Tag Archives: Universal Pictures

THE FALL GUY action movie review

Posted on by
Reply

Explosive fun! Universal Pictures The Fall Guy is one wild ride that connects with audiences! The thoughtful blend of self-referential humor and over-the-top, if not cheesy, action sequences work in tandem to entertain and thrill audiences. At the heart of this movie is a throwback-style romcom that is destined to warm even the most cynical of hearts. Moreover, this action-picked motion picture serves to spotlight the unsung heroes of many movies, the stunt performers, without whom we would not have the high stakes, death defying action sequences that we have today. And not just today, stunt performers have played a significant role in filmmaking since the beginning. The Fall Guy is a lively movie that whisks you off for the ride of your life that stumbles a little along the way, but sticks the landing.

After leaving the business one year earlier, battle-scarred stuntman Colt Seavers springs back into action when the star of a big studio movie suddenly disappears. As the mystery surrounding the missing actor deepens, Colt soon finds himself ensnared in a sinister plot that pushes him to the edge of a fall more dangerous than any stunt.

Such a crowd-pleasing cinematic spectacle! The summer blockbuster season is off to a strong start with this bombastic movie. Since I rarely watch trailers, I was unsure of what to expect, but I had a delightful time with this movie. The humor is mostly character-driven, but there are slapstick moments and almost camp-levels of action sequences that also serve as fuel for laughter. It’s a fun, popcorn flick that makes you laugh and smile all while being enthralled by the high-octane action. Some action movies that are devoid of humor or a romantic subplot can feel exhausting or shallow. Not the case with this one! This is both due to the strong writing and performative dimension.

More than an action/romcom, it also serves as a backstage movie, because of being set on a film set. And even more specifically, the technical achievement by camera operators, special effects technicians, and stunt performers. The movie spotlights the real danger that stunt performers face on set and the innate risks that come with this under-appreciated line of work. There is a human dimension to stunt work that so often goes overlooked, and The Fall Guy demonstrates the intrinsic value of stunt work and the real people that push their bodies to the limit to achieve action with dimension instead of simulated action in a computer.

The characters and the performances thereof elevate the entertainment value of the movie. Which is an important element because the screenplay does falter here and there from poor pacing. Some scenes are a little longer than they need to be while others are perhaps a little shorter than what they ought to be, which impacts the effectiveness of the exposition. But where the screenplay struggled, the cast makes up for the shortcomings! That’s not to say it’s a poorly written movie; quite the contrary, it’s mostly solidly written, just stumbles here and there. Emily Blunt and Ryan Gosling demonstrate excellent chemistry, and their relationship mountains and valleys feel genuine. They both share fantastic comedic and dramatic timing that crafts characters with dimension.

There is one particular line, that many may interpret as a throwaway or lacking in significant value, that I feel compelled to highlight. A character at a club states something to the effect of “movies try to be real, whilst cartoons know they aren’t real.” And the character prefers cartoons for that reason. This line was smartly written and delivers a important if not self-referential (or meta) message. Very little about The Fall Guy is supposed to feel real; it’s supposed to look like a fantasy set in the real world. What the movie is, is naturalistic. Everything happening in this film feels at home within the world of the movie. And yes, many, if not most, contemporary movies try so hard to not look fake or unbelievable. When movies should feel comfortable to take us to unbelievable heights to thrill us with entertaining, heart-warming, or scary stories. Being realistic is vastly overrated. There is a time and a place for it, but movies like The Fall Guy remind us of the value of a good story, regardless if it feels realistic in the real world.

Ryan teaches Film Studies and Screenwriting at the University of Tampa and is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter. If you’re ever in Tampa or Orlando, feel free to catch a movie with him.

Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry

ABIGAIL horror movie review

Posted on by
Reply

Fangtastic! Universal Pictures’ Abigail is a wildly entertaining, classically-inspired horror movie that you can really sink your teeth into. It delivers old school vampire movie elements with a contemporary sensibility. Ostensibly, it’s the metaphoric child of Dracula (1931) and The Horror of Dracula (1958). From beginning to end, the terror and laughter continually draw you into the story. Tonally, it strikes a great chord. The narrative never takes itself too seriously; however, it never devolves into parody either. It’s an effective blend of the atmosphere and music of an old school Universal monster picture and the increased gore of Hammer studios. Underscoring the blood-curdling outside/action story is an internal story with a redemptive message and even a little heart.

A group of would-be criminals kidnaps the 12-year-old daughter of a powerful underworld figure. Holding her for ransom in an isolated mansion, their plan starts to unravel when they discover their young captive is actually a bloodthirsty vampire.

From the moment the film opens, I was hooked! It opens with a solitary ballerina gracefully dancing on the stage in an empty auditorium; but what makes this scene particularly alluring is the original Dracula score (selections from Tchaikovsky’s Swan Lake) underscoring the entire opening sequence. It’s a deceptively simple scene that draws us into the beauty of the dance and music. Not only does the iconic music play at the beginning, but variations of it serve as a significant part of the movie’s score. This scene could be made greyscale, and edited to look like it was shot on 1930s 35mm film stock, and I’d almost buy that it was shot nearly 100 years ago.

While the movie may start out in the city, it doesn’t take long to venture into the countryside where a foreboding Tudor style estate serves as the main location for the events of the film. Again, Abigail is channeling Universal’s roots in classic horror by placing our relatively small cast in an isolated expansive estate that could’ve very well been used in a Carl Laemmle/James Whale motion picture. All that was missing was the eerie setting being draped in a dense fog rolling off the moors. As the characters wander through the imposing countryside mansion, the movie effectively established the rules by which the film will live by as it delivers its screamtastic narrative.

Without getting into plot specifics, I can tell you that it’s a simple plot with complex characters–so the best kind of cinematic story! Each and every character is sufficient developed, and quickly. The movie wastes no time at any point. It’s a lean, mean script that snaps, crackles, and pops. Not only is the world build, complete with rules, but the logic of the movie follows the rules and boundaries that it setup for itself during the first act. And while the movie does adhere to many classic vampire tropes, it also subverts some expectations. But not too many. There is one, in particular, to which I feel that it should’ve adhered but identified a way around it for dramatic purposes. But otherwise, I like that it pretty much stuck to the vampire playbook that has been used since Bram Stoker penned the seminal novel.

While there is a lot of blood, I wouldn’t say that it is a particularly violent picture. When the violence and gore hit–they hit–but it’s not gratuitous to the point of exhaustion from the visceral gore and projectile blood. I’d say it’s along the lines of Ready or Not levels of violence/gore. It’s never delivered in a manner that feels disturbing or disgusting; like with the tone, there is a consistent tongue-in-cheeky quality in the fighting or kill scenes. There are some fantastic skills and scenes that I hope make their way into the HHN (Halloween Horror Nights) house that this movie is destined to become this year or next.

the comedy is effectively delivered scene after scene. There is a great combination of humorous dialogue and visually-driven humor. Lots of hilarious image juxtapositions and an over-the-top quality to much of what is experienced. The movie is full of exaggerations, twists, and reversals. Whether the punchline is delivered in an argument or a sight gag, it’s done incredibly well by writers and directors that care. There is one scene that I particularly enjoyed, and it’s the vampire dancing with a headless corpse to the Dracula score. It’s just so ridiculous that you will undoubtedly laugh!

Despite the wildly entertaining qualities of this movie, it is not without some heart. One of the characters learns that constantly feeling like the victim of their circumstances is not constructive, and sometimes the best thing to do is move forward, freeing oneself from the prison of victimization. It was a nice touch that didn’t feel forced, but rather earned by the character.

You don’t want to miss seeing Abigail on the big screen, because the experience will not be the same at home. If you’re a fan of both Universal and Hammer horror, then you’ll want to make sure to watch Abigail in cinemas.

Ryan teaches Film Studies and Screenwriting at the University of Tampa and is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter. If you’re ever in Tampa or Orlando, feel free to catch a movie with him.

Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry

ARGYLLE movie review

Posted on by
Reply

A perfectly choreographed espionage action movie with a dash of whimsy! Matthew Vaughn delivers a wildly entertaining genre-bending spy movie that simultaneously subverts and satisfies expectations for enigmatic espionage movies. Written by Jason Fuchs, Argylle delivers that metaphoric roller coaster ride that we love in this genre-blend. Bryce Dallas Howard shines opposite the gritty-charm of Sam Rockwell in the lead roles, and they are surrounded by an all-star cast of supporting characters. And that technicolor-spectacular sequence at the end is clearly inspired by the dance scenes from Romy and Michele’s High School Reunion and Dirty Dancing. One part fish-out-of-water and another part reluctant hero, this movie is just the thing to start February off with a blast at the cinema.

Reclusive author Elly Conway (Howard) writes best-selling espionage novels about a secret agent named Argylle who’s on a mission to unravel a global spy syndicate. However, when the plots of her books start to mirror the covert actions of a real-life spy organization, the line between fiction and reality begin to blur.

As entertaining as the movie is, we do not actually know the significance of the content in the secret file(s) nor do we know why our heroes must send the files to the former head of the CIA; however, the movie is so much fun to watch, that it almost doesn’t matter–though, I am a little bothered that I was not informed as to the point of the whole sequence of missions, duplicitous relationships, and endless masquerades. But ultimately, Vaughn uses the power of declaration to state that the object to be retrieved is in fact important. And for what it’s worth, that’s all that really matters in this light-hearted espionage action movie.

Much of the movie exists in that liminal space between reality and fantasy, wherein so many authors find themselves as they create compelling characters and craft enigmatic plots to thrill the reader. A well-written character speaks with their own voice and metaphorically take on a life of their own. I appreciate how we are placed in a subjective point of view throughout the move so we can experience the unfolding story from Elly Conway’s perspective. Moreover, the film also has something substantive to say on art as a reflection of life. Writers of all types often take inspiration from their own lives, and mold it to fit the type of story they want to write. We also see this in subject matter experts as authors of fictional stories based on their real life work or inspired by the nature of their work. Whether or not Vaughn and Fuchs intentionally gave Argylle this depth is neither here nor there, the point is that there are opportunities here to closely read the film as a commentary on an artists relationship with their art.

Without getting into spoilers, it’s difficult to talk about too much (this is a spy movie after all) of the plot. Suffice it to say, this movie has some wild twists and turns, reversals, and reveals, but they all feel grounded in the reality of the world that has been created for us on the screen. I appreciate the movie’s foundation in classical story structure, because it allows for character complexities to be revealed through simple plotting–simple plot, complex characters.

If you enjoyed The Beekeeper, then you will also enjoy Argylle. While the former is the stronger movie, I must say that Argylle‘s whimsical nature makes it equally as entertaining.

Ryan teaches Film Studies and Screenwriting at the University of Tampa and is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter. If you’re ever in Tampa or Orlando, feel free to catch a movie with him.

Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry

OPPENHEIMER film review

Posted on by
1

Sensational! Christopher Nolan’s highly anticipated cinematic spectacular Oppenheimer is an extraordinary motion picture that delivers a story as explosive as the subject matter. Not since Nolan’s earlier work on pictures such as Memento and The Prestige have I enjoyed both the form and function of his stylistic brand of filmmaking. Although the film chronicles the development, use of, and subsequent scientific and sociological affects of the A-Bomb, the story it really about the rise and fall of J. Robert Oppenheimer. Moreover, the subtext of the story is one that carries with it such commentary as the true cost of notoriety and serving one’s country and the destructive nature of unsubstantiated witch hunts. It’s a character-driven story more than it is a plot-driven story about the creation of the A-Bomb.

Oppenheimer is the story of American scientist J. Robert Oppenheimer and his role in the development of the atomic bomb. The film explores how one man’s brilliance, hubris, and relentless drive changed the nature of war forever, led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and unleashed mass hysteria, and how, subsequently, the same man’s attempts to end one World War began a Cold War that would last for nearly fifty years.

While I have some reservations in the structural integrity of Nolan’s plotting in this film, which no strangers to my blog should know since that is often where I am hardest on films, his plotting and characterization hasn’t been this strong since Memento and The Prestige.

It should come of no surprise that Nolan’s latest motion picture excels in technical achievement. And I am not mentioning that to in anyway detract from that achievement; but, I mention that because had the film simply been an exercise in pushing the boundaries of filmmaking, then it would be another intentionally avant-garde vanity project. Which, it is not. Oppenheimer excels in both form and function; it shows care for both how the motion picture is montaged and presented and for the function of both plot and character.

With few exceptions, whether the plotting of a film is linear or non-linear, the plot should still follow foundational storytelling conventions to achieve the full impact it desires. Contrary to a postmodernist view of rules of art, just because one breaks the rules does not mean that a work of art or endeavor is somehow more substantive or meaningful in value. Nolan strikes a fantastic balance between form and function in this picture to completely transport audiences to the world of Los Alamos, NM in the mid-20th century.

Not since Dario Argento’s masterpiece Suspiria have I witnessed a motion picture employ the use of lighting, color (or lack thereof), and score to such a fantastical and effective level. These visual and auditory elements combine to immerse audiences in both the narrative and emotive dimensions of Oppenheimer’s story. Never overshadowing the story, but working in tandem with it, the visual and audible elements of the mise-en-scene craft a picture that simultaneously feels part of our world and yet somehow other worldly. Moreover, the story of Oppenheimer is told through both subjective and objective camera placement. In less experienced hands, this could have proven to be disastrous, but Nolan demonstrates his command of the screen in the uncanny combination of both.

One of the most stylistic montage and editing devices used is the black and white (more accurately described as grayscale) imagery for a specific timeline. And it would appear to my observation that it is indeed grayscale stock film–not desaturated in post-production. This observation is in part gleaned by way of the effects of lighting on the film stock. From a story organization perspective, this use of grayscale film stock helps in understanding the part of the non-linear timeline in which we find ourselves.

Where Nolan often struggles is in character authenticity. More times than not, the characters in his films are often lacking in believability, relatability, and vulnerability. Not that his characters are generally flawless, but they have demonstrated a lack in that which makes us most human. Each and every character in this film feels incredibly human–true to life. Whether or not the film is an accurate representation of the real-life counterparts, is not something on which I can comment. But, the characters, as presented, are relatable and feel authentic within their world. On the topic of characters, Nolan also injects humor into this film, which isn’t characteristic of his past films; and that use of humor helps to provide tension relief as an emotional reset between dramatic beats or scenes.

The central theme in the film is the true cost of notoriety and serving one’s country. And this is expressed primarily through Oppenheimer’s relationship with the development of the A-Bomb, but supplemented by his interactions with Albert Einstein, and therein Einstein’s relationship with his Theory of Relativity and success as the greatest scientific mind of all time. Or, as Oppenheimer puts it, “the greatest scientific mind of his day.” The story has to be seen to truly felt, but Oppenheimer spotlights how when one’s usefulness is seen as exhausted or no longer relevant to one’s country, that one is disposable.

We not only witness this in the film, but in real life as well. To this day, there are those that fought for their country that are not treated with the dignity and respect they both earned and deserve. The film paints a rather negative portrait of federal government operations as it relates to international and domestic policies. Suffice it to say, after Oppenheimer delivered the A-Bomb, he was soon thereafter cast aside as his (objectively reasonable) opposition to further development of weapons of mass destruction began to influence policy decisions. And this rise and fall story isn’t relatable to merely the government, but can be said of any company or organization that hails one as a visionary one minute, but after the project is realized, the same company or organization moves on. Fame is fleeting.

While many brilliant scientists were undoubtedly envious of Oppenheimer’s commercial success (except for Einstein, whom was a soothsayer of sorts), perhaps the rise and fall of Oppenheimer serves as a reminder that there are many whom have had notoriety forced upon them, but the oft infamy that follows can create a figurative prison out of which there is no escape.

Another observation I make, into the film’s themes and motifs, is the depiction of communism vs capitalism. Unfortunately, the loudest on social media do not likely have an accurate interpretation of what communism and capitalism are. And without getting into details, suffice it to say, the film does not accurately portray either communism or capitalism. So, I worry that many will watch the movie and begin to make connections and associations that are not accurate. On the topic, I’ll leave you with this: destructive ideologies that devalue individuality, based in universal truth and logic, in exchange for group identity based on emotions and impossible utopias is still an enemy of the people today.

This film is not to be missed on the biggest screen AND on 70mm film. Seeing a picture on film is truly magical. The depth lighting and shadow and richness of the color spectrum will always be expressed the best on celluloid. A chemical reaction beats 0s and 1s any day. Oh, and there is no reported use of CGI in this motion picture.

Ryan teaches Film Studies and Screenwriting at the University of Tampa and is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter. If you’re ever in Tampa or Orlando, feel free to catch a movie with him.

Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry

JURASSIC PARK 30TH ANNIVERSARY retrospective analysis

Posted on by
1

Timeless and terrifying! In honor of Jurassic Park‘s 30th Anniversary, I want to revisit why the film works so incredibly well, and never gets old. Simply stated, it’s the original’s connection to and foundation in horror, which was largely abandoned after the first installment in the decades long franchise.

Just like Dr. Alan Grant states at the beginning of the film, “raptors have far more in common with present day birds than they do with reptiles,” that same analogy can be drawn with the original Jurassic Park and its proximity to horror compared to action-adventure. Borrowing from Dr. Grant, the original Jurassic Park has far more in common with sci-fi/horror than it does with action-adventure, hence why it has held up over the years and continues to be a favorite film for many cinephiles and fans alike.

While all the sequels, including Jurassic World are far more action-adventure than the original, Jurassic Park can be likened to Ridley Scott’s Alien. The latter is a quintessential space sci-fi/horror with action-adventure sequels just like the former. And like Jurassic Park, the original Alien is considered far superior to that of the sequels. But why is this? There are many reasons from script to director to cinematography; but at the end of the day, it’s the fact that both these critically acclaimed and admired films have their respective roots in the American horror film and not action-adventure movies. More so than any other genre, horror is (1) uniquely American and (2) the most time tested, given it can trace its roots back to the 1890s and was perfected by Universal Pictures in the 1920s and 30s.

So what separates Jurassic Park from the sequels? Both have life-threatening dinosaurs, both have action, both have adventure, etc. But, only the original carries with it social commentary, rich subtext, and well-developed themes told through a brilliant combination of horrific frights and believable sciences taking place within a world of fiction grounded in reality. Furthermore, the focus in both Jurassic Park and Alien is largely on the drama between the characters and the oppositional forces in the film. The sequels in both franchises place far less emphasis on well-developed conflict and drama, and instead sacrifice those golden elements of cinematic storytelling for high-concept CGI-filled adventure movies with lots of dinosaurs or aliens. The proliferation of gimmicks and effects is often used to hide a weak story. Fortunately, Jurassic Park provides audiences with a strong plot told through exceptional cinematic storytelling.

Jurassic Park‘s screenplay benefitted from being penned by the award-winning author Michael Crichton who also wrote the novel by the same name. Often times, when the author of the novel also writes the screenplay, the screenplay forms a stronger foundation upon which the technical elements can be build. A more recent example of a brilliant screenplay adaptation of a novel is Gone Girl, the author of the novel was the screenwriter. Although a screenplay is visually driven whereas a novel is internally driven, when a novelist with a penchant for visual storytelling writes the screenplay for the movie adaptation, the screenplay tends to contain better developed characters, strong subtext, effective conflict, and excellent dialogue.

Crichton created incredibly memorable characters who each spoke with their own voice. Casting the right actors to portray the characters is obviously important–and the cast for Jurassic Park is exemplary–but even before the actor steps into the character’s shoes, the character has to be created. Each character in Jurassic Park possesses unique traits, strengths, weaknesses, dialect, and behaviors. Instead of the conflict being arbitrary, the conflict develops through the interpersonal relationships between the characters and the relationship between the characters and the opposition–human and nature.

I was in elementary school when the movie hit theatres in the summer of 1993; and although under 13, my parents allowed me to go see the movie. It was my second PG-13 film, with Batman Returns being the first, and what an experience! Not unlike Dr. Grant’s reaction to his first encounter with a dinosaur in the film, my reaction to Spielberg’s masterpiece was eyes-wide-open, mouth gaping wide, and racing endorphins. And then comes the macabre contrast in Acts II and III. “Ooo, ahh–that’s how it begins, and then there’s running and screaming” (Dr. Ian Malcolm, The Lost World). Aptly stated.

The opening scene hooks the audience with a disaster, but does not reveal much about the dinosaur in the secured transport–brilliant. Because this scene did not show a dinosaur, the audience’s curiosity is pricked which creates an eagerness to see a dinosaur and a degree of nervousness or apprehension accompanying that curiosity. We wanted to see more. If you’re familiar with Hitchcock’s bomb theory, he states “you must never let the bomb go off.” More than simply shock audiences with the death of that employee at the beginning of the movie, this scene serves as information more than a glimpse at that which would be horrific in real life.

This delay of seeing a dinosaur forces the audiences to pay more attention to the characters, dialogue, and conflict than looking for the next dino. Furthermore, the delay in seeing a dinosaur, perfectly setup audiences for the grand reveal on the way from the helipad to the Visitors Center. Interestingly, if you add up all the screen time that dinosaurs receive in the film, you’ll find that they are only on screen for about 20-minutes. Just like Hitchcock transferred the terror from the screen into the minds of the audience after the Psycho “shower scene,” Crichton and Spielberg did the same with Jurassic Park.

It’s the soft introduction to the man-made dinosaurs that makes the horror of the dinosaurs feel so much more intense later on in the film–and make you scream! In terms of the type of science-fiction horror film Jurassic Park could be classified as, it shares many commonalities with man vs nature and man vs technology horror films. Crichton is known for his believable science within his works of fiction. It is obvious that genetics and paleontology were researched enough to use real, hard science to inspire a fictional science that feels just out of reach of the current trends in the science, technology, and engineering fields. Pair that with horror, and you have a solid cinematic film.

The brilliance of horror films is how they can creatively comment on or provide a different perfective on a anthropological or psychological observation; moreover, it can be helpful when exploring philosophical questions. And these topics are visually explored through the movie and externalize the themes. One area that separates popcorn action-adventure movies from horror films is the cultural significance of the subtext and themes. Typically, action adventure movies do not carry with them social commentary nor significantly pull on our emotions and tap into our most primal fears. Jurassic Park contains all of this.

There is something about horror films that beckons the audiences to find enjoyment in, that which in real life, would not be enjoyable—and not only see it once, but repeat it. And furthermore, find the unfamiliar and grotesque fascinating to behold as what should remain hidden comes to light. Certainly the dinosaurs in the movie should have remained “extinct,” but were brought back to life and engaged in violence in which we find enjoyment. 

Some of the themes found in Jurassic Park that are told through the visceral horror and tense dramatic moments are: man vs nature, foolishness and folly, greed, wisdom vs knowledge, man vs technology, and parenting. Why don’t the Jurassic films have the chache that the original does? You try to find to find rich themes such as these in the subsequent films. They don’t exist. Why? Because it is far more difficult to explore what it means to be human and social constructs in a scifi action movie than in scifi horror. An action movie would be ill-equipped to tackle questions of a philosophical nature because the focus is largely on the action itself and not necessarily the characters, and almost never the subtext and theme.

For an action film to delve into that which causes the film to take on an intellectual nature, it would lose the attention of those who simply want a good popcorn movie. Don’t get me wrong, there are excellent action-adventure movies that contribute to the world of cinema in exceptional ways. Indiana Jones Raiders, Doom, and Last Crusade do that. Obviously, the inability to reconcile nature’s resistance to control is one of the most important themes of Jurassic Park.

Dr. Ian Malcolm tells the group that “life finds a way,” and it immediately becomes the film’s mantra (and a quotable line), true in every demonstrable, measurable way; the dinosaurs survive outside their design and engineering, the lost children survive with the help of a kid-averted paleontologist who discovers his parental side, humanity survives despite meddling in the natural order of things by playing God because that’s what we do–we survive. Every character in the film either understands or is reminded of this–some of them, by force when it’s too late–through the course of events.

Jurassic Park uses horror film techniques in a brilliant fashion to force its audience into considering the larger philosophical questions mentioned in the previous paragraph. It reinforces those questions with clever parallels: Dr Grant’s way of paleontology is about to go “extinct” due to the rise of computer technology (the line “don’t you mean extinct” came from a comment behind-the-scenes regarding CGI encroaching upon animatronics, puppetry, and special effects); the power of the natural world is exponentially magnified when the park’s technology failure is combined with a disastrous tropical storm; money causes literally every ill in the film, even when it is being used for supposedly admirable purposes; and “you were so pre-occupied with whether or not you could, you didn’t stop to think if you should.”

The inability to reconcile nature’s resistance to control is one of the most important themes of the film, of course. Ian Malcolm tells the group that “life finds a way,” and it abruptly becomes the tale’s rallying cry, true in every conceivable way; the dinosaurs survive outside their engineering, the lost children survive with the help of a paleontologist who discovers his paternal side, humanity survives despite its meddling because it’s what we do. Every character in the film either understands this, or is made to by the course of events. Interestingly, we are cued into the theme of life finding a way early on in the film, in the idea foreshadowed on the helicopter ride to the park. Remember when Dr. Grant tied the two female ends of the seatbelt together in order to make it function? “Well, there it is.”

Beyond exploring themes, it’s the intent of the film that determines whether is a thriller (suspense) or horror film. The films speak for themselves. If the intent is to horrify, then it’s a horror film; if the intent is to thrill, then it is a thriller. In all fairness, Jurassic Park is borderline; but it’s the level of shock, fear, and dread that may just be enough to tip the scale toward horror instead of thriller, and certainly evidence enough to prove that it is NOT simply a dark action-adventure movie. Much like Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining and Scott’s Alien, Spielberg’s Jurassic Park is also an intellectual film.

Whereas an action-adventure movie would have provided audiences with a few minutes collectively of some surface-level chit-chat above ethics in order to technically give the film a theme, Jurassic Park provides audiences with an entire film about ethics that will have them talking about the various dilemmas and challenges facing the characters throughout the film. It’s brilliant! And quite the rarity these days. The hand of Spielberg’s penchant for horror (Jaws and Poltergeist) is seen in Jurassic Park from requesting that Crichton rewrite the original screenplay to be more cinematic and less internally driven because Spielberg desired to take the novel and adapt it to screen as a Jaws on land. If his intent was to make a sequel to Jaws, then we have to conclude that his intention was to horrify audiences in some measurable amount.

With a film as dynamic as Jurassic Park, it may be nearly impossible to prove that it is a horror film at its roots; but, the body of information provided in this article help to support the thesis that it is a horror film based upon the intention, conflict, themes, and visceral terror. “Well, there is it.”

And don’t miss the Jurassic Park 30th Anniversary celebration going on at Universal Orlando Resort! If you’ve never been to the Jurassic Park area, then you need to!

Ryan teaches Film Studies and Screenwriting at the University of Tampa and is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter. If you’re ever in Tampa or Orlando, feel free to catch a movie with him.

Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry