Scan barcode
laurenpat's review against another edition
5.0
I love the movies so I figured I would give this a try - I wasn’t disappointed!! Fast paced, and different enough from the films to keep me engaged and hooked until the very end. More sciencey than the movies, which was very believable!
kwebster07's review against another edition
challenging
dark
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
osutton's review against another edition
adventurous
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.5
hinn_raven's review against another edition
5.0
I listened to the audio book and I was surprised at how much it held up. Even the techno-babble was listenable, and it was a fun, suspenseful read.
agentnk_'s review against another edition
5.0
done with first book of this series. wanna check others sooner
royalfox's review against another edition
adventurous
reflective
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
jessraven's review against another edition
3.0
For my entire life, I've been completely obsessed with dinosaurs. Of course, every kid is, at one point or another, but for some of us, it just... sticks. As with most children born in the 1990s, I think my obsession really started with watching the "Land Before Time" movies, but it didn't EXPLODE until I watched "Jurassic Park" for the first time.
I think everyone who has seen "Jurassic Park" has a very vivid memory of the first time that they saw it. It's just one of those movies that has a profound effect on you, no matter how old you are - it's magical, seeing those dinosaurs who, up until that point, lived only in your imagination, come to life. For me, my first time watching "Jurassic Park" was in the second grade; I had begged my mother to let me watch it for ages, and on a day I happened to be home sick, it was playing on television.
Ever since that day so long ago, the "Jurassic Park" trilogy has been my lifelong favourite series of films, and I've spent years trying to get my hands on the books that inspired them. Not so surprisingly, when you're a kid, it's difficult to find them. I would go to the library, as an eager elementary schooler, and ask the librarian if they had the "Jurassic Park" books. She would always bring me handfuls of the movie tie-ins, but never Crichton's novels. I'm not sure if it was my age that kept people from giving me the novels I really wanted, or if people genuinely forgot there were books before the movies, but I was never able to find the real books until this summer.
In a way, I'm glad it took me so long to get my hands on them. I know that, as a dinosaur obsessed kid, I wouldn't really have understood Crichton's work. Because, while the films were marketed largely toward children, the books certainly were not.
Crichton's first "Jurassic Park" novel, like the movie it inspired, tells the story of a theme park on an island off the coast of Costa Rica, filled with genetically engineered dinosaurs. Many of the characters are the same, and the basic plot is the same, but the stories themselves are different. Very different.
You see, the film left out a plethora of details that, I think, are crucial to what Crichton was trying to comment on in his novel. Much of the book is intended to be a commentary on modern science - "Your scientists were so preoccupied with if they could [clone dinosaurs], that they never stopped to think if they should!" - and a lot of that commentary is lost in the film. While Ian Malcolm's "chaos theory" does eventually play out in the movie, it begins to display itself much earlier in the book. It happens in the first few pages, in fact, when it is revealed that dinosaurs have been escaping from the island, migrating to the main land and attacking children, which doesn't happen at all in the movies.
If anything, the book makes it clear that the park is going to be a disastrous failure from the very start. The movie, however, contains the faintest glimmer of hope that maybe, just maybe, Jurassic Park will succeed.
Which brings me to the fact that Jurassic Park's creator, John Hammond, could literally be two completely different people in the book and the movie adaptation. In the book, he's clearly meant to be a comment on rich capitalists - namely, white males - who have little care for anything but making lots and lots of money. He is, in many ways, portrayed as naive and thoughtless and, at times, even a bit cruel. When his own grandchildren are in danger, he is hesitant - no, he is adamant that "his animals" not be harmed. His grandchildren may die, but his million dollar dinosaurs cannot, under any circumstances, be destroyed. Crichton seems to be using Hammond's character to display science's little regard for the importance of life - as long as an advancement can be used to make money, it doesn't matter who gets hurt along the way. Even innocent children.
Yet, in the movies, Hammond's character is entirely changed. I think this was likely done because, in short, the original version of John Hammond is just plain despicable. But, the films portray him as a kind man who, instead of wanting to make a quick buck, just wanted to give the world, namely children, something to marvel at. The audience feels for him because, unlike his counterpart, his heart always seems to be in the right place and, when the park ultimately turns out to be a disaster, he recognizes that it can never be opened. In the book, however, he was very passionate about trying again.
Hammond's character isn't the only one who is drastically different in the novel. Quite honestly, after growing up watching "Jurassic Park" over and over again, the vastly different versions of these characters I have known for so long was a bit of a shock to the system. Lex and Tim are polar opposites - instead of being the older sibling, Lex is a young girl, and Tim is her computer savvy, dinosaur obsessed older brother. It was a bizarre switch that definitely took some getting used to.
Ian Malcolm, who I've always known to be suave, cocky, even sexy, is a balding middle-aged mathematician who seems to be more like a cocky 80s rock star who has gotten plump with age.
And Alan Grant, who I always thought HATED children because they're noisy, and they smell... actually LIKES kids. He likes kids from the very start. Not a single negative feeling in sight. It was... well, it was weird.
But, at the same time, these differences in character and plot were interesting. When I picked up this book, I expected to read something fairly close to the film, but it was nothing like it at all. It was an entirely new "Jurassic" adventure. Certain quotes here and there were the same, but so many of the plot details were left out in the first film. In fact, after rewatching the trilogy and the new "Jurassic World" film after finishing the book, it becomes clear that many details from just the first of Crichton's novels alone were cherry-picked for the rest of the movies, because they weren't included in the first.
To conclude, I think finally reading "Jurassic Park" is solid proof for why I always try to read the book before I ever watch movie adaptations. So much of the story is lost when the movie gets made, for a multitude of reasons - length, audience appeal, meeting a rating acceptable for children. But, at the same time, I think a part of me regrets reading the book. As good as it was, and as interesting as Crichton's commentary on science is... I think I liked it better when the films were this magical legacy that I grew up loving. Now, each time I watch the movies, I'm worried I may end up comparing them to what Crichton intended "Jurassic Park" to be.
So, while I do recommend this book to anyone interested in dinosaurs, I don't necessarily recommend it to lovers of the "Jurassic Park" films. It's just too different, and effectively takes away from the magic and heart that the films always held. I do intend to read "The Lost World", just to see how this new angle wraps up, but I still think, deep down, I will always prefer the movies. This is a rare occurrence for me, but it's true just the same.
I think everyone who has seen "Jurassic Park" has a very vivid memory of the first time that they saw it. It's just one of those movies that has a profound effect on you, no matter how old you are - it's magical, seeing those dinosaurs who, up until that point, lived only in your imagination, come to life. For me, my first time watching "Jurassic Park" was in the second grade; I had begged my mother to let me watch it for ages, and on a day I happened to be home sick, it was playing on television.
Ever since that day so long ago, the "Jurassic Park" trilogy has been my lifelong favourite series of films, and I've spent years trying to get my hands on the books that inspired them. Not so surprisingly, when you're a kid, it's difficult to find them. I would go to the library, as an eager elementary schooler, and ask the librarian if they had the "Jurassic Park" books. She would always bring me handfuls of the movie tie-ins, but never Crichton's novels. I'm not sure if it was my age that kept people from giving me the novels I really wanted, or if people genuinely forgot there were books before the movies, but I was never able to find the real books until this summer.
In a way, I'm glad it took me so long to get my hands on them. I know that, as a dinosaur obsessed kid, I wouldn't really have understood Crichton's work. Because, while the films were marketed largely toward children, the books certainly were not.
Crichton's first "Jurassic Park" novel, like the movie it inspired, tells the story of a theme park on an island off the coast of Costa Rica, filled with genetically engineered dinosaurs. Many of the characters are the same, and the basic plot is the same, but the stories themselves are different. Very different.
You see, the film left out a plethora of details that, I think, are crucial to what Crichton was trying to comment on in his novel. Much of the book is intended to be a commentary on modern science - "Your scientists were so preoccupied with if they could [clone dinosaurs], that they never stopped to think if they should!" - and a lot of that commentary is lost in the film. While Ian Malcolm's "chaos theory" does eventually play out in the movie, it begins to display itself much earlier in the book. It happens in the first few pages, in fact, when it is revealed that dinosaurs have been escaping from the island, migrating to the main land and attacking children, which doesn't happen at all in the movies.
If anything, the book makes it clear that the park is going to be a disastrous failure from the very start. The movie, however, contains the faintest glimmer of hope that maybe, just maybe, Jurassic Park will succeed.
Which brings me to the fact that Jurassic Park's creator, John Hammond, could literally be two completely different people in the book and the movie adaptation. In the book, he's clearly meant to be a comment on rich capitalists - namely, white males - who have little care for anything but making lots and lots of money. He is, in many ways, portrayed as naive and thoughtless and, at times, even a bit cruel. When his own grandchildren are in danger, he is hesitant - no, he is adamant that "his animals" not be harmed. His grandchildren may die, but his million dollar dinosaurs cannot, under any circumstances, be destroyed. Crichton seems to be using Hammond's character to display science's little regard for the importance of life - as long as an advancement can be used to make money, it doesn't matter who gets hurt along the way. Even innocent children.
Yet, in the movies, Hammond's character is entirely changed. I think this was likely done because, in short, the original version of John Hammond is just plain despicable. But, the films portray him as a kind man who, instead of wanting to make a quick buck, just wanted to give the world, namely children, something to marvel at. The audience feels for him because, unlike his counterpart, his heart always seems to be in the right place and, when the park ultimately turns out to be a disaster, he recognizes that it can never be opened. In the book, however, he was very passionate about trying again.
Hammond's character isn't the only one who is drastically different in the novel. Quite honestly, after growing up watching "Jurassic Park" over and over again, the vastly different versions of these characters I have known for so long was a bit of a shock to the system. Lex and Tim are polar opposites - instead of being the older sibling, Lex is a young girl, and Tim is her computer savvy, dinosaur obsessed older brother. It was a bizarre switch that definitely took some getting used to.
Ian Malcolm, who I've always known to be suave, cocky, even sexy, is a balding middle-aged mathematician who seems to be more like a cocky 80s rock star who has gotten plump with age.
And Alan Grant, who I always thought HATED children because they're noisy, and they smell... actually LIKES kids. He likes kids from the very start. Not a single negative feeling in sight. It was... well, it was weird.
But, at the same time, these differences in character and plot were interesting. When I picked up this book, I expected to read something fairly close to the film, but it was nothing like it at all. It was an entirely new "Jurassic" adventure. Certain quotes here and there were the same, but so many of the plot details were left out in the first film. In fact, after rewatching the trilogy and the new "Jurassic World" film after finishing the book, it becomes clear that many details from just the first of Crichton's novels alone were cherry-picked for the rest of the movies, because they weren't included in the first.
To conclude, I think finally reading "Jurassic Park" is solid proof for why I always try to read the book before I ever watch movie adaptations. So much of the story is lost when the movie gets made, for a multitude of reasons - length, audience appeal, meeting a rating acceptable for children. But, at the same time, I think a part of me regrets reading the book. As good as it was, and as interesting as Crichton's commentary on science is... I think I liked it better when the films were this magical legacy that I grew up loving. Now, each time I watch the movies, I'm worried I may end up comparing them to what Crichton intended "Jurassic Park" to be.
So, while I do recommend this book to anyone interested in dinosaurs, I don't necessarily recommend it to lovers of the "Jurassic Park" films. It's just too different, and effectively takes away from the magic and heart that the films always held. I do intend to read "The Lost World", just to see how this new angle wraps up, but I still think, deep down, I will always prefer the movies. This is a rare occurrence for me, but it's true just the same.
harold_phipps's review against another edition
5.0
Ellie and Dr Grant in this book are still the MVPs.
loki789's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
informative
tense
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
5.0