CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › The Jurassic Park Franchise
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Jurassic Park Franchise - Page 2

post #51 of 372
I was watching it on Sci-Fi as well. I noticed Seinfeld's Mr. Pitt played Dr. Hammond's butler this time.

Yeah, Pete's on fire in this movie. He was also a bright spot in Dragonheart: "Turn the other cheek brother, eh?" After he shoots a guy in the ass with an arrow.
post #52 of 372
I so could have watched an entire Roland Tembo movie.

And dammit, I still love the San Diego rampage. Actually, raptor gymnastics aside, the dino scenes in this film still hold up pretty well. Too bad they're stuck in a terrible story.
post #53 of 372
Postelthwaite is the best thing about the movie. It's telling when the supposed "bad guy" is the only one who is making any goddamn sense when it comes to survival. I always felt cheated that he gets dropped from the last section of the movie--he was an interesting character (especially in the deleted scenes that fleshed him out), would've been nice if he had gotten some payoff.
post #54 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Clark View Post
Postelthwaite is the best thing about the movie. It's telling when the supposed "bad guy" is the only one who is making any goddamn sense when it comes to survival. I always felt cheated that he gets dropped from the last section of the movie--he was an interesting character (especially in the deleted scenes that fleshed him out), would've been nice if he had gotten some payoff.

I'm just glad he didn't get killed in the film (Bad enough Eddie gets torn in half, again, it should have been Vince Vaughn who got eaten)

Did Roland's right hand Indian/Pakistani/Sri-Lankan(memory is fuzzy) who was in the tree with him make it out alive or did he go into the long grass?



this thread needs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prgm4eKq6d4
post #55 of 372
Roland's friend/man-servant got killed. Yeah, eco-terrorist Vince Vaughn was a jackass.
post #56 of 372
Yeah, Roland's friend dying is what motivates him to decline the job with InGen and walk out of the movie. It would have been great to see him during the San Diego rampage, maybe helping them bring the Rex back to somewhat atone for his role in it being there in the first place.
post #57 of 372
Thread Starter 
post #58 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
And Pete Postelthwaite seems convinced he's in a different, better movie.
A given, considering his character was the only interesting one written in the film.
post #59 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 View Post
A given, considering his character was the only interesting one written in the film.
I would have much enjoyed a film that centered around him. Something like him and some big game hunters returning to the island due to the rumors of dinosaurs, only to get in way over their heads.
post #60 of 372
I love the "Jaws for pussies" tag.
post #61 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonBaseNick View Post
I would have much enjoyed a film that centered around him. Something like him and some big game hunters returning to the island due to the rumors of dinosaurs, only to get in way over their heads.
TLW is such a weird film. It doesn't know who the main character is. It's an entourage. Sam Neill is a really good leading man with Grant in Jurassic Park. You see a lot of scenes from his viewpoint. In The Lost World, Ian Malcolm is supposedly the main character, yet there are times in the movie he seems to just disappear. Or has nothing to say. I laugh at the scene where he walks up to Tembo and looks at the map and the only line he has is "Did you find him?". Good contribution as a main character, Malcolm. Tell us another one!

Malcolm always worked secondary. But it hurts a film when your main character is still WRITTEN secondary. Tembo should have been the lead all along.
post #62 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 View Post
In The Lost World, Ian Malcolm is supposedly the main character, yet there are times in the movie he seems to just disappear. Or has nothing to say. I laugh at the scene where he walks up to Tembo and looks at the map and the only line he has is "Did you find him?". Good contribution as a main character, Malcolm. Tell us another one!
Well, just shortly after that he gets to yell at everyone "Stay down.. stay down.. don't move.. DON'T MOVE!" while everyone completely ignores him and runs the hell outta there. In fact, I don't think anybody actually listens to ANYTHING he says during the entire movie.
post #63 of 372
What's great is how Goldblum and Moore go running off the boat after the T-Rex escapes, then he suddenly appears behind Hammond's nephew -- who is upstairs on the boat -- to tell him "Now you're John Hammond." I can almost imagine him almost on the dock and telling Moore, "Oh, wait, have to go deliver a zinger, be right back."
post #64 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
What's great is how Goldblum and Moore go running off the boat after the T-Rex escapes, then he suddenly appears behind Hammond's nephew -- who is upstairs on the boat -- to tell him "Now you're John Hammond." I can almost imagine him almost on the dock and telling Moore, "Oh, wait, have to go deliver a zinger, be right back."

Well, he is Jeff Goldblum.


And now, I pay tribute to the greatest Tyrannosaurus that has ever been on the silver screen (which is saying a lot when going up against such classics as Gwangi, the Rex from the 1930's King Kong and the Lost World from the 1920s).










And if you can ever track the making of Jurrassic Park, do so. Story Boards (Grant with a beard!), with lots of photos of Stan Winston's workshop where they built the full size animatronic Rex, Raptors and sick Triceratops.

It also has concept art for scenes that got dropped when adapting the book (like the River raft sequence when he Tyrannosaurus chases Grant and the Kids and swims after them much to their surprise, which made it's way like the Pteranodon cages, into the 3rd film)

Go get it.
post #65 of 372
Speaking of Julianne Moore, can we nominate her for Worst Nature Photographer Ever? She huffs and puffs about zero impact, but about 90% of the problems begin with her being a dumbass and touching everything.
post #66 of 372
I haven't seen Lost World in years but I do remember her being poor at her job. Bringing the baby Rex back to the trailer shows her decision-making is iffy at best.
post #67 of 372
That was more Vince Vaughn's doing.
post #68 of 372
All three films are great the problem is the first one is so good the flaws in the other two are more exposed when you compare them to the first.

Take my advice and don't watch them as a triple bill like I did recently.
post #69 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
That was more Vince Vaughn's doing.
And poor Dick Schiff loses his life because of it.
post #70 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Clark View Post
Speaking of Julianne Moore, can we nominate her for Worst Nature Photographer Ever? She huffs and puffs about zero impact, but about 90% of the problems begin with her being a dumbass and touching everything.
She's even given ample time to think about the blood on her jacket.

Tembo: You injured?
Sarah: Oh, it's from the baby's broken leg.

100% dumbass. But every other problem they face is thanks to Nick Van Owen.
post #71 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 View Post
100% dumbass. But every other problem they face is thanks to Nick Van Owen.
"You know, we're being chased by T-Rexes and we have to go through raptor territory to get rescued. I think now would be a good time to take the ammo out of the gun of the best hunter in the group."
post #72 of 372
Is there a reason they're showing "The Lost World" fucking CONSTANTLY on the sci-fi channel, but not even bothering to show the far superior original?
post #73 of 372
More in line with Sci-Fi's usual programming?
post #74 of 372
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Savage View Post
All three films are great the problem is the first one is so good the flaws in the other two are more exposed when you compare them to the first.

Take my advice and don't watch them as a triple bill like I did recently.
This why I started this thread. I watched all three back to back to back. You can see the quality drop and amazement and excitement of remembering back to when I saw the first in theatres always comes back to me. Then I remember I saw The Lost World twice in theatres and I get angry.
post #75 of 372
Touche!

Though one man begs to differ...

post #76 of 372
I probably haven't watched The Lost World in its entirety since the 4th grade. I remember thinking the T-Rex attack on the camper. Even as a ten year old I could tell the glass breaking was a great Spielberg-ian visual. Does that scene still hold up?
post #77 of 372
None of these films are what any level-headed film enthusiast could reasonably call "good". The writing on every one is varying degrees of awkward and stilted. But for my money, The Lost World is the worst of the bunch. It has the same poor dialogue with extra cheese, but none of the moments of wonder that make the first one tolerable.

Honestly, if you can get through that table conversation between Dern and Attenborough about the fucking flea circus, and not at least dry heave a couple of times, then you possess an iron constitution, my friend.
post #78 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David View Post
None of these films are what any level-headed film enthusiast could reasonably call "good".
The first is not "good".. it's great. And I challenge anyone (flea circus, be damned!) to deny it. But yes, the next two.. not so much.
post #79 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by User_32 View Post
The first is not "good".. it's great. And I challenge anyone (flea circus, be damned!) to deny it. But yes, the next two.. not so much.
I agree, Jurassic Park is the last of the GREAT Spielberg adventure films.
I don't know who, but someone has mentioned that after Schindler's List, Spielberg changed as a film maker.
post #80 of 372
I'm going to throw in Munich as his last great adventure film.
post #81 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David View Post
None of these films are what any level-headed film enthusiast could reasonably call "good". The writing on every one is varying degrees of awkward and stilted. But for my money, The Lost World is the worst of the bunch. It has the same poor dialogue with extra cheese, but none of the moments of wonder that make the first one tolerable.

Honestly, if you can get through that table conversation between Dern and Attenborough about the fucking flea circus, and not at least dry heave a couple of times, then you possess an iron constitution, my friend.
Then color me addle-headed. And yes, I can get thru the flea circus speech w/o dry heaving. But then, I ate a plate of habanero hot wings none of the 3 people I was hanging out with would even touch last night. For fun. So I guess I got a leg up in the constitution department, genetically speakin'. The Dern "They're still OUT there" part of the scene does give me a little heartburn, though.

It hardly needs repeating, but I'll do it anyway just as a testament to the 1st film's greatness: I was a dinosaur buff as a kid. Had every dinosaur toy I could get my hands on (and in the 70's, that meant pretty lame ones, by and large), all the dino books I could find, watched "The Lost World" and "Journey to the Center of the Earth" (the ORIGINAL, old school one with the close ups of iguanas for the dino effects) every time they came on the 4:30 Movie on Channel 7, the whole bit.

I 1st saw the original when I was 22. My brother & I were returning home from Newark (where he went to college & I went to law school at Rutgers at the same time), and completely on impulse, he veered dangerously off the road into the entrance of the now defunct Newark Cineplex 10, a state of the art (for the time) theatre; 1st in our area to offer digital sound. Pity all the shooting violence off screen saw to its demise. Anyway, I asked: "What are you doing?" Since our original plan was to just go home. He replied: "Spontaneous hangin' out. Let's go see Jurassic Park".

Since, being the dino buff I was, that was on the to do list anyway, this was a great idea in my book. We sat off the the left side of the theatre, right next to a cluster of speakers. This was probably the best movie theatre experience of my life. I echo the sentiments expressed earlier about the brachiosaurus scene, where we 1st get to see a dino in all its glory. My brother told me later he glanced over at me at that point, and I had this open mouthed look of child like wonder on my face. As he told me this, I had to laugh because I remembered feeling exactly that way as it was happening. Suddenly, I was 7 years old again, with all my dino toys and books spread out on my bedroom floor, only it was a million times better because this was the best representation of a dinosaur on screen I'd ever SEEN. When it reared up on its hind legs to get those top leaves, and came crashing down, being right next to the speakers, our seats fairly shook a bit. Great as the rest of the film was (and it truly was; when the T-rex roared in all its digitally contrived glory, that sound filled the WORLD, and I laughed my ass off at Goldblum's antics, especially "You must go faster", and its ID4 call back, the tension of the stalking raptors, Attenborough's hammy yet somehow understated performance, Wayne Knight eating up the scenery even as he is eaten, etc.), this scene will always remain my favorite. I'm not ashamed to say I'm actually getting a little misty recounting this here. This is one of only 3 films I've ever seen more than once in the theatres, the other 2 being the 1st Star Wars and Saving Private Ryan. Good company, indeed, I reckon.

Any film that can do that for you has to at least be considered "good", IMHO.
post #82 of 372
Jurassic Park is important for several reasons, but I'm not really sure how great it is either. It has some real stand-out sequences(the T-Rex attack is the biggie. Straight-up classic), but even back when it came out, after the shock and awe wore off from seeing "real" dinos, it wasn't THAT good. Too much of the raptor stuff could have been straight out of Aliens, or whatever random "stalked by a beast" movie. A really well done one, mind you, but still more of the same. It still has annoying kids, some crappy dialogue, and a weak ending.
It's entertaining, a modern classic just by what it did for effects(and the awe factor), and it proved Spielberg still had it(in '93), in a big way. I feel it's a bit of a second-tier Spielberg, joining stuff like Last Crusade and Minority Report. Good flicks, yes, but they cannot be compared to stuff like Raiders or Jaws, at all.

Lost World sucks.

*edit- It must be noted, that I agree, the initial "awe factor" with JP was HUGE. That does count for a lot.
post #83 of 372
People always slag on JP's ending, I guess because they wanted to see some more extreme dino violence. For my money, the T-Rex roaring in the museum hall with the 'When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth' banner floating to the ground is fantastic. I guess some of the dialog is silly in retrospect, but the character work is entertaining as hell. Sam Neill, Richard Attenborough, Samuel Jackon, Jeff Goldblum, Newman . . . to this day, I will occasionally think with astonishment that 'T-Rex turned into some motherfucking birds,' and the swelling James Horner horns will play in my head. Jurassic Park is awesome.
post #84 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
and the swelling James Horner horns will play in my head.
Some Spielberg fan you are.
post #85 of 372
"Some John Williams fan" would be more accurate. My mistake!
post #86 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
People always slag on JP's ending, I guess because they wanted to see some more extreme dino violence. For my money, the T-Rex roaring in the museum hall with the 'When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth' banner floating to the ground is fantastic.
QFT. I can't really think of an ending that would in any real sense be "better" than what we got. The goddam movie was PACKED with action as it was; what's so wrong with the "and then they got away" ending in this piece? That's the ending of many a "stalked by a beast" flick.
post #87 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
"Some John Williams fan" would be more accurate. My mistake!
Ha ha that's a big mistake around these parts. Hell I still have the soundtrack on my iPod.

Nick fun fact, I saw this movie 16 times in the theaters. Once it hit the dollar theaters near my house I went a few times a few. I even wore out my VHS. Can't wait for this on Blu Ray.
post #88 of 372
The problem with the ending is, after the t-rex, how does the film wrap up Hammond's arc? "So have I." Well, you agree your park was a disaster, I guess that makes everything okay. And what about the rest of the human characters? Malcolm gets no final "I told you so". Grant's big finish is a "Yeah, okay, maybe kids aren't so bad" look. It just doesn't feel like an ending. Look at the end of Jaws -- the shark blows up, and you get that great character scene between Brody and Hooper ast hey start swimming to shore. JP needed something like that and not just a bunch of people looking at pelicans.
post #89 of 372
I also think softening Hammond's character from the book was a bit of a mistake.
post #90 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
I also think softening Hammond's character from the book was a bit of a mistake.
It's not just a softening, but a near 100% reversal, if I recall. Book Hammond was a restless, corporate prick that was eventually eaten by compies.
post #91 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
I also think softening Hammond's character from the book was a bit of a mistake.
I think it was a huge mistake. As you said, there's no ending to his arc. The book's version of the character was an unrepentant capitalist who paid for his hubris. With his insistence on turning him into Walt Disney, Spielberg made him too sympathetic to deserve a comeuppance, and never came up with an alternative capper to his story.

I'll agree with anybody here that whenever dinosaurs are on the screen, this movie rules the roost. The sense of awe and terror is palpable, and the cutting between CGI and animatronics is nearly seamless. But if you really think that this movie contains anything resembling good dialogue or character development, then you really need to see more quality films. These characters are mouthpieces for a point of view; their dialogue does nothing but present a case. It's weakass writing (translation: it's David Koepp). Every time characters stop running for their lives and try to have a conversation, they embarrass the movie.

And Iggy, I'm sorry, but that post wasn't a testament to how great the movie is. It was a story about how into dinosaurs you were, and how real the movie's dinosaurs came across. That doesn't make it a well-written or interesting film.

As is so often the case, the greatness of Jurassic Park is in inverse proportion to the viewer's age at the time of its release. People look at it not as a movie, but as a piece of their childhood. There's nothing wrong with treasuring it on that basis. But don't mistake that for actual quality.
post #92 of 372
Yeah, Hammond's a mad scientist who doesn't suffer a mad scientist's usual fate.
post #93 of 372
As a big summer blockbuster starring groundbreaking CGI dinos, The original JP works. It's a couple of great sequences married to an even greater score from John Williams. But from the director of Jaws, it was and still is a huge disappointment. The sequels take the concept of a special effects reel grafted onto vague narratives even further. So I agree with Greg. Not really a good movie in the bunch.
post #94 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David View Post
But if you really think that this movie contains anything resembling good dialogue or character development, then you really need to see more quality films. These characters are mouthpieces for a point of view; their dialogue does nothing but present a case. It's weakass writing (translation: it's David Koepp). Every time characters stop running for their lives and try to have a conversation, they embarrass the movie.
I'm with you until "they embarass the movie." To me it seems like okay writing made good by good acting/directing/music/etc. This combination worked for the new Star Trek, and the writing for that movie was quite a bit worse than JP's.
post #95 of 372
Both films had a pretty thin story, yes. But Star Trek's dialogue was head and shoulders above Jurassic Park's. Dern's painful "This is something you have to feel" speech has no corollary in Star Trek, thank god.
post #96 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbott & Prospero View Post
As a big summer blockbuster starring groundbreaking CGI dinos, The original JP works. It's a couple of great sequences married to an even greater score from John Williams. But from the director of Jaws, it was and still is a huge disappointment. The sequels take the concept of a special effects reel grafted onto vague narratives even further. So I agree with Greg. Not really a good movie in the bunch.
OK, maybe the acting was sub par, but I don't think the narrative was "weak". The idea behind the film, that thru an incredible sequence of scientific breathroughs man is able to clone extinct beasts many have been fascinated by for over a century, but is unprepared for the consequences of trying to harness such unbridled power is pretty clear, I think. Granted, this is ground many films have trod before & will again, but still. . . The subplot of Grant & the kids may have been superfluous, but does serve to humanize his otherwise dry character. Having them around needing protection & rescuing adds to the tension, too, annoying as they were. Neill and Goldblum played their characters well, even if no one else in the film did (although I still love Attenborough's hammy/understated vibe; and for some reason, maybe just the little dinosaur lovin' boy in me, I was OK w/ him not being a villainous corporate scumbag. Surprised, but OK).
post #97 of 372
If it wasn't for the expertly crafted suspense of the T-Rex sequence, I could easily describe the original JP as Jan de Bont's best film. For a Spielberg film with such an intriguing hook, that's a shame. It's a movie dependent upon a series of reveals.
post #98 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by IggytheBorg View Post
OK, maybe the acting was sub par, but I don't think the narrative was "weak". The idea behind the film, that thru an incredible sequence of scientific breathroughs man is able to clone extinct beasts many have been fascinated by for over a century, but is unprepared for the consequences of trying to harness such unbridled power is pretty clear, I think. Granted, this is ground many films have trod before & will again, but still. . .
What you're talking about there isn't narrative, though. It's just concept. Narrative and story are much more than just concepts and ideas. The actual series of events that lead us through the story, and the characters' journey through them, are weak. There's very little story taking up all that time. What little story there is stops dead in its tracks several times while the characters mouthpiece their points of view. It's a poor screenplay by any rational, objective measure.
post #99 of 372
I don't really see the mouthpiece aspect as that big a problem, though. Hammond did hire the group as scientist consultants to get their opinions on things. Why be shocked when they voice them?
post #100 of 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
"You know, we're being chased by T-Rexes and we have to go through raptor territory to get rescued. I think now would be a good time to take the ammo out of the gun of the best hunter in the group."
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Franchises
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › The Jurassic Park Franchise