My favorite is the second because it had more story, action, and character development that the brilliant original.
Third was the worst to me because it was a downgrade from the series and it just makes me mad of how it so terrible capared to the predecessors.
I hope someone agrees with me, please post your response to the question.
2007-07-06 11:12:52 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
i agree with you, the second one is the best and third is the worst..i remember watching jurassic park 2 in the theater when it first came out and people standing up and clapping at the end of the movie cause they liked it so much, how often do you see that?
2007-07-06 11:17:04 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
My favorite is the first because it surpassed everyone's expectations and paved the road for some other movies (Lord of the Rings and Star Wars prequels). It also introduced us to the world of the dinosaurs.
My least favorite is the third, mostly because I don't think William H. Macy and Tea Leoni really were the best people for their parts. But, considering they played people whose only real reason for being on the island was to search for their son, I think they did an OK job.
As for following the novels, I think they did a great job with the first one considering they left some great sounding scenes out. But it seems that at least one scene in each of the JP movies after the first one can be attributed to the original novel. I wonder what they will put in the fourth installment??
2007-07-06 11:17:55 · answer #2 · answered by Becca 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am a big fan of many of the films made from Crichton books. Especially Jurassic Park, The 13th Warrior, and Congo. Hollywood does totally tank His works occasionally (Sphere..Ugh) but on the whole I find Crichton to be about the exact opposite of Steven King filmwise. By that I mean, King writes great books that get made into bad movies often, the reverse is true of Crichton, His writing is too dry and dense but Films made from His books are ususally dynamite. The one exception would be "The Andromeda Strain" His first. Amazing book and film. (At least the original, the remake blew) He died? Damn, that sucks. I'll dedicate "Break On Through" by The Doors to Mr Crichton
2016-05-20 01:06:03 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe the first was the best. As others have said it was an inspiration at it's time of release. #2 ruined the series to me. It brought things into our back yard that we realistically can't believe. 1 and 3 gave it more of an imaginative feel. It made it seem like it is possible and a well hidden secret. I love when movie makers make the movies more relatable. 3, the one you didn't like, was understandably different. They were focused more on the new facts of the dinosaurs and less on actual plot. In the films extra they explain that. Yes it was a mistake on their part, but they believed with an already large fan base they could get away with it. I don't think many would see a 4th if they came out with it. mainly b/c of #3's lack of interests from it's viewers.
2007-07-06 12:04:51 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I have to say the second was the worst, but that's only because I had read the book. EVERYTHING was different except for the fact that they had a fancy RV. That's about it. And dinosaurs in the city? Nowhere in the book.
I never really saw more than twenty minutes of the third one, but I didn't expect it to be very good. The commercials made me not interested.
I loved the first one though.
2007-07-06 11:17:51 · answer #5 · answered by martinlh 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The first one was great, the rest were utterly boring and a waste of time, there was nothing new in them that hasnt been covered in other films like the capturing of them was akin to King Kong.
The first film was an original introduction to the story, great cast and at the time great effects, the rest of the sequels just retreaded old ground and werent so interesting
2007-07-06 11:18:22 · answer #6 · answered by Welshie 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I liked the first the best. When it first came out, it was my favorite movie, and I was obsessed with it. The sequels didn't live up to the original, but I thought the third was the worst.
2007-07-06 11:25:20 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Almost agree, but I liked the first one best of all. You are right about the third one...waste of film.
2007-07-06 11:15:59 · answer #8 · answered by claudiacake 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
3rd was the worst, it was nothing like the first 2. seems like when any movie has a 2nd or 3rd its never as good as the first, except for saw...i think those get even better.
2007-07-06 11:15:52 · answer #9 · answered by baby_love_marybeth 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would vote for the first one as the best one. Because it was the first one, and because it was so groundbreaking.
I do agree that the third one was the weakest.
2007-07-06 11:24:00 · answer #10 · answered by crystaled126 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋