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).

[Eric Paddon]

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.

Exactly. I think "Independence Day" fooled them into thinking he could be a lead, when he's really just part of an ensemble in that one. I couldn't believe they missed a chance to have him reprise the "Must go faster!" line in the climactic scene where the T-Rex is following him and Moore is telling him to slow down. He should have said, "No, must go faster!"

The one non-PC inspired moment that I admit I laughed at in the theatrical release was the shot of the Japanese tourists reacting in fear. The audiences I know loved that moment and yet Spielberg is probably more ashamed of that "stereotype" than his glorifying an eco-terrorist.

When watching JPIII, I again couldn't help but think that just like in "Deep Impact", Tea Leoni looks like she could be Laura Ingraham's sister! (Maybe that's why I was more inclined to like her!)

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.).

And I think I've read that in one of them they bring back the guy from the rival company from the first film who we see paying off Nedry (Dodgson) but played by a different actor. Frankly, THAT would have been a better plotline to go with in Lost World. The company that paid off Nedry tries to find a way to salvage the ruins of InGen's dream for themselves.

[TaranofPrydain]

A Big Bold Beautiful Journey (2025) -- 8.5/10

Yes, I know that within a few days of release that this has racked up a bad reputation due to mixed to negative reviews, extremely low box office grosses, and poor word-of-mouth. A film cannot survive things like that.... And that is a shame, because the film, although not perfect (the ending is not as emotional as it should be, and the 40+ uses of the f-word seem extremely out of place in a film this gentle), is, for romantic and wounded romantic moviegoers, a bittersweet, tender romantic drama about love, regrets, coming to terms with the past, and possible new beginnings. I found it to be quite moving at times. The story is simple enough: lonely Colin Farrell and commitment-phobe somewhat self-destructive Margot Robbie meet at the wedding of mutual friends and end up face to face with such past incidents as first unrequited crushes, late parents, and past failed relationships. It is helped by two strong leads, but the film is beautifully photographed and it deserves a lot better than it has received, even if cynics need not apply..... Also, I could be wrong, but this is one of the few films of recent times to make any political points, which is an added joy.

[AndyDursin]

COCOON
8/10



One of 1985's big hits has been forgotten as time has gone by, and the subject of much ridicule also. I selected this for one of Theo's "movie nights" and I have to say, watching it play so enormously well with him -- he not only welled up during Herta Ware's passing and the scene in which Jack Gilford brings her to the pool, but also clapped at the end, which he hasn't in a while -- brought me back to how effective the movie was for audiences in the day. It's a good deal better than even I recall it being also.

Ron Howard's movie, which was meant for Robert Zemeckis before Fox got so panicked about trouble on ROMANCING THE STONE that they replaced him (this was before the former was reworked in post-production and became a big hit, obviously), does recycle E.T. and is formula (though mostly towards the end) but it's remarkable to see a film that does such a good job incorporating a large cast, giving many of them something to do, and playing to multiple levels of demographics (the aliens for the kids, Steve Guttenberg for the teens/young audiences, and that great ensemble cast of elderly stars). And the performances are great: Ameche's Oscar turn, Gilford, Hume Cronyn, plus Brian Dennehy -- quite excellent here -- and even Guttenberg, likeable as usual.

Critics back in the day loved this movie and I remember my grandmother hating it (lol! I think she was offended by the premise), but it's certainly entertaining, and likeable, and moving in many places. Even if it was shrewdly assembled with different "parts", it's a movie that at least was trying to go for an audience over the age of 12, unlike something you'd see today.

Horner's score I found cloying a bit at the time (it was never a fave of mine), but I confess again -- I found it more effective this time around. It hits all the right buttons, supports all the right scenes -- and something you would both never see today, or hear today, which gives it enduring value and is worthy of rediscovery if you havent seen it in a while (and most probably havent; the Blu-Ray has been OOP for years).

[Monterey Jack]

You know, Cocoon is one of those "formative" 80s genre pictures I've never seen! I don't know why. I remember clips from it on TV over the years, but have never sat down to watch it in full. Shame it will never get a Blu or 4K reissue thanks to The Mouse.

[AndyDursin]

Well worth it MJ.

Tahnee Welch had no real career outside of being Raquel's daughter but he was out of this world in this movie at least

[Eric Paddon]

I've mentioned before that the night I saw this film was the biggest disaster I ever had in my life seeing a movie with my parents. In 1985, my mother's mother was 94 and in her final year in a nursing home and my father' s father was 88 and had been moved to the nursing pavilion o his retirement community. My mother, who frequently made trips back to Ohio to see her mother by this point was absolutely upset by this film's depiction of heartless kids who don't care about their parents suffering inside nursing homes and only the grandkids understand them (and having been forced to become a caregiver myself a generation later, I also think this film doesn't really grasp the pain that the adult children go through since they have to handle matters their parents have no ability to handle anymore in terms of finances, estate etc. as well as having to emotionally cope with seeing them in decline) and she also found the whole "aliens take them away" think offensive to her from a religious perspective. My father wasn't upset by what he saw but when we left the theater she was in tears and railing about it, and because of that I have never seen this film again because I will never be able to shake off the bad memory of that experience.

[Paul MacLean]

Horner's score I found cloying a bit at the time (it was never a fave of mine), but I confess again -- I found it more effective this time around. It hits all the right buttons, supports all the right scenes -- and something you would both never see today, or hear today, which gives it enduring value and is worthy of rediscovery if you havent seen it in a while (and most probably havent; the Blu-Ray has been OOP for years).

I remember film music (and Star Trek) fans raising their eyebrows when Horner resurrected a good thirty seconds of "Genesis Countdown" during the boat chase. That said, I can't imagine (had Bob Zemeckis directed Cocoon) that Alan Silvestri would have delivered a score as heartfelt as Horner's.

[Monterey Jack]

Well worth it MJ.

This seems like the cheapest option to get it on Blu (region B-locked, but I haven't used my region-free player in ages, so...). Recommended?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/136031518775?_ ... BM0MHXsbJm

[AndyDursin]

MJ --

Amazon has it a few bucks cheaper at $19, and it's shipped directly from Amazon Germany as well:

https://www.amazon.com/Cocoon/dp/B07K14 ... s_li_ss_tl

Good news - that's a variation on the Fox release so:

1. Its region free
2. Its actually superior to the USA release that's OOP because it's on a BD-50 instead of a BD-25

The disc I have is a Eureka UK release that was BD-50 but it's OOP -- so you would do fine with that German release. It's authentic and, until it gets a remaster, will do fine.

One of the reviews mentions it plays perfectly --

This is a review of the German blu listed here for American customers. Plays fine on the two US blu players I tried it on, so yes it's region free. No menu, just change the language when it starts. The English is only in 5.1 so dialogue is a little low on a TV with no surround, but still beats paying for the oop US blu. Transfer is solid, and the movie is fantastic, so give it a shot.

[Monterey Jack]

Thanks, Andy!