Chef Jim Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 Exactly. Go back to the 1930's. Notice how many Dracula, Frankenstein, Mummy, and Wolf Man sequels there were? They started by doing "remakes" of books and plays. I was hoping you'd say that you had read the book first, and that the movie didn't do it justice. That was how I felt, anyway. My wife had read the book first and that's why she disliked it so much. I just thought it was a dumb premise with crappy acting.
Mark Vader Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 I was hoping you'd say that you had read the book first, and that the movie didn't do it justice. That was how I felt, anyway. The book was terrific. I loved the second book and loathed the next two films that tried to take only parts from the sequel and stretch it out into full movies. When I found out Speilberg was making the movie, I quickly read the book so he wouldn't spoil it for me. Even then, I thought it was...okay. It certainly highlighted the best (phenomenal cinematography) and worst (losing interest and letting the Tyrannosauras Rex wrap things up at the end) of Speilberg. Plus, it introduced to the world the asinine abbreviation "T-rex," which pisses me off to no end. I like "Jurassic Park" the movie, but I loved the book. The special effects and cinematography are spectacular, and how can you not love John Williams' score? Unfortunately the acting was unspectacular (except for Jeff Goldblum) and the darker tone of the book is gone. I enjoyed the movie, but felt that it could have been more. GreggyT, I did enjoy The Lost World as a book too, and was shocked at how the movie was nothing like it. I might be in the minority, but I thought "Jurassic Park III" was fun. DC Tom, I also hate the phrase "T-Rex".
DC Tom Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 I like "Jurassic Park" the movie, but I loved the book. The special effects and cinematography are spectacular, and how can you not love John Williams' score? Unfortunately the acting was unspectacular (except for Jeff Goldblum) and the darker tone of the book is gone. I enjoyed the movie, but felt that it could have been more. GreggyT, I did enjoy The Lost World as a book too, and was shocked at how the movie was nothing like it. I might be in the minority, but I thought "Jurassic Park III" was fun. DC Tom, I also hate the phrase "T-Rex". I thought Jurrassic Park III was fun, too. Not a tent-pole movie, by any means, but just a good, forgettable popcorn flick. But then, I like Hudson Hawk, so what the !@#$ do I know?
Cugalabanza Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 ...Plus, it introduced to the world the asinine abbreviation "T-rex," which pisses me off to no end. I think Marc Bolan took care of that about 25 years earlier.
Deranged Rhino Posted December 3, 2014 Author Posted December 3, 2014 But then, I like Hudson Hawk, so what the !@#$ do I know? Great cinema when you see it?
Jim in Anchorage Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 When I found out Speilberg was making the movie, I quickly read the book so he wouldn't spoil it for me. Even then, I thought it was...okay. It certainly highlighted the best (phenomenal cinematography) and worst (losing interest and letting the Tyrannosauras Rex wrap things up at the end) of Speilberg. Plus, it introduced to the world the asinine abbreviation "T-rex," which pisses me off to no end. Shame you never owned a radio.
Recommended Posts