Search
Search results
Jack Horner recommended Jurassic Park (1993) in Movies (curated)
Rebecca Billcliff (2409 KP) rated Jurassic Park III (2001) in Movies
Nov 17, 2019 (Updated Nov 17, 2019)
Entertaining.
For a third instalment, many years later, it not bad. Great to see some more classic Dr Grant, and the Spinausaurus is badass! The stuff with the raptor is a little out there, and some scripting issues, but it is with a watch.
It did seem to have divided JP fans, so check it out, and see what you think.
"Allan."
It did seem to have divided JP fans, so check it out, and see what you think.
"Allan."
Lee KM Pallatina (951 KP) rated Jurassic Park (1993) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
JURASSIC PARK (the good one)
Back in 1993 Steven Spielberg breathed life into everybody's childhood obsession with dinosaurs with ground breaking CGI during its release which still holds up today.
Jurassic park is story of a mans dream to bring back the Jurassic age on an (presumably) uninhabited island. After inviting his grandchildren, Dr alan Grant an archaeologist, ellie satler another archaeologist and ian malcolm who's just along for the ride to witness this ground-breaking creation,they quickly become endangered when the parks security parameters fail and they have to outrun and out smart their way to safety with a dinosaur at every turn, and a kitchen scene you'll never forget (that's right, kitchen!)
Jurassic park is story of a mans dream to bring back the Jurassic age on an (presumably) uninhabited island. After inviting his grandchildren, Dr alan Grant an archaeologist, ellie satler another archaeologist and ian malcolm who's just along for the ride to witness this ground-breaking creation,they quickly become endangered when the parks security parameters fail and they have to outrun and out smart their way to safety with a dinosaur at every turn, and a kitchen scene you'll never forget (that's right, kitchen!)
David McK (3425 KP) rated Jurassic Park (Jurassic Park, #1) in Books
Jan 28, 2019 (Updated Oct 1, 2022)
The first of the late Michael Crichton books that I've read, and this is still the best.
While the film of the same name is very good, it's really only a watered down version of the story contained within here, with several of the characters (most notably Alan Grant and John Hammond) undergoing a personality/trait change between print and screen. Presumably for reasons of cost and running time, the film also leaves out some of the dinosaurs and events of the books (eg the Pterodactyl lodge, although that is later used in the film Jurassic Park III).
For me, this was further proof of what I've always found: that films based on books are never quite as good as the source material.
While the film of the same name is very good, it's really only a watered down version of the story contained within here, with several of the characters (most notably Alan Grant and John Hammond) undergoing a personality/trait change between print and screen. Presumably for reasons of cost and running time, the film also leaves out some of the dinosaurs and events of the books (eg the Pterodactyl lodge, although that is later used in the film Jurassic Park III).
For me, this was further proof of what I've always found: that films based on books are never quite as good as the source material.
murphydave (35 KP) rated Supergods: Our World in the Age of the Superhero in Books
Jul 7, 2017
Great history of the comic book superhero (1 more)
Interesting insights and analysis
Magical self autobiographical history of the superhero.
If you're a fan of Grant Morrison'writing or just interested in the history of superheroes then this is a fascinating read. Be warned it gets into some pretty weird territory in terms of the autobiographical side of things, delving into the world of psychedelic chaos magic - take it with a pinch of salt if you will, or dismiss it as the writings of a deranged mad man, but you can't dismiss Morrison's influence on the comic book scene (he's definitely one of the triumvirate of superstars, along side Alan Moore and Neil Gaimen, whose work deserves much more credit than he gets in the mainstream imo) - it's really interesting to know the headspace he was in when coming up with a lot of his ground breaking ideas. Interesting for anyone interested in the creative process.
Lea (77 KP) rated Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Can we just take a moment and mention THAT scene!!!? Yes, you know the one I mean.
A longtime fan of the Jurassic films I never thought I'd find myself sat in the cinema crying at one of the films the way I did this one.
But the scene with the Brachiosaurus on the dock as the ship containing the rescued dinosaurs leaves as the aftermath of the volcanic eruption envelopes the island once and for all was something wasn't it?... To say that scene was traumatising and heartbreaking is an understatement, I haven't been that affected by a dinosaurs death since The Land Before time. Can we also mention the fact that the Brachiosaurus that was seen is noted to be the exact same one Alan Grant and Ellie Sattler encountered in Jurassic Park.
Overall it was a brilliant film and echoed it's original predecessors in a fitting way. I'm hoping they roll out a 3rd installment
A longtime fan of the Jurassic films I never thought I'd find myself sat in the cinema crying at one of the films the way I did this one.
But the scene with the Brachiosaurus on the dock as the ship containing the rescued dinosaurs leaves as the aftermath of the volcanic eruption envelopes the island once and for all was something wasn't it?... To say that scene was traumatising and heartbreaking is an understatement, I haven't been that affected by a dinosaurs death since The Land Before time. Can we also mention the fact that the Brachiosaurus that was seen is noted to be the exact same one Alan Grant and Ellie Sattler encountered in Jurassic Park.
Overall it was a brilliant film and echoed it's original predecessors in a fitting way. I'm hoping they roll out a 3rd installment
Mark @ Carstairs Considers (2200 KP) rated Jurassic Park (Jurassic Park, #1) in Books
Jul 13, 2018
Knowing What Is Coming Hurts, but Book Holds Up Well
Thereâs a mysterious project on an island off the coast of Coast Rica. When John Hammond, the owner, invites Drs. Alan Grant, Ellie Sattler, and Ian Malcolm to visit the island, they discover that Hammond has cloned dinosaurs and intends to open his park for tourists to enjoy. However, despite the high security measures that are in place, the visitors begin to see potential problems. When the problems become more than potential, will anyone survive?
It is hard to go into this book not knowing what is really happening thanks to the movies, and that puts the reader of today at a disadvantage since the book takes forever with the set up and big reveal. However, once the dinosaurs get free, this is a page turning book that is impossible to put down. While the character names are the same, they are different from how they are portrayed in the movie, and fans of the films will recognize scenes from the sequels that originated here. Naturally, there are more great scenes and tense moments than could be included in the movie, and the climax here is so much better. I could have done without some of the descriptions of the violence in the book, but they didnât surprise me. Some lectures, while giving us something to think about, do slow things down again late in the book. Overall, this is still a very enjoyable read.
It is hard to go into this book not knowing what is really happening thanks to the movies, and that puts the reader of today at a disadvantage since the book takes forever with the set up and big reveal. However, once the dinosaurs get free, this is a page turning book that is impossible to put down. While the character names are the same, they are different from how they are portrayed in the movie, and fans of the films will recognize scenes from the sequels that originated here. Naturally, there are more great scenes and tense moments than could be included in the movie, and the climax here is so much better. I could have done without some of the descriptions of the violence in the book, but they didnât surprise me. Some lectures, while giving us something to think about, do slow things down again late in the book. Overall, this is still a very enjoyable read.
Rebecca Billcliff (2409 KP) rated Jurassic Park (1993) in Movies
Dec 4, 2019
Dino-mite Film!
Rearley does a film age well, particularly in tge 90s, but the quality of the anamatronics, CGI and practicĂ l effects let's this one stand the test of time (to an extent anyway).
Wealthy zoo lover John Hammond has invested his cash in the extraction of DNA from fossalised amber, lesing to the creation of dinosaurs!
As you can imagine, this is no walk in the park, and after a "incident" resulting in the death of a park worker, the insurance company want an investigation, and outside approval to declare the park safe to open.
Enter Drs Allan Grant ("Alan!") And Ellie Sattler, renowned paeleogolotists (the latter being a paeliobotpnist, no idea if that is spelt right...) As well as Dr Ian Malcolm.
They, along with the lawyer and John's grand kids take the tour of the park, but things do not go according to plan.
Filled with suspense, memorable moments, and more fake science than you can shake a fossle at, it is an epic tale of survival as "nature finds a way" to break it's bonds and sick a big middle claw up at OSHA.
I loved this film when I first saw it, and now, decades later, I still do. Even though I know the script by heart, I still find myself on the edge if my seat, holding my breath.
Parodied in thousands of other forms of media, I know I am not the only one.
I give this film 10 severed Samulal L. Jackson arms out if 10.
Wealthy zoo lover John Hammond has invested his cash in the extraction of DNA from fossalised amber, lesing to the creation of dinosaurs!
As you can imagine, this is no walk in the park, and after a "incident" resulting in the death of a park worker, the insurance company want an investigation, and outside approval to declare the park safe to open.
Enter Drs Allan Grant ("Alan!") And Ellie Sattler, renowned paeleogolotists (the latter being a paeliobotpnist, no idea if that is spelt right...) As well as Dr Ian Malcolm.
They, along with the lawyer and John's grand kids take the tour of the park, but things do not go according to plan.
Filled with suspense, memorable moments, and more fake science than you can shake a fossle at, it is an epic tale of survival as "nature finds a way" to break it's bonds and sick a big middle claw up at OSHA.
I loved this film when I first saw it, and now, decades later, I still do. Even though I know the script by heart, I still find myself on the edge if my seat, holding my breath.
Parodied in thousands of other forms of media, I know I am not the only one.
I give this film 10 severed Samulal L. Jackson arms out if 10.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Daybreakers (2009) in Movies
Nov 15, 2019
A great take on a vampire film
I can't believe I've never seen this film before. Not only do I love vampire films, I also have a soft spot for Sam Neill and Ethan Hawke, so I should've watched this a long time ago!
This is a very refreshing and original take on a vampire film. It's not an idea I've seen before, and it works really well. The background to the story and vampires is flashed over so quickly during the opening scenes and credits, and at a 1hr40 runtime this film really doesn't mess around. The vampire world looks great and I loved the grayscale and darker camera shots whenever the vampires were on screen, it made a stark contrast to the scenes set in daylight. This is such a different version of vampires to what we're used to and there are parts of this where you almost feel sorry for them.
Ethan Hawke is wonderful as Ed, and Sam Neill is deliciously wicked as he has been in other films, despite the fact I cant stop seeing him as Alan Grant! I think Willem Dafoe was a tad underused thought. The best thing I loved about this film was the gore and physical effects. It's an 18 for a reason and I loved all of the blood and guts. Admittedly some of the gore seemed a little over the top and ridiculous towards the end, but this just made it all the more hilariously enjoyable.
This film isn't perfect. I think some of the CGI is dodgy in parts which is a shame as the rest of the effects are rather good. And the sub plot about Sam Neill's daughter seemed a little flimsy. But aside from this, I think Daybreakers is a great underrated vampire film with a unique story, that seems to have gone without the recognition it deserves.
This is a very refreshing and original take on a vampire film. It's not an idea I've seen before, and it works really well. The background to the story and vampires is flashed over so quickly during the opening scenes and credits, and at a 1hr40 runtime this film really doesn't mess around. The vampire world looks great and I loved the grayscale and darker camera shots whenever the vampires were on screen, it made a stark contrast to the scenes set in daylight. This is such a different version of vampires to what we're used to and there are parts of this where you almost feel sorry for them.
Ethan Hawke is wonderful as Ed, and Sam Neill is deliciously wicked as he has been in other films, despite the fact I cant stop seeing him as Alan Grant! I think Willem Dafoe was a tad underused thought. The best thing I loved about this film was the gore and physical effects. It's an 18 for a reason and I loved all of the blood and guts. Admittedly some of the gore seemed a little over the top and ridiculous towards the end, but this just made it all the more hilariously enjoyable.
This film isn't perfect. I think some of the CGI is dodgy in parts which is a shame as the rest of the effects are rather good. And the sub plot about Sam Neill's daughter seemed a little flimsy. But aside from this, I think Daybreakers is a great underrated vampire film with a unique story, that seems to have gone without the recognition it deserves.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Jurassic World: Dominion (2022) in Movies
Oct 13, 2022
Just to be clear from the get go, a lot of Jurassic World Dominion is pure nonsense, and is yet another entry in this series that is worlds apart from Jurassic Park in terms of quality, and what it's trying to be. It has the courtesy at least, to be slightly better than the garbage fire of it's predecessor, Fallen Kingdom, and even a cynical bastard like me can admit to enjoying the extended presence of some of the legacy characters, but it's not enough to distract from the aspects that drag it down.
Perhaps most prominently, is the promise of dinosaurs rampaging the world with regular society, teased at the end of the last movie. There are parts here and there that show what that would be like, but the main bulk of the plot is focused on a potential famine cause by giant locusts. It's mind boggling why this is the main narrative, when all people want to see is massive dinosaurs fucking shit up in the suburbs or whatever. Jurassic Park is easily in my top 10 films of all time, a movie that I think of fondly, and even more so when Dominion is giving us James Bond style villains. How did we get to this point?
As mentioned, it's nice to have the likes of Alan Grant, Ellie Satler, and Ian Malcolm back in the mix, but it mainly serves as a reminder of how little chemistry Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard share. It's also ludicrous at this point, how every dinosaur will stop in it's tracks everytime Pratt's character does the dumb hand thing.
It's not all bad, honestly. Some of the action scenes are pretty fun, and a lot of the dinosaurs are puppeteered. When it's time to fall back on CGI, it's as good as it gets, and some of the new dinosaurs introduced are memorable.
It's another entry in this franchise that will no doubt have kids hitting the ceiling, but I personally think it's a shame that the quality has dipped to make room for crowd pleasing spectacle. Still though, it's better than Fallen Kingdom, so I'll take that as a small victory.
Perhaps most prominently, is the promise of dinosaurs rampaging the world with regular society, teased at the end of the last movie. There are parts here and there that show what that would be like, but the main bulk of the plot is focused on a potential famine cause by giant locusts. It's mind boggling why this is the main narrative, when all people want to see is massive dinosaurs fucking shit up in the suburbs or whatever. Jurassic Park is easily in my top 10 films of all time, a movie that I think of fondly, and even more so when Dominion is giving us James Bond style villains. How did we get to this point?
As mentioned, it's nice to have the likes of Alan Grant, Ellie Satler, and Ian Malcolm back in the mix, but it mainly serves as a reminder of how little chemistry Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard share. It's also ludicrous at this point, how every dinosaur will stop in it's tracks everytime Pratt's character does the dumb hand thing.
It's not all bad, honestly. Some of the action scenes are pretty fun, and a lot of the dinosaurs are puppeteered. When it's time to fall back on CGI, it's as good as it gets, and some of the new dinosaurs introduced are memorable.
It's another entry in this franchise that will no doubt have kids hitting the ceiling, but I personally think it's a shame that the quality has dipped to make room for crowd pleasing spectacle. Still though, it's better than Fallen Kingdom, so I'll take that as a small victory.