|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Dec 11, 2017 0:08:16 GMT
5/10. For me this is the worse one in the franchise.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Dec 11, 2017 1:14:04 GMT
6.5 for me. Utterly lacking in ambition but it remains an action packed 90 minute 'lost world' movie that doesn't overstay its welcome.
|
|
|
Post by James on Dec 11, 2017 22:46:34 GMT
7/10 Yeah it's the weakest but I enjoy it. I think this was the first JP movie I ever saw, so it does hold a special place in my heart for that reason.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2017 0:45:19 GMT
LOL at people thinking The Lost World was any better than this. This is easily a 7/10 movie, definitely better than the middle movie that preceded it. Fuck The Lost World: Jurassic Park.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Dec 12, 2017 8:53:33 GMT
LOL at people thinking The Lost World was any better than this. This is easily a 7/10 movie, definitely better than the middle movie that preceded it. Fuck The Lost World: Jurassic Park. The Lost World was better. Jurassic Park 3 was just the same idea but hugely scaled back in comparison, it all felt like a lower budgeted version of The Lost World. It was a very short movie, under 90 minutes actually without the credits whereas the other two movies were a couple hours long. The action sequences were not as memorable as The Lost World, the main one people remember really divides people. The characters weren't very good because they added too much corny humour to the movie. There wasn't as big a focus on a variety of dinosaurs compared to the other movies. It was mainly all about the Velociraptors and the Spinosaur. It didn't have the same level of horror vibe to it either.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Dec 12, 2017 9:10:56 GMT
Worst of the franchise by far. I thought trained raptors were pretty bad but the talking ones are even more annoying.
Still not as annoying as the Kirbys. They should've been eaten alongside Billy. But no, the actor had a problem with dying in the film so he had to show up in the end when didn't make any sense. He's just alive after being taken away by Pterosaurs.
|
|
|
Post by femalefan on Dec 12, 2017 9:36:42 GMT
5/10. I liked that Grant returned and the kid character was tolerable but, Leoni's character was annoying and T-Rex was robbed in the T-Rex vs Spino fight.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2017 16:33:03 GMT
LOL at people thinking The Lost World was any better than this. This is easily a 7/10 movie, definitely better than the middle movie that preceded it. Fuck The Lost World: Jurassic Park. The Lost World was better. Jurassic Park 3 was just the same idea but hugely scaled back in comparison, it all felt like a lower budgeted version of The Lost World. It was a very short movie, under 90 minutes actually without the credits whereas the other two movies were a couple hours long. The action sequences were not as memorable as The Lost World, the main one people remember really divides people. The characters weren't very good because they added too much corny humour to the movie. There wasn't as big a focus on a variety of dinosaurs compared to the other movies. It was mainly all about the Velociraptors and the Spinosaur. It didn't have the same level of horror vibe to it either. You are completely wrong. Jurassic Park 3 was better. It was a considerably more enjoyable rump instead of being a liberal political agenda gone out of control like the second movie was. Budget is irrelevant. The length of the movie is irrelevant, too. Being shorter just means it didn't overstay its welcome. The action scenes were much more memorable. I can't recall a single thing that happened in Lost World outside of the bullshit snowflake politics. And? Jurassic Park isn't horror, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Dec 12, 2017 16:49:29 GMT
You are completely wrong. Jurassic Park 3 was better. It was a considerably more enjoyable rump instead of being a liberal political agenda gone out of control like the second movie was. Budget is irrelevant. The length of the movie is irrelevant, too. Being shorter just means it didn't overstay its welcome. The action scenes were much more memorable. I can't recall a single thing that happened in Lost World outside of the bullshit snowflake politics. And? Jurassic Park isn't horror, anyway. Seems you're more concerned about the "politics" of the dinosaur movie than then actually quality of the movie itself. Didn't overstay it's welcome? It was pretty much over with before it even got going. The Lost World had plenty of memorable action scenes, the Stegosaurus scene, the Trailer going off of the cliff while the T-Rex attacked it was great, the T-Rex attacking the camp, the Velociraptors scene and the San Diego scene. Jurassic Park 3 had the Spinosaur fight scene with the T-Rex which pissed off most people because of how easily he killed everyone's favourite dinosaur. The rest wasn't that great. Jurassic Park is part horror, it involves creatures eating people. The Lost World had some intense scenes in that regard. Jurassic Park 3 just has the two parents being corny throughout.
|
|
|
Post by movielover on Dec 12, 2017 16:50:40 GMT
7/10 - I haven't watched it since it first came out, so I'm going off vague memories. Needs a re-watch.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2017 16:59:02 GMT
You are completely wrong. Jurassic Park 3 was better. It was a considerably more enjoyable rump instead of being a liberal political agenda gone out of control like the second movie was. Budget is irrelevant. The length of the movie is irrelevant, too. Being shorter just means it didn't overstay its welcome. The action scenes were much more memorable. I can't recall a single thing that happened in Lost World outside of the bullshit snowflake politics. And? Jurassic Park isn't horror, anyway. Seems you're more concerned about the "politics" of the dinosaur movie than then actually quality of the movie itself. Didn't overstay it's welcome? It was pretty much over with before it even got going. The Lost World had plenty of memorable action scenes, the Stegosaurus scene, the Trailer going off of the cliff while the T-Rex attacked it was great, the T-Rex attacking the camp, the Velociraptors scene and the San Diego scene. Jurassic Park 3 had the Spinosaur fight scene with the T-Rex which pissed off most people because of how easily he killed everyone's favourite dinosaur. The rest wasn't that great. Jurassic Park is part horror, it involves creatures eating people. The Lost World had some intense scenes in that regard. Jurassic Park 3 just has the two parents being corny throughout. That's because the bullshit politics directly impacted the quality in a very negative way. The supposed "heroes" of the film were nigh unlikeable with the sole exception of Malcolm. Their claims that the dinosaurs are a natural part of nature are complete bullshit because they don't belong in this day and age at all and were actively wrecking the island's ecosystem just by being there. Removing a handful of herbivores and sending them to a proper zoo could only do some good by thinning out those herds. The only reason the T-Rex even ended going to mainland was because Nick was an asshole who took everyone's bullets which got everyone killed either by the rexes or the raptors. Meanwhile, the only other survivors tranqed the male rex because that was the only option left. Everything bad that happens in the film lies on the shoulders of the "heroes." I was rooting for the so-called "villains" the whole time because Nick and Sarah were so awful and Malcolm's kid so annoying. Poor Eddie was the only person on Malcolm's team I didn't want to see die and he died. Don't remember a single one of them. And I'd rather watch an actual Godzilla film over the rushed hackjob that was the final portion of Lost World. And? Jurassic Park is not horror. It was rated PG-13 and all the merchandise was aimed at children. The Lost World had no intense scenes. Jurassic Park 3 was a fun adventure.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Dec 12, 2017 17:25:18 GMT
That's because the bullshit politics directly impacted the quality in a very negative way. The supposed "heroes" of the film were nigh unlikeable with the sole exception of Malcolm. Their claims that the dinosaurs are a natural part of nature are complete bullshit because they don't belong in this day and age at all and were actively wrecking the island's ecosystem just by being there. Removing a handful of herbivores and sending them to a proper zoo could only do some good by thinning out those herds. The only reason the T-Rex even ended going to mainland was because Nick was an asshole who took everyone's bullets which got everyone killed either by the rexes or the raptors. Meanwhile, the only other survivors tranqed the male rex because that was the only option left. Everything bad that happens in the film lies on the shoulders of the "heroes." I was rooting for the so-called "villains" the whole time because Nick and Sarah were so awful and Malcolm's kid so annoying. Poor Eddie was the only person on Malcolm's team I didn't want to see die and he died. Don't remember a single one of them. And I'd rather watch an actual Godzilla film over the rushed hackjob that was the final portion of Lost World. And? Jurassic Park is not horror. It was rated PG-13 and all the merchandise was aimed at children. The Lost World had no intense scenes. Jurassic Park 3 was a fun adventure. That seems a bit of an overstretched criticism, the heroes just wanted the dinosaurs to be left alone on the island. Was them being a threat to the ecosystem even a point that was brought up in the movie? If not then you have to assume it wouldn't actually be a problem and they really would have just been fine being left on the island. The Lost World had some great action scenes for the most part and I don't believe for a second you don't remember any of the movies action scenes but can remember Nick taking bullets off screen. Jurassic Park may not be Aliens but it did have a horror vibe to it. Jurassic Park 3 was that light that barely anyone even got killed in that movie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2017 17:31:33 GMT
That's because the bullshit politics directly impacted the quality in a very negative way. The supposed "heroes" of the film were nigh unlikeable with the sole exception of Malcolm. Their claims that the dinosaurs are a natural part of nature are complete bullshit because they don't belong in this day and age at all and were actively wrecking the island's ecosystem just by being there. Removing a handful of herbivores and sending them to a proper zoo could only do some good by thinning out those herds. The only reason the T-Rex even ended going to mainland was because Nick was an asshole who took everyone's bullets which got everyone killed either by the rexes or the raptors. Meanwhile, the only other survivors tranqed the male rex because that was the only option left. Everything bad that happens in the film lies on the shoulders of the "heroes." I was rooting for the so-called "villains" the whole time because Nick and Sarah were so awful and Malcolm's kid so annoying. Poor Eddie was the only person on Malcolm's team I didn't want to see die and he died. Don't remember a single one of them. And I'd rather watch an actual Godzilla film over the rushed hackjob that was the final portion of Lost World. And? Jurassic Park is not horror. It was rated PG-13 and all the merchandise was aimed at children. The Lost World had no intense scenes. Jurassic Park 3 was a fun adventure. That seems a bit of an overstretched criticism, the heroes just wanted the dinosaurs to be left alone on the island. Was them being a threat to the ecosystem even a point that was brought up in the movie? If not then you have to assume it wouldn't actually be a problem and they really would have just been fine being left on the island. The Lost World had some great action scenes for the most part and I don't believe for a second you don't remember any of the movies action scenes but can remember Nick taking bullets off screen. Jurassic Park may not be Aliens but it did have a horror vibe to it. Jurassic Park 3 was that light that barely anyone even got killed in that movie. Considering that they're artificially created clones that aren't a natural part of the island's ecosystem, just leaving them alone is the worst thing anyone could possibly do. You can't just resurrect a species of animal that's been dead for eons and then just set them loose. That's bad for everyone involved, including the dinosaurs. In the first film, just creating them at all was treated as an affront to nature. Having some decent action sequences does not a good movie make. I saw Jurassic Park in theaters at age 7 and it didn't scare me. Again, killing people off is a worthless gesture unless you have a point to make.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Dec 12, 2017 17:32:53 GMT
LOL at people thinking The Lost World was any better than this. This is easily a 7/10 movie, definitely better than the middle movie that preceded it. Fuck The Lost World: Jurassic Park. The Lost World was better. Jurassic Park 3 was just the same idea but hugely scaled back in comparison, it all felt like a lower budgeted version of The Lost World.It was a very short movie, under 90 minutes actually without the credits whereas the other two movies were a couple hours long. The action sequences were not as memorable as The Lost World, the main one people remember really divides people. The characters weren't very good because they added too much corny humour to the movie. There wasn't as big a focus on a variety of dinosaurs compared to the other movies. It was mainly all about the Velociraptors and the Spinosaur. It didn't have the same level of horror vibe to it either. The storylines of the two movies are nothing alike at all.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Dec 12, 2017 17:44:26 GMT
Considering that they're artificially created clones that aren't a natural part of the island's ecosystem, just leaving them alone is the worst thing anyone could possibly do. You can't just resurrect a species of animal that's been dead for eons and then just set them loose. That's bad for everyone involved, including the dinosaurs. In the first film, just creating them at all was treated as an affront to nature. Having some decent action sequences does not a good movie make. I saw Jurassic Park in theaters at age 7 and it didn't scare me. Again, killing people off is a worthless gesture unless you have a point to make. Maybe in the real world it would be an issue but this is a movie. The heroes, the supposed experts felt it was best they be alone on the island and the villains were just trying to capture them so they could make another Jurassic Park to make money. If there wasn't the plot point of how they were a danger to the eco system and that was a reason for why they were trying to catch them, then it's not meant to be an issue and they would have been fine as they were. These are action adventure movies with horror elements about Dinosaurs eating people. Three of the four movies got that part right. Then you had Jurassic Park 3 where only two people were actually eaten on screen. One had his neck snapped for some reason and the other deaths at the start where all off screen. Kinda misses the point of why people want to see these movies.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Dec 12, 2017 17:48:44 GMT
The storylines of the two movies are nothing alike at all. They both involved a main character going to Isla Sorna with a group (and not wanting to) in order to save one of the characters family members. Then they got chased around for an hour by Velociraptors and a much larger predator before escaping on a Helicopter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2017 17:53:14 GMT
Considering that they're artificially created clones that aren't a natural part of the island's ecosystem, just leaving them alone is the worst thing anyone could possibly do. You can't just resurrect a species of animal that's been dead for eons and then just set them loose. That's bad for everyone involved, including the dinosaurs. In the first film, just creating them at all was treated as an affront to nature. Having some decent action sequences does not a good movie make. I saw Jurassic Park in theaters at age 7 and it didn't scare me. Again, killing people off is a worthless gesture unless you have a point to make. Maybe in the real world it would be an issue but this is a movie. Not an excuse. Jurassic Park was designed to tackle a real world issue by its author and that theme carried into the first film. So you don't get to use that excuse. The "villains", once again, still sound more reasonable. A good version of The Lost World: Jurassic Park would have made that a plot point. Therefore, its still a point of criticism because its a huge hole in the writing. They weren't scary, and killing off characters only works if you're making a point. Therefore, Jurassic Park 3 also got it right where it counts. Three. And no, those deaths weren't off-screen. It didn't miss any points. People want to see dinosaurs doing cool things. If your only idea of dinosaurs doing cool things is eating people, then you have a very narrow scope.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Dec 12, 2017 18:10:32 GMT
Not an excuse. Jurassic Park was designed to tackle a real world issue by its author and that theme carried into the first film. So you don't get to use that excuse. You're looking for an issue where there isn't one. As far as these movies are concerned, they are not a danger to the eco system. Those dinosaurs have been let loose on Isla Sorna since the years prior to Jurassic Park and were still just fine by Jurassic Park 3 many years later with that movie also not making a point out of it. Scary or not, that depends on the person but the horror vibes were present in the movie. It gave it a certain atmosphere that Jurassic Park 3 didn't have because it had some really lousy comedy in it's place. Killing off characters is also part of the entertainment, it doesn't have to make a point. They didn't do anything cool either. Nor did the movie give much of a focus on them because the movie was too short. The other movies put a focus on a wider variety of dinosaurs and not just in action sequences but like in the original movie when they were in the tree stroking the brachiosaurus. Jurassic Park 3 focused on just the three dinosaurs, the Spinosaur, the Velociraptor and the Pteranodon, all of which were only used for action scenes and running away from them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2017 18:20:07 GMT
It was the an issue in both the original books, especially the original where they went to great length to show how unsuited the dinosaurs were to existing in a modern ecosystem. Bacteria and insects couldn't break down their manure, they'd get mysterious illnesses the park vets couldn't figure out, and in the sequel book, the dinosaurs' social setup was a complete due to not having been properly raised parent dinos to show them how to live in proper herds and packs. So again, ignoring the issue is a failing on the film's part. In Jurassic Park, it does have to have a point. Everything that happens is supposed to be a consequence of humanity's arrogance. In the book and first film, every bad thing that happens is a result of people underestimating the dinosaurs and making huge miscalculations in dealing with them. Most of the deaths are caused by people only thinking they understand how these formerly extinct animals work. And The Lost World had no atmosphere. Jurassic Park 3 did. You're right, the dinosaurs in The Lost World didn't do anything cool. The variety of dinosaurs was never the point in the book. So its irrelevant if the third film chose to mostly focus on three particular kinds of dinosaurs. And the action scenes in the previous two films were all revolved around running away from them, too.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Dec 12, 2017 18:43:11 GMT
It was the an issue in both the original books, especially the original where they went to great length to show how unsuited the dinosaurs were to existing in a modern ecosystem. That was the book though. The movies especially The Lost World is radically different. The movies are simplified pieces of entertainment for a younger audience. This eco system problem was not brought up in any of the movies (that I remember) and if it was such a prominent thing in the original book then it should have been brought up in that movie. Well that's why so many of the hunters got killed in The Lost World because they were arrogant enough to think they could capture dinosaurs that were out of their league. In Jurassic Park 3 they killed a tourist who just wanted to see some dinosaurs and someone just doing his job by driving a boat. The Lord World had a much better atmosphere because of how it was filmed. It made a much better use of it's cinematography and settings as it was filmed all over, California, different places in Hawaii, Canada, different places in New Zealand. Jurassic Park 3 was partly filmed in California and Hawaii but was mostly filmed on sets which was very noticeable because of the inclosed areas in the shots. It made it feel more fake. It also lacked John Williams involvement as well which was also noticeable. That isn't irrelevant at all. They're movies, it's a visual form of entertainment about dinosaurs that come in all different kinds. The Lost World had a large variety of dinosaurs in the movie that it focused on, like Stegosaurus, the T-Rex, the Velociraptor, the dinosaurs in the scene where they being rounded up, the Velociraptors and the Compys. Jurassic Park 3 over did the antagonist role with the Spinosaurus, it took up too much of the focus. The other two movies weren't like that.
|
|