My brother and I re watched this shit last night and besides the gymnastics it's not that bad. The San Diego stuff is goofy, but wild entertaining.

I mean Spielberg directed the fuck outta that movie. Jeff Goldblum held that shit down. Vince Vaughn and Julianne Moore did strong supporting protagonist roles. The story was solid.

So why the hate?

Is it better than the first? No. But the shit is still dope and entertaining. Help me understand the hate PTP.

That's really the only reason.

You can point to the gymnastics or the effects (which weirdly are less impressive) or the finale (which feels more like a Godzilla remake audition than an actual high-stakes finale) for "reasons why," but overall it's a lot of fun IMO. Anyone who'd watched this *before* the original likely would have felt blown away-- there's just some natural sequel imagery carryover which makes it feel "less fresh" to those who worship the OG (as they should). It's still damn good tho.

And there's no denying that the sequence with the RV, culminating in the absolutely unbelievable Moore-on-the-glass scene, is among the best action that Spielberg has ever shot.

other than "it sucks". So thank you for that.

>That's really the only reason.
>
>You can point to the gymnastics or the effects (which weirdly
>are less impressive) or the finale (which feels more like a
>Godzilla remake audition than an actual high-stakes finale)
>for "reasons why," but overall it's a lot of fun IMO.

And the gymnastics is a very brief moment as bad as it is.

The San Diego stuff was a throwback to Sir Aurthur Conan Doyle's "The Lost World" (as is the title itself), and as goofy as it is I can forgive ambition over laziness.

Anyone
>who'd watched this *before* the original likely would have
>felt blown away-- there's just some natural sequel imagery
>carryover which makes it feel "less fresh" to those who
>worship the OG (as they should). It's still damn good tho.
>

If the first was an adventure movie with elements of sci-fi and horror, this one is an action adventure movie where the main characters are just trying to survive. In fact 90% of the anti-heroes who work for the antagonist are men of action and they die.

>And there's no denying that the sequence with the RV,
>culminating in the absolutely unbelievable Moore-on-the-glass
>scene, is among the best action that Spielberg has ever shot.
>

Son that shit was straight from a Hitchcock movie. In terms of just suspense alone the movie has multiple great sequences.

it's not a good film. it departs from the books in all the wrong ways and takes a campy detour in tone from the first film that doesn't even remotely work. if the hate for it was because of sequelcism, that would have subsided by now and people would consider it a classic alongside the first film. no one does. it very well may be spielberg's worst film.

Personally couldn't care less about loyalty to the books (the first movie certainly isn't loyal to the book).

There's more good than bad in the film. And if it is Spielberg's worst (it's not, but it's probably bottom 5), that says way more about Spielberg than about this film.

I read the book summary online and the general story is the same for the most part up until San Diego. Character relationships and motivations are slightly different as well as little things in the plot, but seriously if that's why people hate it then please...

jurassic park was rereleased in 3D imax a year or two ago. it did very well. where's the public demand to rerelease the lost world? where are the studio execs looking to cash in on another rerelease?

this is the spielberg-directed sequel to one of the biggest blockbusters of all time. it did very well at the box office itself. yet there's zero interest in seeing it again or releasing it again from anyone. ZERO. compare this to the riots that would take place if they rereleased star wars and not empire or jedi.

i'm glad you fellas enjoyed it, and i'd be happy to go more into comparisons between it and the book, but the bottom line is that the lost world is an awful movie. your personal opinions don't trump all available evidence.

I still have yet to hear outside of three things:

-The gymnastics

-The San Diego stuff

-It stands in the shadow of the first film

None of the above make it a BAD movie.

I mean we can go though a number box office successes that no one would go to see again.

And you're greatly over exaggerating the success of the re-release. It grossed $21 million on a $10 million budget.

I always thought The Matrix would be awesome re-released for Imax and 3D. But, maybe they would want to do the whole trilogy which I don't think anyone would green light as the sequels were far inferior.

but yeah, there are a lot of good movies that aren't going to be put back in theaters, still doesn't mean we can can't enjoy revisiting them on Blu-ray or DVD.


I view Lost World more of a Temple of Doom from Raiders drop off in quality, still enjoyable tho.

we all have terrible movies we enjoy, and that's okay. pretending like those terrible movies are good just because we personally enjoy them is dumb.

I have yet to hear a compelling argument from anyone why this is flat out bad aside from some real problems that don't drag the movie down as whole.

read. absorb. stop trolling.

NM

He likes it. You don't. That's fine.

I like it too. That's fine.

Everything is fine.

and had an enjoyable time. i don't understand why people consider this a bad movie."

that's an opinion.

"my brother and i watched the lost world last and had an enjoyable time. i don't understand why people consider this a bad movie."

*several fans of the JP franchise post an avalanche of reasons why the movie didn't work and evidence that it hasn't aged well in public opinion*

"i have yet to hear a single compelling argument why this is a bad movie."

trolling.

But it was NEW and it *DID* wow you.

The second one did not wow you and had the problems people bring up.

I saw it a week after it came out at a theater in downtown San Diego. The dinosaurs ran by the movie theatre in the movie.(Horton Plaza.)

Well it was shot in Pasadena, but it felt like they did, and I think some second unit establishing shots are from downtown San Diego.
http://www.movie-locations.com/movies/l/lostworld.html#.VW5WjGApSJI

Jurassic Park, outside of the advancements in effects has never done anything for me.

I've had this conversation more in the past couple weeks than ever before.

I hate this movie.

The scene I think of first is Jeff Goldblum's adopted daughter doing gymnastics on raptors in the barn. It is a scene that is "Peter Parker emo dancing in Spider-Man 3 bad".

But that's not all.

The entire sequence in the city is line crossing for JP, it should have never happened. And the whole piece of getting to the city, with a full grown T rex on the ship and escaping the way they did, is very poorly explained.

Also, the best scene of the film, when the 2 dinosaurs are attacking the trailers, is just a rehashed, but less entertaining version of the scene in the first film.

Sure, Goldblum, Moore, Vaughn give good performances, and the movie has been unfairly compared to the original which is a classic among classics, but it really isn't that good a movie in the end.

That's my take. I LOVE Jurassic Park, hate Lost World, dislike JP3 (don't get me wrong, this movie is BAD too, but it kind of fits into the goofy good to an extent), so I'm looking at Jurassic World like this: o_O.

and let's not forget the t. rex drinking from the swimming pool and, "daddy, there's a dinosaur outside my room." so many moments that were supposed to draw laughs or cheers or be crowd pleasing that just fell terribly flat or didn't work.

the fact that any of this needs to be spelled out is absurd. this is borderline trolling.

>The scene I think of first is Jeff Goldblum's adopted daughter
>doing gymnastics on raptors in the barn. It is a scene that
>is "Peter Parker emo dancing in Spider-Man 3 bad".

I actually like the emo dancing more than the gymnastics, lol. But this is a given. Even fans of this movie hate this part.

>The entire sequence in the city is line crossing for JP, it
>should have never happened. And the whole piece of getting to
>the city, with a full grown T rex on the ship and escaping the
>way they did, is very poorly explained.

I won't argue with any of this. I think it's fun and certainly visually terrific, but I can see why some wouldn't like this.

>Also, the best scene of the film, when the 2 dinosaurs are
>attacking the trailers, is just a rehashed, but less
>entertaining version of the scene in the first film.

See, this to me? That's where we part ways. I think this stands on its own. The scene with Moore on the glass *alone* is worth the price of admission imo. It's fucking brilliant.

>That's my take. I LOVE Jurassic Park, hate Lost World,
>dislike JP3 (don't get me wrong, this movie is BAD too, but it
>kind of fits into the goofy good to an extent), so I'm looking
>at Jurassic World like this: o_O.

JP3 is far more forgettable, just due to lacking the visual splendor of the first two. I'll be interested to see if Trevorrow can capture the visuals-- the first trailer certainly seemed to indicate he's going big, which is a good thing (haven't seen the rest). I remain hopeful.

where he said that whole movie was about him getting to do the T-Rex in San Diego scene

the movie was a money grab (which isn't bad cuz most are)

the gymnastic scene was just as bad as the "its a unix system" scene to that's a push

it (the movie) was just kinda there

I think "HATE* to too strong a word to use

Which is more in reference to the 1925 adaptation of the book with a brontosaurus in London.

It was goofy, but still entertaining.

>

obviously first one the most

not sure between 2 and 3, I was entertained enough by both of them tho. Been a while since I have seen them and thought about rewatching with my son before World which he wants me to take him to. I don't even remember this gymnastics scene but now am intrigued. haha

I think something about the spectacle curdles a bit with a movie like this - but overall I got no issue w/it.

and coming up empty.

It's to the point where, fairly or unfairly, I skipped JP III and have no interest in the new one because of The Lost World.

I saw it but I don't remember getting much joy out of it. And when I saw it I felt like Spielberg probably felt the same way. Don't know for sure, but that's how I felt at the time.

Someday I will get around to seeing it again.

________________________________________________________________________________
It takes two.

I thought it was good. Yeah, the gymnastic scene is a bit much but overall, I was entertained by the film.



Since 1976

Therefore, way less tension.

still holds up.

V.

The trailer obviously and also the scene with the raptors picking off the hikers later on.

It wasn't awe-inspiring or as witty as the first one, but thankfully the kids weren't as prominent as the first one.

As a standalone movie it's not bad. If I had to rate it, I would give it a B. As far as a sequel to Jurassic Park, it may not be what most fans expected.

Not sure how it would hold up today. It's certainly better than the third one, which was just boring and forgettable.

Pretty ehh on this new one.

the action, the story, imo altogether better. I thought bringing the dinosaurs into the city, though entertaining, was kinda campy.

i read the original Jurassic Park book after I saw the first movie. loved it so much I then read Lost World. then I saw the Lost World movie and wasn't feeling it. I never read the book first now if I can help it.