THE SEARCHERS

After giving such great praise to a classic Spaghetti Western and the trilogy it came from, still being in the western mood, I'm going to review a film that many critics and film historians claim to be one of the greatest American westerns of all time...



The first time I ever heard about the movie was during a trip to Disney World on "The Great Movie Ride" at Disney's "Hollywood Studios" where I was exposed to a trailer of the film and...



an audio animatronic of John Wayne as his character Ethan Edwards telling guests to turn back. I at the time forgot the name of the movie for how young I was, but remembered that it was a western starring John Wayne. So in hopes for me to eventually stumble across the movie, I bought and rented a few John Wayne westerns for a short period of time, until I found the name of the film through my research of the ride back in Middle School. I then rented the film a while later at my local library and found myself enjoying the visuals, John Wayne's performance, and its sense of adventure, but I remember having a strong disconnect as I was watching it. I don't know if it was because the film failed to suck me in; or if it was the time and place I was watching it, since I was in the living room in front of my family where there was a lot of chit-chat going as the DVD kept skipping. I haven't seen the film since then, so after purchasing a copy, being in a quiet environment, and having more of the motivation to watch and review it, is the film really as grand of a western classic as its been hyped up to be and that I was too distracted to get invested into it, or is it an overrated film that was more influential for its style instead of substance? ON WITH THE REVIEW!

Taking place in Texas in 1868, John Wayne stars as former Confederate soldier and Indian fighter Ethan Edwards, who after a few years returns to visit his brother Aaron (Walter Coy), Aaron's wife Martha (Dorothy Jordan), and his family including little Debbie (Lana Wood) and her adoptive brother Martin (Jeffery Martin). After hearing about a native tribe stealing cattle from their neighbor Rev. Captain Samuel Johnson Clayton (Ward Bond); Ethan, Clayton, and Martin, go out to recover them only to find out that the theft was a trick to separate the men from their families. When Ethan and Martin return to Aaron's ranch they find the place burned to the ground with everybody murdered except for Debbie and her older sister Lucy who have been abducted. Filled with a lust for vengeance, Ethan and Martin embark on a 5 year search for the tribe led by the ruthless chief Scar (Henry Brandon) to find the girls.



When "The Searchers" was first released the film wasn't considered to be one of the greatest western films of all time, or even so much as one of the best films made that year. It was pretty much seen by critics as another western collaboration between John Wayne, and film director John Ford with a simplistic adventure premise that had everything you'd expect to see in a film of this type. When I first saw the movie, I had a similar reaction because it did feel like any ordinary western made at the time, but I didn't think it was bad. I was still eager to know if they'll succeed with finding the girls or not, and how far or close they are from the tribe. And after seeing it again, though I knew how the film was going to end, I still found myself hooked in their quest as they go from one visually distinctive location after another where they would either find a clue, get ambushed by Natives, or revealing something new about themselves, while being given top notch performances from the cast, especially John Wayne who obviously stands-out the most from the others because he's freaking John Wayne, and gives all the classic mannerisms when you think of "The Duke".

As we're given an exciting adventure, we're treated to some of the best visuals that John Ford has ever captured on film during his film career! Right after the film's opening credits, we see a black title card telling us where and when the film is set, which at first it seems like Ford is going to make darkness and the title fade away and cut to the desert landscape where Ethan's family lives. But instead, after the title card disappears, we're still in total darkness, until we see a woman opening a door right in front of us exposing this wide-open beautiful landscape where she and her family live as John Wayne rides into the picture to greet the people he's left behind for the last couple of years. As soon as I saw that opening shot (completely forgetting all about it from my first viewing) I felt teleported into the film's world for how surprising and glorious it looked, when the opening credits were simply played in front of a backdrop brick wall providing no clue of what's in store for the viewer. It's almost as if Ford was intending to make the film's opening credits feel like an overture in front of a distinctive closed curtain to a play, and using the shot of the door opening to reveal this western world as a symbol for the curtain rising without you even seeing it coming. And when the film ends, it ends with a door closing taking you back in total darkness, away from this western world and back into reality as the music finishes, just like how a curtain closes at the end of a show.



I remember the film looking visually pleasing to the eye, but just like the opening and closing shot, I didn't remember the film looking this gorgeous! How Ford captures places such as the dusty painted desert landscape in Monument Valley, the foggy swamps, and the snow covered hills of Canada creates a world of both beauty and hardship, because as you're admiring the land for its colors and wide open spaces you're also getting a grip of this harsh reality for how vulnerable the people living in it are for how large and brutal it seems. But as if capturing these locations doesn't make the film look as beautiful as gazing at the auras, Ford enhances the beauty of the film for his since of art-direction from his use of costumes, lightning, and even the make-up painted on Scar's face that just make the colors in this film really pop-out at you. However, when a scene calls for something dark and grim, Ford tones down the colors just enough for them to stand-out, but lets the darkness, shadows, the ominous sunset, and fires engulfing the area be the certain of the visuals when creating mood. And given that the film has such breath-taking visuals to suck you into its atmosphere, the film's score composed by Max Steiner (who has composed epic film classics such as "Casablanca", "Gone With the Wind", and "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre") does the same amount of justice as he did for his other works. It sounds as big and grand as Ford's eye for vision that creates tons of thrill and excitement, while also sounding heartfelt and ominous in the places where it needs to be without making the scenes it’s playing for sound pretentious and corny for how perfectly it fits the scene! The film even has a song called "What Makes a Man to Wander" sung by "The Sons of the Pioneers" that's played in the opening credits and closing scene of the film that does a nice job of setting up its western tone and having you exit the film as you're listening to such wonderful harmony from a famous singing group who have golden classic country voices.



The film seems to deliver everything you would want to see in a western starring John Wayne, are there any problems that the film has. Well a few. The most common criticism that the film suffers from the view of a modern audience member is the portrayal of Native Americans, for having the stereotypical characteristics that is considered to be inaccurate and stereotypical, as the leader of the tribe is played by a white actor in brown make-up, which is easy to understand why people would be turned off by the film for how offensive it is. The most cringe worthy moment involving the Native Americans that I found to be quite uncomforting is the scene when Martin kicks a native woman that he accidentally married down a hill after she tries to cuddle with him, that was supposed to be funny, but just comes across as cruelly mean-spirited for its abusive, racist, and sexist nature towards women who aren't white and speak English.



While the film has a captivating adventure story, there's a subplot that brings the excitement and mystery to a halt, and that's the romance between Martin and a farm girl who he shares a past with named Laurie (Vera Miles). It's not that these scenes are bad. Hunter and Miles do have good chemistry, there are many parts to this subplot that connect to the overall story to still keep it moving forward, and it does still manage to entertain. The problem is a lot of the elements presented during this subplot feels gimmicky and forced. Considering the fact that John Wayne doesn't have a love interest during the course of this film and is accompanied by a handsome young actor, since many westerns at the time feel the need to throw in some kind of love story, the romance between Martin and Laurie feels shoehorned just to give audiences what they want, even though it's not really the focus of the film or anything really that important to the overall plot. And to keep these scenes from being boring considering that the two have little of an arc to work off-of except for the fact that Hunter is too busy searching for his sisters rather than staying behind with her, the film throws in a few 30 second to 1 minute long song and dance scenes; and some awkward comedy whether it being a character as over the top as Laurie's Father (John Qualen), or a fight scene that's played for nearly the same amount of laughs as the ending to "The Quiet Man" just without it being as goofy and long. These aren't necessarily the only parts of the film that are guilty of these forced choices that don't fully work, for instance there's a crazy Indian fighter played by Hank Worden that Ethan and Martin constantly encounter through their journey who's trying so desperately hard to be both weird and funny, that he comes across as weirder as opposed to funny. It's just that this overall love triangle that Martin gets into are the parts of the film that greatly show most of its weaknesses for how hard it’s trying to entertain to keep the audiences' attention.

The film overall is indeed a well-made western that has the typical tropes (both good and bad) that westerns at the time were known for. So why is nearly every critic, film historian, and fan of westerns claiming it to be such a masterpiece? Why does this John Wayne film get the most attention when compared to his other western classics?



Well when most of us hear John Wayne's name we think of him as the charismatic American hero who we love to always root for! So how about having a film where he's still the main character but isn't as charming and likable as he usually is. When I described the film's plot, I did say that he was searching for his kidnapped nieces but what I didn't mention was that he's only searching for them just to kill them! I certainly bet that you wouldn't suspect John Wayne in a film to do something as sadistic as that! Why does he wish to commit such a senseless act, because he hates natives with an extreme prejudice, and as far as he is concerned once the girls have been converted to their culture, he no longer sees them as his white nieces believing that they have been tarnished and that there's nothing he can do but eliminate them! So, Wayne is not only thirsty for the blood of innocents related to him, but he's a flat-out racist too, who doesn't keep his racism to himself, he's completely opened about it. It's not often that you see "The Duke" play a character this vicious and cold, if anything it's highly rare. He despises Native Americans so much, that he knows a great deal about their culture and war strategies and uses it against them rather than understanding why they are what they are. Best example is when he shoots out the eyes of a dead warrior explaining that without his eyes he can't enter the spirit-land, as his only way of killing a native from beyond the grave! Ethan's racism isn't the only draw-back to make his character different than the others he's played because he is bitter and condescending to almost everyone he meets whether its Martin, or Rev. Captain Samuel Johnson Clayton, who without remorse is willing to put their lives on the line for his own protection and personal gain; and has a long history of committing robberies and other crimes which all makes him the darkest and ominous character that John Wayne's ever played who's frankly more frightful than the film's main villain!



So, if Ethan is so ruthless, racist, and sick, why were so many audiences attached to this character? Is it just simply because John Wayne's playing a different kind of cowboy, well it is shocking and its highly fascinating to see your lead in a western at the time be so empty and full of hate, but it's not the heart of why many people find him so interesting. It's merely the complexity of his character that makes him so fascinating. Despite coming off as rude and twisted, there are times where he'll have his softer moments (like how he interacts with his brother's family and wife Martha), and a sensitive side exposing his vulnerability that he tries hard to keep away from other people. Ethan hates Natives, but despite Martin being part Cherokee it's revealed earlier in the film that Ethan rescued him after his family was slaughtered by the Comanche. And though his hatred towards Natives is awful and wicked, you understand why he's become the man he is for what they did to his brother's family and (subtly hinted) his wife where these acts of violence that they've heartlessly carried out make him behave just as vicious as they are. Making matters worse for Ethan, he is also a loner. He has the knowledge that Natives have, but refuses to aid or be a part of them because of his hatred. He's surrounded by people who need him for his brains and talents, but Ethan doesn't feel like he belongs with them because he's not like them. And the only people that Ethan ever showed deep love and affection for are all dead! The film's focus is more on the psyche of Ethan and the people around him, than it is on the search, if anything that element is only there to tie everything together while giving audiences what they would want to see in a western. We know about Ethan's bigotry and see him do a few heroic deeds from time to time, but the film never fully explains how far his racial intolerance goes and how much he cares for the people around him, it's more up to the viewer to decide, making this one of the early westerns that challenges its audiences by making them think rather than just entertaining them where everything is all black and white.

 

Ethan maybe the film's main character, however the film never tries to make his racism and acts of vengeance to be justifiable because when you see Ethan scalp a warrior or cut them off from their food supply, these moments are grimmer and more shocking than they are played out as an act of heroism for how down-beat it is. Even during a scene when we see the Calvary invade a tribe’s camp, as obvious that the scene is more triumphant on the side of the white man taking down the natives, the scene is given a dark edge to prevent it from being too one-sided because in one shot we see of a frightened Comanche woman protecting her child from gun-fire that's obviously not supposed to mean that the violence happening in the scene should be rooted for. There's also another massacre towards a Native tribe before the attack where we focus on the after-math instead of the battle, and how this scene plays out as we gaze at the dead bodies of numerous warriors and innocents from the tribe is gloomy and disturbing as opposed to being glanced over and coming off more as a dead end to the characters journey, and that the soldiers were right for killing nearly every Comanche in sight.



The most obvious attack on the film's themes against racism is Ethan's sidekick Martin. Being part Cherokee, he gets the most abuse from Ethan more than any other character in the film because of his blood-line, and for opposing against Ethan's objective for killing his nieces than retrieving them, since Martin still sees them as family whether being converted to being a Comanche or not, and will do whatever he can to block Ethan at every turn. If you really analyze the arcs to Ethan and Martin, you'll discover in a shocking twist, that Martin is the film's true hero. Martin develops from being a whiny innocent sidekick, to a much tougher cowboy who's determined to do the right thing as the film progresses from his experiences during this adventure and Ethan's attitude towards him. Ethan though having his moments of heroism never really changes from this whole journey, and still remains as the racist loner from when we first met him. In fact when you get to the film's climax the focus isn't on the characters fighting Scar's tribe, it's really the conflict between Ethan and Martin on whether or not Ethan's going to still do what he's been planning on doing for all these 5 long years. The strained relationship that these two have together is honestly one of the most interesting and compelling relationships that I've seen in a western film for how they are both the complete opposite from each other where the film doesn’t really address how much they actually do care for one another.



A character who is just as fascinating as Ethan is, is the tribe leader Scar. When watching the film for the first time many casual viewers who watch Scar will automatically view him as the average one-dimensional main villain, which is easy to grasp why. He's killed and abducted Ethan's family, has an intimidating presence whenever he's on-screen, and has slaughtered countless white soldiers and settlers as he kidnaps women and takes the scalps from some of his dead victims as trophies. He's as barbaric as a villain of this type can get. However, what separates Scar from being the typical savage archetype that Hollywood was doing with most native antagonist at the time is that he has a reason for his savage acts. Ever since his two sons have been massacred by the white man, Scar fueled with hate and vengeance wanted to take revenge against the white race for what they've done to his sons, and most likely as well as what they are currently doing to his people. Sound familiar? That’s because he's Ethan's native counterpart who are both alike in many ways but can't accept each other's differences from their blind hatred towards one another's race. Much like how I described how rare it was at the time to have our leading hero in a western (especially when being played by Wayne) be an anti-hero with flaws that are too numerous to mention, diving into the problems of the white settlers violently taking over the Native American’s land through the perspective of a Native American villain was not usually common either. Usually the only way you'd see a Native American portrayed in a positive light in a western is if they were partnered up with the cowboys, otherwise they'd be portrayed as cold hearted savages to make the white characters invading their land look heroic and righteous. To have a western make the Native Americans seem more human and relatable by showing a bit of their prospective of the racial tensions involving them though not the first film to tackle it is still quite ambitious and a-head of its time. Is it a dignified portrayal of Native Americans, no they still fall under that stereotypical archetype of how America viewed them at the time which definitely reveals the film's age. But Ford's heart in delivering this message is still in the right place and having him hiring actual Native Americans to be casted in the film definitely brings a sense of realism to their suffering, if not an accurate depiction to their culture.



Above everything that makes this film such a brilliant and different kind of western is how much meaning and depth is given to it. It's one of those films where the more you watch it, the more you'll notice little details that connect to the film's themes and characters. Whether it being a small piece of dialogue that's easy to overlook, an interaction between the characters that you haven't noticed before, or visuals that either add a whole new layer to character or situation or have much more meaning to them than they appeared at first glance. It's a western with so many layers of emotion, character, themes, and meaning that it's not all spelled out to you or preaching its message, it's letting the visuals and interaction between the characters do all the expressing as what a visual medium should do! Even during the mediocre parts of the movie, there's still some form of intelligence behind it to prevent them from being a complete waste of time.



Because of the film's grand visuals, complex characters, clever use of story-telling, and unsuspected twists to the western genre it went on to influence numerous successful writers and filmmakers, where they would either pay homage or take elements that made the film such a ground-breaker and perfect upon it. Spielberg would use the concept of people who are opposite from each other working together in finding someone in a cruel environment in his World War II epic "Saving Private Ryan", and would have a scene of a guy in shock clenching his hands in the sand after seeing a dead body in his blockbuster thriller "JAWS". Martin Scorsese and Paul Schrader would have a modern parallel to the characters of Ethan and Scar in "Taxi Driver" through the characters of Travis Bickle and Sport. Director David Lean studied the visuals in the film countless times in order to create what many consider to be his most visually breath-taking epic "Lawrence of Arabia". George Lucas would use the idea and imagery of a farm burning down with innocents being killed as the start to Luke Skywalker finally setting foot out of Tatooine to embark on an adventure through the galaxy in "Star Wars". The image of the door closing at the end of the film, gave Francis Ford Coppola the idea to end "The Godfather" on a powerfully sad note. And of course Sergio Leone would take some of the film's darkness and anti-hero qualities from Ethan, and exploit them to a whole new level in his "Dollars Trilogy" with Clint Eastwood. The film has also influenced one of the greatest Rock N Roll musicians of all time Buddy Holly to write one of his essential songs after John Wayne's famous catchphrase "That'll be the Day".

OVERALL THOUGHTS

There's so much more that I wish to write and analyze about the film in terms of scenes, techniques, themes, and subtle details in the story after doing some research and watching some of the scenes from the film a few times to study them in preparation for this review. I've pretty much only talked about half of the things that make this film so rich and clever, and as tempting as it is for me to provide more reasons and insight on the film's genius, I believed that what I've covered should be more than enough to give you an idea of how magnificent this film is! No film is perfect, and this film does have its issues regarding its dated depiction of Native Americans, and shoehorning in certain tropes in westerns that don't feel needed for this film. But none of that overshadows of what a smart, ambitious, and influential milestone of a cinema that the film is rightfully known to be! It manages to excite, surprise, and keep you captivated in its lovely and dangerous western environment and story-line, while also taking risks and challenging its audience, pleasing both the casual film-goer who just wants to be entertained, and the scholar who wants more than what's expected in a film of its kind. 

THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY

Way back when I began critiquing, two films I reviewed during my earlier years was "A Fistful of a Dollars" and "For a Few Dollars More" from the "The Dollars Trilogy" directed by Sergio Leone that stared Clint Eastwood, which later made it to number 5 on my list of my "Top Ten Favorite Film Series" (and number 1 on my brother Jack's list). It's almost my tenth year, and I have yet to touch upon the last and most popular film from the saga...



Like many people who've seen the trilogy, usually they're exposed to this film as opposed to its first installment. Some are not even aware about the other films existence either, this was the one that seemed to have struck a huge chord with many people and left a bigger mark in cinema. However, the other two films had most of the elements that made this film so popular, which made me think to myself for a long period of time of what made this film better than the previous ones? Did the film really take more steps forward than what the other films did; or is this really an over-hyped film that just managed to get more attention? ON WITH THE REVIEW!

Set in the west during the American Civil War, the Man With No Name (Clint Eastwood) teams up with a Mexican bandit named Tuco (Eli Wallach) in a money making scheme where the two plan to split Tuco's bounty money after he is delivered and saved from being hanged. But no longer taking anymore of Tuco's complaints, he leaves him out in the middle of the desert to burn to death without a horse, hat, or water. Tuco vows vengeance against the man (who he refers to as Blondie) and survives getting across the desert to make Blondie suffer what he suffered. Tuco nearly succeeds with killing Blondie, until he discovers a carriage full of dead Confederate soldiers with only one surviving solider who is severely wounded and close to facing death. In exchanged for water, he tells Tuco about $200,000 Confederate gold coins that he buried in a grave at a cemetery. Before he can tell Tuco which grave he hid the gold, he collapses and Tuco runs back to his horse to get him water to reveal the name of the grave. When returning however, he finds the solider dead with Blondie laying next him who found out the grave's name, but won't tell Tuco unless he nurses him back to health and takes him to the location of where the gold is hidden. The two men keeping their part of the secret from each other, team-up once again to embark on a journey in finding the gold. Unfortunately the cold and vicious rogue cowboy Angel Eyes (Lee Van Cleef) is after the gold as well, and will do whatever means necessary to get his hands on the loot.



When comparing the story to this film to the previous two films, it offers a few more interesting twists and turns. That's not to say that the stories in the previous two films weren't exciting and offered situations that held me at the edge of my seat, but unlike how those films were pretty much about Eastwood killing bad guys to profit off of them, this film uses a part of that element from its predecessors in the first hour and suddenly turns it all around to give us a big action/adventure treasure hunt for the rest of the film! It's a sequel that knows how much to duplicate the franchise's identity in terms of plot while still giving us a story that's completely fresh and new. Eastwood is not partnering up with an innocent and wise civilian or a bounty hunter who is his equal, he's now teaming up with a criminal who hates him as much as he hates Tuco, but must put their differences aside to work together, that I find to be more fascinating when compared to his other partnerships since these two clearly have no respect for each other. And unlike how Eastwood makes money for turning in the criminals to the authorities dead or alive, Eastwood doesn't have that choice since he needs him in order to get what he wants knowing that turning in the criminal that he's working with is not going to amount to the same sum of money as the gold that he's hunting for. Eastwood is also no longer confined to a town or a near by hide-out like in the last films, he and Tuco travel from one different location to another as they overcome every challenge that's thrown in their way (even before the treasure hunt begins) which gives the film more variety than what we were given before, making each situation and place they go to a surprise and a start to a whole new chapter as if we're watching a series of episodes to a season of a TV show being condensed together. And though Eastwood has to watch his back from the backstabbing bandit aiding him on his trip, and avoid the ruthless Angel Eyes who crosses his path when he least it expects, the film takes the extra step to include him being caught in the middle of the Civil War where he's captured by the soldiers, and forced to take part in their battles, which just makes the stakes even higher than they ever were before! Sure there were indeed soldiers in the original two films, but they didn't nearly play as big of a role or became as much of a threat as they are here.



One of my favorite storytelling techniques that the film uses that improves upon what "For A Few Dollars More" started, is how the characters are introduced. In "For a Few Dollars More" when we were introduced to Eastwood and Van Cleef's characters the film would spend the first 12 minutes or so showing off how each of them catch their bounty, before the film's plot begins with the film's villain El Indio escaping from jail and leading to these two bounty hunters to team-up when they discover that they're both after the same crook and are equally skilled. The introduction scenes were a terrific way of getting us acquainted to both characters as it got us hyped for the action that would later happen in the film, but none of these scenes move the story forward which results with these scenes being an overlong prologue to this 2 hour and 12 minute film. When all three characters are introduced in this film to define their personalities and skills, they're doing something that would move the story forward or play a bigger part to the story much later on. Tuco is introduced killing all the bounty hunters off-screen where you at first think that this scene is not going to go anywhere and just be a simple wild introduction to this character. However, much later in the film, it turns out that one of the bounty hunters is alive and is seeking vengeance on him. As we witness what a merciless killer that Angel Eyes is, we also find ourselves learning about the gold and how he knows about it, before our main characters can even hear the news. And when Eastwood finally appears, he's not alone killing his rivals and capturing a wanted man, he meets Tuco for the first time and starts conducting his scam against the law enforcement. Sergio Leone even goes as far to give these introduction scenes a little more style by ending their scenes by freezing their image and placing colorful titles next to them to identify which character falls under good, bad, and ugly, as a piece of the film's theme plays.

Since Eastwood has top billing, you expect him to be the star and focus of the film, like in the previous films of the trilogy, but in all honesty he's not given much focus. He's easily the toughest and wittiest of all the three characters who's given a handful of scenes to show off all his classic badass trademarks that he brought to the character in the past (his attitude; the way he shoots; how he smokes that short cigar), but the film seems more focused on his side-kicked Tuco. I personally enjoy watching Eastwood more in "A Fistful of Dollars" than I do in this film since the spotlight was always on him in that film as he demonstrated all the tropes that make him out to be a different kind of cowboy. So what makes Eastwood stand-out so much in this film as the Man with No Name? Well a few things actually! In the past two films, he's always seen to be wearing his trademark poncho, and with this being the third installment to the saga; you'd expect him to wear it throughout the film. But instead, he doesn't wear the clothes that we see him usually in until the very end of the film, where we see him gradually add the pieces of clothing that we're familiar with to his wardrobe as the film moves along. And since we never see Eastwood change clothing in the previous two films since he's always shown to be wearing his iconic outfit that would in some respects make this film a prequel.



And it's not just Eastwood changing his clothes to hint that this film is a possible prequel to the other films, but also because the film takes place during the Civil War, when the previous films seem to take place after the war, which the concept of having a western focusing on the Civil War is another unique thing that the film offers. Though the film is most likely not the first gun-slinging western film to involve the Civil War, it's not often that you see a western of this type give so much emphasis on it, where the sense of adventure of finding gold combined with the harsh reality of war don't feel like one element is being more focused on than the other. They're both given equal treatment for them to mash together to perfectly shine. I'm not going to pretend that the film is by any means a perfect and accurate representation of the Civil War because there are plenty of inaccuracies that I'm sure would make any history-buff shake their heads just as much as the inaccuracies in "The Birth of a Nation". But still you can not only tell that Leone was trying as best as he could to visually capture the war for how the sets and costumes resemble pictures that you'd see in old photos of the war, but the emotions regarding war in general is handled so gritty and maturely that its chillingly powerful. This film doesn't go as far to glorify the war by making it be all about heroic masculinity and claim which side is right and wrong, they're both seen as the equal problem as they slaughter each other and keep taking Blondie and Tuco hostage who want no part in their feud. After seeing so many cool scenes of the characters taking out people who stand in their way, when we see people battle in war or witnessing severely wounded soldiers on every side that are slowly dying while shivering in pain, they're not played out as exciting entertainment as the other scenes in the picture for how quiet and realistic they look. And when we meet the leaders of the troop that the characters are captured by they’re not harsh people who want to take the enemy down and win, they are actually upset and disgusted by the war as one leader who is slowly wasting away and doesn't want any of the war prisoners to be given cruel treatment, as another leader drinks his problems away with no desire to fight or command. The way that this film handles these war dramas are not something that you saw in any of the other films (or in that many westerns in general) so the fact that Leone decided to make his film more than a typical shoot-em up western film with gold by adding something deep and real to it, takes the series a step further by trying to appeal more to the emotion than just simply to entertain.



After talking so much about the Civil War portions, I'm sure you're wondering why I bring this up now (apart from the film being a prequel) since I was in the middle of talking about why Eastwood's character stands out in this film despite not being the complete focus. Well as the film tackles on the dramas of the war, it doesn't show us these horrors just to give the film more of an edge, but we see how the characters react and deal with the war, that is best represented by Blondie that gives him a subtle but effective arc. When Blondie first appears in the film, he's no different to the other two killers we’ve met, since he shows no remorse in who he kills, where the only thing that labels him as “the good” is that he brings Tuco to the law and spares his life, which isn't really all that good either since he does con towns for profit off of Tuco, and lets Tuco slowly suffer out in the desert as opposed to just killing him or officially bringing him in to be hanged. As the film progresses, Blondie goes into being near death situations orchestrated by Tuco, to being caught in the middle of the war experiencing imprisonment with the other prisoners, and witnesses soldiers fiercely wasting their lives despite many of them showing no pleasure in fighting, that shocks him and causes him to slowly value human life, where you see the character's change of heart towards the end when encountering another solider, and how he handles his last situation that involves him forcefully pulling the trigger. And we don't see Eastwood monologue how he's feeling, or see him break-down, we feel his displeasure and pain in what he's experiencing from what we're seeing with him as he gives a cool but disgusted look on his face, where he even at times gives a quiet and bruiting look on his face. This is legitimately the only time when Eastwood’s character has ever been given a legitimate story-arc in any of these films. He had goals but he wouldn't change or learn anything different about himself or the people around him. The closest that he ever gotten to that was when he helped an innocent family in a "Fistful of Dollars" since he knew people like them where nobody was around to help, which is a nice moment that gives him a bit of back-story, but it isn't the focus of the movie; it was more about Eastwood just taking down both families to clean up the town while making a profit off of them. And in "A Few Dollars More" all the emotion and focus was on Eastwood's partner Col. Douglas Mortimer while Eastwood just hanged back and aided him.



As Eastwood has a story-arc that changes him to make his character appear to be more human than just a tough cigar smoking badass (even though it would mean nothing if this was intentionally a prequel to the other films), he's more vulnerable here than he's ever been before. In the other films, you always knew that Eastwood would get out of a rough situation even when being literally kicked to the ground, for how calculating and near unstoppable he is. He almost seemed too perfect of a hero, where the problems that he faces were just annoying inconveniences as his injuries felt almost nothing more than just a few scratches no matter how weak they try to make him look. So to make things seem more challenging and brutal for Eastwood, Leone puts him in situations where he can't so much as use his wits to get himself out of, he'd only be free either by convenient luck or a decision made by the person who has him right where he wants him. So when we see a scene involving Eastwood suffering in the desert, he looks so drained of energy for how dehydrated he appears to be from his burnt face and having no place to escape from Tuco or the hot burning sun that even though you know he'll survive somehow, you still would swear that he is very close to meeting his maker for how harsh and brutal the entire sequence is.



And that's another thing that this film does better when compared to the other films, the violence feels more painful! It uses the same style that the other films had by building up the suspense and having the deaths end quickly, showing more blood when compared to other westerns at the time, and seeing innocents being harshly killed or tortured; but you get more of the weight of when someone is getting injured in this film. Some of that has to do with the emotional appeal that connects to the war where we see these men being covered in blood and missing a limb during battle, but when it doesn't have to do with the war, the scenes revolving around the characters being tortured feel just as harsh from the way these scenes are acted, directed, paced and shot. You feel the tight grip of the noose around Tuco's neck as he's about to be hanged (that may also have to do with the fact that Elli Wallach did most of his own stunts that nearly cost him his life). Every beating, scream, and ounce of blood that comes out of Tuco when he's being tortured feels real, as opposed to coming off as a bit staged and tamed. This film brings that solid amount of giving us fast and exciting action that's cool to look at, and scenes and moments where the violence feels intense and gruesome that are hard to watch at times. That's not to say that the other films didn't have moments that were painful and disturbing either. Some moments of Eastwood getting beat-up in the first film felt harsh (especially for the time); and a part of me wishes that the film took a bit of that darker edge that "For a Few Dollars More" had that involved such traumatic scenes like the suicidal rape, or a baby and a wife being killed off-screen by the villain, because there aren't any scenes in this film that go into that shocking direction. But still the film offers so many memorable scenes of tension and gun-play that it's overall incredible that this filmed used most of the trademarks that made the other films so good and perfected on them, if not all.



Other techniques from the movies that Sergio uses and enhances to make them stand-out more, are his use of close-ups; wide-open space shots; drawn-out scenes to build up the suspense; and focusing more on visual storytelling instead of having the characters constantly talk; however the numero uno aspect that makes the film so big and epic where all of these other trademarks of the film combine grandly together is Ennio Morricone's score. The score plays a huge part in the film's identity and without it, the film would only be half as good! It'd be like watching "JAWS" or Tim Burton's "Batman" without the music, the film wouldn't be as atmospheric and effective. Morricone's score for the other films played a big factor with sucking you into to this world with Leone's visuals, but he seriously out does himself when composing the score for this film. Who isn't familiar with that high pitched famous flute sound that sounds like someone whistling that then proceeds to the famous "Wah, Wah, Wah" part of the score? It's simply unforgettable, whether you've seen the film or not! Even if the score didn't become a part of pop culture, it's still an amazing score where it seems that Morricone is using all the queues and sounds that that helped make his work in the previous installments so stunning and mixed them all together while still providing a fresh and new original piece of art, like Leone himself. It's operatic, it's dramatic, it's thrilling, it's adventurous, it's depressing, and it’s just all around spectacular on every level of music! Outside of its beloved and celebrated theme that will never ever leave your head, a few of my personal favorite pieces of music from the film as well as scenes, is Angel Eye's introduction where we get heavenly music as he's riding in the distant making us think that he's a hero until we see his face fully approaching the camera where we stare as his scary eyes as the guitar strings are suddenly being strummed faster and faster to make his entrance turn eerie; "The Story Of A Soldier" song that's sung by the mentally tortured prisoners of war who are forced to play, as well as the song's instrumental that can be heard many times in the film during the scenes depicting the war that's mournful and as powerfully haunting as his score to "Once Upon a Time In America"; and his second most famous piece of music from the film "The Ecstasy of Gold" that leads to a heart-pounding showdown between the three characters that's shot, paced, and edited so intensely that no matter how many times I see it the tension still continues to rise, thus making it the best final draw in all the three films (especially when considering that it's three people ready to shoot each other, instead of just two). I could talk so much more about the score and the scenes attached to it, however, I'd hate to spoil most of it for newcomers, but the bottom line is it's a huge a staple of what makes the film work so brilliantly!



But I will mention one last thing that I feel is important surrounding the music and visuals before talking about the rest of the main characters, and that's the opening credits! The opening credits for the first two dollars films were always the part of the films that got you hyped up for the film as you listened to the film's main theme and watched visuals that fit the film's tones as the credits rolled. Clearly we know which score beats the others, but how about the opening credits themselves? The opening credits to "A Fistful of Dollars" was different from what you've seen in a western for its flashing colors and rotoscope animation of silhouettes of the characters in the film riding horses and getting killed, while the credits to "A Few Dollars More" connected to a scene of a bandit getting shot from a distance who we find out that it's Eastwood who shot him by having the credits appear in the form of cigar smoke. Those two seem just as hard to the top as the other things in the movie, especially for how both of the previous opening credits differed from each other. The opening credits in this film take a similar approach to what the first film did, where we see animation of people riding horses, events that would later take place in the film being shown, and hearing gun fire. It almost seems like a copycat of an already unique opening to a western film, but it still stands out as its own thing. Rather than everything being rotoscoped, we see the characters faces being painted, and see old and rough illustrations of some of the events in the film that look like something out of an old history book, perfectly setting the tone for its war and western feel, and having the use of art being symbolic since Leone's cinematography resembles paintings from shots of the backgrounds and the characters faces. It feels a lot closer to Leone's style than the other credits since "A Fistful Of Dollars" looked a little to close to looking like the opening for a Bond film, while "For A Few Dollars More" though capturing the art side of him from the shot of that beautiful landscape didn't really offer anything else that visually appealing to give you an exact feel for what's in store for you. The credits here do him complete justice, and even have images that stand-out more than any of the images from his previous opening titles, like the cannon killing cowboys on horses to make each part of the title appear, and the last image of the cannon destroying Sergio Leone's name to develop the film's subtle tongue and cheek humor on the westerns that Leone has always aimed for.



Considering the cool and calm outlaw Blondie getting a story-arc despite that we know nothing about him, everything regarding his partner in crime Tuco is the complete opposite. We know all about Tuco as a character in terms of where he came from and why he started a life crime except that he has no story-arc. And instead of being cool and professional like Blondie, he's loud and wild. This is the kind of role that you would expect Gian Maria Volonte to play since he's been playing that kind of role in the past two films, where it would have been very interesting to see him play a character who's not as witty and sophisticated as the previous criminals he's played, and team-up with Eastwood for profit and to fight against an outlaw who's more deadly than the both of them combined; but instead the role went to Elli Wallach since Volonte was committed to another film that reflected his political views. And though it’s a tad bit disappointing to not see Volonte take up a role that's in many ways similar and yet different to his previous roles, Wallach more than makes up for it because he wholeheartedly owns the character and every single moment when he speaks. He's comical and many times shown to be idiotic as he chews up the scenery and mugs the camera more than Leone probably intended him too for how much life and energy he brings to his character, but he's still a cunning and savage killer who can be just as a total badass as Eastwood is! The chemistry that they both share also never stops being entertaining and fascinating for how different they both are in terms of personality. Eastwood's quiet coolness mashed with Wallach's loud eccentric behaviors is a perfect combination that's much better than Eastwood and Van Cleef being both equally tough.



And speaking of Van Cleef he as well gives just as phenomenal of a performance as Eastwood and Wallach do. As much as I loved him in "For A Few Dollars More", he still had the face of pure evil for his squinted beady eyes and sinister looking mustache, almost as if he was going to be an obvious twist villain who you were waiting for to reveal his true colors from the very start. So Sergio did the right thing of casting him as the film's main villain instead of having Volonte play a third one in a row. When comparing him to the previous villains, Angel Eyes seemed to be very tamed. The villains that Volonte played were always violent characters who killed dozens of people (including innocents), sexually violated women, and even had the pleasure to torture our main characters. Van Cleef kills less people than Eastwood does; and doesn't lay a finger on Eastwood. He does terrible things, but they don't seem to be as awful as Volonte's characters, so could it be that this is the one major thing the film didn't perfect upon when compared to everything else? Well in some ways yes, but in many ways no. It does disappoint me that the film didn't give us more scenes of him killing people, and doing the same dirty deeds that made the other villains so disgustingly evil. But here's the thing, when I think back to the villains that Volonte played, I always find myself never being able to separate the two characters since they're both very alike in many ways. With Van Cleef on the other hand, he stands out more as the villain for not only looking it, but for how he acts. He's so cool and collected that if you cross him or don't give him answers his violent actions come at you quick and viciously hard without any sign of warning. He's a time bomb that will eventually explode, but could more than likely explode at the moment when you least expect him to as if the timer was delayed or went off earlier than anticipated. And when torturing and killing people, he gets ruthless and occasionally shows some joy in what he does where he'll also taunt his victim. And that's what makes Van Cleef a better villain than Volonte, because you're always expecting Volonte to break out into violence as you have a great idea when he will (though he'll have his small share of moments that catches you off guard) when with Angel Eyes you're not exactly sure when or how he'll carry out his acts of violence that just makes his overall presence more unsettling for how unpredictable he is, and dangerous he looks. I wish he did more, but it's one of those cases where the little he does amounts to much more!

OVERALL THOUGHTS

Pretty much any problem that I have with the film are nothing more than nitpicks. There are parts of the story that I question about (like how Blondie never becomes a wanted man after helping Tuco in front of witnesses, or why the soldiers don’t do anything when Tuco and Blondie take apart in illegal action right in front of them); elements that I wished that the film used what the others had; inaccuracies regarding the Civil War; and some of the dubbing being too obvious at times (that's at its worst in the extended cut), but nothing that really ruins the overall experience and sheer awesome factor of what a masterful western that this film is! It's one of the films where the more I watch it and think about it, the better it gets! It uses all the techniques that made the previous films stand-out and upgrades them to a whole new level as Leone takes more risks and offers a few new surprises for its change of plot, adding the horrors of the Civil War, fleshing out Eastwood's character more than usual while still maintaining his classic image, and switching and omitting his usual casting choices. Expanding upon that, you have excellent performances from our three leads that play such memorable and fascinating characters; a perfect balance of grand adventure, hardcore stylized action, and heavy drama; stunning cinematography that helps narrate the film and gives it so much depth; and arguably the best western score of all time! Whether judging it as a stand alone western film, or being part of an unofficial franchise, it still stands tall as one of the greatest western films ever made, and for good reason!

OVERALL THOUGHTS ON THE DOLLARS TRILOGY

Ever since I knew about "A Fistful of Dollars" and "For A Few Dollars More", I for the longest time thought that they were legitimate sequels and that "The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly" was an intentional prequel since many fans and movie buffs claim them to be. But until I started re-watching these films and reading more about them, I discovered that making them connected to each other was never the intention, which would explain why these films have such terrible continuity by never referencing each other or making sense to what happened to all the money that "The Man With No Name" earned in all these films that could make him rich for life! Eastwood's character wasn't ever refereed to as "The Man With no Name" in the films since he always had a different name, which I interrupted the reason for it to be that he changes his name in each film to give himself a different identity for every new adventure, when in reality it wasn't the case and purely used as a marketing tool for the films promos. The trilogy itself doesn't so much as have an official name, since it would also be titled as "The Man With No Name Trilogy". So if they're not connected in terms of narration, why do so many fans and critics compare them and see them as being part of a saga?

Many of the obvious reasons are because they're westerns directed by Sergio Leone, star Clint Eastwood along with many of the same actors who appeared in most of the films, and have music composed by Ennio Morricone. But what really makes those films so comparable are that they all share the same style, look, and feel. Eastwood's appearance, character, and performance barely alters much in these movies where he always appears to be playing the same guy; even though the locations to the films changes, the environments still always looked gritty, intense and artistic from Leone's filming techniques; and the stories though having different scenarios and motivations were always about a lone cowboy searching for money as he kills people for it. When I talk about Steven Spielberg's unofficial "Monster Trilogy" ("Duel", "JAWS", and "Jurassic Park") they share plenty of similarities to one another where Spielberg himself has claimed to be "kinship between them". However, aside from Spielberg's perception of them that isn't commonly known or addressed by many film-buffs, the main reason why Spielberg’s film are not seen as being part of an unofficial trilogy or are rarely ever compared is because all three of them have an identity for each them to stand-out on its own. With Leone’s unofficial trilogy, if you've seen all three films, it's in many respects hard not to talk about or compare the others when bringing them up in conversation for how they identical they are to each other.

So if all three of them are pretty much the same movie that aren't trying to follow a continuing narrative, does that make them to be lazy works of film? Not quite. They are overall excellently made films that are big and visually stunning, with great performances, characters who stand-out, entertaining and suspenseful action, atmospheric music, and stories that are simple but offer plenty of investment for its large amount of surprises. And as I clearly stated just now in my review of its third installment, they're films that get better and better as they progress. "A Fistful of Dollars" was a terrific starting point for Leone, who didn't have much creative freedom, but was still able to show off his talents as a filmmaker by creating a western unlike any other. "For A Few Dollars More" became the point when Leone was given more freedom to explore and try out new strategies as a filmmaker, in terms of action, storytelling, and cinematography. And when he made "The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly" it was time for him to use nearly all the elements from the previous movies that made them successful while still challenging himself by giving his audience something different and powerful that became the most celebrated and influential film in the franchise!

What truly made all of these films to be such huge staples in the western genre was how different they were to the typical American western. I can't say that it isn't expected because these films weren't made in America despite having an American actor staring in them, but were actually made in foreign countries by Italians that were refereed to as "Spaghetti Westerns" which were made on a low budget. However, as most spaghetti westerns at the time were mainly comedies, Leone wanted to further on the western genre by changing the tropes that people at the time were used to seeing in run of the mill western films back in America, while subtly making fun of them in a tongue and cheek sort of way. The hero though not bad looking is definitely not a handsome and well-groomed pretty boy who acts heroic, he's a cold killer who only does good if there's something in it for him. The villains weren't all talk who just kidnapped, robbed, and simply shot people; they were savage and greedy killers that raped, killed, and tortured people in grotesque and traumatizing ways just for the fun and thrill of it, no matter if the people they harmed were against them or not. The world that the films were set as gorgeous as it looked didn't look as polished as you would usually see in a western for how dusty and dirty it is, as the characters live in a world full of constant fear and violence where only the strong survive. And the violence weren't always satirized since there would be the use of blood and extended scenes of building-up the tension or showing people slowly getting killed and beat-up; but they weren't always taken seriously since some of the deaths (if not most) while cool and full of style, were also exaggerated and even poked humor at the genre, whether how an actor pretends to play dead, Tuco making fun of a typical cliche, or Eastwood using a machete to kill a surviving bandit. I can't certainly say that these films and its choices were the first ones to try it (I'll get into that in my next review), but they were still definitely big game changers for westerns that would inspire American filmmakers to take extra steps forward, as Leone created a distinct style in his films that can never be mistaken for anything else outside of them. You see Eastwood, hear the music, and gaze at Leone's artistic looking shots, and you think of one of the films from this trilogy!

The only major problem I can find in any of these movies is the dubbing. Since these films were made outside of America, it would be more than likely that the majority of the actors didn't speak English. And most of them weren't Italian either, they were all different ethnicity that Leone chose not mainly for their skills as actors, but because they had distinctive facial features to them that either fit the look of the character or made them stand-out (thus adding to his iconic portrait like-style of cinematography). Leone himself only spoke little English as well, and would simply direct his actors by telling them to watch him as he would act out the scenes himself, and then would shoot the actors performing the scenes as they spoke in their native language. Afterwards the films would then be dubbed and edited in post-production in one whole language for each country that the film gets distributed too, which in some ways makes me curious to see a cut of these films with all the original native languages mixed together that probably wouldn't be good, but would be interesting for fans like myself to hear the majority of the actor's performances in their native tongues. The dubbing for many people may come off as distracting for the odd edits, the occasional terrible lip-syncing, and the obvious sense that people are recording their lines in a booth. I personally never had that big of a problem with it since the actors voices always matched how these characters would sound and behave through decent editing techniques, when with say the dubbing for the American Godzilla films, the actors voicing the Japanese actors would sound too white American as these films barely tried to hide the terrible lip-syncing. And as the films got better and better, so did the dubbing, especially when it came to casting a few more American actors in the lead roles.

But apart from the bad dubbing, these films are all excellent, and should be celebrated for its influence with changing westerns, the appeal they have on pop culture, and launching Eastwood's career as a movie star! The films may not be connected in terms of story, but they share so many things in common that they may as well be seen as trilogy, whether you can make sense out of its continuity or not! It just possibly may be the best unofficial trilogy to have ever existed for how strong its fanbase is by adopting these three separate films as one whole saga!

It's became so recognized and celebrated that even "The Great Movie Ride" at the last minute created an animatronic of Eastwood as "The Man With No Name" (assumingly from the third film, since he’s not wearing his poncho) as he hangs back by a saloon smoking his short cigar. And yet for some strange reason, there are still tons of people who don't talk about these films or aren't even aware about the films before "The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly"! It's highly unfortunate that the mainstream crowd doesn't celebrate these films as much as the film historians and fans of the trilogy do, but considering how not many people in this generation aren’t into westerns the same way as people once were, I can't say that its the series fault and am at least glad that there are still many people who keep it alive both young and old. If you're not into westerns, I still highly recommend that you give these films a watch if you want a complete full dosage of pure entertaining badass action on an artsy level! But if you have to see one, then definitely see "The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly"!

JURASSIC PARK 3

It's July 4th and as usual it's time for me to review a sequel from Steven Spielberg's unofficial Monster Trilogy. Considering that the new generation of Jurassic Park movies "Jurassic World: The Fallen Kingdom" was released less than a month ago (that I did not see yet), I say now would be the perfect time for me to review the third installment to the "Jurassic Park" films...

I've only seen the film once during my Middle School years in the same year when I decided to give "The Lost World: Jurassic Park" a re-watch. I remember my experience viewing the film vaguely, except that I was more entertained by it than the second movie. The only other thing I remember about the film was how much it was hyped up during the promos for the DVD releases of the first two films, as the DVDs themselves would contain a live hotlink to the set of the third film and a teaser trailer. It wasn't until the announcement for the release of "Jurassic World" when I began to hear critics, comedians, and people on social media constantly talk about how awful the third film was, since everyone at the time was re-watching these films to hype themselves up for the new one. So, for a while, I've began debating on which one of these two was the worst of the sequels before "Jurassic World", and now after witnessing the film once more, it's officially time for me to make that conclusion! ON WITH THE REVIEW!

Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neil) still continues to dig for dinosaur bones after the events of the first film, and has gained fame from what happened at the park in which he feels a bit frustrated that people only care about his experience at the park, than the factual information about dinosaurs that he uncovered from his own discoveries. Grant vows to never ever return to "Jurassic Park" until (through a weak and lazy re-trend of what brought him to the Island in the first movie) he is offered a large sum of money to fund for his digging by a wealthy couple (played William H. Macy and Tea Leoni) if he will provide them an aerial tour of the island from the second movie for their anniversary. Upon reaching Site B, Grant discovers that the couple are divorced and that they're actually going to the island to rescue their son Eric (Trevor Morgan) who went missing while going parasailing by the island with Leoni's boyfriend, and needed Grant as an escort. Grant has never been to the second island and therefore doesn't know his way around, while the couple who hired him admit that they lied to him about being rich and can't pay him. Grant, the couple, his assistant Billy (Alessandro Nivola), and a mercenary (Michael Jeter) than get stranded on the island after crashing their plane when being chased by one of the dinosaurs, and must survive from the dinosaurs living on the island as they look for Eric and figure out how they're going to get out once they find him or what's left of him.

Some of the key problems that I hear many fans of the franchise complain about is the film being shorter than the previous two films and as a simplistic chase movie with no moral or theme regarding science and nature to tie the dinosaur action together. The reasons for why the film is nothing more than a simple chase B movie involving dinosaurs running at a shorter pace is mainly due to the fact that no one had a clear vision of what the film would be like until filming wrapped up. As a matter of fact, filming for the movie began before the script was completed since so many ideas were rejected. The writer of the two books Michael Crichton offered a few ideas that were turned down; the director of the last two films Steven Spielberg had the idea to have a story of Dr. Alan Grant living on the Island in a tree to study the dinosaurs for not being allowed to further his research on dinosaurs, that was rejected since the film's director Joe Johnston didn't believe that Alan would return to the island after his near-death encounter with the dinosaurs; and a story involving teenagers stranded on the island was dropped because Johnston felt that the concept seemed like "a bad episode of friends". After the idea involving the teenagers, a second script was completed that involved Alan and Billy along with a group of other people (who are in many ways similar to the characters in the film) visiting the island to conduct an investigation surrounding mysterious and unusual killings happening on the mainland that they believe are escaped dinosaurs. Arriving at the Island they crash land and use their skills of survival when encountering the dinosaurs. Meanwhile on the mainland it would eventually be revealed that the creatures responsible for the mysterious deaths were the Pteranodons. The project was then green-lit, and effects, costumes, and sets were being created, as the casting for the lead roles were complete. However, 5 weeks before shooting began, Johnston and the film's producer Steven Spielberg abandon the entire script feeling that it was too complicated. With little time to start filming and to figure out a plot to tie all the dinosaur action together, David Koepp who wrote the screenplay for the first two films suggested that the film's story should just be focused on recusing a kid stranded on the island, since it will be easy to make and will allow Johnston and the team to do as much as they want with the dinosaurs, and use ideas that were left over from the previous two films that were cut out for time or budget constraints. Considering how much trouble that Johnston and Spielberg had with the scripts that they were given it's no wonder why they gave us such a short and basic sequel, which is disappointing but truthfully after reviewing the first of the "Jurassic Park" sequels, I'm in many ways glad for it. That's not to say that I don't wish that the film was longer or had a much more cleverly written plot, if anything I wish that the script they had before rejecting it near the last minute was the film's overall story. It’s just considering how overlong and dull the second film was that had a forced and horribly executed animal rights message, I like that the film just tries to play it safe by removing the themes that the previously two films had so it won't seem redundant, and just providing us a non-stop dinosaur action flick for nearly the entirety of the film for its shorter run time. With the film being short and deciding to exploit the dinosaurs more without feeling the need to preach us a message that we've already heard from the first film, of course that doesn't automatically make it a good movie. It still needs to have interesting characters, effects as strong as the last two movies, and a sense of enchantment, adventure, and horror, which were all the elements that made the first film such a classic.

In the second film two of the main characters from its successor were brought back (4 if you count that forced and awkward cameo of Lex and Tim) with the original actors reprising their roles, where this film decides to do the same exact thing. Sam Neil reprising his role as Dr. Alan Grant was nowhere near as disappointing as seeing Jeff Goldblum reprise his role as Ian Malcolm in the previous film. That's mainly due to the fact the film stayed faithful to his character by not taking away all the characteristics that made Grant such an interesting and likable character that Neil himself grandly recaptures. His dry and deadpan sarcasm along with his stubborn and tough attitude are still entertaining to watch. And how he talks about dinosaurs is still amusing for how serious and into it he is. My favorite moment regarding his talk about dinosaurs is in his introduction scene when he tells a kid that's playing with his toy dinosaurs of what dinosaur to use to fight each other when he sees him using two herbivores. I can't think of a time where I found myself being bored or annoyed by Neil's on-screen presence for how highly enjoyable his performance is. The only problem with the character's overall presence in the movie is much like how I felt the second film should have Neil the star, this film should've had Goldblum as the star since his character was at the second island in the last film, when Neil wasn't (that Grant humorously establishes twice in the film). This was most likely because of the problems that went on with the scripts and ideas given to Johnston and Spielberg, and I'll definitely take Sam Neil over Jeff Goldblum who just played a lifeless version of such an excessive character, but wouldn't it be nice to see these two work-off each other again since they were fun to watch when interacting in the first film. It's not like Jeff Goldblum turned down being in the movie, in fact he was never approached to be in the third installment to the franchise. But then again, if Malcolm's character is going to still remain the same way as he was when we saw him last, maybe perhaps it was best to leave him out altogether.

Besides, Goldblum absence wouldn't be as missed as leaving out Grant's girlfriend Dr. Ellie Sattler played once again by Laura Dern. Dern gives her role the same amount of charm as Neil does with his role, where the interaction between them still feels natural as the discussions that they both have about dinosaurs comes across as believable and engaging. When the film ended it was implied that Grant is ready to have kids and that they're thinking about taking their relationship to the next level. And when I saw them together, I was overjoyed to see Grant have a family with Sattler looking completely happy...until we find out in the very same scene that they're no longer together, and that the kids that Grant is with are actually from the family that Sattler is having with another man. It's almost as if the film was trolling us into believing he's with Sattler, than straight up telling us that his character-arc in the first film meant nothing. And the guy she's with only appears briefly in two scenes shown back to back with exposition on what he does that's more easy to miss than Lex being a hacker, whose presence is so pointless (aside from being a tool for the ending) and forgettable (where I don't so much as remember his name, a line he says, or what he exactly looks like) that it baffles me of why these two were split-up in the first place, especially when already acting like a happy couple. If it's because that these two weren't supposed to go to the island together, or that Dern was only available for a short amount of time, I'm sure the writers could've come up with some kind of reason for it, even if it isn't plausible. After all they did come up with weak reasons for why Grant goes to the island, and why he's in this film instead of Goldblum. Just anything except for the two splitting up.

 

Apart from the break-up and the weak writing for why Grant is going to site B, I'm in the very least glad that two of the original cast members from the first installment to the franchise haven't lost their charm, because if they have I would like them just as much as the supporting cast of the film, as well as the characters from "The Lost World". Instead of Sattler always being at Grant's side and going to the island with him, we have a bland college kid named Billy being put in her place. I'm not going to act like he's completely unappealing because there are one or two things that I find interesting about him. His plan of stealing Raptor eggs to sell them is foolish since they're part of the reason for why they're being chased by the Velociraptors, but his reasons for doing so are understandable since he wants to fund Grant's dig site for another 10 years. He could've easily been a needless villain like the poachers in "The Lost World" or Vincent D' Onofrio's character in "Jurassic World" but they instead make him a regular kid who thinks he's doing right as much as Hammond felt like cloning dinosaurs, which I find to be fitting and quite welcoming. I also like that there are subtle hints that he may possibly be the one responsible for the expedition since he seems to know the couple in-need of Grant's help for how they instantly know his name, and how he's fully on board with having dinner with them and going to the island. He probably thought that the couple missing their son on the island and using Grant to help them would be the perfect way of having the two meet and going to the island with them to steal dinosaur eggs. It's not fully implied, but if that's the case, I have to praise what a mastermind this kid is. However, what holds this character back from being anything special is Nivola dull and annoyingly dweeb delivery that prevents his character from being appealing. Michael Jeter who is usually enjoyable to watch isn't given much of a character or a personality in this film, who's talent and presence feels wasted, where he doesn't leave any impression except for his last appearance in the film.

I'll at least give Jeter and Nivola this, they're nowhere near as insufferable as the Kirby’s who lured Grant to the island. I can't remember a single character in any of the previous two films who were as annoying as these two are. William H. Macy is a terrific actor but he's not given much to work with. All he does is act scarred, annoyed, and make jokes (that don't at all feel like are jokes) as he and his wife constantly keep shouting their son's name through the jungle and talk about how smart and strong Eric is over and over to the point where you're praying for the dinosaurs to eat them. Macy gives an awkward performance for the little he's given to do that makes me wish that he wasn't as wasted as Jeter's appearance in the film. But what makes the misuse of such a great actor more painful and why I consider these two to be the most annoying characters in the franchise is Tea Leoni as the wife! She is one of the most annoying, dumbest, dullest, and useless damsel in distress characters I have ever seen a film! When she's not bursting your ear drums while giving you a headache in the process from shouting when she's either in danger, gazing at something horrifying for a long period of time, and calling Eric with her husband (and at one point with a megaphone to heighten the levels of irritation and stupidity), she's as unemotionally cold and lifeless as a robot that has a duh look on its face for how she hangs open her jaw. Even when finding and comforting her son she still comes across as robotic.

The only supporting character who's as likable, interesting, and well-acted as Neil and Dern is the kid they're searching for. I'm sorry to give it away for newcomers of the film, but I do feel the need to address this character. This is a kid who has spent 8 weeks on the island with man-eating dinosaurs as he tries to find ways to survive, which is a concept that I find to be so fascinating that it makes me wish that he was the focus of the film, or had more screen-time showing more of his survival skills. Just how Trevor Morgan explains his skills of survival and interest in science with Grant, makes me believe that this is a witty kid who's been on the island for a while with no sense of how long it’s been. It's a good if not great performance that shocks me that the same kid who starred in something as stupid as "Barney's Great Adventure" can upstage the likes of Macy and Jeter. There's only one major downside to this character. As soon as he's together with all the main characters, he stops being interesting and becomes as much of a helpless victim as his parents are, which takes away all believability that this kid is a strong survivor since we don't get to really see him demonstrate his skills and knowledge afterward.

 

There were fans who were disappointed that Spielberg wasn't in the director's chair and that John Williams didn't compose the music for the film like the other films before it. But I didn't think Joe Johnston was a bad choice since he's been known for directing adventure family classics with dazzling special effects like "Honey, I Shrunk the Kids" and "Jumanji". And Don Davis who took over Williams place as a composer does a fine job of composing the score for the film that sounds similar to Williams’ original score but still has an original style to make it stand out as its own thing. Special effects wizard Stan Winston who helped make the dinosaurs look so real, returns to the franchise a third time, where you can tell from the behind-the-scenes footage that plenty of time and effort went into creating the animatronics for the dinosaurs. Most of the characters are either poorly written or not acted well, but at least they hired the right people to try to make the action and visual elements of the film appealing than in the previous films.

However, right from the characters first real on-screen encounter with the dinosaurs, I was disappointed. The CGI used for the dinosaurs look nearly as a cheap as a movie from the Syfy channel for how colorfully 3-D animated they look. The shots of the dinosaurs running in the distant make them look uncanny to the point where you are aware that somebody animated and pasted them onto the backgrounds, and the close-up shots of the CGI dinosaurs make them look faker (and trust me there's plenty of those shots) and downright hideous for how obviously computer generated they are. And don't think that I believe the animatronics look better than the crappy CGI, because they're just as bad. When I watch the animatronic and puppetry for the dinosaurs in any of the two "Jurassic Park" films, I'm fully convinced that they are alive from how they move, breath, and are shot and edited. The animatronics in this film though, I got more of the vibe that I was looking at the dinosaurs from the "Universal Studios" theme park ride for how limited their moments are as their heads just move back and forth as they blink and open their mouths in a very mechanical way. And what makes these effects even more degrading is since they're always switching back and forth between CGI and animatronics it’s easier to spot the changes since neither of them look convincing. Granted, nowadays we can tell the difference between both effects for the dinosaurs in the original films, but they still look fantastically realistic that are still at times hard to spot which one is computer and which one isn't. The only effects that look convincing in this film are the sets and location shots of Hawaii for when the characters are in the jungle, where it’s incredibly hard to tell between the sets and actual locations they used for how they blend so perfectly together.

I'm not going to pretend that every single shot and effect regarding the dinosaurs are dreadful, because there are a few times where the dinosaurs will look convincing. Some close-up shots of the animatronic dinosaurs like the Pteranodons, the Spinosaurus, and the Velociraptors look life-like. There are times where the CGI for the Pteranodons would look believeable, I guess mainly for how grey and dark the backgrounds are which makes their designs easier to blend in. As fake as the dinosaurs looked in the stampede scene, I still felt the impact of it from the sound effects, speed, and how the actors interacted with the fake dinosaurs. And the entire sequence with the Spinosaurus attacking the boat is easily the best scene that whole the film has to offer for how incredibly realistic the Spinosaurus looks when compared to the other scenes. The reason for it is because in order for the effects team to hide its limited movements and cheesy CGI effects, they set the scene in a dark environment full of rain while using fast editing to make the dinosaur appear to be real. And it's not like you can't get a good look at the dinosaur because you do, so it's not using the tricks used in "JAWS", or shaking the camera or blurring things to the point where you can't see a thing. Throw in a scene where the characters are trapped in a cage as they are nearly drowning and about to be eaten as they call for help, and you have the most intense scene in the movie. The only part that ruins this thrilling sequence is when we see a cameo from Barney for when Sattler's kid answers the phone and gets distracted a bit when he sees the purple beast on TV! Unless this is a music video by Weird Al Yankovic, Barney should never ever appear in a "Jurassic Park" film! The effects on the whole are still terrible when comparing them to the other movies, but at least there are moments and a scene or two where they'll look good, if not as outstanding (and most of those scenes where they look good involves them being in darkness)!

In my review of "The Lost World" I expressed how disappointed I was in the appearance of the Velociraptor who lost all sense of scares and intelligence since they were being reduced to as a pack of mindless wild animals. I can't say that they look scary in this movie either, because aside from how fake they look, the tension and jump scares involving them feel just as tamed as they were when we last saw these creatures. The first time we ever see them, and even a dinosaur for that matter in the whole film is during a dream-sequence that Grant has where he sees that everyone on the plane has vanished and sitting beside him is a raptor hanging-loose while causally saying his name. It's a beyond silly and embarrassing way of showing off the dinosaurs for the first time in any "Jurassic Park" film, especially with ones as frightening as the Velociraptors! At least thank God it's a stupid dream-sequence, and not Grant's actual encounter with them. What does however make them look less creepy and more comical when he does encounter them outside of the dream-sequence is the feathers added on to their heads. Now I get that it's been scientifically proven that Velociraptors had feathers, but considering the fact that dinosaurs aren't still roaming around and that these films are more based on Sci-Fi than they are on actual facts, I don't at all mind the liberties that were given to the dinosaurs one bit. That doesn't mean that I'm not opened to seeing actual representations of dinosaurs either, it just doesn't bother me as much as other people may feel for how scary, enchanting, and awesome they look where I see their recreations to part of the Sci-Fi element of the films. Still as less frightening as the Raptors are, what I am pleased about is how the film portrays them as smart creatures again where we witness how they communicate with one another while finding ways to outsmart the humans as they seek to get back the eggs that Billy stole from them. I will admit however that the Raptor whistle that Grant uses against them is a bit ridiculous that just raises a number of questions.

If you're wondering why I haven't brought up the T-Rex at all when discussing the dinosaurs that's because she gets axed off by the new dinosaur the Spinosaurus as soon as she's introduce in a very short fight scene. The reason for it was due to the fact that the neck for the T-Rex animatronic was damaged and repairing it was too expensive to fix, resulting with a central character to the franchise being killed nearly as quickly as Godzilla killed most of his foes in "Final Wars". I don't hate the Spinosaurus because with bad effects aside, she does have all the qualities of what made the T-Rex so great (including having the same implausible but shocking and awesome stealth that the T-Rex had at the end of the first movie) except that she has the advantage to seek out her prey on both land and sea since she can swim underwater when attacking and sneaking up to her victim, and has a larger snout when compared to the T-Rex’s! I just wish the T-Rex wasn't axed off so quickly, and gave us an equal amount of scenes of them chasing after the characters and concluding the film with an epic fight, rather than having the film wrap-up so abruptly that it leaves you with more questions than the Raptor whistle for how little sense it makes that is served complete with a cop-out regarding the fate to one of the characters. But considering what happened to the T-Rex puppet, though it angers me I still can't fully blame the makers of the film for the decision that they were forced to make.

A dinosaur that I wished to see in the original film were Pterodactyls or Pteranadons since I felt that the park wouldn't be complete without a dinosaur that could fly. "The Lost World" had a few, but we didn't see them attack or do anything except appear in the very last shot of the movie, as if the film was saying to us "here's your Pterodactyls, happy now?" And though we'd get a much better scene involving these creatures in "Jurassic World", it was still neat to finally have a scene of these dinosaurs soaring, pecking, and picking up their victims. It wasn't as suspenseful or exciting as I hoped it would be, but there are still one or two unsettling shots of the creatures and a sense of weight despite how fake they look and the environment looking nearly as bland as it did in the last film. I'll at least give the film this, they at least look much more convincing here than they would be in the following film.

I've talked about how the film lacks as much suspense and terror in "The Lost World", well it also lacks its awe and wonder as well.  Remember in the first film when we were given time to admire the dinosaurs like when we saw them for the first time, or witnessed a baby dinosaur hatch out of her egg, or watched the characters get a close encounter with a Triceratops? Well, these scenes come and go by so quickly, that you're not given the same amount of time to appreciate their beauty since they only last for at least 30 seconds if not 2 minutes. And the strange part is when we do get a long and close look at the dinosaurs when they're not attacking the characters, they either look monstrously uncanny or are doing things that aren't nearly as enchanting as the characters make it out to be. Like when the Pteranadons leave the island to find a new nesting ground in a most likely inhabited environment that could mean death to millions of people. Why do the characters find it so wonderful after nearly being torn apart by them?! Did they forget how dangerous they were for how beautiful they look when they fly?! I'm just happy that this moment wasn't used in the first film as Spielberg originally intended.

OVERALL THOUGHTS

This film and "The Lost World" are neither good movie at all. They're not all that enchanting; they're hardly ever fun, thrilling or awesome to watch; the majority of characters in both films are either boring, idiotic, or annoying; and some of the decisions that both films make are downright cringe-worthy for fans of the original classic! But if I had to say which one of these films has a better advantage for being easy to sit through, if not less painful, I would strangely have to go with "Jurassic Park 3". Sam Neil is highly entertaining as the script stays true to his character, while Jeff Goldblum (who is my favorite character and performance in the first film) is as dull as a rock with all his life and characteristics being drained out of him, that I find to be much worse than Grant and Sattler splitting-up (though that still angers me). The fact that this film has no moral or theme regarding the dinosaurs and is just a simple point A to point B action/adventure flick, serves the film better than the poorly written "Animal Rights Message" in the second film, where this one spends most of its time giving us more focus on the dinosaur action while making good use out of scenes that were rejected in the last two films. The shorter run time makes getting through all the crap that the film throws at us more tolerable when the second film went on for so long that it took nearly forever for it to end for how boring it was. As bad as the writing for Grant, Sattler, and Eric can be at times at least are likable, when all the characters from the last film weren't. Everything regarding the film's atmosphere looks more colorful and appropriately dark, when the look for the second film though big is still hideous to look at for how dirty, grey, and dreary it is. And though the film has some terribly goofy moments, they're not as stupid as the Velociraptors poor depiction of being mindless creatures, and the T-Rex's short and cartoony attack on San Diego since it doesn't fit the rest of the film's dark and serious nature. The only two advantages that the second film has is that the effects for the dinosaurs look awesome, while the effects in this film mostly stink; and offers more memorable deaths for how gruesome they can be, as the deaths here are nothing special. "The Lost World" may be better on a technical level, but this film wins on an entertaining level which I find to be a little more appealing by comparison. However, if one thing is certain when regarding any of these two films, they’re both a complete waste of time that has little good in them.