"Jurassic Park ///" - A Comparison and Review
Jurassic Mainframe News Team
Posts : 1007
Points : 4482
Reputation : 70
Join date : 2012-04-06
Location : Chicago
|Subject: "Jurassic Park ///" - A Comparison and Review Thu Jun 09, 2016 8:19 pm|| |
I originally wrote this as a term paper, but I figured I'd post it here too for your enjoyment! Be forewarned, it is very lengthy!
Personally I feel like "Jurassic Park ///" (2001) was inadequate for a number of both inside and outside causes. Within the realm of the film, and what could have been helped by the film makers is the lack of an adequate and worthy script. Director Joe Johnston threw out the one they had five weeks prior to filming and this had a very big effect. Some directors can direct with a loose or even nonexistent script. Stanley Kubrick was one such director, directing "The Shining" (1980) with daily script updates. Joe Johnston is not Kubrick, and the lack of a script heavily shows.
The next common complaint is the lack of emotion that is so accustomed with music of John Williams. With "Jurassic Park ///", composer Don Davis merely sounds as if he is going through the motions to make the score rather than putting his heart and soul into it. In "Jurassic Park ///" the score, while having a few new additions seemed either non-existent or a recycle of the first movie's. One personal irk I have is when Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill) says "You probably won't get off this island alive" line, there's a kind of 'DUN DUN DUN" flurry to the music that sounds unprofessional.
In "The Lost World: Jurassic Park" (1997) you have something that is completely different with major portions of the "Jurassic Park" (1993) score coming in at appropriate times. The "Jurassic Park" theme comes up every time Jurassic Park or Jurassic Park: San Diego is mentioned, and the "Welcome to Jurassic Park" theme plays at the end during a beauty shot, appropriate for the scene. The only place it's not exactly appropriate is when the main theme plays at the end of John Hammond's (Lord Richard Attenborough) meeting with Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) scene. Then there's the whistle that is the leitmotif for the raptors. First heard as a reprisal form (no accompanying instruments) in the scene right after the trailer attack when Peter Ludlow (Arliss Howard) mentions the raptors and the in a more tribal form at the beginning of the Workers Village scene. Beyond that, John Williams barely reused the same type of instruments for "The Lost World: Jurassic Park" that he did for "Jurassic Park". "Jurassic Park ///'s" score just didn't seem like it was distanced enough from those of the previous films. Much of the film's score repeated that of the previous films.
There were a few new parts added here or there but beyond that the opening scene seemed like a mix between the score for the opening scene of "Jurassic Park" along with some of "Sarah's Stegos" mixed in. The plane trip score was "Journey to the Island". The initial Spinosaurus attack is really the only area I can think off that has massive amounts of original scoring. "Big Hat, No Cattle" by Randy Newman doesn't count as it's not at all an original nor orchestral composition written for anything "Jurassic Park". Entering the Laboratory Facility seemed to be taken straight from "The Raptors Appear" (the part in the village before the raptors actually appear), then goes into "Hatching Baby Raptor", then into a bit quieter version, of the same music that was used for the initial Spinosaurus attack. Speaking of attacking Spinosaurus, the music of when the Spinosaurus wrecks the plane seems like a slightly more bombastic version of "The Compies Dine". The river I don't count due to its beauty-shot nature. The Spinosaurus attack seemed like Don Davis combined "The Compies Dine" with the same theme of his own theme he's been doing throughout the film. Then the ending was the main theme with a snare drum added in due to the presence of the soldiers. Then it ends off with "Welcome to Jurassic Park". Between those that I mentioned is some rather bland, unimaginative, and relatively unmemorable scoring.
My biggest complaint is against the usage of setting. It doesn't take a genius to see that the foliage on Isla Sorna has changed between "The Lost World: Jurassic Park" and "Jurassic Park ///". Now, it has been proposed that this is due to difference in location on the island itself. Even with this, I must confess myself disappointed in the sets. A majority of what is supposed to be jungle scenes was actually filmed on sound stages with the trees and such moved around to make the jungle appear different. However, this shows blatantly.
The jungle, unlike it's on location appearance in "Jurassic Park" and "The Lost World: Jurassic Park", seems built for ease of human travel. There's a significant lack of undergrowth used in the sets, the presence of which was very noticeable in the previous film sets. Examples include paleobotonist Ellie Sattler's (Laura Dern's) break for the maintenance shed where she has to climb over branches and jump through puddles or in "The Lost World: Jurassic Park" where the trek back to the camp after finding behavioral paleontologist Dr. Sarah Harding (Julianne Moore) includes having to climb over fallen logs and such things as saplings. There's a significant lack of saplings to be seen in the "Jurassic Park ///" jungle. From a franchise where the smallest of details have made the biggest of difference between what looks realistic and what doesn't, I'd expect more. The jungle itself doesn't present itself as a threat. I don't know if it has to do with a lot of the film taking place in daylight in contrast to the previous, but in "Jurassic Park", while the trees are indeed more sparse, and some of it lacks the very undergrowth I pine for, it has to be remembered that this is a park setting. Therefore, it will look a bit nicer than the dirty, dingy, fern ridden, coniferous jungle we find in "The Lost World: Jurassic Park". The jungle in "The Lost World: Jurassic Park" presents itself to me as literal to its name. It looks like a world lost to time. Creepy, dark, thick jungles, reeking of filth and danger. The dark overcast sky begging to break into a downpour upon dusty, dry plains on the edge of the dark forest.
This was "The Lost World: Jurassic Park". The problem is that Janusz Kaminski created a wonderful cinematographic and visual experience for it, something that just couldn't be matched in "Jurassic Park ///". "Jurassic Park ///'s" teaser trailer was actually more intense and had more atmosphere than the final film did. "Jurassic Park ///" had plastic jungles on Stage 12 of Universal Studios.
Next, the CGI. The thing is, it's too smooth, too fluid and too textured. The CGI in "Jurassic Park ///" suffers from the same fault that CGI has been suffering of through since the turn of the century. It's too danged perfect. It's too clean and even often lacks the blurred effect that affects real life objects or having a blur effect when the real life object doesn't, causing inconsistency. In the first two films they're rendered as defined as they need to be to match their surroundings. In "Jurassic Park ///", it's almost as if they were attempting to use the best CGI they could, however this action causes the CGI to become too clear and noticeable. With the first two, if you didn't know any better, you really wouldn't think twice in believing that you're looking at an image of an actual dinosaur. But with the way the CGI, not even just the dinosaurs, looks against their surroundings, it looks, well... fake.
The plot and story of "Jurassic Park ///" is much weaker than the other films. "Jurassic Park" was an absolute thrill ride and "The Lost World: Jurassic Park" has a very intricate plot that will seem stupid unless it's actually given thought. In contrast, "Jurassic Park ///" had a plot that was much simpler. It's basically the premise of the franchise drawn out to barely feature length format: get stranded on island, guns will be useless, there's a big theropod you have to watch out for, and the raptors are dangerous. It's rather thin in comparison to the "Jurassic Park" and "The Lost World: Jurassic Park". In "The Lost World: Jurassic Park" alone you have a culmination of two opposing views that are forced to work together. They're stuck on the island, their guns are useless, but there's a lot more going on that a big scary theropod and threatening raptors. The man vs. nature theme is very much prevalent in this film. Regardless of which side the debate you're on, there's also strong environmental themes and in turn, how sometimes people who think they're doing good, are actually doing great harm (Nick Van Owen (Vince Vaughn) and Sarah Harding unintentionally causing a lot of strife for both parties). This last theme was present in "Jurassic Park ///" as well, but it's not as potent to the story line and therefore is not as strong of a message as it is in "The Lost World: Jurassic Park". Both films have their plot holes: the S.S. Venture attack for "The Lost World: Jurassic Park" and the Dino-Soar boat attack for "Jurassic Park ///", which cancel each other out.
"Jurassic Park ///" had a chance to introduce some of the science that was present in the "The Lost World" (1995) novel by Dr. Michael Crichton, such as discovering (and maybe even foreshadowing of - in the event of future installments) diseases, malformations, and the same kind of production troubles as the line in the novels did, but failed monumentally at it. They didn't take advantage of the situation at hand and didn't use the Laboratory Facility scenes to what they could have. Sure, we get some nice shots of rotted fetuses and stalled machines, but what do they really tell us. They just seem to leave the audience kinda wanting. Another thing to notice is the large abundance of dinosaur shots while lacking in extenuated wowing moments. The audience is dulled to seeing dinosaurs appear in the movie by the end. They're just everywhere. Now, I'm not complaining that there shouldn't be dinosaurs in the movie, "Jurassic Park" is a dinosaur franchise, but they don't need to appear nearly every ten minutes. It gets almost annoying and by the time the Ceratosaurus comes out of the trees to sniff the poo covered characters, the audience is leaning in their seats thinking, "Wow, another dinosaur... got anything new?" The Ceratosaurus cameo in the film was unneeded and could have been completely cut without negative affects of any kind.
In "Jurassic Park ///", you have no human antagonist moments which leaves the protagonist spot to be placed on the shoulders of the dinosaurs, which was a warping of Spielberg's intent with the films. Of the first film, Spielberg stated that "[he] knew he had a monster movie on his hand. The trick was to not turn it into a monster movie." A Jurassic Park film is supposed to use the dinosaurs as a way to exhibit a man vs. nature theme. "Jurassic Park ///" threw out this premise to create a good ol' fashioned monster movie. "Jurassic Park" and "The Lost World: Jurassic Park" used mise-en-scène to help tell the story, whereas "Jurassic Park ///" completely ignored all of this.
The costuming was cliché (flannels, Carhartt jacket, jeans, and brown felt hat for Dr. Grant -aka Mr. Montana (looking more like a cattle rancher than a scientist), collared shirts for the suburbanite Paul Kirby (William H Macy) and Amanda Kirby (Tea Leoni), half-buttoned shirt, greasy undershirt, and ragged ball cap for the sleazy Dino-Soar guide Enrique (Julio Mechoso), and black/dark colors for the mercenaries (Udesky - Michael Jeter- , Cooper - John Diehl -, and Nash - Bruce Young). Cooper alone wouldn't be out of place in "Terminator" move.
In comparing the film to "Jurassic World", well.... Jurassic Park, as a franchise, was never meant to be a fun action packed blockbuster flick. It was meant to be a serious science fiction film that discusses both the wonders and flaws of genetic technology, and an insight into the consequences of when humans try to play God. Kids were an afterthought, a demographic you could sell toys and happy meals to, but not necessarily consider to see the movie. Spielberg wanted the movie rated PG-13 so that it specifically wasn't for kids. He even financed a movie along side the one he was making called "We're Back! A Dinosaur Story" that he wanted to be the kid-friendly alternative to "Jurassic Park". Kids were not his intended target demographic for the movie. The fact that kids could enjoy the movie was a separate matter, however the movie was not made with children in mind. Sure, there were a few yucks thrown in, but pretty much every joke in the original two movies were the result of writer David Koepp's inclusion in the writing team. Ian Malcolm's sarcastic wit? All Koepp. Take that away, read the drafts done before Koepp, and you have a film whose tone is much closer to the serious science thriller that was Crichton's work. "Jurassic Park" had plenty of intellectually thought provoking dialogue of which Jurassic World had little. I don't doubt the director Colin Trevorrow's ability to direct a film, however his and writer Derek Connolly's writing skills (especially Connolly's) leave something to desired. The one liners aren't as memorable, and the dialogue is not as thought provoking nor as intellectual. I found that Trevorrow and Connolly were unable to conform to the writing style of the previous films chief writing staff members (in "Jurassic Park's" case: David Koepp and Michael Crichton).
The film's only major themes were the bigger is better corporatism and the greed ones, the latter of which was touched on a bit less. The film also barely touched on the franchises core themes: inherent dangers of abusing science, as well as the Man Vs. Nature theme. The former was played out more as a spoof of itself, and the latter was played out only in the climax. Neither themes were nearly as prominent as they were in the first two films (the second film practically beats you over the head with it's Man Vs. Nature theme). The open ending also alluded to a animals for war moral. It wasn't an example of the theme itself so much as an allusion to it's possibility.
I felt like it lacked some real mercy of nature moments to it. You felt like Zack (Nick Robinson) and Gray Mitchell (Ty Simpkins) were lost in the Park, but unlike "Jurassic Park", you felt like they were still really in the Park. It lacked that isolation feeling. You didn't feel cut off from the modern world, because the Park was so modernized. Perhaps it could have felt this way to audiences in theaters in 1993, but I felt there was just something about it that didn't feel right. It felt kinda artificial. Not in the same sense "Jurassic Park ///" did, it felt more "Disneyfied" artificial. That kind of feeling where you're 12 and you're at Disney World with your 5 year old little sibling kind of artificial. The magic is gone. You want to feel it, but you know better, you know it can't last. You put on a face for your family, make them think you're enjoying yourself, but inside, you know that it's all a front. You've seen the documentaries, you know that nothing in "Jurassic World" is real, and that's acknowledged right in the movie by Wu.
I also can't handle the distinct lack of real atmosphere in JW. It doesn't feel right. It feels sterilized. There's an over abundance of shiny metallic surfaces that turns me off from the film on an aesthetics level. It's a good movie, but to me, it lacks that "Jurassic Park" feel that makes it a great Jurassic Park movie. It's like somebody took the Visitor Center kitchen aesthetic and applied it to a whole park. Like I said, sterile. It feels more like an Orlando theme park than the resort of Jurassic Park. I suppose this is a matter of personal preference, but I will always enjoy the resort feel from the first movie more. I'm a guy who enjoys an island resort with thatched roof buildings, rich wooden inlays, and intricately carved thematic pillars. I like being chauffeured around in a spacious American made SUV, seeing dinosaur from the plush comfort of a car seat, and enjoying fine dining in the Visitor Center's buffet. I'll take than any day over the banal. boring, theme park environment that I could get in Orlando, or 6-Flags. I'm a guy with expensive tastes. I will say that one thing I think the designers did for "Jurassic World" that was better than "Jurassic Park" was improving the dinosaur sighting experience. In the old Park, the enclosures were much too big, and you couldn't see anything. I mean, if the test tour was to be your average tour, no thanks. I wouldn't pay that much money to not see dinosaurs. Another complaint I have is about the state of the Visitor Center in "Jurassic World". It's horribly unrecognizable. It wasn't until the boys opened the doors, and they made that "oomph" noise from the first movie that I recognized it as the Visitor Center.
As Spielberg said about "Jurassic World", it was meant to be "Jurassic Park for the modern audience", which is another thing I wasn't fond of about the movie. One of the things that makes a film a truly good, lasting, and impacting film is that is has a timeless quality. It doesn't date itself with inane cultural references that will drag down the film when watched 20 years down the road. "Star Wars" is timeless. "The Godfather" is timeless. "Jaws" is timeless. "Jurassic Park" (primarily the first film) is timeless. The technology may not be as state of the art, but then again, technology in the "Star Wars" original trilogy is just the same (computer screens are built into the console, mentions of data tapes). What matters is that, even today - scratch that - especially today, with discussions of genetically modified food, the idea of genetic technology is as prevalent now as it was in the late '80s and '90s when cloning brought its first star: Dolly the sheep. Now we can not only clone, we create entire organs. Fully functional human hearts that can be inserted into heart transplant patients. Because the technology itself is able to transcend decades this way, stories like Jurassic Park and Star Wars are able to prevent themselves from becoming dated. In 1977 technology like holograms, laser weaponry, cybernetic limbs, and hover crafts were the stuff of good science fiction writing. Now, they're technology we have readily available! So, because this technology is still believable, because we have this technology now, there's no need to modernize a movie that was already modern 20 or 30 years ago.
I thought much of JW felt overly sterilized and artificial, even the jungles. Watching Spielberg's "E.T. The Extra-terrestrial" (1982) the opening felt so much like a Jurassic Park movie. Little E.T. standing there in the middle of a foggy coniferous forest at night. The shots of E.T. running around trying to evade the UFO researchers and all we see is E.T.'s arms sticking up out of waves of ferns, got me thinking "'E.T.' is more like a Jurassic Park movie than 'Jurassic World' is!" The way the movie is shot, with an abundance of exterior lighting. Most of the scenes in E.T. are shot with minimal artificial set lighting. Almost every scene uses the lamps, or the light fixtures, or the sun coming in through the windows to create lighting for the set. It's all very moody and mysterious and really gets you immersed in the movie. "Jurassic World" is too bright. There's too much artificial lighting. The film itself looks too modern. It doesn't have the cinematographic feel of an '80s or '90s movie. There's not enough fog, there's not enough grain in the film, there's not enough mood, the sets don't convey enough emotion. You don't feel an imminent sense of danger for the human characters out on main street during the big dinosaur rumble. The Tyrannosaurus getting smacked around feels more emotional for the viewer than it does seeing Grey almost get grabbed by the iRex.
The first movie felt incredibly isolated and distinctive in its natural setting. Especially in the scenes set up to and after the tropical storm. Scenes like the Gallimimus stampede, the T. rex chasing the jeep, and Sattler's dash to the shed/Muldoon's demise. Even when they're in the middle of the park, it doesn't feel like they are. They felt like they could been in the middle of the jungle, miles away from any building. "Jurassic World" doesn't feel like that, though. It has no distinct atmosphere. Each of the films used their sets to an advantage, having the actors use the set as they were a character, interacting with it as much as possible. "Jurassic Park ///" doesn't have this as much as the first two, but compared with the interaction the sets get in "Jurassic World" they might as well shot the entire thing in a studio. It doesn't feel nearly as much like humans are encroaching on the jungles and the dinosaurs territory as it did in the previous movies. The entire island feels more artificial than it ever has before. Again, this is all to further the anti-corporatism theme of the film. Nothing about the jungle feels, well, alive. It's all just an amusement park gone wrong. The plains of dinosaurs on the Gyrosphere ride are all well manicured lawns, there's not a hint of crabgrass or a weed anywhere. It's all just overly artificial, and places too much weight on the anti-corporatism theme.
"Jurassic World" isn't set in the '90s, but Jurassic Park is, at heart, a '90s franchise. I just feel like there could have been more done to make Jurassic World feel less like the modern digitized films of today, and more like the moodier backdrops of the '80s and '90s. That's something I dislike about the 80's and 90's franchises that get sequels made in the time of digital film. These newer films feel different from their predecessors. "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull", "Terminator Genysis", "Jurassic World". They all feel like modernized films of '80s and '90s franchises. "The Force Awakens" had been playing on the original trilogy nostalgia, but I have little doubt in my mind that it too will feel more digitized like "Attack of the Clones" and "Revenge of the Sith". That's one thing I like about "The Phantom Menace". It's the last "Star Wars" film to feel like it wasn't digitized. 'Jurassic World', like "Jurassic Park ///", feels digitized. It's not the same kind of spotty film stock as used in the '90s.
The acting in "Jurassic Park ///" was decent. Tea Leoni and Bill Macy both did very well portraying a suburbanite family, Macy especially. If you've ever seen him in the Showtime late-night series "Shameless", you know Macy is an excellent actor. In "Shameless", Macy portrays a deadbeat father who is an absolute scumbag that you find easy to hate. In "Jurassic Park ///", all of Macy's little nuances, the little things he does, all the way he reads off his lines makes him incredibly believable as an average suburban father who's way out of his element. Sam Neill broke accent an annoyingly noticeable amount. Alessandro Nivola had a few slurred lines, but he's still young so I'll cut him some slack. The best performance in "Jurassic Park ///" was easily from Michael Jeter. In the short amount of time we see Udesky, I found that Jeter was able to do the most with him than all the other actors, making a very likeable character who felt very natural in his role. Michael Jeter is the best actor on the set here; it's a shame he's so often overshadowed by bigger names in movies (Eduard Delacroix in "The Green Mile"; Percy in "Open Range") Like Peter Postlethwaite, he gives such incredible performances that you often forget he's Michael Jeter. The best actors are the ones you've seen in one movie, but had no idea he was the same guy in the next one. Michael Jeter is capable of playing both a mentally handicapped man on death row who makes friends with an intelligent mouse, to an elderly and kind stableman. I really don't understand how his extended death scene didn't make it into the movie - action sequences are rarely, if ever, cut. Besides the fact that it's a guy facing off with a raptor with a stick! How cool is that?
"Jurassic Park ///" had much choppier editing. In "Jurassic Park ///", the scenes transition between each other far too quickly. The pacing is horrible. The Lab scene is over before it even really begins, as with the flight over Isla Sorna and the beauty shot from the InGen barge. The Spinosaurus attack on the barge has deplorable editing. The intermediate cuts between the attack and Barney is meant to be comedic relief, but comes off as annoying and intrusive rather than funny. The end of the scene closes to quickly without the audience really getting a chance to feel for the situation. It's simply the Kirby's having a touching moment that is cut off by the transition to the next scene of the Kirby's reconnected. This is the point where the audience realizes they're a family again, but it still comes off as rather bland and all because of the editing. The delivery was there, the lighting was there, heck even the orchestration was there. The editing ruins the moment, however, and the pacing ruins the movie in general.
Pacing can make or break a movie, and this one definitely is broken by it. It needed so much fleshed out. If there's one thing I'm most dissatisfied by it's that "Jurassic Park ///" has so much potential to be something good, but it never takes the time to be anything than a Jurassic Park film on speed. It needed so many scenes to be extended and fleshed out. The labs scene, the aviary, the Ceratosaurus, the raptor nest, the Spinosaurus vs. T. rex fight (the thing that irks me about it most is how quickly it's over), the beauty shot from the boat, circling the island, the Spinosaurus attacking the plane, Udesky vs. the raptor... all of them would have been better if they were extended, and if they were extended they would have made the movie better. I would gladly trade every cut shot of Barney if we could have gotten those scenes extended.
The dinosaurs are also portrayed differently between the other two films. For one, herbivores in "Jurassic Park ///" take a back row seat to become scenery fodder, whereas "The Lost World: Jurassic Park" used them to their full potential, displaying them as being as much a force to be reckoned with as the carnivores. "Jurassic Park ///" overemphasized the raptors intelligence to the point where people were thinking they were actually more intelligent than before rather than just being more vocally social. The Spinosaurus was abused in it's portrayal, shoved into the movie as the "new badass" without actually planning how they should approach the introduction of a new star dinosaur. The characters encounter the Spinosaurus so often that it can be misconstrued that the Spinosaurus is stalking the cast. When it shows up at the fence, it just stands there menacingly like a horror film slasher waiting for his victim to notice his presence.
My final reason as to why I don't think "Jurassic Park ///" was as well made as the others comes from an outside effect. I would have to say that the number one most disappointing part of the "Jurassic Park ///" experience was how it was more of a bottle-rocket than a mortar. "Jurassic Park and "The Lost World: Jurassic Park" had a promotional and merchandising campaign that completely enveloped the 1990's. Everybody wanted in on the Jurassic invasion, from fast food restaurants to back-to-school gear, to candy wrappers and bathing sundries. "Jurassic Park ///" just didn't have that. It's experience was done by the next summer. It seemed like a mixture of an average film and half-hearted advertising killed what could have been another half-decade of dinosaurs. Jurassic Park ///" was comparatively, a tiny blip on the Jurassic Park paraphernalia radar.
In total, I'd give "Jurassic Park ///" as a 6/10 as a film, just average. However, as part of the Jurassic Park franchise, it gets a 4/10 from me. Slightly below average.
_______________SOMETHING HAS SURVIVED
Posts : 100
Points : 1702
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2016-06-07
|Subject: Re: "Jurassic Park ///" - A Comparison and Review Thu Jun 09, 2016 11:25 pm|| |
Very well said. I agree with all of it. So much potential, so much of it wasted.
Posts : 183
Points : 1814
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2016-06-11
|Subject: Re: "Jurassic Park ///" - A Comparison and Review Sun Jun 12, 2016 5:48 am|| |
Excellent post. Hard to disagree with any of it, actually. I basically feel the same. Although I can sometimes enjoy JP3 for what it is, it is ultimately a very stupid, unintelligent movie. I guess the only thing I disagree with you with is what you say about JW not feeling enough like a 90s movie. Why would they make a 90s movie in 2015? Things have to be updated, to evolve. And while I agree that yes, it does feel too sterile at times, other times such as the raptor motorcycle hunt, the raptors turning on the humans etc. had much more of that feeling we so much loved in JP and TLW, that wild. untamed island feeling. Not to mention when the raptors slow down after chasing the ambulance and run off into the wilderness. Exactly one year to the day after JW's release, I'm still not completely sure how I feel about it, though. It was a spectacular movie and a great redemption for the series, but I do hope Bayona bring us more of that untamed feeling again, I definitely agree with that.
Posts : 1704
Points : 3394
Reputation : 68
Join date : 2016-06-08
|Subject: Re: "Jurassic Park ///" - A Comparison and Review Sun Jun 12, 2016 2:10 pm|| |
Well that was wonderfully written and thanks for sharing! I definitely see where you're coming from.
But I gotta respectfully disagree. JP3 is the perfect action adventure "roller coaster" ride in my opinion.
Posts : 129
Points : 1754
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2016-06-07
|Subject: Re: "Jurassic Park ///" - A Comparison and Review Mon Jun 13, 2016 1:29 am|| |
I will give JP3 one thing. While I never actually found the child characters in any of the films all that annoying, Trevor Morgan's Eric was probably my favorite and "least annoying". Yah him surviving for weeks on Sorna seemed to be really stretching it, I woulda gone for more he survived two or so weeks, but he did come off to me as a kid who had his head screwed on straight and wasn't trying to be a load on the rest of the cast. Him being savvy did at least make his survival believable as he wasn't someone going off gung-ho nor was he was whimpering weight.
-Gawain (Adult, Male, Stegoceratops)
Posts : 59
Points : 1665
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2016-06-09
Location : Germany
|Subject: Re: "Jurassic Park ///" - A Comparison and Review Mon Jun 13, 2016 4:00 pm|| |
First of all, the review is pretty good overall, although I don't agree 100%. I'm gald I'm not the only one who really enjoyed Udesky so much. I don't know why you hate JWs Park so much but I respect that. The Park in JW is the reason JW is my favourite sequal.
Posts : 100
Points : 1702
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2016-06-07
|Subject: Re: "Jurassic Park ///" - A Comparison and Review Mon Jun 13, 2016 4:14 pm|| |
- @Tarbtano wrote:
- I will give JP3 one thing. While I never actually found the child characters in any of the films all that annoying, Trevor Morgan's Eric was probably my favorite and "least annoying". Yah him surviving for weeks on Sorna seemed to be really stretching it, I woulda gone for more he survived two or so weeks, but he did come off to me as a kid who had his head screwed on straight and wasn't trying to be a load on the rest of the cast. Him being savvy did at least make his survival believable as he wasn't someone going off gung-ho nor was he was whimpering weight.
I agree. Eric was the most tolerable of the younger ensemble. He wasn't annoying, wasn't whiny, wasn't obnoxious. He was calm, reserved, and humble, and didn't feel like dead weight added for the sake of drama.
|Subject: Re: "Jurassic Park ///" - A Comparison and Review || |
"Jurassic Park ///" - A Comparison and Review
|How do you rate Fallen Kingdom?|
| 19% ||[ 20 ]|
| 14% ||[ 15 ]|
| 23% ||[ 24 ]|
| 17% ||[ 18 ]|
| 8% ||[ 8 ]|
| 13% ||[ 14 ]|
| 2% ||[ 2 ]|
| 1% ||[ 1 ]|
| 0% ||[ 0 ]|
| 2% ||[ 2 ]|
|Total Votes : 104|
|Who is online?|
In total there are 12
users online :: 0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 12 Guests
Most users ever online was 163
on Fri Nov 01, 2019 10:04 am