Reviews

The third entry in the Jurassic Park franchise is a hard one to score. I first saw the film as a kid during the early 2000s and then again this year. My opinion of the film hasn't changed and in my opinion the film is a rather good and underappreciated sequel.

In 1993, Steven Spielberg did create a film that captured the imagination and a film that has managed to withstand the test of time with regards to its special effects and scientific value, however, the film had set such a benchmark, that I can understand why the films that followed, didn't quite measure up. The problem when you create something new, is that the novelty eventually wears off. In this case for Jurassic Park 3, I feel that the film tried it's hard best to be as entertaining and thrilling, whilst fighting the very fact that we had in fact, seen it all before.

Going against what many critics had said about the film after its release, I actually felt that the film expanded on the idea of what would have happened to an island now inhabited by dinosaurs and how it could still prove to be a curiosity and danger. I also appreciated the darker tone in this movie which allowed this film to shift more freely between genres reaching out to a larger target audience. This film is grittier and more aggressive in some ways to the previous films making it more like a horror, yet the action sequences are not directed in a way where it goes too far into horror, changing the genre altogether. The direction keeps us, occasionally, in line with the action and themes of the previous films.

The story, for me, was an understandable decision and an interesting direction for the franchise to take. Rather than making it about the evil corporation "Ingen", its a story about parents who will put themselves in harms way to rescue their child. This does make Jurassic Park 3 a unique addition to the franchise.

The acting was fantastic! Sam Neill is a fantastic actor anyway and helped make Jurassic Park as a franchise a success with the charm and gentle persona he displays as Alan Grant and for me, Tea Leoni stood out alongside. Believable as a desperate mother and a woman petrified of her surroundings. Even her screaming seemed a little too real at times, proving how good her acting actually was.

I would say the film is underappreciated and underrated. It can't possibly live up to the first film, but as a film that followed and tried to expand on this universe, I felt it was a very good addition. I guess I'm also biased as I saw the film very young and I liked it back then. Its definitely a film to put on, sit back and enjoy as it's one thrilling ride!

A game that was highly anticipated like its predecessors and marketed extensively so that everyone was reminded that the next Call Of Duty was coming out and it was now the next chapter in a series that has been around for so long and loved by so many.

Call Of Duty, since it debuted in the early 2000s has had to adapt to a changing world. Gamers over the years have changed according to new technical advances and story writers have had to write about new threats in the world to create thrilling adventures in our games that feel contemporary and relevant.

Modern Warfare 3 (2023), in my opinion, is not a bad game, but then again, it's not a good one either. Like so many franchises with so many entries, everyone will have their own experiences and expectations of each entry, however, in my opinion, I feel that this game was not only a repeat of things done before, but there was a lack of innovation in the gameplay, no risk to create something new for us to marvel at and no compelling story in the campaign.

The campaign was in someways a risk as it integrated warzone styled missions into it, however, for me, it just didn't work. The campaign didn't feel intense and didn't give any adrenaline value. In fact, the warzone styled missions detracted from the main story and left the game feeling choppy as the pacing seemed chaotic. Then to finish with, killing off a main character is usually done to create hype or controversy to a game, however, a character who was loved so much, was killed by a villain who was not particularly memorable or iconic. I felt this wasn't executed very well compared with General Shepards betrayal in the 2009 game Modern Warfare 2, which was done so well, that it left a mark on the gaming community. The story wasn't exciting and the characters weren't developed further in this game, which effectively ruined any chance of getting an emotional response from players during the ending of the game.

The multiplayer is mediocre. To be charged up to £80 for a game where all of the maps are from other games, which some of us have already purchased in the past, is simply bad. It goes to show how Call Of Duty as a brand have become overly confident in knowing that because of how big the brand is, they also know that people will spend money based on their loyalty to the brand and experiences of the brands previous successes. That to me, is a troubling attitude that could lose them fans in the future.

The zombies is simply odd. I wasn't a fan of outbreak on Cod: Cold War, but I appreciated the risk value, however, here, it seems the company decided to mix Cold War Outbreak gameplay with retro styled aesthetics which reminded me of Black Ops 2 zombies. The zombies isn't bad, but I'm not sure it works either. It doesn't seem to have developed on the zombies concept, yet its playable as it feels familiar to what we enjoyed in the earlier Call Of Duty's.

The voice acting was very good, the graphics are impressive and even the loading menu's, for me are an improvement, however, the game is not a memorable entry in the franchise and its quite clear that imagination was definitely lost on this project. I hope the production team try harder in the next game.