Reviews (31)

Movie is great... but leaving out the deleted scenes hurt it
I must admit that I was rather let down with this DVD, not due to the movie itself, but what they did with it. The first time I saw this movie was the VHS extended version. I would give this movie itself 5 stars, but the DVD significantly less. And this is due to the fact that all the deleted scenes that were incorporated into the original extended VHS release were removed and only viewable seperate from the movie.

The things that give this movie an authentic and intriging story were elements only shown in the deleted scenes. First, the long scene at the opening of the movie of a dimwitted Jobe befriending an escaped lab monkey gives much more explenation of his experiments later (as well as offering originality). Other important scenes removed leave the story dry and unexplained. One scene I found particularily effective in showing Jobe's metamorphis from a slow, butt-of-all-jokes moron to a super-genius crazed from knowledge was one where we see him totally absorbed in computers. He than demonstrates that he has gained enough knowledge to have the ability to cause blisters on his hands.

With the extended version, you see a truly uncomfartable change in Jobe throughout the movie which shows much more motivation and explanation to his later acts - greatly endorsing the saying that ignorance is bliss, rather than a poorly developed plot of the DVD version which comes across as mearly another guy-gone-crazy-and-starts-killing-people movie depending on special effects for an audience.

If you haven't scene this movie yet, rent the VHS extended version rather then the DVD, as it shows the real, good movie. Even though the DVD has the deleted scenes available, not being able to incorporate them to the actual film takes away from it greatly and leaves the movie drab and unspecial.

My only hope is that they will eventually release a Special Edition DVD and restore the director's cut version, restoring all it's glory and ridding of the sh_tty snap case.

Mindless Entertainment
Certainly not Pierce Brosnan's best work. If you need some background while you do something else, it's okay. Don't be upset that I don't own this SciFi movie. I saw it when it was originally released at the theater. At that time I thought the graphics were great, but it just didn't grab my attention and hold it. I didn't mind going to the lobby for a soda, popcorn, hot dog, nachos, restroom, check out movie posters, make a phone call,... The problem is the story got to wrapped up in the lawnmower mans psyche. That would be okay if it was thought provoking, but it is mostly graphical halucinations and sexual innuendo. Not that illuminating into the characters motivations. One thing stands out in this movie. Some great early CGI. If you feel the need to see one of them catch this one, the second is much worse.

The question of Man , freedom and God as a cybergame ...
Even if the 12 scenes cannot be played as an extended version there's food for Your brains , hearts and gender here !

This movie does have vague resemblances to Scott's - BladeRunner , but only philosophically .
And the attempts to compare this film with Nelson's - Charly(1968) or Whale's - Frankenstein(1931) is ridiculously superficial , like comparing Coppola's - Godfather(1972) to Polonsky's - Force of Evil(1948) or Lang's - You only live once(1937) !

It is however understandable why critics and audiences in 1992 were repelled by the burning of a priest (!) and fascinated by sex/violence in the cyberspace ... they reacted blindly : "This is a satanic movie !"
An indication of this , is that Stephen Kings wished/had his credit removed by a following lawsuit ...

I recommend everyone to see it (again) for now 12 years later this brilliant movie still shines as an epic drama of man , freedom and God .
Just remember BladeRunner , which 22 Years ago also grew discarded , cult-reserved and now is number 10 in IMDb Votes Charts Top 50 Sci-Fi movies and number 89 in Top 250 movies !

In the beginning The Lawnmower Man has a parallel to Charly (Daniel Keyes great Novel : Flowers for Algernon) , but mainly Jobe EVOLVES due to a growing thirst for knowledge and possibilities - while Charly IMPROVES himself to be more accepted and feeling equal to others .

While Charly ends tragically sweet , the Lawnmower Man explores in a completely different direction . What about Frankenstein ? No , it does not go in this direction either or end like this other great story ; Brett Leonard dares to push his vision much higher :

Jobe sees the totality of the world like God , but has become sad in soul through the interference of the government , religion & society and strikes back to change everything through the available electronic international net ...
That alone should be an eyeopener in these days of spam and morality !

Though the script has really very little to do with King's character nor his shortstory in the shortstory-collection Nightshift , one can hardly blame Leonard without remembering how another instructor expanded and explored Arthur Clarkes shortstory (called "The sentinel" on even fewer pages than TLM) and making the amazing movie 2001: A Space Odyssey .
At that time it was criticised as being too long , etc. !

I agree that there are typical movie-clones of Frankenstein and Charly , one is even with Robert DeNiro and Robin Williams called "Awakenings"(1990) and though I love the two guys this is a 90% Charly-story ! But , then again , nobody dared saying so to Penny Marshall after making "Big" cowritten by Spielbergs sister - personally I think Daniel Keyes still could make a lawsuit !

And no critics would minimize Charlie Chaplins Dictator for being a cute rewriting of Duck Soup from the geniuses of the Marx Brothers !

I think this movie deserves respect and You will all find that the reason why You were amazed at the once incredible special effects , were because they fitted so well to the story and characters - a secret that merely few instructors like Spielberg and Hitchcock master .

Therefore judge this movie by the many-layered story of existence .

I must say thanks to Brett Leonard & Gimel Everett
for making this neo-myth out of a Stephen King-title

A fabulously under-rated movie
As a cognitive scientist from Yale, I can say with certainty that the ideas expressed in this film are very real, and very ahead of their time. The virtual reality visuals in this movie are timeless. The acting is good, the sets are impressive, and the ideas are priceless. Enjoy the film, but don't dare watch its sequel (it is awful).

Virtual Mess
THE LAWNMOWER MAN is an example of a movie that thinks it's better than it actually is. Dr. Lawrence Angelo (Pierce Brosnan), is working on a revolutionary type of virtual reality software, that he thinks will better mankind. After he fails to find success, working with animals, he finds his first human test subject. Jobe Smith (Jeff Fahey), a mentally disabled groundskeeper, who sees the tests as a game. However, the good doctor has enemies, who wish to use the technology and Jobe, to create an indestructable war machine. The film starts off with a pretty good premise, but after awhile, it seems as though the F/X are their to make us forget the plot. The director tries to make the film seem on the cutting edge, or visionary sci-fi, in doing so Brett Leonard fails to make things interesting. Brosnan seems like he is cursing his agent the whole for getting him this gig. Fahey seems to act in much the same fashion.

The commentary track has Leonard and co-producer and fellow screenwriter Gimel Everett, talk endlessly about how lucky they were to make this film (I'll say). The deleted scenes offer a better sense of the story. Too bad they were not incorporated into the movie. It might have made a difference. The storyboards, and other making of stuff don't seem like fun, if the movie isn't any good...Buyer Beware ... Read more

Description

He's a composite of some 200 personalities, each and every one a notorious killer. He's Sid 6.7, a virtual reality creation designed to put L.A. police officers to the test. But Sid isn't playing games anymore. He's escaped the bounds of cyberspace. And if you think he's unconquerable in the world of bits and bytes, wait till you see what Sid has in store for a world of flesh and blood.Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe square off on opposite sides of the law and on both sides of reality in this thunderous cyber-age thriller from the director of The Lawnmower Man. Crowe (L.A. Confidential) plays Sid: Sadistic, Intelligent, Dangerous - and able to take a licking and keep on kicking because he can regenerate his silicon-based body parts. Washington portrays Parker Barnes, a Los Angeles cop who once took the law into his own hands... and now carries the fate of the city in them. It's his job to shut Sid down. But how do you stop the virtually unstoppable? ... Read more

Reviews (49)

.5 of a star if Crowe wasn't in this one
If you liked the dark, and slightly sexy appeal of Lawnmower Man, then you're gonna like this one too. Crowe is perfect as the handsome and likeable villain, Sid 6.7, and Denzel plays a similar character to that in "Fallen;" but even with the strength of these two amazing leading men, the weak plot and incredibly horrible acting by the supporting actors make the movie a flop.

With Crowe in the movie, however, I cannot help but still enjoy watching it. I also have a particular fondness for his band, TOFOG - a part of a song in fact is playing in Sid's van - so after finding out that they actually named their band as a result from the film being made - Russell asked about the clippings on the editing floor and found out they were of Denzel and his fight scene near the end of the movie-the answer to this being something like, "Oh, it's about thirty odd foot of grunts" - it quickly became one of my far-from-Oscar faves.

2 stars just for the two oscar winning actors
This has got to be the biggest stinker in Denzel's long movie career, just after the oscar winning Philadelphia, he went on to star in this cult Sci Fi movie based on machines outsmarting mankind in a virtual reality game, Russel Crowe also stars in this very, and i mean very bad movie. But hey, if you're a Sci Fi fan, watch this, but don't expect high rated acting from any of the two big stars. On account, this movie didn't make any sufficent funds at the box office and was later labeled by the Hollywood critic, The Only Movie with Two Lead Star To Not Hit The Box Office. This low budget sleepy movie isn't worth watching, if you love Sci Fi, that outakes the life of machines aginst the human race, pick up a true 5 star Hollywood material like, 'A.I', 'Terminator' 'I', 'II', 'III' or Will Smith's new movie, 'I, Robot'.

I love it
I absolutly loved russells role he is so crazy and intelligent, well i just loved it thats all i can say

You'll never go wrong with this one!!!!!
Sid 6.7 (Russell Crowe):Sidistic, Intellegent, and Dangerous. A composite of some 200 character personalities, everyone of them an infamous killer. Part of a virtual reality simulator used to train LAPD officers in the near future, until during one training exercise, Sid goes too far and kills a man for real. Fearing that he'll be shutdown, he escapes into the real world.
Now only one man (Denzel Washington) can stop him, a former police officer who took the law into his own hands...and now holds the fate of many in them.

Overall, a very entertaining, intrigueing roller coaster ride that doesn't let up from start to finish.

Rated R for strong futuristic violence, some brutal beatings and some language. Like it matters to most anyway, but you never know. Just enjoy the film!!!

I liked this movie!
Every single review here says the same thing. We all pretty much agree that Russell Crowe's performance was outstanding. His character was outrageous and down right villianous.
What more can I say? This isn't an award winning film, but it was entertaining. And Crowe made it all the more so.
It's an action/adventure film with some comedic moments(although I don't think they mean to be funny) with Crowe's character, Sid 6.7 -- a virtual character who finds his way to the outside world to terrorize Denzel's character. I didn't think Denzels' acting as that good in this. It didn't impress me as much as some of his later movies.
All in all, it was a fast paced action thriller that is mindless yet Crowe's colorful character keeps you interested.
I recommend this movie despite some of the bad reviews here...Try not to take it too seriously.
Gotta love him in the purple suit scene. ... Read more

Reviews (28)

Hideaway is a horror/thriller could have been a lot better
Dean Koontz fans must know that Hideaway was the movie that Koontz himself hated. Well, Hideaway wasn't exactly a good movie, but neither was it terrible. It's problems could have been fixed and the film could have been a whole lot better.

The plot is about a man named Hatch Harrison (Jeff Goldblum) who dies in a car accident, and two hours later, is mysteriously revived. However, before there's much time for celebration, Hatch begins to have visions of himself killing attractive teenage girls. He begins to realize that he has some sort of psychic connection with a young man (Jeremy Sisto). Even more to Hatch's horror, he discovers this young man is infatuated with his daughter (Alicia Silverstone).

There's something about the bad special effects that really hurt this movie. I mean, it's very cheesy looking and makes the movie laughable. I will say that the plot begins promisingly but just turns into another slasher with a slight twist that isn't even really interesting since nothing's ever really explained.

Jeff Goldblum and Christine Lahti deliver good performances but their characters are underwritten and it makes it harder to like or even sympathize Goldblum. Silverstone and Sisto give performances that are easily forgettable while the latter is simply one of the unscariest horror villains around. This is a movie that doesn't amount to much after you're done watching and you'll probably forget most of the character's names the day after.

Dean Koontz novels aren't always great. I've never read Hideaway, so I can't compare it with the movie. For a good Koontz adaptation I recommend Phantoms. Not alone does that film have genuinely scary moments, the special effects are also much better.

Come out of the attic
Dean Koontz has a huge problem having faithful adaptations done from his novels to movies. "Hideaway" was one of the few good ones, even though it was severly re-imagined. Hatch Harrison (Jeff Goldblum) is in an accident where he is technically dead for a few minutes, and then revived. Now he seems to be psycicly connected to a psychopathic killer (who believes he's a real demon, due to a trip to Hell because of his own near death experiance), and can see what the killer is doing as he's doing it. As a result, Hatch and his wife and daughter (Christine Lahti and Alicia Silverstone) are now targeted. While this is the best Dean Koontz, he still dosn't get the respect of, say, Stephen King or Clive Barker (well, I guess that isn't fair; Barker directs his own movies), and so his book, which was a great medical thriller/horror novel, got radically changed. In the book the Harrison's adopt a crippled eight year old girl; here they have a teenaged daughter (I would have prefered a smaller girl instead of the too flirtatious Silverstone). Also the book took the time to really explaine Hatch's excentricities are giving a chance to believably escalate; here it happens so fast that it is understandable that his family are afraid of him all of a sudden. Jeff Goldblum is his usual qirky self here, charming as an intellgent everyman caught up in events larger than himself. Christine Lahti is alright, nothing special. Silverstone got on my nerves badly; she's played that cutesie role one too many times for my taste. The real standout performance was Jeremy Sisto in an early role as the killer Vassago. Though the movie has to eliminate a lot of back ground motivation for the character, there was a lot of surface menace and just oddity that really made him one of the more memorable villians. I still can't wait for the truelly faithful adaptation of a Dean Koontz novel; but "Hideaway" did the man justice.

Nothing to write home about
The 1995 film "Hideaway" was adapted from a novel written by Dean Koontz. As much as I enjoy reading horror novels, along with books from many other genres, I usually avoid Dean Koontz. I attempted to read "Mr. Murder" several years ago and failed to finish it. I finally got through one Koontz book, the highly readable and thoroughly enjoyable "Phantoms," roughly a year ago. As good as that book was, I still cannot bring myself to read another of his novels. Like the other author often mentioned in the same breath, Stephen King, many of Dean Koontz's books have found their way to the silver screen. And, like King, most of them tank immediately. This author does not have the track record King has. At least the Maine writer can point to "The Shawshank Redemption" or "Carrie" as proof that a few of his books succeeded in the difficult transition to film. Koontz, as far as I am aware of, cannot make the same claim. While "Hideaway" is not a truly awful picture, it is not a particularly great one either. I seem to recall it disappeared quickly from the theaters, doomed to perpetual existence in the gloomier shadows at the video store.

"Hideaway" is the story of the Harrison family. Patriarch Hatch (Jeff Goldblum), mother Lindsey (Christine Lahti), and daughter Regina (Alicia Silverstone) seem to encounter the typical problems all small families go through. Regina is at that age where she is a bit rebellious and whiny, but she is generally a good enough kid. Hatch and Lindsey seem to have a good careers as owners of some sort of antique store/ art gallery, careers that, if the movie is any indication, require about one hour of work a week. Tragedy strikes the Harrison family on a trip down a winding mountain road when Hatch swerves to avoid a truck. The car teeters on the edge of a sharp incline just long enough for Regina to exit the vehicle. Then the automobile bounces down the slope and splashes into a cold river. Hatch and Lindsey struggle to stay alive, but it is not enough. Lindsey, despite her best efforts, fails to keep Hatch breathing. By the time the couple arrives at the hospital, Hatch Harrison has been walking in the land of shadows for nearly two hours. Doctor Jonas Nyeburn (Alfred Molina) decides to rescuitate Goldblum's character and succeeds. Hatch goes home with his concerned family to continue living his life. But something changed in Harrison during the time he was gone. He claims he saw his deceased daughter on "the other side."

What's worse, he brought something back, a horrible power to see through the eyes of a serial killer preying on the city's youth. Hatch not only catches an occasional glimpse of terrible activities, he sometimes suffers the same sorts of physical injuries the killer does. A newspaper account of a heinous crime confirms one of Harrison's visions. Lindsey and Regina are in the dark about what is really going on, although Lindsey sees enough weirdness to insist on taking her husband back to Nyeburn for a check up. The doctor insists nothing is wrong, sort of, and Hatch once again tries to live his life. Once again, the disturbing visions return. Harrison gives into them fully this time, heading out in the car to try and find the guy, calling the police to report a murder he saw in a vision, and generally reducing Lindsey to a nervous wreck. Things take a turn for the worse when Hatch realizes the murderer, a young guy by the name of Vassago (Jeremy Sisto), is setting his sights on Regina. The rest of the film becomes a race to discover the location of Vassago in time to save Regina from disaster. Rae Dawn Chong shows up briefly as a nutty new age type named Rose Orwette, an incense burning and Tarot card reading gal who wants to help Goldblum's character locate this monster. The conclusion alternates between genuine suspense and unfettered cheesiness. The requisite plot revelation unfolds in the final minutes too.

As I watched "Hideaway," I could not help thinking how many times we have seen this type of movie before. Director Brett Leonard ("Lawnmower Man," "Virtuosity") falls back on the use of early computer animation effects in several scenes to show what the afterlife looks like. Didn't we see this in "Brainstorm"? Too, Vassago as a serial killer with his own creepy lair isn't that original considering movies from "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" to "Silence of the Lambs" have done essentially the same thing. As for the acting, my girlfriend and I both thought Jeff Goldblum too weird for the role of Hatch Harrison. Don't get me wrong; Goldblum is remarkably restrained in his performance, but a restrained Jeff Goldblum is still weirder than ninety percent of the actors out there. Christine Lahti, for her part, gets little to do from the script except act concerned about her husband's increasing paranoia. Alicia Silverstone is, well, Alicia Silverstone. The best performance comes from Jeremy Sisto as Vassago, especially in those introductory scenes where he terrorizes his family. It's nice to see this actor in an early role before he went on to "May" and "Wrong Turn."

Extras on the disc include a featurette about the making of the film, a trailer, and an alternate ending that, while interesting, does not add much to the ultimate meaning of the film. I cannot conclude that "Hideaway" is a particularly bad film. It's not even close, in fact. I would consider it an average thriller, not really a horror film but not a science fiction picture either. Give it a shot if you like this sort of thing. Goldblum completists will of course wish to procure a copy. I'm just glad I rented it.

Read the book!
I might have almost liked this movie, if it'd been a low budget cable film. However, since I had read the book that it was supposedly based on, I hated it. As other reviewers have noted, Jeff Goldblum, while a fine actor, is just wrong in this role. Hatch is a very ordinary guy until he almost dies and is brought back to life. Ordinary is not a word I'd use to describe any of Goldblum's roles. Christine Lahti is just wasted. In the book, she was a strong character and her husband's equal. Changing Regina from an interesting ten year old to a moronic sixteen year old decreased what little suspense there was. But the single most annoying part of the movie was the half baked new age explanations that they had for everything. The novel is rooted in Christian symbolism. Good versus Evil. Hatch and "Vassago" were both brought back from the dead. One is evil, one is good. That's the whole point of the novel, and the final chapter makes that clear. You can not replace the Christianity of the novel with Rae Dawn Chong (although she was one of the better characters in the movie) reading Tarot cards.

Hideaway
Better than what I was expecting, Goldblum is always on top form no matter what the movie. This film is severly creepy, although the computer effects are quite rubbish the film is saved by good acting and a heavy metal soundtrack.
If your going to watch a Goldblum movie I'd reccoment the Fly, but this is always a good rental. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Did you ever want to get so close to a mama tyrannosaur that you could pat her scaly reptilian snout? Now you'll know what that's like, thanks to aspiringpaleontologist Ally Hayden (Liz Stauber), the teenage heroine of the 1998 IMAXfilm T-Rex: Back to the Cretaceous. Ally's dino-expert father (PeterHorton) has just returned from his latest dig with a fossilized T. rex egg, andwhen Ally accidentally cracks the egg in her dad's museum laboratory, a puff ofmysterious smoke catapults her back to the Cretaceous period, when dinosaurs-- especially T. rex--ruled the Earth. With her imagination in full flight (alongwith an astonishingly realistic pterodactyl), Ally confirms the dinosaurtheories of her own speculative research, and she also encounters pioneeringdinosaur illustrator Charles Knight (Tuck Milligan) and legendary paleontologistBarnum Brown (Laurie Murdoch). Best of all, she comes face to face with amaternal tyrannosaur, earning its respect by protecting one of its incubating eggs.

T-Rex won't be as effective on DVD (where the IMAX 3-D effects areamusingly pointless), but it's guaranteed to please anyone who enjoyed thesimilarly astounding CGI effects of Walking with Dinosaurs. Stauber is arefreshingly normal teen star, and although much of the dialogue sounds like itwas cribbed from a grade-school science text, its educational value is perfectlymatched to the wonders of Ally's prehistoric adventure. Director Brett Leonardpreviously helmed the pioneering FX flick The Lawnmower Man, and here hedemonstrates a warmer, more accessible sense of wonder for kids and parentsalike. At 45 minutes, this IMAX dazzler never wears out its welcome. --JeffShannon ... Read more

Reviews (14)

Short, but entertaining
From the bulk of reviews on this site I gather most people don't realize that IMAX is about presentation and style rather than story and content. Shot on vertical 70mm film the reels in the projection booth take up a huge amount of space, thus the running time of IMAX movies tends to be kept to around 45-50 minutes. Thus the format lends itself more towards the documentary/short movie genre. Most of the movies are factual but sometimes original stories come along. T-Rex: Back to the Cretaceous is one of them.

It came out in 1998 and when I was at the Trocadero IMAX-3D cinema in London I had to choose between this movie and another called Across the Sea of Time. I chose the latter. Which is a shame coz the dinosaurs and huge shots of this movie would have looked better in 3D.

T-Rex begins with an impressive opening shot of the camera swooping over the Arizona desert, which still looks great even on a widescreen TV instead of the huge IMAX screen. There's a hefty narration from the lead actress conveying relevant information about dinosaurs. In this respect the film feels a bit like a 10-year-old's educational program. But being familiar with IMAX movies I was expecting this. I think too many people were expecting a Jurassic Park variant.

Tho I would have expected a few more dinosaurs. In the 45 minute running time there wasn't much dinosaur action. Though there was a good amount of story that I did get into. Plus the movie has a great score by William Ross. He released a promo CD of this score but it's impossible to find.

Hey, I was entertained and I thot the brief story was quite okay. The horribly slanderous reviews on this site really baffle me. The IMAX format does not work well on DVD, you have to see these movies in the cinema. But if you have a good sound system then the DVD is still worth it.

The DVD is in 1.33:1 full frame (they are shown theatrically at 1.44:1 so there isn't much modification to the framing) with a Dolby 5.1 soundtrack that is quite impressive. A slight featurette and an IMAX movies trailer are also included.

IMAX 3-D viewed as DVD 2-D
This is one of the few IMAX "educational" films to have a storytelling presentation. It's 3-D was well shot for the IMAX format (70mm film). An IMAX 1.44 format is close enough to a standard 1.33 TV video, that it should translate to DVD well. It also comes with a "making of" short featurette.

The film centers around the daughter of a paleontologist, who's induced imagination brings the museum's displays to life. A few (good) educational encounters with historic figures, and realistic (though brief) prehistoric lifeforms, are interwoven by a father/daughter storyline and a contrived, disoriented, hallucinatory run through the museum.

So, why only 2 stars? An attempt to add storytelling to education, without being firmly committed to either (or both), leaves everyone expecting more than this film provides. Little boys will find very little dinosaur sightings here, along with too little action to hold their attention. Little girls might identify with the lead character, but it's not likely to have enough storyline to be their favorite DVD. Adults will find the children's "edu-drama" well under their heads (something you'd like to show your child, but too dull to watch by yourself). This is not at all a bad film, but there's just too little of the good stuff.

Film fans will be disappointed that the well done 3-D isn't presented here...even though the film is only 45 mins long, and the DVD could easily have included a field sequential 3-D "bonus" version, which would've sold the DVD the same way 3-D sold this IMAX film in theaters. This film was written to be shot in 3-D, and technically executed flawlessly for IMAX 3-D presentation. I'd buy a 3-D version of this DVD in a heart-beat!

IMAX is HUGE, so the impressive size is lost on a TV...and 70mm film versus DVD quality is like illustrating an atomic blast with a BB gun.

The only thing that could be of value is if there was a thorough "making of" focusing of the rules of 3-D filmmaking (and IMAX) versus standard filmmaking, which would pull in the 3-D lovers and film students.

Terrible, about 10 seconds of actual dinosaurs in it...
I saw this at an Imax theatre, I was thinking what awesome potential seeing dinosaurs in 3D would provide. Boy was I wrong, there was around 10 seconds of CG dinosaurs in this, and they were badly animated. The rest is the most banal story imagineable about a girl and her quest to find an egg or something (I forget, it was _that_ dull).

Check out Walking with Dinosaurs instead.

Saw this in the Smithsonian
I saw this in the Smithsonian with my kids, and even with the novelty of seeing a movie in 3D it was *boring*. It was a complete waste of time and money.

If you are looking for eye candy, there are very few scenes that actually have "live" dinosaurs. If you are looking for science, and you're over 5, I doubt you'll learn anything new.

Great for children who aren't fanatics about dinos
Clean and decent entertainment. Saw it on the IMAX screen with a 10 year old boy who loves the dino's. He wasn't thrilled but I (33 yrs old and sick of shoot 'em ups) thought it was clean decent and even slightly educational. My dvd collection is 200 movies strong and I will add this for entertainment value for adults and children alike. (Although I know it won't be as grand as on the IMAX screen.)

Worth the under $$$ price tag. An even better value at the used prices. ... Read more