Plausible Idiocy: Jurassic Park III (2001)

[Warning- Spoilers ahead!]

     Joe Johnston’s Jurassic Park III draws almost as much ire as its immediate predecessor, if not more. It’s frequently derided as dumb, derivative, and dull, a forgettable flick with stupid characters who deserve to get eaten, and not even the talents of Steven Spielberg and John Williams to mitigate things. And then there is the minority who backhandedly compliment it by considering it “not as bad as the second”- kind of enjoyable, even. Me, I think there’s some truth in both views.

     For one thing, the film is definitely kind of dumb, with a flimsy plot constructed around what feels like the warmed up leftovers of the first two installments. At least one of the characters is annoying enough that I can see why somebody would want her to get eaten. The plot -a pair of divorcees trying to rescue their son from Isla Sorna after his parasailing venture goes awry- is pretty ridiculous. And the ending is anticlimactic, to say the least.

     With all that being said, Jurassic Park III does have a few things going for it. The biggest is the return of Sam Neil as Alan Grant. To the extent that the movie works outside of the dinosaurs, it’s largely thanks to his wonderful performance. It helps that he seems to be aware of the stupidity of the other characters [though those hoping for the sort of snarky commentary Goldblum brought to the first sequel will be disappointed- Grant isn’t that kind of character]. In fact, he’s so good here that I’d argue he’s enough to justify at least one viewing of the film.   

     Another advantage is the fact that the majority of the characters are not supposed to be professionals who know how to handle the recreated dinosaurs. They’re mainly Average Joes. Because of that, their idiocy is actually somewhat more justifiable than the idiocy of the characters in the second film. Anyone who doesn’t find the Kirbys believable has plainly never heard of the Darwin Awards.

     And finally, Jurassic Park III doesn’t make much of an attempt to justify its own existence with pretentious commentary, the way the second film did. It knows it’s just an excuse for the audience to see dinosaurs running around and chomping on people once again, and plays itself out accordingly. Admittedly, it does kind of undercut itself by killing off all of its expendable characters in the first half [the one character who “dies” in the second half is lamely revealed to still be alive at the end]. But the dinosaurs do look good, if not quite as good as in the first two. And the brisker, ninety minute runtime helps to make it more palatable.

     In the end, I guess which of the first two sequels you’re going to prefer will depend on what you’re looking for. The Lost World: Jurassic Park is the worse of the two, script-wise. But it does have somewhat better production values and more spectacular set-pieces, as well as a better soundtrack, all of which help to make it more memorable. Jurassic Park III is the more forgettable of the two, with a less memorable soundtrack and set-pieces [although the set-pieces it does have are still decent enough], but it’s also technically the better scripted-film [even if “better” still equates to below average]. Me, I enjoy both for different reasons. The second is “so-bad-its-good”, while the third is in my opinion, silly but fun; good for a rainy day. It does no harm by its existence.

Actual Quality: 5/12

Personal Enjoyment: 7/12

A Well-Polished Turd: The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)

     It’s traditional to consider Steven Spielberg’s initial sequel to his Jurassic Park a disappointment, and it’s not hard to see why. The plot is contrived and has some notable T-Rex sized holes. The characters are largely flat and stupid. The spectacle, while good-looking, takes precedence over everything else to the movie’s detriment. And the third act is flat out ridiculous, bringing the franchise firmly into B-Movie territory. All of these are, I must concede, very valid points. That being said, they are also a big part of the reason I really, really like this movie.

     I’m not going to lie; I frequently enjoy movies that are really cheesy and dumb. The Lost World: Jurassic Park is definitely both of those things. The plot, such as it is, involves a team of experts led by Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) racing to document the dinosaurs that have survived on a second island and return their documentation to the ailing John Hammond (Sir Richard Attenborough) so that he can convince somebody or other to turn it into a nature preserve in order to stop his nephew (Arliss Howard), who has taken over his company, from bringing the dinosaurs to the mainland, and…ah, forget it. It’s all very contrived, and relies on nearly every character doing the exact opposite of what common sense would dictate. And none of it truly matters in the end, as the whole thing is basically an excuse for dinosaurs to chow down on humans, thereby providing audiences with what was the highest body count in the series before Jurassic World came out.  

     Thank goodness for Jeff Goldblum’s presence in this movie, because boy, are these characters stupid. His character’s bitterly sarcastic commentary on everything borders on breaking the fourth wall on occasion, and it is delightful. It also makes him the perfect audience surrogate, allowing the nonsense to go down more smoothly. It helps that the dinosaurs still look as great as they did in the first film, and that John Williams’ music is still awesome. The presence of Pete Poslethwaite as a Great White Hunter-esque character trying to hunt a T-Rex seems almost at odds with the otherwise stupid nature of the movie, however, given that his performance is much better than the screenplay deserves. And yet in its own odd way, even the fact that he was taking the movie so seriously adds to the cornball factor; it’s hard to know whether to feel sorry for him having to be in this thing, or delighted at how his presence contrasts with his surroundings. Either way, he’s really memorable here.

     But despite the movie’s technical prowess and a handful of good performances, it’s still technically a dumb movie, which is why I prefer to watch it ironically; it’s much more enjoyable that way.

     There’s at least one thing that even an ironic appreciation for this movie can’t fix, however, and that’s Ian Malcolm’s daughter, Kelly (Vanessa Lee Chester). As a character, she’s annoying, and I just want her to go away every time she’s on screen. So my Personal Enjoyment rating is going to have to take a hit because of her presence. But otherwise, it scores very well there.

Actual Quality: 3/12

Personal Enjoyment: 11/12

A Popcorn Classic: Jurassic Park (1993)

     Much as I enjoy complaining, I thought it best that my first review be about a movie I actually like. Doing so enables me to kick-start this blog on a generally positive note, and doesn’t make it look as though I’m a perpetual downer. My choice is perhaps a safe one, but I’m not going to lie: I really enjoy Steven Spielberg’s Jurassic Park.

     In my header, I call it a “popcorn classic” and its true- after twenty-two years, Spielberg’s adaptation of what is arguably Michael Crichton’s most well-known novel has garnered a hallowed position in the annals of summer blockbusters. Which is not to say that it is completely perfect, mind you. But it does get a lot more right than it does wrong.

     The plot, in case you’ve been living under a rock for the past two decades, is as follows: a wealthy businessman and the scientists he has hired, taking advantage of recent advances in genetics, have managed to achieve the seemingly impossible- the recreation of living, breathing dinosaurs. He has placed these “biological attractions” within a park on a private island off the coast of Costa Rica, and he hopes to be open for business very soon. Unfortunately, a tragic accident has forced him to allow a team of scientists to investigate the safety of the park prior to its opening. And unbeknownst to him, an attempt at corporate espionage is about to threaten the lives of everyone on the island.

     As a piece of science fiction, Jurassic Park has its merits. Its warning against the reckless use of scientific advancement, while perhaps more muted than in the novel, has lost none of its relevancy. And if the mechanics of its premise seem scientifically out-of-date today, they were at least able to sound semi-plausible at the time.

     Nor are the characters as flat or unengaging as is sometimes claimed. Granted, they are all fairly basic. But time has nonetheless been largely kind to the efforts of the cast to breathe life into them. Sam Neil, Laura Dern, and Richard Attenborough are definite highlights. The supporting cast likewise acquits itself fairly well. Jeff Goldblum’s shtick might not be for everyone, but I absolutely love his deadpanning and quirkiness -in short, his “Goldblumness”- in here. Even the child performers do a better job than I would have expected [Spielberg, from what I’ve seen of his work, can be hit or miss with his casting choices for children]. Again, none of these characters are especially deep. But they are entertaining and largely likable, and they get the job done. Still more crucially, we’re actually given ample time to spend with them before their lives are placed in jeopardy. In an era of wall-to-wall explosions, Jurassic Park’s sense of pacing in this regard is quite refreshing.

     This brings me to the area in which this movie succeeds the most- as a thrill ride. Jurassic Park might have enjoyable characters and some nice food-for-thought, but its reputation as a classic primarily rests upon its set-pieces and its effects. This is the movie that’s known for ushering in the era of the CGI-laden blockbuster. And yet, it only contains about five minutes of actual computer effects. The majority of what we see is achieved by practical effects- puppets, animatronics, and the like. CGI is only used where absolutely necessary. Furthermore, all of the movie’s effects, both practical and digital, are fully subservient to the screenplay It is for these reasons, more than anything, that Jurassic Park ought to be praised for its effects. I am not anti-CGI, but I’m not always certain that the way it’s used in many contemporary blockbusters is constructive to the creation of good cinema. While the quality of its CGI has long since been surpassed, Spielberg’s dinosaur adventure remains a model for how to implement digital effects into cinema for the reasons I’ve outlined.

     As for the set-pieces, they are wonderful. If there’s one thing this movie is good at, it’s staging action. That and knowing when to showcase action. We remember scenes like the initial appearance of the T-Rex, the attack of the raptors, etc. because they are very well shot and staged. But a key part of their success is their placement in the movie. Most of them don’t occur until after the midway point, and when they finally do, they rely far more on suspense than gore; for all that this movie has a reputation for scaring viewers, there’s actually precious little onscreen violence. Instead, deaths are often obscured by bushes, rain, camera angles, etc. This is because here, Spielberg remembers that what you don’t see if often scarier than what you do see.

     Certainly, not everything in Jurassic Park works. If you’ve seen enough movies, you’ll know exactly who’ll live and who’ll die, which does take away some of the film’s edge; a certain change from the original book which results in fewer characters being present on the island during the inevitable dinosaur breakout doesn’t help matters. The decision to soften the character of John Hammond [the businessman] from his novel counterpart might result in a slightly less stereotypical character, but it does arguably dilute Crichton’s message a little. And there are a couple of threads in the first half of the movie that don’t receive adequate resolution. All that being said, the film remains a triumph of blockbuster filmmaking. If it’s a little rough around the edges, it’s not any less enjoyable for all that.

Actual Quality: 9.5/12

Personal Enjoyment: 11/12

A Short Introduction

Raison d’etre

 “Oh great- another film blog.”

    Maybe you thought something like the above when you first found this blog. Maybe you didn’t. Regardless, I feel like I ought to list my justification for creating it in the first place. It’s very simply, really: I happen to enjoy writing out my thoughts on entertainment. And since I enjoy movies, why not write about them?

     I know, I know- it’s not very original, unique, etc. But it is what it is. I’ll leave it to you, the reader, to decide if my thoughts at all interest or intrigue you.

My Standards

     “What makes a movie ‘good’?” is a question that now doubt occupies the minds of anyone who bothers to think at length about the world of cinema. No doubt, people will continue to debate the answers to that question for as long as film exists. For my money, though, there’s no greater answer than the following statement by the late Roger Ebert: “It’s not what a movie’s about, but how it’s about it.”

     One of the most dangerous temptations in any sort of criticism is the conflation of one’s level of personal enjoyment with actual objective quality. It’s my number one pet peeve when it comes to reviews, and it’s something you’ll see me bring up here more than once at relevant points. While I’d be lying if I said I’ve never fallen for the temptation myself, it is something I actively strive to avoid. For the truth is that I’ve enjoyed both good movies and bad ones, and disliked both good movies and bad movies. And I expect I’m by no means unique in this regard. Just because something grabs a viewer doesn’t mean it’s actually all that great, and vice-versa.

     Most any review tends to assign just one rating to a movie or show [yes, I will sometimes touch on TV shows here]. I intend to evaluate everything I review on two scales. The first, I’m going to call “Actual Quality”. This scale will range from one to twelve points [with half-points being permissible]. It will tell you how well I believe the film or show in question executed its concepts, characters, themes, overall plot, soundtrack, effects, etc. In short, an overall quality rating. The second scale, which will also range from one to twelve points [again, with half-points as well], I will call “Personal Enjoyment”. It will tell you how much I myself enjoyed the film or show in question. Bear in mind that this rating may or may not correlate with its “Actual Quality” rating.