Personally, I love this movie. It very may well be my favorite Jurassic Park film. However, all I see are complaints about it. I know the two biggest ones are the gymnastic kick and the T Rex in San Diego, but neither of those things bother me. What are the other big complains? I just don't see it, so i'm curious as to what people think.
shareThe leads are idiots. For example, dinosaur expert Julianne Moore running around with blood on her jacket and not taking it off
Death Awaits (Horror forum)
http://w11.zetaboards.com/Death_Awaits/index/
The leads are idiots. For example, dinosaur expert Julianne Moore running around with blood on her jacket and not taking it off
That doesn't make them intelligent or this movie good
Death Awaits (Horror forum)
http://w11.zetaboards.com/Death_Awaits/index/
This movie is good, make no mistake about it.
shareYes, I didn't particularly like her character and am not sure why the need was felt to have a 'love interest' there... if they wanted a female, fine, change the Doc to a female, but she does't have to be someone's girlfriend.
I thought the book was much better (surprise, surprise... with real authors that's the norm) and felt the whole SD thing was unnecessary.
This movie wasn't bad, but it could have been better.
I just find it the boring film out of the 4. The first was revolutionary and timeless, the third and fourth were fun summer popcorn flicks. The second took itself a little too seriously. Could have used some more jokes, a tighter plot, etc. But for what it's worth, I found the book to be dull as well.
sharethe third and fourth were fun summer popcorn flicks
Maybe, but I still enjoy it. But only because of Sam Neill.
shareI think it's to dark and serious. It never lightens the mood. Like the fourth film had funny moments that lightened the mood without being to much.
This one could have needed a few light moments to ease the tense.
And the story was never as fascinating as it was in the first one. It never caught my attention.
It wasn't boring or bad but nor was it that good either.
Completely agree. This one just as a very low entertainment value
shareI remember going to see it way back in 1997 and really enjoying it. I don't recall seeing it since then, but I still have a soft spot for it. The darker tone suited it well I thought.
Don't put the devil in the picture, cause' the religious groups won't wanna see it.
Well Jurassic Park 3 is still pretty much the weakest of the whole series. Say want you want about the stupid character and so on. But at least the Lost World didn't imply that we could have had a Raptor President of the United States. And even then i don't find JP3 to be horrible. Just Mediocre.
sharetwo biggest ones are the gymnastic kick and the T Rex in San Diego, but neither of those things bother me.
This movie is actually very good. Sorry that you are too pretentious to see that. And no, this isn't the film that turned dinosaurs into monsters, that was JPIII.
shareThis movie is actually very good. Sorry that you are too pretentious to see that. And no, this isn't the film that turned dinosaurs into monsters, that was JPIII.
Your video doesn't make anything you said right.
shareYour video doesn't make anything you said right.
I don't think pretentiousness is requiered to see flaws in a movie. Many good films have flaws and you don't need to be pretentious to see them. I think pretentiousness is requiered to be an ignorant pseudointellectual who thinks a good adventure film is objectivelly bad simply because you can see some perceived flaws in it (most of which are actually entirely subjective or not important at all). And I'm sure you can write tons of things about why the film is bad according to you, but I reiterate: most of it will be nitpicking (like pointing out a particular decision from a character that you deem illogical), or subjective reasons that I don't care about (like saying that the film's environmental message is somehow a flaw), or misunderstood points of the film (like saying that the T-Rex in San Diego is a plothole).
"there is zero chance I can reason with you".
I wonder if you can reason at all.

https://youtu.be/uvr1xiEaICU
That's what I thought.
sharehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvr1xiEaICU
That's what I thought.
Now, this is priceless! Ad hominem you say? If I were to say that only a racist would argue that white people are superior to blacks or something like that, then that wouldn't be an ad hominem attack. It would be a statement and, by definition, it would be right: only a racist thinks his "race" is superior to others. I'm not rejecting your conclusion based on some personal characteristics of yours that are unrelated to your argument (you haven't even made an argument to begin with), I'm making the statement that you are pretentious, ignorant, dumb and can't reason at all. Using adjectives to describe someone doesn't equal an ad hominem fallacy.
Or what argument are you talking about exactly? What argument of yours is the one I'm rejecting on the basis that you are a pretentious a*hole? Your video? Not an argument. That I'm an "ultracrepidarian hypocrite of such a grandiose scale"? Not an argument.
And what about that video? Is it supposed to mean something? Because it doesn't. If you like youtube videos about The Lost World, I recommend this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrOU0x7KQmo
Unlike the one you posted, this one actually makes sense and presents some coherent ideas.
"you are clearly a lost cause".
You've been saying that since your first reply, but you keep coming back, each time with more nonsensical BS. If you don't say anything of worth in your next reply, I'll simply stop replying to you.
I have never met someone so completely confused and wrong, yet so sure of themselves.
You made zero points, again, yet think you proved something with more ad hominem in an even more long-winded format.
You are a special breed of stupid.
Rebut this, for the 3rd time on this thread(alone):
https://youtu.be/uvr1xiEaICU?t=8s
EDIT:
Once again:
"I'll try something more broad(probably futile) that was a huge theme in the first film;
They are animals not monsters.
That went out the window in this film and became a monster movie instead of a dinosaur film."
https://youtu.be/vTZCjCYsytM
So, once again, you come back with nothing. Three sentences of mindless attacks and then, of all things, an honest trailer video for me to rebut... you gotta be kidding me. If you wish to discuss particular points of the movie, then write them down, don't post a video of a youtube series that's known for its intentional nitpicking as if it had some kind of validity or authority on the subject matter. You are ridiculous.
The only thing resembling an argument in your entire post is the last part, and you are laughably wrong about that. First of all, a huge theme in the first film? LOL it wasn't even a theme of the movie AT ALL, much less a "huge theme". I'm not sure you even know what a theme is (in fact, I am sure you don't). There was only one line, literally ONE, in the entire movie about the distinction between animals and monsters and we absolutely NEVER saw anything else in Jurassic Park that followed that line of thought. There wasn't a single scene, discussion, or line to develop that idea further from what we saw in that single moment. In fact, what we do see is a bunch of velociraptors stalking people in a building, opening doors, leaving severed hands and whatnot. For the last 30 minutes, the film is basically a slasher movie with dinosaurs.
So no, the idea that they are animals instead of monsters ISN'T a huge theme of the film, it isn't even a theme to begin with. I literally can't imagine how someone could be as lost regarding JP as to think that the distinction between dinosaurs and monsters is a "huge theme" in the movie. The real major themes in Jurassic Park, both the novel and movie, have to do with the relation between science, man, nature and control.
Second of all, The Lost World doesn't treat the animals anymore like monsters than the first movie did. The only exception is the last scene, and that was just a homage to monster movies, but the T-Rex is still an animal let loose in a city, not a monster.
I told you I would stop replying if you didn't say anything of worth, so I'll probably won't be talking back to you. In fact, that last point of yours (about the "huge theme") makes me wonder if you've actually seen the movies at all or if you are just trolling.
The only thing resembling an argument in your entire post is the last part
Yes, I mean that part. A part that I actually read and did reply to since the begining (I told you that JPIII turned dinosaurs into monsters, not TLW). I also told you now that you are wrong about that so called "theme" in Jurassic Park and I gave you specific reasons why you are wrong.
"You are arguing against facts with your opinions(which are absurd)".
Actually, you haven't said one single fact in any of your posts. But I see now that you are just trolling, so eff you and have a nice life.
Yes, I mean that part. A part that I actually read and did reply to since the begining
Arliss Howard's accent.
A waste of great talent like Julianne Moore, Pete Postlethwaite and Peter Stormare.
This movie is very good, people are simply stupid and love to bi***.
shareJust rewatched the movie for the 5th time, still entertains. In addition to what you have already highlighted, I have found the kid (Vanessa Lee Chester) very irritating. Adds very little value to the movie (actually takes away value than adding any), too much screen time wasted on her and all she does is panting in shock. I hit the remote and skip the scenes/chapters she's in.
All being said, Jeff Goldblum's humour and Pete Postlethwaite's presence really lifts the movie. Still one of the best in the franchise, hands down. Actually I prefer The Lost World over Jurassic World which I consider the weakest link saving Jurassic Park III.