Task: Sentiment Analysis
Input (English): Why oh why? . Let me start by saying the first movie of the series was absolutely fantastic. Regardless of the fact that it didn't stick with a few key plotlines in the book, everyone still did a great job adapting the original Jurassic Park. Then came this piece of trash...    Whereas the first movie at least attempted to loosely base itself on the book, this one just takes the brilliant writing of Michael Chrichton and throws it directly out the window.     First off, John Hammond is supposed to be dead. He dies at the end of the first novel. Secondly Ian Malcome is supposedly dead, or at least MIA at the end of the first book, and we join him in a costarican hospital in the opening of the 2nd. There is no bratty daughter, and the entire premise has much more to it.    MOST IMPORTANTLY... the entire ending in san diego with the T-Rex... which was possibly the worst conceived plot line in the history of movies... did not exist in the book!     I went into this movie expecting a tightly woven plot, a huge concentration on the conspiracy of having such an island exist, and the anticipation of some good dino-scenes to top it off.  What I ended up getting was the writing equivalent of a monkey at a typewriter drooling on a page. Not only that... but because of the lack of plot, the dino scenes are complete over-kill. When you see so much of it, you lose that awe and wonder of the first film. When you see that Brachiosaur in the first 20 mins of the original film, the wonderment is difficult to rival. There are no such moments in this film.    If you're looking for a quick fix for decent looking dino FX, go nuts. However, if you're looking for something more substantial with an actual plotline, flick off the dvd player and pick up the book.    Oh and one more thing... don't go NEAR the 3rd movie. They didn't even have a book to be untrue to. I can't imagine how much more long-winded and rambling my review would be for that one
Output (English): NEG