Jurassic Park III.

Review #2023: Jurassic Park III.

Cast: 

Sam Neill (Dr. Alan Grant), William H. Macy (Paul Kirby), Téa Leoni (Amanda Kirby), Alessandro Nivola (Billy Brennan), Trevor Morgan (Eric Kirby), Michael Jeter (Udesky), John Diehl (Cooper), Bruce A. Young (M.B. Nash), Laura Dern (Ellie Sattler), Taylor Nichols (Mark), and Mark Harelik (Ben Hildebrand) Directed by Joe Johnston (#060 - Captain America: The First Avenger and #322 - Jumanji)

Review: 

Thirty years ago in June of 1993, Jurassic Park managed to, well, become one of the biggest hits of its time. You already know that it was a hit adaptation of the Michael Crichton novel, and you already know its success inspired a follow-up novel that in turn became its own film with The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997). After the release of the film, Steven Spielberg, who directed both features, had no interest in doing any more films in the series as director, but he had someone in mind to do the third film: Joe Johnston, who apparently expressed an interest to direct a Jurassic Park sequel for years (Spielberg would serve as executive producer). The Austin native had been involved with special effects from a young age, most notably beginning his career as a concept artist and effects technician on Star Wars (1977). He became a director with Honey, I Shrunk the Kids (1989), the first of his "effects-driven" films, although October Sky (1999) was a noted exception. The timeline from announcing a third film in 1998 to actual release in summer 2001 is a convoluted but fun one to get around to. Various writers were approached with trying to make a draft, starting with Criag Rosenberg, who made a draft that involved teenagers being marooned on Isla Sorna. Peter Buchman was then recruited to do a rewrite when Johnston rejected Rosenberg's draft. Buchman had a two-pronged story: dinosaurs somehow killing people on the mainland and a story where Alan Grant and company crashing on Isla Sorna. Weeks before shooting was supposed to begin in mid-2000, however, the script was rejected by Johnston and Spielberg, with the former having asked David Koepp (who had written for both of the previous films) for ideas, where Koepp suggested making it more of a rescue film. Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor (fresh off an Academy Award nomination for Election (1999)) were then brought in to do a script for a couple of weeks to deal with characters and story (due to an influx of action); it is because of them that you see Laura Dern for two scenes rather than none at all. This script was then fiddled with by Buchman and an un-credited John August to the point where Payne was later quoted as saying that the script basically went for action and then took "the rest out". It probably isn't a surprise that Johnston called the production "a living hell on a daily basis", and there would not be another Jurassic Park film for fourteen years.

Jurassic Park III basically takes the series to the most B-level of desires and decides, screw it, run with that. The second film is a movie where almost everyone is a specialist of some sort, and the best actor is the one who is only present in the middle in Pete Postlethwaite. Well, that, and a nice little sequence in San Diego for the climax. The third film, now in the mode of just finding a way to set up getting to the (second) island of dinosaurs, seems the freest of the two sequels in just going with the flow.  Two things are true here with the third film: it is somehow too short of a film, and it also is debatably better than the second film in entertainment value. If the second film was a movie that accomplished 70% of its grasp, the third film probably accomplishes 71% of its grasp, and that is totally fine with me for one sitting. The first two films dealt with scientists liking to play God or corporate stoogery, so I am totally fine with a ridiculous little ride with people that I like a little better than the previous attempt at spectacle-chucking that tries to play itself as a family adventure. Neill was happy to be back for the third film, not so much because of the paycheck (insert your joke here), but apparently, he was most enthused to see if he could do a better performance than he had done in the first film. I enjoy him here, mostly because his cynical attitude works just as well in riding the coattails of being stuck in fresh dinosaur hell without coming off as an imitation of what was done before (or at least being just a schlock B-hero, which is not really an insult). How can you go wrong with a guy who is doing a speech at an auditorium (about humans that probably would've been wiped clean by velociraptors to walk the earth if not for that one big asteroid) and decides to only field questions that don't talk about that dinosaur attack he went through? Macy and Leoni make for a capable bumbling act to serve as the key figures of a would-be rescue mission that is really more of a "get your head together" mission, which does grow on me to make me eventually stop thinking, "hmm, which one could get a dinosaur nibble?" Nivola apparently called his part the only one in his career at that point that he "had nothing for me to latch on to, character-wise". I can't really argue the point, but I will at least say that he doesn't fall by the wayside in flexing to the whims of ambition, which at least makes him out to not being a cardboard villain. It is evident that the 92-minute runtime hinders the film more than it should, as if they really felt the sequence in the driving weather (complete with having just enough for one call) plus a scene exchanging eggs (don't ask) was going to be enough to forgive it ending with abrupt finish. As much as it would be funny to call in the military only to see dinosaurs play friendly with tanks, I suppose you have to keep some things a possibility for another brainstorming session. Or take a long break, I guess. As a whole, the third film is totally fine under the mildest of expectations when it comes to lean spectacle with few bumps in the road in getting to making a ride that won't make you want to jump right out before it arrives at its destination, and I would say that should be enough for those into that sort of thing.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Green Mile.

Review #1522: The Green Mile.

Cast: 
Tom Hanks (Paul Edgecomb), David Morse (Brutus "Brutal" Howell), Bonnie Hunt (Jan Edgecomb), Michael Clarke Duncan (John Coffey), James Cromwell (Warden Hal Moores), Michael Jeter (Eduard Delacroix), Graham Greene (Arlen Bitterbuck), Doug Hutchison (Percy Wetmore), Sam Rockwell (William "Wild Bill" Wharton), Barry Pepper (Dean Stanton), Jeffrey DeMunn (Harry Terwilliger), Patricia Clarkson (Melinda Moores), Harry Dean Stanton (Toot-Toot), Dabbs Greer (Old Paul), Bill McKinney (Jack Van Hay), Brent Briscoe (Bill Dodge), Eve Brent (Elaine Connelly), and William Sadler (Klaus Detterick) Written and Directed by Frank Darabont (#1506 - The Shawshank Redemption)

Review: 
"I think it's the basic need for all of human kind to be a part of something bigger than themselves because as actors we get to create that."
"The notion that we can be better than we are, as human beings; that there’s a bar that can be raised in all of our lives. And that there are certain acts of incivility that we should no longer indulge in. Maybe we should try to do a little better."

The 1990s had a plethora of memorable Tom Hanks performances that turned him from just a star in comedies into an icon. The California native had done plays in high school and at Chabot College and California State University, Sacramento before dropping out to do work with the Great Lakes Theater Festival in Cleveland. He did theater work for a few years (doing three years at the Lakewood Civic Auditorium) before venturing into film with He Knows You're Alone (1980) and television with Bosom Buddies (1980-82). Splash (1984) was his first starring role, which proved beneficial to his career in leading to more comedy roles and a gradual shift to drama with films such as Big (1988). While the 1990s started off with flops like The Bonfire of the Vanities (1990), he proved himself in the following years with neatly-picked roles suited to his personality that resulted in praise, with numerous highlights being iconic ones like Philadelphia (1993), Forrest Gump (1994), and Toy Story (1995). Coincidentally, Hanks was once thought of to star in The Shawshank Redemption before turning it down to commitments, but Hanks found himself onto this film after Darabont's first preference of John Travolta fizzled out. This was also the first major role for Duncan, who had worked odd jobs such as a bouncer/security guard and bit roles before having a break with Armageddon (1998, which he did when he was 40 years old) that led to a recommendation by none other than friend and actor Bruce Willis in this role.

The source material that this is adapted from is the serial novel of the same name, published from March to August 1996 as six paperback volumes (all except the last were 96 pages). There are a few differences between the two works, such as the change in year from 1932 to 1935 (Top Hat, the film with a significant part to play in the story, was released in the latter year), while certain characters are excluded (such as a vicious orderly present in the bookends that Darabont felt was beside the point). Ultimately, what we have here is a nicely-done fable, one that captures a sense of miracles with dignity and emotional power that makes an fairly watchable experience like no other. If it isn't as striking in depth as Darabont's other adaptation of a King work about prison in The Shawshank Redemption, it is at least spirited enough to maintain enough reason and hope to make its lasting point all the more endurable. It sits well with mature audiences without seeming too wistful in 189 minutes to the point of sanctimony, building its foundation with its bookend aspects in Greer that keep its lasting words about miracles and other ideas that can be interpreted with thought by viewers with the patience to do so and linger with it.

Undeniably, the cast live up to the period piece fable staging with care. Hanks proves charming in everyman consistency, sinking into manner of dignity and curiosity for those he works with in a place of officers and a cell of doomed men. Morse accompanies him as the lead focus of officers to view, maintaining a spirited patience that contributes well to the sequences within the prison in pragmatism. It is Duncan who shows the best presence with his time needed, a force of nature that inspires the passion and pan that comes with someone who pulls off sensitivity and conviction with no trouble at all, seeming one with the world and with us in a world that seems to just have pain. Hunt and Clarkson accompany the film with fair importance that proves useful, whether in grace or in withered nature. Jeter provides a little warmth within the bars, while Hutchison makes a tremendously slimy bully with accomplishment. Rockwell taps into wild evil with careful energy that could have been thought of as just a loon in lesser hands but seems quite underlying in creepiness with him. Cromwell does fine in hard-lined moments while Stanton provides a chuckle in his one key scene involving a execution rehearsal.

There were various filming locations that ranged from studio work at Warner Bros along with the Tennessee State Prison to go with custom-built interior sets from Terence Marsh to depict a sense of space and mystery in those prison scenes, which are quite effective. In its fable of miracles and pain, one has time to ponder upon its style and its weaving of story threads that make an experience that can inspire curiosity alongside revulsion, such as during its first hint of a miracle or a disastrous execution in the chair, respectively. It makes us want to think a bit more clearly about life, or more specifically the joys and pains that can come from such an emotional release that comes from something like this. It isn't completely perfect in its road to perdition in all of its time spent, but I find it worth at least one watch, particularly if one is looking for a Stephen King adaptation with an accomplished director and stars behind it.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Waterworld.

Review #1081: Waterworld.

Cast: 
Kevin Costner (The Mariner), Dennis Hopper (The Deacon), Jeanne Tripplehorn (Helen), Tina Majorino (Enola), Michael Jeter (Old Gregor), Jack Black (Smoker Plane Pilot), Kim Coates (Drifter #2), Robert Joy (Smoker Ledger Guy), Robert LaSardo (Smitty), and Gerard Murphy (The Nord) Directed by Kevin Reynolds.

Review: 
Waterworld is a film that lurked on my shelf for years. My father watched this film a bunch of times when I was growing up, but I never had the idea to actually see the film until now in part because I figured it was futile not to. The film certainly seems like something made in an era with experimenting with making a sci-fi apocalyptic film with a big budget and big ambition. At the time it was made, it was the most expensive film ever made (done for $172 million), but it was plagued by production troubles (such as a hurricane destroying the set at one point and bringing in Josh Whedon as a script doctor at point), which certainly played into its reputation. It wasn't a huge success, but it isn't an entire failure, both financially along with as a film. On the one hand, it is nice to watch something based on an original idea with an effort to try and make for a spectacle for entertainment purposes, even if it does resemble Mad Max. On the other hand, I can't say that the movie is consistent enough to qualify as serviceable entertainment. The problem isn't so much with the acting as it is the writing, which at times feels uneven with its characters that gets in the way of really enjoying the action and its set-pieces, which hold up well for 1995. I feel that the film never gets itself into high gear often enough to really make its audience anything other than mildly involving. I can't even get myself to hate it, instead I just have a mild disappointment. Costner can't really elevate this main character into anything that seems compelling, being fairly bland in his gruffness - although his combative scenes with others in the first half could be construed as something to make fun of if you're in the right mood. That, or him peeing into a recycling canister to use for filtering to drink it later - which starts the film off, actually. Hopper certainly looks the part of a crazed villain, and he actually manages to be more entertaining than Costner, but it still is a fairly silly performance to watch at times - but who can blame him? This is a movie that can't find the right sense of captivating characters to go with its moments of adventure. The other members of the cast aren't terrible, but they also aren't too particularly inspiring, with Tripplehorn and Majorino contributing to a few moments that prove amusing instead of moving. In terms of comparison to other action flicks, this is likely the diet soda of action films - it's there along with other films of its ilk but it likely won't be something you go back to often.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.