<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[which is pretty impressivemovie had its faults but its still better than JP II]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><em>Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Jurassic Park III</em></p>
<hr />
<p dir="auto"><strong>stormhappy106</strong> — <em>9 years ago(November 30, 2016 06:43 PM)</em></p>
<p dir="auto">which is pretty impressivemovie had its faults but its still better than JP II</p>
]]></description><link>https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/228485/which-is-pretty-impressivemovie-had-its-faults-but-its-still-better-than-jp-ii</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 May 2026 03:52:00 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://filmglance.com/discuss/topic/228485.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Sun, 03 May 2026 06:01:54 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl></channel></rss>