ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Entertainment and Media»
  • Movies & Movie Reviews

Jurassic Park Returns in 3D

Updated on April 11, 2013

Jurassic Park 3D

In 1994, director Steven Spielberg unleashed one of cinemas timeless classics upon audiences. Jurassic Park became the pinnacle of special effects and CGI. In many ways, this film is still the top of the mountain. Films today still strive to integrate practical and digital effects the way Spielberg and his team did.

Everyone remembers where they were the first time they saw this film. If you were lucky enough to be alive when it opened 20 years ago; you got to feel the awesome power as it was intended. You got to witness every childhood dream of seeing dinosaurs made reality. This is a movie that was truly built to be seen on the big screen.

Movie fans and Jurassic Park fans now have their chance to relive it again. Jurassic Park has come back to theatres only this time, in 3D. This added 3D is worth every penny of your hard earned money. Not since Avatar did I find myself leaning to the left or right to see around trees or tall grass. You are completely submerged in the world of the film and the dinosaurs are ready to pounce on you.

The film also features remastered sound to blow the speakers off the walls. Jurassic Park has never sounded better and the T-Rex will literally shake the seat you're sitting in. This is one re-release you absolutely don't want to miss. The movie thrives off the expanded IMAX format as well. Jurassic Park is a larger than life film that deserves to be seen on a larger than life movie screen.

If you have never had the chance to experience Jurassic Park on the big screen, do not let this opportunity pass you by. This is one film every person deserves to see on the large format. Some movies are made to sit back on a rainy Saturday and watch. Then some movie are made to watch on a late Friday night. Jurassic Park is a movie made for the biggest screen possible with the best sound. Steven Spielberg brings to life the adventure 65 million years in the making.

You will not want to regret not taking a trip back to Jurassic Park. Go see it and relive a part of your past all over again. Or maybe, go see it for the very first time. This is one film you will never forget the rest of your life. Jurassic Park is what going to the movies is all about and the 3D only makes it an even better experience.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • profile image

      rmcmillen 4 years ago

      Great investments, but still horrible movies which may not have been able to have been made without his financial backing.... There are investments I could make that could make me a whole lotta money.... But at the end of the day I pass cause I'd rather keep my self respect.... He just seemed to go the other way that's all

    • Vayanni profile image
      Author

      Vincent Yanni 4 years ago from Pittsburgh, PA

      Financial Backer meaning the man is intelligent. Before anything else, moves are a business. If you had the chance to support a film base doff of Transformers; you'd say no simply because Michael Bay is directing? Bay is a proven success; quality not withstanding. It's no brainer to fund that project. Executive Producers don't go around seeking art; they are seeking what films can be the biggest commercial success; that's why Executive Producers don't get any credit for a film. When they win awards; it's the Producer excepting it. You can blame him for funding it; but at the end of the day, he isn't responsible if the director, editor, writer, producer don't make a quality film. He just gave them the means to make said movie. Those were great investments; Real Steel perhaps not, but the rest all turned a profit for Spielberg, so he got what his goal was. In none of those films was he setting out to make anything other than a financial hit, not critical. That was up to people actually involved in the creative process.

      Comparing films he's directed to films hes exec produced is apples and oranges. completely different subjects that have little relation outside the medium they reside in.

    • profile image

      rmcmillen 4 years ago

      Financial Backer....... which would mean what? Chances are without him those films would not have been made because they wouldn't have enough cash to have seen the light of day..... still enough reason enough to blame him as well as everyone else involved in the movie(s). He saw who was directing in each case , he saw the scripts and he STILL said "Sure.... I'll put up the money to help ya".......... if anything it was a stupid move in each case I point out.... so he still has blame to be placed right in his lap.

      Also.... as far as Tintin goes, as a fan of what Tintin used to be? I STILL thought that movie sucked, I was trying to cut him some slack for saying that movie didn't count but it was as if most involved (wont blame him directly) looked at the source material and said "I'll follow it loosely, but for the most part I'm just gonna wipe with this when I hit the bathroom in a few"

    • Vayanni profile image
      Author

      Vincent Yanni 4 years ago from Pittsburgh, PA

      I think you're over-simplifing the importance of the director to an animated film. And aside from Indy; which was awful, he serve solely as Executive Producer on the others you mentioned. The Executive Producer rarely, if ever, is involved with the actual story or making of a film. Their role is more of a financial backer and handling the legal aspects of the film. They don't control the actual product; that falls on the regular Producer. And taking credit away because he didn't write Tintin isn't fair either, Spielberg hasn't written a movie since AI.

    • profile image

      rmcmillen 4 years ago

      Real Steel, Cowboys and Aliens, All Bay's Transformers, Indiana Jones And Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.... I give you 6 horrible piles of cinematic poo that all have been made in the last 10 years and all either had him as a director, or have him to directly thank for helping produce them. Yes.... he had Munich, War Horse and Lincoln (I don't count Tin Tin because he had nothing but voices to direct and he didn't write it.... so yeah..... HOWEVER, he had these movies as well.... so yeah.

    • Vayanni profile image
      Author

      Vincent Yanni 4 years ago from Pittsburgh, PA

      I'm not sure if that "doesn't suck" part refers to Spielberg's latest works. But Munich, War Horse, and The Adventures of Tintin were all very good movies. Even Lincoln had it's upsides; mainly the acting. So I wouldn't say he's making movies that suck lately.

    • profile image

      rmcmillen 4 years ago

      but my point is why rerelease it in order to make more money.......heaven forbid a director such as Steven actually tries to make a movie that doesn't suck in order to make that money.

      I would rather see him and those like him have a NEW good idea and put that to film rather than just revisiting his old good ideas and saying "what can we do to these to make them better?" only destined to miss the mark on the whole "better" part.

    • BraidedZero profile image

      James Robertson 4 years ago from Texas

      Every move that anyone makes is towards money. Why would you re-release a movie unless you want more money? It's not because they just feel like it, otherwise they would make it free to watch. In all honesty I like this move. I personally hate 3D and refuse to watch it but I understand their move and had I been in their place I would do the same thing. Great article.

    • profile image

      rmcmillen 4 years ago

      I love Star Wars, Star Trek and Jurassic Park, and I saw Jurassic Park 3D and Star Wars 3D and god help me, if they did Star Trek 3D? Well, I'd see that as well........ I am just saying that doing such a thing while NOT doing what Star Wars did in the past with adding this, that or the other thing with an added scene or whatever............. well.... then its just the same movie...... just a bit more in your face....... so...... whats the point?...... Let me stop you right there...... I'll tell ya........ There is no point..... It's like John Carter..... no reasoning behind it other than simple dollars and cents.

    • Vayanni profile image
      Author

      Vincent Yanni 4 years ago from Pittsburgh, PA

      Thankfully, unlike many re-releases (Star Wars), they had a somewhat valid reason behind it as this marks its 20th Anniv. Not saying you're wrong, I'd actually imagine most agree that converting old movies is played out. But this is one where it actually pays off and worth revisiting.

    • profile image

      rmcmillen 4 years ago

      I am not saying that this movie wasn't a great movie to convert to 3D, but in my opinion doing so was pretty much done within the same thought process Spielberg used with Indiana Jones And The Crystal Skull.... "what can I do to this film in order to redistribute it and make a LOT more money than before"..... In doing this he was beating a dead horse with this one..... or dead dinosaur in this case I suppose.