Is this a great follow-up? No. But the film has a few memorable scenes and has the same feel as the original. If I need a Jurassic Park fix and don't feel like watching the original, this will do the job. I honestly prefer it to any of the further sequels that were made. I'm not sure why "Jurassic World" is loved by so many. It's a CGI fest that doesn't even feel like it's the same universe as the original films.
shareJurassic World is 10X better than this movie. This movie is moronic. I haven't seen JW2, but this one is easily my least favorite of all the rest.
shareIt's a very good sequel that, unfortunately also contains the very worst content of the entire series. I think the film starts off strong and keeps the excitement going for a good hour until things begin to fall apart.
If I have to point out the obvious, Ian Malcolm's daughter has the dumbest, stupidest scenes of the franchise. After that, the entire episode of the baby TREX and Julianne Moore, oh my god, it was straight out of a Heisei era Godzilla movie, except the Trex's destroying the RV was kind of cool.
To me, this movie is a 6.5/10. It's the second best one after the first. After this film, nothing else seems like a Jurassic Park film.
shareI get more enjoyment from JP3, because it wastes no time getting to the point. It only has a tiny bit of setup in the beginning, and then BAM, we got people running for their lives from Dinosaurs for the duration of the film. It's also a much shorter movie IIRC, so when it starts wearing thin, the movie ends. And JP3 does end quite abruptly. The Lost World actually ends up going much longer than it needed to, thanks to the King Kong ending sequence bolted on to the last 30 minutes.
It's a tough call really, because The Lost World is really awesome at parts. The best stuff of TLW is better than any other content of all the movies.
I like JP3 better, at least it delivers exactly what the watchers want to see. I admit TLW has way better plot, but gosh, the preachy tone from Sarah and Nick, Malcolm's annoying daughter and the unecessary and campy San Diego sequences really bring it down. I'd be fine if the movie didn't include Kelly, wasn't so preachy and ended before they went to SD.
shareI agree it was alright and had the task of following up a phenomenal film so, as with almost all sequels, it was a let down. I did enjoy JW more than this, but I think that's because JW plays very well off of a lot of nostalgia and the effects were overall quite good. I do think TLW it is much better than JP3 and miles better than JW2
shareI hate this movie. I can't stand the Greenpeace types who care more about saving extinct animals than human beings. But I absolutely despise the last part of the movie when the T-Rex escapes in San Diego and starts killing innocent people and animals left and right, which is supposed to be funny somehow. Incredibly ridiculous and at that point I don't care whatsoever whether the main characters survive.
That said, I don't like the other sequels any better.
I think this is the best of the sequels.
shareI was never under the impression that that scene was supposed to be funny.
shareI agree. There hasn’t been a great sequel to the first film but this is for me the best of them and is the most entertaining sequel from start to finish.
Jurassic Park 3 was definitely the film where I thought ‘I hope this is the last one’ but then obviously they made Jurassic World and Fallen Kingdom and both are terrible films that have made money because of member berries and their CGI spectacle rather than bringing anything actually interesting to the franchise.
They’re going full member berries with the new film as well ‘Member Alan Grant? Member Ian Malcolm? Member Ellie Sattler?’
I’d say it’s basically like The Fast & Furious franchise, just carrying on cus they’re making money whilst being creatively bankrupt.
Yeah, the next film is obviously a gimmick to rekindle the nostalgia. There are people going to watch it simply because they're all back.
shareYep, it says to me how much they failed at making great new characters that they have to bring back the original film’s characters.
Plus Fallen Kingdom was so terrible it almost made Jurassic World look good by comparison, they’re using the old cast to try to sell you on this new film being a potential return to form.
I have to point out that saying JW brought nothing new to the series is objectively wrong. It did show us a fully-functioning park that's open to the public, which is something that none of the other films give us. And I think that's cool.
shareTo see a fully functioning park up and running is admittedly new to the franchise but the film is still mainly rehashing the plot of the first film. A dinosaur escapes and the park is plunged into chaos, only this park is open to the public.
For me it didn’t bring anything new to the franchise in terms of great characters or a plot that had to be told so I still stand by there’s nothing interesting for me in Jurassic World and the sequel (apart from some genuine laughs at how bonkers it was throughout.)
For all the talk from the director about wanting to recapture the spirit of Jurassic Park with Jurassic World for me he didn’t achieve that at all. It was just one action scene after another and lacked any suspense.
For all it’s problems The Lost World has two great scenes in that film with the T-Rex clifftop attack and the raptors in the long grass. Jurassic World has a fight between a T-Rex and and the Indominous Rex and I felt I was watching a film aimed at the same audience as the Fast & Furious/Transformers films at that point. I knew they were going bigger and cooler and forgetting everything about what I loved about the first film and to some extent the second film.
I think it's overall a GOOD movie. Not a great movie, like the original film, but a good movie.
I agree the plot is derivative, but I think that's by design, with it being a soft reboot of the franchise. Fallen Kingdom gave us a plot that was new and not a copycat and it's a vastly inferior film to JW, so I'm not sure that repeating elements of JP is the worst thing that could've happened.
I do think that seeing a functioning park is quite cool and something the franchise needed to do. I also like Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard, so that helps as well.
My complaints about JW are mostly that the kids in the movie were not charismatic or interesting at all, the divorce subplot wasn't very compelling, and the whole training raptors thing is dumb.
But I think that JW is the only other film in the entire franchise that provides, in any way, the sense of wonder that JP did. It doesn't do it on the same level, but there's a little bit of that magic there.
Yeah that’s fair, I think for me it’s frustrating because it could have been a lot better.
Like you I’m a fan of Pratt and was excited to see him come aboard this franchise after seeing him in Guardians of the Galaxy but in this they just made his character kind of dull. He’s just generic raptor expert man, it just seemed like such a waste of his talents.
The film has plenty of great actors but just lacks great characters which I think would have gone a long way for me.
Frankly it pales in comparison to the book it's based on. I prefer the book where Malcolm and a few other people go to the island of Cloned Dinosaurs because a guy they know named Richard Levine goes there by himself and they fear he's in danger. I also prefer the antagonist of the book Richard Dobdson. Also the book has some dinosaurs that can cloak themselves lke the Chameleon. That would have looked awesome!
share