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.

United Passions.

Review #1923: United Passions.

Cast: 

Tim Roth (Sepp Blatter), Gérard Depardieu (Jules Rimet), Sam Neill (João Havelange), Fisher Stevens (Carl Hirschmann), Jemima West (Annette Rimet), Thomas Kretschmann (Horst Dassler), Julian Miller (Ludwig Sylow), Jason Barry (Edgar Willcox), Martin Jarvis (Sir Stanley Rous), Bruce Mackinnon (Louis Muhlinghaus), Anthony Higgins (Lord Kinnaird), Nicholas Gleaves (Henri Delaunay), Richard Dillane (Larsen), and Antonio de la Torre (Enrique Buero) Directed by Frédéric Auburtin.

Review: 

"What’s very hard for me is that I’m not a stupid director that took the job for a big check. I tried to do my best, and little by little because of the way the production went and because of FIFA’s involvement and because there was no marketing, now when you Google it, the film is the worst ever and biggest box office disaster."

To get myself into the mood to watch a movie about FIFA, I decided to watch the first thing that popped into my head about reacting to United Passions...a contemporary John Oliver clip. Sure, my brain may think of Oliver as a lizard that happens to be able to talk, but I did want some sort of reference for what folks thought of United Passions before it came out. Apparently, the clip showed that a screening in New York had just one person buy a ticket for the film when it premiered in America in 2015, after it had been shown around other countries in the summer of 2014 as a French production that is mostly told in English (aside from a few parts with English subtitles). Apparently, it sold about $300 worth of tickets when it premiered in a few theaters in the USA. No, not $900 in each theater, $900 combined. I could have saved even slightly more time by watching Tim Roth talk about the movie for a minute, but nobody wants to watch an actor apologize for a movie, especially when seeing them be in crap is far funnier. Thankfully, I did not have to buy this movie to see it. Generally, I try to avoid wasting my money when it comes to spending time (109 minutes this time) with movies, so one can thank YouTube for bringing curiosity to the masses. Aside from seeing a blurb designating this film being shown at the Cannes Film Festival (?), one can only expect what to see from a work of "dramatic fiction". The only reason I picked this film is because of the tremendous coincidence of FIFA deciding to hold a World Cup in Qatar (totally a place with no human rights violations, huh?) in the middle of November. Just a reminder: this film was released in America in the wake of the 2015 FIFA scandal, which saw accusations of bribery of FIFA officials and the eventual resignation of its federation president. Of course, the funny thing is the fact that the movie was released in the summer of 2014 to coincide with the 2014 World Cup, held in South Africa (with the movie ending on a re-enactment of the announcement of the country being the host of the Cup). The film was written by Frédéric Auburtin and Jean-Paul Delfino. The French director had worked as an assistant director on a handful of films from 1985 to 1998 (most notably The Man in the Iron Mask, for example). He directed three films (with one film segment, with none generally known) alongside a few television projects, but this is his most known effort. In fact, it is the last film he has directed. FIFA funded most of the $30 million project, if you did not already know (going from funding 40% of the film as intended to...much more).

Who the hell wanted to make a movie not about the game of soccer, but the founding of an organization? More specifically, who the hell wanted a movie about International Association Football Federation (FIFA)? For the rest of this review, I will refer to the game as soccer, if only because I refuse to not stop saying soccer. Anyway, this movie about a soccer federation has the dubious task of trying to tell a history that spanned many decades, whether that involves the growth of the organization in the turn of the 20th century to the first World Cup in 1930 to the delay of not holding a World Cup from after 1938 until 1950, the "Death Match" in 1942, to the Blatter era (the only word that I can think of for him is "hack"). Incidentally, FIFA saw England join it three times: 1905, 1924, and 1946, which is pretty contrary to the opening sequence of seeing England (referred to lovingly and mockingly numerous times in the films as "inventor of the game") reject FIFA. A documentary, preferably not funded by FIFA, might have proved more interesting. Hell, watching soccer itself may have been less of a timewaster than this. For one, it would have actual compelling aspects to it, if only to see the different angles of how an organization came together: the real truth, corruption and all. I feel like I am watching a really glossy PR ad, one that looks more like 1954 than 2014 in general excitement for the material it wants to show, which is "mild". There is something amusing about presenting the 1950 World Cup match between Brazil and Uruguay in a somber matter (where the host nation Brazil lost in the final group stage needing only to tie to win the Cup) when it comes and goes like all the other things that happen in the movie. The most amusing sequence is a stock montage that sees clips from various World Cups to pass time, which even has a shot of Roth standing by a closed casket of a dead person (yes, seriously). I especially like this one line that talks about how the Olympics is political, but that the World Cup is about people...before a line a couple of minutes later about South Africans and that it is impossible to "keep politics out of sport" contrary to the belief of South Africans. 

So, you have Tim Roth play a person born in Switzerland, "Academy Award-winning producer Fisher Stevens" play a Dutch man and Sam Neill play a Brazilian. Roth shows up by the hour mark, after Depardieu has dominated a good part of it and Neill has just managed to come in the picture at the 49th minute. Perhaps there is a certain irony in an actor taking a role solely for the money when the person he is playing has been dogged about claims of corruption and financial mismanagement. This is even more amusing since the film is actually mostly about the tenure where Neill's character is in charge rather than with Roth (Blatter was not FIFA president until 1998). Roth may talk all he wants about his apologies for not questioning the script ("Where's all the corruption in the script? Where is all the back-stabbing, the deals? So it was a tough one. I tried to slide in a sense of it, as much as I could", an actual quote from Roth), but he is laughably stiff here. There is a black hole where a performance should be: a vanity project that doesn't have the slightest bit of charisma from any of the performances that make the main actors look like anything other than accountants. Neill looks like he wants to be anywhere else, while Depardieu is having a ball in terms of zoned out acting. The director may say he tried to insert ironic parts past FIFA's "observation". Who came up with the idea to show kids playing soccer in a dump throughout the movie? Actually, that was the writers, who apparently came up with it to avoid having the film be connected with their first idea of an investigator looking at the history of FIFA in corruption. Is it irony or unintentional amusement in the face of FIFA wasting money on this? As a whole, the only thing to say about the movie is that it sucks. Watching eleven corporate videos in a row would be more tolerable than this movie, which is glossy in the same way a gold bucket of crap is still crap. Watching a soccer game end in a tie may actually be more entertaining than this movie, which is probably the funniest way to waste making money on a glossy propaganda mess.

Overall, I give it 1 out of 10 stars.

Turkey Week is upon us again! This time, for the 3rd edition of this favorite project of mine of films known in some way for being "turkeys", I am going to take out the traditional method of starting with older movies and instead going in a free-form pattern to make for a few surprises. In fact, the traditional eight-course of bad movies will increase slightly...to a surprise amount. Next up in Turkey Week III: Alone in the Dark.

Movie Night: Jurassic Park.

Review #642: Jurassic Park.

Cast
Sam Neill (Dr. Alan Grant), Laura Dern (Dr. Ellie Sattler), Jeff Goldblum (Dr. Ian Malcolm), Richard Attenborough (John Hammond), Ariana Richards (Alexis Murphy), Joseph Mazzello (Tim Murphy), Bob Peck (Robert Muldoon), Martin Ferrero (Donald Gennaro), Wayne Knight (Dennis Nedry), and Samuel L. Jackson (Ray Arnold) Directed by Steven Spielburg (#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, and #573 - E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial)

Review
Jurassic Park is probably one of the most defining movies of the 1990s, and the special effects are the forefront of why this movie is what it is, which is awesome. The effects for the movie are so fantastic to look at, it has managed to not look dated after over 20 years, but it really comes down to the fact that the effects just look great. And yes, computer generated imagery can look good for a film, provided that it doesn't get abused and is used effectively, which this film does (of course it helps that they also used life sized animatronics). The film itself is also pretty good. While the effects may sometimes overshadow the story, it does actually have its moments of scares, making for a decent thriller. I especially like the kitchen scene near the end, it makes for a good way to end the movie, The characters are at least enjoyable, each having at least one memorable scene, especially Neill and Goldblum (Life does indeed find a way). For some reason, it is refreshing to see Wayne Knight (Hello, Newman) in this movie. I guess it's because he is probably the best person to portray a smarmy character and yet still be funny. The science behind the movie is probably questionable (So...flies can just suck blood from a dinosaur and then just happen to get stuck in amber and later just happen to be found preserved millions of years later? The exposition explaining this is actually nifty though.), but the movie manages to shine over it with some fun action and excellent special effects. Take the movie for what it is, and it is one pile of fun.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Hunt for Red October.

Review #080: The Hunt for Red October.

Cast
Sean Connery (Captain 1st Rank Marko Aleksandrovich Ramius), Alec Baldwin (Dr. Jack Ryan), Scott Glenn (Commander Bart Mancuso), Sam Neill (Captain 2nd Rank Vasily Borodin), James Earl Jones (Vice Admiral James Greer, CIA Deputy Director - Intelligence (DDI), Jeffrey Jones (Skip Tyler), Joss Ackland (Ambassador Andrei Lysenko), Richard Jordan (Dr. Jeffrey Pelt, National Security Advisor), Tim Curry (Dr. Yevgeniy Petrov), Peter Firth (Senior Lieutenant Ivan Putin), Ronald Guttman (Senior Lieutenant Melekhin), Stellan Skarsgård (Captain 2nd Rank Viktor Tupolev), Fred Dalton Thompson (Rear Admiral (Lower Half) Joshua Painter), and Courtney B. Vance (Sonar Technician Submarines Second Class Ronald Jones) Directed by John McTiernan.

Review
This film is great. Simply put, it has everything someone needs to be entertained, but learn something at least. Sean Connery is the main lead, overshadowing Baldwin, and he does a great job. Connery makes the film more big by his prominent preformance, taking some if not at least 70% of the film. The plot is good, not messed up or too hard. The film is the parallel to Top Gun, bringing light to submarines, yet this one is a better film, that would inspire sequels, but played by a different actor...

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.