Movie Critics Thread

[jazzcomp]

I felt underwhelmed by Jurassic World. I guess they can't recreate the feeling from the original.

[kup]

I felt underwhelmed by Jurassic World. I guess they can't recreate the feeling from the original.

I think that's because it is more of a monster movie than Dinosaurs. It seems to go well with people who like monster movies but if you are in it for the Dinosaurs, not much for you as they still persist on 'consumer friendly' outdated Dinosaur models.

The original Jurassic Park showed us Dinosaurs that were as scientifically accurate as possible at the time (for most part). They changed the tired perspective of 'slow moving creatures that can only live in swamps' and 'tripod' Tyranosaurs. However this new movie doesn't even try to update based on new discoveries and even within the plot, it is made very clear that this is no longer about Dinosaurs but a monster movie.

In short, if you like a good monster movie, Jurassic World will do it for you. If you liked the magic of the original with as accurately portrayed dinosaurs (as possible) then you may be disappointed.

[Ace]

The Jurassic movies were intended as thriller/action movies weren't they?

If they were to create a movie following the Jurassic era, half the dinosaurs that have been in the 4 movies wouldn't be included? I'm no prehistoric buff, but I've heard that almost all dinosaurs had feathers on them. Raptors were no-where near the size they have been portrayed in the movies etc.

I really enjoyed the movie and was pleasantly surprised by it. Perhaps it will (hopefully) breathe a breath of fresh air into the franchise and interest in our prehistoric past the same as Bay has inspired a new generation of interest into our beloved Transformers franchise.

Monster movie or not, I believe it was very entertaining and had nice little nostalgic throwbacks to the original movie which first made us fall in love with the T-Rex, Triceratops, raptors and Brontesaurus/Brachiosaurus(?).

Definitely worth checking out and making the decision for yourself 😉

[kup]

The Jurassic movies were intended as thriller/action movies weren't they?

If they were to create a movie following the Jurassic era, half the dinosaurs that have been in the 4 movies wouldn't be included? I'm no prehistoric buff, but I've heard that almost all dinosaurs had feathers on them. Raptors were no-where near the size they have been portrayed in the movies etc.

I really enjoyed the movie and was pleasantly surprised by it. Perhaps it will (hopefully) breathe a breath of fresh air into the franchise and interest in our prehistoric past the same as Bay has inspired a new generation of interest into our beloved Transformers franchise.

Monster movie or not, I believe it was very entertaining and had nice little nostalgic throwbacks to the original movie which first made us fall in love with the T-Rex, Triceratops, raptors and Brontesaurus/Brachiosaurus(?).

Definitely worth checking out and making the decision for yourself 😉

The 'Why is it called Jurassic Park when several Dinosaurs are from the Cretaceous period' is something that was discussed last century and not what I mean about scientific accuracy of the Dinosaurs

[UltimateGalvatron]

Brontosaurus is different to Braichosaurus. Originally Brontosaurus was a dinosaur named something new but ended up being one of a pre-exisiting species, Apatosaurus. However recent studies suggest a new sub-species of Apatosaurus is Brontosaurus. It's confusing, I know!

Also regarding the 'most dinosaurs have feathers' statement for the most part only Therapod Dinosaurs (two legged carnivores, like Tyrannosaurs, Allosaurs, Spinosaurs and Raptors) had feathers, a notable exception being Psittacosaurus.

Sorry, nerd rant over.

Also I haven't seen Jurassic World yet. Apparently it's a good movie, just not a good DINOSAUR movie.

Don't even get me started on the bloody mutant dino-hybrid. (Indominus Rex)

Also somewhere in the action pose thread someone referenced Nanotyrannus, which has recently been proven to just be a younger Tyrannosaurus.

Ok, rant over for REAL.

[Ace]

I must have missed last century Kup.. Apologies

It's a great movie in my opinion.

[Ace]

UG, I apologise for the confusion about the "long necks" I wasn't sure which one I needed to mention. I didn't want to stir any nerd rants. Personally, the land before time is what first introduced me to Dinosaurs, thus my naive perspective on enjoying the film.

I thought my disclaimer was a bit clearer. I'm in no way up to speed on species and dino-facts.

But it's a fictitious movie building on what was known at the time of the first movie's release. Take it for what it is?

[UltimateGalvatron]

I wasn't directing that at you, sorry if it came like that. I just like showing off my up to date dinosaur knowledge.

Anyway I'm still looking forward to it despite the millions of mistakes that are going to be in it

[Lord_Zed]

I would describe Jurassic World as satisfying. It neither exceeded my expectations or disappointed me. I think I enjoyed the first part more than the end, seeing the park open with all the dinomonsters harked back the original classic, more than the monster fight bling.

I think the tittle Jurassic World says it all.

50% Jurassic Park Nostalgia and goodness mixed with 50% Lost World (and the other JP sequel) clichés and silliness.

[Gutsman Heavy]

JW lived up to my expectations of being ok, it's pretty much what 3 should have been.