rate the last movie you saw

[AndyDursin]

I'd heard nothing but good things about this movie. But it didn't impress me. The set-up is excellent, and the film introduces a coterie of interesting characters (and character dynamics). This and the first appearance of a vampire really draws you into the story, and promises an impressive second act.

But the film just loses steam once we're at the juke joint. I

That's pretty much how I felt. Whatever unique elements it introduced go by the wayside and it turns into a boring vampire bloodbath. I was more into the period and the music component of it, which sadly is mostly unrealized in terms of its potential.

I mean, it's great to see an "original" movie -- that really isn't -- do well in this day and age, but it's not a great movie much less "Oscar worthy". People utterly overpraising what it is.

[Eric Paddon]

Jurassic Park (1993) 8.5 of 10
The Lost World (1997) 1 of 10
Jurassic Park III (2001) 7.5 of 10

I had just picked up the 4K set of all films in the franchise. Full disclosure in that I have seen none of the films since III so whenever I finally get around to those those will be first time experiences, though frankly I'm not in any rush to do so.

The original is a classic even though it falls short of being in the same class as "Jaws" and time has made some of the CGI from that era look less impressive (in particular the first scene of the Brachiosaurus). But it is at least a solid, well-developed tale that still holds up well and takes the similar theme from Crichton's "Westworld" to a new level.

"The Lost World" I think I had seen just twice before and not since maybe 2002. And now I can say categorically, I HATE this movie. I hate the sophomoric preachiness, especially the hypocrisy embodied by the Nick Van Owen character who is responsible for all the deaths that take place in this movie, but the film refuses to recognize that. He's the one who causes Eddie's death, he's the one who sets free the dinos to smash everything up and thus deprive everyone of the communications they need to get off the island safely. He's the one who takes the bullets out of Roland's gun which keeps him from being able to kill the T-Rex, which means if he hadn't done that the much maligned Ludlow wouldn't have taken the T-Rex to San Diego to begin with! (which makes him responsible for all the deaths that happen there). Frankly after the events of last week, I feel as if the lionization of eco-terrorists like this guy who are never held responsible for their actions is how people like Tyler Robinson get created in the first place. The fact that I also hate Julianne Moore's character and Malcom's annoying daughter who sneaks along without anybody noticing and then of course is able to fight off a raptor with her gymnast feats only makes it worse.

And let me just get in a word about the film's villain. Once you've seen the deleted scene where he explains all the losses InGen has suffered in settlements and Hammond becoming an enviro whackadoodle, you can't really argue with his motives. Hammond has run the company into the ground and the thing liberal scriptwriters keep forgetting is that it isn't just shareholders who suffer because of this, it's also the EMPLOYEES who suffer because of it. That would also include Union employees who likely get laid off or see their benefits cut because with all these lawsuit settlements, all of that has to be paid for somehow and that means keeping full employment is all but impossible. (I can just picture some union employee asking Hammond how he's supposed to feed his family if the company goes under and he's out of a job and Hammond just smiling and saying, "Life will find a way.") But what makes me hate the movie more is the fact I had to revisit it in order to properly appreciate the next film again, which thank God was a needed corrective to this one.

"Jurassic Park III" is like a breath of fresh air after "Lost World" because it just gives us a simple fun story devoid of pretentiousness. They wisely recognized first that Sam Neill is a better actor for a lead role than Jeff Goldblum and they even have a great moment acknowledging in effect what was wrong with "Lost World" in the scene where Grant asks Eric if he'd read Malcolm's book. "It was kind of preachy.....it just seemed like the guy was high on himself." I wanted to give him a standing ovation after having just suffered through "Lost World"! And unlike "Lost World's" ensemble of terrible, unlikable characters, William H. Macy and Tea Leoni were a welcome change as a "real" couple driven to do extraordinary things to rescue their son. I think the whole bit on the river though and the phone call being dragged out was the one scene I didn't care for. JPIII ended up being great in a "Jaws 2" kind of way. Not as good as the original but entertaining.

Whether I finally test the waters with the other films, I just can't say for the moment. I know it'll be back to evil InGen corporation again and I may not be up for that at this point.

[AndyDursin]

Great summation Eric, which I would basically agree with on every major point.

We've had many discussions on THE LOST WORLD, in fact here's my most recent rant on it from earlier this summer (in the JURASSIC WORLD REBIRTH thread):

https://www.andyfilm.com/mboard/viewtop ... 796#p99796

-Goldblum's character completely useless in the lead role
-Puke-inducing, brownish color scheme with blown out lighting courtesy Janusz Kaminski; I can't think of another movie of its kind that looks as ugly as THE LOST WORLD
-Insipid script with heavy ecological preachifying
-Stupid story structure obviously worked over too many times. To wit:
-The best supporting character (and the only one of note that's developed) ANNOUNCES HE IS LEAVING THE MOVIE AND DOES SO WITH 30 MINUTES LEFT TO GO (RIP Pete Postelthwaite)
-An abundance of unappealing characters across the board (Julianne Moore is lousy also)
-Dinosaurs reach the mainland...and do nothing exciting except run to a gas station and into some family's backyard
-Goldblum's daughter karate-chops a raptor (and people thought III was stupid)

It's absolutely, unarguably one of Spielberg's worst movies. The set-pieces aren't that thrilling, it looks awful, and it goes nowhere. What's worse is that he and Koepp felt they were making improvements to the original JP by dumping Neill and Dern, yet Goldblum was suited only as a supporting character -- he was just all wrong for the lead in that movie and wasn't able to carry it.

Even Williams' score...it's pretty much a wash. The main theme is OK. That's it. I don't think I've ever replayed the album in full since 1997.

I think most of us here agree it's one of Spielberg's career worst. I agree with everything you wrote, but I would add how unrelentingly ugly the movie is -- the Kaminski cinematography is wretched, bathed in brown and being totally out of sync with the look of the first film.

Spielberg apparently doesn't like the movie either...which is no surprise.

JPIII ended up being great in a "Jaws 2" kind of way. Not as good as the original but entertaining.

III is very much like the new JURASSIC WORLD: REBIRTH as the latter provides an unpretentious, action-oriented throwback to the first "Jurassic Park" and drops all the baggage from the JURASSIC WORLD trilogy that preceded it. Gareth Edwards is a good director and the set-pieces are terrific and well-executed. It's not great but I liked it very much in the same way that I liked III. It's notably less interested in preachiness and "world building" than it is providing an entertaining survival-adventure.

Whether I finally test the waters with the other films, I just can't say for the moment. I know it'll be back to evil InGen corporation again and I may not be up for that at this point.

The WORLD movies (JURASSIC WORLD, FALLEN KINGDOM, DOMINION) basically play off the "weaponizing dinosaurs" angle that Spielberg desperately wanted to use as a plot device so there are a mix of scheming Hammond family members and evil entrepreneurs as the "heavy" antagonists in those, all trying to figure out how to exploit the dino DNA for their own gain (I think the first JURASSIC WORLD has Vincent D'Onofrio as an overzealous military-industrial complex bad guy; the second one has a guy with "Trump hair"). But not everyone involved with inGen is bad (the Bryce Dallas Howard character works for them and tries to do the right thing for example; the Hammond family member dabbling in DNA in the second JURASSIC WORLD has an emotional reason for doing so, etc.).

But do they need to be seen? Not really. The first one of those is "okay", the second one veers off into an odd "dinosaur in the old dark house" genre that people didn't like (but I thought was passable), but the 3rd one -- which assembles both casts in a bloated and badly handled finale -- is a total bust.

You're probably best just watching REBIRTH as it's a standalone film that doesn't involve a viewing from its predecessors (beyond having to walk back JURASSIC WORLD's general theme of dinosaurs living on the mainland, all over the place...painting themselves into a corner REBIRTH works its way out of).