Why?
-
Zippo_123 — 10 years ago(November 22, 2015 01:57 PM)
Totally agree, well said. I personally felt the characters were much more 'alive' in this one, there was more energy, felt more real than the 'movie-ish' feel of the LW, never had any excitement in it. Malcolm is a terrible lead because he's always semi-ironic, which is nice for a support role, but not convenient for a lead role in a suspence movie. Alan Grant is great, believable, brings tension and focus. The plot in III is much more cohesive and exciting. LW just felt like a pretentious mess, this one delivers on what it wants to be: an exciting adventure movie.
-
ricky_may-47537 — 10 years ago(December 07, 2015 06:49 PM)
I respect your opinion, but I politely disagree. I personally favor LW over JP 3; the scenes on the island are extremely fun to watch, and the characters were all memorable in their own ways; I admit I dont consider myself a Nick Van Owen fan at all, but Roland Tembo more than makes up for that; he's a total badass like Muldoon in the first one, and his scenes really raise the movie up several notches for me (I always felt JP 3 lacked that; having a strong, badass character, though Grant kinda took up that role as the film progressed). Also, while most seem to favor Grant over Malcolm, he's actually my favorite character (he was my favorite in the first film as well, so having him as the main hero in LW was just icing on the cake). I liked how they made him vastly different from the first movie as well; no longer the wisecracking jokester as his experiences have sobered him, and I rather liked the cynical side they gave him).
Also, the scenes in San Diego are just spectacular (most seem to hate them, but I really feel they fit with the rest of the film, and it was great seeing Ludlow get his comeuppence; such a despicable character; I always felt JP 3 lacked a good villain, but its a minor flaw and just a personal peeve of mine). Also, the film captures the spirit of the original, and basically creates its own in the process; the first is a light hearted, if sometimes violent, adventure, while the LW creates a darker world of menace and foreboding, made more so by the fact that the animals are free to roam and not caged.
The one thing I think JP 3 has over LW is atmosphere; as dark as LW can be, JP 3 trumps it in every regard; JP 3 starts off rather bleak, and never really becomes light-hearted or anything, and it oozes with an air of dread and menace, which is helped by the lighting of certain scenes (particularly when Billy is lost and presumably killed, and the Rex/Spinosaur duel).
Overall, both films are way better than Jurassic World (which was still pretty good).
History is written by the victor. History is full of liars. -
Movie_Buff_Brad — 9 years ago(November 25, 2016 05:54 PM)
I agree with everything you said. I would add that III, while not a good film, is at least enjoyable as a B monster movie you can laugh at. TLW is borderline bleak, as well as downright pretentious with its "save the dinosaurs" message. It also feels like a rehash of the first film with the end of King Kong tacked on.
-
ZakkWyldeMyLittlePony — 9 years ago(December 19, 2016 04:50 PM)
It's been a while since I've seen either 2 or 3, but I like them both the same from what I remember. I think I need to watch them both again.
Aerosmith and My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fan