Jurassic World

[Mafffew]

I could very easily pick out hole after hole after hole with the film. But I didn't when I was sat there and I won't now.

As a kid I was a huge fan of the original, and for 2 and a bit hours (or however long) I was sat there grinning like a loon, back to being a wee lad dreaming of what could be

I'm fully intent on sitting Miss Mafffew down and watching the original, she didn't get any of the references and this film has got me in the mood for some more Jurassic Park!

As far as actual film enjoyment, Jurassic World is top for the year so far, the bar is set for Star Wars later this year. Oh how I'm looking forward to that.

[moanthebairns]

I watched the second one and wondered that.

I assumed their was some smaller dinosaurs, not raptors that ate everyone, then something happened.

[Patrick Bateman]

There's one thing complaining about plot details but there was just no suspense or charm to redeem it that the original had. It was never even close.

[Negative Creep]

Civpilot said:

Negative Creep said:

no-one beats the T-Rex in a fight! Plus the Director has said it's the same one from the original

That was revealved in the viral marketing before the movie came out. They had an 'official' park website with info on all the attractions. the T-Rex info stated she had "lived on the island for 22yrs" and in her picture (and in the movie) you can clearly see the scars on her neck she received in the fight at the end of the first movie against the Raptors...



So I was kinda waiting for her to 'get involved' with the I-Rex. Almost wish I hadn't had seen the info about her as it was less of a surprise when she was released. I kinda knew she was going to kick all kinds of I-Rex ass!

Personally I really enjoyed the movie. Massive fun to watch and I couldn't give two stuffs about accuracy or how much it payed tribute to the first movie. It was meant too, they admitted it follows the first movie and takes place on the same island before they even released it. And it's about dinosours... it's already unbeleivable... so I can totally forgive the Raptor/Owen relationship plot device. That's what it was, a device in the story to give us some cool moments. Wasn't meant to be scientific or accurate

At least it didn't have a plot hole the size of the one in Jurassic Park 2.... Just how did all the people on the boat get eaten when the huge T-Rex was still locked in the ships hold? . I know the answer and it is the worse excuse for editing EVER in any movie I have seen. They cut an entire story line out of the movie but left in the result of it!!!

... in the original as filmed movie there were actually Raptors hiding on the boat... they killed everyone causing the boat to crash into the docks... then escaped into the city while nobody was watching. They removed the Raptors completely... but left the aftermath of their kills!!! WTF!!!

I always avoid the majority of pre movie hype for that very reason so that bit came as a nice surprise. I guess the reason they left the one scene in JP2 was to show the reason the boat crashed but I agree it doesn't make much sense. Seeing the T-Rex running around a city was great but one of the many flaws in that movie (main one being the "good guy" environmentalists actually cause far more death and destruction than the baddies) was it went on too long, so some things had to be cut.

[jmorgan]

I enjoyed it. It was what it was so what more can you say. Not going to do any spoilers but I thought it sat well in the time line.


For what it is worth I do like the others, even III. Maybe it is the premise for me.

[croyde]

Going again tonight as my daughter wants top see it. Looking forward to it........once more

[Pvapour]

Patrick Bateman said:

I can see what he means by remake. In the same way Alien 3 is just Alien.

this, its bad form to copy the original but at least add better effects and a better dino, disappointing on so many levels, i can't thing of one good thing in the 40 mins we stayed for, ste film

[Patrick Bateman]

For what it's worth, I still thought Alien 3 was a decent watch.

[Pvapour]

Alien 3 was far far better, not even comparable imo

[RoadRunner220]

Civpilot said:

At least it didn't have a plot hole the size of the one in Jurassic Park 2.... Just how did all the people on the boat get eaten when the huge T-Rex was still locked in the ships hold? . I know the answer and it is the worse excuse for editing EVER in any movie I have seen. They cut an entire story line out of the movie but left in the result of it!!!

... in the original as filmed movie there were actually Raptors hiding on the boat... they killed everyone causing the boat to crash into the docks... then escaped into the city while nobody was watching. They removed the Raptors completely... but left the aftermath of their kills!!! WTF!!!

Ha, I did wonder that a couple of times when I've watched it, but never knew why !!!

[smn159]

I'd suggest that anyone who enjoyed the film will absolutely love the book. Been a few years since I read it but I'm tempted to give it another go

[moanthebairns]

Pvapour said:

Patrick Bateman said:

I can see what he means by remake. In the same way Alien 3 is just Alien.

this, its bad form to copy the original but at least add better effects and a better dino, disappointing on so many levels, i can't thing of one good thing in the 40 mins we stayed for, ste film

What did you expect exactly. Why was it st? Why are you the only person who walked out or who didn't actually enjoy it.

Interested to know

[jmorgan]

smn159 said:

I'd suggest that anyone who enjoyed the film will absolutely love the book. Been a few years since I read it but I'm tempted to give it another go

Tried it when it came out. It was OK, ish. Never did get to grips with Michael Crichton.

[ukaskew]

Just watched in 3D after doing 2D on Friday. I haven't done 3D since Avatar but it's pretty darn good, but somehow less 'real' than the 2D version.

The helicopter and vehicle wide shots in particular look terrible, like 1/15th scale models. Weird as they are clearly real in the vast majority of shots.

[scrubchub]

Pvapour said:

this, its bad form to copy the original but at least add better effects and a better dino, disappointing on so many levels, i can't thing of one good thing in the 40 mins we stayed for, ste film

With all due respect and without meaning to start an argument, you can't really describe a film as 'ste' when you've watched less than a 3rd of it. Not a huge amount happens in the first 40 minutes of the film.

I have a friend who watched the first 40 minutes of the Liverpool AC Milan Champions league final. He turned it off because he thought it was a rubbish match. Turns out, it got better.

[Pvapour]

scrubchub said:

Pvapour said:

this, its bad form to copy the original but at least add better effects and a better dino, disappointing on so many levels, i can't thing of one good thing in the 40 mins we stayed for, ste film

With all due respect and without meaning to start an argument, you can't really describe a film as 'ste' when you've watched less than a 3rd of it. Not a huge amount happens in the first 40 minutes of the film.

I have a friend who watched the first 40 minutes of the Liverpool AC Milan Champions league final. He turned it off because he thought it was a rubbish match. Turns out, it got better.

if a film bores us to the degree that we feel the need to get up and walk out I don't care how good the last 40mins are, its st in my book! I think not seeing the original would help immensely, i.e. the new generation.

If you are watching a film and you have the urge to walk out but resist and it pays off with a decent 2nd half then I can understand how you would feel you were glad you stayed and so worth it to you but we're not like that, we move on quickly to the next thing as we're there to be entertained, to endure is something we do in spades and our leisure time is precious and not to be wasted, as it was Bordeaux had quite a bit more to offer than a half hearted film

[moanthebairns]

Pvapour said:

scrubchub said:

Pvapour said:

this, its bad form to copy the original but at least add better effects and a better dino, disappointing on so many levels, i can't thing of one good thing in the 40 mins we stayed for, ste film

With all due respect and without meaning to start an argument, you can't really describe a film as 'ste' when you've watched less than a 3rd of it. Not a huge amount happens in the first 40 minutes of the film.

I have a friend who watched the first 40 minutes of the Liverpool AC Milan Champions league final. He turned it off because he thought it was a rubbish match. Turns out, it got better.

if a film bores us to the degree that we feel the need to get up and walk out I don't care how good the last 40mins are, its st in my book! I think not seeing the original would help immensely, i.e. the new generation.

If you are watching a film and you have the urge to walk out but resist and it pays off with a decent 2nd half then I can understand how you would feel you were glad you stayed and so worth it to you but we're not like that, we move on quickly to the next thing as we're there to be entertained, to endure is something we do in spades and our leisure time is precious and not to be wasted, as it was Bordeaux had quite a bit more to offer than a half hearted film

I really don't know what to say, You’re entitled to your opinion, you really are. If you didn’t like it, you didn’t like it, but your just wrong.

What did you expect for a the 4th film in a series that’s promise was bringing back dinosaurs from millions of years ago and finding out they can’t be tamed?

An oceans 11 meets Shawshank redemption style break out concocted by the raptors, with twists and plots keeping you guessing till the final 5 minutes only to find out that the T-Rex is the head of a money laundering, drug smuggling, Tri-ads gang local to Costa Rica and he’s called T-Rexer Soze?

It did what it said on the Tin, dinosaurs, man gets complacent, he finds out he’s not top of the food chain, carnage.

WTF were you expecting. What man goes into the movies having seen the ones before it and after 30 minutes walks out?

What are you doing in your spare time in which seeing dinosaurs brought back to life and hunting man, is only worth half an hour?

[jmorgan]

Of course walking out is up to the ticket payer. I do not go to see certain films as I know it would be money wasted.

Mind you, after watching Avatar on the TV, I might have come close but I would have missed the big knife which was rather hilarious.

[scrubchub]

Pvapour said:

if a film bores us to the degree that we feel the need to get up and walk out I don't care how good the last 40mins are, its st in my book! I think not seeing the original would help immensely, i.e. the new generation.

If you are watching a film and you have the urge to walk out but resist and it pays off with a decent 2nd half then I can understand how you would feel you were glad you stayed and so worth it to you but we're not like that, we move on quickly to the next thing as we're there to be entertained, to endure is something we do in spades and our leisure time is precious and not to be wasted, as it was Bordeaux had quite a bit more to offer than a half hearted film

Fair enough. You paid, you choose. There are a lot of great films that have a payoff later in the film, so I will always watch till the end personally, especially with the price of tickets these days.

However, you really can't say that the film was st in the way you have. Just that the first 40 minutes were st. Which is most certainly a different thing.

[Foliage]

Saw it lastnight, thought it was awesome, fitted in very well with the original. Great story from the point of view of it was a simple concept well done.

As the for the person who 'walked out' I think he means 'switched off the pirate version he downloaded part way through'

Who pays £15 then walks out...