The Jurassic Showdown

Adam and I have had a long standing disagreement over the last two Jurassic Park movies.  I'm not exactly sure where it stems from, or when it was first brought up.  All I know is I can't stand Jurassic Park 3, and he detests Jurassic Park 2.  So what better place to start the inaugural entry in our (hopefully) long-running yet-to-be-named point/counterpoint series?  A quick warning, some spoilers follow.


Adam:  Ok, before we begin I'd like to clear the air. I do not think JP3 is a good movie. It is a mindless, clichéd monster movie with few redeeming qualities. And yet it is still better for a few reasons. First of all Alan Grant is the superior leading man to Ian Malcolm. I suppose that’s a good a place to start as any. Grant is a more intelligent, better acted, and better written character (not to mention more believable) than Malcolm's over the top mathematician.

Ben:  I agree that Grant is the better leading man; however I do not that think that makes JP3 a better movie.  Malcolm does a fine job leading JP2, and he has a great supporting cast helping him out, including Julianne Moore, Vince Vaughn, and Richard Schiff.  JP3 has William H. Macy and Tea Leoni in poorly written roles and with nowhere to go with them, and a few other no-name actors that are easily forgotten.

Adam:  Ok, we come to our first point of disagreement. The supporting cast in JP2 stunk. Malcolm is admittedly fine, but Julianne Moore and Vince Vaughn's characters are moronic. They go through every bad cliché in the book. While supposedly being experienced about wild animals, they still manage to piss off dinosaurs at every possible turn, which leads to the death of the only other sympathetic character in the film in Schiff's Eddie. JP3, on the other hand, had William H. Macy (with a ridiculous mustache) put in a solid turn as a dad looking for his kid. No awards deserved to be sure, but his character was at least on the level.

Ben:  You raise a good point about Julianne Moore.  I agree that her character was stupid, that whole business with the baby T-Rex was absurd.  However, I believe her general charisma as an actress overpowers the scenes where she comes off as moronic.  As for Vince Vaughn, I remember him as a generally smart character, even if he wasn't played for anything more than some light comic relief.  While I generally enjoyed William H. Macy, I just couldn't take him as the incompetent father searching for his son.  Too many stupid moves between him and Tea lead me to hate their characters, along with dumbass Billy and the shaggy haired kid.  Grant was the only likable one, and it made me wonder why he would hang out with a crowd of such nitwits.

Adam:  I like Julianne Moore but I really feel like she fell flat. And Malcolm's daughter in JP2 is at least as annoying as the kid in JP3. But let’s move on here before we start repeating ourselves. JP3 is a more original film than JP2. Yup, you heard me. JP3 is not an original movie, but they came up with a new (albeit mediocre) story and added new characters and even some new dinosaurs to the mix. JP2 not only slaughtered the excellent Crichton book of the same name, it copied King Kong almost point for point. Adventurous crew heads to an exotic island, come across a mythical giant awe inspiring beasty (T-Rex), capture it and bring it back to civilization, it escapes and rampages all over a metropolitan area before being put down. I half expected him to climb up the tallest building in the area and start swatting planes.

Ben:  I'll take entertainment over originality any day.  Top of the list of things I wanted to see before I die?  A T-Rex rampaging through San Diego, killing innocent people trying to rent a movie at Blockbuster.  I can remember nearly every plot point in JP2, no matter how rehashed it all is, and I enjoyed almost all of it.  The raptors in the high grass?  Awesome and tense as all get-out.  Two Rexes battering the trailers off a cliff?  Yes please.  I can barely even remember JP3, and I've seen it multiple times.  Something about a Spinosaurus, a pterodactyl stealing poor ol' Billy, and an annoying ringing phone?  Ugh.  I'll watch the T-Rex bowling with 76 ball, thanks.

Adam:  I will grant you two scenes. The high grass and T-Rexes vs. Trailers were really entertaining scenes. Two scenes does not a good movie make. The scene in San Diego is atrocious. It’s campy and feels completely out of place (besides making very little sense). And if you are looking for set pieces, JP3 has a couple of good ones featuring some brand new (and very impressive looking) dinosaurs. The Spinosaurus is much cooler looking than anything in JP2. The scene on the boat floating down the river during the Spinosaurus attack comes immediately to mind.

Ben:  I think we have a fundamental difference here that will never be resolved.  I find the whole San Diego sequence entertaining mostly BECAUSE of its camp.  There are too many jokes in it for it to be taken seriously.  While tonally it is a little out of sync with the rest of the film, I enjoyed the turn, and almost think of the beginning and end of JP2 as two separate movies (which I enjoy equally).  JP3 is just one big crapfest.

Adam:  OK, conclusion time. JP3 is one cohesive movie that knows exactly what it’s trying to do. It is trying to show off some darn cool dinos. It succeeds and provides just enough plot and character development to keep it interesting. It’s exciting, well paced and simple. JP2, on the other hand, cannot figure out what it wants to be. At times it tries to match the pathos of the original while staying true to the book, sometimes its simple action-adventure like the sequel, and at times is almost a comedy steeped in camp. I like all three options in three different movies. JP2 suffers from an acute case of identity crisis and along with its lack of originality it proves fatal. JP3 pounds JP2 almost as hard as I pounded Ben in this debate. Game, set, match.

Ben:  I disagree with you so much.  A movie doesn't need to "decide" what to be.  As long as all the pieces work well together it can do whatever it damn well pleases.  JP2 has two "parts" that both work equally well as popcorn entertainment.  JP3 has a bunch of generic crap that doesn't work as anything.  It is full of boring characters that are interchangeable and disposable, set pieces that aren't nearly iconic as those in JP2, and forgettable action.  JP2 was fun the whole way through.  Watching the two movies, it is obvious which is made by Steven Spielberg and which is made by Joe Johnston.

Adam’s Ratings: JP2: 15/30     JP3: 18/30

Ben’s Ratings: JP2: 19/30     JP3 12/30

Links Galore!

Ever since the first time I saw "Goldfinger" and Pussy Galore, I have been a devout fan of both Sean Connery and James Bond. I loved the innuendos, I loved the gadgetry, the tongue-in-cheek dialogue. The Bond movies provided great action, without ever really taking itself too seriously. Roger Moore took the joke a little too far, and Pierce Brosnan brought the iconic spy right back towards the middle ground.

Over the last two films starring Daniel Craig, "Casino Royale" and "Quantum of Solace" (the worst Bond title ever), the pendulum has swung too far the other direction in my opinion. After the monstrous success of the recent Jason Bourne films, the new Bonds have been far too serious and action heavy for my taste. Graphic torture scenes, brutal beatings, a near total lack of gadgets, humorless seductions, and even (gasp) Bond in love has populated the newer films while simultaneously removing the joke of the series. Bond is not meant to be taken seriously. Craig appears to have fine charisma and should be capable of playing the role, but the writing and direction have not given this franchise any room to breath.

All this is why I am nervously optimistic about the recent news out of hollywood. One of my favorite current directors appears to be taking the helm for the next Bond venture. Sam Mendes, most famous for his masterpiece, "American Beauty", is in talks to direct the next Bond film. Mendes, while being a terrifically talented artist, has never directed a movie like this before. I am more than willing to give the man a chance, but another Bond disappointment will be tough to take.

Now for some links.

1. The link to the James Bond article.

2. Interesting rumor from Film Shaft about a possible Clint Eastwood - Leonardo DiCaprio collaboration.

3. A new trailer for the Angelina Jolie film "Salt".

4. Clip of the Nicolas Cage character Big Daddy doing some damage from the new film "Kick-Ass". Be warned, there is some blood letting.

5. Talk about Joss Whedon of "Firefly" and Buffy fame possibly directing the new Avengers movie.