Jurassic Park III (2001)
Above: A Velociraptor from "Jurassic Park"
Above: Some Velocirhookers from "Jurassic Park III"
After "Jurassic Park", I thought I would never be unafraid of dinosaurs. After "The Lost World: Jurassic Park" I mentally slapped my younger self for being so naïve but conceded that at least I'd never get bored of them. Guess what happened after "Jurassic Park III"...
"I read both of your books. I liked the first one more. Before you were on the island. You liked dinosaurs back then."
The film kicks off with two people- a man and a boy, parasailing over Isla Sorna or "Site B". Surprise, surprise, something goes wrong and both people go missing. We are reunited with Dr. Grant (Sam Neill) from the first film, who is shanghaied into rescuing the two missing persons. To be honest, the plot was constantly put on the back-burner in my mind under the constantly repeated thought of "Is this what they're calling Jurassic Park these days?"
The plot in general is absolute balls. At least with "The Lost World" it pretended that the plot was something more than just an excuse for the dino money shots (I double dare you to Image Search that...). What makes it worse is that they bring Dr. Grant and Dr. Sattler (Laura Dern) in again from the original "Jurassic Park". However, instead of adding to this film, it detracts from the original as we learn that Sattler and Grant broke up and Sattler has a family of her own. This is so irritating as surely the Jurassic Park experience taught the character of Dr. Grant to be good with kids and turned him into a willing father (two things he was against at the start of the film and the source of a possible future rift between the two characters). This is the equivalent of creating something everyone loves, then putting out a piss-poor imitation of it and burning the original. So, so irritating.
The film in general feels like it was just cobbled together from the deleted scenes of the first two films. Funny, as when I was watching the extra features on the DVD (vainly searching for some kind of apology) they mentioned that many of the action sequences were ideas they had for "The Lost World" It shows too. Yes, the Pteranodons were O.K. but they should have been in "The Lost World" and then forgotten about. Talking of dinosaurs- the Spinosaurus. Who's smart idea was that? It is presented as the new king of the dinosaurs and is meant to be scarier than the T.Rex. In fact, just in case we were fucking morons (which is a safe bet thinking about it, 'cos after all people were paying money to see another Jurassic Park film after "The Lost World"...) there's a scene where Spiney takes on Rexy in the biggest Dino Douchebag contest and wins. Sorry, but why kill the anti-hero merely for some new pretender to step up? It's stupid beyond belief.
In fact, messing with the dinosaurs seems to be the theme of this film. The T.Rex is castrated and the raptors look like they're turning tricks to make some extra money on the side. Want proof? Okay:
The plot in general is absolute balls. At least with "The Lost World" it pretended that the plot was something more than just an excuse for the dino money shots (I double dare you to Image Search that...). What makes it worse is that they bring Dr. Grant and Dr. Sattler (Laura Dern) in again from the original "Jurassic Park". However, instead of adding to this film, it detracts from the original as we learn that Sattler and Grant broke up and Sattler has a family of her own. This is so irritating as surely the Jurassic Park experience taught the character of Dr. Grant to be good with kids and turned him into a willing father (two things he was against at the start of the film and the source of a possible future rift between the two characters). This is the equivalent of creating something everyone loves, then putting out a piss-poor imitation of it and burning the original. So, so irritating.
The film in general feels like it was just cobbled together from the deleted scenes of the first two films. Funny, as when I was watching the extra features on the DVD (vainly searching for some kind of apology) they mentioned that many of the action sequences were ideas they had for "The Lost World" It shows too. Yes, the Pteranodons were O.K. but they should have been in "The Lost World" and then forgotten about. Talking of dinosaurs- the Spinosaurus. Who's smart idea was that? It is presented as the new king of the dinosaurs and is meant to be scarier than the T.Rex. In fact, just in case we were fucking morons (which is a safe bet thinking about it, 'cos after all people were paying money to see another Jurassic Park film after "The Lost World"...) there's a scene where Spiney takes on Rexy in the biggest Dino Douchebag contest and wins. Sorry, but why kill the anti-hero merely for some new pretender to step up? It's stupid beyond belief.
"On this island there is no such thing as safe."
In fact, messing with the dinosaurs seems to be the theme of this film. The T.Rex is castrated and the raptors look like they're turning tricks to make some extra money on the side. Want proof? Okay:
Above: A Velociraptor from "Jurassic Park"Above: Some Velocirhookers from "Jurassic Park III"See?
Even without the "Jurassic Park" moniker this would have been a bad film. The fact that the Jurassic Park name is right there in the title is an even harder kick to the groin. Apparently, the Jurassic Park team have never heard of the phrase "flogging a dead horse" and a fourth installment is in production for 2010. (Sigh) Anyway, since "Jurassic Park III" is more dino-shite than dynamite (please excuse) it gets a lowly:
Even without the "Jurassic Park" moniker this would have been a bad film. The fact that the Jurassic Park name is right there in the title is an even harder kick to the groin. Apparently, the Jurassic Park team have never heard of the phrase "flogging a dead horse" and a fourth installment is in production for 2010. (Sigh) Anyway, since "Jurassic Park III" is more dino-shite than dynamite (please excuse) it gets a lowly:
No comments:
Post a Comment