After seeing Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (Universal Pictures 2018; directed by J. A. Bayona), I came to the conclusion that there was one reason to make this movie: use those CGI dinosaurs to turn a profit. Here, then is my abbreviated review:
Stomp!
Chomp!
Aahhh!
No, I really mean it. AAHH!!
Thanks, Blue!
They’re out, and the franchise never ends…
I’m not even going to apologize. I’ve spent a good part of the last week trying to keep my four-year-old granddaughter, Gracie, busy, so this week’s post is going to be a lazy extension of last week’s. By the way, Gracie likes dinosaurs. So in honor of Gracie, let’s talk about the velociraptors in the Jurassic Park/Jurassic World franchise (Universal Pictures). By the way, her mother will not yet allow her to see these movies.
To begin with, they’re not really velociraptors. They are most likely a larger species of raptor named Deinonychus, but who cares? They’re scary and interesting, and they add tension to a plot.
While I find it difficult to imagine a movie in this franchise having spoilers, I suppose I should say that this post might have some. In Jurassic Park, the raptors chase people and kill them.
In The Lost World: Jurassic Park, they chase people and kill them.
In Jurassic Park III, they chase people and kill them…
… with the added twist that much of this is to protect their eggs. Good parenting!
In Jurassic World, they chase people and kill them, but it could be argued that the people are bad. Oh, and the raptors are trained.
Eventually, they help Tyrannosaurus rex protect some people from Indominus rex. Only a raptor named Blue survives along with Rex and the people.
Hey, look! Blue and Rex are friends!
Good Rex! Good Blue! Now let’s kill some evil humans to help Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard in Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom.
Michael Crichton never described Tyrannosaurus rex as anything but dangerous in his two novels, Jurassic Park and The Lost World, but director Steven Spielberg took certain liberties and instilled more character into this monstrous reptile in the movies which bore the same names (1993 and 1997 Universal Pictures).
Let me say right away that the introduction of T. rex into the first movie remains one of the greatest reveals of a monster in cinema. Rex tries (unsuccessfully, whew) to kill children trapped in an electrical car during a thunderstorm while the power is out.
So, this dinosaur starts out as bad but then kind of turns good by the end of the movie.
It does battle with the Velociraptors and thereby saves the humans by giving them time to escape.
Ah, but in The Lost World: Jurassic Park, Rex is evil again, killing lots of people, eating a family dog, and wrecking San Diego. Bad Rex!
But wait, it’s okay! The adults were only trying to protect their offspring, and the happy family is reunited.
In Jurassic World (2015 Universal Pictures, directed by Colin Trevorrow), the T. rex once again gets to play the hero by doing battle with Indominus rex, thereby saving more humans.
These roles of harming and helping humans were also played by the gods in Greek mythology. In this respect, our dinosaur friend becomes something of a fickle and very big, reptilian god.
Good boy, Rex! Good boy!
First, there was the book by Ray Bradbury. In retrospect, the author said that he considered himself a fantasy writer and that Farenheit 451 was his only science fiction novel.
Then came the movie (1966 Universal Pictures)…
… and then a remake by HBO starring Michael B. Jordan and Michael Shannon.
Aside from the book itself, I consider the 1966 movie a beautifully stripped-down piece of art. Directed by the famous Francois Truffaut, associated with the French New Wave in cinema, it achieves a distinctive look (making effective use of the color, red) which has aged surprisingly well. I like science fiction that depends more on concepts than on special effects, and this is another good example from the pre-CGI era.
The story depicts a conformist, illiterate society which watches rather than reads. Firemen burn books to prevent the public from engaging in critical thought.
Justification for this is provided in the argument that knowledge makes us discontent and that this leads to unhappiness. The film therefore implies that happiness is not the determining factor in the quality of human life and character, an assertion that modern culture in the west might regard as heretical. The individuals in this society are infantilized, narcissistic, and chemically dependent – all to keep them in a state of happiness. They “read” comics without words…
… and gaze naively at widescreen television monitors mounted on walls.
Remember, we’re talking 1966, here. Some of the warnings in this movie are more true today than they were then. The citizens in this society inform on each other. Is this really so different from outing or vilifying people on the internet? It should make one think carefully before clicking. We are not all of us qualified journalists, and that includes many journalists (hint: fact checking and source verification).
Oskar Werner plays a fireman with a developing sense of curiosity and conscience. Julie Christie plays two roles as his wife and as a teacher in the literate underground.
Two scenes really haunted me. One was the burning of a hidden library. The woman who owns it chooses to burn with her books rather than turn informant.
The other scene shows the “Book People” memorizing and reciting books to prevent them from being lost forever.
If you like an intellectual ride that doesn’t depend on eye candy, this is a movie worthy of your consideration.
I originally saw The Andromeda Strain (1971 Universal Pictures; directed by Robert Wise) in the theater. I was a high school biology student, and I was impressed at the time by how much science was actually in this picture. It reminded me of my classes and even of some of my teachers.
Based on the book of the same title by Michael Crichton (at the time a medical student who is shown in the background during one scene), the film contains a good amount of scientific background information, and it is a good science procedural as well as techno thriller. The pacing is slower, allowing more time to think while watching. Robert Wise was an excellent and well known director, and this is far from being a B movie.
The plot unfolds at an intriguing pace, and this movie contains elements of horror, suspense, and mystery.
The special effects were excellent for the pre-CGI era, and the look has aged well. Production values were good, taking advantage of real scientific equipment for many scenes. The underground research facility was well-designed.
What really intrigued me was the discovery and description of the extraterrestrial pathogen. This is perhaps the most original concept for an alien life form that I have seen in a movie. Keep in mind that this idea was groundbreaking at the time of the book’s publication and the subsequent release of the movie.
If you haven’t seen this, I heartily recommend this refreshing view from an earlier time in the development of science fiction.
The Great Wall (China Film Group, Legendary Entertainment, Universal Pictures) was a pretty good movie for its genre, but it wasn’t a great one. Were it not for the controversy surrounding this film, I would have devoted only one post to it. I did not have high expectations, but the longer I watched it, the more I began to appreciate and enjoy it for what it was.
First of all, it was a monster movie in a different kind of setting, which was intriguing at first presentation. So how did the monsters look? I certainly wouldn’t call their design iconic (like in Alien or Godzilla, for example), but they grew on me as I continued watching.
I didn’t like the design at first because I came into the movie with prior expectations. As I mentioned last week, this can interfere with our ability to appreciate something for what it is. It is easy to fall into the trap of criticizing something for what it isn’t trying to be. The Nelson Atkins Museum of Art in Kansas City has a fairly renowned Asian collection, and I have been there a number of times to see it. Using what I had seen there as a frame of reference helped me to recognize a quality in the creature designs that I initially missed.
The director, Zhang Yimou, re-imagined the Tao Tei from Chinese mythology, and this general approach is one that typically earns my respect unless it is poorly done. He also re-magined some 14th Century Chinese technological innovations. This, among other factors, made the Great Wall itself a kind of character in the plot, and the battle scenes on the parapets made for some spectacular visuals.
The use of aerial female warriors might not have made for the most tactical sense, especially in light of the casualties, but it allowed for some impressive stunt work utilizing stunt workers recruited from a regional temple.
It didn’t bother me that this movie sometimes lacked tight, Western plot logic because a lot of American movies also lack tight, Western plot logic. It’s nice when it’s there, but this isn’t why I watch monster movies.
I liked some of the unusual visuals, such as looking down from hot air balloons upon a swarming horde of Tao Tei.
I also liked the plot device of the Nameless Order character played by Jing Tian having to provide some philosophical instruction to Matt Damon’s mercenary before he could get his full game on.
Even then, he couldn’t do it alone, and the Chinese characters did not seem forced into a subordinate role by the screenplay.
If you haven’t seen it, and if you can go into the experience with a relatively open mind, I’d at least recommend this one as a good rental.
Let’s get the unpleasant part out of the way first. Was The Great Wall (China Film Group, Universal) an example of whitewashing and Asian stereotyping? I think the short answer is no, but since I’m a 64-year-old white guy, that could sound insensitive if I don’t explain myself further. Let’s pause for a picture. Below is one of the posters for the movie’s release in China.
And here is the version for the U. S. market. It’s not hard to notice that Matt Damon is front and center. Is this racist? Does it represent the hidebound thinking about marketing which is prevalent in the entertainment industry? To me, the latter seems more likely since Matt Damon is probably the most recognizable name among those of the cast, at least for a western audience.
From the reading I did, I gathered that this movie was never intended to be a strictly Chinese story and that it was a cooperative effort between American and Chinese studios. In fact, it was made by something like 1,300 people from 37 countries. If there was Asian stereotyping, Chinese audiences evidently didn’t think so. This was not an American misrepresentation of Asian culture any more than western fantasies are misrepresentations of western culture. the film was directed by Zhang Yimou, one of China’s most legendary directors, and he included many elements of Chinese folklore, architecture, clothing, and ancient technology in his fanciful embellishments.
Also, Matt Damon wasn’t given a role originally intended for a Chinese character. As for criticisms of the authenticity of his accent, this is neither a new nor newsworthy phenomenon. In the old “sword and sandal” epics, Romans speak with British accents, and who can forget Highlander, in which Sean Connery (a Scot) was cast as a Spaniard while Christopher Lambert (a Frenchman) was cast as a Scot? I was able to enjoy Matt Damon’s performance for what it was in spite of any inaccuracies.
The cast (including Jing Tian, Willem Dafoe, Andy Lau, Pedro Pascal, and Wang Junkai) was voluminous and diverse. The inclusion of a few, mercenary Europeans in the storyline didn’t strike me as racist or even odd because most cultures haven’t existed in vacuums historically. There are many examples of intercultural contact, trade, and exchange throughout history, and it is impossible (or nearly so) to contain ideas and influences within geographical borders for indefinite periods of time. For me, the East/West conflict of priorities gave the plot more depth. Incidentally, the Chinese characters – with their sense of honor, sacrifice, and communal duty – were by far the more honorable.
Based on some of the criticisms I read and on personal observations of responses to other works, I’m beginning to wonder whether some modern critics track well with metaphor and re-imagined myth. Criticizing a deliberately epic monster movie for not matching the standards of a documentary, serious drama, or art film seems akin to giving a fast food joint low marks for its lack of French cuisine. Appreciation is often about expectation, and a film can be judged for what it is rather than for what it is not trying to be. Not all of the barriers we erect are geographical.
So… next week I’ll actually review the movie.
PNEUMYTHOLOGY 