A DVD REVIEW: JURASSIC PARK III - COLLECTOR'S EDITION (Universal)

[Lexmark3200]

I was NEVER a fan of this franchise past the first original film, which I thought was one of Steven Spielberg's greatest moments, and would go as far to say as one of the best motion pictures ever made because of what it INTRODUCED us to and the way in which it was crafted; the original Jurassic Park has indeed over the years become a classic, not to mention the first theatrical release to utilize the DTS encoding system.

To me, there are some films that just have no right to be touched in terms of "sequeling" them --- The Exorcist, Jaws, and Jurassic Park instantly come to mind for me here; but, as always happens because of DOLLAR SIGNS, a sequel --- and many times multiple sequels to make a franchise --- come into a director's head, and in the case of Spielberg, he saw an opportunity to continue the Jurassic Legacy; while I didnt care too much for the second installment of the series, dubbed The Lost World, I went ahead and bought Jurassic Park III today after it was suggested by someone in another "demo discs" thread I started in the home theater forum that the DTS mix on this third installment of the series was simply house-breaking.....and he was right.

But before I get to that, I must say some things about the original Steven Spielberg dinosaur adventure. What made the first Jurassic Park so monumental was that fact that it was subject matter that was never dealt with before --- the POSSIBILITY that prehistoric DNA could be reformatted to re-create prehistoric animals in the present time; of course, based on Michael Chriton's novel, Spielberg's Jurassic Park had a great deal of scientific input loaded into it, but what makes that first film so special are moments like when Sam Neil and the other group of scientists and mathematicians, etc, pull up in those jeeps in the beginning and they look up and see the Brontos in the trees, with the Jurassic Park score in the background while the roar and bellows of the dinosaurs fill the soundstage; when we all saw this in the theater, we were all sitting there with our mouths open going "wow.....they created DINOSAURS on this island....." and you know YOU did too when watching it.....THATS what made the magic of Jurassic Park.

Once Spielberg had dinosaurs running around San Diego at the end of The Lost World, I knew this franchise had no chance and that the first film was going to immediately become a legend in cinema, which it has. But this third installment, running at (thank god) a brisk 1 hour 33 minute length, wasnt quite as bad as the second film ---- but it was bad because simply NOTHING can top the first, no matter what they try --- and I am talking in terms of character developments, plot timelines, pacing, everything. What Jurassic Park III does very successfully is up the edge-of-your-seat dinosaur chasing excitement, much of which we had to wait for in the original. This third film starts off with a bang, and keeps going and we are treated to many dinosaur chases and battles, much like the recently released Star Wars: Episode III, which lets loose the action very early on, and just doesnt let go.

In this third (and possibly not the last --- Spielberg is considering a fourth chapter) installement in this franchise, Sam Neil returns as Alan Grant, dinosaur expert, who is tricked and lured in by William H. Macy and his (we are not told) ex-wife (Tea Leoni) --- both odd choices for a Jurassic Park film because they are just both terrible actors --- a wealthy adventurous couple who cook up a story about wanting to see Isla Sorna, the first experimental island the InGen corporation was using to breed the Jurassic Park dinosaurs, and they want Grant's help in just "visiting" the island ---- but the real reason the couple is there is to rescue their son, who went down on the island in a parasailing accident early in the film with Leoni's new ******* boyfriend. Once again trapped on this island, because of a raptor attack after the plane lands, Neil and this group is faced with a smarter, stronger and faster breed of dinosaurs this time around. Actually, a few different breeds; it seems this was the island John Hammond --- the man who wanted to open Isla Nubar, a neighboring island, as "Jurassic Park" --- was secretly using to develop many different species of dinosaurs --- not just T-Rexes and raptors. And so, in Jurassic Park III we have underwater dinosaurs, flying dinosaurs, and very smart versions of raptors who sense that their eggs have been stolen by one of the guys with Macy and Leoni's group. The film moves at a brisk pace, as I said, and before you know it, you're at the end --- the way a GOOD action flick SHOULD move; the entire film is based on Neil trying to find Leoni and Macy's son on this island, which he does, and trying to survive the many dinosaur attacks, which this time come from the air and the sea, not just the land.

And again, we have brilliant CGI master Stan Winston of ILM to thank for the wild, outrageously real dinosaur creature effects for this third installment.

There is no information at this time whether or not a fourth Jurassic Park is in the works, but there have been rumors that Spielberg is interested, for whatever reason......

But the audio and video on this DVD is alone enough to warrant the purchase because both are DOWNRIGHT reference grade --- I picked this up for $9.99 at Best Buy today and it has become my current demo disc --- THAT instantly. Let me explain:

VIDEO SPECIFICATIONS:
DUAL LAYER 1:85:1 ANAMORPHIC WIDESCREEN TRANSFER

An absolutely flawless widescreen transfer, which, at 1:85:1, filled my entire 16X9 screen with no letterboxing, from Universal, not suprising for a film that debuted in 2001; the print is flawless --- no grain, no noise.....just a smooth overall look that just....well.....LOOKS like DVD should......there are some moments in the film stock that look a bit "smoky" but I think this was intentional on director Joe Johnston's behalf (taking over the directing duties from Spielberg, but with Spielberg overseeing the entire project). Most of Jurassic Park III takes place in the jungle, like the first film, so the lush greens of the leaves and trees are rendered quite smoothly here. But it's the SOUND that MAKES this DVD.....

AUDIO SPECIFICATIONS:
ENGLISH DOLBY DIGITAL 5.1 SURROUND, ENGLISH DTS 5.1 SURROUND, ENGLISH CAPTIONS, SUBTITLES IN SPANISH

Wow. That's all I can say after running this DVD's DTS track. Well, HOLY **** was more like it. THIS is reference quality audio, folks, and where I thought the mighty thumping footsteps of the T-Rex in the first film shook my system, you GOTTA experience the bass in this film.....crank it up and hold on. Any time there is a large dinosaur on the screen, your subwoofer will get a workout, as the entire audio spectrum here is loud, aggresive and downright spine-tingling......listen as the raptors and other creatures let out their loud bellows and shrieks; this will wake your neighbors if your system is up high enough. Plenty of surround usage, as the tails of the dinosaurs whip around the back channels in a startling way; the whole soundstage on this DTS mix is alive and like I said LOUD and AGGRESSIVE, perhaps moreso than most other discs in my collection or that I have ever heard. A GREAT sound mix by Universal here. But the LFE is most memorable ---- aside from Jan De Bont's remake of The Haunting on DreamWorks' Signature Series DTS ES DVD --- I have never experienced so much low end in a film in home video. The bass does not drop down as low as it does on The Haunting DVD, but my entire room was shaking when the dinosaurs were onscreen......VERY impressive DTS mix from Universal for a so-so Jurassic Park installment.

This COLLECTOR'S EDITION was packed with extra features, and again kudos to Universal for cramming (which would normally sacrifice quality a bit) such a good video transfer AND kick ass DTS mix on ONE DISC with all these extras:

-The Making of Jurassic Park III
-Feature Commentary with Special Effects Team
-The New Dinosaurs of Jurassic Park III
-Tour of Stan Winston Studio
-A Visit to ILM: Witness 30 Different Stages in an Exclusive Rare Step-by-Step Look at the Computer Graphics Created by ILM
-Dinosaur Turntables: A Spectacular Three Dimensional Look at the 12 Dinosaurs Created for the Film
-Behind the Scenes
-Storyboards to Final Feature Comparison
-The Jurassic Park III archives
-Theatrical Trailers
-Montana: Finding New Dinosaurs: A Special Visit to Paleontologist Jack Horner's Dinosaur Dig with Never-Before-Seen Footage
-DVD ROM Features Including Jurassic Park III Dino Defender and Danger Zone! Game Demos

[GMichael]

Everything you said is 100% correct. It's not the drama masterpiece that JP 1 was. But it cranked up the excitement facter in a way that I haven't seen done sinse Alien was followed by Aliens. Although it did bring out an emotional response from me when the T-Rex was defeted early in the movie. I so expected T-Rex to kick some major a** butt, and I was in shock to see him go down for the count.
The one point that did erk me was when this hugh finned beast snuck up on everyone in the sceen where the boy and family were reunited. How could something that was shaking my windows in all the other sceens manage to make no sound at all? The sat phone in his belly was all you could hear. (take off on the gator with the clock in his belly from Peter Pan I guess) And how did the others facing in his dirrection not see this 4 story baby coming at them. But I get over it fast as they all run for their lives.

Anyway, another grate review Lex. Always detailed, informative, organized and well written. I look back when I'm done and say to myself, "self, you read all that?! But it only took a few seconds." Very enjoyable.

[RGA]

The first film was good entertainment despite some astoundingly atrocious dialog and idiotic plot turns for the sake of peddling the action. Still recommended and entertaining purely on the visual stimulous. A Classic is a word too often used and this film isn't classic material in my view because it rests so stroingly on the special effects that in 20 years when the effects are surpassed all it will have to rely on is the story and the characters...and they are not strong points for this film...that is the BIG difference between this film and Jaws where the monster is not relied upon to carry the story but what the monster serves to convey to the people in the story.

The follow-ups to Jurassic Park to me were dreadful...though the second film had a few chuckles when the Dino went to the city for some lunch. The third one to me was an utter disaster with uninspired visuals -- the effects become ho-hum becuase they are no longer fresh and because the film still has banal dialogue i began hoping the Dino's would just eat the heros so I could get the hell out of the theater.

JP *** / *****
JP2 ** / *****
JP 3 *1/2 / *****

The way the ratings are going I hope there is no JP 4. Spielberg has too much talent to be doing this kid stuff. And the kid stuff he used to do was so much more inspired.

[Lexmark3200]

"Anyway, another grate review Lex. Always detailed, informative, organized and well written. I look back when I'm done and say to myself, "self, you read all that?! But it only took a few seconds." Very enjoyable."

Thanks a million, man.....this means so much to me when people reply in kind after I write these.....and thanks for the recommendation on the DVD! You were right! WHAT A LOAD OF BASS this DTS track has!!!!

P.S. I thought the ringing of the phone in the belly was kinda cool, but you were right ---- where was the bass???

[Lexmark3200]

"The first film was good entertainment despite some astoundingly atrocious dialog and idiotic plot turns for the sake of peddling the action. Still recommended and entertaining purely on the visual stimulous. A Classic is a word too often used and this film isn't classic material in my view because it rests so stroingly on the special effects that in 20 years when the effects are surpassed all it will have to rely on is the story and the characters...and they are not strong points for this film...that is the BIG difference between this film and Jaws where the monster is not relied upon to carry the story but what the monster serves to convey to the people in the story."

Well, there are MANY who I know of that DO consider the original Park a Classic by now because of Spielberg and Chriton's VISION ---- when those Brontos are eating out of the trees in the first scene we get to see dinosaurs in, to me, was moviemaking MAGIC. That scene WOWED me in the theater, and still does on DVD. Sure, effects have surpassed this film since its release, but the creature effects by Winston and ILM are STILL great looking to this day in my opinion; I have always felt that the first Jurassic Park stands on its own as a piece of Spielberg magic, much like ET, Close Encounters or even Saving Private Ryan......not getting into technicals here, its just my opinion that this film was just as landmarking.

"The follow-ups to Jurassic Park to me were dreadful...though the second film had a few chuckles when the Dino went to the city for some lunch."

Agreed; this one was ridiculous; I mean, I KNEW Spielberg couldnt resist EVENTUALLY putting the dinos in a city and have them stomping around; this was ridiculous, and the "franchise" should have ended with the FIRST ONE --- but I have argued the SAME thing about The Exorcist, Jaws, yadda yadda yadda......

"The third one to me was an utter disaster with uninspired visuals -- the effects become ho-hum becuase they are no longer fresh and because the film still has banal dialogue i began hoping the Dino's would just eat the heros so I could get the hell out of the theater."

It was a pretty shallow third installment, as my review indicated, and it comes and goes and ends before you know it, thank God like I said, but the creature effects here I thought were inspired rather than uninspired and the DTS track on the DVD is worth suffering through this motion picture alone------if you have a subwoofer, trust me, buy this disc and crank it up.


"The way the ratings are going I hope there is no JP 4. Spielberg has too much talent to be doing this kid stuff. And the kid stuff he used to do was so much more inspired."

Like I indicated, inside sources I know at Home Theater and DVD ETC magazine tell me he is considering a fourth "Park" film, but no one thinks its gonna happen.

[RGA]

The reviews are good by the way -- just a difference of opinion on the films themselves.

I bought the return of the Living Dead film yesterday and it was better than I remembered. The featurette was totally uninteresting but for $9.00Cad you can't go wrong.

What's with the lack of an insert? I hate that.

[Lexmark3200]

The reviews are good by the way -- just a difference of opinion on the films themselves.

I bought the return of the Living Dead film yesterday and it was better than I remembered. The featurette was totally uninteresting but for $9.00Cad you can't go wrong.

What's with the lack of an insert? I hate that.

Thanks for the kind words; yeah, we do seem to differ in our opinions and tastes in films greatly; but yeah, I cannot TELL YOU how many DVDs come across my desk or home theater room WITH NO INSERTS whatsoever for chapeter listings or ANYTHING.....I dont know what thats about.....but like you said, for nine bucks, RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD is worth having on DVD!! The studios are getting cheaper and cheaper with their product unless they release some Ultra-Edition four-disc super version of a DVD....

[RGA]

I personally don't think it is worth buying a dvd JUST for the sound or visuals to impress firends to show them some pyrotechnic the sub is capable of...but that;sjust me. I was guilty of that with cd when i was young.

Surely there are some tryuly good movies that have impressive sound effects and visuals to show off but also be a good movie?? Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List (the latter would certainly be musically exceptional) as it's William's most adult score).

[Lexmark3200]

I personally don't think it is worth buying a dvd JUST for the sound or visuals to impress firends to show them some pyrotechnic the sub is capable of...but that;sjust me. I was guilty of that with cd when i was young.

Surely there are some tryuly good movies that have impressive sound effects and visuals to show off but also be a good movie?? Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List (the latter would certainly be musically exceptional) as it's William's most adult score).

Well, I gotta tell ya, there are alot of people guilty of buying bad cinema for the picture and sound quality on DVD --- me included, which I did with PEARL HARBOR. For the most part, its NOT worth buying the discs if the films arent good, but I get suckered into this sometimes. But, you must also understand, in the OBSESSIVE world of home theater, where I have been a witness to, believe me, some people will show a film to family members or friends just to blow them through the back wall because of the sound effects on the disc --- BUT, for the most part, people sit down in a home theater to ENJOY a GOOD motion picture, not a HORRIBLE one.

And sure, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN is a fabulous film as well as exhibits a world-class DTS track, hands down. One of the best on the market, in fact.

[Lexmark3200]

"despite some astoundingly atrocious dialog"

I actually thought the dialogue between Jeff Goldblum and his sarcastic mathematician character in the first film and everyone else in the cast was LIGHT YEARS ahead of the dialogue that plagued the sequels.....I mean, William H. Macy and Tea Leoni were just COMPLETELY and UTTERLY WRONG for a Jurassic Park sequel; Sam Neil remaining onboard was fine.

[Kam]

[QUOTE=Lexmark3200
Like I indicated, inside sources I know at Home Theater and DVD ETC magazine tell me he is considering a fourth "Park" film, but no one thinks its gonna happen.[/QUOTE]


Actually it's been greenlighted and currently in pre-production. The Dreamworks magic crew is all on the executive production side (Kennedy/ Marshal/ Spielberg), the cinematographer from the original JP is logged on (Not Janusz, another dude), but no director is attached yet. Spielberg is rumored to return to the helm as director, Joe Johnston did part III (of Jumanji and Hidalgo fame) but written by the guy who wrote Kingdom of Heaven, at least the currently greenlighted draft that's in preproduction. No one else is onboard yet, so... it can definitely still tank as is often the case. Spielberg has the Munich games movie in production now (with Eric Bana), an abraham lincoln project greenlighted next (currently with Liam Neeson playing lincoln), and then IJ4 is supposedly next in production in mid to late 2006, BUT... that's been in preproduction hell for a while, still praying they get their act together and make it.

that's the latest scoop from my sources!!
peace
k2

[Lexmark3200]

"Actually it's been greenlighted and currently in pre-production. The Dreamworks magic crew is all on the executive production side (Kennedy/ Marshal/ Spielberg), the cinematographer from the original JP is logged on (Not Janusz, another dude), but no director is attached yet. Spielberg is rumored to return to the helm as director, Joe Johnston did part III (of Jumanji and Hidalgo fame) but written by the guy who wrote Kingdom of Heaven, at least the currently greenlighted draft that's in preproduction. No one else is onboard yet, so... it can definitely still tank as is often the case. Spielberg has the Munich games movie in production now (with Eric Bana), an abraham lincoln project greenlighted next (currently with Liam Neeson playing lincoln), and then IJ4 is supposedly next in production in mid to late 2006, BUT... that's been in preproduction hell for a while, still praying they get their act together and make it"

Interesting information, k2.......I'll have to check with some of the fellas over at these magazines that I know again, but most of these guys dont get info on what has been greenlighted into preproduction; they mainly get DVD release info marketing-wise, and they just dropped me an e mail after I had this review I just wrote for you pre-viewed by them, that a Part 4 may have been in the works....

Thanks for the confirmation from a non-DVD standpoint.......

Oh and by the way, with regard to this:

"Spielberg is rumored to return to the helm as director, Joe Johnston did part III"

I was aware that Johnston did III, as I indicated in the review; but is this going to be a DREAMWORKS release or another Jurassic Park Universal/Amblin project once again?

[GMichael]

Hi RGA,

I guess that everyone has different tastes. I enjoyed JP 1 & 3 very much. 2 not so much. Maybe for the same reasons as Lex. I loved the base and dino looked better than ever. Number 3 was full of action. 1 will alway be a clasic in my book. Even if my book is written in krayon. But some people are more into the talking part of a movie. You know, plot, story line, making me think. Not my style. I do too much thinking all day at work as it is.

As far as buying a DVD for the sound? I find myself watching some TV shows because I am amazed at the sound. Things I used to switch off in a NY second end up being on for an hour or more now that I have a surround system.

But it's nice to be able to desagree, without some of the arguing I see others do on some threads.

Have a great night.

[Lexmark3200]

"1 will alway be a clasic in my book. Even if my book is written in krayon"

Absolutely agreed. The first Jurassic Park --- and I just watched the beginning for a few minutes again ---- is simply a Spielberg Classic, in MY opinion, worthy of Jaws notiriety. That is the FIRST one we're talking about --- not the sequels. The scene where the jeeps pull up and Dern and Neil first see the dinosaurs walking around, eating from the trees, and then their MASSIVE foostep that resonates with TONS of LFE when they stomp down from the tree....man.....this scene ALWAYS gives me goosebumps, especially after the John Hammond character says:

"Doctor Grant.....my dear Doctor Sadler.......welcome to Jurassic Park......"

[RGA]

I liked the first film and recommend it so I want to be clear. Don't take my *** / ***** negatively as this would be a thumbs up. Less than 20 movies I have given 5 stars to. i think it's a testament to Spielberg that in a year when people consider Jurassic Park to be a classic I don;t even think it was his best movie THAT year. Spielberg took home the oscar on one film and took in over a billion dollars on at that time the highest grossing film ever.

My main problem with Jurassic Park is that it doesn't know what it wanted to be. All out thriller like Jaws - or kids theme park ride(indeed the plot is on this as well). The film has a fascinating book to follow which it should have followed and there are some funny one liners thanks to the Golldbloom character. The effects are wonderful.

But there are just some scenes that are too forced and fake. Right after escaping the T-Rex Sam Neil and kids are faced with BrontoSaurus...the kids are no longer scared (c'mon) and pat the thing on the head and get sneezed on for a laugh. Whcih is it going to be Mr. Spielberg? Heart pounding Jaws, or let's play with the fun dinosaurs. these and other scenes are jarring to me because it begins to lose credability and this is a real big shame because the effects are so good that Spielberg could really build a world where we suspend our disbelief. But then he stupids it up and tacks on lines like they're vegisaurus so they're firendly.

This film in some respects would have been better served with taking the following tracks:

take the T-ReX perspective as in Jaws don't show the dinosaurs for over half the film ala Jaws to create fear. Less characters and make the film scary with real tension not alleved in dumb kid talk. There isn't a single believable character in this film but cardboard cutouts and the problem gets worse in the next two films.

I still liked the film as presented and it is far and away the best of the three. Ebert I once again fully agree with which is not nearly the case a lot of the time -- but here he is IMO bang on the money. http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19930611/REVIEWS/306110302/1023

[Lexmark3200]

"I liked the first film and recommend it so I want to be clear. Don't take my *** / ***** negatively as this would be a thumbs up. Less than 20 movies I have given 5 stars to. i think it's a testament to Spielberg that in a year when people consider Jurassic Park to be a classic I don;t even think it was his best movie THAT year. Spielberg took home the oscar on one film and took in over a billion dollars on at that time the highest grossing film ever."

Well, people DO consider this first one a cinematic achievement AND a classic, and in MY own opinion, this was just as good an effort as his Jaws; you may not agree, but some, like me, who actually STUDIED film at New York's Adelphi University, believe it to legendary for what it was trying to do.....like I keep saying, all it takes is that shot when they arrive on Islar Nubar and the jeeps stop and we see the Brontos eating out of the trees ---- I remember the "wow" factor sweeping across the audience in the theater when this scene transcended.....it was spine tingling. I dont think it was Sir Steven's BEST film, by far, but it is one of his most looked-upon cinematic achievements in terms of his career I believe; to compare this concept to the likes of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN wouldnt even be fair.

"My main problem with Jurassic Park is that it doesn't know what it wanted to be. All out thriller like Jaws - or kids theme park ride(indeed the plot is on this as well). The film has a fascinating book to follow which it should have followed and there are some funny one liners thanks to the Golldbloom character. The effects are wonderful."

It was intending to suggest that fooling with mother nature and bringing back a species that were selected by nature for extinction SHOULDNT have been even attempted because like Goldblum's character says "Nature finds a way"........the novel version by Michael Chriton, which I have read several times, is BRILLIANT but I dont think Amblin Entertainment left out too much of his novel-to-screen adaptation; Hammond WANTED Jurassic Park to be a theme park, yes, but the point of the film is that they somehow ENGINEERED DINOSAURS from prehistoric DNA caught in the fosilized amber and mosquitoes that bit dinosaurs; this is a fascinating concept enough and is what continuously holds my attention every time that disc spins in my player. Did you know that after Jurassic Park debuted, there were news reports claiming that the technology depicted in the film actually EXISTS on a certain level --- that scientists CAN tap into DNA material perhaps that old?

"But there are just some scenes that are too forced and fake. Right after escaping the T-Rex Sam Neil and kids are faced with BrontoSaurus...the kids are no longer scared (c'mon) and pat the thing on the head and get sneezed on for a laugh. Whcih is it going to be Mr. Spielberg? Heart pounding Jaws, or let's play with the fun dinosaurs. these and other scenes are jarring to me because it begins to lose credability and this is a real big shame because the effects are so good that Spielberg could really build a world where we suspend our disbelief. But then he stupids it up and tacks on lines like they're vegisaurus so they're firendly."

To rip apart a motion picture frame by frame is the easiest thing in the world to do --- I can do this to COUNTLESS utter COUNTLESS titles that have been released. Sure, Jaws seemed to be a more serious approach by Sir Steven, but that doesnt mean that Jurassic Park DIDNT succeed on what it was supposed to do --- convince people that science could somehow (perhaps not in real life, if those news reports werent true, but according to Chriton's screenplay assistance) engineer artificially life from a totally different point in time. Imagine man and dinosaur coming face to face after DECADES of separating forces involved in the evolution process; this is what made the first "Park" so thought provoking. I think he DID in fact build a world where we didnt even HAVE to suspend our disbelief --- I WAS believing that T Rex was really eating those tires on the upside down truck like Entemman's donuts when I watched the film ---- to me, its suspending disbelief a bit, because we KNOW we are watching ILM in action, BUT, can you imagine really being there in that situation? A real life T Rex staring you down and trying to outrun it? I think he did a brilliant job in the thrills and chills department.

"take the T-ReX perspective as in Jaws don't show the dinosaurs for over half the film ala Jaws to create fear."

Didnt he do this? We dont see the T Rex until when?

"Less characters and make the film scary with real tension not alleved in dumb kid talk. There isn't a single believable character in this film but cardboard cutouts and the problem gets worse in the next two films."

Agreed about the next two films, which WERE bombs (save for that DTS track on Part III --- wow) but the kid talk you speak of had a point; Alan Grant didnt like kids, and so kids were shoved in his face as a backdrop to the story; I think this film WAS scary WITH real tension. And sure there are believable characters; so much more so than the OTHER two Park sequels, thats for sure; you didnt think the Hammond character was believable? You didnt think the conversations between Goldblum and the Hammond character were memorable? Ian Malcom: "Yeah, John, your scientists were so excited that they could, they forgot to think if they should....." and when he says, quite coyly, "All Im saying is......nature finds a way....."

"I still liked the film as presented and it is far and away the best of the three. Ebert I once again fully agree with which is not nearly the case a lot of the time -- but here he is IMO bang on the money"

I dont know; people make him the be-all end-all of cinema reviewers when much of the time, his opinions on most forms of cinema, in MY opinion and in many opinions of people I graduated film school with, are completely off the wall in certain regards. I dont put much stock in his views; its just a view, like anyone else's.

[RGA]

First Ebert is the only film reviewer to win the Pulitzer -- he teaches film school not just studies at a film school. I don't think there is a film critic out there that knows film any better -- that does not mean I will agree with him everytime but he usually makes a good case for his opinion.

Until coming here I have never met anyone that considers JP a classic. A wonderful technical achievement yes, incredibly realistic dynosaurs yes -- but a "classic." It depends on how one views the term classic. The grand idea of tampering with mother nature is not new, and it certainly wasn't Spielberg who thought it up...and they never really get into this theme SERIOUSLY, a few little one line warnings from Goldblum is hardly deep.

This is a paper thin story with largely idiotic and/or one dimensional characters thrown into a great special effects monster movie. It's not considered by most critics to be a GREAT film let alone a classic. Spielberg's other films to entertain kids and adults, Jaws, E.T., Raiders, are far superior films for the simple reason that they are not so incredibly stupid. JP is precisely why a loyt of snob critics don;t take Spielberg seriously. Luckily for him that Schindler's List is his great equalizer which will stand with any other film in history in virtually any film category. It won 7 academy awards and IMO it got robbed of 4 others and robbed of two other nominations that it should have received and didn't get.

I think Classic is a personal choice anyway -- if JP is a classic to you and you like it better than Jaws that's fine by me...but that is hardly the case for everyone and I'm betting most people. Indeed, many people only feel a film like Jaws is a classic because it set the summer blockbuster standard and changed the future of the film industry for better or worse...and then there's the whole group of Spielberg-haters who seek out anything they can to criticise him.

JP is a good movie -- but it's ONLY a good movie because of the visual special effects. Remove the impressive visuals and you are left with a mess.

[Lexmark3200]

"First Ebert is the only film reviewer to win the Pulitzer -- he teaches film school not just studies at a film school. I don't think there is a film critic out there that knows film any better -- that does not mean I will agree with him everytime but he usually makes a good case for his opinion."

That doesnt really impress me all that much anymore than when you said it before; the folks I graduated with from Adelphi University's film department in fact always agreed with me that his word shouldnt be the be-all end-all of cinema; most of views, to me, and like I said, MANY others, are quite skewed in fact.

"Until coming here I have never met anyone that considers JP a classic. A wonderful technical achievement yes, incredibly realistic dynosaurs yes -- but a "classic." It depends on how one views the term classic. The grand idea of tampering with mother nature is not new, and it certainly wasn't Spielberg who thought it up...and they never really get into this theme SERIOUSLY, a few little one line warnings from Goldblum is hardly deep."

The word CLASSIC is being a bit fogged-over here; Jurassic Park, by no means, is no way in the league of CASABLANCA or GONE WITH THE WIND.....I think all that is being suggested here is that along the lines of Sir Steven's JAWS, the film is monumental for other reasons; the word "classic" is being thrown around based on others' perception of that word....I consider it a classic of sorts for different personal taste reasons, you may not. Thats okay. But Im not suggesting it is in the league of the aforementioned films.

I never suggested Spielberg thought up the concept of genetic tampering to tap into prehistoric DNA; that was actually Michael Chriton's vision he based that off of, and I am sure it has been delved into before. But they did a fine job in the motion picture of suggesting that DINOSAURS WERE SELECTED --- BY NATURE ITSELF --- FOR EXTINCTION, aside from Goldblum's remarks; there was a theme running here through the film suggesting that we as humans just should NOT have tampered with this subject material --- it was even outlined in a news story which debuted on NBC after the film's theatrical success.

"This is a paper thin story with largely idiotic and/or one dimensional characters thrown into a great special effects monster movie. It's not considered by most critics to be a GREAT film let alone a classic. Spielberg's other films to entertain kids and adults, Jaws, E.T., Raiders, are far superior films for the simple reason that they are not so incredibly stupid. JP is precisely why a loyt of snob critics don;t take Spielberg seriously. Luckily for him that Schindler's List is his great equalizer which will stand with any other film in history in virtually any film category. It won 7 academy awards and IMO it got robbed of 4 others and robbed of two other nominations that it should have received and didn't get."

Okay; I COMPLETELY DISAGREE for completely different reasons that cant even be chronicled in the length of bandwidth space we are allowed here. This was by NO MEANS a paper thin story with idiotic characters----AT ALL. And there are many who share this opinion, whether you choose to believe that or not. Snob critics shouldnt even have a job, in my opinion, have the nerve to comment on a director like Spielberg. Schindler's List was a monumental film, no doubt about that.

"I think Classic is a personal choice anyway -- if JP is a classic to you and you like it better than Jaws that's fine by me...but that is hardly the case for everyone and I'm betting most people. Indeed, many people only feel a film like Jaws is a classic because it set the summer blockbuster standard and changed the future of the film industry for better or worse...and then there's the whole group of Spielberg-haters who seek out anything they can to criticise him."

I never ever believed or said that Jurassic Park is "better" than Jaws----in fact, I feel Jaws IS better than Jurassic Park-----the dialogue between Shaw, Sheider and Dreyfuss on the Orca is TIMELESS and ABSOLUTELY CLASSIC and CANNOT BE COMPARED to the dialogue in Jurassic Park; I enjoyed Jaws better and I think its a better film overall, BUT, I think Jurassic Park is still up in the same kind of "Spielberg Visionary" award category.

"JP is a good movie -- but it's ONLY a good movie because of the visual special effects. Remove the impressive visuals and you are left with a mess."

Okay; again, I disagree. I felt it was a good film for different reasons. It made us consider what tampering with mother nature may just do to us.

[RGA]

Here si why Jaws is loved and you say it yourself -- the most memorable and often referred to scene is what? The scene on the boat where Shaw talks about his experience in the past. There are other memorable scenes as well.

Jurassic park has NONE of this. I saw the film three times in theaters -- memorable scene is a special effects scene --- I don't care about a single character because none of them were humanly written. IMO it's simply a good movie -- not a great one.

[Lexmark3200]

"Here si why Jaws is loved and you say it yourself -- the most memorable and often referred to scene is what? The scene on the boat where Shaw talks about his experience in the past. There are other memorable scenes as well."

Of course; this is NOT disputed in ANY way; a BRILLIANT piece of cinema ---- just that ONE scene.

"Jurassic park has NONE of this."

Perhaps, but again, its not timeless in the way Jaws is --- I just believe it was monumental moviemaking for other reasons.

"I saw the film three times in theaters -- memorable scene is a special effects scene --- I don't care about a single character because none of them were humanly written. IMO it's simply a good movie -- not a great one."

Thats your opinion, and you are absolutely entitled to it......I dont think the original Jurassic Park, again, is in the leauge of SUPERB CINEMA like those aforementioned titles I listed, but I do think it was AS MONUMENTAL as a PHENOMENON as Jaws was when we're talking about Spielberg; on my DVD shelf, I look at the side bands of the Jaws Anniversary Edition and Jurassic Park Collectors Edition DVDs in the same way --- I say to myself "VERY VERY good films here.....Spielberg classics...."

[RGA]

I guess it's the word classic. To be a classic it has to be timeless. That is why I get into debates with many snob critics about Jaws...it is timeless because it has alread stood 30 years. JP in ten years will be that dinosaur movie with ok special effects and a stupid story and likely will never be shown at the late night movies on re-release. Jaws lasts because of the story -- no film built on special effects alone will last because the effects are surpassed yearly. It has to have other ingredients to last 30 years and IMO JP is a slick monster movie and nothing other than a slick monster movie. It could have been so much more.

[Lexmark3200]

"JP in ten years will be that dinosaur movie with ok special effects and a stupid story and likely will never be shown at the late night movies on re-release."

It wasnt a stupid story and I feel it may get re-release screen time.

"Jaws lasts because of the story -- no film built on special effects alone will last because the effects are surpassed yearly. It has to have other ingredients to last 30 years and IMO JP is a slick monster movie and nothing other than a slick monster movie. It could have been so much more."

It WAS so much more. You have to use your mind to tap into Chriton's screenplay.

[bjornb17]

JP *** / *****
JP2 ** / *****
JP 3 *1/2 / *****



So i guess you could say that the rating of the jurassic park movies is inversely proportional to which installment it is in the series. Following your trend, a JP 4 would have a rating of less than 1. ouch!

I havent seen the second two movies, but i really liked the first. As usual, Lexmark, your review is well written. Keep up the good work :)

[Lexmark3200]

"As usual, Lexmark, your review is well written. Keep up the good work"

Thank you SO much for the kind words! :)

[RGA]

So i guess you could say that the rating of the jurassic park movies is inversely proportional to which installment it is in the series. Following your trend, a JP 4 would have a rating of less than 1. ouch!

I havent seen the second two movies, but i really liked the first. As usual, Lexmark, your review is well written. Keep up the good work :)

It's rare that a sequel better the original but there are numerous examples IMO where the sequel is better than the original: Superman 2, Godfather 2, Spiderman 2, Batman Begins(basically #5), Empire Strikes Back.

Jurassic Park has it tough because the paper thin idea seems forced in sequels.

[bjornb17]

It's rare that a sequel better the original but there are numerous examples IMO where the sequel is better than the original: Superman 2, Godfather 2, Spiderman 2, Batman Begins(basically #5), Empire Strikes Back.

Jurassic Park has it tough because the paper thin idea seems forced in sequels.

I agree with you on your hre.

With Star Wars, i think Episodes 5 and 6 and both better than 4, but 5 is better than 6.
And with the prequels, Ep. 3 is the best of them all, and 2 is the worst.

I got the special edition trilogy (Eps 4-6) and watched them the other day. I really like the remastered sound and most of the new stuff in them, except the ending to Ep 6 where he replaced the old Annikan with the one from the prequel. That makes no sense. It's sort of funny to see it actually.

[Lexmark3200]

It's rare that a sequel better the original but there are numerous examples IMO where the sequel is better than the original: Superman 2, Godfather 2, Spiderman 2, Batman Begins(basically #5), Empire Strikes Back.

Jurassic Park has it tough because the paper thin idea seems forced in sequels.

I'll give you these as better sequel examples:

Superman II
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Spider Man 2 WAS NOT better than the original
Jurassic Park: The Lost World WAS NOT better than the original, but the original DID NOT have paper thin ideas, it needs to be visualized through Michael Chriton's mind

Some AWFUL Sequels Have Been:

Grease 2
Exorcist II: The Heretic
2Fast2Furious

[RGA]

Michael Chriton's mind is in the book -- the film is a pale imitation which leaves out the brains.

Spiderman 2 is better -- not a one dimensional villain in this one and more of a romantic film. I did like the original one as well but Spiderman 2 In my view was best picture material -- too bad it's based on a comic book because it has some heart and a brain. I liked the entire story of Peter Parker trying to cope with paying the rent trying to go to school and holding down a job while saving everyone and how it stresses him out and tires him down and not being able to tell the girl he loves that he loves her. Brilliant film. The first one had the onerous job of telling us the Spiderman story which most everyone knows and setting up the story. They do it very well and it's very close ***1/2 / *****

Exorcist Heretic was utter crap, JP was far better than its sequels.

I don't usually expect much from sequels. If it hangs in there with the original it's nice. Terminator 2 was a solid follow-up as was Lethal Weapon 2 -- many would make the case that both were better than their original film. I disagree but i could certainly understand why people would feel that way on these two.

I also liked Aliens better than Alien. Hmm maybe I'll have to rethink the sequal -- it's part 3 that usally falls apart :D hopefully that isn't the case with Spidey3

[Lexmark3200]

"Michael Chriton's mind is in the book -- the film is a pale imitation which leaves out the brains."

I dont personally feel Spielberg left out too many of Chriton's brains after A/B-ing the book and motion picture sequentially and multiple, multiple times. I still think the original Park is a great piece of filmmaking, and like I said, I am proud to have both the Collector's Edition version of that disc sitting very near the DTS version of Jaws (because my collection is in alphabetic order).

"Spiderman 2 is better"

Not to me it wasnt, and Im a diehard follower of the comic; the first film just had something the second was lacking ---- dont get me wrong ---- Spidey 2 was absolutely awesome, but the VERY FIRST thing I said to my friends and my ex at the time when leaving the theater on opening night was "I liked the first one better"....there was something better developed in the first film with Parker taking on the Goblin, and while the fight sequences with Doc Ock were downright awesome, especially on the subway train, I think the end fight with the Goblin was more nerve-wretching in the original film. Either way, Raimi made two deliciously great comic adaptations, BOTH YEARS AHEAD of the disaster that was THE PUNISHER with John Travolta (in just about his WORST role) and Thomas Jane (of DEEP BLUE SEA); that had to be the worst comic to film adaptation since the first Captain America disaster.....remember that? Im waiting to see what Superman Returns, Fantastic Four, and supposedly Iron Man are going to be like.


"not a one dimensional villain in this one and more of a romantic film"

The romance is EXACTLY what could have been left out of this film --- this is a comic story, and although Mary Jane Watson was a vital part of Parker's life, the scenes where Kirsten Dunst are in the film with her constant going back and forth about does she love Peter, will she love Peter, will she marry Peter....will she marry this astronaut shmuck....I mean, this whole unnecessary sub plotting slowed this sequel to a CRAWL in many instances, and made me antsy to just get to the next Doc Ock fight sequence.




"I did like the original one as well but Spiderman 2 In my view was best picture material -- too bad it's based on a comic book because it has some heart and a brain. I liked the entire story of Peter Parker trying to cope with paying the rent trying to go to school and holding down a job while saving everyone and how it stresses him out and tires him down and not being able to tell the girl he loves that he loves her. Brilliant film. The first one had the onerous job of telling us the Spiderman story which most everyone knows and setting up the story."

Well, thats what a FIRST film is supposed to do --- not introduce multiple PREQUELS (a la Exorcist The Beginning and Batman Begins) to do the explaining; THATS not proper motion picture making if you ask ANY film historian.

"Exorcist Heretic was utter crap, JP was far better than its sequels."

You got that right, Jack.....almost called the "worst film of all time" is John Boorman's Exorcist II: The Heretic; I am a diehard Exorcist fan and STILL have not put and WILL NEVER put this disc in my collection. Its a travesty to motion picture making.

"I don't usually expect much from sequels"

Sometimes they work, as definitely in the case of Star Trek II and Superman II.....

"I also liked Aliens better than Alien. Hmm maybe I'll have to rethink the sequal -- it's part 3 that usally falls apart :D hopefully that isn't the case with Spidey3"

God, Im DYING for Spidey 3 already! Who do you think the villian is going to be? I think its either going to be Harry Osborne as THE HOBGOBLIN, as they set the end of 2 up to suggest, or The Lizard.....do you have any info on who the next villian is? The whole internet seems to be tight-lipped about it even though its supposedly already shooting.....

[cam]

I'll give you these as better sequel examples:

Superman II
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Spider Man 2 WAS NOT better than the original
Jurassic Park: The Lost World WAS NOT better than the original, but the original DID NOT have paper thin ideas, it needs to be visualized through Michael Chriton's mind

Some AWFUL Sequels Have Been:

Grease 2
Exorcist II: The Heretic
2Fast2Furious
I have to disagree with 2 fast 2 furious being an awful sequel, both my wife, 2 kids, and I all equally thought the plot and the acting stunk in the first one. The story was more enjoyable in the second one and also looking at Eva Mendes was, well, you know.

[Lexmark3200]

I have to disagree with 2 fast 2 furious being an awful sequel, both my wife, 2 kids, and I all equally thought the plot and the acting stunk in the first one. The story was more enjoyable in the second one and also looking at Eva Mendes was, well, you know.

Oh, believe me, coming from someone who was once VERY much into the import car racing scene (and I was the previous Associate Editor of Car Sound & Performance Magazine where we covered all the HOT IMPORT NIGHTS events which inspired the first film) Rob Cohen's original was LIGHT YEARS ahead of the sequel in terms of dealing with the material ---- you're not getting that Cohen had a handle on the car racing scene that was sorely missed by John Singleton, who had NO idea what he was doing behind the camera for the sequel --- Cohen captured that LIFESTYLE of the cars and girls so perfectly well, mixed in with yes, HORRIBLE amateur acting and performances and a stupid plot; but you wanna talk stupid plots? In the sequel we have Cole Hauser playing some rough and tough Miami drug lord hiring drivers to steal for him or whatever? And THIS was entertaining? This shouldnt have been a sequel to The Fast and the Furious, it should have been a THIRD Bad Boys film.......

I WILL however, agree with Eva Mendes......hotter than any other chicks we had to look at in the first film, except for maybe that party scene at Vin Diesel's crib, where we see those two chicks making out.....remember that? Pretty hot.....and Mendes in that white bikini in the sequel.....oh my god......

[Kam]

God, Im DYING for Spidey 3 already! Who do you think the villian is going to be? I think its either going to be Harry Osborne as THE HOBGOBLIN, as they set the end of 2 up to suggest, or The Lizard.....do you have any info on who the next villian is? The whole internet seems to be tight-lipped about it even though its supposedly already shooting.....

It's in pre-production right now last i heard, with a summer 2007 release date. Rumor mills are definitely floating all over and they're being very secretive as to plot and especially the villains, but from what i've found, it's anywhere from 2 to 4 new villains. And they've already laid the groundwork for several to show up. Thomas Haden Church is one villain, and Topher Grace is in the cast so odds are he could be a villain if they dont make Harry the Hobgoblin in this next one. Topher could be Eddie Brock since they havent shown him yet (i dont think, i thought JJJ just mentioned him), just talked about him and would make an interesting casting choice since he is very similar to Tobey. Plus the 'astronaut schmuck' will become the wolf-man and the way Raimi's been handling the JJJ and parker relationship, this might be something he'd want to add, especially the way he did the peter/harry/greengoblin triangle.

I've also heard Kraven as a possible villain, BUT... am hoping THC is not going to be him. The latest rumor seems to be Sandman will be the next villain.

The other villains already mentioned in the first two:
Doc Conners - The Lizard
Eddie Brock - Venom
Harry Osbourne - Hobgoblin

And have to disagree about the romance being left out, especially if you followed the comic book. I havent in the last decade or so, but growing up I did, and the MJ-Peter romance was an integral part to the story and even their first 'adventure' post honeymoon, and how it effects Peter, a perfect example is "Kraven's Last Hunt", is one of the best comic stories ever, IMO, close to Miller's Dark Knight all with the romance integral to the story. This is also what separates Spiderman from most of the other comic book stories.

just some pennies.
peace
k2

[RGA]

The spiderman villains are not terribly interesting to me which is why I was impressed by the dimensional character of Doc Ock

From the cartoon i liked the villain that took spiderman to some alternate dimension and was weird looking...but I forget the name. Him OCK and Goblin are the only ones that really stood out to me.

Batman had the colourful villains - but the movies other than Batman Begins suck. And interestingly Batman Begins may have the weakest villain in terms of writing and screen time. Imagine what could have been. Liam was the real villain - and no need for a mask.

The next Batman will have the Joker apparently.

[Lexmark3200]

The spiderman villains are not terribly interesting to me which is why I was impressed by the dimensional character of Doc Ock

From the cartoon i liked the villain that took spiderman to some alternate dimension and was weird looking...but I forget the name. Him OCK and Goblin are the only ones that really stood out to me.

Batman had the colourful villains - but the movies other than Batman Begins suck. And interestingly Batman Begins may have the weakest villain in terms of writing and screen time. Imagine what could have been. Liam was the real villain - and no need for a mask.

The next Batman will have the Joker apparently.


Wow, alot of good inside information there about the possible villians for Spidey 3.....and although I am fan of the comic as well, I dont agree (still) that the romance shenanigans should be SO sensationalized in the motion picture adaptations.....any time Kirsten Dunst is on the screen I fall asleep during a Spider Man picture; I mean I KNOW Mary Jane Watson is an insanely INTEGRAL part of the story line, Im just saying the parts where they are wondering if they are in love with each other back and forth and back and forth in Part 2 just had me grabbing my remote and fast forwarding to the next fight scene between Doc Ock and Spidey.

Oh, I disagree with what you are saying here about Spidey's villians --- these matchups are awesome compared to the way Batman fought HIS villians in the motion pictures in my opinion; I mean, the Batman franchise was great until Keaton (the only real Bruce Wayne in my opinion next to Adam West) wanted more money and Joel Schumaker took over the director's chair from Burton and we were intoduced to ridiculous villians like Doctor Freeze (one of Schwartzanegger's worst roles)......but his villians (except for Nicholson brilliantly playing the Joker) were eh....so so to me....I mean, was Danny De Vito as the Penguin REALLY that much of a threat to Batman as compared to the Green Goblin or Doctor Octopus? I mean, I understand that Batman was fighting different, more psychologically-attacking villians than Spider Man was, but come on......

I cant comment on Batman Begins because I didnt see it. But how is the Joker supposed to be re-introduced into this franchise if Keaton killed him in the first one? Did he stage his death (which I suspected when I first saw it) off that building or am I missing something here?

[Kam]

I cant comment on Batman Begins because I didnt see it. But how is the Joker supposed to be re-introduced into this franchise if Keaton killed him in the first one? Did he stage his death (which I suspected when I first saw it) off that building or am I missing something here?

Batman Begins has nothing to do with the previous franchise. This follows the comic storyline much more closely. It's basically Batman: Year One with the Scarecrow added in.

[Lexmark3200]

Batman Begins has nothing to do with the previous franchise. This follows the comic storyline much more closely. It's basically Batman: Year One with the Scarecrow added in.

Yes, but is this where the franchise is HEADED ---- its going to go FORWARD from Batman Begins? Then nothing that took place previously with Nicholson as the Joker is going to apply to the next Batman films that come out?

[Kam]

Yes, but is this where the franchise is HEADED ---- its going to go FORWARD from Batman Begins? Then nothing that took place previously with Nicholson as the Joker is going to apply to the next Batman films that come out?

I sure as heck hope so!! all the main leads are signed on for the sequel except for Katie Holmes.

[Lexmark3200]

"Although it did bring out an emotional response from me when the T-Rex was defeted early in the movie. I so expected T-Rex to kick some major a** butt, and I was in shock to see him go down for the count."

Agreed totally; it got an emotional response from me too as I wanst expecting that other breed of 'Saur to kick the T-Rex's ass, and it was kinda sad when he was defeated and killed.....


"The one point that did erk me was when this hugh finned beast snuck up on everyone in the sceen where the boy and family were reunited. How could something that was shaking my windows in all the other sceens manage to make no sound at all? The sat phone in his belly was all you could hear. (take off on the gator with the clock in his belly from Peter Pan I guess) And how did the others facing in his dirrection not see this 4 story baby coming at them. But I get over it fast as they all run for their lives."

I know. Completely ridiculous.

"Anyway, another grate review Lex. Always detailed, informative, organized and well written. I look back when I'm done and say to myself, "self, you read all that?! But it only took a few seconds." Very enjoyable."

I wanted to thank you YET AGAIN for these kind words regarding my review(s) above; that is so thoughtful for someone to take the time and read these and comment like you do. Just wanted to tell you that your comments NEVER go unnoticed. Thanks again, good friend!

[Luis31]

[QUOTE=Lexmark3200]"Although it did bring out an emotional response from me when the T-Rex was defeted early in the movie. I so expected T-Rex to kick some major a** butt, and I was in shock to see him go down for the count."

Agreed totally; it got an emotional response from me too as I wanst expecting that other breed of 'Saur to kick the T-Rex's ass, and it was kinda sad when he was defeated and killed.....


I don't know guys,

I thought the way the writers did this "dino fight" thing to introduce the new big, bad predator in town was pretty lame. You're going to tell me the T-Rex clamps the spinosaur by the neck, pushes him and drags him around, then the spinosour managed to free himself without a scratch to somehow break the neck of the T-Rex! Are you kiddin? In reality, even if the spinosour would've killed the T-Rex, he would've been pretty badly wounded, perhaps mortally, specially if he was bitten in the neck...

[Lexmark3200]

True......

[RGA]

Wow, alot of good inside information there about the possible villians for Spidey 3.....and although I am fan of the comic as well, I dont agree (still) that the romance shenanigans should be SO sensationalized in the motion picture adaptations.....any time Kirsten Dunst is on the screen I fall asleep during a Spider Man picture; I mean I KNOW Mary Jane Watson is an insanely INTEGRAL part of the story line, Im just saying the parts where they are wondering if they are in love with each other back and forth and back and forth in Part 2 just had me grabbing my remote and fast forwarding to the next fight scene between Doc Ock and Spidey.

Oh, I disagree with what you are saying here about Spidey's villians --- these matchups are awesome compared to the way Batman fought HIS villians in the motion pictures in my opinion; I mean, the Batman franchise was great until Keaton (the only real Bruce Wayne in my opinion next to Adam West) wanted more money and Joel Schumaker took over the director's chair from Burton and we were intoduced to ridiculous villians like Doctor Freeze (one of Schwartzanegger's worst roles)......but his villians (except for Nicholson brilliantly playing the Joker) were eh....so so to me....I mean, was Danny De Vito as the Penguin REALLY that much of a threat to Batman as compared to the Green Goblin or Doctor Octopus? I mean, I understand that Batman was fighting different, more psychologically-attacking villians than Spider Man was, but come on......

I cant comment on Batman Begins because I didnt see it. But how is the Joker supposed to be re-introduced into this franchise if Keaton killed him in the first one? Did he stage his death (which I suspected when I first saw it) off that building or am I missing something here?

You're mixing up the comic book cartoon villains and the Tim Burton dreck films. The Joker, Riddler, Penguin, Cat Woman, Mister Freeze are probably the best mainstream cartoon character villains out there. The fact that the films screwed them up well i agree with you.

As I said the Green Goblin and Doctor Octopus were memoerable villains -- for someone with a masters degree you don't read too close to what I'm saying and you create some strawman arguments. The reason I gave most of the batman films bad reviews is because of things like screwing up the penguin, not making the Riddler remotely interesting and Freeze a dullard.

Both Spiderman films I like over the Batman films -- the difference is that Sam Raimi knows comic books and he gets the villains spot on. I think the villains are less interesting but Raimi Gets the most out of the Goblin he probably could and he gets more out of Ock than I thought was possible from the comics. The Batman villains are more interesting comic book characters -- the difference was they did nothing with them. Maybe they shoulda hired Raimi.

[Lexmark3200]

"You're mixing up the comic book cartoon villains and the Tim Burton dreck films. The Joker, Riddler, Penguin, Cat Woman, Mister Freeze are probably the best mainstream cartoon character villains out there. The fact that the films screwed them up well i agree with you."

Well, as I said (and I think YOU yourself need to read a bit closer to what I SAY, as YOU accuse ME of, but I'll get to that in a minute because you're way out of line here), BURTON'S DRECK FILMS were not the Batmans I was really concerned with --- it was when Schumaker took the helm and we were introduced to a rather lame Mr. Freeze and a not-so-great Riddler with Jim Carrey.

"As I said the Green Goblin and Doctor Octopus were memoerable villains -- for someone with a masters degree you don't read too close to what I'm saying and you create some strawman arguments."

First of all, what EXACTLY does this statement mean? I have a MASTERS DEGREE in EXPOSITORY WRITING so what does that have to do with how close I read your scriptures in here? I believe you are just an argumentative person that enjoys the art of debate with someone and getting under their skin just for the sake of doing that --- but thats okay; I have dealt with PLENTY of people in my life like that. Thats okay. And, as I said, read a bit CLOSER to what I SAY and then we'll talk a little more in depth, even over the phone if you would care to debate our knowledge comparison on film a little more --- I'll gladly give you my phone number to arrange this.


"The reason I gave most of the batman films bad reviews is because of things like screwing up the penguin, not making the Riddler remotely interesting and Freeze a dullard."

I agree with most of this; I think NO villian in the history of comic book-turned-cinema is going to top Nicholson's Joker, Im sorry.....thats just my opinion. He just played that role perfectly. Now, I am afraid to see what happens to this franchise once the Joker gets "re introduced" through the groundwork of the prequel BATMAN BEGINS......

"Both Spiderman films I like over the Batman films -- the difference is that Sam Raimi knows comic books and he gets the villains spot on."

I agree.

"I think the villains are less interesting but Raimi Gets the most out of the Goblin he probably could and he gets more out of Ock than I thought was possible from the comics. The Batman villains are more interesting comic book characters -- the difference was they did nothing with them. Maybe they shoulda hired Raimi."

Maybe......but I still think the FIGHT SEQUENCES between Spidey and HIS villians are just so much better and nail-biting in terms of suspense than any of the Batman villian "battles" if thats what you want to call them.....I mean, in Spider Man, Spidey is duking it out punching villians and kicking them and spinning webs at them, and what is Batman really doing? Sure there are some memorable villian moments, but Batman's villians, I think, are more psychologically attacking if you know what I mean.

[steamboy 2]

This film series go's in order. the first is always going to be hard to top & it has not, but as far as jp3 it's not bad the people are as dumb as any movie people can be, but i think that's the point. you want those people to get ripped apart or just made into dino food. i just took it for what it is a summer popcorn movie. you really can't ask for these kind of movies to really impress beyond a certain point, because these movies are just trying to get your money & get there's back. that's the rule of summer movies(well, most of them) check your real common sense at the door.

[Lexmark3200]

Agreed, Steamboy.

[kelsci]

Hello Lex; I have not been here awhile. Much too long a story to explain why but over the past year, my interest in electronics and home theater just seemed to vanish in my mind after futzing around with the hobby for over 50 years. I literally stopped using my system and renting DVDs.

I know I did not see you post for sometime I believe was in the latter part of 2004 and the early part of 2005. I am glad to see you back and in a most contributing way doing reviews of releases on DVD.

I did buy this disc when it came out. I think JP111 is better than the previous 2 releases. I agree with you on the DTS sound. I felt that the video quality reminded me more of an excellently transferred laserdisc; in fact it reminded me of the CAV version of JP1 which I was able to rent some years back.

I listened to both the DTS and D.D. soundtracks. To me, each tract really did not have serious disadvantages but more-so excelled in certain areas. I felt the D.D. track had actually better imaging. I also felt that this track sounds more "theaterlike"; that the acoustical properties sound more like the soundfield of a movie theater. There is no question that if one listens carefully to both tracks back and forth that the D.D. version shows definite compression against the DTS track that does not sound compressed at all. The DTS tract definitly has more audio detail as well. Therefore, while both tracts will reproduce their matrixed D.D. EX and DTS-ES tracts well, it is the DTS-ES tract that stands out better IMO. In fact, in your review and others that commented on this film did not mention how nicely balanced the "surround back information" effects played on this film. I do not have a six channel receiver, but as I mentioned in previous postings on audioreview, that one can hear matrixed surround back info if their rear speakers are placed in specific postions, one of which is when the rear speakers face each other. One good demo of the EX-ES sounds on this film is towards the end when the raptors surround the rescue party looking for their eggs. The raptor "shrieks" in the rear surrounds come out all over the place, but virtually "ear-piercing" on the DTS tract.

Take care Lex. Good to see you on the circuit. I believe from what I read that you did move from NY to Las Vegas which I think you were considering doing some time ago. Kelsci.

[Lexmark3200]

"Hello Lex; I have not been here awhile. Much too long a story to explain why but over the past year, my interest in electronics and home theater just seemed to vanish in my mind after futzing around with the hobby for over 50 years. I literally stopped using my system and renting DVDs."

Hey my good friend! Great to hear from you again! My interest in the hobby also vanished over the last good few months because of a horrendous breakup situation I was in which really tore my world apart, so I know what you mean.

"I know I did not see you post for sometime I believe was in the latter part of 2004 and the early part of 2005."

I was indeed having some personal issues.

"I am glad to see you back and in a most contributing way doing reviews of releases on DVD."

Glad to be back and thank you for taking the time to read and analyze the review.

"I did buy this disc when it came out. I think JP111 is better than the previous 2 releases. I agree with you on the DTS sound."

Yes, the second one is often frowned upon in the home theater community.

"I felt that the video quality reminded me more of an excellently transferred laserdisc; in fact it reminded me of the CAV version of JP1 which I was able to rent some years back."

I got a bit more out of the video presentation, believe that or not; I felt is was ALMOST perfectly mastered.

"I listened to both the DTS and D.D. soundtracks. To me, each tract really did not have serious disadvantages but more-so excelled in certain areas. I felt the D.D. track had actually better imaging. I also felt that this track sounds more "theaterlike"; that the acoustical properties sound more like the soundfield of a movie theater. There is no question that if one listens carefully to both tracks back and forth that the D.D. version shows definite compression against the DTS track that does not sound compressed at all."

As is USUALLY the case, as we know, and hence why I dont USUALLY demo both tracks on a disc as Terrence has demanded I do (hehe) and why I usually leave these A/B comparisons to folks such as yourself who tend to do them better than I; when I see the DTS logo----I go for it, no questions asked.

"The DTS tract definitly has more audio detail as well. Therefore, while both tracts will reproduce their matrixed D.D. EX and DTS-ES tracts well, it is the DTS-ES tract that stands out better IMO. In fact, in your review and others that commented on this film did not mention how nicely balanced the "surround back information" effects played on this film"

I mentioned in one portion where you get the sensation of one of the dinosaurs' tails "whipping" around the rear field very nicely......

"I do not have a six channel receiver, but as I mentioned in previous postings on audioreview, that one can hear matrixed surround back info if their rear speakers are placed in specific postions, one of which is when the rear speakers face each other. One good demo of the EX-ES sounds on this film is towards the end when the raptors surround the rescue party looking for their eggs. The raptor "shrieks" in the rear surrounds come out all over the place, but virtually "ear-piercing" on the DTS tract."

This disc, before we go any further, is NOT labeled as a DTS ES or DD EX compatible title, and I had this discussion already with diehard enthusiasts on Home Theater Talk.com; Universal LABELS the mix simply as DTS 5.1.

"Take care Lex. Good to see you on the circuit. I believe from what I read that you did move from NY to Las Vegas which I think you were considering doing some time ago."

Thanks alot, Kel! I appreciate it man! Take care as well, and please feel free to join in any discussions we have here on these reviews! You have always been a great friend and I hope you are in good health!

My Best Wishes to You and Your Family.

[kelsci]

Hi Lex; Thank you for your most gracious response. I agree with you that JP111 is nearly a perfectly mastered disc. I can tell you that JP1 on CAV laserdisc was perhaps the most perfectly mastered disc on that format. The video was sharper than the CLV long play version and the dolby surround audio was clearer and cleaner as well vs the CLV long play disc.

The "tail whipping" sound effect was a great example of EX-ES center back sound. The "whipping" sound went across the whole rear and rear back sound field perfectly. A good example of a disc that did not have EX-ES or in fact any kind of center back sound was a particular segment of ARMEGEDDON. When Bruce Willis is left behind to explode the A-bomb, he is listening to the shuttle take off. As it passes overhead, you hear the shuttle flyby jumping from one rear speaker to the next instead of the smooth transition across the whole rear soundfield that was needed such as that "tailwhipping" scene in JP111.

Take care, Lex. Kelsci.

[Lexmark3200]

"Hi Lex; Thank you for your most gracious response."

You are most welcome my friend. Thank you for finally getting back in touch as you are the most caring, heartfelt member of this entire forum and your thoughts are ALWAYS well respected by me.

"I agree with you that JP111 is nearly a perfectly mastered disc."

True and glad we see this together.

"I can tell you that JP1 on CAV laserdisc was perhaps the most perfectly mastered disc on that format. The video was sharper than the CLV long play version and the dolby surround audio was clearer and cleaner as well vs the CLV long play disc."

While I dont have experience with the laserdisc, I will take your word for it.

"The "tail whipping" sound effect was a great example of EX-ES center back sound. The "whipping" sound went across the whole rear and rear back sound field perfectly."

I just wish for two things: that the BOX SAID this was a DTS ES mix and that I had that back speaker to take advantage of the 6.1 preparation.

"A good example of a disc that did not have EX-ES or in fact any kind of center back sound was a particular segment of ARMEGEDDON. When Bruce Willis is left behind to explode the A-bomb, he is listening to the shuttle take off. As it passes overhead, you hear the shuttle flyby jumping from one rear speaker to the next instead of the smooth transition across the whole rear soundfield that was needed"

Yes, I think I know the scene (audio wise) that you are referring to here in Armageddon and you're probably right that it would have benefitted from EX encoding (because it was a DOLBY soundtrack, not DTS which I wish it was); I will have to re-watch it and listen for it.....not one of my favorite Buena Vista Dolby Digital tracks, but it does kind of look good for a non anamorphic transfer.....

"Take care, Lex. Kelsci."

You too, Kel.....best to you and your family.

[kelsci]

Hi Lex; As I mentioned previously, I do not have a back speaker on my system since my receiver is just 5.1. The EX-ES sound can be reproduced phantomly. On your system as mine, the "tail whipping" sound effect will be heard phantomly across your whole back soundfield. It is the smoothness of that effect across that whole back soundfield that is the EX-ES sound and that is what you are hearing. The ARMEGEDDON sound effect I mentioned is near the end of the film. On your system as well, you will most likely hear what I heard where the sound of the shuttle jumps from one rear speaker to another where had this scene had some kind of center back processing; the ship should sound like it went across the rear sound field smoothly from one speaker to another. It really should have had the same effect as that " tail whipping" scene in JP111. Kelsci.

[Lexmark3200]

"As I mentioned previously, I do not have a back speaker on my system since my receiver is just 5.1."

Oh yes, my apologies for overlooking that.

"The EX-ES sound can be reproduced phantomly."

A phenomenon I always had a difficult time understanding but I will take your expert word on it.

"On your system as mine, the "tail whipping" sound effect will be heard phantomly across your whole back soundfield. It is the smoothness of that effect across that whole back soundfield that is the EX-ES sound and that is what you are hearing."

Okay; Im gonna have to listen again for this but I am STILL bothered by the fact that Universal DID NOT indicate this as a DTS ES mix----it is LABELED on the box as a DTS 5.1 track.

"The ARMEGEDDON sound effect I mentioned is near the end of the film. On your system as well, you will most likely hear what I heard where the sound of the shuttle jumps from one rear speaker to another where had this scene had some kind of center back processing; the ship should sound like it went across the rear sound field smoothly from one speaker to another. It really should have had the same effect as that " tail whipping" scene in JP111."

I know the scene you speak of; I'll try to demo it when I can. Thanks.

[kelsci]

Hi Lex; Another DVD that was released by Universal in EX sound and not labled as such was THE MUMMY RETURNS. In thinking of what you wrote regarding labeling for EX-ES center back sound, you are correct that any film containing this sound and transferred to DVD should be so labled. I think the perfect example of EX-ES labeling was GLADIATOR. I think some NEW LINE releases were also labled appropriately as well.

I had to replace a 4 inch woofer today; when I put the speaker on an ohmeter, instead of 7.5 ohms, I got flurtacious readings all over the meter scale. I thought for some time that something was wrong somewhere with my system. Finally, the speaker started going on and off and gave itself away. Everything is working fine now.

I remember that you had some problem with the concept of center back surround sound. I remember some time ago trying to explain it to you. I think there is a simple self-explanatory aide that can help you. Go to your PHANTOM MENACE disc. When the menu comes up, go to OPTIONS. At the top of the OPTIONS screen, you need to get the THX OPTIMIZER to light up. Once that is lit up, press the appropriate button on your remote and a screen will appear indicating audio and video tests. Have the audio tests come up. The first diagram that appears has all the speakers for a complete 5.1 system including speakers for the center back channel. Have the audio test begin on that particular diagram. Each speaker in the diagram will give a white noise test tone to your own systems speakers. There is a center back test tone on that THX diagram. Personally listen for that particular tone relative to the surround field in your listening room. I hope this helps. Kelsci.

[Lexmark3200]

"Hi Lex"

Hi, my good friend! Welcome back to the JURASSIC PARK III discussion! You know, I watched this DVD again today, after all the conversations we have been having about it, and it simply justified my feelings regarding this DTS mix.....MAN is this mix loud, obnoxiously bass filled and just downright demo quality to my ears.....the LFE whenever a dinosaur was stomping around the screen shook my walls like nobody's business; the only complaint I had about it, upon further scrutiny, was that the dialogue----as I am finding on way too many releases----was horrendously low as compared to the action here; something that is not too common a characteristic for Digital Theater System soundtracks.

"Another DVD that was released by Universal in EX sound and not labled as such was THE MUMMY RETURNS"

Yes, unfortunately I know. Warner ALSO did not label THE PERFECT STORM as a Dolby EX mix, which it was......

"In thinking of what you wrote regarding labeling for EX-ES center back sound, you are correct that any film containing this sound and transferred to DVD should be so labled. I think the perfect example of EX-ES labeling was GLADIATOR. I think some NEW LINE releases were also labled appropriately as well."

Yes----GLADIATOR CLEARLY and BOLDLY proclaims the DTS ES DISCRETE soundtrack hyperbole right on the cover and side of the box; DreamWorks plays no games with their DTS releases----they did the same with THE HAUNTING's DTS ES Signaure Series disc, where the DTS ES DISCRETE logo was boldly labeled as such. Great catch by your eyes!

"I had to replace a 4 inch woofer today; when I put the speaker on an ohmeter, instead of 7.5 ohms, I got flurtacious readings all over the meter scale. I thought for some time that something was wrong somewhere with my system. Finally, the speaker started going on and off and gave itself away. Everything is working fine now."

Are you talking about when demoing Jurassic Park III?

"I remember that you had some problem with the concept of center back surround sound. I remember some time ago trying to explain it to you. I think there is a simple self-explanatory aide that can help you. Go to your PHANTOM MENACE disc. When the menu comes up, go to OPTIONS. At the top of the OPTIONS screen, you need to get the THX OPTIMIZER to light up. Once that is lit up, press the appropriate button on your remote and a screen will appear indicating audio and video tests. Have the audio tests come up. The first diagram that appears has all the speakers for a complete 5.1 system including speakers for the center back channel. Have the audio test begin on that particular diagram. Each speaker in the diagram will give a white noise test tone to your own systems speakers. There is a center back test tone on that THX diagram. Personally listen for that particular tone relative to the surround field in your listening room. I hope this helps"

Kel, I dont own Phantom Menace but I do own ATTACK OF THE CLONES, in which there is also a THX optimizing sequence on the menu; but I cannot recall if this test will indicate any "phantom back" imaging going on......

Thanks for your thoughts, good friend!

[kelsci]

Hi Lex; The raw speaker that I replaced was for my right satellite unit. JP111 was not the cause of it blowing. The raw speaker comes from Partsexpress. The speaker is made in China. The reliability of these speakers are so-so. They are rated 40 watt RMS which is the "real" power of the Sherwood 6095R receiver. It is funny, but after I replaced that speaker, I used JP111 to check my systems imaging since JP111 has both D.D. and DTS. Yes, that movie certainly has quite a bit of earthshaking dinosaur stomping in it and in fact all the sound effects in it is done very well. I found the dialogue reproduction on both tracks to be ok. Perhaps you need a slight boost in the center channel. My unit goes from minus 15 to plus 15. I have it set on minus seven. I can set it up one notch to minus six if I desire to receive more dialogue emphasis without killing the stereo-surround sound field. This low dialogue issue is quite real. I think I have the solution to it, though many might not like what I might suggest since the result means the system becomes very "sweet spot". That would be to add dialogue in the left and right front speakers. I base this on my experiences with the Dynaquad passive surround matrix system I use to deploy.

I have THE HAUNTING but only in D.D. There is no mention of D.D.-EX on the packaging.

Lex, you can do the test I mentioned with the THX optimizer on the ATTACK OF THE CLONES disc too. When you get a chance, give it a shot. Good luck. Kelsci.

[Lexmark3200]

"The raw speaker that I replaced was for my right satellite unit. JP111 was not the cause of it blowing"

Whew.

"Yes, that movie certainly has quite a bit of earthshaking dinosaur stomping in it and in fact all the sound effects in it is done very well. I found the dialogue reproduction on both tracks to be ok. Perhaps you need a slight boost in the center channel."

My center channel is already running THREE decibels higher than the rest of the channels; I think there is a soft dialogue problem running through MY specific library of discs!

"My unit goes from minus 15 to plus 15. I have it set on minus seven. I can set it up one notch to minus six if I desire to receive more dialogue emphasis without killing the stereo-surround sound field."

Well, mine goes from -12 to +12 and I have the center on PLUS NINE right now, and the dialogue tracks are still low. I am not going to do any further boosting. I cant believe you are getting good response from your settings being in the NEGATIVE column.

"This low dialogue issue is quite real."

I am THRILLED someone else recognizes this. It even happens in theaters.

"I think I have the solution to it, though many might not like what I might suggest since the result means the system becomes very "sweet spot". That would be to add dialogue in the left and right front speakers. I base this on my experiences with the Dynaquad passive surround matrix system I use to deploy."

Yeah, I think most folks would judge against doing this, although when I run ANY digital encoded soundtrack, my receiver automatically drops the dialogue into the center channel, and appropriate effects into the surrounds.

"I have THE HAUNTING but only in D.D. There is no mention of D.D.-EX on the packaging."

You NEED.....absolutely NEED....to get this title in DTS ES format because your entire house will come apart from the bass....its out of print, but you can probably find it online somewhere.

"Lex, you can do the test I mentioned with the THX optimizer on the ATTACK OF THE CLONES disc too. When you get a chance, give it a shot. Good luck."

And what exactly am I listening for again?

Thanks Kel!

[kelsci]

Hi Lex; On that AUDIO part of the THX OPTIMODE test has a white noise test of the left-center-right-left rear surround-center back surround-and right rear surround. Pay particular attention when the on-screen diagram tests the center back surround speakers with white noise. Even though you do not have a center back surround speaker in operation, the center back sound will reproduce inself from the left and right rear surrounds. You should hear the white noise in the center between those two surround speakers. If that is what you hear, you have now heard phantom EX sound. As I am typing this thread to you, I have the Optimode test on. The onscreen display coordinates with white noise segments through each speaker. A display SURROUND BACK CHANNEL(S) will show. That is what you are listening for. You can also jump to the fourth test. This has an in-phase/out of phase test of the surround back channels. Note the position of the in-phase white noise test in your listening area. Try it, Lex. I hope it is the path to at least having an idea what is going on with this phenomena.

{Well, mine goes from -12 to +12 and I have the center on PLUS NINE right now, and the dialogue tracks are still low. I am not going to do any further boosting. I cant believe you are getting good response from your settings being in the NEGATIVE column.}

{"This low dialogue issue is quite real."}

Wow Lex. I do not know what to say. I think there is some kind of problem here. All I can say is that I do not use a SPL meter. I did own one. I could not even begin to write or even discuss the things that I have found out in owning electronics and its peculiarities. I have my own way of setting up a stereo-surround field which does work. The -6 setting that I use is giving me good dialogue reproduction on every disc that I play. My hearing is not even anything like it used to be yet I still can make out the dialogue quite fine. Plus 9 and your dialogue sounds low. I know that Onkyo is a damm good receiver. The first thing that comes to my mind is a center channel problem within the receiver or the center channel loudspeaker you are using. If you have access to a ohmeter, I would disconnect my wires and set the ohmeter to its lowest range. Place the red probe wire of the meter into the speaker plus terminal/black probe wire in the minus terminal. What you would be looking for is a reading of somewhere between 6 to 8 ohms. If you get spurious ohm readings like I described with the bad speaker I just replaced like 50, l00,200etc. there is a bad driver. If not, you have a weakness in the center channel processing of your receiver which might encompass decoding or something causing weak power in that center channel. There would be no surprise that you would be thinking that there was a dialogue problem with a lot of discs. I still however do not dispute the fact about low dialogue in discs and it is a issue. I have two recievers in my room; an older JVC 718 DPL 4X100 watter and the Sherwood 6095R D.D.-DTS 5.1 which from what I read is really a 40 watter X 5, regardless of what Sherwood has stated. JVC settings are factory set on left and right; minus 1 on center and plus one on the rear surrounds(the fourth channel is split between the two rear surround speakers). Sherwood settings are Left and Right -0- ; center minus 6 and each surround at -4.

I have not been quite right mentally for some time so I forget some of the ideas that I have had. I have another center channel solution. Most of us use a D'Appolito designed center channel set up as a woofer-tweeter-woofer. What I think we need is a better D'Appolito with a woofer-midrange-tweeter-midrange-woofer set-up. There used to be a sight called E-town on the web. I presented this. I think it was the noted journalist, Brent Butterworth, who said that you would end up with a "lobing" effect. I believe that this would not be the case and might solve alot of the dialogue problems. The Dynaco Dynaquad circuit taught me alot of knowledge.

As far as theaters go, as long as I can remember, there were areas of low dialogue in just about any movie I saw in a theater. Sometimes it was so low, that I fell asleep.

Lex; I wish you luck with anything that you might try. Kelsci.

[Lexmark3200]

"Hi Lex; On that AUDIO part of the THX OPTIMODE test has a white noise test of the left-center-right-left rear surround-center back surround-and right rear surround. Pay particular attention when the on-screen diagram tests the center back surround speakers with white noise. Even though you do not have a center back surround speaker in operation, the center back sound will reproduce inself from the left and right rear surrounds. You should hear the white noise in the center between those two surround speakers. If that is what you hear, you have now heard phantom EX sound."

Gotcha. I will try that when I get home.

"As I am typing this thread to you, I have the Optimode test on. The onscreen display coordinates with white noise segments through each speaker. A display SURROUND BACK CHANNEL(S) will show. That is what you are listening for. You can also jump to the fourth test. This has an in-phase/out of phase test of the surround back channels. Note the position of the in-phase white noise test in your listening area. Try it, Lex. I hope it is the path to at least having an idea what is going on with this phenomena."

Thank you.

"Wow Lex. I do not know what to say. I think there is some kind of problem here."

Seriously? Even though you suspected that the low dialogue problem may indeed just be inherent in cinema itself?

"All I can say is that I do not use a SPL meter."

Oh boy.......

"The -6 setting that I use is giving me good dialogue reproduction on every disc that I play."

As was I THOUGHT the "+9" setting was giving me.......

"My hearing is not even anything like it used to be yet I still can make out the dialogue quite fine. Plus 9 and your dialogue sounds low."

Dont get me wrong now-----its not HORRENDOUSLY low where you cant make anything out, but it seems lower in the overall mix.

"I know that Onkyo is a damm good receiver."

Yes, thank you.

"The first thing that comes to my mind is a center channel problem within the receiver or the center channel loudspeaker you are using."

I dont think either, but we can suspect; this is a good, solid Polk center Im running.

"I still however do not dispute the fact about low dialogue in discs and it is a issue."

Thank God......

"As far as theaters go, as long as I can remember, there were areas of low dialogue in just about any movie I saw in a theater. Sometimes it was so low, that I fell asleep."

Makes me feel A LITTLE better......

"Lex; I wish you luck with anything that you might try."

Thank you my good friend, and I wish you good health, as well.......

[musicman1999]

wow your center is set at +9.
just curious about what your other channels are set at?
+9 seems way to high.
my settings are
l&r front 0
front center -1
l surroud -2
r surround -3
rear center -5
sub +3
the back of my room is obviously an odd shape and seating is close to rear speakers

bill