Classic Movie Review Jurassic Park 3

Jurassic Park 3 (2001) 

Directed by Joe Johnston 

Written by Peter Buchman, Alexander Payne, Jim Taylor 

Starring Sam Neill, Tea Leoni, William H. Macy, Alessandro Nivola 

Release Date July 18th, 2001 

Published June 14th, 2023 

After having compromised to make arguably the worst movie of his remarkable career, The Lost World Jurassic Park, Steven Spielberg was finally ready to leave the dinosaurs behind. There was no amount of money that studio executives could promise Spielberg in order to get him back in the director's chair for Jurassic Park 3. That said, staying on as Executive Producer, and retaining his lucrative back end deal, Spielberg did have a hand in choosing his directorial successor. 

Joe Johnston is a long time friend and collaborator of Steven Spielberg and happened to be coming off a pair of well liked and successful films, the 1995 blockbuster, Jumanji, and the critically beloved 1999 drama, October Sky. That plus having worked behind the scenes on each of the previous Jurassic Park movies made Johnston the most natural choice to pick up the reigns on the popular franchise. With Johnston came a new writing team for Jurassic Park 3. Out was writer David Koepp and in was the unlikely duo of Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor, fresh off the success of very non-Jurassic Park indie hits Citizen Ruth and Election. 

It's strange to think that Alexander Payne chose to follow up Election, a black comedy of razor sharp wit, with something as wit-free as Jurassic Park 3. Much like Spielberg did his career worst work on The Lost World Jurassic Park, it would be fair to say that Jurassic Park 3 marks a low point in the career of Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor. A paycheck is a paycheck and being hot off of a critical and commercial hit created the strange cosmic coincidences needed to put the future auteurs behind Sideways into the Jurassic Park universe. 

That said, while I do think this is the worst script of the career of Payne and Taylor, that doesn't mean the movie is that bad. Jurassic Park 3 is actually an improvement over The Lost World Jurassic Park. Director Joe Johnston smartly keeps his Jurassic Park movie under 100 minutes in length and maintains a frenetic pace throughout its 96 minute runtime. A script this thin could not sustain a movie much longer than that, especially with characters this obnoxious and simplistic. Making Jurassic Park 3 any longer than 96 minutes would be an agonizing watch. As it is, it's not great but it is fast and the action is genuinely well directed. 

Jurassic Park 3 returns Sam Neill to the role of Dr. Alan Grant. After being greatly missed in The Lost World Jurassic Park, having Neill back in Jurassic Park 3 is, at the very least, a welcome bit of nostalgia. Also briefly back is Laura Dern as Dr. Ellie Sattler. Her inclusion is perfunctory and convenient, a loving nod to the original Jurassic Park. She's there to be used as needed by the script to underline a plot point early on and provide a convenient ending for the film. 

Sorry, my cynicism keeps sneaking through. I was talking about being happy to see Dr. Grant again. Sam Neill is a steady, calming, soothing presence in Jurassic Park. He's an absolute necessity as he provides a grounded element amid the chaotic special effects frenzy that Joe Johnston is unleashing in Jurassic Park 3. It's easy to see where Johnston's work on Jumanji influenced his work here. Much like Jumanji, Jurassic Park 3 is at its best when it doesn't stop running, upping the stakes, and being an action movie. 

The plot kicks in when Dr. Grant receives an offer to play aerial tour guide for a rich married couple. Paul and Amanda Kirby have charted a plane to fly over Isla Sorna, the second of John Hammond's dinosaur islands and the location of the last movie, The Lost World Jurassic Park. Grant is promised that the plane will not land on the island and that he will just narrate a few facts about what few dinosaurs can be seen during the flyover. What he doesn't know is that he's actually on a dangerous rescue mission. In a convoluted opening sequence, Paul and Amanda's son, Eric has been stranded on the island.

The crew aboard the plane are actually mercenaries who've been hired to extract the boy from the island. Naturally, things don't go well and people end up getting eaten by dinosaurs. Since we don't know the names of the actors playing the mercenaries, and they lack what I like to call 'main character powers,' they're the first to go. The only name supporting actor, Michael Jeter, is also doomed for being a liar and a bit of a weasel, bad guys getting ugly comeuppance is a trope of the Jurassic Park films, aside from John Hammond, the greatest villain of the series, who gets to escape because he's played by kindly grandpa, Richard Attenborough. 

Find my full length review at Geeks.Media 

Classic Movie Review Jurassic Park

Jurassic Park (1993) 

Directed by Steven Spielberg 

Written by Michael Crichton, David Koepp 

Starring Sam Neill, Laura Dern, Jeff Goldblum, Richard Attenborough 

Release Date June 11th, 1993 

Published June 12th, 1993 

To say that Jurassic Park was ahead of its time in film technique would be an understatement. Somehow, Steven Spielberg made a massive CGI world come to life that still looks good today compared to much more expensive movies that came after it. Spielberg's dinosaurs of 1993 are, for me, more appealing than anything created since by his peers such as George Lucas or James Cameron. Spielberg's magical realism, the grounded story he tells about humans and dinosaurs, is filled with wonders that Lucas and Cameron forego in favor of spectacle. 

Spielberg still believed in actors and performances while Lucas and Cameron appeared to feel that actors got in the way of their vision. Spielberg never lost sight of what truly compels an audience, characters they can relate to, fear for, and root for. In selecting his cast for Jurassic Park he didn't choose giant movie stars, he chose people who were well known for their skillful acting. Sam Neill, Laura Dern, and Jeff Goldblum, the core of the Jurassic Park cast, were actors first and movie stars a distant second. 

Spielberg needed their skillful performances to truly give life to the monsters he was using CGI to bring to life. It would be mildly impressive to see the dinosaurs of Jurassic Park on their own but the dinosaurs take on a greater sense of wonder when actors are able to convince you that the dinosaur is in front of them. The wonder and excitement of these performers is truly what gives life to the CGI creations of Spielberg's brilliant behind the scenes team. 

Jurassic Park kicks off on a horror movie cliché. A black actor is tasked with letting the monstrous T-Rex out of its cage and, in unfortunate horror movie fashion, the black guy dies first. I'm not calling the scene racist, it's not really my place to make that judgment. I'm merely pointing out one well worn trope that was strangely present throughout the history of horror and monster movies. And, make no mistake about it, while I am not sure I would call Jurassic Park a horror movie, it's most certainly a monster movie. 

Dinosaurs in Spielberg's universe, especially the vicious raptors and the horrifying T-Rex, are introduced in classic monster movie fashion. Much the way that Godzilla and his cadre of fellow movie monsters are introduced in their films, Spielberg establishes his monsters as dangerous killers, slows down to show us how beautiful his monsters can be, and then unleashes the monsters upon his heroic human characters. The nature of the suspense of Jurassic Park is no different than the nature of the suspense of 1950s drive-in monster movies that you can easily imagine Spielberg himself having enjoyed. 

Spielberg is undoubtedly making a drive in monster movie, he's just doing it with modern tools unavailable to the forgotten generation of monster movie makers who delighted drive-in audiences of the 50s with the unforgettable sight of giant spiders, aliens, and gorillas. Godzilla is owed a debt as is King Kong who was the T-Rex of 1933, impressing audiences then just as Spielberg's fearsome dinosaur impressed us in 1933. Jurassic Park is a great improvement over the monster movies of the past but Spielberg is also fearlessly paying homage to movies that he grew up with and help generations fall in love with the spectacle of going to the movies. 

Find my full length review at Geeks.Media. 

Movie Review: Wimbledon

Wimbledon (2004) 

Directed by Richard Loncraine

Written by Adam Brooks, Jennifer Flackett, Mark Levin

Starring Paul Bettany, Kirsten Dunst, Sam Neill, Jon Favreau

Release Date September 17th, 2004

Published September 16th, 2004

With what I have written in the past about my disdain for the clichés of sports movie and of the modern romantic comedy, you could sense that a movie like Wimbledon would be a special sort of torture. Simply take the worst of both genres and combine them and ugh. However Wimbledon is the creation of Working Title Films, a company that has discovered it's own unique formula for romantic comedies that really works.

Working Title is the company that made Hugh Grant a star in Four Weddings and A Funeral and Notting Hill and delivered last year’s wonderful romantic ensemble Love Actually. It must be a British thing. There is something about Working Title's approach to romantic comedy that usually works. It works in Wimbledon albeit not as well as it has in the past.

Paul Bettany stars as over-the-hill (32-years-old) tennis star Peter Colt. Peter is playing Wimbledon for the final time in his fifteen-year career. In fact, Wimbledon will be his final tournament period, Peter is retiring to be the club pro at a posh resort. He only hopes not to embarrass himself and just maybe win one last match before he quits.

Before he steps on the court he has the pleasure of meeting a beautiful young American tennis star named Lizzie Bradbury. The two meet in a cute way when Peter accidentally gets the key to her hotel room and walks in while she is in the shower. From there, the two start bumping into each other and soon its a little romance, under the radar of course, the British press can be murder.

Complicating things further is Lizzie's overbearing father (Sam Neill) who warns Peter not to interfere with Lizzie's concentration. That is a subtle way of saying stay away from my daughter, something Peter just can't do. Peter especially can't stay away from Lizzie because after meeting her, he begins to play well and wins and wins again. Soon people are talking about him again and he has a shot at going all the way.

Naturally, since this is a romantic comedy you know that there will be some artificial roadblock thrown in front of the lovebirds to separate them until the big finish. This contrivance is usually where the Working Title formula separates itself from other romantic comedies but this time they fail a little. The contrivance is less than believable this time. It's saved only by Bettany who comes through in the film’s final reel to save the movie from the typical pitfalls of the romantic comedy.

In a role that many will recognize as one Hugh Grant turned down, Paul Bettany becomes a star in his own right. Not quite as charismatic as his Chaucer from A Knight's Tale, his Peter Colt is charismatic but subdued. He is weary and sees only dreariness in the near future. That is until he meets Lizzie who opens his eyes to an entirely new and brighter future. At first, the relationship is ambiguous as to whether we have a love match or superstition. Are Peter and Lizzie in love or do they get together because they play well after being together. Bettany plays the ambiguity well but plays the love and devotion even better as the film progresses.

For her part Kirsten Dunst does well to put over Bettany's starring role. She seems to act as a way for Bettany's character to get to the next big scene. It's as if she is a supporting character rather than a lead and that works surprisingly well. Especially well because of how poorly written Lizzie's backstory is written. She's playing her first Wimbledon and is one of the top players in the world but how old is she? Most champions of her ilk are 18 or 19, Lizzie seems older. This maybe a sticking point for tennis fans only.

I happen to love watching tennis. I have vivid memories of Boris Becker's first Wimbledon victory, of Jimmy Connors at the U.S. Open and Pete Sampras failing to win the French Open for so many years. My love of tennis makes this film so much more pleasurable because Paul Bettany is a terrific tennis player. Much praise must be given to technical advisor and former player Pat Cash for developing Bettany into a competent enough player that his scenes look believable.

The film’s final tennis match is spectacularly well realized, aside from the unnecessary commentary by tennis legends John McEnroe and Chris Evert. Bettany's play is excellent and director Richard Loncraine embellishes it with terrific camerawork and a plot device that let's us inside Peter Colt's head, a weary stream of conscience that is funny and endearing.

I must say what a pleasant surprise it is to watch a romantic comedy and a sports movie that is not absolute torture. Wimbledon may not avoid the cliches of it's combined genres but at the very least it embellishes them enough to make it interesting. Paul Bettany is the film’s real find and the element that lifts Wimbledon above it's many cliches and contrivances. This could be a star making and Hugh Grant had best start looking in his rearview mirror for Paul Bettany who could be scooping up a few of those roles that used to go right to him.

Movie Review: Daybreakers

Daybreakers (2010) 

Directed by The Spierig Brothers 

Written by The Spierig Brothers 

Starring Ethan Hawke, Willem Dafoe, Sam Neill, Isabel Lucas, Claudia Karvan

Release Date January 8th, 2010 

Published January 7th, 2010 

It's such a disappointment. The first 70 minutes or so of Daybreakers is a quite compelling Vampire thriller. The last 20 minutes, give or take a few, are such a massive wrong turn that they make me wretch at the thought. I was set to recommend Daybreakers but the ending is such a poor decision, such a disastrous wrong turn that Daybreakers becomes an early worst of the year candidate.

Ethan Hawke stars in Daybreakers as Vampire Hematologist Edward Dalton. Edward lives in a future, 2017, in which vampires are the majority and humans are hunted and farmed for blood. Unfortunately, the demand for blood is soon to exceed the supply. It is Edward's job, at the behest of his demanding boss (Sam Neill), too invent a viable blood substitute.

Elvis (Willem Dafoe) has a better idea, he has a cure. Through some remarkable accident Elvis has regained his humanity and he thinks that with Edward's help he can figure out exactly what cured him and begin to return the human race to dominance. Elvis and his partner Audrey (Claudia Karvan) kidnap Edward and he is more than willing to help. Unfortunately, he is being tracked by his brother Frankie (Michael Dorman) a member of the military human hunters.

As Edward seeks the cure and his brother and boss come together to plot against him there is an effective thriller with strong stakes and strong characters. Approaching the finale the film has great momentum all it needs is a satisfying end to cap the whole thing and make a pretty terrific genre thriller.

Sadly, all that co-directors Michael and Peter Spierig come up with is a gore-laden, special effects finale that undermines Daybreakers' thriller tension in favor of splatter movie ugliness. I don't mind gore, early on in Daybreakers a minor character explodes and the scene is quite effective. The ending unfortunately takes the gore too far, using it as a means to finish the movie as if they just couldn't think of anything else.

The bloody finale is a trapdoor, an easy escape for filmmakers without the imagination or talent to come up with something better. What a shame, there is a pretty solid thriller under all of the viscera in Daybreakers.