Cast:
Jeff Goldblum (Dr. Ian Malcolm), Julianne Moore (Dr. Sarah Harding), Pete Postlethwaite (Roland Tembo), Arliss Howard (Peter Ludlow), Richard Attenborough (Dr. John Hammond), Vince Vaughn (Nick Van Owen), Vanessa Lee Chester (Kelly Curtis), Peter Stormare (Dieter Stark), Harvey Jason (Ajay Sidhu), Richard Schiff (Eddie Carr), and Thomas F. Duffy (Dr. Robert Burke) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168 - Raiders of the Lost Ark, #169 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, #170 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, #302 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, #351 - Schindler's List, #480 - Jaws, #563 - The Sugarland Express, #573 - E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, #642 - Jurassic Park, #958 - Always, #1068 - Ready Player One, #1305 - Catch Me If You Can, #1478 - The Color Purple, #1520 - Saving Private Ryan, and #1528 - A.I. Artificial Intelligence, #1560 - The Adventures of Tintin)
Review:
"I beat myself up... growing more and more impatient with myself... It made me wistful about doing a talking picture, because sometimes I got the feeling I was just making this big silent-roar movie... I found myself saying, 'Is that all there is? It's not enough for me."
If one remembers correctly, Jurassic Park as both novel and film was major success. The book, published in 1990, was the seventeenth novel written by Michael Crichton, who also tried his hand at directing and writing films from time to time (most notably with Westworld (1973). He had developed the novel for a number of years from a graduate student recreating a dinosaur to wildlife park of extinct animals because of the expense of genetic research. Crichton, who had first met Spielberg when the latter was tasked to show him around the lot of Universal Studios in the late 1970s, would be the director for the film adaptation (at the time, it was the seventh adaptation of a Crichton novel), as Crichton told Spielberg about the novel a year before its publication. When it came time for the film adaptation, Crichton slimmed down the large contents of the novel to about a fraction for the script that he wrote for the film (with later writing by David Koepp). The book was such a success that fans asked Crichton to develop a sequel, which only ramped up with the success of the film. The Lost World (named after the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle novel of the same name) was released one year later by Crichton, and development for a film adaptation started not long after by Spielberg (Crichton did not have involvement with this or any other Jurassic Park movies). The plot between the book and film differs in some ways, as a cursory view of the summary states that the book features the character of Ian Malcolm going a rescue mission to retrieve a paleontologist in "Site B" with five others (that includes two stowaway children as research assistants), as opposed to being a reluctant participant to retrieve his significant other already on the island there to "document the dinosaurs" (the film Hammond is considerably different from the book anyway). It was the only sequel book that Crichton ever wrote, although it did not stop the eventual development of a third Jurassic Park film, which was released in 2001 with ideas and characters from the first novel incorporated into it.
Technology is a curious thing, with Crichton once describing it as a "manifestation of how we think." Dennis Muren, Stan Winston, Phil Tippett and Michael Lantieri had won Academy Awards for their work in visual effects for the first film, and all but Tippett returned to provide effects. Koepp would also write the screenplay for this film, which he did by himself. Adventures are really, really tough to do again and again. Hell, one should have seen this coming because of how it went for Spielberg the first time he did a sequel to one of his films: Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984). Think about it: both movies are darker than the original film while also having different cast members with the exception of one (no, Attenborough being there doesn't count since he basically cameos for two scenes). Spielberg himself felt that the reason sequels like the one he made here weren't as good was because of his overconfidence (where one feels since the original did so well, this would be a slam dunk), for which he decided to take his hands off ever doing another Jurassic Park film; at the last minute, he decided to change the ending to include a dinosaur rampage on San Diego, which he planned to save for a third film before realizing he would probably not do a third film. Of course, we are dealing with a movie that has characters that know they are going to an island of dinosaurs, so that also changes the tone a bit for a film long at 129 minutes that features "hunters and gatherers". Technically, it does excel well as a monster movie, since it rolls along with the cliches and execution of a horror movie, complete with characters that have the intelligence size of some random guy you see on the street trying to juggle blindfolded while crossing the street; in other words, it has the thought process of a B-movie that should know a bit better. At least one knows what they are getting into early, since the first scene features a little girl stumbling onto chicken-sized dinosaurs that like the taste of meat that attack her (off-screen). I didn't hate the movie, because I certainly tolerated the long and winding road (read: a road one inch thick) in trying to make adventure that at least gets to a fraction of The Lost World (1925), which it does after dawdling for a time. It's a nice-looking movie with a jagged edge of humor for setting up terror at times, but being an average Spielberg movie is probably more disappointing to view than just watching an average B-movie.
The strangest thing is that the most interesting actor in the film is one who doesn't even show up for the beginning or its climax: Postlethwaite is the most convincing of the group because one really does believe he is just a guy who wants to be on an island with dinosaurs for the ultimate hunt, one with the most dignity and conviction without becoming a complete caricature in long-winded speeches, which means one kind of would have rather had him as a focus or at least stay a bit into the climax rather than shuttling off (hey, a movie about people trying to get their kicks by hunting dinosaurs can't be that silly). Don't get me wrong, Goldblum is an adequate lead, one who retains his cynicism from before that is interesting before he gets pegged into less chaotic fare with Moore and Chester that makes him not exactly as compelling to view from before, if only because he seems more seeped into the labeling crowd; in other words, he has become a bit ordinary. Moore can only go as far as the script goes with a character that seems scribbled together with minimal things to really do besides making one wonder why the "gatherer" characters seem less suitable than the "hunter" characters to root for. Vaughn is okay here, but the fact that the film helped gain him a bit more exposure on a path to more interesting projects is at least somewhat comforting. Honestly, it is surprising that Chester is the one "kid character" here, because the two kids from the original (Joseph Mazzello and Ariana Richards) appear in a cameo that seems to remind me that their adolescent story worked far better than sequences with Chester and Goldblum trying to play (family) house, which seems corny more than anything. Howard homes in the arrogance expected of the role with decent edge, but the only real selling point is obvious: seeing someone get their just desserts, because heaven knows he might be the only prominent cast member to face true danger. It might be a darker movie than the first film, but it doesn't quite capture much of the same magic that came before it, with its monster mash chase sequences only pushing the film barely over the finish line beyond just being a really expensive B-movie that has to fill some obligations. I did like what I saw from the San Diego scene at the end, even if it was more inevitable in execution more than anything. As a whole, if one wants a few nice effects and an okay story, this would be just fine in the cornucopia of movies that only reach its grasp 70% of the time, which is still better than reaching it only 60% of the time. As a movie that is now 25 years old, perhaps it will age gracefully for the curious who seek it.
Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.
No comments:
Post a Comment