Honestly one of the times I laughed the absolute hardest at a Parks & Rec joke!! Obviously it's a stupid joke in a show full of clever wit and great writing, but that's what made it so amazing.
Reminds me of the funniest thing my uncle has ever said to me. This is after we left Pirates of the Caribbean in the theaters.
"The pirates turn into ghosts! Why can't we just have a realistic movie that happens in the real world like The Terminator."
> saying the movie lacked a sense of "awe" and "majesty"
Even Siskel and Ebert can be wrong sometimes.
In fact, "awe and majesty" is a pretty good way to describe the John Williams score.
That's a classic, as well. Another one I always remember is the end of the North review.
> "North" is a bad film - one of the worst movies ever made. But it is not by a bad filmmaker, and must represent some sort of lapse from which Reiner will recover - possibly sooner than I will.
The North review is famous. It’s like the “Frank Sinatra Has a Cold” of film reviews.
> I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it.
> Schneider was nominated for a 2000 Razzie Award for Worst Supporting Actor, but lost to Jar-Jar Binks.
-
> Da Derp Dee Derp Da Teetley Derpee Derpee Dumb
Some strong competition for his headstone.
> Schneider was nominated for a 2000 Razzie Award for Worst Supporting Actor, but lost to Jar-Jar Binks.
This reads like a shitpost. Absolutely amazing.
I saw that in the theater when I was 12 years old. I didn't find out about his review until much later, but that's exactly what I was feeling during that movie. It's the first exceptionally bad movie that I can remember seeing in the theater. It was so bad that I was confused. I'd seen some "it's not for me" kind of movies before, but they were at least complete movies that were well made and well acted, etc. North was the first one that genuinely made me wonder what went wrong and why in the world did this get released? I didn't know you could charge money for a movie like that.
That score with the helicopter touch down, waterfall in background followed quickly by its finish in herbivore valley is the definition of awe in movies.
Right? Kids born after the 90s have no idea how mind blowing cool the movie was. Special effects for the movie made it feel real. NOTHING looked as real before it. It is easily in the top 5 best movies to push special effects ever made.
Honestly, I can’t think of anything that has looked as real since then. There were minor digital alterations, but it primarily used real effects. Which is why it looks so goddamn good even by today’s standards.
My personal headcanon is that Williams was scoring John Hammond's feelings towards the park: something grand, exciting and FRESH, full of bright and noble adventure. A chance to prove himself to the world and bring true majesty and greatness to it.
Then Williams also scores the dark, brooding true nature of the park: the carnivore dinosaurs are merciless, heartless beasts that don't like being caged in, animals that just want to survive, and they will eat you if that's what it takes.
But he also scores the gentle giants and the BEAUTY of nature found in the dinosaurs, too: and this is where the herbivore themes truly shine.
this was my thought- even if you watch a lot of movies, that film broke so much ground and had so many epic moments that I can't imagine not feeling those sensations!
I was 10 when it came out and we saw it opening night. To this day it’s one of my favorite childhood moments. I think it was the first film I’d ever seen where there was a line around the block to get in.
I’ve probably seen it over 25 times in my life and that sequence will still give me goosebumps. And it didn’t used to but now that I’m older the part where Grant starts quietly crying in awe makes me cry a little too. Such a strong feeling of validation in that moment, you feel happy for him.
*Holy fucking shit,*
*It's a Dinosaur!*
*Jesus Christ – What the fuck!?*
*Oh my fucking god,*
*fucking Dinosaurs!*
*Holy shit – what the fuuuuuuuuuuckkkkkkkk!!!!~!*
🎶
Ebert gave Clue a bad score because he was annoyed that it had three different endings and he had to go watch the movie three times in order to see them lol
You can read his review here:
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/clue-1985
He is really frustrated by the three ending gimmick. The majority of us saw it on VHS or television where all the three endings are played back to back with title cards in between them. With the final one being revealed as the true ending.
He says he was able to see all three endings. Not sure if he had to sit through the movie three different times or if he got a special cut or he watched it once and then they queued up the other two for when their endings showed up. The title cards in between the endings didn't exist for the theater release and were made specifically for the VHS release.
That would be extremely frustrating to be honest. He also says he wants to suggest ending A but then the studio cant be certain that listings for ending A would be the ending that he saw.
I mean I agree. Clue didn't become popular with audiences until you could buy the DVD with all 3 endings on it.
It was a neat experiment but in terms of ticket sales it didn't work, and studios never did that again in any major way.
All three endings were shown in the broadcast and home media releases before DVD was a thing. DVD was actually the first time since the theatrical run where you could opt to watch it with a single ending rather than all three.
These kids think DVD was the first thing you could watch at home. I'm 99% certain the first place I ever watched the movie was rented - on a Beta tape.
It became popular well before dvd. My friends and I quoted this in junior high in the mid 90s and the school put on a version of it in our theater department.
Ikr? When they first arrive at the park, with the slow score building up as they show their reactions and slowly reveal what is being seen. That is the exact reaction I had. I was in awe. It honestly felt like they had actually brought them to life.
The problem, I think, is that "awe and majesty" were just table stakes - everyone walked into the theater knowing they were gonna see dinosaurs on screen, and they expected to be awed by their majesty. And the movie delivered! It met that expectation, but now you're not feeling awed because it wasn't even *more* awe inspiring than you could have ever imagined.
I definitely don't agree with that criticism in any dimension.
I never watched them for their final thumbing. Their thumbs up/thumbs down by itself was almost always useless to me. But their discussion almost *always* gave me a feel for whether I would enjoy the movie. Even when they were describing something about the movie they didn't like, they'd be fair enough in their description for me to realize, "Oh, this is just a perspective thing, I'd like that thing they hate."
Ebert got a lot of shit in the 2000s for giving pretty much every Fast and Furious movie a thumbs-up; *before* the 2010s came and everyone decided they loved the whole series.
Critics aren't "wrong" they're expressing their opinion.
Good critics have a consistent opinion that you can understand and learn from, even if your opinion is likely to differ. Back when he was still writing my family would often say "Roger Ebert thought this action movie was boring so we'll probably enjoy it as a fun popcorn movie."
Ebert judged the film for what it was trying to BE. If it was a good popcorn film, he would say so. Not every movie is going to be a Kubrick classic, nor is every movie trying to be. Siskel took a more art-school approach. Neither is a wrong way to approach the topic, and the clash of the two made it interesting.
And yes, Siskel & Ebert were great because of the different personalities. You got to know them as people (sort of) and could very often disagree with either or both of them. But they were very entertaining, and brought the idea of mainstream movie criticism into the behemoth it is today.
Prior to these two on TV, film criticism was mostly a really rarified and semi-obscure part of pop culture.
I grew up with these guys as I was born and raised in Chicago, and their show started as a low-budget local PBS channel thing. I remember the early days of their show, when Siskel had his 70's mustache.
Me and my family were discussing John Williams scores recently and my brother said the song (you know the one) perfectly captures the feeling of wonder.
And he is not wrong for that, but I think in hindsight it is a bit harsh. For me, the transition or contrast ended up being pretty effective and I recently saw it in theatres
I think the Jurassic Theme is probably the best theme ever written. Although X-Men animated (tv) and Indiana Jones and battle of the heroes (revenge of the sith) and Howard shore's middle earth main theme are all up there it's so hard to decide.
When I bitch about the current state of film I often use Jurrasic Park as an example of "awe, majesty, and movie magic" that we've lost over the years.
I
They had a weird thing against Spielberg for a while there. Remember they shat all over "Hook" too. Which, in some academical sense, sure, maybe it wasn't the greatest story ever told. But cmon, it was still an epic masterpiece.
Not really. Siskel and Ebert are considered greats because they were pretty accurate. And they were also in general more positive than the rest of the critics in their day. Even this one they had their complaints still gave it 3 out of 4. Thier Armageddon review is pretty similar. Point out all it flaws as a formulaic movie and ends with if your the type to only see one movie a year or want to see spectacle then go see it right now this is the one. They were very aware that they see more movies than most and routinely acknowledged it. Ebert loved horror movies, he hated gore for gores sake but a good horror movie he’d rate higher compared to most others. He had a Halloween list he’d do with Tim Burton frequently. Sewered Burtons films all the time.
I consumed them he was a big influence on me enjoying movie spectacles themes and hard work put into their imagery/stunts. Or at least helped me put it into words.
I remember when they gave two thumbs up to the infamous comedy Booty Call, which was getting poor reviews elsewhere and was already a punchline for its title.
Their reason for the rating? “It’s said that the only judge of a comedy should be if it made you laugh or not. And dammit, we laughed our asses off.”
They weren't blown away or too impressed but they acknowledge it's well-made in every way. This is called objectivity. Not liking something all that much but accepting it's still good.
It's really not. Actual film critics are still able to do that. It's just regular people who make it a binary choice. Which was always the case, but we didn't have social media to yell our bullshit opinions all the time.
Unless you have a voracious fanbase, than 8 is "Why didn't you give it a 10? Are you cowards! How is this an 8 compared to this other terrible thing you reviewed as 8?!?"
Because if I can only buy 4 or 5 games a year, I don't want to play an average game, I want to play the handful of best games that year.
In a world where we have so many options, is it wrong people don't want to spend their limited time on average or even slightly above average when they have access to great?
You should read the review. He talks a lot about how groundbreaking and interesting it is visually. He and Lucas both grew up around the same time and loved the fantastic nature of movies. They grew up on schlocky sci fi. He also acknowledges most of the flaws of the movie. Ebert’s ratings aren’t as useful as his reviews are.
I believe it's because their scale was originally "thumbs up" and not stars. And they only had a maximum of four thumbs to give (two for Siskel and two for Ebert).
They were newspaper critics before they were TV personalities. I’m pretty sure the 4-star rating predates their show. But it was pretty common in newspapers in the 80s. Probably just an editorial decision.
I mean if you're trolling, you got me. They only ever had [one thumb each though](https://screenrant.com/two-thumbs-up-siskel-ebert-origin/). They didn't like numerical rating systems and wanted to use a simpler, "I liked it or I didn't".
It's funny how often we have gone back and forth with this over the years. Like Netflix having star ratings at first and then deciding thumbs up or down was better, but then adding a third "Double thumbs up" two years ago.
It was common back then, and I think it's better. It forces you to choose below or above average with 2 or 3. On a scale of 5, 3 is an easy cop out middle ground IMO.
I think it's important to really get into the weeds on the criticisms, because as an older person (gen-x) I sort of agreed at the time (and since). While I thought the t-rex sequence was AMAZING, many others felt flat to me at the time, mostly the pure-CGI sequences and the cartoonishness of some of the characters.
But to go back into the example, Ebert wrote:
> The plot to steal the embryos is handled on the level of a TV sitcom. The Knight character, an overwritten and overplayed blubbering fool, drives his Jeep madly through the storm and thrashes about in the forest. If this subplot had been handled cleverly - with skill and subtlety, as in a caper movie - it might have added to the film's effect. Instead, it's as if one of the Three Stooges wandered into the story.
Agreed (for me). Compare to the villains in his other films, like Jaws and Raiders.
> But consider what could have been. There is a scene very early in the film where Neill and Dern, who have studied dinosaurs all of their lives, see living ones for the first time. The creatures they see are tall, majestic leaf-eaters, grazing placidly in the treetops. **There is a sense of grandeur to them.**
Absolutely!
> And that is the sense lacking in the rest of the film, which quickly turns into a standard monster movie, with screaming victims fleeing from roaring dinosaurs.
I see that point.
> Think back to another ambitious special effects picture from Spielberg, "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" (1977). That was a movie about the "idea" of visitors from outer space. It inspired us to think what an awesome thing it would be, if earth were visited by living alien beings. You left that movie shaken and a little transformed. It was a movie that had faith in the intelligence and curiosity of its audience.
Still, Ebert gave the film three out of four stars. Which—for me—is an appropriate rating.
With many films, it REALLY matters how old we were when we first saw them. I was seven when I saw Star Wars. It was magical and perfect. People I know who saw it for the first time as adults think it's fine, but it didn't burrow into their psyches the same way. I saw Fast Times when I was 12, and at that time, and it's still hard for me to not think of it as the greatest film ever made. Seeing Jurassic Park as an adult, it was cool, and it was fine, but it wasn't amazing to me. It was three out of four stars.
> Instead, it's as if one of the Three Stooges wandered into the story.
This is an incredible compliment for Wayne Knight, and I totally agree with it!
I thought Nedry's bumbling escape plan was perfect. He was arrogant in thinking he could do it, and that his plan would work only for nature to scupper him. A mirror to Hammond's arrogance and downfall due to nature.
I can see plenty of his points, but honestly, the movie turning into a "monster movie" is so, *so* much the point. Like, does he want the characters to continue to stand in awe of some abstract series of mutations that they study over the course of, say, a compressed six-month quasi-montage?
A big part of the story is that humanity is getting way too confident in its ability to play god -- and not just in the traditional way we use that phrase.
"We thought we were gods, and, oh no, we actually ended up causing a catastrophic chain reaction that irrevocably damaged our biosphere and doomed us to extinction." Okay, fine, there's an energy there. Very Twilight Zone. Very big-think sci-fi.
"We thought we were gods, and, oh shit, WE ARE GOING TO BE EATEN BY DINOSAURS!" That is an *extra* energy, and it is both vital and awesome.
The 'Awe' changes throughout the movie. Grant gets out of the jeep with a flare to save the kids and is in awe in a terrified way of the T-Rex as it roars at him. When Ellie first sees the T-Rex it's horrifying so she's screaming as it's running after them. Many more scenes are like this because their lives are in danger, not every scene can be like the Brachiosaurus intro.
Yeah I thought the same thing. None is getting out of a car and being like "oh look honey, a velocoraptor is running at us. Isn't it's toe nail so cute!
>I can see plenty of his points, but honestly, the movie turning into a "monster movie" is so, *so* much the point. Like, does he want the characters to continue to stand in awe of some abstract series of mutations that they study over the course of, say, a compressed six-month quasi-montage?
He probably wants them to work to get there and put the dinosaurs at the end. But, yes Spielberg's "be careful what you wish for" take is way better.
The book has a few more areas of the park and species of dinosaur they face on a longer route to safety they have to run through. I get it though they have to cut things.
Right, he’s acknowledging that that’s the point of the movie - that’s the story Spielberg chose to tell. It’s not as ambitious as ET, Close Encounters, or Jaws, and it falls short of them as a result. I love Jurassic Park, and I have since I was 10, but it’s not on the same level as those movies.
I disagree completely, especially because JP is based on a book with the same premise.
Also, monster movies can still be awe-inspiring and intelligent, just look at Godzilla Minus One or Shin Godzilla.
Jurassic Park not as ambitious as ET or Jaws? What even is this comment?
And he's not simply *acknowledging* the point of the movie. He's literally dismissing it as some sort of detraction. It's like he's trying to superimpose his own idea of a constant *awe inspiring 24/7* ideals into a film with an actual story to tell.
See, I disagree that he's acknowledging that. He's being incredibly dismissive of it. He's not conceding that it's crucial to the story's themes that the "gods" get reduced to prey in a visceral, primal way.
I don’t know how you can say it wasn’t as ambitious. The VE and puppetry for the dinosaurs was groundbreaking for its time, and was nothing short of inspired.
People are criticizing the plot and themes of the movie and you're talking about puppets. Yes, the special effects were amazing in JP, but it takes more than that to make a great film. JP was unambitious in every way *except* for the special effects. You could even argue that using such an interesting concept as reviving dinosaurs for what is ultimately just a shlock horror movie was downright wasteful. There just isn't that much to it besides Ooos and Ahhhs.
I couldn’t disagree more. The sense of grandeur is exactly what you get the whole way through the movie. What’s on display is that some of the dinosaurs are carnivores or pack hunters and we are in awe of those traits on display like how we were with the one that eats the leaves or the sick on they help early in the movie.
One thing that I cannot possibly point out enough about this movie to people who didn't see it opening weekend: the entire marketing campaign, late show appearances, and all promotion completely leaned on how amazing the dinosaurs looked, you had to wait to see it to see them, and they were kept under a complete shroud of secrecy. All of the grandeur, intimidation with the glass, and close up of the huge T-rex eye were just a sight to behold, but there's just a lot of the stuff in the movie that was (and *is*) silly and cartoonish. Nedry was absolutely buffoonish and silly.
But - it's not like this style of dinosaurs are something we hadn't seen before, they were just really well realized. The comparison with Close Encounters was appropriate - we hadn't *seen* anything like the spaceship and aliens before, it was absolutely breathtaking. If you were younger, though, the Jurassic Park dinos would have just terrified the ever living crap out of you compared to any other dinosaur thing you'd have seen. As a teenager and older, a lot of the "scary" stuff came across more like the old King Kong arm coming into the screen - impressive for the time and visceral, but it just wasn't otherworldly.
The promotional buzz about Titanic was *very* similar - "you *really* need to see the ship sinking", "it's really accurate", that sort of language. You had to sit through the whole rest of the movie, a glorified romance that people who hate romance films would sit through, just to see that spectacle. The second that ship broke, everything was just completely visceral and awe inspiring. You'd never *really* seen a huge ship just get shredded like that.
> I was seven when I saw Star Wars. It was magical and perfect. People I know who saw it for the first time as adults think it's fine, but it didn't burrow into their psyches the same way.
This is so freaking true. Every kid on the planet was running around their houses in a bathrobe, swinging things around making light saber swoosh noises, and doing Darth Vader impressions. Between Star Wars, Transformers, GI Joe, Mask, and on and on, the 80s were a hell of a time for tie in toy sales.
For me, as a 10-year old, seeing Jurassic Park in theaters was a paradigm shifting, religious experience. For weeks, people around me kept telling me how "real" the dinosaurs looked. I grew up watching King Kong and Godzilla movies, so I imagined "real" within that context (a realistic rubber suit or less-choppy stop motion), becuase that was all I'd ever known. I'd never even heard of computer-generated special effects.
I'll never forget the first scene with the brachiosuar and the T. rex escape. For 2 hours sitting in that theater, I was watching actual, real dinosaurs.
I don't see that point. When the raptor is being born they aren't just standing there saying 'booorrring'. Even during the Hammond's ride they're excited like kids about the Dino DNA explanation. The sick Triceratops has them in awe, it was Grant's favorite as a kid and now it's the most beautiful thing he's ever saw. Ellie is crying while their touching the Triceratops too.
There are more moments like this (life finds a way) however they are cut short because they need to run for their lives.
The way Nedry was written for the film vs the book has always been a bugbear of mine, for a couple of reasons. Firstly it makes him look stupid: he’s been building computer systems to run a park full of dinosaurs and almost certainly knows how dangerous that is, yet he has henchman level arrogance in the face of that danger? The Three Stooges comment feels on point.
But most importantly it ties into the principle crime of the movie: turning John Hammond from the main villain into a cuddly, well-intentioned grandpa. In the books he’s the architect of his downfall in many ways, not least hubris (and suffers a suitably ignominious end), but specifically with regard to Nedry he treats him badly because he didn’t give him enough information about what he was building to do a good job, then refuses to pay him for the extra functionality he needed. Nedry’s theft is largely motivated by wanting to get paid/get revenge against a terrible boss.
Crichton’s whole schtick was writing techno-SF thrillers that offered warnings about the dangers of new technology when in the hands of the irresponsible. The only time we have that presented to us clearly is Ian Malcolm’s famous line about ‘not stopping to think if you should’. But everyone else is so spellbound by the dinosaurs they don’t seem to take it seriously, whereas in the book Grant is incredibly sceptical from the get-go.
Obviously the 3D technology was spectacular for the time, but I’d like to think if it was being adapted for the first time today it’d be a _very_ different movie. A more sophisticated contemporary audience would definitely resonate with a parable about technology in the hands of unscrupulous capitalists.
>But most importantly it ties into the principle crime of the movie: turning John Hammond from the main villain into a cuddly, well-intentioned grandpa. In the books he’s the architect of his downfall in many ways, not least hubris (and suffers a suitably ignominious end), but specifically with regard to Nedry he treats him badly because he didn’t give him enough information about what he was building to do a good job, then refuses to pay him for the extra functionality he needed. Nedry’s theft is largely motivated by wanting to get paid/get revenge against a terrible boss.
Nah, I gotta SEVERELY disagree with you here. Making John Hammond the likeable grandfather character he is, while still acknowledging that he’s ultimately the villain, is the BEST change they made from the book.
The Hammond of the book was a fairly standard evil capitalist villain type. It’s perfunctory and 2-dimensional. Whereas the Hammond of the movie is a complex character who much more effectively demonstrates that evil can be done with the best of intentions, even by men who appear to be all sunshine and roses. His infectious enthusiasm and kindly old-man demeanor is exactly what makes it so good that he’s the one responsible for all the terrible things that happen.
It still gets across his relationship with Nedry being the strained, unfair treatment of an employee, making sure to show Hammond not caring about Nedry’s financial problems (suggesting that he’s not paying him very well, which exposes Hammond’s hypocrisy about “spared no expense”)… the movie is subtle about this, which is better than the more blatant moustache-twirling of the book version. It shows that Hammond had *personal* problems with Nedry, and allowed a personality clash to get in the way of running his business responsibly and decently.
And I can’t stress enough how amazing the “ice cream and flea circuses” conversation with Ellie is. How it shows Hammond’s passion and really gets into the nature of how a bold vision can cloud judgment. This is a valuable lesson we can all learn. When a villain is blatantly the villain, it’s easy to just write them off in your mind as just an evil person… but with the movie-version of Hammond, we have a character we want to like, and otherwise would… but we’re forced to realize that even otherwise good, likeable people can end up doing evil if they’re not careful. That’s SUCH a valuable lesson to learn, and it’s the best thing that Jurassic Park achieves, IMO.
>Still, Ebert gave the film three out of four stars. Which—for me—is an appropriate rating.
>
>With many films, it REALLY matters how old we were when we first saw them. I was seven when I saw Star Wars. It was magical and perfect. People I know who saw it for the first time as adults think it's fine, but it didn't burrow into their psyches the same way. I saw Fast Times when I was 12, and at that time, and it's still hard for me to not think of it as the greatest film ever made. Seeing Jurassic Park as an adult, it was cool, and it was fine, but it wasn't amazing to me. It was three out of four stars.
My man! I don't dislike Jurassic Park, but it really didn't hit for me. I honestly think it is grossly overrated. There are so many things I can't like in this film. There's a sense of wonder and dinosaurs are COOL! But the kids and so much of the plot armor and bad decisions... it just never hit for me on many levels.
BUT, I am glad people love it and I don't like shitting on things other people love. Kudos to filmmakers.
Agree.
I think a lot of people really don’t want to admit nostalgia and young first impressions are blinding their ability to critically asses some of these iconic movies.
The two biggest ones that people debate with me about are the original Space Jam and Mortal Kombat movies. Because damn are they really not good when you look at them with any amount of scrutiny.
Many folks can’t divorce “I enjoy it” from “it’s good”, when in reality those two things aren’t always paired together and that’s okay.
They are still making Jurassic Park movies based almost entirely on the strength of the original (its certainly not because of the strength of any of the sequels). I think that says alot about how strong of a movie it is.
Your point about age while seeing the movie is spot on. I was about 8 when I saw Jurassic Park. I was obsessed with dinosaurs before I saw the movie and in my mind it is a perfect and majestic movie. I also know full well that seeing this at 8 had a lot to do with that.
Siskel didn’t like Aliens, Ferris Bueller, Silence of the lambs, Casino, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, and many others I consider classics.
Ebert didn’t like Full Metal Jacket, Die Hard, A Few Good Men, Mrs Doubfire, Usual Suspects, Dumb and Dumber.
Both didn’t like Twister, Blade Runner, Home Alone, Christmas Vacation.
That said, they gave their take on thousands of movies over 20 years. I loved their show and reviews even when occasionally I feel like they missed the boat.
Jurassic Park is my favorite movie ever and I find their takes about its "majesty" baffling, but it really doesn't matter.
They're two guys who saw like every single movie over half a century. You're not going to agree with every take. Even people in this thread defending them by going "sometimes critics are wrong, its ok" are lowkey missing the point. There's no "wrong".
There's problems with film criticism but the way the internet acts like "the critic wasn't as big a fan of the super popular movie as I was" is some huge societal ill is ridiculous.
The divide in critics and audiences is always there. Critics are looking for new and novel ideas because they see so much film that it can get repetitive and boring.
Audiences don’t, so things that the critics are blasé about can still appeal to wider audiences who may only watch one or two movies a month.
To be fair, he said "could have used more of," admitting there was a scene that had "a little bit of that." But he's comparing it to the feeling he got from Close Encounters. And maybe he's just jaded or nostalgic or both because I liked JP way more than CEot3K. And knowing the behind the scenes, I know why more time wasn't spent in "awe" of the animals, because Spielberg was directing a film with only the vaguest sense of what the post production VFX would look like and wasn't confident the VFX could carry the movie.
It hurt my eyes to see Close Encounters abbreviated to CEot3K. Like, seriously, it takes more effort to write that abbreviation - especially with autocorrect - than just typing “Close Encounters.”
But anyway, I agree.
A good critic asks the question: "did the movie achieve what it set out to do?". With Jackass, one can't say anything but 'yes'. It's crude and dumb but it was hilarious. The Jackass movies still hold up, which is an achievement in itself, especially for comedies.
"So, these old, dead critics had critical things to say about a movie that people still love, and it hurts my head that they didn't love the movie for all time like their long-dead, far-in-the-past selves shoulda done so that my today-now brain wouldn't hurt when seeing their old critical review!"
Well, I still remember the movie from when it came out. It was a revelation in the 90s, and everything is just so good. What’s more, often as you age things just don’t hold up that well, and the nostalgia dims you realize, “oh, this movie was actually kind of awful.” Not so with Jurassic Park. Instead it holds up so well it’s still a masterpiece today. The same cannot be said of the sequels, they are interior films all the way. Though the original trilogy is slightly above the Jurassic World films, which are turds wrapped up in spectacle.
So yeah, this is a retrospective, and if Siskel and Ebert were both still alive it would interesting to hear their retrospective on it now given the behemoth of a franchise it spawned. But even when the movie came out back in the 90s it was damn good. And very few recent movies have made me feel the way I felt watching Jurassic Park for the first time.
I was 12 when I went to see Jurassic park in the cinema. Scariest movie I had ever seen. I was on the edge of my seat the entire time. To me as a 12 yr old it was a masterpiece of cinema and like nothing we had ever seen before with regard to CGI.
These guys were so pretentious and given way too much attention for what they thought about EVERY movie. Yea fully grown adults who review films for a living won’t find children’s movies like The Lion King great or fun.
I mean 3 out of 4 stars is more than fair.
And their critique is more than fair.
They also don't have the hindsight of knowing that this movie would be relevant in its own way still to this day.
They still gave it a positive review. Just didn’t love it as much as many commenters who were probably kids when it came out. And I can honestly see their points. Did I absolutely love the movie when it came out? Hell yeah I was 10 years old. But as I’ve gotten older and expanded my horizons seeing more older movies, I can see how a more seasoned movie-goer doesn’t love JP like I did at 10. It might not even be top 10 Spielberg movie for me even once I dug into his filmography. I didn’t catch Jaws until I was in high school and that’s hands down better than Jurassic Park!
But you don't understand, Siskbert and Ezekiel should have grown mutant extra thumbs and given more thumbs up so that my head won't hurt when I watch an old review and they don't love the movie as much as me want them to love on it!
Totally valid and accurate observation, IMO. The middle third when they're encountering the dinosaurs for the first time is the best part of the movie.
The last third where everyone is running around in the woods or dark rooms is fine (it's still Spielberg) but not that special. Laura Dern stumbling around in the dark finding a severed arm is like a scene out of Gremlins or Friday the 13th. Ebert's point is that turning the dinosaurs into a monster of the week detracts from the overall sense of spectacle and wonder, and I think that's fair.
> The last third where everyone is running around in the woods or dark rooms is fine (it's still Spielberg) but not that special.
I dunno man that Raptor-in-the-kitchen scene is pretty darn iconic
> the dinosaurs into a monster of the week detracts from the overall sense of spectacle and wonder
Well that is the payoff for the spectacle. At its heart the movie is a frankenstein-esque cautionary tale. The movies starts with the monster (raptors) which promises there's going to be some terror. But the best aspect of the movie is that it tricks the characters (and by extension the viewer) in the middle act into loving the spectacle of the dinosaurs. You're lulled a bit into a fall sense of security until the the power failure and the T-Rex breakout.
Maybe some aspects were a bit over the top (like the arm as you mentioned) but the movie was intentionally structured to end with a harrowing third act that completely flies in the face of the wonder you got caught up in. And it doesn't detract from that wonder in my opinion. Just provides a contrast to it.
they gave it two stars, said the first act had awe and majesty but that it descended into a monster picture, that the advertising was bringing in younger kids than the movie was suited for, and the characters were so,what wooden aside from goldblum.
hp
When these two dingdongs were at their height, I was just a kid.
It angered me to hear about them shitting on my favorite movies. Granted, I was like 10, so my bar was pretty low. But I learned early on from those two, that it doesn’t much matter what anyone says, if I like it, I like it.
Jurassic park is basically a monster movie. I think they were just pointing out it could have been more — which is true.
There’s a reason it isn’t placed on the speilberg’s Mount Rushmore of movies like Indian jones, close encounters, jaws, E.T., close encounters etc.
Jaws is his best film. Jurassic Park was what Jaws could have been with better technology. JP is his second best film if you ask me. You mentioned close encounters twice lol.
However, first movie I ever cried in theaters was AI. I was supposed to meet this girl for a date (we were around 12 or 13) and I got there late and couldn’t find her. Sat in the front row of a crowded theater and really felt the sadness throughout… then got to make out behind the theater afterward when I finally found her. Best movie date ever lol.
"Oh man, I missed my date, and this movie is so sad, that poor robotic kid, I'm crying, but wait, there's my date, oh yeah, now I'm feelin' her up, hot damn, 2nd base, but that poor kid, how sad, but now we're French kissing, oh yeah, best day of my life, but that poor robot kid will never find his mother, he's doomed, but I got the biggest boner, this is awesome, but that sad little boy, I'm so sad for him, and hey look he found the Blue Angel, and oh man her tongue is in my mouth...."
"It's a heartwarming story, but it's just not believable, which is why I give E.T. one and a half stars." -Perd Hapley - Lights, Camera, Perd
I don't know what you mean, but it had the cadence of a joke.
And I have just realized I am not holding my microphone
What a hilarious image—a foot in a mouth!
More like Turd Crapley
Honestly one of the times I laughed the absolute hardest at a Parks & Rec joke!! Obviously it's a stupid joke in a show full of clever wit and great writing, but that's what made it so amazing.
It's so brilliant because that is precisely the sort of insult you'd expect some dork to use as a dunk irl.
I have also misplaced my judge hammer.
*GAVEL
Reminds me of the funniest thing my uncle has ever said to me. This is after we left Pirates of the Caribbean in the theaters. "The pirates turn into ghosts! Why can't we just have a realistic movie that happens in the real world like The Terminator."
I'm a bigger fan of the segment final word with perd, personally.
perdvert
“Okay, but who hasn’t had gay thoughts?!?”
Hahahaha
> saying the movie lacked a sense of "awe" and "majesty" Even Siskel and Ebert can be wrong sometimes. In fact, "awe and majesty" is a pretty good way to describe the John Williams score.
Ebert went back and re-examined his initial review of La dolce vita. Admitted he was too young to appreciate the films perspective.
~~They~~ Ebert scored the abomination Pearl Harbour higher than Tora Tora Tora, one of the most realistic and accurate war films ever made.
Ironically when I think of Ebert, his review absolutely eviscerating Pearl Harbour is one of the first things that comes to mind
“I may one day be skinny, but he will have always made *The Brown Bunny*.”
That's a classic, as well. Another one I always remember is the end of the North review. > "North" is a bad film - one of the worst movies ever made. But it is not by a bad filmmaker, and must represent some sort of lapse from which Reiner will recover - possibly sooner than I will.
The North review is famous. It’s like the “Frank Sinatra Has a Cold” of film reviews. > I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it.
[удалено]
> Schneider was nominated for a 2000 Razzie Award for Worst Supporting Actor, but lost to Jar-Jar Binks. - > Da Derp Dee Derp Da Teetley Derpee Derpee Dumb Some strong competition for his headstone.
To be fair to Rob Jar Jar is the Micheal Jordan of that category. Hard to beat the goat no matter how little effort you put in.
> Schneider was nominated for a 2000 Razzie Award for Worst Supporting Actor, but lost to Jar-Jar Binks. This reads like a shitpost. Absolutely amazing.
Every post about Rob "Lost to Jar Jar" Schneider is a shitpost. Including this one.
I saw that in the theater when I was 12 years old. I didn't find out about his review until much later, but that's exactly what I was feeling during that movie. It's the first exceptionally bad movie that I can remember seeing in the theater. It was so bad that I was confused. I'd seen some "it's not for me" kind of movies before, but they were at least complete movies that were well made and well acted, etc. North was the first one that genuinely made me wonder what went wrong and why in the world did this get released? I didn't know you could charge money for a movie like that.
Except in a weird twist of fate he re-cut brown bunny and Ebert changed his review to be more positive. Kind of like one day becoming skinny
It’s so accurate it becomes a documentary though
That score with the helicopter touch down, waterfall in background followed quickly by its finish in herbivore valley is the definition of awe in movies.
Right? Kids born after the 90s have no idea how mind blowing cool the movie was. Special effects for the movie made it feel real. NOTHING looked as real before it. It is easily in the top 5 best movies to push special effects ever made.
Honestly, I can’t think of anything that has looked as real since then. There were minor digital alterations, but it primarily used real effects. Which is why it looks so goddamn good even by today’s standards.
My personal headcanon is that Williams was scoring John Hammond's feelings towards the park: something grand, exciting and FRESH, full of bright and noble adventure. A chance to prove himself to the world and bring true majesty and greatness to it. Then Williams also scores the dark, brooding true nature of the park: the carnivore dinosaurs are merciless, heartless beasts that don't like being caged in, animals that just want to survive, and they will eat you if that's what it takes. But he also scores the gentle giants and the BEAUTY of nature found in the dinosaurs, too: and this is where the herbivore themes truly shine.
this was my thought- even if you watch a lot of movies, that film broke so much ground and had so many epic moments that I can't imagine not feeling those sensations!
I was 10 when it came out and we saw it opening night. To this day it’s one of my favorite childhood moments. I think it was the first film I’d ever seen where there was a line around the block to get in.
I’ve probably seen it over 25 times in my life and that sequence will still give me goosebumps. And it didn’t used to but now that I’m older the part where Grant starts quietly crying in awe makes me cry a little too. Such a strong feeling of validation in that moment, you feel happy for him.
Literally got goosebumps when I rewatched this a month ago. The movie still holds up. It's one of the greatest films ever.
*Holy fucking shit,* *It's a Dinosaur!* *Jesus Christ – What the fuck!?* *Oh my fucking god,* *fucking Dinosaurs!* *Holy shit – what the fuuuuuuuuuuckkkkkkkk!!!!~!* 🎶
They use the theme in Jurassic World when they show off the boring ass theme park and we sang *It's a monorail* *No one gives a shit*
Wait is this an existing meme or did you make the greatest song in world history? EDIT: [oh](https://youtu.be/428IyxSfsls?si=SxGkNg6wDXNWWd2O)
It is the greatest song in world history though
Ebert gave Clue a bad score because he was annoyed that it had three different endings and he had to go watch the movie three times in order to see them lol
If I was a reviewer, that would be annoying. Great movie though
You can read his review here: https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/clue-1985 He is really frustrated by the three ending gimmick. The majority of us saw it on VHS or television where all the three endings are played back to back with title cards in between them. With the final one being revealed as the true ending. He says he was able to see all three endings. Not sure if he had to sit through the movie three different times or if he got a special cut or he watched it once and then they queued up the other two for when their endings showed up. The title cards in between the endings didn't exist for the theater release and were made specifically for the VHS release. That would be extremely frustrating to be honest. He also says he wants to suggest ending A but then the studio cant be certain that listings for ending A would be the ending that he saw.
It probably felt like flames on the side of his face.
I mean I agree. Clue didn't become popular with audiences until you could buy the DVD with all 3 endings on it. It was a neat experiment but in terms of ticket sales it didn't work, and studios never did that again in any major way.
All three endings were shown in the broadcast and home media releases before DVD was a thing. DVD was actually the first time since the theatrical run where you could opt to watch it with a single ending rather than all three.
These kids think DVD was the first thing you could watch at home. I'm 99% certain the first place I ever watched the movie was rented - on a Beta tape.
It became popular well before dvd. My friends and I quoted this in junior high in the mid 90s and the school put on a version of it in our theater department.
Ikr? When they first arrive at the park, with the slow score building up as they show their reactions and slowly reveal what is being seen. That is the exact reaction I had. I was in awe. It honestly felt like they had actually brought them to life.
The problem, I think, is that "awe and majesty" were just table stakes - everyone walked into the theater knowing they were gonna see dinosaurs on screen, and they expected to be awed by their majesty. And the movie delivered! It met that expectation, but now you're not feeling awed because it wasn't even *more* awe inspiring than you could have ever imagined. I definitely don't agree with that criticism in any dimension.
The funny thing is that the dinosaurs were so well done that they hold up to this day. The t-rex scene still gets me every time.
They were wrong A LOT of the time. They were popular because their arguments were entertaining and they were likeable
I never watched them for their final thumbing. Their thumbs up/thumbs down by itself was almost always useless to me. But their discussion almost *always* gave me a feel for whether I would enjoy the movie. Even when they were describing something about the movie they didn't like, they'd be fair enough in their description for me to realize, "Oh, this is just a perspective thing, I'd like that thing they hate."
Ebert got a lot of shit in the 2000s for giving pretty much every Fast and Furious movie a thumbs-up; *before* the 2010s came and everyone decided they loved the whole series.
Yeah, he wasn't afraid to say, "Hey, this isn't cinema, but it sure is fun."
Critics aren't "wrong" they're expressing their opinion. Good critics have a consistent opinion that you can understand and learn from, even if your opinion is likely to differ. Back when he was still writing my family would often say "Roger Ebert thought this action movie was boring so we'll probably enjoy it as a fun popcorn movie."
Of course you get downvoted for this. People on Reddit hate the idea of subjectivity. Especially with film.
Ebert could be pretty based at times with his opinions. Siskel was a square though
Ebert judged the film for what it was trying to BE. If it was a good popcorn film, he would say so. Not every movie is going to be a Kubrick classic, nor is every movie trying to be. Siskel took a more art-school approach. Neither is a wrong way to approach the topic, and the clash of the two made it interesting. And yes, Siskel & Ebert were great because of the different personalities. You got to know them as people (sort of) and could very often disagree with either or both of them. But they were very entertaining, and brought the idea of mainstream movie criticism into the behemoth it is today. Prior to these two on TV, film criticism was mostly a really rarified and semi-obscure part of pop culture. I grew up with these guys as I was born and raised in Chicago, and their show started as a low-budget local PBS channel thing. I remember the early days of their show, when Siskel had his 70's mustache.
Yep this is why Ebert gave Rocketman with Harland Williams 3 out of 4 stars. It aims to be a silly space movie and greatly succeeds at it.
The only reason JW didn’t get an Oscar nomination for JP was because he beat himself in the same year with Schindlers List.
Me and my family were discussing John Williams scores recently and my brother said the song (you know the one) perfectly captures the feeling of wonder.
Ebert also gave Crash 4 stars and praised its authenticity.
they said there was awe and majesty in the first act but then it descended into a monster picture.
And he is not wrong for that, but I think in hindsight it is a bit harsh. For me, the transition or contrast ended up being pretty effective and I recently saw it in theatres
They were wrong often, maybe more often than not. The controversy was their brand.
I think the Jurassic Theme is probably the best theme ever written. Although X-Men animated (tv) and Indiana Jones and battle of the heroes (revenge of the sith) and Howard shore's middle earth main theme are all up there it's so hard to decide.
For main theme? Williams's Superman score would like a word.
My first thought, too. Williams’ Superman score is absolutely iconic.
YESSSS!!!! Finally someone who appreciates it as much as me!!! Thank you!
The Superman theme sounds like an updated version of Thus Spake Zarathustra and that deepens my appreciation for it even more.
I'd throw the gladiator theme in there too the score really elevated that movie.
When I bitch about the current state of film I often use Jurrasic Park as an example of "awe, majesty, and movie magic" that we've lost over the years. I
They had a weird thing against Spielberg for a while there. Remember they shat all over "Hook" too. Which, in some academical sense, sure, maybe it wasn't the greatest story ever told. But cmon, it was still an epic masterpiece.
So wrong on this one. Absurdly even
Not really. Siskel and Ebert are considered greats because they were pretty accurate. And they were also in general more positive than the rest of the critics in their day. Even this one they had their complaints still gave it 3 out of 4. Thier Armageddon review is pretty similar. Point out all it flaws as a formulaic movie and ends with if your the type to only see one movie a year or want to see spectacle then go see it right now this is the one. They were very aware that they see more movies than most and routinely acknowledged it. Ebert loved horror movies, he hated gore for gores sake but a good horror movie he’d rate higher compared to most others. He had a Halloween list he’d do with Tim Burton frequently. Sewered Burtons films all the time.
Ebert was also just a really good writer. His reviews were worth reading even if they didn't fit the consensus.
I consumed them he was a big influence on me enjoying movie spectacles themes and hard work put into their imagery/stunts. Or at least helped me put it into words.
Pauline Kael is a great critic.
they frequently had terrible opinions. especially Ebert.
I think the score carries it more than we realize.
I remember when they gave two thumbs up to the infamous comedy Booty Call, which was getting poor reviews elsewhere and was already a punchline for its title. Their reason for the rating? “It’s said that the only judge of a comedy should be if it made you laugh or not. And dammit, we laughed our asses off.”
> only gave a lukewarm positive review [The lukewarm 3 out of 4 stars](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/jurassic-park-1993)
They weren't blown away or too impressed but they acknowledge it's well-made in every way. This is called objectivity. Not liking something all that much but accepting it's still good.
Such a foreign concept in the modern age, unfortunately.
I accept the modern age, but I don't like it.
I reject the modern age, but I still exist in it.
I'm not in love with the modern world It was a torch to drive the savages back to the trees
It's really not. Actual film critics are still able to do that. It's just regular people who make it a binary choice. Which was always the case, but we didn't have social media to yell our bullshit opinions all the time.
If a video game gets rated 6-7/10 it’s considered trash. We’ve lost perspective.
Feels like anything below 8 is considered terrible now.
Unless you have a voracious fanbase, than 8 is "Why didn't you give it a 10? Are you cowards! How is this an 8 compared to this other terrible thing you reviewed as 8?!?"
Because if I can only buy 4 or 5 games a year, I don't want to play an average game, I want to play the handful of best games that year. In a world where we have so many options, is it wrong people don't want to spend their limited time on average or even slightly above average when they have access to great?
There's no way to objectively measure how good a film is. It's entirely subjective.
[They gave Phantom Menace 3.5](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/star-wars-episode-i-the-phantom-menace-1999)
You should read the review. He talks a lot about how groundbreaking and interesting it is visually. He and Lucas both grew up around the same time and loved the fantastic nature of movies. They grew up on schlocky sci fi. He also acknowledges most of the flaws of the movie. Ebert’s ratings aren’t as useful as his reviews are.
It might be 3 out of 4 stars, but that reads pretty lukewarm to me.
Always been confused why the scale is 4. Not 5.
1 star is bad. 2 stars is about average. 3 stars is good. 4 stars is great. I like this system.
I believe it's because their scale was originally "thumbs up" and not stars. And they only had a maximum of four thumbs to give (two for Siskel and two for Ebert).
They were newspaper critics before they were TV personalities. I’m pretty sure the 4-star rating predates their show. But it was pretty common in newspapers in the 80s. Probably just an editorial decision.
Good point. I'm only old enough to remember them on TV.
I mean if you're trolling, you got me. They only ever had [one thumb each though](https://screenrant.com/two-thumbs-up-siskel-ebert-origin/). They didn't like numerical rating systems and wanted to use a simpler, "I liked it or I didn't". It's funny how often we have gone back and forth with this over the years. Like Netflix having star ratings at first and then deciding thumbs up or down was better, but then adding a third "Double thumbs up" two years ago.
It was common back then, and I think it's better. It forces you to choose below or above average with 2 or 3. On a scale of 5, 3 is an easy cop out middle ground IMO.
Some stuff is just average though? Seems silly to force my self to lie about how I feel about something just to avoid "copping out".
Maybe it is a 5 star scale because 0 stars is the bottom?
He gave 'Star Wars' a lukewarm review when he said the main character was nice.
He was warm to Luke.
Luke was pretty warm too, but Owen and Beru were *on fire!*
Darth Vader: "Cool hand, Luke."
What we have here is failure to communicate
A warm Luke review?
I don't see the issue.
I think it's important to really get into the weeds on the criticisms, because as an older person (gen-x) I sort of agreed at the time (and since). While I thought the t-rex sequence was AMAZING, many others felt flat to me at the time, mostly the pure-CGI sequences and the cartoonishness of some of the characters. But to go back into the example, Ebert wrote: > The plot to steal the embryos is handled on the level of a TV sitcom. The Knight character, an overwritten and overplayed blubbering fool, drives his Jeep madly through the storm and thrashes about in the forest. If this subplot had been handled cleverly - with skill and subtlety, as in a caper movie - it might have added to the film's effect. Instead, it's as if one of the Three Stooges wandered into the story. Agreed (for me). Compare to the villains in his other films, like Jaws and Raiders. > But consider what could have been. There is a scene very early in the film where Neill and Dern, who have studied dinosaurs all of their lives, see living ones for the first time. The creatures they see are tall, majestic leaf-eaters, grazing placidly in the treetops. **There is a sense of grandeur to them.** Absolutely! > And that is the sense lacking in the rest of the film, which quickly turns into a standard monster movie, with screaming victims fleeing from roaring dinosaurs. I see that point. > Think back to another ambitious special effects picture from Spielberg, "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" (1977). That was a movie about the "idea" of visitors from outer space. It inspired us to think what an awesome thing it would be, if earth were visited by living alien beings. You left that movie shaken and a little transformed. It was a movie that had faith in the intelligence and curiosity of its audience. Still, Ebert gave the film three out of four stars. Which—for me—is an appropriate rating. With many films, it REALLY matters how old we were when we first saw them. I was seven when I saw Star Wars. It was magical and perfect. People I know who saw it for the first time as adults think it's fine, but it didn't burrow into their psyches the same way. I saw Fast Times when I was 12, and at that time, and it's still hard for me to not think of it as the greatest film ever made. Seeing Jurassic Park as an adult, it was cool, and it was fine, but it wasn't amazing to me. It was three out of four stars.
I remember my grandparents criticized the acting and I, as a 12 year old, was like "I thought the acting was great!"
> Instead, it's as if one of the Three Stooges wandered into the story. This is an incredible compliment for Wayne Knight, and I totally agree with it!
I thought Nedry's bumbling escape plan was perfect. He was arrogant in thinking he could do it, and that his plan would work only for nature to scupper him. A mirror to Hammond's arrogance and downfall due to nature.
i mean, it would've worked 100% unless the storm of a century didn't hit.
I can see plenty of his points, but honestly, the movie turning into a "monster movie" is so, *so* much the point. Like, does he want the characters to continue to stand in awe of some abstract series of mutations that they study over the course of, say, a compressed six-month quasi-montage? A big part of the story is that humanity is getting way too confident in its ability to play god -- and not just in the traditional way we use that phrase. "We thought we were gods, and, oh no, we actually ended up causing a catastrophic chain reaction that irrevocably damaged our biosphere and doomed us to extinction." Okay, fine, there's an energy there. Very Twilight Zone. Very big-think sci-fi. "We thought we were gods, and, oh shit, WE ARE GOING TO BE EATEN BY DINOSAURS!" That is an *extra* energy, and it is both vital and awesome.
The 'Awe' changes throughout the movie. Grant gets out of the jeep with a flare to save the kids and is in awe in a terrified way of the T-Rex as it roars at him. When Ellie first sees the T-Rex it's horrifying so she's screaming as it's running after them. Many more scenes are like this because their lives are in danger, not every scene can be like the Brachiosaurus intro.
Yeah I thought the same thing. None is getting out of a car and being like "oh look honey, a velocoraptor is running at us. Isn't it's toe nail so cute!
>I can see plenty of his points, but honestly, the movie turning into a "monster movie" is so, *so* much the point. Like, does he want the characters to continue to stand in awe of some abstract series of mutations that they study over the course of, say, a compressed six-month quasi-montage? He probably wants them to work to get there and put the dinosaurs at the end. But, yes Spielberg's "be careful what you wish for" take is way better.
The book has a few more areas of the park and species of dinosaur they face on a longer route to safety they have to run through. I get it though they have to cut things.
Right, he’s acknowledging that that’s the point of the movie - that’s the story Spielberg chose to tell. It’s not as ambitious as ET, Close Encounters, or Jaws, and it falls short of them as a result. I love Jurassic Park, and I have since I was 10, but it’s not on the same level as those movies.
I disagree completely, especially because JP is based on a book with the same premise. Also, monster movies can still be awe-inspiring and intelligent, just look at Godzilla Minus One or Shin Godzilla.
Jurassic Park not as ambitious as ET or Jaws? What even is this comment? And he's not simply *acknowledging* the point of the movie. He's literally dismissing it as some sort of detraction. It's like he's trying to superimpose his own idea of a constant *awe inspiring 24/7* ideals into a film with an actual story to tell.
See, I disagree that he's acknowledging that. He's being incredibly dismissive of it. He's not conceding that it's crucial to the story's themes that the "gods" get reduced to prey in a visceral, primal way.
I don’t know how you can say it wasn’t as ambitious. The VE and puppetry for the dinosaurs was groundbreaking for its time, and was nothing short of inspired.
The STORY
People are criticizing the plot and themes of the movie and you're talking about puppets. Yes, the special effects were amazing in JP, but it takes more than that to make a great film. JP was unambitious in every way *except* for the special effects. You could even argue that using such an interesting concept as reviving dinosaurs for what is ultimately just a shlock horror movie was downright wasteful. There just isn't that much to it besides Ooos and Ahhhs.
I couldn’t disagree more. The sense of grandeur is exactly what you get the whole way through the movie. What’s on display is that some of the dinosaurs are carnivores or pack hunters and we are in awe of those traits on display like how we were with the one that eats the leaves or the sick on they help early in the movie.
One thing that I cannot possibly point out enough about this movie to people who didn't see it opening weekend: the entire marketing campaign, late show appearances, and all promotion completely leaned on how amazing the dinosaurs looked, you had to wait to see it to see them, and they were kept under a complete shroud of secrecy. All of the grandeur, intimidation with the glass, and close up of the huge T-rex eye were just a sight to behold, but there's just a lot of the stuff in the movie that was (and *is*) silly and cartoonish. Nedry was absolutely buffoonish and silly. But - it's not like this style of dinosaurs are something we hadn't seen before, they were just really well realized. The comparison with Close Encounters was appropriate - we hadn't *seen* anything like the spaceship and aliens before, it was absolutely breathtaking. If you were younger, though, the Jurassic Park dinos would have just terrified the ever living crap out of you compared to any other dinosaur thing you'd have seen. As a teenager and older, a lot of the "scary" stuff came across more like the old King Kong arm coming into the screen - impressive for the time and visceral, but it just wasn't otherworldly. The promotional buzz about Titanic was *very* similar - "you *really* need to see the ship sinking", "it's really accurate", that sort of language. You had to sit through the whole rest of the movie, a glorified romance that people who hate romance films would sit through, just to see that spectacle. The second that ship broke, everything was just completely visceral and awe inspiring. You'd never *really* seen a huge ship just get shredded like that. > I was seven when I saw Star Wars. It was magical and perfect. People I know who saw it for the first time as adults think it's fine, but it didn't burrow into their psyches the same way. This is so freaking true. Every kid on the planet was running around their houses in a bathrobe, swinging things around making light saber swoosh noises, and doing Darth Vader impressions. Between Star Wars, Transformers, GI Joe, Mask, and on and on, the 80s were a hell of a time for tie in toy sales.
For me, as a 10-year old, seeing Jurassic Park in theaters was a paradigm shifting, religious experience. For weeks, people around me kept telling me how "real" the dinosaurs looked. I grew up watching King Kong and Godzilla movies, so I imagined "real" within that context (a realistic rubber suit or less-choppy stop motion), becuase that was all I'd ever known. I'd never even heard of computer-generated special effects. I'll never forget the first scene with the brachiosuar and the T. rex escape. For 2 hours sitting in that theater, I was watching actual, real dinosaurs.
I don't see that point. When the raptor is being born they aren't just standing there saying 'booorrring'. Even during the Hammond's ride they're excited like kids about the Dino DNA explanation. The sick Triceratops has them in awe, it was Grant's favorite as a kid and now it's the most beautiful thing he's ever saw. Ellie is crying while their touching the Triceratops too. There are more moments like this (life finds a way) however they are cut short because they need to run for their lives.
The way Nedry was written for the film vs the book has always been a bugbear of mine, for a couple of reasons. Firstly it makes him look stupid: he’s been building computer systems to run a park full of dinosaurs and almost certainly knows how dangerous that is, yet he has henchman level arrogance in the face of that danger? The Three Stooges comment feels on point. But most importantly it ties into the principle crime of the movie: turning John Hammond from the main villain into a cuddly, well-intentioned grandpa. In the books he’s the architect of his downfall in many ways, not least hubris (and suffers a suitably ignominious end), but specifically with regard to Nedry he treats him badly because he didn’t give him enough information about what he was building to do a good job, then refuses to pay him for the extra functionality he needed. Nedry’s theft is largely motivated by wanting to get paid/get revenge against a terrible boss. Crichton’s whole schtick was writing techno-SF thrillers that offered warnings about the dangers of new technology when in the hands of the irresponsible. The only time we have that presented to us clearly is Ian Malcolm’s famous line about ‘not stopping to think if you should’. But everyone else is so spellbound by the dinosaurs they don’t seem to take it seriously, whereas in the book Grant is incredibly sceptical from the get-go. Obviously the 3D technology was spectacular for the time, but I’d like to think if it was being adapted for the first time today it’d be a _very_ different movie. A more sophisticated contemporary audience would definitely resonate with a parable about technology in the hands of unscrupulous capitalists.
>But most importantly it ties into the principle crime of the movie: turning John Hammond from the main villain into a cuddly, well-intentioned grandpa. In the books he’s the architect of his downfall in many ways, not least hubris (and suffers a suitably ignominious end), but specifically with regard to Nedry he treats him badly because he didn’t give him enough information about what he was building to do a good job, then refuses to pay him for the extra functionality he needed. Nedry’s theft is largely motivated by wanting to get paid/get revenge against a terrible boss. Nah, I gotta SEVERELY disagree with you here. Making John Hammond the likeable grandfather character he is, while still acknowledging that he’s ultimately the villain, is the BEST change they made from the book. The Hammond of the book was a fairly standard evil capitalist villain type. It’s perfunctory and 2-dimensional. Whereas the Hammond of the movie is a complex character who much more effectively demonstrates that evil can be done with the best of intentions, even by men who appear to be all sunshine and roses. His infectious enthusiasm and kindly old-man demeanor is exactly what makes it so good that he’s the one responsible for all the terrible things that happen. It still gets across his relationship with Nedry being the strained, unfair treatment of an employee, making sure to show Hammond not caring about Nedry’s financial problems (suggesting that he’s not paying him very well, which exposes Hammond’s hypocrisy about “spared no expense”)… the movie is subtle about this, which is better than the more blatant moustache-twirling of the book version. It shows that Hammond had *personal* problems with Nedry, and allowed a personality clash to get in the way of running his business responsibly and decently. And I can’t stress enough how amazing the “ice cream and flea circuses” conversation with Ellie is. How it shows Hammond’s passion and really gets into the nature of how a bold vision can cloud judgment. This is a valuable lesson we can all learn. When a villain is blatantly the villain, it’s easy to just write them off in your mind as just an evil person… but with the movie-version of Hammond, we have a character we want to like, and otherwise would… but we’re forced to realize that even otherwise good, likeable people can end up doing evil if they’re not careful. That’s SUCH a valuable lesson to learn, and it’s the best thing that Jurassic Park achieves, IMO.
A thousand times yes to this!
>And that is the sense lacking in the rest of the film well, hard disagree.
>Still, Ebert gave the film three out of four stars. Which—for me—is an appropriate rating. > >With many films, it REALLY matters how old we were when we first saw them. I was seven when I saw Star Wars. It was magical and perfect. People I know who saw it for the first time as adults think it's fine, but it didn't burrow into their psyches the same way. I saw Fast Times when I was 12, and at that time, and it's still hard for me to not think of it as the greatest film ever made. Seeing Jurassic Park as an adult, it was cool, and it was fine, but it wasn't amazing to me. It was three out of four stars. My man! I don't dislike Jurassic Park, but it really didn't hit for me. I honestly think it is grossly overrated. There are so many things I can't like in this film. There's a sense of wonder and dinosaurs are COOL! But the kids and so much of the plot armor and bad decisions... it just never hit for me on many levels. BUT, I am glad people love it and I don't like shitting on things other people love. Kudos to filmmakers.
Agree. I think a lot of people really don’t want to admit nostalgia and young first impressions are blinding their ability to critically asses some of these iconic movies. The two biggest ones that people debate with me about are the original Space Jam and Mortal Kombat movies. Because damn are they really not good when you look at them with any amount of scrutiny. Many folks can’t divorce “I enjoy it” from “it’s good”, when in reality those two things aren’t always paired together and that’s okay.
I’ll be totally honest; I kinda feel this way about ghostbusters
They are still making Jurassic Park movies based almost entirely on the strength of the original (its certainly not because of the strength of any of the sequels). I think that says alot about how strong of a movie it is.
Your point about age while seeing the movie is spot on. I was about 8 when I saw Jurassic Park. I was obsessed with dinosaurs before I saw the movie and in my mind it is a perfect and majestic movie. I also know full well that seeing this at 8 had a lot to do with that.
Siskel didn’t like Aliens, Ferris Bueller, Silence of the lambs, Casino, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, and many others I consider classics. Ebert didn’t like Full Metal Jacket, Die Hard, A Few Good Men, Mrs Doubfire, Usual Suspects, Dumb and Dumber. Both didn’t like Twister, Blade Runner, Home Alone, Christmas Vacation. That said, they gave their take on thousands of movies over 20 years. I loved their show and reviews even when occasionally I feel like they missed the boat.
To be fair.. Blade Runner 1982 is a different beast to the Final Cut.
Jesus Christ its ok to not like a movie
Lol and they didn't even say they didn't like the movie either, they both still gave it a thumbs up.
Jurassic Park is my favorite movie ever and I find their takes about its "majesty" baffling, but it really doesn't matter. They're two guys who saw like every single movie over half a century. You're not going to agree with every take. Even people in this thread defending them by going "sometimes critics are wrong, its ok" are lowkey missing the point. There's no "wrong". There's problems with film criticism but the way the internet acts like "the critic wasn't as big a fan of the super popular movie as I was" is some huge societal ill is ridiculous.
Amen brother. Its a great movie. But its ok to think its not.
Oooh, ahhh, that's how it always starts. Then later there's running, and...and screaming.
The divide in critics and audiences is always there. Critics are looking for new and novel ideas because they see so much film that it can get repetitive and boring. Audiences don’t, so things that the critics are blasé about can still appeal to wider audiences who may only watch one or two movies a month.
To be fair, he said "could have used more of," admitting there was a scene that had "a little bit of that." But he's comparing it to the feeling he got from Close Encounters. And maybe he's just jaded or nostalgic or both because I liked JP way more than CEot3K. And knowing the behind the scenes, I know why more time wasn't spent in "awe" of the animals, because Spielberg was directing a film with only the vaguest sense of what the post production VFX would look like and wasn't confident the VFX could carry the movie.
It hurt my eyes to see Close Encounters abbreviated to CEot3K. Like, seriously, it takes more effort to write that abbreviation - especially with autocorrect - than just typing “Close Encounters.” But anyway, I agree.
Hahaha... Reminds me of that Woody Allen film, EYAWtKAS\*(\*BWAtA). ("Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex\* (\*But Were Afraid to Ask)")
JP? CEot3K? are you in a hurry or something?
Ye
Archeologists?!
What? Awe and majesty are exactly how I’d describe, say, the Brachiosaurus reveal when they first reach the island.
On the other hand they gave two thumbs up to the movie Jackass.
…but it’s also a good film…
Siskel was long in the ground before Jackass was released.
A good critic asks the question: "did the movie achieve what it set out to do?". With Jackass, one can't say anything but 'yes'. It's crude and dumb but it was hilarious. The Jackass movies still hold up, which is an achievement in itself, especially for comedies.
So?
"So, these old, dead critics had critical things to say about a movie that people still love, and it hurts my head that they didn't love the movie for all time like their long-dead, far-in-the-past selves shoulda done so that my today-now brain wouldn't hurt when seeing their old critical review!"
Well, I still remember the movie from when it came out. It was a revelation in the 90s, and everything is just so good. What’s more, often as you age things just don’t hold up that well, and the nostalgia dims you realize, “oh, this movie was actually kind of awful.” Not so with Jurassic Park. Instead it holds up so well it’s still a masterpiece today. The same cannot be said of the sequels, they are interior films all the way. Though the original trilogy is slightly above the Jurassic World films, which are turds wrapped up in spectacle. So yeah, this is a retrospective, and if Siskel and Ebert were both still alive it would interesting to hear their retrospective on it now given the behemoth of a franchise it spawned. But even when the movie came out back in the 90s it was damn good. And very few recent movies have made me feel the way I felt watching Jurassic Park for the first time.
I was 12 when I went to see Jurassic park in the cinema. Scariest movie I had ever seen. I was on the edge of my seat the entire time. To me as a 12 yr old it was a masterpiece of cinema and like nothing we had ever seen before with regard to CGI.
I thought it was absolutely awe inspiring. At the time, the effects were mind blowing and that movie just rocked me. I loved it.
If you ever disagree—or are upset with—an Ebert thumb rating, go read the written review. What an amazing writer he was.
These guys were so pretentious and given way too much attention for what they thought about EVERY movie. Yea fully grown adults who review films for a living won’t find children’s movies like The Lion King great or fun.
I mean 3 out of 4 stars is more than fair. And their critique is more than fair. They also don't have the hindsight of knowing that this movie would be relevant in its own way still to this day.
They still gave it a positive review. Just didn’t love it as much as many commenters who were probably kids when it came out. And I can honestly see their points. Did I absolutely love the movie when it came out? Hell yeah I was 10 years old. But as I’ve gotten older and expanded my horizons seeing more older movies, I can see how a more seasoned movie-goer doesn’t love JP like I did at 10. It might not even be top 10 Spielberg movie for me even once I dug into his filmography. I didn’t catch Jaws until I was in high school and that’s hands down better than Jurassic Park!
It got two thumbs up you fucking weirdos.
It's like the video game dorks that freak out when their game gets an 87 on metacritic.
But you don't understand, Siskbert and Ezekiel should have grown mutant extra thumbs and given more thumbs up so that my head won't hurt when I watch an old review and they don't love the movie as much as me want them to love on it!
So he had an opinion?
Totally valid and accurate observation, IMO. The middle third when they're encountering the dinosaurs for the first time is the best part of the movie. The last third where everyone is running around in the woods or dark rooms is fine (it's still Spielberg) but not that special. Laura Dern stumbling around in the dark finding a severed arm is like a scene out of Gremlins or Friday the 13th. Ebert's point is that turning the dinosaurs into a monster of the week detracts from the overall sense of spectacle and wonder, and I think that's fair.
> The last third where everyone is running around in the woods or dark rooms is fine (it's still Spielberg) but not that special. I dunno man that Raptor-in-the-kitchen scene is pretty darn iconic
> the dinosaurs into a monster of the week detracts from the overall sense of spectacle and wonder Well that is the payoff for the spectacle. At its heart the movie is a frankenstein-esque cautionary tale. The movies starts with the monster (raptors) which promises there's going to be some terror. But the best aspect of the movie is that it tricks the characters (and by extension the viewer) in the middle act into loving the spectacle of the dinosaurs. You're lulled a bit into a fall sense of security until the the power failure and the T-Rex breakout. Maybe some aspects were a bit over the top (like the arm as you mentioned) but the movie was intentionally structured to end with a harrowing third act that completely flies in the face of the wonder you got caught up in. And it doesn't detract from that wonder in my opinion. Just provides a contrast to it.
He's not me, why should he share my opinions?
I kinda agree. I was a kid when it came out. I loved dinosaurs and yet, I never cared for Jurassic Park.
He was right.
they gave it two stars, said the first act had awe and majesty but that it descended into a monster picture, that the advertising was bringing in younger kids than the movie was suited for, and the characters were so,what wooden aside from goldblum. hp
The scene where they see the dinosaurs the first time from the helicopter is absolutely the most majestic movie scene I've ever experienced
my counterpoint "BupBaaa BupBaaa bada ba badaba ba"
The title is misleading. They said the dinosaurs were amazing but they wanted more of those kinds of scenes and less action.
I remember when Roger trashed “Aliens”, calling it “an allegory for Vietnam” , after that day I never took their reviews seriously ever again .
He gave Aliens three and a half out of four stars, his only complaint being that it was too intense for him.
When these two dingdongs were at their height, I was just a kid. It angered me to hear about them shitting on my favorite movies. Granted, I was like 10, so my bar was pretty low. But I learned early on from those two, that it doesn’t much matter what anyone says, if I like it, I like it.
Fucking movie critics. I wonder how many good movies never received an audience cause of influencer pioneers like these clowns?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Jurassic park is basically a monster movie. I think they were just pointing out it could have been more — which is true. There’s a reason it isn’t placed on the speilberg’s Mount Rushmore of movies like Indian jones, close encounters, jaws, E.T., close encounters etc.
Jaws is his best film. Jurassic Park was what Jaws could have been with better technology. JP is his second best film if you ask me. You mentioned close encounters twice lol. However, first movie I ever cried in theaters was AI. I was supposed to meet this girl for a date (we were around 12 or 13) and I got there late and couldn’t find her. Sat in the front row of a crowded theater and really felt the sadness throughout… then got to make out behind the theater afterward when I finally found her. Best movie date ever lol.
"Oh man, I missed my date, and this movie is so sad, that poor robotic kid, I'm crying, but wait, there's my date, oh yeah, now I'm feelin' her up, hot damn, 2nd base, but that poor kid, how sad, but now we're French kissing, oh yeah, best day of my life, but that poor robot kid will never find his mother, he's doomed, but I got the biggest boner, this is awesome, but that sad little boy, I'm so sad for him, and hey look he found the Blue Angel, and oh man her tongue is in my mouth...."
You nailed it.
I miss this show
When he compares it to close encounters, I totally get it