Spoiler warning....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I think they're trying to put over the Spinosaurus in a big way as
the new "bad ass" dinosaur here, hence the "dumpy" T.rex. Early rumors
had it that a second T.rex gains revenge on the Spinosaurus, but it appears
that those early rumors were false. A lot of the fan sites are up in arms
over the 94 minute running time ("not enough dino-action!" was one response)
and the fact that T.rex gets the short end of the stick. I guess some fans
weren't as tired of the T.rex as they thought....
Larry Dunn wrote:
>From: MKIRKALDY@aol.com>Dan Varner writes:
>
>>The reviewer also says this sequel is "darker". How 'bout that! Do you
>>think these folks are getting compensated for endlessly parroting this?
>>Seems to be the bauplan... DV (Grump)>The sequel is also shorter, at 90 minutes.
Shorter and darker? Sounds like my third girlfriend Lorna.
Actually, since Spielberg didn't direct it, it probably will in fact be a
bit darker. He's able to construct thrilling action set-pieces, but his
story-telling in his action movies is more than a little theme-parkish and
plastic-feeling.Then again, "darker" doesn't necessarily mean "dark."
It's also reviewed on Coming Attractions, here:
http://www.corona.bc.ca/films/details/jp3.html
Beware -- minor spoilers are rampaging there like feathered
Spielbergraptors.I wonder why the Tyrannosaurus looks kind of dumpy in the new movie. Its
appearance seems to have changed for the worse.Larry Dunn
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com