If director Steven Spielberg’s “Jurassic Park” (1993) and its sequels, “The Lost World: Jurassic Park” (1997) and “Jurassic Park III” (2001), suggested tampering with Mother Nature could lead to “chaos” (to borrow the Jeff Goldblum character’s signature term), the Spielberg-produced “Jurassic World” seems to have made peace with the idea of using science to revive extinct animals; instead, it tsk-tsks those who seek to manufacture new species.
I’ve been reviewing the original trilogy of films and although the first two sequels ( The Lost World: Jurassic Park and Jurassic Park III ) were decent enough to merit recommendations, neither of them came close to matching the excitement of the original.
This series, in which the monsters arose out of our hubris in believing we could control the forces of nature, might have started down that path of channeling the old-fashioned monster movies before a Tyrannosaurus rex tore through the streets of San Diego in The Lost World: Jurassic Park.
After an initial hit with “Jurassic Park” in 1993 and then “The Lost World: Jurassic Park” in 1997, 2001’s “Jurassic Park III” could have put the trilogy to bed.
The first wise move was pretending that The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) and Jurassic Park III (2001) never existed and that the world depicted here descends directly from Spielberg's 1993 adaptation of Michael Crichton's novel.
Like the Michael Crichton book on which it was based, Steven Spielberg’s original Jurassic Park (1993) takes place prior to the actual opening of the park, which we are left to assume will never open given what happens during the film, while the sequels The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) and Jurassic Park III (2001) both take place on Site B, a second island where the dinosaurs were actually created and that has since been deserted.