Alan Folstein

This movie, unlike the first, relies almost exclusively on the dinosaurs chasing people, with very little other conflict. The first movie, and especially the novel, rely on a strong premise/theme, which is an insightful one. Dr. Malcolm, in a powerful monologue, Jeff Goldblum's character Ian admonishes the park's owner, John Hammond, “your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.” Further, he makes the comparison that what Hammond did is not so different than what Mary Shelley wrote about, in regards to D. Frankenstein's reanimating a dead human being. Hammond tries to rationalize his work, by arguing that if he recreated condors, (which are an endangered species,) he would be applauded. Malcolm retorts that that it is not the same thing, because condors are endangered, due to deforestation, but dinosaurs were "chosen by nature," to become extinct. The action scenes, with dinosaurs vs. humans, reiterate Ian Malcolm's premise, which in my words are, "It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature!" Those scene are well balanced with the other scenes, which depend on dialogue and other actions, such as Nedry's stealing dinosaur embryos, which leads to other considerations. Crichton's novel, Jurassic Park,shows his talent for interweaving conflicts, and also his talent for vivid descriptions of settings, dinosaurs, and characters. While not a fan of science fiction novels, I found the novel totally entrancing. The same is true of the movie, which I have viewed repeatedly, to the extent that I purchased a copy, and have had friends watch the movie.