|
|
Post by MCDemuth on Jul 19, 2021 1:37:13 GMT
Alan Grant is more interesting than in the first one--he has a reason to be at the island and interacting with the dinosaurs. The kid is not annoying, Tea Leoni has that function. There's more character development--such as him and his assistant and Laura Dern. It's short--the ending feels a little rushed but as a story it has more of a complete feeling than the first two although I prefer the Lost World overall. It feels like a 1960s B movie--which is good--that's what they should feel like. Also the joke with the dinosaur approaching them after they dig for the phone was a good one.
Um, what reason did he have to be back on the island? He was tricked by the world's stupidest parents into finding their dunce son. That's a reason to kill the parents and phone social services on them, but not to go back to a dinosaur island that you almost died in years ago.Not correct. There were TWO islands with Dinosaurs on them... "Jurassic Park" took place on the first island. It was the Public Park. "Lost World" took place on the second island. It was the Nature Preserve. Jurassic Park 3, took place on the second island... And it was well mentioned in the film. In fact it's partly made into a joke, about Alan Grant being there, since he wasn't an expert on it, like they thought he was... And he never agreed to set foot on the second island. He thought the plane would just fly over it and look at the Dinosaurs on the ground from above...
|
|