Of course I had already seen the film, many times, when I picked up Michael Crichton's novel a few weeks ago. Despite knowing the basic story line, it was still a great read. Intense and interesting. Crichton makes you believe that cloning of Dinosaurs is perfectly plausible, and the varied characters are equally as believable in their various professions and defining character...
more Of course I had already seen the film, many times, when I picked up Michael Crichton's novel a few weeks ago. Despite knowing the basic story line, it was still a great read. Intense and interesting. Crichton makes you believe that cloning of Dinosaurs is perfectly plausible, and the varied characters are equally as believable in their various professions and defining character traits.
Obviously, the film broke from the novel in various points. Whole segments were missing, and ultimately certain characters meet their fates, whereas in the film they did not. I was told by several people that some of the best sequences from the novel didn't make it into the film, and this was true to a point. Several of the more memorable missing scenes did however translate into the two following Jurassic Park film sequels. So, in short, if you've seen all 3 of the movies you're not going to be missing that much.
One distraction for me was the character of Ian Malcolm. Malcolm would go on LONG rants about the environment or humanity that while being interesting, were also dated in the 1990s world from when the book was first written. Not to mention the rants were long. Really a little too long in the majority of cases. My guess is that Michael Crichton IS Ian Malcolm. The character, complete with his unchallenged opinions, was easy for Crichton to write, being a tool for Crichton to voice his own opinions (thus cementing his staring role in the Lost World novel, despite everything...)
Jurassic Park was still a page turner, and an overall enjoyable read.
hide