[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
No comments:
Post a Comment