|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
First, I've not been able to see this movie at a decent theatre. I've seen it twice, just in hopes of hearing the DTS soundtrack...and was thoroughly screwed out of that both times.Basically, you know, this thing is ONLY about Dinosaurs chasing people, and God knows we hate watching that, don't we? God knows we had no idea this would occur from the title, or from seeing the trailers...right? We answer a high pitched "yes" if we're a pompous jerkwad like Roeper (he'd rather see Dr. Grant and the other humans play chess with velocoraptors, and discuss their feelings with a panel of tyrannosaurs...and Oprah along with Dr. Phil!), but his partner Roger Ebert (usually right, although DEAD wrong about "Gladiator") GOT IT DEAD RIGHT ABOUT "JURASSIC 3". He thought it was "great summer fun"...and I say, EXACTLY.
No, this movie does not measure up to the first, but then, neither does ANY movie since then in my opinion (including ALL of the "critic's favorites" from that period of time that I've seen, which aren't many I admit...and for good reason. I like movies that avoid pretentious pomposity and excessive cuteness-for-the-sake-of-jaded-verbal-blather-for-blather's-sake...in other words, critics love these types of films, and I detest them...right along with the critics themselves. They all have the easiest jobs in the world, and yet are quite smug and unapologetic about their ill-gotten perks...and about being wrong all the time).
SCUSE ME WHILE I DIGRESS BRIEFLY: Am I saying Jurassic 1 was better than Titanic, Braveheart, The Sixth Sense, Traffic, Fargo, or any other movie of the past 8 years that most critics "get off on"? HELL YES I AM! The First Jurassic is the number 5 movie of all time, from where I sit.
There are only four other movies that succeed marginally better at telling a story than Jurassic 1, and two of those are only marginally better at being an epic/thrillride in its purist form...than Jurassic 1.
BACK TO PART 3: The sound effects do not measure up to even the second film, much less the first (at least from what I can guess, having only heard some horrible sub-par Dolby Digital, set up by deaf chimps!).
The plot is razor thin and somewhat implausible (belief suspended by a thread); the acting moderate to poor; the dialogue silly at times, but passable most of the time; the visual effects and cinematography quite good to outstanding.
Basically, if you liked the others, you need to see this one. If you didn't like the others at all, there's something WRONG with you! GO SEE THIS FILM with an open mind, and avoid being judgmental. You just might like it. I liked it just fine.
Follow Ups:
Although there has been some interesting discussions on this topic the thread has resorted to name calling and insults. Further postings of this type will not be tolerated.Consider this a warning!
MiKe
Moderator Films/DVD
MiKe
To even the people whom I am diametrically opposed in viewpoint, I am humbled by the time you and effort you all spent here. I look forward to having many future discussions...
....was a hacking of the book (which I read quite a few years before the movie was even made). The images I got from reading the book are far more vivid and powerful than anything that I saw in that piece of celluoid (notice I didn't say "film"). I haven't even bothered with watching JP2 and JP3 considering how the JP1 story was treated.
Tom §.
...since he co-wrote the screenplay!
The first movie was good. Very good in some ways, not so much in others, but overall was an above average summer blockbuster. The second movie was tripe. The third movie is tripe. Is there really any point in going into more detail?
The book was better. Read it years before the movie came out.
...that a book was better than the movie...hmm, you come up with original insights, don't ya?
I'm a veritable CarlEber.
no text
Is being older than 8 a medical condition ?
And one the greatest minds in medical science can't resolve.Except Jack Kevorkian.
> > > > > > >
There are only four other movies that succeed marginally better at telling a story than Jurassic 1, and two of those are only marginally better at being an epic/thrillride in its purist form...than Jurassic 1.
< < < < < < <I'm curious what the top 4 are.
nt
It was O.K., but the part where the guy uses the hang-glider to rescue the kid is really bogus. Also, very simplistic plot.
nt
Right. Like I was saying: "...the part where the guy uses the parasail..."
Ok, I just have to argue that anyone who actually tried to figure out the plot of JP3 is thinking waaay too much about it. There's dinosaurs and people on a remote island. Unless you root for the dinosaurs the plot is pretty self explanatory.Rob C
If you went into an action adventure movie expecting to see dinosaurs play chess and debate existentialism with promordial ooze or a trailor homeless, too...instead of that conventional old "chasing people" motif that seems popular, and succinct in its logic.
FWIW, I like all of the Jurassic Park movies and each is a remarkable film when gauged on somewhat different scales. The first had the grandest scope and suspense, the second, the best storyline and in-jokes and most intense and literal "cliffhanger," and the third, the most convincing effects (i.e., human/dinosaur interaction). So what are the flaws? Well, in the first, Spielburg sacrifices continuity for thrills (i.e., especially with the embarassingly obvious Tyranosaurus paddock changing elevations scene) and indulges in his "cute kid" sentimentality waaaaay too often, in the second the velociraptor/compound battle sequence was too staged and fortuitously resolved (i.e., it starts looking like a theme park ride culminating in the last second escape to a conveniently waiting helicopter), and in the third, under Joe Johnston, the action sequences lacked the level of intense suspense Spielburg brings to the director's chair (i.e., the dinosaurs even looked too rehearsed, but at least none of them missed their mark).Taken as a series, the worst conceptual flaw was the killing of the main hero in the second act of the third movie! Huh? Yep, I'm commenting on the same movies and you're probably wondering who the heck I'm refering too. Well, the "hero" of the Jurassic Park series isn't any of the live action characters, but rather the noble T-Rex which saves their bacon in the first film and does away with the villain of the second! Unfortunately, "Mr. Spineysaurus" does away with our hero mid way through the third film leaving us only the obnoxious couple and poor suckered Dr. Grant to root for. In the end, another wise-beyond-his-years kid saves the day, but this viewer was left thinking he would've probably been better off with the velociraptors as guardians.
As I said, and in spite of these criticisms, I passionately like all 3 movies and consider each one a gem; thay will be enduring classics, IMHO. With the departure of the terradactyls there is even the hint of a fourth on the horizon, but that will depend on whether Hollywood's raptors can devour enough box-office receipts from #3. What I'd really like to see next would be for James Cameron to direct the fourth in the continuing saga. I realize that the liklihood of that is slim and none, but knowing what he can do with this kind of subject matter I bet it would be a tightly filmed nail-biter with VERY ferocious dinos!
Cheers,
AuPh
It's all a matter of personal opinion any way...I found something to enjoy in each movie, but wouldn't call them high art...which is not necessarily a bad thing, depending on the viewer and his or her preferences. Notice I did not say they were not cleverly crafted to be certain things to certain people...there is a talent in being able to judge the masses, pull their strings, please a lot of people, and sell a lot of merchandice (and have enough confidence or comfort with that approach to show the gift shop at JP in the first movie)
Me? I can enjoy JP for what it is, but am still bothered by many sticking points. Especially ridiculous set-ups (eg having a girl go for a flashlight when there's a T-Rex outside the vehicle), or things which the audience takes in step eagerly when maybe they shouldn't (eg Dr Grant knowing that the Raptors will attack from the sides when the victim is distracted by one in front, based on fossil record...but the park warden/big game hunter has no clue to their proclivities despite opportunities to view them in action in captivity). Or things that beg pointed questions (eg how did they replicate ancient plant life?). That being said, there are a lot of neat little things peppered throughout.
The other movies have their good and bad points too, and everyone can be an armchair director or scriptwriter. But for me, at least, I can't watch the original or sequels without at some time (or multiple times) thinking either "Why oh why did they do THAT, it spoils a great scene, or takes the luster off a great idea" or "Damn, there were so many missed opportunities that would make more sense and have been better cinema or a better thrill ride" or "That's just plain__________ (stupid, ridiculous, corny, contrived, etc)." Examples? The loud cell phone in the Spino (easily heard from far away, and conveniently found)...and didn't Mr. U have a similar sounding phone when he was called by Kirby, or am I mis-remembering things? TLs annoying screaming. T-Rex piss. Pristine chocolate and snacks in a warm jungle environment. The use of Barney, already done in the tragic Godzilla movie. 20mm weapon with no recoil, and which of course never do any visible damage to the Spino. Why is the dude in the tree dead? Missed stylistic opportunities (ie slightly prolonged Pterandon chase scene, with Pteranodon claws and legs seen in the underwater shots, trying to grab the swimming humans as they would fish, etc; more dramatic use of the Marines, both as movie plot excitement and a symbolic manner of showing mankind's way of dealing with animals, etc, but not an Ewok vs stormtrooper type of thing; and so forth and so on). Oh, and in JPII, what got into the confined spaces of the ship to eviscerate the crew? The small T-rex? Might of been interesting, if less plausible, if velociraptors had also stowed away, and disperesed amongst the city after arrival in the US of A, without a tidy wrap-up at the movie end...but having T-rex and Raptors on the mainland I suppose would have been too busy, etc, in the movie. For me JPIII felt like watching a long trailer...I was left anticpating a full fleshed out plot with improved scenes and dialog...ie appetizer rather than a well-balanced meal.
In any case, to each their own...everyone can enjoy or dislike whatever they like...
and all are well thought out. Dave, a great post, I commend you.
(nt)
Even special effects can move me sometimes like the first JP... but I have enough hollywood movies...
There was no Tyranosaur paddock changing elevation, unless there is another version of the movie that I'm unaware of.I must also take issue on the weakest points: I DO NOT feel that Spielberg got trapped into his child-like sentimentality overmuch in the FIRST movie. But I do agree that in the second movie, the idea that Jeff's daughter could do some gymnastics on a bar, and knock a raptor through a wall and tens of feet out and down to the ground....that was just about as silly as the show "Dark Angel"....I'm tired of chicks that "kick ass"...chicks don't kick ass in real life! And nobody could kick a raptor's ass...they were indeed portrayed the best in the first movie...like all other aspects, again, the first movie "rules"!
"and in the third, under Joe Johnston, the action sequences lacked the level of intense suspense Spielburg brings to the director's chair"....
I COULD NOT AGREE MORE WITH THAT!
It is a pleasure to converse with you, Audiophil!
Lol! Dark Angel does indeed suck! She's no Buffy.Rob C
... paddock changing elevation scene, I assure you it does occur. Not only do I have this film on LD (and eventually all 3 on DVD), I saw this movie more times than I care to remember when it first came out. Note: My wife and I took everyone we knew to it at the one theater displaying it in DTS in Dallas, just as an excuse to keep going back. Heck, Spielburg probably made the other two sequels on the profits of our repeated sojourns! ;^)I recommend your going back and watching the scene where the Tyranosaur eats the goat. That's on even terrain, obviously with the intended purpose of allowing future spectators to observe the Tyranosaur "dining." Notice that the Tyranosaur pops the cables to his enclosure upon realizing that there's no electricity to hold him/her in and subsequently smashes the Park RVs including the one containing Spielburg's patented "cute kid who's smarter than every adult in the picture." Okay, are you still with me? Next you'll see the vehicle pushed to the side of the road, NOT the opposite side mind you, but the same side where the hungry T-Rex ate part of the goat and smashed through the paddock. What happens next, do you recall? Grant and the girl climb down the snapped cable next to the T-Rex paddock, which had in the previous scene been at ground level! After that we have the vehicle with the boy trapped inside pushed over the side, almost nailing Grant, lodging in this tree which, based on what follows, must've been three times the height of the tallest Redwood in California!
I will agree with you that Spielburg didn't overuse the child-like sentimentality even though I felt that he was chomping at the bit a couple of times. Overall, I think we agree very strongly about the consistent quality of the Jurassic Park series, even when the directing chores fell to someone else with a different style on the third outing. It's a good thing to remember just how many times good series been weakened by substandard entries just to rake in the cash from disappointed filmgoers. Alien III & IV come to mind, but there are many others, including Spielburg's own "Temple of Doom" sequel to "Raiders of the Lost Ark." Note: I think that he learned a valuable lesson from that about respecting the audience and followed that weak entry up with a film that's arguably superior to the first in that series. Consistency of quality is the the way to maintain a successful franchise and keep 'em comin' back for more! Now bring on those dinos! :o)
AuPh
I'll have another look, but I've seen the thing many times too, and it must not have bothered me.My fave parts are the very beginning, and the part where the Aussie guy says "...they remember..."
I'd love to see a Redwood in CA....I assume you've seen one? It'd be nice to get there before all the soccer moms who vote democratic, but otherwise still pollute the air with their SUV's, cause global warming to destroy all life on our planet...blah blah, yada yada. One degree in a hundred years...hmm, I thought I felt warmer than I did back in 1900...
I have to differ in a big way on Raiders. The third was better than the second, but if you think the third was better than the original...then there's no hope for you! ;) I REGRET THAT I NEVER SAW THE ORIGINAL IN THE THEATER....and for some odd reason, Spielberg is such a jacka$$, that not only has he not released them on DVD, but he didn't re-release Raiders in theaters on its 20 year anniversary....what an a$$!!
I am pleased to see that my thread has generated a response in keeping with the other site I used to waste time at...and unfortunately, there will be a whole new herd of Carl-haters...
I, um, polarize people...in case you didn't notice.
Hi,
when i was a kid, i watched Bergman, read the great philosophers, blah, blah, blah. I wanna have fun. I liked JP3 quite a bit. Btw, i used to use the T rex scene to adjust my home theatre (thea-tah) *and* to show it off. The goat was to the left, cliff to the right. Seen it a million times. My theater can't do this, but the roar of the Rex should make your innards quiver like jello in an earthquake. Can't really afford that much subwoofer.
Late, thanks for you support. I've seen one Bergman in film class, have a feeling it wouldn't see "wide release" these days, nudge nudge.Someday I will have a supreme home theater in a mansion...until that time, I live with my two channel music only system, and it's very fulfilling.
Hi,
i have a dual purpose monster; it seems insatiable in it's desire to gobble money. But it's great, something like ST:Voyager is a bit different with a decent stereo kicking out the sound. If you're talking movies with a lot of music, it sounds wonderful, i am thrilled to really hear the classics for the first time.
However, it took me a long, long time to get here. It's posted in Inmate Systems, i am currently building some basic bass traps.
I just love standing in a muggy sweltering garage drilling five bazillion holes. Don't tell anybody, but i sneak in one of those
weirdo movies where they talk all funny once in a while....
I build speakers, but bought (instead of built) my room treatments...how's that for backwards? I of course have commerically made speakers too...I was just drilling a baffle out last night...
It's taken me a while to get where I am too.
I may post my system in inmate's systems at some point.
> > > "...this place is loaded with primadonnas" < < <I'm a HUGE fan of the Jurassic Park movies and I'd be the first to say that the fact that they're fun is good enough. Nevertheless, finding fault with sloppy film direction or plot-holes which draw attention to themselves doesn't make the film patron a primadonna any more than it makes a great albeit flawed film into a bad movie!
> > > "The goat was on the left, cliff to the right. Seen it a million times." < < <
If you're questioning my observations, I'd suggest watching that scene a few more times. Also, it isn't a "cliff" it's part of the T-Rex paddock enclosure! As far as where the sound originates that isn't nearly as important to me as visual continuity (i.e., where the Park vehicle is located when the scene starts and the location of the tree where it ends up). Unfortunately, my LD player turned to "toast" recently or I'd go back and do a step by step and relate the obvious continuity gaff in more detail. *SIGH* I guess it's time to buy the DVDs even though I can't part with the LDs (that's another story).
BTW, several people who saw this film with us while it was still playing in the theaters made similar observations, so it isn't just my faulty perception. The unfortunate part of this is that the scene could've easily been fixed (i.e., made less awkward or confusing) without any loss of tension. Personally, I think Spielburg was so concerned about getting the effects and thrills right that he failed to concentrate on visual continuity issues that might surface with repeated viewings. Note: This is VERY understandable when one considers the fact that he was in the process of filming Schindler's List at the same time!
On a lighter note, you mentioned watching Bergman when you were a kid and it reminded me that one of my favorite promos for advertising action movies on the TBS Superstation awhile back was "It ain't Bergman, but things blow up!" :o)
Cheers,
AuPh
Hi,
i have the dvd, gave my LD to Sis. There is an error. I remember watching a Bergman about a priest who loses his faith. Since i have never been religous; i didn't think much about it. The next day... i 'got it', and was depressed for a month.
There is an excellent chocolate maker (Len Libby's) on the way to the new theater (it has a decent sound system), give me a good matinee thriller, dark chocolate covered cashews, some popcorn n lemonade....
and i'll pretend that cramped little art theater, with it's small screen and tinny sound doesn't exist, along with 'My Dinner with Andre' How about a short, 'Tyron the Rex eats Andre for dinner'
> > > "I'd love to see a Redwood in CA....I assume you've seen one?" < < <Not up close and in person, but in 1080I on our new HDTV. Does that count? :o)
> > > "It'd be nice to get there before all the soccer moms who vote democratic, ..." < < <
I think I'll avoid discussing anything political here; you think your posts polarize people? ROTFLOL!!! You must not get "Outside" much (i.e., the "secret" Outside Asylum forum page is where political debate ensues; that forum is in transition like some of the other Asylum forums still are, but it's not for the faint of heart, I assure you!). We probably have diametrically opposed political viewpoints so we'd better stick to film.
> > > "I beg to differ in a big way on Raiders." < < <
That's fine. I did say that it was "arguably" better than the first. ;^) Personally, I consider both very high quality entries and I wouldn't be able to choose one above the other, but what the hey, that's just me. IMHO, Jeff Boam's script for "Last Crusade" is outstanding though.
Take care, Carl... and uh, have that polarity checked! (grin)
Cheers,
AuPh
"Not up close and in person, but in 1080I on our new HDTV. Does that count? :o)"..........NOPE! And 1080 progressive would be better...
"I think I'll avoid discussing anything political here; you think your posts polarize people? ROTFLOL!!!"
You have no idea who you're talking to...
"I have the death sentence on twelve systems..." yada yada. Ask Audiogon who I am, and if I polarize people (their discussion forum is no longer with us, btw...I was in 572 threads there, many of which were flame free I'm proud to say)...Ask Slate...not that there aren't dozens more like me there.
I am perhaps the number one pariah of online audio discussion, simply because I can be ruthless in defending my positions when provoked. I got banned on the first day I participated, from a chat HERE with your bud Steve "Koyaan", and wasn't even trying to inflame him. Honest Steve, I wasn't...a few others finda tried to bang me, so I went off.
I then came back to the chat, first without permission, and later with, and now I'm sure Steve can't wait to discuss cables with me again. He's a good guy, I bet, and obviously dedicated to his work...that's highly honorable, unlike another audio website.
Not to mention the fact that several of my threads here have been deleted or otherwise blocked in the two weeks I've been here...ask "angela100" how much she likes me...and then tell her I still demand an apology for her cowardly smear campaign at the other site (she's too horrified to actually stand up to me). She drew first blood...and I'll have the last laugh...Not that I don't love women...Barbra Streisand's a woman, but I don't love her.
Philander, I like you. I think we have a lot in common, regardles of where your political views may lie. I stand by my point about the soccer moms with SUVs...they all own one, and 80% or so voted for someone who would take them out of production given his way (which I happen to agree with....not so much for "green" concerns, but for the simple fact that they have no place on an interstate highway at 80+ mph, and that's the only place they're used. Physics dictate low speed, off road use. They're a glutanous waste of resources, and everyone knows it. They aren't safer...nothing that heavy could be "safe", especially when it rolls over or impacts the frontal corners, unless it's made of "scrith"...just look at the crash tests if you don't believe me).
Take care, Carl
don't use film as a substitute for an amusement park visit.
We never said it was a substitute...and besides, some of us don't use film as a substitute for real intellectual endeavors and discourse...
... and film is as close as we'd dare get to an amusement park! ;^)Seriously Rich, you can "use" film for whatever you want, but I tend to enjoy most cinema with the rare exception of that which bores me to sleep.
What else do you want to know?
AuPh
Just kidding! I recommend you watch Spielburg's directorial debut,
the TV movie, "Duel" (1971?) with Dennis Weaver. Scripted by
Richard Matheson, based on his own short story, which BTW, was inspired
by a real-life personal experience of Matheson! This film milked
the suspense for all it was worth! Finely crafted. - AH
Speaking of "Duel" or perhaps by way of an mischievous segue, I recommend Ridley Scott's "The Duelists" made just prior to his highly successful "Alien." This highly crafted period drama is a fascinating study of obsessive/compulsive behavior. Note: I was tempted to say "highwayman rage" but since it involves to Napoleonic soldiers that would be a stretch! ;^)AuPh
Sure they are good in certain aspects... like SF. But they have a extremely high what you called "pretentious pomposity and excessive cuteness" content. I call it lack of integrity... they are made for a target audience. No harm in that... it's just a product we the consumers can take it or leave it. But to call it a good film!!??!
"No, this movie does not measure up to the first, but then, neither does ANY movie since then in my opinion (including ALL of the "critic's favorites" from that period of time that I've seen, which aren't many I admit...and for good reason. I like movies that avoid pretentious pomposity and excessive cuteness-for-the-sake-of-jaded-verbal-blather-for-blather's-sake...in other words, critics love these types of films, and I detest them...right along with the critics themselves. They all have the easiest jobs in the world, and yet are quite smug and unapologetic about their ill-gotten perks...and about being wrong all the time).SCUSE ME WHILE I DIGRESS BRIEFLY: Am I saying Jurassic 1 was better than Titanic, Braveheart, The Sixth Sense, Traffic, Fargo, or any other movie of the past 8 years that most critics "get off on"? HELL YES I AM! The First Jurassic is the number 5 movie of all time, from where I sit."
I had to read the above twice to make sure what I was reading was actually printed. Sadly, it remained clear and unwavering, even though my mind seemed to be swaying a tad bit just from the simple concluding sentence above. In fact, this rating of Jurassic Park as the number five film of all time combined with the notion that no better film has been made since the release of said blockbuster leaves me wondering about the intelligence of entering the Audio/Video Asylum for enlightened discourse on the subject of film.Obviously, the post was pure opinion...but still, I am at a loss as to how any human could state something of this notion; indeed, I can think of a few films this very YEAR that bettered Jurassic Park (pt. 1) in all ways except special effects, something that I usually rank low on the totem pole for reasons to attend a film. Besides the special effects of Jurassic Park, I felt the film to be about as deep and engaging as a trip to Coney Island for a double helping of cotton candy and box of Cracker Jacks. As said in other comments here, the film was good summer fun, much like listening to the 1812 Overture via a Krell system running on Wilson Grand Slams. For engaging the mind and soul, this movie, and the system in comparison, is likely to leave you feeling about as rewarded as sitting in a vat of flaxen seed (although there is something to be said of this).
But if you take a movie as simple as the wonderful You Can Count on Me , it makes the overstuffed Jurassic Park look like a lumbering, over-hyped, shock stick stimulii, vehicle it is, with plastic, stereotypical characters, cliche plot-line and villians, with the only redeeming features being the hapless beasts being used on the Island.
Even the little low-budget Memento , discussed below in this same forum, was a far more engaging and rewarding film that challenged the audience to use their skull contents rather than further strengthen the video game receptor zones located in the base of the skull that are excited by the Jurassic Park ilk. I will give that movie this much credit; the special effects regarding the dinosaurs were really top notch and on another level altogether. The film did rightly deserve the Academy Award (whatever that's worth) for this aspect.
It seems as if the-real-CarlEber is discounting most of the little, low budget movies that lack the real "pretentious pomposity" of the Hollywood-profit motive laden movies that inhabit most the screens across the US. Unfortunately, these are not the movies where you can test the Dolby soundtrack while hearing the roar of a Zero honing in on the USS Arizona, the explosion catapalting a car into a mid-air 360, or the howl of a Spinosaurus loping into a den of luckless fetal position humans.
Might I suggest attending a few more movies that inhabit a place slightly below the radar of the trailers previewed on Fox, TNT, and the ever-enlightening USA-Today.
kelly holsten
Not that I am surprised.As I said, I don't go to movies with dinosaurs in them, in the hopes that the beasties might play chess, dress up in Victorian costume, recite Keats, float about in the tree tops and karate chop each other, ask love advice of Oprah and Dr. Phil, or the like.
Perhaps, in questioning my intelligence, and in somehow implying that your thoughts are fact, and mine are simply a nothing opinion...you should allow yourself to mellow out a little. You could learn to be more open minded and tolerant of the views of others. I know that you will not...I'm not that stupid...I'm just pointing out the obvious.
And my knowledge of audio would supercede yours from a coma...so, yes indeed, I belong here. Wheras your pious bogotry and personal attacks do not. It's too bad that no one has taught you manners...
First of all, your assumptions are just about as off as they can be, and you are, in fact, guilty of exactly the same tripe you supposedly criticize. Reread your post and the attitude which to me seemed highly absurd, that no good movies had really been made since Jurassic Park, which to me, was NOT an excellent film, even within the Action-Adventure genre. You assumption that most critics "get it wrong" and have nothing worthwhile to say was worthy of a pithy retort, a retort that obviouosly struck some nerve, even though I read your post as rather assumptious, and nervy in and of itself.Contrary to your tile of post, and the misguided post of Dan G in relation to me, I actually have a fine understanding of the action-adventure genre and have loved many of that vein. Interestingly enough, I just rented Deliverance to show to my wife, who had never seen the movie. Now I admit, this is not the same catagory of action-adventure as Jurassic Park, indeed, it is heads and shoulders better in all ways, as it shows action, adventure, intrigue, human nature, horror, and yet does so without seeming trite and contrived, resorting to simple heros and villians with a wrapped up ending guaranteed to produce sequel after sequel.
Tolerent of others? I was simply expressing MY opinion and reactions to your statements concerning movies and the fact that not a decent movie (better than Jurassic Park) has been made since 93. Believe me, you made some pretty blanket statements, almost begging for a rebuttal given the nature of them. How anyone can say that Jurassic Park should rate as one of the top five films of all time is STILL a mystery to me, especially given the many other movies, even of that genre, that were far better and more developed. Yes, the special effects were good, but remove them and you have some pale leftovers. Granted, it would not be the same movie without them, but I am just pointing out the fact of how strong it really relies on this. Face it, the story was extremely weak.
I am still trying to figure out your line about the knowledge of audio. Frankly, it makes little sense even when read several times. Then again, the words "pious bigotry" derived from the content of that post of mine is a bit of a stretch as well.
What are some other action-adventure movies that I think ARE excellent? Well, stretching your interpretation of Action-Adventure, I think French Connection, Ronan, Jaws, The Great Escape, Midnight Express, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, The Bridge on the River Kwai, Goodfellas, Marathon Man,and even Die Hard.... all stand heads over Jurassic Park. That being said, I will say that I did find Jurassic Park at least entertaining..and a FUN SUMMER MOVIE... My contention with you was the absolute dismissal of so many movies and the rating of Jurassic Park in the Top Five of all time.
I still, despite your post, wholeheartedly disagree. Then again, it IS all opinion. Of course, some opinions can be more informed than others. And ironically enough, it is YOU that seem to be closed off to a variety of movies that you deem useless. See your quote and who is the real one that is exhibiting narrow minded pretense:
"...I like movies that avoid pretentious pomposity and excessive cuteness-for-the-sake-of-jaded-verbal-blather-for-blather's-sake...in other words, critics love these types of films, and I detest them...right along with the critics themselves. They all have the easiest jobs in the world, and yet are quite smug and unapologetic about their ill-gotten perks...and about being wrong all the time)."How do you interpret this quote as being open minded. Verbal blather? Is this what someone else might call DIALOG , one of the key factors in good drama, whether it be action, suspense, or drama? You have written off quite a few films my friend; indeed, you did not even mention the two I wrote about in my post; your post simply attacked me personally and provided no argument to support your statements.
kh
Look, if you think "Deliverance" is a better movie than Jurassic, then you're confirming what I suspected about your "lifechoice", shall we call it?...from the first sentence I read from you. It explains a lot.I don't need to waste my time justifying my words, which apparently affected you about as deeply as if YOU were the guy who had to squeel in "Deliverance", to you...because they speak for themselves.
We all like different movies, and if Jurassic is my favorite kind, then I restate my point: There's not been one since the first one that begins to approach it. Nothing YOU have said, or will say, convinces me otherwise, either.
I love the Die Hard movies, and feel the third in its series is quite good (almost as good as the first), but it does not approach the same realm as the first Jurassic.
I could have wasted several minutes and dug intellectually deeper (not that you could tell), but you are never going to see my point of view anyway, and that is fact...wheras I do see yours somewhat, and don't like it much.
Perhaps you earned a living writing for a small newspaper doing movie reviews at one time, and what I said struck a nerve? If that is the case, then get over it. Sucks to be you...
...indeed
kh
:(
You are fooling yourself if you think the goal of every film is to mentally stimulate you or wow you with fantastic dialogue or development.Some films are escapist fantasies ("fiction") designed to help us forget about "thinking" for a few hours and enjoy ourselves by living vicariously through screen characters. Their modern popularity attests to this success, and the public's desire for it.
If the goal of these films is to entertain, and they do it well, how are they any less masterworks of their genre than Art house films designed to intrigue and tease the mind that are similarly successful (and have a 95% sleep rate for me, personally)?
To filter all modern works through an elitist assumption about what a medium is or should aspire to is folly.
To see the-real-CarlEber excited about this film is great- that is exactly what any terrific film should do- excite and interest us!
Honestly I see no difference between his recommendation of this film and Victor K's recommendation of some obscure Italian art house flick from the 40's - both were inspired to recommend a film. Neither's taste should be questioned in absolute terms.
Please also remeber that the 100 or 200 Classic films people regard highly today are the product of an era that produced 10's of thousands of films (back in the day people went to the cinema several times per week, studios turned out flicks weekly). So comparing a modern movie to Rules of the Game (or some other masterwork of the past) is basically like comparing to the top .0001% of movies from that era.
Dan G.
You make very valid points, and I appreciate your objectivity here very much. Apparently, that is a rare find on this site...keep up the good work!
Yes, his review is PURE OPINION as are our responses, but to be fair isn't he as entitled to that level of enthusiasm? We should be able to share our differing viewpoints on film with greater decorum, don't you think? From my perspective, ranking movies is a VERY subjective process and I'm quite confident that everyone's lists would differ greatly. For instance, I'm a big fan of silent cinema, including the works of directors like Von Stroheim, Fritz Lang, Keaton, and Vidor, etc., and wide ranging Japanese, Chinese and European cinema of more recent vintage that's generally considered "art-house" fare, but I also like old Republic and Columbia serials from the 30's and 40's which have some of the most strained simplistic dialogue imaginable. The point is that I wouldn't want to rank genre against genre in a "best of" style run off because each form of cinema has it's own intrinsic value dependent upon the individual moods and motivations of it's audience.I'm not discounting obscure art house films by any means, but it seems like the defenders of this genre are often bitter about the lack of general public acceptance of their favorite small films. Admittedly, the major studios do little to promote these films and often they open at small venues in major metropolitan areas and then vannish within a week or two. Nevertheless, word of mouth can give a movie new life and intellectual quality needn't be sacrificed whenever elaborate effects are part of the production. IMHO, movies like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon prove that very point; the cream will rise to the top if it deserves to be there. Conversely, I don't know how many times I've gone to a critically acclaimed art-house film (Note: never, I mean NEVER go to a movie with the foreign pronunciation of food or attire mentioned in it's title) only to be bored to the point of nearly dozing off. Note: When you sleep through it you neither laugh nor cry, but you still kiss your bucks goodbye!
As far as "rewarding" movies, I would like to reiterate, for most people I have to believe that it depends on one's mood and tastes at the time. I would no more want to eat rich gourmet cuisine at every meal than I would want to chow down on an Egg McMuffin every day. Variety and different flavors are what makes food as well as movies a treat. At least that's my opinion. YMMV.
AuPh
***Conversely, I don't know how many times I've gone to a critically acclaimed art-house film (Note: never, I mean NEVER go to a movie with the foreign pronunciation of food or attire mentioned in it's title) only to be bored to the point of nearly dozing off.***Yeah, they need more predictability, violence, killing, car chases, special effects, and explosions...then you'll stay awake.
I like good plots as much as anyone perhaps more than most, but some of the highly rated heavily relationship-oriented melodramas are like 35mm doses of Sominex (i.e., in rare cases, major films like The English Patient and Altman's Pret-a-Porter, were undoubtably shot and released in 70mm Sominex)! Fortunately, my wife prefers action flicks over some of the bogus fare which passes for romantic intrigue or intellectual stimulation (i.e., for instance, we'd both rather see a lively Jackie Chan or Jet Li production than anything Merchant Ivory ever released).FWIW, I was hoping that my previous comment about "...movies with the foreign pronunciation of food or attire ..." would appear facetious; many foreign films are quite good in fact. However, a bad foreign movie is no better than a bad American movie and in the long run it still all boils down to personal taste.
AuPh
I am finding it hard to believe how I suddenly got grouped with "art house" movies. Is it because of the films "You can count on me" and "Memento"? I would classify neither of these fine films as "art house" films; they are both simply well-done movies that were made in the eight years since Jurassic Park. Indeed, I find it simply amazing that no one took umbrage with the statement that NO GOOD MOVIES HAVE BEEN MADE SINCE THAT TIME, which was one of the most blanket statements I have read in quite a while, and deserved a barbed response, given the nature of the blanket statement. Actually, if I had made such a statement, I would expect anyone with a knowledge of film to come out to call me on it, as it is patently absurd.Meanwhile, this person has now resorted to personal attack after personal attack, calling me "stupid" and an "idiot." I find this highly ironic given the nature of the posts between the two of us and what he found unappealing about my original post.
By the way, I detest nothing more than a pretentious movie that rests on the shock and laurels of the art mystique without having any real substance. I have seen many that suffer from this malady. Then again, I do not write of the entire genre. It's many of the small independent film makers that have kept cinema alive. The Sundance Film festival award winners and honorees in the last 10 years are excellent examples of low budget movies that still have some honesty without pretense.
the-real-CarlEber has written off quite a lot of films with the simple application and push of SUBMIT. Indeed, it is his opinion. But an opinion so ground in stone deserves a rebuttal. My apologies to those that I offended.
kh
I am proud to be in the company of someone as articulate and open minded as you, Audiophilander. I don't appreciate Crouching Tiger the way you do, but I do appreciate the points you make, and they are well taken. You hit the nail right one the head!I agree, anyone who is miopic in their support of "art house" movies will be perpetually angry (because most people "don't get" that genre, and like you, might sleep through them), and I feel such an obsession does indeed stem from a false sense of superiority...from elitism, from bigotry.
If one craves intellectual stimulation from their entertainment, to the point that it must all be "high art", then I suggest that one is not being intellectually stimulated in the rest of their lives...thus their lives are a complete waste of space on this planet!
One should use intellect to contribute to society through producing something. One should not use intellect to impose self isolation by obsessing over such a small genre of cinema (as "art house" films), and then being angry that most people do not agree with them.
This is misguided and contrary. There's nothing honorable about being contrarian for the sake of being so, and then allowing it to breed anger and bigotry as Kelly does.
I once ran across another Kelly who was just as much of an idiot...but that must be a coincidence, right?
his Jurassic Park views are consistent with his inability to spell, punctuate, and write correctly.
piss judgement on me how? Cause you use spell check? As I've pointed out elsewhere, only little old ladies whine about spelling errors...and besides, I'd take you on any day of the week in any spelling contest you like, you little wuss. Pipe your pompousity back up where it came from!
not my fault that you can't spell, punctuate or write correctly. In addition, it's not my fault that these are some of the characteristics which define the imbecile, idiot and moron.
...is what epitomizes the whiner, the wuss, the pansy. I notice you had to get your little dig in only 10 minutes after I replied....GET A FU****G LIFE!I could write better than you from a coma, you little weener...and your own inadequacy is the source of your rage here...refill your thorazine prescription, before the other half of your pathetic excuse for a brain hemorrhages!
Carl -Why don't you stop while you're ahead here? Most of your retorts really damage your own position; you were far better off with more mystery surrounding your persona. In comparison, the unknown and unsaid speaks volumes more than the misspoken and ill-conceived. Of course, I am not saying to hold your tongue, as this forum should be open to all comers; yet must the tongue (keyboard) paint such a broad stroke, with the subtlety of a Stegosaurus floundering about in a bog?
When your blood pressure rises, the quality of the content, not to mention the spelling and grammar, goes further into the depths of mediocrity. You are right in that the occasional typo and misplaced word should go overlooked, especially in a forum such as this; yet when sentence structure, syntax, spelling, usage, and content all become riddled with misuse and errors, it starts to convey an inability to express yourself in a lucid fashion, something that does speak for intellectual capabilities, if not take-home salary.
Your insults become more petty and less creative, and just delve into personal attacks of the nature of a third grader on a playground who is not let on the Whirligig during the 10 O clock recess.
Yes, opinion counts for much, but there are some objective standards that pertain to even films that are in less stringent categories, designed only to entertain or bring in the ducats. Granted, I have been entertained by a few of this type, perhaps even Jurassic Park in some ways, but to lambaste the entire "art house" genre, simply because it fails to excite your senses, is really overstepping the lines of good reason.
I could imagine you watching Jim Jarmusch's first feature, "Stranger Than Paradise," and falling sound asleep, due to the one shot takes and sparse dialogue. Still, this is no reason to plow over all who appreciate the wit and deadpan script and production. My bet is you have seen very few films of this nature to pass a learned opinion on the entire genre. Still, it is your every right to do so and so you do.
Frankly, I dont know why I wandered in here (this thread) again. Maybe I saw ole Rich's name and wondered what succinct morsel he had let fly. After reading another one of your responses, I found myself drawn in yet again.
I guess I should have learned something in the last exchange.
kh
pontificating that I somehow don't earn enough money to be intelligent? Gee mr. mobile homeless, I thought it was you who evolved from a trailer park (what with your name and all).Could it be that you are envious that my thread has gotten more responses than any of yours have ever gotten? Nahh, you're not that shallow...
"Of course, I am not saying to hold your tongue"...oh really? Bullshit...you're a liar.
OH, AND MY BLOOD PRESSURE IS LOWER THAN YOURS OR ANYONE'S HERE...but thanks anyway for appearing to pretend to be concerned about my health.
And btw, mr. Lucid, what's a "Whirligig"...is that a merry-go-round, but in fairyland?
The idea that you would imply that I am illiterate, that I don't know how to use syntax....this is all simply an attack on me personally, and has nothing to do with anything I have said about films. You know it, I know it, and the American people know it!
And besides, who in hell are you to criticize me personally, or to hint that I should hold my tongue (whenever someone like you says, "not that you should do such and such"...the last thing you mean is "not")?
I bet if we were standing face to face, you would not be so inclined to make such observations aloud...(And if you can't follow THAT syntax...perhaps natural selection will come knocking at your door soon, you never know!)
Both you and your bed buddy Rich are pathetic. When either of you (not that I don't know you're the same little fool) have something that's actually substantive to say about the Jurassic Park series, it might be worth reading...but I doubt it. Slither back to your small town newspaper, where you feel more comfortable talking about film with whomever might be interested in what you have to say.
Criticize my syntax and spelling all you like, I welcome it, I'm not perfect...it's your way of coping with the fact that you can't adequately dispute my thoughts about films...I understand, really.
So go dream your "Deliverance" butt-rape dreams, and be happy, my little super freak.
You might have noticed that my responces to you contained alot of sexual references and inuendos. The reason is and I'll be the first to admit this is that I'm sexually confused. I admit it, when you first signed your name I thought you were a girl. Kelly is a girls name afterall. The thing is now I don't care. I find myself strangely attracted to you. You are smarter than me and I am going to assume that you make more money then I do.That pretty much means you could support me both financially and emotionally.
If you're interested, please email me privately. Maybe I could kick your ass and maybe I don't care anymore. I want you and that matters the most to me. My hope and dream is that you feel the same way.
And that's something the two people above won't do. Why? Who knows. Who is the imposter? Only a real hacker, or a moderator, could know. I do not.My mistake was not checking the little box (like I just now did when I changed my moniker) so that no one could pose as me (not that some Asylum insider couldn't skirt their rules as they wish...I have a history of pushing them into such behaviour at other sites.)
I admit, the above is quite humerous, and I did find it funny. It does almost look like something I could have posted, so bravo, mr. or miz imposter. However, IT'S THE LAST TIME YOU CAN IMPERSONATE ME...and I apologize to the dozens of others who I am sure would have also loved to try, but now you won't "officially" get your chance.
So true as well. There is no absolute reference for what is good or bad music/film etc. But I wish there where more films inbetween the joke a minute/pop culture/slick Hollywood film and the often boring "Art"/Pretentious movies. Music on this planet has enough diversity. Film however is not representative of the talent that is around. I suppose this is primarily caused by the high costs?
(nt)
From my point of view that is ofcourse.
when all those dynosaur roaming peacfully together for the first time on the screen...My gosh... this is magical..then I cried.The second one tarnished the first one. this time around,,,no thanks...
like you, (the-real-CarlEber), fargo is one of my very best film and JP 1 is not that far behind at all.
Well, to keep this great image and memory alive, I refuse to see JP3.
Just like Die hard...first one was a classic, Diehard two was above average and Die hard three became a trash....
I guess best series so far is Indiana Johns(spelling?) or Jaws
We disagree on several points...
I enjoyed seeing JP3 ae well as the first two. It was fun. That's all I cared about. So there.Rob C
You make no distinction at all between 1 and 3, hmm? Well, try and write a better review than I did, about how they're equal, then..."so there"...
The first one is the best because there's lots of suspense and the raptors are used to a chilling effect. The second one has a good amount of suspense as well with more raptors and adds a T-Rex in the city. The third one while lacking in the suspense department makes up for it with smart raptors and flying dinos. The big T-Rex- crunching Spinosaurus left me kinda cold though. That was probably my main complaint in JP3. It just seemed like the big Spinosaurus should've been chasing bigger meals. Also, it was nice to take a break from the Jeff Goldblum character. I preferred Sam Neil's performance as the more respectful scientist. I always liked how he knows when and when not to run; especially when nobody else listens. I probably wouldn't mind another sequel. You just can't beat the ferocity of dinosaurs. Now all we need is a pack of raptors in the city.Rob C
I thought that t-rex in the city was the weakest point of part 2, too much like Godzilla in Tokyo, yada yada.I agree on Jeff Goldblum. Has anybody ever noticed that he always plays himself, rather than actually acting in a role?
I also agree on Spinosaurus. The main thing that was lacking with it (and is also true of the whole movie), is the sound. T-Rex in the first movie sounded 10x bigger and louder than Spinosaurus. I admit I've not heard the DTS soundtrack, but even still, I just know even the DTS version would never measure up to the first JP.
I saw it in a fairly new theater so the sound was pretty good. Plenty loud. I do remember the first movie's sound being really jacked up in the theaters. You really need to catch it in a better theater.
T-Rex in the city was way cooler than any form of Godzilla in Tokyo or New York.Rob C
***The First Jurassic is the number 5 movie of all time, from where I sit.***Go sit somewhere else.
Ok, but you may not like where it is...
With his comment on the first one (back when JP1 came out)
"they're making a porno version of Jurassic Park, its going to be called 'Jurassic PORK'!"That was then, and even now I still can't believe I dropped $20 (sans popcorn) for me and the wife on that bomber (#3 wasn't eve what my wife calls a WFV- wait for video) #1 was great for the use of motion blur in regards to the GCI stuff, but other wise, I'd rather see Jurassic Pork!!
Dman
Your review is probably more fun than the movie itself.
It might as well be an extension of all the other JP movies. Idjuts go to deadly place, end up dino food.I've seen porn movies with more plot.
But, yes, the FX are amazing, and it's a good summer movie (i.e. you end up along for the ride nonetheless).
Not worth the $48 it took for the family to see, but would be well worth matinee or discount seats.
Oh yes, I never pay full price for a movie, ever.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: