The fourth one's in development, and I was having a discussion with a feisty female about which of the trilogy so far is the best.

Obviously the first one is the best, even though it was the worst book-to-film adaptation ever.

I'm of the mind the second one is the best, with better cast, action and the most hi-larious ending ever.

She's obviously into mindless blah, and thinks the third is somehow better than the third?

I don't know how, because it was simply appalling. But obviously i'm sure others think the same!

Anyway, your opinion?

The only thing the same between the book and the film is the lead character dressing as a postman.

I agree the early Bond films were fairly spot on. But then look at Moonraker to see the flip side.

OH my god.
It's clearly the third, i cant believe you brought this argument to the forums. i won before and i will win here.
COME ON YOU KNOW THE THIRD WAS MILES BETTER!!!!
A t-rex comes to america, come on! terrible stuff!

Except Shawshank and Maximum Overdrive

yes, and i hated king kong too

Perhaps they should have worked more on making thier own film better than copying another film and making it even worse!

Fair enough you did say almost

I seem to be having flash backs of hte second one now though and I remember it being awful! The ending is just rubbish.

YES
SCORE!!!!
mwahahaha in your face Rebel!