The Great Dinosaur Hunt (1994)

Hello, readers!

While I am insanely busy with this semester, and life overall, and everyone else is insanely busy with the holidays and all else that goes on, I hope we all have a moment to relax this weekend.  For me, I wanted to take a few moments to blog once again.  How I've missed it!  I'd like to share something special with you today.  It's a documentary film from the '90's, now graciously uploaded to YouTube by DinosaurTheatre, called The Great Dinosaur Hunt!

(I still own the above VHS, the only release

 of this film.  Photo from Amazon.com)

Back in the day, I watched this dinosaur paleontology documentary over and over again.  It was my favorite movie of all time (even surpassing "regular" movies) and I couldn't get enough of it.  It was during another viewing of this after I had just turned 15 that I started to seriously consider dinosaur paleontology as a career choice.  Of course, as a tot I wanted to dig up dinosaurs, and truly have no memories of life without dinosaurs, but as a viable, thinking teenager, that was the first time I realistically thought about it.  This film also fostered my love of all things Asian, and introduced me to the likes of Phil Currie, Dale Russell, and Dong Zhiming (as it deals with the Royal Tyrell Museum and the IVPP co-expeditions to the Gobi Desert, as well as the Arctic and Dinosaur Provincial Park starting in the late 1980's).  Perhaps it isn't so amazing to all of you, but to someone who likes expedition-based documentaries, footage of dig sites, interviews of professional paleontologists, scientific concepts and discussions, and what you might call real documentaries (Discovery Channel and associates, are you listening?), and of course, because of the sentimental value, I truly love this film.  Every second of it.  Even today.  So please, take moment to enjoy this film if you have a chance this weekend.  If not, watch it later.  It's worth ninety minutes of your time.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10

If you have any comments about the film, or my blog in general, please drop me a comment!

Spencer Bronte
Science, to a Student

Prehistoric Predators, by Brian Switek, Julius Csotonyi - A Review

I was excited when I heard about a children’s book written by well-known science writer Brian Switek, and illustrated by the amazingly talented paleoartist Julius Csotonyi.  I was even more excited when I had the chance to delve into my own copy of the book.

 

The first thing you’ll notice upon picking this book up (or perhaps even before), is the beautiful cover.  A puffy hardcover, brightly colored and oversized, is what you’ll find.  A beautiful theropod dinosaur stares back at you, maw framing the title text.  The animal, as Brian might say, is “enfluffled” with a covering of “dinofuzz.”  I love it!

Open the book itself, and you’re treated to page after page of lavish illustrations from the always-amazing Julius Csotonyi.  Vibrantly colored, feathery, active, and dynamic, no amount of positive praise for the art will really be sufficient.  I have been and will continue to be a fan of Csotonyi’s paleoart.  For that alone, this book is worth the purchase—whether you are an adult or not.  (And it should be said, this “children’s” book is suitable for adolescents, or for that matter any true paleo buff such as myself.)

Brian’s accompanying text is as usual to those familiar with his writing: well-worded, succinct, and flavorful.  Brief yet accurate descriptions of the many dinosaurs (and other “prehistoric predators,” not simply members of the dinosauria/theropoda) can be found in the pages of this book.  The species names are listed—something that I truly love and so many generalized paleo books lack.  However, I was sad to see that geographic locations for the species were left out. 

I had a few small quibbles with the book.  For instance, one or two controversial claims are made, such as Therizinosaurus ate not just plants but fish, and terror birds are described as being carnivorous, which is the general consensus, but Brian himself reported on the hypothesis that terror birds were possibly melon and seed eaters (unless I missed something, that’s the last new study on terror bird diet I’ve read about).  I was disappointed to see a clearly fake Dimetrodon skeleton in the beginning of the book, but was happy to see quotation marks around the word “raptor” later on.  Yes, I don’t think we should ever use the word at all when it comes to nonavian dinosaurs, but many do (including paleontologists), so at least having some quotation marks was appreciated.  The author also gets major points for specifically reminding the reader that Carcharadon megalodon is extinct, as you know no one out there is trying to tell young, impressionable minds otherwise.… *cough*  We are also told what Allosaurus did with its claws, something that is, to my knowledge (including a personal study done of the animal) still an unknown.  Beyond that, I also caught a few spelling errors (Tyrannosaurus rex had a possible bite force of “12,8000” pounds?  Extra zero, guys!).

All that really sounds like it’s a lot.  Well, it isn’t.  I seriously enjoyed the book, and recommend it.  The biggest endorsement I can give it is the admission that I would purchase this and give it as a gift to any youngster.  I am seriously hoping for more books from this team of author and artist, because I’ll eagerly buy and read those, too.  I simply loved this book.

Spencer Bronte

Science, to a Student

Disclosure: I received a free copy of this book from the publisher in order to review it.  I received notification of this offer due to the fact that I personally know Mr. Switek.  The publisher, or the author (Mr. Switek) or illustrator (Mr. Csotonyi), have not influenced nor read this review before it’s publishing.  The opinion(s) expressed in this review are solely those of the author of said review.

Jurassic World: A Film Review

[This review may contain spoilers.] 

Well, folks.  I tried.  I tried to be fair, understanding, even a little indulgent.  I tried to enjoy the movie.  I really did. 

I won’t string you along; I won’t make you wait until the end of this review to know what I think.  I have gone very “easy” on the Jurassic Park films in my previous reviews (see the first, second, and third film reviews), attempting to display a fair viewpoint despite my own largely negative opinions of the series.  After seeing Jurassic World, I really am sorry to admit that my generosity has just about evaporated. 

Jurassic World was a bad film, both as a piece of entertainment and especially when it comes to the science portrayed. 

So, let’s break it down, shall we? 

The film doesn’t really feel like a Jurassic Park movie.  What exactly does it feel like—rather, what is it trying to be?  I’m actually not entirely sure, but all I can tell you is that when I left the movie theater all I got was a weak attempt at a monster action movie.  

Almost as if the filmmakers knew that the feel was off, they inserted a whole scene based at the abandoned visitor’s center from the first film, replete with shattered skeletons, a tattered “When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth” sign, and even working jeeps and working night vision goggles, just like Tim’s!  This only comes across as a poorly-executed attempt to capture the nostalgia of the original while ineffectively attempting to cover the new film’s lack of wonder and adventure (qualities found in the first two films). What are we left with?  Just a monster action movie without the scientific and ecological responsibility themes respectively found in the first two films.  Oh sure, you have a bit of the scientists playing God trope, but it felt like a forced throwback to the first movie, a plug almost, not really fitting into the overall theme of the film, which again, felt like nothing more than a mindless action movie despite its shallow attempts otherwise. 

Admittedly, the film started off decently, for what it was, not seeming to be as bad as I was expecting.  But then, they start to actually show you characters, and the plot, oh and then you actually start seeing the dinosaurs…. 

The movie did have a couple of high notes, however.  Chris Pratt’s character, who we are to believe is rough, tough, manly and handsome, says (upon learning of the new genetic hybrid dinosaur, the “Indominus rex”) that dinosaurs are “wow enough,” that “Indominus rex” is a silly name, and he even goes so far as to say that it isn’t a dinosaur.  All very true statements!  An undercurrent theme of the film does seem to view the invention of a genetic hybrid, a Frankenstein, if you will, negatively—an appreciated viewpoint. 

The best scene in the entire film, in my opinion, is one we should have had as far back as the first film.  Dr. Henry Wu admits that from the beginning, none of the dinosaurs he has created look like real dinosaurs, for two reasons, one being the lack of full DNA sequence data, and the other being the human decisions to make the dinosaurs look…well, scarier to the public.  More marketable, perhaps. 

Ah yes, marketing.  The movie has a little bit to say about marketing, including a few quick comments about Verizon Wireless funding a dinosaur, causing one character to sneer in response (an appreciated sentiment merely for point’s sake).  Here the high notes of Jurassic World end, as the question remains, however, why they would insert so many sponsors right into the movie (from Verizon to Mercedes, to Margaritaville and Ben & Jerry’s) if the filmmakers really wanted to make a statement against such rampant commercialism in the first place (that is, if we are to take the character's Verizon comments as such a statement on the part of the filmmakers)?

As the movie continued, so did my frustration.  Who thought it was a good idea to let visitors canoe right next to potentially nervous, tail-swiping Stegosaurus?  Who thought it would be a good idea to let people drive their own gerbil balls anywhere around the park?  Who thought a tank more suited for a dolphin show at “Sea World” would contain a Godzilla’d-up Mosasaurus?  

Instead of scientists as our main characters, like the last three films, we have hollow, one-dimensional stereotypes (tough outdoorsman, prissy corporate woman, evil soldier, stupid kids getting themselves into trouble, etc.), and the one scientist in the film is turned into an evil character. 

The film itself is largely unoriginal, even going so far as to directly copy the 1986 classic Aliens, causing Matt Zoller Seitz, writing for rogertebert.com, to comment:  

Dinosaurs get wiped out by the bushel in this movie, sometimes in scenes that are too obviously inspired by James Cameron's "Aliens"; there's even a sequence where soldiers' deaths are tallied by freaky first-person helmet-cam feeds and flat lining EKG displays.

Not even Chris Pratt the Dinosaur Whisperer can rescue the movie at this point.

But, enough of all that.  It’s time to talk about what we’re all here for: the dinosaurs (and other prehistoric creatures, this time around). 

This is where things get really…disappointing.  

All in all, the dinosaurs look positively retro.  The herbivores are bedecked in colors that remind me of the vintage children's dinosaur books I grew up with.  Why is Stegosaurus drooping its tail?  This is a clear step back, being even less accurate than the reconstruction seen in The Lost World in 1997!  At least the plates were slightly brighter than The Lost World, I'll give them that.  How about some color in Triceratops?  And why is Triceratops also drooping its tail?  What's with the drab grey sauropod?  That's not to mention their rather off-puttingly humanlike facial expressions, seen when one dies, neck and head cradled in the loving arms of the Dinosaur Whisperer.  Even the Gallimimus was noticeably less realistic-looking as compared to the original film, and although it was too quick for me to be entirely sure, others have criticized the shape of the Ankylosaurus clubs, saying that those, too, are inaccurate. 

Let's look at those pterosaurs!  Maybe they're better?  

Nope.  Not only does the fossil record indicate that pterosaurs did not have grasping digits capable of manipulating objects, there are serious doubts (to the point of it being likely impossible) whether or not a normal-sized pterosaur would be able to lift something the weight of an adult human and fly away with them. 

We have both Pteranodon (pterodactyloid pterosaur - usually having a large body and a short tail) and Dimorphodon (rhamphorynchoid pterosaur- usually having a smaller body and a long tail).  Pteranodon has now appeared in three of the four Jurassic Park films, but Dimorphodon is new (although I do remember how pesky they were in The Lost World game made for Playstation One).   What a wonderful animal to choose!  I love Dimorphodon.  Well, the real Dimorphodon, anyway. 

Paleontologist and pterosaur expert Mark Witton said:

...a fairly decent understanding of Dimorphodon osteology has been held for almost 150 years (so, yeah, the Jurassic World animal is less accurate than renditions put together by Victorian palaeontologists. It's not the only Jurassic World species to suffer this sort of problem).

Admittedly, I liked seeing the Pteranodon dive into the aquarium tank, although such behavior is mere conjecture.  An interesting visual, no doubt, however it is unclear if a lightweight pterosaur body was built for that kind of impact. 

How about that Mosasaurus?  Yes, it was a glorious idea to have a mosasaur in a movie (I love mosasaurs second only to dinosaurs), but it was rather crocodilian, what with all the bumps and bony bits on its back.  Then, we have the vintage dorsal ridges, and a tail that does not hold up to current research very well.  Also, why the exaggerated size?  Come to think of it, what's with the less-accurate, retro animals overall? 

Now it is time to look at the star of the new film: the so-called "Indominus rex." 

Considering all the hype, this new dinosaurian villain is rather bland looking.  Allowing the filmmakers the leaps in biotechnology required to bring dinosaurs to life on the silver screen (as I did in my original Jurassic Park review), I'll allow them the use of cuttlefish and a bunch of other dinosaurs to make an insane hybrid.  Camouflaging dinosaur?  That's pretty cool.  No thermal imprint?  Less likely, but okay.  Opposable thumbs?  Where did those come from?  Where's the primate DNA? 

Jurassic World's monster is also depicted as intelligent as well as violent.  Having killed its younger sibling, it lives alone in a paddock, not having known any other environment all its life.  This, we are told, means that the "Indominus" has no dinosaurian social skills and makes the beastie unpredictable.  OK, I can buy that.  But it immediately begs the question as to why the dinosaur can speak "raptor" later in the film.  So, the dinosaur's rampage is in part due to its social ineptitude, yet it can effectively communicate with a different species without ever having met said species, thus without ever having a single opportunity to learn said communication skills? 

The "Indominus rex" is so ferocious, we are asked to believe, that it hunts other dinosaurs for pure sport.  In a "You've got to be kidding me!" moment, it even attacks an Anyklosaurus, and despite getting clubbed in the head, still triumphs.  This energy and dinosaurian combat skill is shown again and again...until the monster attacks two children.  Then, it suddenly slows down.  Of course! 

The final showdown scene (major spoiler here) really took the cake.  Knowing what kind of film I was walking into, I would’ve been sincerely disappointed had not the pale protagonist and a T. rex sparred, but this was a whole different deal entirely.  A nearly-dead Tyrannosaurus rex suddenly finds its second wind and attacks the “Indominus rex” with the help of one lone Velociraptor, brave soul that he is.  The two apparently good friends work together to fight the “Indominus rex”…until suddenly Mosasaurus comes up out of the water and drags the “I. rex” to a watery death.  At this point, I still can’t believe that’s actually what they decided to put into their movie.  For fourteen years, we’ve all laughed at the Tyrannosaurus rex vs. Spinosaurus battle in Jurassic Park III, and now, they actually were able to top the ridiculousness.  (At least T. rex got his revenge against Spinosaurus, via smashing the Spinosaurus skeleton—a not-so-subtle knock against the ridiculousness of the fight in the third film…which then makes one wonder how they could’ve allowed the ridiculousness of this new film’s fight….)  And afterwards, the T. rex and the Velociraptor peacefully part ways, almost with a sense of mutual respect between the two.  Didn’t the first film tell us the king of the dinosaurs doesn’t like little “raptors”? 

And oh, the “raptors.”  These fluffless guys are more benevolent than those found in the other films (having been trained by the Dinosaur Whisperer, of course).  Instead of feathers they sport bumps and knobs on their necks, different colors for each one (a pack of four), and cranial crests like the female in Jurassic Park III (except no quills, of course—wouldn’t want anyone to be confused about dinosaurs being birdlike, or anything).  Furthermore, while we know these raptors can be trained, that Owen Grady is their "alpha" and they imprinted on him at hatching, (spoiler warning) the fact that they suddenly switch alphas and follow the "Indominus rex" for a while, then switch back is not only bizarre and a very weak part of the story, it felt like nothing more than poor attempt at a plot twist, then a warm fuzzy family moment plug like all Jurassic Park films seem to have to have (only this was the worst of all of them).

(For full details as to the inaccuracies of Tyrannosaurus rex and Velociraptor in the Jurassic Park film franchise, please see my first review here.)

Let’s face it.  Whatever you think of the movie itself, the science behind Jurassic World fails over and over again.  To sum up my views on all the dinosaurs in the entire Jurassic Park series, I will quote Alan Grant in Jurassic Park III: “What John Hammond and InGen did at Jurassic Park is create genetically engineered theme park monsters. Nothing more, and nothing less.”  Steven Spielberg and company, Universal Studios, and Colin Trevorrow created cinematic monsters.  Not dinosaurs.  Nothing more, nothing less.
 
Paleontologist John Horner (who was an official consultant on all four films) may have a different viewpoint: "It's a movie, a fictional movie. The last thing it needs to be is scientifically grounded."

Hmm.  Are we sure about that? 

Paleontologist Darren Naish said:

Yes, yes, we know that it's just a movie. We know it's not a documentary, and that it exists to entertain. And we completely get that the world has bigger problems to worry about. But the reason this irks so much is that the "Jurassic Park" franchise has a gargantuan influence on the public's perception of ancient animals. Indeed, "Jurassic Park" did more to update public understanding of dinosaurs than any other single event.... 

So yes, "Jurassic World" is just a movie. And it may get plenty of other things right. But this reboot was also an incredible chance to do something special -- to bring new-look dinosaurs, pterosaurs and mosasaurs to modern audiences. And that chance looks like it might have been lost.

In today’s high-tech society, science literacy has gone down at an astonishing rate (at least in America).  The increase in technological advancement in industry as well as technological access in our daily lives does not make us more scientifically attuned as individuals.  Our entertainment culture has sacrificed truth, accuracy, and attention to detail in the name of the almighty dollar.  

Here’s a portion from my Jurassic Park review to help provide some background: 

…here's the thing.  It is the same with all movies, all forms of entertainment even.  It isn't specific to Jurassic Park, but it's a fact that we must remind ourselves of once again here.  The filmmakers were not out to further scientific understanding when it comes to the general public.  The filmmakers were not trying to create an accurate representation of the Dinosauria (BBC's 1999 Walking With Dinosaurs did a far better job of that).  Despite all the claims that paleontologists need to be grateful to Crichton, Spielberg, and the folks at Universal for "making people interested in dinosaurs" and allegedly bringing money into paleontology (If this is the case, where is this money, this poor paleo student wonders?), we must be realistic in the fact that people were interested in dinosaurs before Jurassic Park, and would have continued to be so without it.  Movies may create surges of interest for a time, but Jurassic Park cannot be credited with creating interest in dinosaurs.  For some, perhaps fostering interest, but not creating it.  Dinosaurs were first named in 1842, remember.   

Jurassic Park was made for money.  Nothing more, nothing less.  This is not a secret.  This is not necessarily a diabolical, sinister act.  This is simply how the modern entertainment industry works. If the film was made as an educational tool, it would have been scientifically accurate.  If the filmmakers had the desire to support paleontological research, then a nice portion of the proceeds from the various films might have made it into various scientific institutions, universities, and museums.  However, Jurassic Park is nothing more than a film made to entertain the public and raise money for those who made it.  That's the simple fact of the matter.  There should be no surprise as to that.  If Jurassic Park's only goal had been to educate, I humbly submit that it would have never even been funded. 

If you enjoy Jurassic Park, please go ahead and continue to do so!  On the other hand, if you do not enjoy the film, you are not required to.  However, we must be realistic and honest.  If you are reading this, I'm going to assume you care about science and science education/communication at least in some way.  As ambassadors for science, our loyalty must remain with the truth, and not with an emotional childhood memory of a movie, or an indulgence in fantasy on the silver screen, or anything of the sort.  You have good memories of this (or other) movie(s) as a kid?  You find the movie fun, exciting, and action packed?  Excellent!  That's a great thing for you!  But that doesn't mean we can gloss over the errors that were made.  After all, with a public that is increasingly ready to believe whatever is presented to them on screen (Mermaids and "Megalodon," anyone?), it is up to us to make the truth known.

Take any film that deals with reality.  Sit down and watch 300 with me (or any of the slew of other inaccurate films), and you might just see bulging blood vessels.  It isn’t just Jurassic Park (although some of that does get old as I hear about it just about every day of my life), it’s the attitude that gets me.  It’s okay, it’s just a movie, we don’t have to make it accurate.  There’s no responsibility to the truth, in science, history, or any other subject!  We have no responsibility to our audiences, either.  Let’s tell it like we want to, and act like it’s the truth.  Let’s bring in advisors and claim our stuff is accurate, even when we know it’s not.  Shhh!  Because that’s just how we roll.

A sad fact of our current world is that audiences often believe whatever is presented to them as fact (remember again, mermaids and “Megalodon”!), and this is just part of why it is so vitally important that films and entertainment such as Jurassic Park and Jurassic World get the science right.  It isn’t damaging to the plot or storyline, and can only help it.  In an age when science literacy is at an all-time low, isn’t it time that we communicate the amazing discoveries of science with any means possible—including our entertainment? Herein lies my reasons for feeling negative about the film, and the three that came before it: they put science second.  And that, my friends, is indicative of our social and cultural values—something which should give us pause, and make us seriously reconsider where we are as a society today.

Spencer Bronte

Science, to a Student

[For my original Jurassic World trailer review, see here.  Reviews of the Jurassic Park and The Lost World novels are pending.]

Jurassic Park III: A Film Review

It has now come time to review the third film in the franchise: Jurassic Park III.  (See my previous reviews of Jurassic Park and The Lost World.)  By almost universal consensus, this is the worst and weakest of the three movies.  The consensus is not wrong.  The plot is lacking in any inspirational writing from Crichton, and it shows.  The acting is poor, the action is poor, the score is inferior (Don Davis instead of John Williams)...and the dinosaurs are inferior, too.  We even have the added insult of another ridiculous paleontology dig scene.  As in the two previous reviews, I will stop here and largely refrain from commenting on almost all aspects of the movie, except one: dinosaurs.

So, what was different about Jurassic Park III when it comes to the dinosaurs?

Where to start?

Why not with the (literally) biggest dinosaur in the film?  Spinosaurus aegyptiacus!
Spinosaurus has been in the news of late, due to the reimagined body plan by Paul Sereno and Nizar Ibrahim.  With the help of National Geographic, the new finds and the new study have been popularized to the point of a National Geographic (October 2014) cover issue, a documentary, and a full-scale model.  (See here for more info.)  While Sereno and Ibrahim are now arguing that Spinosaurus had relatively stubby hind legs and was primarily aquatic, this is not yet entirely proven to the satisfaction of all pending more fossil evidence.  This is brand new data, however, and no expectations can be placed on the 2001 film in this regard.  Recent reconstructions (not limited to Sereno and Ibrahim's model) also have a shaped sail (with anterior and posterior high points with a dip in the middle) and a cranial crest, but to my knowledge the overall body plan of Spinosaurus as presented in Jurassic Park III was more or less semi-accurate at the time.  (The one exception being a lack of a "fish trap" in the jaw--a space between the maxilla and premaxilla.)  And as mentioned in my first review, dinosaurs cannot pronate their wrists (Clappers, not piano players!), and we see Spinosaurus do this when it rolls the jet's fuselage over.

Perhaps one of the biggest misconceptions about Spinosaurus created by the film is the fight between Spinosaurus and Tyrannosaurus rex.  Why they actually had to fight in the first place is a piece of information the film seems to lack, but it's the details of the fight that bother me.
Look at Tyrannosaurus rex.  This animal truly was the tyrant lizard king!  Let's take a look at it's massive skull.  We crack jokes about the stubby, worthless little arms of Tyrannosaurus rex, but we need to remember it was likely evolving smaller arms for a reason: to lose forward weight as the skull was abnormally large!  Scalewise, the skull is massive in comparison to most other predator animals.  The bones in the skull are built to withstand enormous pressures.  The banana-sized teeth are strong, robust, and have roots twice as long as the crown.  Depending on your estimate, Tyrannosaurus had a bite force between 600 pounds per square inch (on the very low end) up to 12,800 pounds per square inch (on the higher end).  For comparison, the bite force of a human is about 120-150 pounds per square inch. Tyrannosaurus had a skull, a jaw, and teeth built for crushing the bones of other animals.  It's as simple as that.

Spinosaurus, on the other hand, is a lightweight by comparison.  With a lighter build overall, and especially with a jaw and teeth much more slender and weaker than T. rex (it's even believed that Spinosaurus was primarily a fish-eater), it is ludicrous to me that the the film's Spinosaurus survived a direct bite to the neck, wrenched free, then snapped the neck of Tyrannosaurus, all in mere seconds.  Much more can be said about all of this, but the bottom line is that Tyrannosaurus rex would've easily beaten Spinosaurus aegyptiacus in such a match.  It wouldn't even be a fair fight.  It's as simple as that.

There are a few other concerns with Spinosaurus, such as why the animal seems intent on chasing down puny humans and passing up larger edibles, such as the already-killed Tyrannosaurus rex (Come to think of it, why is this a trend with just about all the theropods in the entire series?), but it is a Jurassic Park film, after all.

Velociraptor received quite the overhaul for this film.  Not only do we have new colors, we have sexual dimorphism, which is quite nice to see (but admittedly conjecture).  The males have quills on their necks (But still no feathers!), and the female has dorsal crests on her skull (Not factual!).  The film attempts to expand on their behavior a little bit, but only succeeds in announcing what was obvious to the viewer in the first film (Alan Grant gasps, “My God!  It’s calling for help!”), and even in inventing a “resonating chamber” that to this day is believed to be real by some viewers.  Furthermore, why the Velociraptor pack would leave its nests unguarded then be so upset when eggs were stolen, and also how the eggs survived in the bag, are also very valid questions….

One new thing we have in this film is an extended Pteranodon scene (rather than The Lost World’s brief end shot).  What could have been a nice addition to the fauna of the island turns into what I can only call a cheap attempt at horror.  Ignoring the exceedingly bad acting in this sequence as well as the ridiculous events, it’s highly unlikely that a pterosaur even of this size could lift up a human being, let alone grip them with its toes.  Oh, and Pteranodon?  It means “toothless wing”…so, guys, when you give the Pteranodon teeth…yeah, no….

We also see the return of Brachiosaurus, and Parasaurolophus.  We see what appears to be Ankylosaurus, as well as Corythosaurus.  In one scene, what can only be described as a depressingly sad attempt at a Ceratosaurus appears, only to quickly be frightened away by Spinosaurus feces.  The skull of this Ceratosaurus is deplorable; it is a bit too boxy, and the eye crests/horns are entirely absent, and the nasal horn is not portrayed accurately (a laterally thin piece of bone a bit rather than an stereotypical "horn").   What was the purpose of this dinosaur even being in the film, with so short a sequence? 

That just about wraps it up for this film.  A few new biological considerations, but little to offer overall as a film, especially considering the relatively superior quality of the first two films.  There is a reason this is considered to be the poorest of the trilogy.

Stay tuned for my review of Jurassic World, which hits theaters tonight!

Spencer Bronte

Science, to a Student