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

[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 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 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.....

[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.

[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.

[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......