It didn't seem like anything special from the trailers, unfortunately. I guess "pleasant" without "you have to see this" seems about right.
Why does the book kill off Malcolm, though? I mean, morally speaking. Did you ever notice how many stories kill off people based on how "bad" their actions are considered to be? For instance, it's always the virginal one that survives Jason. Horror movies are the first place I noticed this, but it seems to apply to Jurassic Park, as well?
Jurassic Park fan points out overlooked detail, and now everyone thinks Hammond is the worst
Lovers of the Steven Spielberg movie reckon Richard Attenborough's character is "nothing but a cheap-skating showboat"www.yahoo.com
Yeah, I think the film actually includes a lot of allusions to this reality about Hammond, and Attenborough's performance was so great that you can see how he dazzled and inspired so many people for this project despite the lack of proper precaution. I also can't help but think about the mini-sub guy now (which happened over the summer) -- another charismatic guy who viewed himself as a visionary but despised staying on the trodden path and did not appreciate proper oversight and/or inspections because it would get in the way of his "innovations." It's the same old story.
Even seeing Hammond through this lens, the character remains sympathetic to some degree in a way that later Jurassic Park franchise villains do not and in general most villains don't in the way he's presented in the film by the acting and direction.
Malcolm died in the first book off screen, his leg was wrecked, pulverized and cut open in the jungle without proper medical care for days. HOWEVER, this was changed for The Lost World as the Author, liked Malcolm the best(he was a self insert character) So the big two things that got changed was Malcolm lived, and Isla Sorna became the place where the dinosaurs were created. It had nothing to do with "Morally speaking." Morally speaking Malcolm is billed as the character who has it(morality) in spades. This was purely a medical death.
Oh. That's very unusual.
Yeah, iirc, he did not intend to do a sequel but was begged and paid well for one. I think it was his way of motivating himself to write a sequel to a book he felt told the story well enough. The ending of lost world makes a little bit more sense in this context. The first book ended with dinosaurs escaping onto the mainland and secretly living in the rainforests and jungles because they had been getting off the island since they were first on there, because the sterilization process to make them all female never really worked. "Life found a way" presumably accelerated by the genetic engeneering when Wu accidentally made "Real Dinosaurs." Which he tried to warn Hammond, who didnt listen and so on and so on. The Lost world ends with a more implied finality. Michael Crighton seemed to me to prefer writing books in a one and done manner.
I've heard the movie adaptation of Congo is a big ball of cheese. Sphere certainly is. I like Samuel L. Jackson freaking out and going psycho because he ate a piece of squid.
Sphere is such an awesome read. Like, I blew through it in a day, and it's like one whammo after the next. it's like a perfect subway book that you'd blow through and can't put down until done, and it's a quick read. I was shocked how much of a hook it was.
Congo is a wonderful campy movie that perfectly encapsulates the year in which it was made. I reccomend everyone watch it at least once. Bruce Campbell, Ernie Hudson, Tim Curry, Delroy Lindo, and Joe Pantoliano in the same film with some of the best most rediculous scenes in movie history and a lost city and weird practical effect ape suits?
Very true.
That sounds incredible. I remember when it came out and how I wanted to see it because it was by the guy responsible for Jurassic Park but that R-rating reduced me to only seeing snippets of it on VHS.
