The Lost World: Jurassic Park.

Review #1843: The Lost World: Jurassic Park.

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.

The Cell.

Review #1715: The Cell.

Cast: 

Jennifer Lopez (Dr. Catherine Deane), Vincent D'Onofrio (Carl Rudolph Stargher), Vince Vaughn (Special Agent Peter Novak), Jake Weber (Special Agent Gordon Ramsey), Dylan Baker (Henry West), Marianne Jean-Baptiste (Dr. Miriam Kent), Tara Subkoff (Julia Hickson), Catherine Sutherland (Anne Marie Vicksey), Colton James (Edward Baines), Musetta Vander (Ella Baines), Patrick Bauchau (Lucien Baines), James Gammon (Teddy Lee), Jake Thomas (Young Carl Rudolph Stargher), and Dean Norris (Cole) Directed by Tarsem Singh.

Review: 

"The thing about this film is it’s an opera, and there is no such thing as a subtle opera.”

Sure, there are no easy solutions to making a 21st century movie that exceeds the clichés expected from horror or science fiction. At least one knows that there won't be a hampering when it comes to trying to include certain kinds of imagery or attempts at imagination when it comes to trying to show the mind of a killer. Of course, one has to borrow from the traditions of the past by casting singers-turned-actors and trying to crib from better movies while trying to ride hard on imagery and a few decent side performances, complete with costume design from the person who brought you Bram Stoker's Dracula (complete with that same red suit from eight years prior, which looks just as silly as it did back then). Now, that isn't too fair to a director in their debut feature (released 21 years ago). Tarsem Singh actually started as a music video director, doing so for a handful of bands and commercial brands before he got his chance to direct; in two decades, he has directed four further films, although this is obviously the one that stands out for most folks, one where he reportedly aimed for a film like "opera" rather than just a movie about a serial killer. This was the first feature script of Mark Protosevich, who utilized his fascination with serial killers to go with an interest into seeing into one's dreams (while noting stuff like Dreamscape (1984) in that familiarity discussion); while he noted that it could have had more classic suspense, he still appreciated the final result as one that provokes a strong response of both praise and disdain.

Does one desire style over substance? Well, you will get plenty of that here, since one is basically watching a brazen take of The Silence of the Lambs (1991) but with less subtlety (a guy who likes to torture the victim while with a dog that partakes in perverted things? Gee, I wonder...) and horror that is basically a step behind stuff like Seven (1995). Honestly, if you take out most of the attempts at style, this might have been a step away from being something to really make fun of. One probably wonders where the horror and sci-fi merge, well, someone just happens to learn about some new cool secret technology involving virtual reality. Given that a child psychologist can use the technology and fail in the art of navigating a lost child beyond the (music video) dreamscape, one wonders just how they are going to do with a serial killer. Actually, I don't have to guess, because she can't even do it on her own, which is where one needs more of Vaughn (because I guess anyone can just put on the suit and have the cloth put over the head or whatever). The strange thing is that the imagery doesn't really seem to sway me one way or the other when it comes to the side of praise or disdain, since it tries to go hand in hand with generating sympathy for the person having their mind probed...but as the saying goes, all one is doing is putting lipstick on a pig. The makeup looks nice, but watching one long music video with the bare minimum of story only works if I really care about what is going on here, and I've seen movies like that (Tommy (1975)), and they had more tricks up their sleeve.  Simply put, Lopez is not the one to hold a movie like this, one that desires a more interesting presence (again, not to bring up Lambs again, but a Jodie Foster equivalent wouldn't be a bad start) that can goes beyond seeming quizzically confused, complete with elaborate costuming. The dynamic between her and the kid version of the killer is flimsy and ultimately lacking in moral weight, mostly because she mishandles her part of the climax to where one might as well watch dinner theater instead. Incidentally, D'Onofrio is quite interesting here. Really the killer always seems to be more interesting than the hunter in these films, and he seems to draw out the most curious moments that work for the film, one with an aura of creeping presence without seeming like a cliche. Vaughn probably touches upon the usual expectations of the type of role seen in these films, but I respect his commitment to taking a serious role. He certainly seems more right at home with an off kilter agent than Lopez does, that is for sure, mostly because he actually treats the scifi stuff with the reserved charm that comes from not caring about exposition/music video imagery (the rest are fairly disposable, and wasting Gammon for just two scenes has to be a crime). For a movie that fiddles around near two hours with an eye for imagery, I found it very middling in terms of actual interest generated when it came to staying power in what it showed (i.e. one is thinking of better movies when watching a mediocre one). One might as well shove jagged keys in the face with how off kilter everything is, since the narrative doesnt hold too much water beyond a few contrivances that go down the river when it comes to the climax that has a share of predictability (gee, will the victim in a box of water really drown?) even with the whole sequence of Lopez bringing the killer into her world. If I dont really buy into what the movie is selling me, than the imagery isnt going to sway me all that much. As a whole, it has a look that surely will please those in the mood for what it has to show, but the rest of its foundation is a shaky, unwieldy, and overall disappointing mess that could have certainly been worse. Sometimes you can get by with effects and a few (but not all) good support from the cast, but this is not one of those times. 

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005)

Review #1256: Mr. & Mrs. Smith.

Cast: 
Brad Pitt (John Smith), Angelina Jolie (Jane Smith), Vince Vaughn (Eddie), Adam Brody (Benjamin "The Tank" Danz), Kerry Washington (Jasmine), Keith David (Father), Chris Weitz (Martin Coleman), Rachael Huntley (Suzy Coleman), and Michelle Monaghan (Gwen) Directed by Doug Liman (#1064 - Jumper)

Review: 
What can you really expect from a summer blockbuster like this one? Perhaps it is good that I didn't have many expectations for one aimed to deliver action and laughs, as it makes the disappointment over the final result less awful to bear. If I actually felt something of interest over these characters when it comes to the action scenarios or the sitcom-level atmosphere besides it, this could actually fit just fine as a neat gem to eat popcorn with. As is, it i's just a mediocre product that feels like it should be much better, headlined by a cast that seems like it wants more to do. Sure, you could say that Pitt and Jolie make for a decent team, but they just seem stuck in something more pale than Lethal Weapon 4 - at least that film's highlight wasn't a dance between its main two characters. Chemistry is one thing, but how about a script with something more substantial to go with it? This is especially apparent when it comes to the scenes beside the action sequences, where there isn't really anything too funny or charming, where the lines feel like they want to be yukked out on a sitcom than an actual film. Even the therapy scenes seem bereft of something interesting to write something about. The action sequences are alright, but nothing too special to really write home about. I never really feel that either of them are in any actual danger, especially for its climax. Obviously they aren't going to hunt each other down, so why would I think a bunch of spies are going to finish the job for them? It just seems ridiculous to begin with that they could actually hide this sort of info from each other for years - actually, what exactly is the film's endgame if their agencies went to go take them down but failed the first time? An episode of Get Smart probably has more personality with their agency than this film, honestly. Vaughn gives off a few laughs in the brief time he shows up; Brody is essentially an afterthought until he has to deliver a key plotpoint before the climax. Washington and David aren't too particularly involved with things too much to make highlights of. On the whole, the film likes to talk a big game with trying to mix action and comedy, but it sure comes up flabby in the final result - it fits more for background noise than something really put on for involvement. I would say that this should be expected from someone who gave us Jumper (which can also be said for its writer, Simon Kinberg), but this actually was the film done by Liman three years prior. Imagine going from this to Jumper. If you have to make a mediocre product that will make a bunch of money and being just okay, this is probably a decent example of that scenario.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Break-Up.

Review #789: The Break-Up.

Cast
Vince Vaughn (Gary Grobowski), Jennifer Aniston (Brooke Meyers), Joey Lauren Adams (Addie Jones), Cole Hauser (Lupus Grobowski), Jon Favreau (Johnny Ostrofski), Jason Bateman (Mark Riggleman), Judy Davis (Marilyn Dean), Justin Long (Christopher Hirons), John Michael Higgins (Richard Meyers), and Vincent D'Onofrio (Dennis Grobowski) Directed by Peyton Reed (#728 - Ant-Man)

Review
A movie I had to watch for a Speech class? That's one good opening sign. To be clear, I had to do an assignment that dealt with stuff that happened in the movie that relates (for the most part) to what we are currently learning, such as the escalation (and de-escalation) stages of a relationship, and to the movie's credit it does at least fits the bill for an assignment and is reasonably something that could used a tool for at least some sort of learning.

It's a shame the movie isn't enjoyable as well. Yes, the movie does have a break-up, in fact it happens quite early on in the movie, a little over 20 minutes into it. Which means the rest of the time is dedicated to their attempts at trying to make the other move out of the condo they live in. This is such a miserable movie to watch mainly because not only do you know they won't get back together, you really just want the movie to end. The movie might've been better (if not at least slightly more tolerable) if it had waited longer for the two to break-up. All we really see of them before the breakup is them meeting at Wrigley Field (in probably one of the more weirder meet-cutes in recent record) and...a bunch of photos of them together over the opening credits, before the set up to their breakup. The vagueness of their happy relationship means that we never really get to care about the fact they break up. Seeing them bicker (And trying to get back at each other) is more tedious than mean-spirited, and while Vaughn and Aniston are at least passable leads, they can't save a movie that makes them feel so under developed, with only the latter seeming remotely close to being likable, and the latter barely edging towards likability near the end. The supporting cast isn't much better, barely ranging an emotional response from me that wasn't just a dejected sigh, save for D'Onofrio, who manages to be one of the only really interesting (if not weird) characters in an otherwise boring flick. Ulimately, everything seems so forced, and consequently I couldn't find myself to care about anything that goes on during the movie. The ending in which the two meet up a few months (or whenever) later and exchange pleasantries and regrets (compounded with a smile) just feels forced and (mercifully) is the final scene in an otherwise dreary movie that is neither memorable nor interesting. It is sometimes funny, but not enough to carry a movie.

But hey, at least it isn't Four Christmases.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Four Christmases.

Review #772: Four Christmases.

Cast
Vince Vaughn (Brad McVie), Reese Witherspoon (Kate), Robert Duvall (Howard McVie), Sissy Spacek (Paula McVie), Jon Voight (Creighton), Mary Steenburgen (Marilyn), Kristin Chenoweth (Courtney), Jon Favreau (Denver McVie), Tim McGraw (Dallas McVie), and Katy Mixon (Susan McVie) Directed by Seth Gordon.

Review
This movie is awful. If I wanted to, I could leave it that. But if I did, then someone might wonder why I only said it was awful and watch it for themselves (just go with the idea that people actually use these reviews as an influence). If you watch about 10-20 minutes of the movie, you will start to have a few questions:

1. Why do Vaughn and Witherspoon look really miscast as a couple?
2. Why can't they arrange the four families to meet at one place instead of having to go to all four in one day?
3. Why did I decide to watch this?
4. Are all romantic comedies like this?
5. Have you ever put a spending limit of $10 for each Christmas gift you gave someone?
6. Are there any likable characters in it?

The answers to the questions are as follows: Pass, Pass, Pass, Maybe, No and...Yes (Jon Voight, who is only in the movie for the last 20 (or so) minutes, and manages to be not only the least annoying character, but also the one who has the least screen time. Go figure.). None of the situations that are set up here are really that funny, feeling either standard or just downright odd. Tell me if this sounds like a goldmine of hilarity: Our main character getting tackled and wrestled with by his two other brothers, and this isn't just one time, no it happens (I think, I lost count) twice more. Of course the movie tries (read: tries) to phone in a happy ending, because I guess having the movie end with them not getting back together seemed not "cheery" enough for Christmas. This a movie that manages to be unlikable at times, but more often than not it's just boring. Why should I care about anything that goes on with these people? It fails as a comedy, it fails as a romance (chemistry clocks in at zero), it fails as a drama (read: last half hour), and its greatest failing is that it fails as a Christmas movie. This isn't a movie you watch to be cheerful around the holidays, this is a movie for people who honestly want to find any reason not to visit their relatives, because they very well may just be as crazy this year as the people in this laugh-forsaken movie. That, and apparently being married and having kids is the only way to be happy. I'd advise you to eat fruitcake before watching this over literally any Christmas movie. Except Deck the Halls. (Yes, I would watch Santa Clause Conquers the Martians again. Even Jingle All the Way). Stay away from this garbage.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Starsky & Hutch.

Review #564: Starsky & Hutch.

Cast
Ben Stiller (David Starsky), Owen Wilson (Ken "Hutch" Hutchinson), Vince Vaughn (Reese Feldman), Snoop Dogg (Huggy Bear Brown), Jason Bateman (Kevin Jutsum), Fred Williamson (Captain Doby), Will Ferrell (Big Earl), Amy Smart (Holly Monk), Carmen Electra (Stacey Haack), and Juliette Lewis (Kitty) Directed by Todd Phillips.

Review
This is a hard movie to rate, the movie does have its moments of highlights, but other times, the movie just falls flat. Stiller and Wilson are at best an okay duo, the movie works best in the first half because by the time the movie ends, it's already worn out its welcome. Vaughn is an okay villain, he doesn't really make much of an impression, but it could've been much more forgettable. I'm actually surprised the original Starsky and Hutch (David Soul and Paul Michael Glaser) made cameos, it doesn't help or hurt the movie, but it is noteworthy. The best character in this movie is played by Snoop Dogg. Why? While his character doesn't have too much screen time, he generates laughs and is a pretty fun guy to watch. The movie isn't awful but it doesn't really rise above mediocrity. It's probably best to rent the movie and make your own conclusions, but it could be worse.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy.

Review #526: Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy.

Cast
Will Ferrell (Ron Burgundy), Christina Applegate (Veronica Corningstone), Paul Rudd (Brian Fantana), Steve Carell (Brick Tamland), David Koechner (Champ Kind), Fred Willard (Edward Harken), Vince Vaughn (Wes Mantooth), Chris Parnell (Garth Holliday), Fred Armisen (Tino), and Kathryn Hahn (Helen) Directed by Adam McKay.

Review
This film never seems to miss a beat and never stops in a relentless, but fun loving approach for comedy. Ferrell does a fine job, never letting go on trying to make us laugh, and his look (especially that bushy mustache) only seems to contribute to a over the top, but domineering performance. Applegate and Ferrell seem to go well together and have some chemistry, even when they fight each other. The rest of the cast do a good job, and Carell makes an impression even when he isn't talking. It's a decently crafted film that never seems to stop going on its approach, making more than missing on attempts at comedy, and it (unlike films like...#525 - Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls) is enjoyable to watch, in all of its bizarre, but coherent manner. It's a silly, but memorable film that seems to be quoted from even to this day. Stay classy, San Diego.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Be Cool.

Review #517: Be Cool.

Cast
John Travolta (Chili Palmer), Uma Thurman (Edie Athens), Vince Vaughn (Roger "Raji" Lowenthal), Cedric the Entertainer (Sin LaSalle), Harvey Keitel (Nick Carr), Christina Milian (Linda Moon), André Benjamin (Dabu), Dwayne Johnson (Elliot Wilhelm), Robert Pastorelli (Joseph "Joe Loop" Lupino), Paul Adelstein (Hyman Gordon), and Arielle Kebbel (Robin) Directed by F. Gary Gray.

Review
I was in my living room, when a sudden urge came into me (No, it was not to eat more chicken), and it led me to pick Be Cool to review. So, like a fool, I decided to watch it. Hours later, I think I'll regret watching this film. It is not a bad film, it is a disappointing film that seems to either try way too hard (Multitudes and multitudes subplots) or try too little (Such as some of the acting), all springing into a lifeless "comedy" that seems to care about its cameos more then its actual actors. Travolta does okay, but his cast seems to not have any life in them, it seems the only one who cares enough to make an (positive) impression is Dwayne Johnson, who has some charm and likability even with a bad afro. The rest of the cast either range from okay (Cedric the Entertainer, who always seems to be fun to watch, but he's the only one in this film that is okay) to not really memorable (Milian, who is plagued by all the subplots) to just plain awful (Vince Vaughn, a baffling, yet lame choice), and they never click. It seems the comedy is overridden by the subplots and characters, which are endless and mostly annoying, in that order. Get Shorty was a fun flick that used the actor to their best talent. Be Cool uses their star power instead, and the film suffers because of it. Comparing these film would be impossible as this review would be 50 lines long, but I will close this review out by wondering if this film's true title was Sell Out.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: DodgeBall: A True Underdog Story.

Review #182: DodgeBall: A True Underdog Story.

Cast
Vince Vaughn (Peter "Pete" LaFleur), Ben Stiller (White Goodman), Christine Taylor (Katherine "Kate" Veatch), Rip Torn (Patches O'Houlihan), Hank Azaria (Young Patches), Justin Long (Justin Redman), Stephen Root (Gordon Pibb), and Alan Tudyk (Steve "the Pirate" Cowan) Directed by Rawson Marshall Thurber.

Review
The film has good moments from most of the cast, with silly but decent at the same time fun. Vaughn and Taylor do well together as does Stiller in his crazed insane performance that is almost as crazy as his performance in Tropic Thunder. Funny at points with a decent cast, the film is a hit and far from a miss. One thing I will mention: This is the 100th review for Season 2 (December 20, 2011 - December 20, 2012).

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.