fruitsaverer Reviews

Jurassic Park III (2001)

A laugh riot, for all the wrong reasons

[1/10 · 20 June 2015]

So bad it's funny 3rd film in the Jurassic Park series let's go of the intelligence, wonder and heart of the first two Steven Spielberg films (Jurassic Park and The Lost World) and just goes for it in just plain loony stupidity with a half baked rescues film that tries to be everything but entertaining.

Alan Grant(Sam Neill)is tricked into going to Isla Sorna by a supposedly rich couple ( William H Macy and Tea leoni) wanting to go on a sight seeing tour of the island, unknowing to him that he's really there to help find their son, who was stranded there a few weeks earlier. In their search to find this dumb kid, their plane crash lands on the island and they meet the island's new dinosaur called the Spinosaurus, who manages to eat one of them and have a their satellite phone ringing inside its belly through out the film. Not to mention a bad subplot with the parents falling in love again with each other and talking raptors that are hunting our heroes through out the film for their stolen eggs. If the story already sounds like it's completely out there, it's because it is. Most of what is happening in front of you makes absolutely no sense and the acting from every actor in the movie in phoned in. Poor Sam Neill looks miserable through out the whole thing and most of the special and practical effects look second rate compared to the last Spielberg films and the movie that comes after it (Jurassic World). The characters act like idiots through out the entire movie and when it ends, it just ends. With No build up or climax. The only thing you know for certain is that you're laughing at all the wrong reasons, hoping and cheering on the dinosaurs in killing every human character in the film.

I don 't know what when through the mind of the people in charge of this franchise but what ever it was, I hope they keep it to themselves next time.

Jurassic World (2015)

Manages to somewhat return the Jurassic Park series to it's former glory, but its still a few notches below Spielberg's first two entries in the series.

[6/10 · 4 June 2015]

Modernized and polished entry to the Jurassic Park series picks up 22 years after the original Steven Spielberg SyFy thriller with a fully functional prehistoric amusement park that is trying to pick up their attendance numbers by splicing the DNA of their animals in order to create a new attraction to bring in more customers. With this, they manage to create a dinosaur that is much bigger that the signature T-Rex but also much more aggressive, much smarter and much more territorial as well. So of course it does not take much time for this thing to break out of it's habitat to cause death and destruction in it's wake. It's then up to park consultant Owen Grady (Chris Pratt) and company to stop this mega dinosaur from killing everyone on the island.

While the set up is predictable as well as it's outcome, the movie still provides a fun two hours of distraction. The problem is however is that outside of Chris Pratt, whose playing an intelligent variation of his swagger character from " Guardians" No one in this movie is very interesting or likable with the slight exception of Vincent D'Onofrio, who can read a phone book and make it interesting. The script is cringe worthy in a lot of places and while technology has come very far from the original, good storytelling is far and few between. "Jurassic World" still does manage to offer a lot of scary moments of sheer terror and does provide some comic relief, which is a huge step up from the last movie of the series(Jurassic Park 3)but does not have the genuine spectacle and heart that drove Steven Spielberg's first two movies in the series (The original Jurassic Park and The Lost World : Jurassic Park).

All and all, it's a decent ride that somewhat redeems the Jurassic Park series but they need shoot higher next time other than just be a decent follow up.

Dawn of the Dead (2004)

Good but not as good as the original.

[5/10 · 27 March 2004]

Good but not so good remake to the original fright flick lacks the brains of its predecessor and does not have its heart. Sarah Polley and Ving Rhames do well with their roles but the film really does not go anywhere with the time it has, and it lacks the bravado of the original film's climax. My hats off to the director for keeping the body count high but shame on him for not getting too involved with his cast of characters, who in the original had some personality. George Romero's original had a sense of real dread and a nightmarish view on human conflict but this movie is more popcorn than a real meal. Some genuine scares here and there but nothing else in terms of real human emotion. Which is a shame because that what makes the original such a classic in modern horror.

Resident Evil (2002)

Does not have the quality or the horror of the games.

[5/10 · 27 March 2004]

Resident Evil is a slick and decent looking movie but it lacks a lot in terms of scares and horror to make it worthy of the video games that spawn it. Milla Jovovich and the cast do well with what is giving, and the movie itself is a good late night movie to watch but it should have been a balls to the wall horror feast that the games were. Of course like all adaptations of novels and games, it does not resemble its forefather in anyway, and it does not retain the sense of terror that the game had in spades. The zombies don't look scary at all, and the hunter looks a fake as a plastic chew toy. Some scenes are good, and the special effects in some of them fit like a glove but overall the movie is nothing more than a decent scary movie that should have been a lot more than it was.