Stream it now Jurassic Park III Reset Status Want to Watch Already Watched Don't Want to Watch

I still stand as the first one was the best. Second one was so so. However this one wasn't needed.

I really did like this movie but it wasn't the best as it could've been. Hopefully everything is set for # 4.

Not seeing any of the other Jurassic Park movies, this one surprised me. This movie was really good, thrilling and adventurous.

9/10

I'm just standing in the kitchen, cooking a stir fry and listening to the great Canadian bands of the 70s ... Guess Who, Bachman-Turner Overdrive, Steppenwolf, etc ... when I look down at my Star Wars t-shirt and flared pants and realise ... I was born 20 years too late.

My brother made me laugh today. We were talking about Stiffler (from American pie):

Adam: What's the capital of Taiwan?
Me: Taipei.
Adam: What?
Me: Taipei is the capital of Taiwan. You meant, 'What's the capital of Thailand. BANGKOK!'
Adam: Oh, right.
Me: Yeah. (laughs)
Adam: I thought Taiwan was in China...

I'm not sure why his geographic ignorance is funny.

I'm also not sure why I'm the only person over the age of fourteen who listens to Simple Plan. I can't get a soul to go with me to the concert on the 18th. Do I really have to go by myself??

Speaking of which, I like that when I went to rate Simple Plan in this entry, it just says "Canadian Pop-Punk Band." Aren't I patriotic today??

Not much to update for today but here it goes anyway ...

The DVD cover art for Timeline is now placed in the April 13th section in DVD Depot but there is still currently no purchase link available for it just yet.

... Not a whole lot, huh? Well, I had therapy again today, so I figured I wouldn't be adding too much today anyway but even I thought I would be adding a whole lot more then this.

Anyway, here is a load of bull crap for you tonight, "Disney's board said it had full confidence in the business, financial and creative direction of the company under the leadership of Chief Executive Officer Michael Eisner". This is the statement made by the Disney board of directors rejecting a hostile take-over bid by Comcast valued at nearly $66 billion. Why are they doing this? Don't they remember what almost happened in 1983 with the company? Things will get worse before they get better. If Roy and Stanley are going to do anything, they better do it fast before things get so bad that nothing will bring the company back ... not even pixie dust.

Howard Dean shook up his campaign for the second time in just over two weeks, revealing that national chairman Steve Grossman is out. Grossman, by the way, once managed the 2000 presidential campaign for former vice-president Al Gore. "Whatever happens tomorrow, we are going on," Dean said today during the announcement. Like I said yesterday, this is his money and if he wants to waste it then that's fine by me. This just gives him more opportunity to shoot off his big mouth in my opinion.

Now on to the Primetime Interview with Mel Gibson on The Passion of the Christ ...

According to the interview, Mel Gibson claimed that the Holy Spirit worked through him to make this version of the film and many criticized him for making it sound like this was the one true version of the story of the last 12 hours of Jesus Christ. That's his belief ... I guess coming from a Christian background made me less critical of Gibson's statement and beliefs but, not being Christian anymore, even I tend to have my limits of this so-called Bible huggers. Is Gibson going too far in his statement ... Not in the tone he said it in the interview. Anything on paper can seem weird or controversial or even non-controversial but once you hear it coming from the person themself then things change dramatically ... I can guarantee that.

"I do not believe it's an anti-Semitic movie," Foxman said. "I believe that this movie has the potential to fuel anti-Semitism, to reinforce it" ... What?! This is bull-crap! Why get upset with this film and not something like Jesus Christ Superstar or Jesus of Nazereth? Just because Gibson is a Traditionalist-Christian and they take stuff directly from the Bible? This is the Jesus bashing liberals and their non-sense rambling on about nothing once again.

"He was wounded for our transgressions and by his wounds we are healed. That's the point of the film. It's not about pointing the fingers" ... I take this from a piece of classic literature and in that I see the revolutionary moment in literature, in the religious standpoint, in that the hero doesn't win and that he is horribly murdered by a mob that use to be his followers and friends. And, coming from a Christian background, I guess I have more understanding for what Gibson is trying to get at ... more so then the Jews or the Buddhists or the Hindus or whatever.

Many claim the film is out of context and that Gibson shows the brutality without focusing first on why Jesus was a threat to both the Romans AND the Jews both religiously and politically ... I can understand where Gibson is trying to get at with this film in that he believes most of the people going to see this film are Christians well familiar with both the Bible and the themes behind the stories and teachings concerning Jesus, both in historical and literary context, so there is no need for a pre-face much like the last two Lord of the Rings film did.

"This is my version of what happened, according to the gospels and what I wanted to show - the aspects of it I wanted to show" ... Then what is wrong with that? Steven Spielberg was Jewish and yet he went on to make films like Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan and no one questioned if his religion played a factor in his films and whether or not (playing Devil's advocate here) the Jewish factor made the films anti-German or the emotional factor for the Jews more then it was or wasn't in real life (no hatred, please ... Devil's advocate, Devil's advocate!).

"If you don't like it, don't go. ... If you want to leave halfway through, go ahead" ... No one can say it better then Mel Gibson did there. Don't like it, no one is forcing you to see this film ... It's your $5.75 (or $8.00 if you go after 5:30pm), you spend it on this film if you see fit.

Some Jewish leaders are asking Gibson to put in a post-script note asking for people who go to see this film not be to be filled with hatred for Jews ... NO!! I am so against this and I am glad that Gibson is against this. By doing that, you are practically telling people how to interpret a movie, which I have never been for and will never be for. What about reviews, you might ask? They give the opinion of the writer and how they interpret a feature film ... No one is exactly 100% the same, so everyone has their take on it, whether it is right or not. With the post-script, they are saying that what you saw was wrong and that it meant nothing because they are telling how you should feel about the film at the very end. If you leave this film feeling angry then so be it ... I left Pearl Harbor very angry at the Japanese for bombing Pearl Harbor ... After September 11th (applying to real life) I was extremly upset with the Middle-Easterns in general ... But I didn't go out, grab a gun and shoot a Jew or a Jap in the head ... It's called common sense! Will some people leave this film and do what I didn't do ... Yes, but in extremly rare cases and this goes for any film released anywhere in the world.

For example, The Matrix went under serious fire for inciting, they claim, young teenagers to take guns and go nuts with them (They claim it helped inspire rage within the shootings of Columbine and such) but did this happen anywhere else? $171 million worth of people saw the movie and only two people were inspired by that so-called message of hate? Not to bad considering the liberals out there made it sound worse then it actually was but in actuality the film never once inspired that sort of message.

I think I have said enough for tonight but I will surely have a lot more as we draw closer to the opening of the controversial film.

Enjoy the rest of the week!

The good news is that, despite the absence of Steven Spielberg behind the camera, Jurassic Park III is about as entertaining and inventive as Spielberg's 1997 film The Lost World: Jurassic Park. The bad news is that that film wasn't particularly entertaining or inventive, and neither is this one. Considering that The Lost World: Jurassic Park already seemed stale, it would be quite unreasonable to expect anything new to be offered by Jurassic Park III, which is nothing more than another film that strings together sequences of dinosaur attacks. The sad reality is that we have seen pretty much all there is to see when it comes to the world of Jurassic Park, and even Spielberg's 1993 film, while supremely entertaining and majestic, suffered from a lack of imagination concerning how to treat the wonder of dinosaurs. Jurassic Park III is just as content to let the dinos be nothing more than monsters who attack cardboard human characters, but unfortunately, director Joe Johnston doesn't have as much of a sense of pacing as Spielberg. The plot concerns a wealthy couple (played by William H. Macy and Tea Leoni) who ask Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill) to join them on an expedition to yet another research lab that was breeding dinosaurs (how many more of these "forgotten" labs will pop up in subsequent sequels?). However, the wealthy couple has an ulterior motive...they are trying to find their 14 year-old son, who is lost on the island. The plot of the film is not very important, considering that the screenwriters would happily come up with any excuse to fill another film with scenes of dinosaurs jumping out of corners to frighten (or attack) the humans. Basically, the only way to fairly evaluate Jurassic Park III is to look at the skill and imagination displayed in the scenes involving the dinosaurs. There are certainly some thrilling moments: the slow buildup to the revelation of a pterodactyl is masterfully executed, and is easily one of the best scenes in the film. Yet Jurassic Park III is eventually so tired and familiar, it is impossible to enjoy even on the level of simple entertainment. Macy, Neill and Leoni are completely wasted, and don't have much of a chance to create characters we care about. By the time Jurassic Park III lumbers to an end, we may have mildly enjoyed this mediocre fare, but it is very clear that the series is as extinct as the dinosaurs that populate it.

(BASIC)

I was outraged that the jurassic park trilogy was not going to be finished off by Stephen Speilberg, but instead it was caped off by a director(Joe Johnston) who ruined the vision that Speilberg set with the first two installments. I understand it is not the directors fault for the poorly written story or script, but it is his fault for excepting them. The movie totally lacked realism (Example: when Dr. Alan Grant and the rest of his party were surrounded by Raptors he somehow new how to call for help. Even though he had no understanding of their language.) to the point that it was completely nervre recking.The dinosaurs looked faker than in the original even with the more advanced special effects.

no where near is good as The first or even the second jurassic park. A third movie in the series was not needed.

Best in Show: William H. Macy
One for the future: Trevor Morgan
Stand-out scene: "Birdcage!"
Brainer or no-brainer: Brainless
Stands up to one viewing or repeated?: One
DVD commentary any good?: n/a

TV
Saw the original in a filled-to-capacity cinema in Chester as a preview (back in the days when I was a local newspaper film reviewer) and enjoyed it. The second - now that was a horse of a different colour, and what's more different health; lame. When it came to the third it was the name William H. Macy that drew me when it was scheduled for a terrestrial broadcast. Whereas the second was a blatant re-tread, this third offering (directed not by Spielberg but Joe 'Jumanji' Johnston) looks at the story from a relatively fresh angle and is all the better for it. It's eight years after the events of Jurassic Park and the second island used in the experiment is now a dinosaur kingdom. When 14 year-old Erik Kirby is feared crash-landed on the island after an abortive 'dinosoar' para-gliding ride (like duh!), his parents (Macy and Tea Leoni) dupe Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill) into accompanying them on a trip to the island in search of their missing son. We get to flinch at the carnivores and go 'aaah' at the herbivores as the action moves along apace and it's all harmless if brainless fun and the cast come through it with their respective credibilities intact.

:fresh: I loved the first Jurassic Park. It was so cool for someone who loved dinosaurs since they were very little. Though the love for dinosaurs wore off, I still loved this movie! I liked the scene with the T-Rex and the jeep with the kids. That whole scene totally hooked me! And then the scenes with the velociraptors...it captivated me. I wish I would take the time to read the original novel, as it has been recommended to me many times. Oh yeah, I thought it was hilarious when the Dilophosaurus (the one with the umbrella-looking frills) eats the fat guy. I never liked him.:D haha! gotta love carnage!

:rotten: The Lost World just didn't cut it for me, a huge fan of the first movie. When I was really little (okay, I was 'really little' a few years ago) I liked it just because it was action and dinosaurs, but now I think it really stunk. As a matter of fact, everyone thought it stunk! For a book project in school, I decided to read it since I bought it on sale in a grocery store for two dollars.:cool: I was blown away by the sheer awesome-ness of the book. I couldn't believe that that stupid movie was based on that book! That's when I realized that it was a really pathetic movie. Hence, the 5 out of 10. And I recommend the book too!

:rotten: The kids at my school seemed to like Jurassic Park 3 when it was in theaters. I was ten when it came out. For some reason, I didn't like it that much even though it was popular. I thought, "Why is this rated PG-13? This is so kid-oriented! It was like a kid's show, definitely centered toward the younger population. The least they could do was make the series end with a bang for the adults. But I couldn't have expected much...Hollywood made it, not Michael Crichton. It wasn't even based off a book, therefore the plot and story is going to sound like fanfiction.

In conclusion, I like Jurassic Park, but the first movie was the ending point for me. The last two movies don't even compare, and the books blow them all away.:cool: