Most critics like it, and nearly all of them, including the two who do not, agree on why: the dinosaurs. The effects are praised across the board, from the first reviews in 1993 to revisits two and three decades on, which mostly find they have aged better than the sets, the script and the acting around them. Spielberg’s handling of suspense draws the next most praise, with the T. rex and kitchen sequences named again and again, and John Williams’s score gets its share.
The reservations gather around the people. Several reviews find the characters thin and the story blunter than Crichton’s novel, and a few think the sentiment is laid on thick. The spread is wide. The Los Angeles Times rates everything but the dinosaurs flat, and The Times treats the film as a phenomenon of hype rather than a piece of cinema. The later reviews are noticeably warmer than the originals.
H
The Hollywood Reporter
11 June 1993 · Duane Byrge
90*
The film is a colossal, jaw-dropping entertainment that becomes the king of blockbusters through Spielberg's masterful orchestration of spectacle and human elements. The technical achievements in effects, score, and cinematography are singled out as the brightest stars.
Read the full review →T
Total Film
19 September 2011
90*
The critic calls it a classic due to Spielberg's skill with peril and character moments rather than just the CGI, noting the intense set pieces that make it one of cinema's greatest thrill-rides.
Read the full review →The film is an almost infallible entertainment that converts Crichton's novel into a suspense machine while demonstrating the director's signature elements. It singles out the dinosaurs for praise, noting how seriously they are taken with advisers ensuring realistic behavior and highlighting an emotionally complex shot of unsaleable merchandise.
Read the full review →E
Empire
1 January 1993 · Caroline Westbrook
80*
The review highlights Spielberg's transformation of Crichton's novel into an awe-inspiring blockbuster filled with memorable set pieces and groundbreaking dinosaur effects. It notes that while the script and performances are not Oscar-worthy, the dinosaurs are the real stars.
Read the full review →The review notes that the effects have dated remarkably well compared to the sets, script and acting, giving the film an amusingly quaint quality on revisit. It remains one of Spielberg’s purest suspense rides: gimmicky, giddy and still great value.
Read the full review →R
RogerEbert.com
11 June 1993 · ★★★/4 · Roger Ebert
75
The critic praises the dinosaurs' special effects but criticizes the lack of awe, wonder, and strong human characters, turning it into a standard monster movie. He notes it delivers on excitement but could have been more.
Read the full review →G
The Guardian
22 September 2011
70*
The critic finds the restored re-release of Spielberg's dinosaur thriller eye-wateringly shiny on the big screen, though its clunkier first-hour elements stand out more with time. The second half delivers Spielberg at his best as a thrill ride, with Wayne Knight nearly stealing the show.
Read the full review →I
The Independent
15 July 1993 · Adam Mars-Jones
70*
The critic praises the film's blend of fear and wonder, especially the convincing realization of dinosaurs through special effects and their own inherent qualities as creatures. He criticizes the tonal disruption caused by efforts to secure a PG certificate for what is essentially a horror film.
Read the full review →V
Variety
31 December 1992 · Variety Staff
70*
The review finds the film one-dimensional and clunky in story and characterization but praises its delivery on excitement, suspense, and the stupendous realization of the giant reptiles.
Read the full review →V
Vulture
21 June 1993 · David Denby
70*
Jurassic Park delivers thrilling effects and comes close to Jaws in excitement, wit, and fear, with dinosaurs that are convincingly hungry and real. The calculation in Spielberg's big-machine approach and conventional thrills are noted as drawbacks.
Read the full review →N
The New York Times
11 June 1993 · Janet Maslin
65*
The critic calls the film a true movie milestone for its awe-inspiring, lifelike dinosaurs created with groundbreaking effects that set a new standard. However, the human characters are sweetened and simplified, the story loses bite from the novel, and it becomes more of a roller-coaster ride than a sharp thriller.
Read the full review →L
Los Angeles Times
11 June 1993 · Kenneth Turan
40*
The dinosaurs are wondrously realistic and state-of-the-art, the film's strongest element. Everything else falls short, with bland human characters, simplistic acting, flat directing, and excessive sentimentality that turns the film into an amusement-park ride rather than a fully realized movie.
Read the full review →T
The Times
15 July 1993 · Geoff Brown
30*
The film is a blunderbuss strong on surface thrills but weak on everything else, with dinosaurs raging via technical finesse from multiple effects units. It is frightening as a phenomenon of aggressive promotion and hype more than as cinema.
Read the full review →C
Collider
5 October 2022 · A · Rae Torres
95
The critic calls Jurassic Park a masterpiece whose practical effects and visuals remain unmatched, praising the restrained use of CGI and the iconic T-Rex sequence as highlights that make it a cultural milestone beyond a mere summer blockbuster.
Read the full review →D
Digital Spy
25 August 2013 · Emma Dibdin
90*
The critic praises the film's immersive wonder, terror, efficient script, and enduring effects, calling it pure, efficient, big-hearted entertainment. They single out the expressive dinosaurs and Spielberg's mastery of wonder and terror, while noting a minor issue with the lack of a strong human antagonist.
Read the full review →H
HeyUGuys
26 June 2013 · festival review · Steven Neish
90*
The critic finds the 3D re-release of the 1993 film still highly entertaining and effective, with its character focus and technical achievements holding up remarkably well two decades later. They single out the blend of practical effects, CGI, and John Williams' score for particular praise.
Read the full review →P
Polygon
12 August 2020 · Sean T. Collins
80*
The critic highlights the film's critique of greed and unchecked capitalism as its most chilling element, noting how the story's warnings about prioritizing profit over safety resonate anew while still delivering thrilling dinosaur spectacle.
Read the full review →R
The Ringer
13 June 2018 · Adam Nayman
80*
The critic positions Jurassic Park as the victor in its 1993 box-office clash, praising its groundbreaking CGI, relentless suspense in key sequences, and lasting influence on blockbusters while noting some dated character elements. Singles out the T. rex and kitchen scenes as masterful.
Read the full review →/
/Film
28 March 2018 · Dana Moran
75*
The critic revisits the film 25 years on and concludes it largely holds up as a technological trailblazer and expertly paced thrill ride, though the finale feels like a letdown after the stronger set pieces. Singles out the opening sequences, dinosaur effects, and suspenseful action for praise.
Read the full review →Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate