Jurassic Park (1993)

Anybody remember the days where Home Video releases took for fucking ever? I do. I hated it when I was kid, because movies I really liked in theaters took too long to come out, and movies I had missed in theaters took even longer. It was bullshit, but in this day and age of DVDs coming out less than six months after the release of the film, it’s pretty easy to forget how it used to be. The first movie I really can remember dying to see on home video was Steven Spielberg’s take on Jurassic Park.

I was six or seven, I think, when I first saw it, and it was on home video. My parents sheltered me a bit when I was a kid, either from things they thought might scare me or things that might go against our religion. This was of the former category, where I wanted to see it in theaters, because, holy fuck Dinosaurs, but they decided not to let that happen. Instead, when it came out on video, a friend of the family said it was fine for kids, her four year old watched it daily, so she let us borrow her copy.

I watched it fairly un-phased by the scary parts, even telling my dad to stop fast forwarding through the scene when the Lawyer gets eaten. But then…the Dilophosaurus came on screen. Fuck. That. Shit. I don’t think I slept well for a week. Stupid Neckbeard dinosaur.

Anyway, I sort of became addicted to the movie, despite it’s scares, and even saved up money to buy my own VHS copy, despite my parents protests. So, this seems like it would make a great second entry in my Nostalgic look back series.

Jurassic Park is an adaptation of a Michael Crichton book of the same name, and is far better than the book. While the book is full of techno babble about how the science works, the movie tells you in one or two scenes and gets on with it’s story. This is the genius of Jurassic Park.

It’s a story that has another simple one sentence description. “What if Dinosaurs walked the earth again?” and Steven Spielberg attacks this story with such well tuned skills that its almost perfect. The film does have it’s flaws, but they usually pale in comparison to the things the movie gets right.

The film starts off with a very clever trick. We know the film is about dinosaurs, hell audiences knew that going into the film, the advertising (and even the name) weren’t shy about it, but we aren’t sure how or when we will see these creatures, so the opening scene is full of tension, as we think one of the beasts might be coming through the trees towards the men armed to the teeth…and then it’s a crate. Of course, it’s what’s in the crate that we paid to see.

We follow a group of scientists who were invited by the creator of the park, John Hammond (Ah, Richard Attenborough, you are awesome) to inspect and sign off on his creation. Things seem to go very smoothly at first, and this is also part of the genius of the film. The film lulls you into a sense of security, as the characters are pulled into the awe of the island.

One of the key aspects of this is the wonder of it all. The film was really the first time Dinosaurs were treated with real respect in terms of visual accuracy, and of course the effects were the best anyone had ever seen, so the first time we see a dinosaur, it felt incredibly real, and so we are right there with the characters. Of course, things don’t go as planned, and many of the dinosaurs tend to be less than friendly.

Once the T-Rex gets out of it’s paddock, the shit, as some say, gets real, and the cast gets separated, the children of the group with the Dr. Grant (who doesn’t like children) while Dr. Satler and Dr. Malcom are at the home base, while things go all screwy thanks to Dennis Nedry’s programming.

The storyline following the kids and Dr. Grant feels the most Spielberg-ian of the films plots, as it is the closest we get to a father story arc in the film. As I mentioned in my Hook write up, Spielberg is very keen on stories with father issues. Jaws had it, Indiana Jones eventually had it, and in this story there is no real father figure, except for Dr. Grant. It is established early on (in a pretty brilliant scene) that he doesn’t like kids, but it’s mostly lack of experience with them that leads him to this conclusion. In protecting the two kids from the dangers of Jurassic Park, he learns to like the kids, and even becomes fiercely protective of them by the end of the story. He overcomes his dislike, and forms a strong bond with them over the course of their adventure. This is Spielberg’s forte, telling a story of personal growth through some extraordinary means.

The other storyline is more along the lines of a return to the Jaws style horror he started his career with. The whole plot of having to re-start the power is filled with great tension, especially once Ellie sets out to turn the power back on after Samuel L. Jackson fails to do so . The Raptors become the scariest of the villains in the film, because unlike the T-Rex, they have nothing that can protect you. At the time of the films making and release it was believed that T-Rex’s vision was based on movement (now we know this was not the case, and Jurassic Park 3 even makes mention of it, albeit in a shitty way), and thus a way to avoid detection is there, but the Raptors have no such limitation and thus are scarier than any dinosaur in the park for this reason. They are killing machines, and will stop at nothing to tear their prey to pieces. I mentioned being scared by the Dilophosaurus, but these guys are actually still scary to this day. They unnerve me, and it’s the way they look at you. It’s almost human, and that’s why it’s chilling, I think.

Of course, the dinosaurs wouldn’t be anything without the incredible effects work, which is the biggest thing of note here. This film changed the way films were made, and created a world where CGI was a tool for these sorts of movies. The funny part is, now in 2009, there are very few films that have topped the effects of Jurassic Park, made in 1993. The effects hold up incredibly well, which is something that cannot be said for either sequel to the film, or many major films that have used CGI since (I think Lord of the Rings and King Kong achieved similarly great effects, but not much else)

The effects are mostly flawless, which is huge considering it was the first of it’s kind. I think on my last viewing I only noticed one shot where it was obvious they were setting up an effect, and even still the effect was pretty great. ILM really needs to put out something like this again, because as of late they are really becoming less and less of a powerhouse in Hollywood.

And you can't mention the effects without the incredible work on Stan Winston ( )and his crew's part. Jesus, the real T-Rex and Raptors look great, even to today's standards.

The direction of Steven Spielberg is probably the best job he had done in his “amazing adventure blockbuster” films to date, and it shows. The film just shines for it’s running time, and never gets old, and most of that is due to Steven’s dillegence to tell a great story. I spoke at great length about the effects, but Steven is able to take the whole movie down to a single moment of two people talking and make it as interesting. The “Flea Circus” moment is one of the best scenes because it’s about real people in a horrible situation, and the realization that the man who put them there isn’t really learning his lesson.

With Hook he felt like he was just painting by the numbers, with Jurassic Park, he was painting a masterpiece. The difference in direction is almost staggering, and of course after this he went on to Schindler’s List, and won his first Oscar. This was the end of an era for Spielberg, but also the beginning of another.

The cast is pretty damned fantastic. Sam Neil really needs more work, because he’s a great act, and he brings a real humanity to Dr. Grant, who in the hands of a lesser actor could have been a stock action hero (see Jeff Goldblum in the sequel for a text book example of this) and Laura Dern is charming and smart as Ellie. Fuck Jurassic Park 3. Her and Alan are a great couple, despite their differences.

Jeff Goldblum is pretty fantastic as Ian Malcom and steals the movie with his odd delivery and incredibly “excessive” personality. It’s a shame the character got so diluted in the next film, because Malcom is surely the best written character in the film, and a whole film of him, in concept, is great.

Richard Attenborough is my favorite performance as John Hammond. The character is a huge tool in the book, and the movie improves by making him mostly likeable. If he were the dick he is in the book, half of the wonder of the film wouldn’t exist, so the change is welcome, and he bring such life to the performance that you can’t help but love him even in his douche moments.

The supporting cast is also pretty fantastic from Wayne Night to Samuel L. Jackson as staff at the park, and of course the two children who are the most memorable child characters from my childhood (besides Jack and Maggie from Hook) Once again, Spielberg casts a group of people who breath life into the story taking it from simple monster movie to something much more.

I talked about Dean Cundy for Hook, and I feel I need to mention him again, as this was the last time he worked with Spielberg, and again, I feel it’s ashamed he went from shooting Jurassic Park to…directing the third Honey! I Shrunk the Kids movie. His lighting of many of the scenes in this movie is key in creating the mood for the scares and tension that Spielberg created.

All in All, Jurassic Park is still as good as I remember, and it truly is one of the best films of my generation, and will be remembered for years to come. The effects, the story, the acting, and the direction all come together to form a pretty perfect film, and maybe I’m wrong, maybe it’s not perfect, but you know what…it’s damned entertaining, and that’s all that matters, I think.


Thanks for the Nightmares, Spielberg. Thanks a Heap.

Nostalgia Rating 5/5
Real Rating 4/5

Hook (1991)

A few years back I made a pretty bold statement to a few friends of mine. I said that I had decided what my favorite movie of all time was. They looked at me with shock (and perhaps some disgust) when I said Steven Spielberg’s 1991 opus, Hook.

Since that day, I’ve seen a lot more movies, and I am pretty sure if I ranked the films I liked for actual content, I’d say Hook wouldn’t be in the top spot…but I still consider it one of my favorites.

Biggest reason is that it is the film that made me discover Cinema. It was the first film I remember seeing in theaters, and thus holds a very special place in my heart and on my DVD shelf. When I was a kid going to the movies was a big deal. It didn’t happen all that often (and in the case of Hook, it hadn’t happened really at all. My parents say they took me to movies before that, but I honestly can’t remember. I was 5.) but it wasn’t a matter of money or anything, we were a busy family and movies didn’t fit in all that often, and thus when we went to movies, it was a big deal. Hook was the first big deal I can remember. My parents even dressed me up.

It was one of the best days off my young life, as I knew I was going to see it, and I was at pre-school all day just waiting for my parents to pick me up. I even got to brag that I was going to see a movie, which felt pretty pimp, I must say.

We got to the theater, and went in, and wouldn’t you know it, we had the whole damn theater to ourselves. It was probably late in the run, and people that were going to see it already had, but I was 5, and didn’t know that. I thought they were showing the movie especially for me, and that…was spectacular. Watching it then, I probably didn’t understand much of the plot, but I was whisked away to Neverland by the images on screen, and it felt so magical. I fell in love with movies that day, and I’ve never really looked back.

Now in 2009, it occurred to me that I should take a look back at the film that turned me into an instant film nerd. Honestly, the film hasn’t aged well, but I still love it. I will now examine the film as both the film I loved when I was a kid, and a critical eye that I haven't really seen it with.

Hook is about a grown up Peter Pan, which at it’s heart is high concept filmmaking at it’s simplest. A simple sentence can sometimes inspire a two and a half hour movie, and in this case it was “What if Peter Pan grew up?” and while a very interesting concept, it sort of goes against what J.M. Barrie wrote, but in the end, it didn’t matter, because Steven Spielberg decided that was the story he was going to tell.

Peter has grown up, and raised a family, and now doesn’t remember his life in Neverland (despite the film sort of having a “It was all a dream ending” I still like to think he really was Peter. Ah, Childish Naivety) and is now, wait for it, a horrible parent. Ah, yes, Steven’s unfailing ability to weave a Daddy issue into his stories. He’s one of the best at it, and usually it works, and in this case, it sort of feels…jammed in there, but that is the story. His kids are desperate from some attention from their lawyer father, who is working on some big deal, which I still to this day have no fucking clue what it was about. Then, while in Merry Old England, his kids are taken away by the evil Captain Hook. This sets the story in motion, and the adventure begins when Peter is brought to Neverland.

The film spends a great deal of time telling you what shmuck Robin William’s Peter Pan is, and it becomes almost tiring, but once we hit Neverland, it’s less about “Oh, he’s a bad father” and more about getting him ready for his great battle with Hook, which is at least more interesting.

As per the film's title, Captain Hook is easily the most interesting and entertaining character in the film (I'll talk about Dustin Hoffman's role in this in a moment) and his storyline is fascinating. He's old, he wants revenge, but the Peter he gets isn't anything he expected. It's...depressing, and he becomes Suicidal because of it. This is kind of fucked up for a kids movie. The plot I like the most is his attempt at turning Peter's kids against him. It's a unique take on frequently used plot device and has some really great moments (especially the "class" he teaches to the kids.)

Meanwhile Peter is getting whipped into shape by the Lost Boys, which seem very different from the Lost Boys in the original story. Rufio is a huge dick to Peter, because Peter is starting to show who he really is, meaning he'll take back his place as the leader. This culminates in the Imaginary Food scene where he starts to believe in the make-believe feast the Lost Boys created. It's a fun scene, and the scene at the end when he cuts a coconut in half was seriously bad ass when I was five. Now it's still pretty damn cool.

The film culminates in a great battle between Lost Boys and Pirates, which is mostly fluff. Fun Fluff, and as a kid I got a huge kick out of it, but it's mostly useless. The only parts that really matter are The death of Rufio (which is about the only well executed emotional plot wrap up in the story) and the final swordfight between Hook and Peter. The end of the film tries to give Hook a moment, but falls a bit flat, having not set the moment up really well earlier, apart from one line spoken by Maggie, Peter's daughter.

Now I am going to move onto the casting of this film, because it’s all over the place, both good and bad.

Robin Williams is such an odd choice for Peter Pan as a grown up. It was very obviously a studio move, knowing that Hollywood’s current King Jester would rake in some ticket sales. He gives a fun performance, no doubt, but I can’t help but feel this movie would be much better, and have had a longer critical life if Steven had cast someone else. I could be wrong about that, lord knows, but Robin turns Peter Banning into a goofy version of an asshole dad, so it’s hard to see him as a real asshole (except for one scene, which he nails.) In the end, his Peter is funny, and makes the movie enjoyable, but the performance never elevates above simply enjoyable. Of course when I was a kid, Robin Williams looking at the camera made me laugh.

Dustin Hoffman as Hook is one of those great choices not many people would have put together. Dustin Hoffman is not what one thinks of when one says “Blood-thirsty Pirate Lord” but goddamn, is he out of this world in the role. He eats the scenery like it were god damn cake, and it seriously elevates the movie every time he is on screen. The year after Hook came out, I was Hook for Halloween, and I had to look exactly like Hoffman…none of this wishey washy Disney nonsense. He seriously provided the key for the movie to succeed, and while it sort of didn’t, every time I revisit it, Hoffman never disappoints.

Ugh. Julia Roberts as Tinker Bell is probably one of the worst things Steven Spielberg has ever done (well, until the swinging Monkeys in Crystal Skull) She has no charm as the fairy who should be Peter’s best friend. It seriously made me wish that they had made the character a mute like in every other version of Peter Pan. Maybe it’s my undying hatred for Julia Roberts, but…I just can’t stand it. Sometimes it really brings down the scenes around her, which otherwise would be fine.

The supporting cast is all around fantastic, and proves that usually Steven gets the nail on the head with his casts. Maggie Smith (who now looks really as old as she was made up to look on this movie) is wonderful as an old Wendy, and the two kids (one grew up to be in Can’t Hardly Wait, one grew up to be incredibly hot. Guess who’s who) are pretty good, and how can I mention Hook without mentioning the Great Bob Hoskins. He is pretty damned awesome as Smee (and thus my favorite character, besides Hook.)and who can forget the great Rufio? Seriously, I am so glad that dude still gets work, if only for the badass that is Rufio. These supporting characters make the film come alive just a little bit more (except for some of the more annoying Lost Boys), and help me remember why I was so damn fond of the movie when I was a kid.

The directing is another question entirely. Hook was at the tail end of Steven’s “Make fun blockbusters” kick. He had done more serious work before, but soon he would make Jurassic Park, and then move on to his real serious work. His hand in this project feels…lazy. He has the tendency to, on occasion, find a project that is so perfect for him, it’s too perfect, and he slips into a pattern, and in Hook, it’s pretty obvious he was just painting by the numbers. The film has it’s good moments, where Steven was trying (unlike the last Indiana Jones movie, where the dude just took a nap for the whole shoot) but in the end, it is an inferior work.

As hard as I’ve been on the film, many aspects of this film just work, however, and to me, it helps make up for all the other elements.

A good example is Dean Cundey’s wonderful cinematography. It’s a shame that Dean has slipped into obscurity somewhat after Steven switched to Kaminski, because he really knows how to shoot a damned movie. One shot comes to mind, which is when Smee is taking the Hook to the pirate ship. Every time it sucks me in and the world feels real, because it looks straight up beautiful The pirates marching onto the ship is still one of the most memorable things from my childhood. He makes the real world stuff feel very real, and the Neverland stuff feel very fantastical, which sells the journey between the two worlds very well. If they ever get around to releasing a Blu-Ray of this, it might be the film that sparks me to buy one (this or the Lord of the Rings Extended Editions)

Another fantastic job in selling the transition from normal to fantastical is none other than the great John Williams. His score is almost universally praised as the best part of the film, and you’ll hear no argument from me. He does his usual work by creating themes for each character, and they weave together to create a wonderful mosaic of music. My favorite thing is his use of a more modern sound for the scenes in America at the start of the movie, and holds off until we get to London to start throwing some high class orchestral stuff our way. It helps sell the transition, along with Dean Cundy’s work. I am listening to the score right now, and it makes me feel like a kid again, running through the back yard, whistling Hook’s theme.

Overall, Hook doesn’t entirely stand up to the memory of it from my childhood, but it is still a fun movie, and a great thrill to relive every once and a while. I cannot wait to show my kids the film and see what they think of it, when I have kids, that is.

Why wasn't the film the success it might otherwise have been? Perhaps it's not what people wanted at the time, perhaps it was too much all at once, and perhaps it was audiences telling Steven Spielberg he'd have to step up his alredy considerable game. I think the best thing that came out of this film was Steven bringing a fresh face to Jurassic Park, which really is one of the best films of the 90's no matter how you slice it.

Anyway, This was a fun trip into Nostalgia land. I know many film buffs are not fond of this movie, but I have run across several people who enjoy it, so I hope this has been a good read for you.



"Bangarang!"

Nostalgia Rating: 5/5
Real Rating 3.5/5

- DH3

Welcome to Nostalgia Flashbacks

Here I will be posting retrospective reviews of films that I fondly remember from my youth. I also hope to compile the views of others as well here on the site.

As of now the site is sort of...on a trial run, seeing if we can get things started.

Well, that's all for now,

- DH3