.
>>71568794
generic is bad if it becomes a check list the writers and director run though.
>>71568804
Is it your period?
Fuck OP, let's make this a general JP thread.
T-Rex scene still gets me after all these years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1koa2xAxCAw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5Co3A3fLBo
>>71568360
So I reread the original novel yesterday, because I hadnt in like 7 years and honestly I feel like the movie was about "when it came out".
At that time there wasnt anything that came close.
The nice "franchise-feel" of the park, the cars, the Spas-12, the computers, the Ford Explorers etc all felt iconic.
The thrill seeing the T-rex scene for the first time was amazing.
Sadly it has aged not in CGI (which it did), but mostly on a action-adventure level. Nothing happens.
If you look at Mad Max, youll notice that the relentless non stop action is the main appeal (for good reason). An older flick cannot hold its own to that.
Lastly, I still feel that the books are obviously superior in any way.
>>71568990
I agree it's overrated. Still stand by my point about how something isn't bad because it's generic but hey, at least you want to have an intelligent discussion unlike everyone else's argument of "fuck you.!"
>>71569057
OP here.
This is the problem. Like I said, individual scenes are wonderful but the movie, as a whole, is just OK. Because there is barely any story. The themes are cliché and smashed into the face with a hammer.
The whole movie is just cliché.
>>71569160
>nice "franchise-feel"
It's advertisement for the toys. There goes your "iconic"
>>71569261
>>71569261
The film wasn't cliche when it came out you fucking faggot, the movie CREATED a lot of cliches when it became a huge financial and critical hit.
It's like calling Superman a generic hero, when he's the template that generic heroes are striving to be.
>>71569236
>Still stand by my point about how something isn't bad because it's generic
Agreed but you still have not showed how JP is the exception.
>>71569335
You are talking like this is the first monster movie that ever came out.
>>71569320
It serves as both world building and advertisement. Neither of those things make it not iconic.
>>71569320
The jeeps are iconic. The Spas-12 will forever be iconic...
just be thankful john williams graced us with that majestic score...
I would watch it over 90% of the shit made in the last 10 years.
>>71569349
JP is well acted and shot, has many memorable scenes, is effectively suspenseful, has special effects that hold up and broke new ground technology wise. The problem is that it's just a simple monster movie, not that creative of a story and it's message is one that's been seen in many other stories. It's still enjoyable to watch though, for most at least. 7/10
>>71569575
>The problem is that it's just a simple monster movie, not that creative of a story and it's message is one that's been seen in many other stories
Life finds away is in many other stories, care to list 5?
