Film Review: Jurassic Park III

"On this island there is no such thing as safe." - Sam Neill
--------------------
For a third time, dinosaurs terrorize people. This time, the people stumble across Site B (from the second movie), finding it a derelict place overrun by prehistoric wildlife, including bigger, badder, and smarter creatures.

There are a few good thrills to be had with Jurassic Park III. At this point, the special effects have been refined to look sharper and smoother, and there are still some huge animatronics being employed. Thus, you get a lot of good-looking dinosaurs running loose chasing people all over the island. This includes the epic Spinosaurous, which makes its introduction by fighting and defeating a T-Rex in mortal combat. There are also raptors everywhere, which use more cunning than before to hunt down their prey. On top of that, there's also some Pteranodons in a giant "bird cage" (from a scene that was in the original novel but never used before). The dinosaur action is modestly satisfying and pretty fun.

Unfortunately, the story leaves much to be desired. It is great to see Dr. Grant returning as the protagonist (and Dr. Sattler in a smaller role), but he winds up being surrounded by a bunch of the dumbest dorks imaginable. The whole plot revolves around an estranged and dippy couple that lost their son; they go so far as tricking and manipulating Grant and his protégé to the island. Once they all finally get there, it's just one dumb move after another, followed by lost of running and screaming. The film becomes a bit more endearing with the chase scenes, and the characters' human sides become apparent, but there are still some dumb things that happen that ruin all creditability (including watching a smartphone travel through a dinosaur's digestive system and somehow work underwater to relay an unintelligible message that somehow prompts the military to show up in the end...yeah right). Of all the faults with this film, however, the one thing that's always bothered me the most is that there's nothing new involved; it's just another island adventure with little connection to previous events, and nowhere else to go. The movie doesn't advance the arc of the series at all (though I haven't seen Jurassic World just yet, I have a feeling you can skip this one no problem), so it comes off as a mere throwaway adventure.

This film has good-looking photography, including some decent POV shots. Editing is solid. Sam Neill is as fun to watch as ever. Laura Dern is barely in the movie; what little screentime she has is fine and dandy. William H. Macey and Téa Leoni are excellent at playing the dippiest characters imaginable; Trevor Morgan does a fine job in his role; all the mercenary characters are fun to watch, and everybody else is just peachy. Writing is pretty weak, and there's hardly any dialogue that stands out. This production uses decent-looking sets, props, costumes, locales, and special effects. Music rehashes all the old themes.

This film has its share of cool action, and it often tries to recapture the same sense of wonder and whimsey that made the first film endearing. However, the plot doesn't hold much water, the characters are frustrating, and the whole movie doesn't leave as much of a lasting impact as the last two.

3/5 (Experience: Average | Story: Marginal | Film: Pretty Good)

Film Review: The Lost World: Jurassic Park

"What you study, you change." - Jeff Goldblum
--------------------
In the events of Jurassic Park, an entrepreneur's dream of a living biological attraction ended with bloodshed and terror. Despite the threat of dinosaurs rampaging out of control, businessmen would still vie to reap the benefits of genetically-engineered beasts from "Site B."

This follow-up to the hit 1993 film aims to provide more of the same - wit, color, and action - but on a bigger scale. There are more dinosaurs to behold. People deploy more cool vehicles and weapons to hunt and capture them. More people get eaten, more are chased across the jungle, and it all leads up to a crazy finale where a T-Rex runs amok in San Diego. There are a lot of fun setpieces to behold.

There are a few things that mar the experience a little. Characters aren't quite as likable as in the first film; everyone's favorite chaotician returns and delivers plenty of sarcasm, but the family dynamic that's built around him doesn't congeal quite as well as it did with Dr. Grant and the kids in the first film. A lot of the characters in this film seem to make even dumber mistakes than in the first film, and many are unlikable. Some scenes are rather daft. Despite these issues, the plot takes off in interesting directions, showing how far a corporation will go to exploit nature. These events bring the threat of the dinosaur breakout to the civilized world in the end; the T-Rex's downtown carnage tends to be rather silly, but it does expand on the original theme that life cannot be controlled or tamed.

This film sports pretty good-looking photography and editing. It is a much more drab and darker film, with a lot of nighttime photography. Acting is okay for what it is: Jeff Goldblum returns with his signature wit, but his character isn't always likable as he's always yelling at others trying to get them to listen to reason. Julianne Moore is playful in her role, but her character makes a few dumb decisions. Peter Postlethwaite is cool, Arliss Howard plays a dork we love to hate, Peter Stormare is the same, and everybody else I could take or leave. Writing is okay; there are amusing lines, but the dialogue is not as effortlessly colorful and fun as the first film. This production uses top-notch sets, props, costumes, and special effects. John Williams' music score takes the original theme and transforms it into a wonderfully adventurous tune; I almost like it better than the first movie's theme.

The Lost World has plenty of thrills and fun, some of which is bigger and bolder than in Jurassic Park. It's only hampered a bit by a few characters making a few dumb decisions, and a few silly scenes here and there. I always felt it was a fun follow-up, and if you enjoyed the first film, this should be worth seeing once.

3.5/5 (Experience: Pretty Good | Story: Okay | Film: Good)

Film Review: Jurassic Park

"Life, uh... finds a way." - Jeff Goldblum
--------------------
Genetics can unlock the secrets of creating and growing biological life; we've already used these secrets to clone a sheep, to alter our crops, and it may allow us to repopulate endangered species. In his novel, Michael Crichton explored the unique and harrowing possibility that genetics could bring the dinosaurs back. When entrepreneurs try to turn the miracle of dinosaur cloning into a theme park attraction, chaos theory kicks in, proving that nature can't be tamed that easily.

Stephen Spielberg's adaptation of Crichton's novel takes the original premise, complete with its cautionary warnings, and delivers it as a fast-moving adventure film full of color, wit, and thrills. There are moments where the film emphasizes the whimsy and wonder of creation, but when the deadliest of predators are unleashed, there are a fair amount of harrowing, suspenseful chases that follow. One of the most chilling scenes shows the dreaded Tyrannosaurus Rex breaking loose from its paddock and laying waste to a pair of jeeps, threatening to crush and eat everybody trapped inside. Velociraptors rush through the jungles and buildings, threatening to devour human prey. What starts off as a wondrous "what if" scenario eventually devolves into a struggle for survival and escape; occasional bursts of comedy keeps the film lightweight, but with groundbreaking special effects, carefully-staged action, and characters worth caring about, the film offers a grand spectacle and a perfectly-entertaining blockbuster experience.

Much of the story is altered from the original book, but it's hardly an issue. On its own merits, the film tells the story it wants to and it does it well. It flips a few of the characters around so that there's a family dynamic at work. Most of the characters are likable, and the film sets them up so that we can understand and care for them when they're in danger.  Some of them make very bad decisions, but even the dumbest characters are endearing, because the film shows them as being very human and prone to mistakes; these faults ultimately contribute to the plot's progression.  The plot unfolds spectacularly, continuously building in tension and action. Throughout the picture, the characters speculate and dig up fascinating themes about playing God with genetics; the film's events prove that all human attempts to control nature and force a structure will never work, and life will always find a way to break free and thrive on its own. These themes carry both wonder and terror, and the film emphasizes both aspects aptly.

This film is made with really good photography. Editing can be a little weak at times, but it is often punchy and good. Acting is pretty over-the-top, but it produces expressions and emotions that fit in perfectly with the film's tone. Sam Neill and Laura Dern are perfectly likable in their roles. Jeff Goldblum steals the show repeatedly with his character's wit and wisdom. Richard Attenborough has a great presence and personality as John Hammond. The kid characters put their best into it, and they do have some endearing moments that gives the film a more emotional punch. Bob Peck is cool, Martin Ferraro is a dude we love to hate, Wayne Knight is an even bigger dude we love to hate, Samuel L Jackson keeps it real, and everybody else is decent. This script is full of great lines, but some dialogue can be rather random, and it's all really low-key. Despite one or two shortcuts, this production uses good-looking sets, props, costumes, and creature effects. Special effects were fantastic for its time, and most of them still hold up to this day. John Williams' music score is catchy and emotional.

Jurassic Park is easily one of the best blockbusters, not only because of all its visual effects and thrills, but also because it has heart, and it has themes worth thinking about. It's a must-see.

4.5/5 (Experience: Perfect | Story: Good | Film: Good)

Book Review: Foundation (Isaac Asimov)

If you know sci-fi, chances are good that you would have at least heard of Asimov's Foundation series; it is one of the man's most celebrated works.  The first, original book in the series dives headlong into the distant future of our galaxy, which is turned into a sprawling space-faring empire.  The novel presents the interesting premise that the Empire is collapsing, and it's up to a group of scientists to lay down the foundation of a new era on a couple of backwater planets.  Upon doing so, the Foundation encounters one crisis after another, the resolutions of which will shape the way the future inevitably unfolds.

To be fair, the book has a very interesting premise, and it's the politics and social themes that make it worthwhile.  The story borrows much from historical references, such as the fall of the Roman Empire, to illustrate that social ruin can occur at any era.  The problems of the Galactic Empire in Foundation are pretty simple - the Empire simply spread itself too thin and was too centralized.  The Foundation provided a solution for long-term sustainment, not with the benefit of rich resources, but with the creation of a new religion that ultimately wins over the population and helps the Foundation resolve each new crisis.  Thus, the book provides interesting themes worth exploring, regarding the relationship between society, religion, and science.

Unfortunately, despite having a great setup and interesting content, I found the book's emphasis on politics to be extremely dry.  The book covers hundreds of years of events, so characters tend to come and go without receiving much development or investment.  There is no pathological or emotional anchor involved with the story to make me care for the events, outside of the social aspects.

I have no complaints about the writing; Asimov's prose is to-the-point and has decent dialogue.  This book doesn't have much description for the settings, which can make it a little harder to visualize, but it does paint a few fantastic planetscapes.  I personally would have appreciated more exposition with the events, since the story seems to jump ahead with little indication of what's exactly going on; you have to read the dialogue to get the gist of things.

Foundation is a book worth reading, so long as you don't mind a story that's politically-dense.  As a highly-tutted sci-fi classic, sci-fi fans should give it a try.

3/5 (Experience:  Poor | Story:  Pretty Good | Book:  Pretty Good)