 |
|
What people are saying - Write a reviewUser ratings
Believable and well researched! - weRead Stupid ending and poor writing, yet creative. - weRead Good premise, but the movie was better. - weRead Fast paced page turner, so much better than the movie. - weRead A thrilling, logical, and well researched novel. - weRead Great imagery, easy reading, suspensful. - weRead Review: Jurassic Park (Jurassic Park #1)User Review - Ethan - GoodreadsOkay so maybe I'm biased because I have loved dinosaurs since childhood. My parents took me to see the movie when i was 4 years old. They said I Laughed when the T-Rex ate the lawyer off the toilet ... Read full review Review: Jurassic Park (Jurassic Park #1)User Review - Faith - GoodreadsWhat , are you guys honestly surprised? Impossible science? Screw it! An overabundance of characters? Who cares! Glaring plot holes? We don't mind! It has DINOSAURS in it and it's not a complete piece of crap! I'm sold , good enough. Read full review Related books
Other editions - View all
References to this bookFrom other books
From Google ScholarTelling Stories: Metaphors of the Human Genome ProjectMary Rosner, TR Johnson - 1995 - Hypatia A Historical View of Social Responsibility in GeneticsJon Beckwith - 1993 - BioScience Nanotechnology: From “Wow” to “Yuck”?Kristen Kulinowski - 2004 - Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society Pasting Together Julia Sets: A Worked Out Example of MatingJohn Milnor - 2004 - Experimental Mathematics References from web pagesWelcome to michaelcrichton.com The real Jurassic Park? | COSMOS magazine Jurassic Park List of characters in Jurassic Park - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ebay Guides - Jurassic Park Action Figures Series 2 Bad Subjects: Jurassic Park, or Sympathy for the Dinosaur Jurrassic Park lessons.html Prehistoric Pulp: Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton (1990) ancient DNA, evolution, Jurassic Park, mcmaster University ... Here's how it should go - Jurassic Park db forum Bibliographic information
|