The first Jurassic Park alone is one of my favorite all time films. When I say that to people, they make a premature remark like "how old are you again?" Call it my childhood but there is something about Jurassic Park that made it my favorite for nearly more then a decade. I've seen the movie more then I can count and it still makes the same impact for me. This is the retrospect into the realms of the Jurassic Park rampage - exploiting both the greatness and the flaws of the series and what they SHOULD do to redeem themselves.

The idea was set in Michael Crichton's mind ten years before the film came out; his idea, a story about cloning a pterodactyl from fossil DNA. But nobody liked it. Some told him it was an awful idea. As Crichton played around with his bold new idea, he pretty much blended his idea with his concept years before hand of a theme-park type attraction gone wrong (i.e. '73's cult-classic, Westworld - good movie, check it out!) As soon as he combined those two ideas together, his idea was loved instantly and the book was written. In 1990, the book was published.

Soon after, many studios fought to option the book to film. Universal won the bidding war. But in the mist of all of that, Universal had in mind something a little larger then life- a theme park attraction. That's right. Jurassic Park was thought of as an attraction ride before it was thought of as a movie. But with luck, the movie was made first.

Many directors wanted a piece of this new venture including Tim Burton. But the director spot went to non-other then Steven Spielberg, whom known about the project since Crichton first wrote out his idea. But did Spielberg really know what he was getting himself into?

Before Jurassic Park or even the 90's for that matter, computer effects looked real phony. Unless it's a big budget Star Wars, effects were very hard to come by of making things as real as possible. Although that's a good thing for the idealism of movies, it's a bad thing for how much of a strain it is to look at. Spielberg has played around with computer effects before (especially on Hook, two years before Jurassic Park), but not in the mainstream of JP.

In 1991, out came Terminator 2:Judgement, a highly rated film by goers, buffs, and critics all alike. It was something nobody has ever seen at that time period and it was something different to experience. After that, it was clear - computer effects have gone somewhere nobody thought it could go before. Does this mean the analogy of computer effects overcoming odds reflect the concept of bringing dinosaurs back to life with unthinkable technology? I think so.

The production began in 1992. Much like Jaws and ET, this was another decade breaker moment for Spielberg. He was embarking on something nobody could possibly create any other way. He created a different all-together story and world nobody could possibly imagine. Sometimes, books are better kept untouched for the vivid imagination but with Jurassic Park, it was a novel destined to be seen on the big screen (the first one that is.) That first viewed moment of Jurassic Park is shock and awe to the wonder eyes.

I remember vividly, being as old as eight, watching JP for the very first time. It was the first movie I saw on the big screen that scared the shit out of me. The T-Rex ripping apart the fence and destroying one of the JP Explorer vehicles, the whole Raptor interaction for the final act - it all scared the shit out of me. From the time I've seen Jurassic Park in the theaters to the time it came out on video (and I also remember, that was a historic day), all my nightmares foiled around T-Rex's and Raptors. Scary stuff if you think about it long and hard.

The differences of the novel and the film are huge. The concept is the same but lots of scenarios, character development and whatnot is different (like any other movie based on novel criteria.) For the most part, the movie presents an eye candy experience and the novel takes that eye candy on a richer road (and in fact, more violent and gory). Moreover, if you want more depth from the movie, read the novel. I look at it much like Jaws. Certainly, the same kind of changes occurred.

Anything non-Spielberg will be taken out. Anything Spielberg will be left as is. That's the way all writers and directors work to adapt something from text to screen. Anyhow, the changes occurred for both the good and the bad. John Hammond wasn't a kind guy (and actually died at the end of the novel.) If I remember correctly, Sattler was one of Grant's students. All of that I can understand. But what I don't like is one HUGE change that happened. Lewis Dodgson was in the movie for about three minutes. Of course, he is a major player of causing the disaster in Jurassic Park but he played an even bigger AND major role in both the novels. In fact, it was even mentioned quite a few times why, seeing as though Dodgson was the executive of the Ingen rivalry co., Biosyn.

Jurassic Park is a great adventure roller coaster ride through the mist of a theme park gone wrong. And like the flaws of the theme park, don't think the movie is in any way, perfect. It's perfected just right but there is a underline difference between perfected just right and utmost perfection. From the score, the script, the story, the dinos themselves, the performance of the cast, the geniuses behind ILM, and the adventure itself is all perfected just right. But there are flaws among the perfection right there. First off, when we are first introduced by the T-Rex, it's through the suspense of loud footsteps. Hmm...the T-Rex takes a five second pause with each step?!? Another bothersome scenario is that why on earth did Lex turn on the flashlight in the car in the first place? That made no sense.

Other aspects bothered me, the scene when a cow is being raised and lowered in the raptor pit. Is it just me or does that cow look a little out of the ordinary. It's pretty sad the dinos looks more lifelike then that cow. And that whole scene when a raptor kills Muldoon looked real phony to me (but also scary at the same time.) And even though the sequence was both exciting and edge of your seat, it made no sense for both Tim and Grant to jump down a tree in the same path where up above them lies a car that could fall on them since they COULD'VE just climbed on the other side of the tree. But what good would that do as a sequence? Through and through, I've seen this movie more times then I care to admit and even though I spot these flaws each time I see it, I still get taken into the realms of Jurassic Park.

When I first saw the damn movie, I was JP-hooked. One of the few movies that I was actually taken into the mania; I had JP books, posters, toys, soundtracks (the John Williams score, I use to play the shit out of.) I've even played around with sequel ideas. One idea I had was a "send-off" if you will called "Jurassic City." Stupid but hey, I was eight!

I also had another "sequel" idea in mind during my growing up while adoring the greatness of Jurassic Park. First off, I always thought (at the time) Jurassic Park 2 was going to be about the can Nerdy dropped. I mean come on, it was panned the right way into thinking "yep, that's what the sequel was going to be about." Although I was dead wrong, I still have this perfect idea of saving JP while justify the whole "dinos in the mainland" scenario. But I'll get with that in a bit.

The Lost World was published in 1995. It was a homage to the classic Sir Arthur Conan Doyle novel "The Lost World" and the sequel to the Jurassic Park novel. The tagline on the back of the book (and was used as the movie tagline as well), "Something has survived." Pretty fascinating whatever it is going to be. I read the book, just to see how the movie is going to be like. I didn't care for it as much. In fact, I liked the first novel more then the second one. The concept is good but I don't know, just didn't care for it.

I remember vividly the announcement that Spielberg was going to direct Jurassic Park 2. For me and maybe only me, that was great news and I can already imagine the movie being great without much thought.

I remember I was already into the Lost World mania even before the movie came out. I already knew pretty much how it was going to play out so I was very much excited. I received the teaser poster (in which I still have, along with the first and third JP) as a gift a few months before the big premiere. I remember seeing the trailer for the film a few months before that (which I thought was sweet as hell.) I even bought the John Williams score when it came out. I was already hooked and haven't even seen the damn thing. For some people, there was much disappointment. For me, I was in heaven all over again.

When I first saw Lost World, much like JP, I was awing and wowing the whole time. Wasn't exactly as scary to me like the original JP (maybe cause I was five years older from the first time I saw the first JP) but it certainly was much darker then the first one. The whole T-Rex interaction with the trailers was more edge-of-seat.

So OK, it wasn't the original. Some people say it's nothing more then eye candy. I still find it just as good as the first Jurassic Park (and ten times better then the novel - I'm really glad they chopped off the whole novel.) But to me, the concept is just as original. The effects were just as original. The score wasn't as good as the original (cause I can play that score even today and not get bored with it) but it's still genius enough. The characters were just as original. And I can not think of one thing I hate about it. Even the whole unliked and unappreciative T-Rex in San Diego, I enjoyed. Maybe I'm bias toward Spielberg but I just couldn't find anything I didn't like about it. I've heard when it came out and even today, the whole Compys subplot was just a tad bit silly but again, I couldn't think of anything wrong with it. (Note: the opening sequence is the opening sequence for the first Jurassic Park novel.)

Much to me enjoying the film, there were a couple of flaws that still bothers me today. At the tail end of the movie, you have a ship colliding into a dock cause in an unsatisfying way, apparently the T-Rex ate them. But how did the T-Rex eat them since the T-Rex is locked down bellow the ship? That, to me, was presented awfully. There was also a "you really have to keep an eye out to notice" scene where you see a map of the island the gang is heading to in the trailer, the title of the map is "the five deaths islands" in Spanish. Then, not even two minutes later, the gang is talking about the five death islands like it's a surprise. Hmm...

But still, despite all of that - I still enjoy it just as much as the first one and I still rank it up there with the first one. People may rant for what I'm about to say but I consider the first two Jurassic Park's just as high as say the first two Halloweens, Aliens, Terminators - and maybe Godfathers (don't send me hate comments on this, take it for what it is.) That's a lot more to say then the third walk in the park. , just to see how it was going. From the beginning, it sounded promising. No director was set. Spielberg emphasizes that he didn't want to helm it but was more then willing to be the producer. From the period between 1998 and 2001, I've heard non-stop awesome concept ideas - many of them, basically subplot scenarios from the two novels.

I recall being ever so excited for Jurassic Park 3 for just the fact that I can consider my self-a JP fan. (Side note: I worked at Showcase Sterling (now closed) during the time JP3 came out, which happens to be the same place where I saw the first two JP films.) I did get myself the teaser poster (and final poster, plus the banner as well.)

I also bought the score, to continue my JP collection. Let me say, first off, the score is the worse piece of crap I have ever heard. There are a few original themes that sounds alright but considering that the majority of it is a reprise version of the Jurassic Park theme done dozens of times (and not very good I might add.) It is a soundtrack and repetitious themes is expected but come on, the Jurassic Park themes were only heard three times in the Lost World score. There was actually some originality to it. This pretty much gave me a hint of what the movie was going to be like...but I still carried some high hopes as I walked into the multiplex and sat down to see JP3. I was sadly fooling myself this time around.

I was easily reasonable with The Lost World and will defend it any time it gets slammed. But I will not for Jurassic Park 3. Joe Johnson is a great director. I mean, Honey I Shrunk the Kids and Jumanji - brilliant films. But that's the problem. Steven Spielberg (which I will do a column on later in the year), is in terms of concepts, a PG director. However, he knows how to be PG-13 (which is right between PG and R.) In fact, he inspired the PG-13 rating to be invented. Joe Johnson, on the other hand, is a PG kind of guy. He doesn't know how to be anything else. That's one of the many flaws of why Jurassic Park 3 failed, it lacked the PG-13 rating. Not to sound immature but yeah, less people died in this one. But not just that, the viewer doesn't feels threaten by the dinos in JP3.

I wasn't impressed with the new big kid on the block (i.e. spinosaurus)- the T-Rex in the first two JP's were cooler and more scary (in fact, the whole entire dogfight that took place wasn't long enough and was unsatisfying.) And the plot was taken basically right from the video game that came out little after The Lost World called Trespasser. In fact, much of the circumstances that took place during the movie were reject ideas from the first two JP's and subplots from the first two novels.

The movie wasn't that bad to a certain degree. If it wasn't for William H. Macy (who I really dig, a very underrated actor) and Sam Neil, it would really fail from even being somewhat watchable. The only thing that I really enjoyed was the whole Raptors through out the movie (although, the ending was a little disappointing) and a very-VERY cool sequences with the Pteranodons. The good aspects of it are it did in a nutshell foiled in the same direction as a trilogy (with the whole angel of the Raptors talking.)

It is a thrill-ride, nothing more. And for some odd ball reason, I pictured more of the ride then the first two films as I watch JP3. It's a fine film at best but not the greatest, doesn't live up (nor holds a candle) to the first two films, and it was too damn short (come on - 90-mintues, the first two went pass the two hour mark!) It was no T3 in terms of how horrible it was but it didn't match up to the predecessors. There were so many things they could've done to make it better. A better plot. A longer ending. ANYTHING!

They had all the time in the world to come up with an even decent idea for Jurassic Park 3 but what happen? They were rushed to do something as quick as they can for a release date and they started filming without a finished screenplay for Christ sake. That, to me, is pointless, plotless, and doesn't merit a fine movie. That's sloppy work from a supposed respected studio.

Now, as I sit back and wait next summer for what they will do, I'm both dreading and hoping it redeems itself. Jurassic Park could be a fantastic series (in fact, as good as Star Wars in some forms) if they followed in the right direction. And there are so many roads to take other then just "airplane crashes" plot. In part three, they could've created a back-story, and they could've created a prequel (which has been talked about once or twice.) They could've gone where the novels went where "the five deaths islands" would be explained more.

Of course, as a fan - I even have my own take of where I think the film should go. A back story little more then ten years or so after the first disaster at Jurassic Park is revealed about an untold event that happened right after the event of Jurassic Park and right before the closing of the park. A team put together by Biosyn goes on the Park to retrieve embryo from the center. Obviously, this will be the first and last time on the island (and yes, there will be some interaction with a T-Rex and possible "friendly" raptors.) Anyhow, a couple of team members gets a friendly accouter with the friendly dinos but for the most part, everyone retrieves the embryo and leaves the island. Pans to present time where Biosyn is still quietly creating dinosaurs off a secret base. Soon after, a disaster takes place and the dinos are roaming free. This will then justify the "away from the island and dinos running free in cities" scenario. That's what I thought part two was going to be about. That's what I thought part three is going to be about. And I'm sure I will be dearly mistaken but that's what I think part four is going to be about. Certainly, that's what I think it should be about. Take it as fan fiction and nothing more then just that.

I read somewhere that Universal signed a six-part movie series long before sequels were talked about (studios are very careful about potential cash-in's.) I really don't mind six movies, if there is some substance to contain within. In other words, if the majority of the series is like the first two JP's, I'm all for it. But if the rest of the series follows in the same pattern Jurassic Park 3 went on, I think it's a big mistake.

Whatever the case may be, to me - the first Jurassic Park stands the test of time of being my all time favorite movie, followed by the sequel. When I bought the DVDs a few years ago and watched both in widescreen format with clear sound/picture/the whole nine yards, it was like watching it for the very first time (besides, I had to get the DVDs anyway - my VHS copies were all worn out!)

To me, there is nothing like Jurassic Park past or present. It is a rare and unordinary experience to watch a film and not just feel nostalgia over one's own childhood when they first saw the film but also taken into a world nobody has ever seen or gone or heard of before each time. To me, Jurassic Park may not be the best in terms of acting or plots but visually and historically, it is one of the best - a rare gem indeed. I've seen it more then over 100 times in the 11 years it has existed and probably will see it ten times more before I die. It's just one film I can't get enough of.

It may be outdated compared to what's seen now in movie making but you won't find movies today that combines GREAT story telling with scares and the best visuals anyone can ever do and see. Now days, CGI is predictable. But at the time, it actually had meaning and it was special. It was a rare feast for the eyes and it's something filmmakers today can't outmatch. The Lord of the Rings trilogy comes close but still, nothing will upstage the first Jurassic Parks' impact and greatness.