There’s no better way to celebrate ten years than looking back…
Few films series have ever cemented themselves within pop culture as successfully as Indiana Jones has. Directed by Steven Spielberg and produced by George Lucas, both at the peak of their careers, the original trilogy of Jones films are all classics. Like many others, I consider Raiders of the Lost Ark to be one of my absolute favourite films. The fun, the adventure, the characters, the action, the story, it all played together so well. The script by Lawrence Kasdan gave us the perfect balance of suspenseful action and engaging drama. While not perfect, particularly in its final moments, it’s a great film and unquestionably is one of Spielberg’s best films – not something to be said lightly.
Following Raider’s success, Spielberg and Lucas gave us The Temple of Doom and The Last Crusade. Both of which are flawed masterpieces. Neither quite matched the success of the original and were both – albeit not by much – inferior to Raiders. Temple is a fun adventure film that takes a turn for the dark, and even horrifying in the middle. It’s oddly meanspirited and did, admittedly, give me weeks of nightmares when eight-year-old me saw monkey brains, human-skin tapestries and the famous heart-ripping scene. For this, it took me a while to warm up to it – but I’ve come to appreciate it more in the years. Crusade is far sillier, and until the zeppelin scene, was a little too childish for most. Now hailed as a classic, I love it as much as the other two, even if it does lack their bite.
Crusade ended on a perfect note, something Spielberg agreed on. But that didn’t stop people from wanting more from their favourite archaeologist. Then, in 2008, the world was treated to the release of a new Indiana Jones film. The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull had the promise of greatness that everybody was wishing for. It looked familiar, yet new. Our favourites were back, and what new characters there were looked to be as strong as those that came before. With new effects, an entertaining trailer and a poster that captured the spirit of the films we had come to love, Skull was a guaranteed box office success. It became one of the highest grossing films of 2008 and was met with mostly positive critical reviews. Unfortunately, when audiences watched the film, all they could say was ‘What did I just watch?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12GHDme2h-o
The CGI was horrible. The new characters were forgettable, despite being played by some excellent character actors. Shia LaBeouf played Jones son, in one of the most misguided casting and character choices in recent memory. Somebody thought that Jones surviving a nuclear explosion in a fridge was scientifically sound. And there were aliens in it…need I say more? Skull felt like many things – most of which were bad – but one thing it did not feel like was an Indiana Jones film. What this gave us was similar to the Star Wars prequels in how it was received. With a lot of people trying to like it, but then years later just accepting that it was a bad film.
Of course, in defence of the film, it isn’t all bad. Spielberg is one of the greatest directors of all time, it’s not like he forgot how to make a film here. The cinematography and editing are still what we’d expect from such a film. There are some great shots here and there throughout. The sets, when they are actual sets, are very nice and well utilised. I even think that the Cold War Era setting was a wise choice and would fit with the age that Harrison Ford was at the time with that of the character. I thought that the opening in the warehouse was a lot of fun and there’s one or two other fun action scenes. The music by John Williams is still great and some of the humour is genuine. It’s just pretty much everything else that lets the film down.
By now it’s well documented that Spielberg had no interest in a fourth Jones film. It was only with the pestering of Lucas and later Harrison Ford that he decided to direct it. While Spielberg’s dedication to the film and enthusiasm as the project was underway can’t be faulted, it’s clear that his heart was no longer in it. It’s also apparent that sometime during production, Harrison Ford found himself frustrated with the film. His performance is dry, and his usually quick wit was coming in off que – so jokes and witty one-liners felt out of place or forced. Script writer David Koepp – who wrote Spider-Man, co-wrote Jurassic Park and directed A Stir of Echoes – was going through a rough spot too. His script here is one of his worst, falling as low as his scripts to War of the Worlds, The Lost World: Jurassic Park and Secret Window (which he also directed). Then we have George Lucas. At this point, Lucas was content to make whatever film he wanted – thanks to the poor reaction to the Star Wars prequels, he had learned how to shut out criticism and had accepted that people would likely reject what stories he came up with. Lucas is the man we have to thank for Jones meeting aliens and believe it or not, the film we got was better than the one he had planned originally.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x653T60OqnE
An issue that stood out though, one that plagued the film and was its ultimate downfall was not the story. It wasn’t the horrible overuse of poorly rendered CGI. It wasn’t even the bizarre performances from the likes of acclaimed actors – such as Cate Blanchett, Ray Winstone, John Hurt and Jim Broadbent. Nor the horrible casting of Shia LaBeouf as greaser son of Jones, Mutt. It was that Spielberg and Lucas had grown from the days of the original trilogy. They had become fathers, they had found a nice place to settle with their well-earned success. They had simply grown up. Lucas typically stayed away from the directing chair and had become an exceptional business man, helping filmmaking friends and newcomers alike find their place in the filmmaking world. Spielberg now only occasionally made the action oriented or family friendly fare that made him famous. Jurassic Park, Minority Report and War of the Worlds were projects that he made between productions of films like Schindler’s List, Saving Private Ryan, Amistad and Munich.
Having grown up, they found elements of the previous three films to be a little inappropriate now. Sadly, these things are what gave the original trilogy its teeth. Jones was an almost Bond like character, he was killing bad-guys and henchmen, visiting exotic locations and getting a different woman every movie. While the locations are still enjoyably exotic, we now have a returning Jones-girl and their son – again, which makes sense to add when you’re a father yourself. The issue is that they don’t play off each other nearly as well the second time, with a lot of their screen time dedicated to fan-service. The son element feels like they’re deliberately trying to pass down the torch to a very poor character – not to mention that it was done better before with The Last Crusade.
Throughout the film, Jones is only responsible for the deaths of two characters, with other characters deaths being either self-inflicted or coincidental. This takes away from the tension. It just feels like a censored down version of the films that came before. The moment where Indiana is fighting the big guy as a horde of flesh-eating ants surround them is a good example of why this bite is needed. It’s a good action scene, and not just because it’s well shot. It’s tense, the action carries weight, every punch is felt, and we feel like Jones could be the one who dies here. I want to feel that with every action scene, not just one! I know that the thought of making a family friendly film was on their minds. But the other three, even the unpleasant Temple of Doom, work as family films, and have been enjoyed by families for decades now. They will last forever; Kingdom of the Crystal Skull has been forgotten by many for the past ten years now.
I’ll always remember when, for a birthday I received all four films and decided to watch all of them in order. But when I got to Skull, I realised that I couldn’t be bothered with it. That is very telling of this film. There are elements I like, but it’s overall forgettable and overly tame. It is treated as one of the worst blockbusters ever made nowadays, whether or not that is deserved is certainly down for debate, but I think that title gives it too much credit. It’s not awful, it’s just aggressively mediocre. Perhaps that’s worse, but for me it doesn’t linger on the mind long enough to be insulting.
The Forest of Lost Souls comes to us from Portuguese filmmaker José Pedro Lopes. This psychological drama-come-horror film follows the evens of two people who meet up in a forest. Said forest, a creation of fiction, is a popular place for suicide – this happens to be why these two are here. Or is it? As they talk and explore the forest, searching for the souls hidden within it turns out both have a story to tell. And one is nowhere near as innocent as they first seem.
This is a slow-burning story, making use of character and atmosphere to play on the audience’s perceptions. The film is shot in black-and-white, which certainly helps set the films tone. The lack of colour gives us an unnatural feeling towards the characters and makes us quick to distrust them both. The long takes and mostly sparse editing, with a focus on cuts moving us from one location to the next – messing with any concept of the passage of time. It all makes for a viewing that’s uncomfortable in the right way.
It does feel unfortunate that this good atmosphere was put to use on a film that feels overall very disjointed. What is advertised as the film’s plot, and what is the most intriguing part of the film, is over with sooner than you’d believe. As soon as our characters reach a resolution, the film becomes less of an atmospheric drama with a very intriguing premise. It instead becomes a more generic horror film – at times it even resembles a slasher flick. This does work sometimes – notable examples are Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho and Jonathan Damme’s The Silence of the Lambs, two drama-thrillers that became serial killer horror films at the end. Here though, it sadly comes off as two very separate stories that clash very violently.
We seem to get a good set-up, conflict and resolution – and then the film carries on for another 40 minutes. This makes me think that The Forest of Lost Souls would have worked better as a short film. It is a shame, as the cinematography and acting was good, and Lopes clearly has talent behind the camera. I wouldn’t be surprised if he made something spectacular in the future. But the story was lost on me, and not too soon after so were the characters. I’ll admit to having been confused by characters and their motivations in this film. I watched the film, waiting for a big reveal as to the motive behind the film’s more antagonistic character, but it didn’t really arrive for me.
The Forest of Lost Souls is an interesting story and concepts, that is beautifully filmed – but is sadly very muddled. The feeling of uncertainty is something that is worn on the sleeves, which is executed well. But sadly, when the film get’s confusing it really feels hard to get invested in. It’s a good show of talent from those in front of and behind the camera, and I do hope to see more – and better – from them. It’s a shame about the story, but in terms of execution it’s at least an interesting viewing. If you like slow-burning thrillers in the vein of Psycho and, in a way, The Babadook, then it’s worth at least one viewing.
The Incredibles is one of the best family films of all time. On the surface it was just a story about a family of superheroes taking down a villain, but as a whole the film was much more than that. It had a great story, was excellently animated and was actually more deep and far darker than most give it credit for; tackling big issues, involving family and subjugation. Add director Brad Bird at the top of his game, and you’ve got something, well, incredible. Now, fourteen years on, we finally have the sequel we’ve been asking for! I guess Pixar finally realised that sequels to Cars weren’t that important after all.
Set just as the first one left off, the Incredibles find themselves still restrained by the law – demanding that superheroes step aside and be just like everyone else. This is hard enough on the kids, who not only found a sense of meaning and fun in taking down bad guys, but who are told to never use their ever-growing powers. It’s worse for Bob and Helen Parr, aka Mr Incredible and Elastagirl – who have to be good and supportive parents, despite them hating the law. But when a business man promises to change all of that, they see hope once again. Helen is thrown into the field and faces a new enemy hidden in the shadows, while Bob must coup with the trials of being a stay-at-home father.
From the get go, Incredibles 2 is fighting an uphill battle. The hype around it, the time it has taken and the fact that it must follow up a much beloved classic does make this one feel little it was doomed from the start. Which is why I’m happy to say, while it’s not as good as the original, more on that in a bit, Incredibles 2 is a very worthy follow up. In terms of animation, it’s flawless. Pixar is constantly making spectacular animation. Even tripe like Cars and Monsters University at least looked amazing. Technology has improved this, so the animation is superior to the first one in every way.
Everything that you loved about the first one – barring one detail – is back and is just how you loved it all before. The characters are amazing, with the Incredibles themselves being some of the most lovable animated characters out there. They remind me a little of The Simpsons, back in the ‘90’s, and feel just as timeless. Craig T Nelson, Holly Hunter and Samuel L Jackson and the rest do a great job with all their characters, both new and old. Brad Bird himself returns as the ever-loveable Edna Mode, giving us some of the films best scenes. It’s all well written, acted and directed with all characters. Well, almost all…
On top of it all, we get some spectacular action. There’s a bit involving a train that was jaw-dropping. The action and comedy are just as sharp, smart and bullseye hitting as each other. It’s not too often a joke fails to land in this film. Okay, there’s not really much in terms of gut busters here, but it’s still funny. Any moment involving Jack-Jack is definitely going to make the majority of people laugh. We even get those emotional, and even dark moments like in the first one, and those too are just as hard hitting as the silly, fun stuff. Particularly those involving Bob trying his hardest to raise a family, even though he’s more than struggling with it.
Where the film starts to fail is with it’s story. It never feels like it’s not an Incredibles film, but it does fall very short in comparison. An issue I have, and this is going to sound worse than it actually is, is that the film doesn’t seem to know exactly what it wants to be. Only when the film focuses on Helen or Jack-Jack does it feel like it’s come into its own. And when it does focus on them, it’s great. When it doesn’t, it’s still good, but feels lacking for it. We also have the issue that, as with the first one we have two stories playing out, Helen and Bob’s stories. But with the first one, it’s two stories that fed into each other, and helped move each other along. This just feels like two separate stories that just happen to come together at the end.
That is forgivable in the end. What isn’t is the films villain. This is a far-cry from Syndrome. This villain has no charisma, has a very muddled motivation, has a plot that makes no sense and is of no physical threat to the heroes. So, the opposite to Syndrome. They shouldn’t be compared, as they are two separate villains, but it’s just too hard not to. The last I will say on it is that this film did make me appreciate Syndrome more. Looking back on him, not only did he have all of the above going for him, but he was also ahead of his time. We didn’t think much about it at the time, but now the idea of manipulating people with media and politics and then selling out once you’ve got what you wanted is something that we’ve all come to see from many sources now. It was also a good plot – bring back superheroes while you become the poster boy and then sell the tech once you retire – it’s delightfully devious. This villain is so dated. The plot involved hypnotic screens and internet code – and something to do with bringing back superheroes so that they can put a stop to superheroes – it’s just confused.
I really, really enjoyed Incredibles 2. The villain is an unfortunate shame, and it is sadly standing in the towering shadow of this years earlier Coco. But it’s still more than worth the watch. I’m sure that if you have even an inkling to see it, then you already will have, or are soon going to. I highly recommend it. It’s a fun, often smart, funny and thrilling adventure for the whole family, and it’s still better than most of the superhero films of today. Dash down and go see it.
Blackout must be one of the most uncomfortable films I’ve seen in a while. I do mean that in the kindest way I can. It’s a simple story, yet a surprisingly hard one to swallow. It deals with mental illness – more specifically those who life with mental illness within their family. How those who do have to care for and watch those who they love become nearly unrecognisable before them. We follow Grace, as she lives with her mother ho suffers from a severe case of paranoia. She believes that there is a huge conspiracy, where she is to help MI5 reveal the enemy spies – and threatening to do anything to make sure her mission is a success. When things get life threatening, how will Grace be able to coup?
Blackout is a hopeless film. There is no great moment of togetherness and understanding. No happy moment lasts long. It’s mostly upsetting and gritty. It’s all very well presented and effectively told. Even towards the bitter end, even though we get a nice moment of levity and know that things should get better soon, the immediate moment is very downbeat. But, to it’s credit, it’s not too hard to watch.
Blackout was directed by Serena Chloe Gardner, and she does hold talent behind the camera. The film is well directed, with a good grasp on how the film looked and sounded. It all feels very claustrophobic, uncomfortable and – well paranoid. It’s not often we get long shots at great distances here. We’re always only feet away from them and everything that is said is very loud and very clear. We appreciate the slower and quieter moments because they feel like a break – a breath of fresh air. Outside of them it feels like we’re being shouted at. It’s as uncomfortable as hearing an argument between two people in the same shop as you. It’s also just as morbidly fascinating.
I have to give credit to these actresses. They both perfectly capture the stress and tragedy of the situation they’re in perfectly. I particularly liked the actress playing Grace, Evelyn Lockley. She has a talent for having the audience sympathise with her, even though she does do something that, even though we know it for the better, feels like a betrayal for her mother. She feels like a woman who is constantly at the end of her rope – understandable considering that the film opens with a death threat. Her mother’s actress, Kate Lock, is equally talented. At first we feel threatened by her, but we soon seen how deep she is in her own fantasy, we understand how she got there and we quickly feel pity for her. I’m convinced that this is a woman who is suffering from paranoia and that it has made her crazy to us, but that she plays her role with the belief that what is not happening is real, makes me feel sorry for her. We will her to get better.
Blackout is possibly a little too grim to be seen as enjoyable for many. Its craft is most certainly worthy of praise, as are the performances. It’s a little too hard going for re-watching though. There will always be a strong case for a film you liked at the time, or even watching only once. I just doubt that it will stick with me, because I find it a little too hard going to get into it personally. It’s one I do recommend though, especially to those looking for inspiration in the short, independent film market. If you feel that you can take it, then I’d say it’s worth your time.
It’s not long now before we get the next instalment in one of the largest blockbuster franchises of all time. Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom has a lot of hype built up behind it, with the promise of a different feel and the master craftsmanship of J. A. Bayona at the helm. I’m certainly looking forward to it and will be seeing it opening day if I can. To build myself up for it, I watched the four films before it in preparation – I was marvelled, entertained, and also surprised by how the series changed and evolved. Not always for the better mind you. In retrospect, the Jurassic Park franchise remains one of the key franchises in cinema history – yet, like Star Wars, it seems to have fallen into irrelevance. What was it that made it so great? And where did it all go wrong?
The first film was released in 1993, and from the get-go had everything going for it. It was based off an excellent book by legendary author Michael Crichton and was directed by the one and only Steven Spielberg. Jurassic Park was released not long before I was born (that was 1994), but I saw it when I was very young – in-fact, at the age of two you’d probably argue that I was too young – and I loved every minute of it. I always remember the feeling, I wasn’t watching a film, I was watching relatable and likeable people on an island with living, breathing dinosaurs. I saw it again when it was rereleased in 3D, and the effect was the same. I love this film with all my heart – it is, without question, my favourite film of all time.
Jurassic Park is heralded as one of the greatest blockbusters of all time and is seen as a landmark in cinema history. It’s not an exaggeration when people say that Jurassic Park changed film forever. At the forefront of this, of course, are the effects. To put things into perspective, CGI was a baby. Before Jurassic Park there were only a handful of CG examples – Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan, Young Sherlock Holmes, The Abyss and Terminator 2: Judgment Day being the go to titles. Even then, T2 was the only on to use it extensively throughout. But these were just images on a screen, or creatures with reflective surfaces. Spielberg decided to use this technology to bring not just one dinosaur to life, but a lot of different species of them, all of which look different. And they would be in daylight most of the time, so lighting would be a greater issue. And they had to match the animatronics that they’d also use seamlessly. The result is still impressive. I’ve seen CGI from 2009 look way worse that anything in this film!
The life size dinosaurs, which included an over 40-foot-long t-rex, were among the best ever put to screen. It’s the mix of the effects that makes Jurassic Park age well and still impress today. Typically, CG wasn’t used that much – it was mostly there for the long shots, where the dinosaurs would run or jump, or just do something that an animatronic couldn’t do. It was never used for close-ups or as a cheap way out. A good thing, because some of the dinosaurs might have looked hideous otherwise. Everyone remembers the motorised triceratops and dilophosaurus, but it’s hard to forget that the raptors in the kitchen was mostly puppetry too. As was the rex wrecking the car. Some of the CG is so impressive that I still think that these are real dinosaurs. Very few moments show the films age – the brachiosaurus is pretty bad now, and there are some questionable raptor shots, but that’s it really.
Jurassic Park is always remembered as a technical wonder, but that’s not why it’s considered a classic. Spielberg brought every bit of charm and thrill that had made him a force to be reckoned with in the first place. The characters, while not that deep or even that interesting, are all memorable and likable. Sam Neill’s Grant and Jeff Goldblum’s Malcolm are the stand outs, as well as the late Richard Attenborough’s eccentric John Hammond. There’s a very nice arc involving Grant and the kids at the centre of the film, which helps carry weight to the situation. The story is creative, fast paced with some nice build up and, despite some fun and silly action, is actually very smart and educational. This is the film that made the public know what DNA really was.
And, of course, the thrills are…well, thrilling. Raptors stalking children in a kitchen, a t-rex chasing a car at high speed, and the traitorous Dennis Nedry (Wayne Knight) getting his comeuppance from a poisonous dinosaur. It’s all great stuff. Between all of that rests a heart that only Spielberg could capture. It’s inviting. You feel warm between the action. It’s a family film at its core – as well as thriller, sci-fi and horror, a group of genres that no longer get made of the family audience anymore. Gone are the days of Ghostbusters, Gremlins, Tremors, Critters and Jaws. As a kid, it made you feel older for watching it. As an adult, it makes you feel younger. It’s perfect for all ages.
Of course, Jurassic Park is far from perfect, what film isn’t? The script isn’t particularly strong, with character development suffering the most. Again, some effects do show their age now. Being a book adaptation, there is the simple fact that some things the book did a little better – although the film is the better telling of the story overall. I also find the exposition the first act to be a little too vague. It wasn’t really until I read the book that I realised who Dodgson was and what he wanted the embryos for. There’s even a moment involving a triceratops that raises a good question that is just left unanswered. This will have been for pacing I’m sure, but it’s an odd thing to drop. But none of that really matters, when the film is so powerful as to silence a loud cinema when the t-rex roars after breaking out of its pen. The film is summed up in its money shot – where the t-rex roars victoriously as a banner with “When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth” falls before it – it’s big, impressive, awe-inspiring and just plain cool. I never get sick of it, I never will. There’s more I could ramble on about, but just saying that I love this film more than any other I’ve seen should be praise enough for it.
Jurassic Park swept the box office and even won some Oscars. Until Titanic came along, it remained the highest grossing film of all time. Naturally, that meant that a sequel was quickly put in the works. On paper, The Lost World: Jurassic Park sounded too good to be true. Spielberg was back, as was the beloved character of Malcolm. John Williams, who’s score still thrills all who hear it, returned to supply more great music. And it was to be based off of another book by Crichton, titled The Lost World. When the film came out, audiences rushed to see it, and upon leaving they all shared a single thought – what went wrong?
An easy place to start is that, while Jurassic Park the novel was excellent, The Lost World was an entertaining but hollow read. This is very prophetic of what the film became. What good people remember about this film is the action scenes. In particular is the entire trailer section. While it goes on a little too long, it’s a well shot, brilliantly realised and edge-of-your-seat scene. The cracking glass is something that doesn’t leave the mind easily. I also appreciate the very silly death scene at the end of this sequence – although the character in question is sadly one of only two likable characters in the film. The raptor sequence – barring the embarrassingly stupid gymnastics moment – is seen as a good bit of dumb fun too. Peter Stormare’s death and the girl at the beginning are good fun too. But there lies the issue – these are just moments in an over 2-hour film.
I often blame the films short-comings on David Koepp’s script. It’s not only surprisingly bad for a usually good story-teller, it’s confused and filled with extremely unlikable characters. There’s a lot of scientific talk (much like in the book) and eco-political discussions. But where in the first film, and in both the books, this was interesting to listen too – they made you want to learn more to an extent – this is pretentious and completely unengaging. It’s full of fun facts but is lacking natural dialogue. If the goal was purely to send a message about mankind against nature then that’d be fine. But the film also wants to be the first film, even to the point of copy and paste at times – copied shots of t-rexes behind glass, one party member splitting off to turn on power, the big raptor chase through a lab complex – and just general monster movie silliness. This gives the film a huge identity crisis, where we have a horror film opening and a Godzilla movie ending.
The major issues are with the unlikable character, particularly Vince Vaughn’s character – who is just despicable considering the amount of people his actions cause the deaths of – and with Spielberg himself. Again, Vince Vaughn is awful, far worse than Julianne Moore, who comes off as just stupid really. Gone is Goldblum’s energy, leaving us watching a shell of his former self. The only two characters I liked were the guy who got ripped in two by the rexes and the late Pete Postlethwaite, who played his hunter character with superb charm and charisma. As for directing, Spielberg made an odd choice in showing more of the creatures, and mostly at night. There’s a short-lived moment of wonder with some stegosaurus, but the rest of the film lacks awe and wonderment. It’s all thrills, and without that sense of wonder it all falls flat. And as cool as it is seeing a big t-rex head attacking people, it’s way to over-used.
The cinematography is very mixed too. Sometimes there are great tracking shots or pulse-pounding close-ups. Other times the camera is so far away or so dimly lit that I can’t tell what’s going on. It’s not fun to look at. The forest is less welcoming than the jungle setting and it’s just too dark to be colourful at all. I have my suspicions, which have apparently been confirmed but I’d take that with a pitch of salt, that Spielberg lost interest in the film part way through it. It feels pretty half-hearted for him. There is still some elegance to it, but that mostly happens at the end. Speaking of which, let’s look at that moment.
30 minutes away from the end, the t-rex is taken to San Diego and goes on a rampage. This entire act of the film is almost parodical. We have the t-rex from Jurassic Park drinking from swimming pools, eating David Koepp and crashing a bus into a video-shop, with a poster advertising King Lear starring Arnold Schwarzenegger. It’s bizarre! It’s the point of contention for most. Personally though, this act saves the film for me. The rest of it was so disappointing that I don’t mind how silly it is. Honestly, I really like the silliness and fast pace – compared to the dull slog before it. I make it sound like I hate this film. I don’t, but I don’t like it either. The final act and some fun action do keep me coming back to it now and then, and I will keep watching it. But I can’t recommend it. I did love it as a kid though, so perhaps it has a place for audiences.
The Lost World: Jurassic Park did gain a growing cult following among fans and was a box-office hit. But when I said that The Lost World had a bad script, Jurassic Park III had an even worse one. Spielberg returned only as producer to the Joe Johnston directed sequel. It’s common knowledge now that the production of Jurassic Park III was plagued by issues. These mostly stemmed from Johnston’s indecisiveness of what story he wanted to tell. If you look it up, you’ll find a plot about a creature murder mystery, where Pterodactyls were the culprits. Unused stories and scenes actually sound more interesting than what we actually got – which was as bare-bones as they come.
The script features no character development, not much in terms of plot and only serves to move us from action scene to action scene. When a risky choice is made – which is twice – they do not pay off and come off as insulting. This makes people hate this film. Once, that included me too. Johnston is a noticeably weaker director than Spielberg. His sets look ugly, as do his dinosaurs, his editing’s choppy and he has a strange habit of speeding up the footage at multiple points of the film. Great actors like Sam Neill, William H. Macy and the late Michael Jeter are wasted on the awful script, written by the writer of Eragon no less. We also have an awful fight between the t-rex and the new big bad, spinosaurus – where the latter comes out on top. It was a miscalculation to kill the rex, but that the fight is less than 30-seconds long and lasts only five moves only makes things worse. Worse than that is splitting up Grant and Ellie from the first film, completely degrading the original’s story and character arcs.
Yes, I most certainly hated this film as a kid. But time has made me soft on it. I’m not saying that Jurassic Park III is a good film – it’s not! But I like it better than The Lost World: Jurassic Park. Most of that is admittedly because of the length. It barely reaches 90-minutes long. This means that the film doesn’t mess around. Within the first 20-minutes, we are introduced to our characters, have a reason to get to the island and get a fun action scene with the spinosaurus. While Lost World was a confused mess, Jurassic Park III knows what it is – an efficient monster movie.
Sam Neill is a better lead than Goldblum, being charming and likable despite the script. The action is also strong throughout the film. The stand out moments being the spinosaurus attacking the plane, and again attacking the boat and the entire Pterodactyl pen scene. I also have a fondness of the moment the raptors attack Michael Jeter’s character. It amuses me because, not only is it surprisingly brutal, but the male raptor does it just to be mean. If you watch it, it’s being called away, so it won’t eat him, and it makes sure that the other people are watching. I don’t know why, but something about a raptor killing someone just to shock the people is so baffling that it amuses me a little – how they display such human emotions, which is pretty much the only theme the film features. Thinking on it, the raptors in this one are very strong and interesting – outside of a horrible design choice in using feathers. Yes, it’s scientifically accurate but it looks wrong for the series. If I wanted nothing but accuracy I’d watch a documentary, not a dinosaur adventure with all the brains of a Doug McClure film.
Jurassic Park III made less than those before it and was panned on release. That and a general lack of ideas and directors succeeded in putting the series on ice. It was 14 years before the series was picked up by Colin Trevorrow and given a new make-over. The land of blockbusters had changed, now they had to be big, bombastic and had to appeal to mass audiences. Effects simply don’t wow us anymore. The other three films, while showing their age in moments – particularly in Jurassic Park III – were marvels of effects. That’s what drew people to them. Now that time is past – now we have to buy into action scenes and nostalgia. You know, as opposed to strong stories with interesting characters.
I might have sounded harsh so far, but I’ll clear the air by saying that I really liked Jurassic World. I think that, while certainly not the best, it’s easily one of the most entertaining films I have seen this decade. In a world where Star Wars is revitalised (and even bombed!), comic books and YA novels dominate the screen and we’ve received countless sequels, prequels and remakes, I find that Jurassic Park has leant itself to the new cinema better than most. That is partly because of the aforementioned action and nostalgia. It also works because the inventive story – although I do find myself remembering 1999’s Deep Blue Sea when I watch it – decent performances and sense of scale and fun.
Jurassic World is constantly compared to those Sci-Fi Channel or Asylum films, and I tend to agree. Story and character-wise it fits that bill well. It’s very silly and knows it. In a way it knew what we wanted, although something was missed. We wanted to see more dinosaur action. We wanted to see more dinosaurs. We wanted to see new ideas being toyed with, such as hybrids and trained dinosaurs. We wanted to see an operational park that we could imagine visiting ourselves. We wanted a film that felt like a revitalisation of the series we once loved. All of these it succeeds in. With the spectacular action to boot, this was a film to be reckoned with. But the key ingredient missing was heart.
I am constantly entertained by Jurassic World, but even I am marvelled with how uninvolved I am for the majority of it. This is something I’ve sadly gotten used to. It started with the later Harry Potter films for me – I’ve struggled to get myself involved with a lot of Blockbusters lately. Usually I only come to be entertained, and they often succeed there, but a film like Mad Max: Fury Road, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes and Logan is a rare thing for me nowadays. It doesn’t help that the characters aren’t very memorable. They’re not unlikable like in The Lost World: Jurassic Park or as hollow as in Jurassic Park III, but they don’t really stick out. Bryce Dallas Howard as Claire does, that’s a character with an arc and Howard delivers the best and most amusing performance of the film, making you care for her and enjoy seeing how far she has come by the end. But Owen never gets past being Chris Pratt to me – I love the guy, but I want a character not just the actor. Vincent D’Onofrio is doing a good job, but with a truly awful character. It’s rare you find a villain so cartoonish, incompetent and stupid in any film.
I think that the huge amount of product placement is a little distracting but makes sense in how and why it’s used in the film – I imagine Starbucks would open up in a park like this, for example. The nostalgic references are a mixed bag – I like the waterfall returning for a shot and I think the t-rex breaking through the spinosaurus skeleton at the end was a nice touch, but then we get a man wearing a Jurassic Park shirt and a kid looking at night-vision goggles, these are too on the nose.
But mostly it falls into the same trap as the other sequels, albeit handled better. There’s very little awe and charm and it’s mostly just thrills. Some effective, some cheap. There are three awe moments – the first is seeing the open park, which was great. The second was the herbivore enclosure, which might have worked, if the effects weren’t awful in that scene. Then there’s the dying brontosaurus, where the only animatronic (at least that I could see) was used, which is another nice and effective moments. The rest is thrills and gore. But give credit where it’s due, we got a great pterodactyl scene – with a death scene that offended some but entertained many others, including me – and the final fight between the t-rex, Blue the raptor and the indominus rex was incredible.
For some the lack of charm made the scripts sillier elements and underdeveloped characters stand out all the more, putting them off the film – or at least holding back their enjoyment. I can understand that sentiment. It is a tonally unbalanced experience, and I don’t remember the characters all that well myself, and I watch it annually. For me, and many others, the film was just fun. It was so much fun that it reminded us of how enjoyable the films have been since the original. Even if it didn’t feel that way. A friend of mine called Jurassic Park a horror film and Jurassic World an action film, which I think sums up the differences between them well. While Park was aimed at families and appealed to everyone, World was aimed at teenagers and appealed to that and those just outside of that demographic. They are different, but it’s very clear which of the two has the most stopping power. Then again, one is directed by one of the greatest directors of all time, and the other is from the man who gave us The Book of Henry. So, there is that.
Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom’s marketing has done its job for me. The trailers have me interested and most of the news I hear from it does have me excited. J A Bayona is one of my favourite working directors, so that too is a bonus. Yes, I’m one of those who saw the carnotaurus and thought it was the coolest thing, but it’s the story and ideas that we’re being promised that have me interested. It looks a little less conventional for the series and will hopefully be a welcomed escape from the island – no pun intended. Maybe the returning characters will improve this time around too. Jurassic World’s score of one of the highest grossing films of all time proves that people are still interested, and everyone I know is excited. I even know people who have told me that it will be the only film they’ll make the effort for this year.
History with this franchise had kept me from hoping for too much. We’ll never reach these heights again, it’s too different a world in cinema now. As a series, it has irreparably changed too. But we can look forward to it, with our hype or dread in check. We can only hope that life will find a way.
