|
Post by Sebastian on Jun 24, 2018 18:48:49 GMT -8
Just saw it. Shit wwsnt that good. 6.5/10
|
|
|
Post by IzzyKitsune on Jun 24, 2018 19:11:42 GMT -8
I feel like the previews for it ruined some of the good moments in it, and that while it was good, it could have been a lot better and that what it primarily tried to do was reinforce the idea that humans should not play god.
|
|
|
Post by Sebastian on Jun 24, 2018 19:31:30 GMT -8
I feel like the previews for it ruined some of the good moments in it, and that while it was good, it could have been a lot better and that what it primarily tried to do was reinforce the idea that humans should not play god. The titular hybrid was a disappointment Indoraptor didnt deliver on all the hype that it got. Like aside from a few moments (that i personally feel didnt make sense) it showed none of the intelligence that they said it had. Just turned out to be a poor mans Indominus(?) Rex. Also how they got rid of it was..lame/wack
|
|
|
Post by IzzyKitsune on Jun 24, 2018 19:34:20 GMT -8
The first movie was rife with Foreshadowing on what this one was going to be about if you paid attention. Thats something the Jurassic Park movies have always been good for is a bunch of epic foreshadowing.
|
|
|
Post by Thanos on Jul 27, 2018 23:47:18 GMT -8
I will be watching this one tomorrow! Can't wait!
|
|
|
Post by Thanos on Jul 28, 2018 22:49:32 GMT -8
I saw the movie earlier today. I thought it was good, but not as good as "Jurassic World". My biggest takeaway was that they should've split the movie into two parts. The first part would be set on the island and focus on recovering as much dinosaurs as they could, before ending on a cliffhanger with the double-cross being revealed and the main heroes being stranded on the island. The second part would be set in the mansion and focus on stopping the dinosaur auction, before ending the trilogy on an ambiguous note, with mankind and dinosaurs finding themselves having to coexist.
Unfortunately, they crammed a lot of stuff into this two-hour movie, and it didn't give all the good stuff enough breathing time. The ethical debate about saving the dinosaurs was barely addressed, some characters weren't fully fleshed out (a couple actually felt like stereotypical trope representatives), and it felt like the film was missing key scenes that would've made things more plausible.
In particular, I thought Claire would've benefited from an expansion and split of the film. I thought she made a somewhat jarring shift from a park operations manager who thought of dinosaurs as nothing more than assets and nearly paid the price for it, to an animal rights advocate specializing in the very type of animals that nearly killed her and her nephews. In essence, she seemed to go from one extreme to the other. I understand that there was a time skip between both films, but the film should've explained her characterization a little better. More scenes of her during the first part would've helped, in my opinion.
Also, they should've brought back another character from the original trilogy, one who would've been a bit more proactive. That's my opinion.
But on the upside, there were a lot of stunning visuals and sequences in the movie. A lot of my favorites were at the mansion, which is surprising to me given that the previous films were set on an island 95 percent of the time. The acting was solid and believable, even if some characters weren't written well. The music was good. The Indoraptor's design was unique and stood out. The themes were intriguing.
All in all, it was a decent movie and I enjoyed watching it, being the dino fan I am. But I could tell it could've been way better if they had a flip-ton of additional scenes.
|
|