I know the score: anyone who visits Film Yap has likely seen Jurassic Park at some point in the last twenty years. If not, they're at least familiar with what might be the most successful action-adventure franchise of the 1990's. Is it worth a second shot?
For the uninitiated, "Jurassic Park" is a monster-thriller about dinosaurs. Specifically, cloned dinosaurs, produced by billionaire mogul John Hammond (Richard Attenborough) to serve as theme park attractions. Seeking legal support for his park, Hammond recruits paleontologists Alan Grant (Sam Neill) and Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) to visit his island and give him their approval. Along for the ride is Ian Malcom (Jeff Goldblum), a mathematician, and Hammond's grandchildren, Lex and Tim (Ariana Richards and Joseph Mazzello, respectively). Naturally, during their tour everything goes horribly wrong and they're forced to escape a park full of carnivorous dinosaurs.
Naturally.
If you love Jurassic Park, you'll love it again. It's the exact same film you saw twenty years ago. If you have any doubts, though, I can assure you it holds up. The character arcs are classically Speilbergian, with humor, redemption, and a nice dash of aw-shucks good nature. No one is outright evil, and even Hammond, the least sympathetic protagonist, gets a monologue to explain himself. The dinosaur effects, part CGI and part practical, are still a wonder to watch.
Aside from being an excellent adventure film, Jurassic Park was important for its revolutionary CGI. It ushered in a new era of digital characters. Without JP, we may have never had Gollum, Avatar, or Jar Jar Binks. A question one might ask is, does this release prove 3D post-conversion is an worthwhile investment?
My answer is, not quite. "Jurassic Park," like any post-conversion 3D film, has its ups and downs. Scenes where objects in the foreground look flat and lifeless, or scenes where backgrounds look like matte paintings. Sometimes action occurs too close-up, too fast, and it's confusing or even nauseating. But then there are scenes in the jungle, where the added depth creates a lusher, fuller feel to the surroundings. Or the scene near the end where, spoiler, a Raptor busts through a wall to grab at a character. It's terrifying in 2D, even moreso in 3D.
"Jurassic Park" is a near-perfect thriller to begin with. The 3D, in the end, is just pretense for a re-release. A fun and decently implanted novelty that doesn't detract nor add to the film. It begs the question: is it worth paying $13, roughly 13x the amount for a DVD copy, just to see Jurassic Park on the screen? The 3D doesn't add enough to the film for me to really sell it on those merits, but it's Jurassic Park. Good films deserve a second dip once in awhile.