7/10
BETTER THAN LOST WORLD... MUCH BETTER!!!
21 December 2003
Warning: Spoilers
When I first saw Jurassic Park, I was disappointed because I just finished reading the book the morning that it opened. But after the years, I realized that the movie was good... why? Well, if anyone reads my posts, you'll know that I believe that if a movie is going to be based on a book... it should at least follow the book. And for the most part it did. Though I did miss not seeing the Ptarydactals... but hey, that's me.

Then a couple of years... I saw Jurassic Park: THE LOST WORLD... I specifically waited to read the book until after seeing the movie. Guess what? I thought that the LOST WORLD was okay until... SPOILER!!! SPOILER!!! SPOILER!!! A T-Rex ends up in San Diego. At that point, I lost it. I can't watch it. The departure from the novel started relatively early in the script... and with each passing page, the divergence grew. I have the movie in my collection... and why? Don't know. Anybody interested in a seldom viewed copy of LOST WORLD? Years later, I finally decided to READ Crighton's fantastic novel and asked myself... why didn't they make this (the book) into a movie. It would have been cheaper and more entertaining. Crighton was probably spinning in his chair about how rotten LOST WORLD turned out to be.

Now, I first saw the trailers of JURASSIC PARK 3 and thought, hmmm, should I even give the movie a chance? But it did have "Tea Leoni" and "William Macy", plus the return of "Sam Niell" as Doctor Grant. I was totally entertained and walked out of the theater thinking how much better this JURASSIC PARK was over the second movie. Yeah, it does pale in comparrison with the original movie, but it kept the fun of the original as well, and also I think that Michael Crighton probably enjoyed this movie as well.

Only watch JURASSIC PARK and JURASSIC PARK 3.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed