Here’s a bold statement: Jurassic Park, the 1993 blockbuster that once defined cinematic wonder, now feels like a relic of a bygone era. But don’t get us wrong—it’s still a masterpiece, but time has revealed cracks in its once-impenetrable armor. And this is the part most people miss: while the film remains thrilling, its science, morality, and cultural context haven’t aged as gracefully as its dinosaurs. Let’s dive into why watching Jurassic Park today is a bit like visiting a museum—fascinating, but undeniably dated.
1. The Science of Resurrection: A Leap of Faith That’s Lost Its Luster
Jurassic Park introduced the world to the idea of cloning dinosaurs from ancient DNA trapped in amber. At the time, it felt groundbreaking—especially since Dolly the sheep, the first cloned mammal, wouldn’t arrive until 1997. But here’s the kicker: modern science has exposed the flaws in this premise. DNA degrades too quickly to reconstruct an entire dinosaur genome, and tools like CRISPR make the film’s methods seem quaint. Controversial question: Does this outdated science ruin the magic, or is it a charming reminder of the era’s optimism?
2. Morality in Black and White: Too Simple for Today’s Audience
Remember when movies could neatly divide the world into good and evil? Jurassic Park does just that, pitting nature’s purity against humanity’s greed. But modern audiences crave complexity. Characters like the sleazy lawyer, who meets a gruesome end, feel like caricatures rather than nuanced figures. But here’s where it gets controversial: Is the film’s moral simplicity a weakness, or does it reflect a time when storytelling didn’t need to be so ambiguous?
3. John Hammond: The Billionaire Hero Who Wouldn’t Fly Today
Richard Attenborough’s John Hammond is the quintessential visionary billionaire—a dreamer whose flaws are forgiven because of his grand ambitions. But in 2025, billionaires like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg have soured public perception. Hammond’s exploitation of science and labor wouldn’t be romanticized today; he’d be seen as a villain. Thought-provoking question: Does this shift in perspective make Hammond’s character irredeemable, or is he a product of his time?
4. Slow Burn vs. Instant Gratification: A Pacing Problem
Steven Spielberg’s mastery of pacing is undeniable, but Jurassic Park’s deliberate build-up might test modern audiences’ patience. Accustomed to the rapid-fire action of the MCU, viewers today may find the film’s methodical approach sluggish. And this is the part most people miss: Is it the audience’s fault for demanding instant thrills, or has the film’s pacing become a relic of a slower cinematic era?
5. Dinosaurs in Disguise: The Science of Appearance
The dinosaurs in Jurassic Park were revolutionary for their time, but they’re scientifically inaccurate by today’s standards. Velociraptors were feathered, not scaly, and T. rex likely didn’t roar like a monster. Even the colors are off—dinosaurs were probably more vibrant than the muted tones depicted. Controversial interpretation: Does this inaccuracy matter, or does it highlight the tension between scientific truth and cinematic spectacle?
6. Cloning Ethics: From Fantasy to Reality
In 1993, cloning was a far-off fantasy. Today, it’s a reality fraught with ethical dilemmas. Jurassic Park’s portrayal of cloning as a hubristic endeavor feels prescient, but modern audiences see deeper implications. Resurrecting extinct species raises questions about morality, ecology, and humanity’s role as stewards of the planet. Bold question: Is cloning dinosaurs ethically indefensible, or is it a natural extension of human curiosity?
7. Ecological Subtext: Shallow Waters in a Deep Ocean
The film nods to environmental themes but never dives deep. “Life finds a way” is a catchy line, but it doesn’t address habitat destruction, climate change, or systemic exploitation. Compared to films like Annihilation or Okja, Jurassic Park’s ecological message feels superficial. Thought-provoking question: Is it fair to criticize a 30-year-old film for not predicting today’s environmental crises?
8. Sequel Saturation: The Franchise That Wouldn’t Die
The Jurassic franchise has become a victim of its own success. With each sequel, the original film’s brilliance is diluted. New viewers experience Jurassic Park through the lens of its faster-paced, action-heavy successors, which diminishes its impact. Controversial point: Has the franchise’s overexposure ruined the original, or is it still a standalone masterpiece?
Final Thought: Jurassic Park remains a cinematic triumph, but its flaws are impossible to ignore in 2025. Its science is outdated, its morality simplistic, and its cultural context no longer aligns with modern sensibilities. Yet, it’s these very imperfections that spark conversation and debate. So, we ask you: Does Jurassic Park deserve its place in the pantheon of cinema, or is it time to let this dinosaur rest?