HOME | DD
MaroBot β NC - Lost World Jurassic park
Published: 2011-02-16 03:17:49 +0000 UTC; Views: 18099; Favourites: 450; Downloads: 294
Redirect to original
Description
...EnjoyRelated content
Comments: 124
I like more alan than ian (and owen cames later)
ehh..ehh...damm it goldbum, im on team neill
π: 0 β©: 0
I bet he's really stammering right now.
π: 0 β©: 0
I think its the worst nostalgia critic review.
π: 1 β©: 1
Yet That movie was awesome . Doug never showed the positive aspects of TLW
π: 0 β©: 0
The Jurassic park film i love.
orginal 10/10
Lost world 9/10
3 8/10
π: 0 β©: 0
Who the fuck puts LIVE dinosaurs in a fucking zoo?! Don't they know that can escape easily?!
π: 0 β©: 0
I didn't mind Lost World too much.
In all honesty I'd label it a guilty pleasure.
The third one however...OOOOO! I hate that one! I hope he does that one someday!
π: 0 β©: 0
hey, i found a fuck up in this review. during the beginning of this review, he said that 5 people died than the 3 Jeff said. wrong! yes, they're we're two other guys that died (the black guy at the beginning of the film and Wayne knight), but! the main cast only say 3 people die (the lawyer, the other black guy and the hunter). HA! Jeff can count, NC. you can't. XD
π: 0 β©: 0
DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB THIS WAS DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB THIS FILM WAS SO FUCKING DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB
God I love the nostalgia critic... no homo
π: 0 β©: 0
I actually like jurrassic park 2 it wasn't as good as the original but it was still pretty good.
3 was OK but not phenomenal.
I really wish the critic would stop picking on Jeff Golblum he's a pretty good actor.
Also when Golblum said 3 people died he mentioned the three he knew of he didn't know of nedrey or that hunter Guy dying, because he didn't see it. Also when he said he. had three kids but had one in lost world the other two could have been adults by then but are still his children.
π: 0 β©: 0
Can anyone help me with that one line that keeps getting repeated in the review? I don't know WTF he's saying! Too much studdering.
π: 0 β©: 0
Jeff Goldblum...you deserve to get eaten by a dinosaur.
π: 0 β©: 0
HA! Nice touch with the logo. I really love your style; it's a very fun one to look at.
π: 0 β©: 0
XD Loved this review. "BOOMER WILL-Oh-uh-son, we'll get you a new Boomer."
So anywho, my thoughts on it-The first film is my favorite movie of all time, so I was excited to find two sequels to it.
"Lost World". Ehhh-I didnt really enjoy it character-wise, and the story felt like they were being payed to read a forced script, but the effects were just as great as the first film, there were funny moments, I was happy for Ian Malcolm to be the star (He's hilarious! "Think they'll have that on tour?") and the T-rex terrorizing San Diego was fun. Score: B-.
"Jurassic Park 3" 
π: 0 β©: 0
Urine won't appear that yellow under clothes. It's not like blood.
π: 0 β©: 1
TGWTG, you are soooo mean to good ol Jeff... My you be eaten by a dinosaur.
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh, excuse me, may marobot be eaten by a dinosaur, he drew the picture
π: 0 β©: 0
man this guy is very funny (even though this was my favorite movie out of the sequel he was right about its mistakes)
π: 0 β©: 0
I seriously hate doug for this review. everything he said about this movie was wrong.
1. the raptor was responding to the noise the girl made, not the "hey you"
2. the t-rex found them because of the blood on her coat, not by sight. Hell, doug even said that.
3. the room was intact because the t-rex came from behind, hence the hand that was still attached to the wheel.
4. they opened that big door to check for survivors, not let the t-rex out.
5. they didn't shoot them because they knew that the t-rex was there for the baby.
here's a thought doug, READ A BOOK!!!!!!!
if anything, he should have reviewed the third one. That one was horrible. this one is great.
π: 0 β©: 2
XD Late and out of no where reply from a Comment Stalker.
Link me to the books? I'd love to know more about the JP world!
π: 0 β©: 0
He tends to make shit up just to have something to complain about, I've noticed. Not really a reason to hate him, though.
Also, you failed to mention his confusion with the mosquitoes. I don't even like Jurassic Park and even I remembered that they weren't "related to mosquitoes."
π: 0 β©: 1
i know i missed alot of things. but if i pointed them all out, the comment would be too long.
i've also noticed that to. like for example: in his independence day review, he said that smith had no idea where to find his girlfriend, when he did have some idea because he knew where she was before the attack and, because she couldn't have gone far with a baby and no car, had some kind of idea as to where she was.
on a side note: why don't you like jurassic park?
π: 0 β©: 1
I enjoy the movies as monster movies, but I have to make a conscious effort to forget that these are supposed to be dinosaurs, or my head starts to hurt. I'm a dinosaur enthusiast, you see.
π: 0 β©: 1
??? how can your head hurt if your a dino enthusiast? I am one to and my head didn't hurt (except during the JP3)
π: 0 β©: 1
Because I appreciate dinosaurs as they actually were, not as Hollywood dresses them up to be. Jurassic Park just took dinosaurs and turned them into snarling, drooling movie monsters based on some small advice from John Horner about how they should move, and now every big budget dinosaur production has to base their dinosaurs on Jurassic Park's examples. Even the last King Kong remake stuck some featherless raptors in there.
I'm just sick to death of Jurassic Park having so much visual influence on how dinosaurs look in movies. They were a fine set of movies, but their portrayal of dinosaurs was abysmal. I know these are movies, and I shouldn't expect much, but I do. They don't make other prehistoric animals like mammoths motion-blind, or give huge neck frills to saber tooth cats.
People in scientific professions or who know a lot about a scientific field are usually disappointed when their field is depicted in movies.
π: 0 β©: 1
while i do agree with you on the term that they portrayed most of the dinos inaccurately, you do have to realize that they did use frog DNA to complete the DNA structure. the movie did already show that the dinos were affected by this when Dr. Grant found raptor eggs that hatched, so who knows what other effects it had on them such as no feathers on the DEINONYCHUS, NOT A VELOCIRAPTOR, or changes in behavior.
π: 0 β©: 1
No, dude. JP's production team just made that stuff up and then either they, or the fans, decided that the "inaccuracies" were the products of genetic splicing to cover their asses.
If I remember the scene, when they were being attacked by the T. rex in the rain, Dr. Grant identified its motion-blindness as something natural to its species. If these mutations (inaccuracies) were caused by the splicing of amphibian DNA, why did Grant identify the motion-blindness of the rex as something natural?
And even if that was supposed to be a mutation and not an inaccuracy, then how was Grant so familiar with the mutations of the dinosaurs? Who familiarized him with these mutations? We never see that, so it's safe to assume that he didn't know about how amphibian DNA would mutate them. I didn't even get the sense that Hammond himself was aware of what these mutations were.
All of this indicates to me that the production team just made stuff up on the fly, and then acted as if these things were mutations caused by the genetic splicing when fans pointed out the inaccuracies. In other words, they're putting a patch over a plot hole that creates a new plot hole.
I HAVE NO LIFE.
Also, I know that it's supposed to be a Deinonychus, but at the time, the name Deinonychus wasn't invalid. If they wanted to identify the dinosaur as Deinonychus, they could have done so. Instead they went with Velociraptor because it sounded cooler.
π: 0 β©: 1
1. because t-rex's bad eyesight is a natural thing, not a mutation, so of course he was familiar with it. and as we saw in all three movies, they only see you if you move. t-rex's bad eyesight was known before JP even came around.
2. when was he familiar with the mutations? he, and everyone else had no idea what to expect. and as i remember from watching it last week, he was surprised to see that they were mutating when he found the deinonychus eggs.
3. they didn't make it up on the fly because it was based on a book.
4. "I HAVE NO LIFE" has nothing to do with what we are talking about. what are you even talking about?
5. i already know why they went with the name "velociraptor".
6. because you said something that made no sense, so will i:
"Go, Go, Godzilla!"
π: 0 β©: 0
Awesome title card.
Personally, I like all three movies. The first one is obviously the best one.
π: 0 β©: 0
I seem to remember him mentioning the writer a while back. My first thought was what a terrible adaptation this movie is. Amusing, engaging (or not. I was a child after all), but successfully abandons every single awesome concept the book had to offer. If the writer had even bothered to read the book, or at least look like he'd read the book, it would have been a completely different movie entirely. >_>
Great work!
π: 0 β©: 0
I must say, that is one awesome logo there.
π: 0 β©: 0
i just watched the review, this movie is the reason i don't watch jurrasic park.
π: 0 β©: 0
A dziΔkujΔ, cieszΔ siΔ ΕΌe rodakom takΕΌe siΔ moje pracki podobajΔ
π: 0 β©: 1
SzczegΓ³lnie ΕΌe robisz je dla NC
π: 0 β©: 0
Eh, that one was pretty week. It's not a god-awful movie that has much to mock. It's just meh. And he completely missed the fact that Ahnuld as King Lear was a nod to a joke in Animaniacs.
π: 0 β©: 0
I personally liked this movie
Didn't care about the plot, since I got what I came for anyway
π: 0 β©: 0
I've almost myself after I've watched the NC review of this one. But hey, it's his opinions after all. some people liked it but he hated it.
π: 0 β©: 0
I am going to enjoy this review! However, in all honesty, I did enjoy this sequal and didn't find it to be that bad.
π: 0 β©: 0
That Kurvos dude needs to get laid- or just beat off for hours for a couple of weeks.
This looks pretty good man.
π: 0 β©: 0
| Next =>