My review of the Jurassic Park Trilogy

My review of the Jurassic Park Trilogy

  

Intro: You know for a movie that has Jurassic in the title it doesn't have a lot of Dinosaurs from that era. 

Jurassic Park: The movie is centered on a man named John Hammond who wants to open a dinosaur theme park on an island called Isla Nublar, in order to do that he needs the approval of a small group of people. Once they get an idea of how this park works something goes wrong, the dinosaurs are on the loose and people are separated. So, they have to secure the park before things get out of hand.   

This is one of the best sci-fi films that features Dinosaurs. This movie came out at the right time because the 90's was the decade for Dinosaurs, I mean we had so many shows that features Dinosaurs like Power Rangers, Land of the lost, Jim Henson's Dinosaurs and a show with a purple dinosaur. The CGI and practical effects were good enough at the time to make us believe we were seeing real dinosaurs on screen. Plus, they're being betrayed as real animals, not just man-eating monsters. I'm fond of the scientific explanation we get for how the dinosaurs are created because cloning has been talked about for over ten years. I like how smart the Velociraptors are because it makes them more dangerous than they are. The movie serves as a cautionary tale about playing GOD with nature and genetic power. There is also an underline theme of parenting in the movie. I appreciate that characters are talking about whether or not we should bring Dinosaurs to the 21th century? There's a lot to consider with Dinosaurs, like can they thrive in our Ecosystem and are we ready to be exposed to them? The movie also can be fun and scary. I also love how this movie advertise itself.      

John Hammond is the CEO of InGen the company the create these Dinosaurs. He's a kind man who got carried away with what he's doing that he didn't consider the downside of bring Dinosaur back to the 21th century. I wish he was like his Novel counterpart because that will add some conflict in the movie.  

Dr. Ian Malcolm is a mathematician who specialize in chaos theory. He's not only the comic relief but the voice or reason. 

Alan Grant is a Paleontologist who's against evolving. I mean he doesn't like to use technology and doesn't like kids for understandable reasons. I wish this character wasn't underdeveloped. 

Ellie Sattler is a Paleobotanist who's a tomboy with a sense of humor. I'm confused as to wither or not her and Alan are a couple? I know the movie suggest that they are but I don't buy it. For example we see Alan is annoyed that Dr. Malcolm is flirting with her but she doesn't mind it.      

   
One of the problems I have with this movie is that the director seems to be more focus on showing off the Dinosaurs than adapting elements from the book. Speaking of the book there is subplot involving one of Mr. Hammond's employees and you have to read the book to understand it. Do I really have to explain why this is an issue for me? Plus he undermines Dr. Malcom's famous line life will find a way. The movie also suffers from plot holes, the CGI doesn't hold up and the movie setup a plot point that didn't get enough focus. I have mixed feeling about the kids in this movie. I'm glad that they're not completely helpless however they can be a burden. 

Overall this is one of the best Dinosaur movies which isn't saying much.  If you love Dinosaurs then I would recommend this. 

Rating = Worth seeing 



Intro: If I was the late Michael Crichton I would strange Mr. Spielberg for having me write a sequel novel to Jurassic Park. What's the point of doing that if he's not going to do the best job at adapting it? Sorry I'm getting ahead of myself.    

The Lost World: This movie takes place four years after the events in Jurassic Park, a family discovers another island inhabited by dinosaurs called Isla Sorna also known as side B. John Hammond tells Ian Malcolm about the incident so that he can send him and a team to document the dinosaurs. Meanwhile, another group try to capture the dinosaurs, but they became too much for them to handle. So the two groups have to work together to survive and get off the Island.  

 
This movie was disappointing! I don't think it's bad however it doesn't build off what the last film establish. For example, if you want to know what happened to the barbasol can then play the lasted Jurassic Park video game. (That's one of the many problems I have with the book this movie is based on, it didn't follow up on how Jurassic park ended but I digress.) 

Side B feels like something the writers made up because we saw Dinosaurs being created on Isla Nublar. I don't mind the idea of another island where the Dinosaurs can roam free however it seems like too much work to move them around like this. The movie tried to make animal rights a subject but the movie didn't do the best job at it. This film also suffers from editing, there are scenes in the movie that makes you ask how did that happen? The last act is ridiculous! Don't get me wrong I want to see that happen but not like this. Most of the characters in this movie do stupid things and the movie would have ended differently if it wasn't for the head-scratching moments in the film.   

Ian Malcolm is not as amusing as he was before because he's on edge in this movie.  

Sarah Harding is an animal behavior specialist who's adventurous. My beef with her is that she does things that put her and others in danger. Also, I don't buy that she's Ian's girlfriend because they don't have scenes of them being chummy.     

Roland Tembo is a professional hunter who shows compassion and values his men's safety. The only issue I have with him is that he made some rookie mistakes like leaving his gun around people that don't like him. 

Nick Van Owen (one of Ian Malcom's team members.) is an animal lover. What bugs me about him is that he did things that put everyone in danger. I understand why he did those things however he didn't show any remorse for the damage he cause. 

Peter Ludlow ( John Hammond's nephew.) is an idiot! I say that because of the plan he has to help InGen financially, anyone with half a brain can see that this is a bad idea. I was letdown that there was no family drama over InGen I mean is it a family business?            

I like the way this movie reference the first novel in the beginning of the film. The CGI in this movie looks better than the last film and the movie is more violent. We are introduce to new Dinosaurs that we haven't seen in the first film. You don't root for either teams because both of them have done questionable things. The movie could have been better if Biosyn (InGen's rival company.) was in the movie because it would help the conflict in the movie. All in all this is an OK movie.  

Rating = Rental  

Intro: I can't believe that this movie made a Barney reference. 

Jurassic Park 3: This movie is about parents who are looking for there son. They believe he landed on side B So they go to Dr. Alan Grant to help them find there son. Once they get on the island Surprise! Surprise! They're being chase by a new Dinosaurs called the Spinosaurus and the Velociraptors. So they have to find the boy and get off the island. 

This movie is similar to the last one but worse, really this movie could have been a direct to DVD movie or a spin-off. The movie adds nothing new to the franchise for the most part. It tried to make family a theme but it didn't do the best job at it because the theme doesn't apply to everyone. T Rex fans are not going to be happy that it got the cold shoulder in favor of the Spinosaurus. I don't mind the Spinosaurus being in the spotlight however it was done in poor taste. Also, the movie drop hints that the Spinosaurus is a hybrid but nothing comes if it. 

We finally get a Dinosaur fight and it was lame. The CGI looks bad and the comedy doesn't work either because it can ruin some serious moments. Side B must be a big island because we haven't seen the Spinosaurus or the new-looking Velociraptors in the last movie. There isn't much to say about the characters because they lack personalities and some of the acting is bad. Fans won't be happy with what this movie has done with Dr. Grant I mean he views the Dinosaurs as monsters. If he feels that way about them then why is he still working as a paleontologist? The only thing I like about this movie is how the Velociraptors are betrayed in this movie, I mean there not just hunting our main characters for the heck of it.   

This movie may be the weakest one out of the three however it's harmless, it could have been better with rewrites. I would recommend this if you like thrillers. 

Rating = Trash 

My Rant about Comedy in the media

My Rant about Comedy in the media 


 

Comedy films and TV shows are hard for me to review because it's too subjective. Plus, there are so many times where you can say that's not funny and you can't explain why something isn't funny without giving away the joke in the show or movie. If you don’t find something laughable, is it still considered comedy? If you laugh at how bad the show or movie is does that count? Also, everyone has a different perspective of what’s funny or not, for example, slapstick comedy may be hilarious to me but not to everyone else. 

I don't find cross-dressing funny because it seems like a cheap way to get people to laugh. Another thing, if you have to do that to get that reaction from people then you're in the wrong profession. (Yes, Tyler Perry I'm talking to you.) Do you know what bugs me about sitcoms it's the laugh track. I feel like I'm being manipulated into laughing at the jokes because of that. If you feel like you need to do that then you have no confidence in your jokes. The real question is how many times can a movie or TV show make you laugh in order for it to be a part of the comedy genre? I can say that Dumb and Dumber isn’t funny to me, but I can’t justify why it’s not funny to everyone else. There are comedy films that got good reviews, but I don’t find amusing like The 40-year-old virgin,

the only part I laugh at in that movie was this. 

Comparing comedy from the past to now is not the best measuring stick because what's considered funny depends on the culture of any time period. This is why I don't find a comedy movie from the 50's funny not because the jokes are outdated, it's because I wasn't born in that time period. The problem I have with R-rated comedies is nudity and sex jokes. I’m not against sex jokes I think the sex jokes in sitcoms and the Austin Powers films are funnier. It's just that there's a difference between sex jokes and describing how you want to get freaky with someone.  

Here are some examples.

Me: Let’s go to our first caller good morning.

The caller: Hi what’s your take on improvements?

Me: What do you mean?

The caller: I mean if a man wants to attract the ladies, he has to improve himself by enlarging his Bank account, his muscles and his package.

Me: OK next caller good morning.

Caller 2: Good morning how are you?

Me: Fine go head.

Caller 2: I just want to say that I’m glad this war is coming to an end. I mean we keep getting held over and held over. We haven’t seen our family in years. I don’t remember what my wife looks like when she gets mad at me for not lasting long enough for a quickie.

Me: Oh, come on! People this is a family radio show, keep the conversation family-friendly please and thank you! Let’s go to our next caller good afternoon.

Caller 3: Good afternoon. I hope this doesn’t bother you, but I’ve been wondering if you're into Dominatrix?

Me: Alright! That’s it I need a break! I need a freaking break!

The purpose of comedy is to make light of our issues, bad situations and make fun of ourselves. In order for the jokes to work there has to be victims. Don't believe me name a comedian that doesn't joke about himself, herself or anyone. I view comedy the same way I view technology, both of them can lose their novelty over time. How many people still use walkman or CDs after the I pad was invented? Name a comedy show or movie that stood the test of time?  

However, just like free speech, there should be limits when it comes to comedy because you're expressing how you feel about something through comedy. I noticed a contradiction with comedy, for example, people have gripes with being the butt of the joke. They also don't like it when someone jokes about races, religion, politics etc. May I ask why it's not OK to joke about those things? Just because someone jokes about those topics it doesn't mean they're attacking those things. Even if they are so what? Do you think it's reasonable to not expect anyone to comment on those things? If the answer is no, then what people have to say about those subjects shouldn't upset you. People didn't like Dane Cook joking about shooting in Aurora why? Was it because it was too soon to joke about that, are the jokes not amusing or people didn't understand the jokes? 

That's an issue with comedy some people don't get the joke because A people don't understand the topic the person is joking about. B people are not familiar with a person's style of humor. If you have dry humor and people don't understand it, you won't get many laughs. This is why I don't completely agree with the saying if you have to explain that jokes it's not funny because jokes can fly past your head. Jokes can be done in poor taste, or you can take the joke too far. For example, someone said a Black woman who had eight abortions is a crime fighter. Now, this wouldn't bother me if he said single mothers are crime fighters for doing this. 

To be fair you can't teach someone how to be funny? (My editor showed me books that says otherwise.) OK you can do that to a point, but you can't inherit a sense of humor, you have to develop that. Telling a joke means nothing if the delivery is bad because that's what makes or breaks a joke. I don't watch a lot of stand-up comedy because they seem to joke about the same thing as far as their upbringing and what's going on in the world? I'm not saying that's a bad thing however how many times can you laugh at the same joke? You need the element of surprise in order to make jokes work. With that said I do like Dave Chappelle Bill Burr and Kevin Hart. Jim Carry is my favorite comedic actor because every face he makes cracks me up. What annoys me about him is that he tends to overdo the comedy by being over the top. 

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. 

Do you see what I mean? Now if he was dating Einhorn and found out that she's a transgender that would justify him burning the clothes and crying in the shower.  

To the people who don't like rape jokes why are you not vocal and crime shows and movies joking about prison rape? That should bother you because first of all, that's not funny under the circumstance. If they know this is happening to men and women in prison, then why are they not doing a good job at preventing it from happening? Second, if it’s not funny that this happens to women and children then why is it funny when it happens to men? If you're not bothered by people joking about someone poking the bear and getting attacked by it. Then rape jokes about women shouldn't bother you either. They can be funny because women do things to put themselves in that position, for example, has a woman ever led you on and as soon as you make a move, she says stop it? If you don't think people should laugh at rape jokes, then you shouldn't laugh when someone takes an L. 

People shouldn't have problems with dark comedy unless we don't have solutions or ways of coping with bad situations. I would look like a hypocrite if I said I don’t find dark comedy funny, because I did laugh in The dark knight when the Joker killed that guy with a pencil, and when he blow up the hospital. However, it wouldn’t be amusing if people were in the building. Like I said before we need to be careful with what we joke about, if we can’t say certain things to certain people how is this any different? White people would look stupid joking about how messed up Black people are because they played a role in that. If you can't laugh at yourself then you shouldn't laugh at others. 

P.S. here's an example of how to joke about a serious issue.