Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

Protasi 1Ryan Protasi1105 English12/11/09Mrs. Nicole WilliamsJurassic Park: A True Movie MilestoneMovie reviews are the one periodical that, depending on what the critic thinks, can causean unreleased movie to be either a blockbuster hit or a complete flop. A positive review for afilm can be a major advertisement advantage; boosting box office sales. Director StephenSpielberg’s movie

Jurassic Park

was released on June 11, 1993 with many excellent reviewscausing it to gross $81.7 million by its first week.

Jurassic Park

is regarded as a landmark in both the areas of animatronics as well as Computer generated imagery (CGI). These twoelements, in addition to the brilliant writing, were praised by reviewers in articles of RollingStone, The New York Times, and The Sun Times.The profession of being a movie critic is extremely challenging in that one must be brutally honest, but at the same time deliver an opinion that is not so callous that it turns thereaders off. One must also be extremely aware of the content of his or her writing becausedepending on what the review says, someone’s career may be ruined. In addition to how theopinion is delivered, one must also present a fine balance between summary and analysis. If thecritic were to give too much away in the summary, the readers would feel, as though they hadalready seen the movie and not go, as well as maybe not read anything from that writer again.However, if the critic were to give too much of an analysis and too strong of a personal opinionof the movie, then the reader would feel like the writer likes to hear himself talk and wouldturned off from future reviews.

Protasi 2Mrs. Janet Maslin, a movie critic for The New York Times, was one of many glowingreviews I found for

Jurassic Park

. Mrs. Maslin is one of those writers who pulls you in to readher review with the first sentence, “Jurassic Park is a true movie milestone, presenting awe- andfear-inspiring sights never before seen on the screen” (Maslin). After just the first couple of sentences, you are enthralled and want to go see this movie. One main element of the review isthat she doesn’t give the summary all in one or two paragraphs, but introduces the storyline intoeach paragraph, liking it to the information presented. This technique provides the reader withenough of the summary that you know what goes on in the movie, without giving too muchinformation. Mrs. Maslin also continuously goes back to how thrilling and scary the movie is,which really gives the reader a good sense of how interested she was throughout the viewing.The review, written by Mr. Roger Ebert, was oddly written compared to the other reviews. In the beginning, he praises Spielberg for his work on Jaws because the viewers didn’tsee the shark until almost two thirds of the way through the movie, building the audiencesapprehension and keeping their attention. He then goes on to say that he wishes that element of suspension was included in this film because you see the dinosaurs in the beginning and thencontinue to see them throughout the entire movie, dulling the effect. This could be true; however the use of computer generated imagery causes the quality of the dinosaurs to be much better andmore realistic than the shark in Jaws, and therefore more thrilling for the audience. Also Mr.Ebert gives a pseudo summary of the movie, but in doing that he gives way to much informationaway. He talks about two main characters that die and also some main points of the movie, allwithout some sort of a spoiler alert. The most bizarre part of the entire review is that he talksabout how poorly done some aspects of the movie are, but then ends his review on a good note by saying “you want great dinosaurs, you got great dinosaurs. Spielberg enlivens the action with

Protasi 3lots of nice little touches…” (Ebert). Although well written, this review goes back and forthentirely too much, causing confusion for the reader.The third and final review I chose was written by Mr. Peter Travers of Rolling Stone.The first aspect that caught my eye on this review was the fact that at the top it has starring:Samuel L Jackson. Although Mr. Jackson is a popular actor, he really does not have a major presence in this film. He is in it as a computer technician who dies, but really doesn’t make thatmuch of an impression. Throughout his review Mr. Travers constantly compares the movie

Jurassic Park

to the novel, by Mr. Michael Crichton. This, I think, is a flaw because the movieverson is not supposed to be exactly like the novel, but can be loosely based around the novelwhile taking on the personality of the director. He condemns the writers for changing thecharacters by saying, “Crichton and co-screenwriter David Koepp (

Death Becomes Her

) haveflattened them into nonentities on the trip from page to screen” (Travers). He continues to harpon the characters by saying there was no true villain (maybe the dinosaurs?) as well as it lacksemotional hold. In the end, he takes the same approach as Mr. Ebert by emphasizing the bad parts more than the good, but still gives it a good rating; 4 out of 4 stars.The one review that really stood out was by Mrs. Maslin because she didn’t get stuck onthe minor flaws of the film like the other reviewers did and focused on the bigger picture. Whileshe may have encountered some minor production flaws, one can tell through the enthusiasm and passion that shines through her writing that she truly enjoyed the film and thought that it waswell made. She admired the good parts and talked about what a great job everyone involveddid. Mr. Ebert and Mr. Travers both focused on the flaws they saw in the movie, but in the endcouldn’t help but admit, whether it was in their rating or their last paragraph, that this is a moviethey enjoyed overall and intended to give a good rating. Such writing can come off as indecisive