Deep Blue Sea

Traditionally, I review at least one shark movie or "JAWS" knock-off every summer. This summer I'm deciding to look at a popular shark movie...

 

From website rankings to "JAWS" fans, to even people like Roger Ebert and (at the time wounded) Stephen King, "Deep Blue Sea" is regarded to be one of the better shark movies outside of "JAWS." That's not to say it's hailed to be better or as masterful as "JAWS," nor has it been widely seen as a genuinely good movie. But compared to many other B shark movies that are usually forgotten or overlooked, "Deep Blue Sea" has gained a reputation and legacy overtime that's still present among fans of shark movies. I don't expect it to be an incredible film, but is it as decent of a shark movie as people have built up to be? ON WITH THE REVIEW!

Set at a remote underwater laboratory called Aquatica, scientists lead by Dr. Susan McCallister (Saffron Burrows) are in search of a cure for Alzheimer's disease, using sharks as their test subjects. The results of finding the cure are successful, but Susan has enhanced the sharks' brain size during the experiments, making them intelligent while gaining extraordinary abilities. During a raging storm, the sharks flood the underwater facility as they swim around, preying on the people caught in the disaster. The only chance for the team's survival is by reaching the surface.



The set-up alone isn't half-bad. If anything, it's very intense, providing a claustrophobic environment where the characters face other possible fates than just serving as a tasty meal for the film's predators. This kind of premise isn't the first time a shark movie involved a shark attacking an underwater base. There was already "JAWS 3-D" when the shark trapped a bunch of tourists at a marine aquarium and broke the glass in "Sea World's" underwater control room. Unlike how "JAWS 3-D" did so little with these breathtaking scenarios, this film takes full advantage of it by continually throwing one obstacle after another as the characters try to escape. This film takes a few things from "JAWS" in terms of a few shots, and cues for its opening score. But they're very minimal. The only direct reference the film makes is when a license plate is pulled out of the shark's mouth, looking identical to the one used in the movie that launched this particular sub-horror genre. And I have to admit; it was a funny nod for how out of nowhere it was. The film's plot functions more like a shark version of "Jurassic Park." An accident involving a predator altered by science summons an outsider (played by one of the actors in the dinosaur film Samuel L. Jackson) to investigate, similar to how the characters were brought to the park. And just how these intelligent dinosaurs were able to escape from their cages and eat any human they come across, the sharks who are given knowledge and escape from their cages behave no different. This film is more deserving of the title "Jurassic Shark" than the actual "Jurassic Shark" film. With all joking aside, despite its similarities to "Jurassic Park," it's still original enough to stand on its own, and it's in many ways cool to see a shark version of a classic dinosaur Blockbuster that in some ways improves upon the ideas in "JAWS 3-D."



The film doesn't look cheaply made like other shark movies either. Visually it's fun to watch. The sets for Aquatica give this location enough personality to make it a fascinating facility to explore. The exteriors to the site look as gigantic and spacious as the sets in "WaterWorld." The interiors provide a stunning yet claustrophobic environment that is dangerously ominous as a disaster scene in a James Cameron film or the Nostromo in "Alien." The sharks' effects are indeed some of the best special effects shown in a shark film. The attention to detail to these massive animatronic sharks' appearances and movement look so life-like that it's scary. The film even went as far as to use real-life sharks in some of the scenes, and sometimes, it's hard to tell which is real and which is animatronic. The only time it's easy to see when they're fake is when the film resorts to CGI-ing them. At least in other shark films that use CGI effects, they're at least consistently hideous, making them look boring than offensively dreadful. Combining such bottom of the barrel CGI effects with such realistic looking sharks is just as painfully distracting as watching Godzilla in the "Millennium Era" become computer-generated.



Perhaps if the film had thrilling direction, maybe overlooking the film's ugly CGI would be somewhat forgivable. After all, the shark in "JAWS" wasn't technically advanced either, and people still praise the movie as a masterpiece in horror. And sure the film has its moments of genuine suspense. The opening scene involving the shark attacking a bunch of teenagers on a boat in the middle of the sea is well-paced, builds anticipation by keeping the shark hidden, and has a surprise ending that doesn't often happen at the beginning of shark films. And the scene when Susan finds herself trapped in a room with one of the sharks is pretty terrifying, given there's no place to get around it. Easily the most chilling death in the film is watching one of the team members disappear underwater after having trouble reaching the ladder as Aquatica floods. And when you think she's done for, she pops right up a few seconds later in the jaws of the shark's mouth, screaming to then disappearing again underwater filled with blood. It's a well-orchestrated demise that's as spine-tingling as watching the man on the rowboat in "JAWS" vanish underwater. And the gore effects (that isn't animated) are a gruesome sight to watch (when judging the standards of the genre). But as a whole, the suspense isn't that strong.



The film creates such great set-ups worthy of both action and suspense, only to rush through them, focusing more on action than with terror. One example involves a chef played by LL Cool J getting trapped inside an oven underwater with the shark trying to break it open as he's slowly getting roasted. The thought of this idea alone makes my heart-pond for how horrific it is. But the scene doesn't create much of an impact of what's at stake. Cool J doesn't look like he's boiling, nor acts like he's in pain or in parallel (more laughing at the irony of his supposed fate if he doesn't escape), while the shots of the shark ramming the oven are edited so fast that there's no time to feel the weight of each time it crashes. It comes off as Cool J performing an escape act that Houdini would do for how comical and in control he is, rather than afraid of facing two possible deaths with little chance of survival. There's a scene when a shark drags a guy strapped onto a stretcher underwater and flings him to break the glass where the lab's located. Again, another frightening idea that's also used as a surprise attack. But seeing a victim attached to the mouth of the CG shark is still laughable, and witnessing the characters watch the fake CG glass break so calmly makes this scene almost as silly as "JAWS 3-D".



And yes, the film does have more than enough over the top deaths that are funny than they are scary, sometimes offering big fake explosions and over-dramatic use of slow-mo. The funniest ones usually happen when people are happy or relieved until a fake CG shark comes out of nowhere to attack them. The most ridiculous scene that gets mentioned a lot when regarding this film is Samuel L Jackson's death. It's mainly remembered for how this big named star gets eaten by one fake shark followed by another after he makes a very corny motivational speech supported by uplifting music. For me, what makes it funny is that he's making a speech about survival as he stands right in front of the pool where a shark just destroyed their submarine. We know people make stupid decisions in horror films all the time. But there's a difference between paranoia stupidity, and stupidly walking into danger when the signs are right in front of you. Even with a "don't stand there" sign in big letters with neon lights and an arrow, I think Jackson's character still would've ignored it as if a damaged vehicle as their only way out right next to the spot isn't clear enough. It's a real pity that Jackson wasn't one of the survivors in this ordeal. Towards the end of the film, one of the survivors who gets horrifically bitten leaving a bloody trail behind somehow survives not looking as bad as he did when the shark bit him. If the film is going to use the same nonsensical logic of surviving and looking okay after being bitten by a shark from "JAWS: The Revenge," can it be given to Jackson?



Part of what makes many shark movies a bore is by focusing too much on the bland characters and their relationships, which are typically performed by terrible actors or big-named stars who don't try. This film spares that pain by having the plot focus more on the sharks and escaping from Aquatica than the characters. I'm all up in arms for having good characters in shark movies, except these films do it so rarely. This film creates characters who are easy to identify, provide a little bit of background history, focus purely on science and survival, and that's it. There's no romance, no constant rivalry towards each other, and very few drawn-out scenes that stop the film for them talking about their past or expressing emotion. It's just creating science and figuring out ways to get out and defeat the sharks, no filler.



Now just because the characters are simplistic, they could still be irritating or downright dull to get through if they're not acted well. While I can't say the acting in this film is anything special because it can be too over the top, nonchalant, and annoying at times, it's not bad. If anything, the acting is pretty decent, and at times believable. The pain and paranoia that the actors show is always constant where the struggles they go through (most of the time) feel real if not intense. Part of that is because the actors look uncomfortable. Getting drenched by water while standing in it for hours doesn't sound like a fun experience. Samuel L. Jackson claimed that working in the water wasn't just unpleasant, but it led to the actors accidentally getting poured with three tons of water that swept them across the set without a safety harness. And as disastrous as it was, the actors stayed in character as this accident was kept in the final movie when they tried to reach the elevator during the storm.



As the actors appear to look like their struggling, only a few of them stand-out as the rest are disposable for how little of an impression they leave. Dr. Susan would be the female equivalent of Dr. Frankenstein if she were under the direction of James Cameron. She's a stubborn, headstrong woman who breaks the rules of science for the best interest of humanity only to have it back-fire and put her and others in danger yet still pushes through to survive. She's not the best-written complex character or one of the strongest female characters in cinema; nevertheless, Saffron Burrows' performance still provides an excellent performance. Thomas Jane fits as the film's macho hero Carter, who's as vulnerable as the rest of the characters, yet have a strict and controlling presence when things seem impossible. Although he is portrayed as the film's hero and has plenty of interactions with the sharks, the film surprisingly doesn't have him kill any sharks. And unfortunately, neither does Samuel L. Jackson. It's LL Cool J as the film's comic relief who gets most of the shark action. It's a great twist to have your comic relief act more as the hero than the supposed hero if only the character were funny. LL Cool J may be good at rapping, but comedy is not one of his talents. His delivery and the jokes he has to work with can be so annoyingly awkward for how unnaturally forced and odd they are that I was anxiously waiting for a shark to devour him as quickly as possible. Originally Samuel L Jackson was going to play the character until his management rejected him playing a chef, thus creating a different role for him. I'm not saying the humor would be funny. Still, knowing Jackson's aggressively loud exaggerated personality in most of his work, he would most likely be more enjoyably entertaining compared to Cool J. Instead, we see a great actor who is perfect for a film of this kind get killed off way too soon, as Cool J's unfunny performance takes his place. The very least couldn't Carter be the character you'd think would lead the film be the one to die early since the film doesn't allow him to kill one of the sharks.

Overall Thoughts

"Deep Blue Sea" is full of flaws that can get quite degrading many times. But for the things it does right, it delivers more than enough good to warrant a view. If you can get past its eye-bleeding CGI, visually, it's one of the best-looking shark films out there for its innovative sets and outstanding practical shark effects. Aside from Cool J, the performances don't bore or annoy as each actor can turn in a good, if not a fantastic performance. And seeing that the film treats itself as a straightforward action film makes it an entertaining experience than sitting through the typical problems that most shark films have in their narrative. I was surprised by how the picture was able to deliver some legit terror and some genuinely funny moments, as most of these films usually fail at both. If you're not looking for big thrills and character depth and just want to be entertained by watching characters fight and escape from sharks with some cool effects, you'll be glad you watched it. It's the perfect mindless action-packed pop-corn B shark movie to view outside of "JAWS" that I'm satisfied I saw.

Jurassic World

It's July 4th, and it's time for me to review another sequel from Spielberg's unofficial Monster trilogy. I have completed all the infamous "JAWS" sequels, but I still have to finish reviewing the "Jurassic Park" sequels. I've covered all the sequels when they had "Park" in the title, now it's time to review the film that brought back the franchise since the damage of the third installment...



I have yet to re-watch the film since the last time I saw it in the cinemas when it first came out. My first impression was finding the film fun and nothing else. I thought it was the best of the sequels; I just didn't find myself loving it compared to the first film. Re-watching it now, did the film get any better, worse, or is it still okay? ON WITH THE REVIEW!



Ignoring how the film completely abandons the lessons learned about the park in the first movie. Hammond's wishes of leaving the dinosaurs alone in the second film. And that the film is going to reteach the same lesson about tampering with nature as we've seen in the first two films, the set-up is excellent. Part of the wonder of "Jurassic Park" is the imagination of how the concept of a dinosaur amusement park would function. We saw and heard about some attractions, but the film made it clear that there is more than meets the eye since the park is still in development. It felt like taking a stroll through the "imagineering department" and "Disneyland" under construction before opening with Walt Disney as a guide. We have an idea, but we're excited to see and learn more based on the previews and John Hammond's enthusiasm. I was hyped yet fearful that the film was going to shatter that part of the imagination from the first film, only to be surprised by how well the film magnificently executes the idea.



If "Jurassic Park" reflects "Disneyland" in the making, then "Jurassic World" resembles "Disney World" functioning as a theme park, zoo, and resort, with a little bit of "Sea World." Before the film reveals the attractions, to build-up to the wonders of the park, it shows audiences around the resort part of the Island to an updated version of Visitor's Center filled with high tech computers and holograms. The attractions themselves are as enchanting as any person who loves Dinosaurs would imagine, where kids can feed, pet, and ride on some of the dinosaurs like ponies. Spectacular shows (one mainly mimicking the Shamu show at "Sea World") and exhibits showing dangerous dinosaurs eating and doing cool tricks act as the park's source of entertainment. And of course, there are numerous rides to give guests a thrill while interacting with dinosaurs, including a tour inside a sphere (that has so many safety hazards that it's outstanding that it's been operating for so long). It goes right to the detail of giving the guests special wristbands (that are similar "Disney Magic Bands"), an attraction with a sponsor, and those silly safety videos with a celebrity. It looks and feels like an actual theme park. Yet as grand as it is, there is a depressing undertone that keeps it from enchanting. Unlike how the dinosaurs in the original park had wide open landscapes to live without too much human interference, this place is consumed by corporations dominating this land. The guests themselves are always seen occupying the dinosaur's space. The park was still in development in the first film; however, from John Hammond's love for the dinosaurs, he provided them more than enough space to live in his park (becoming one of his setbacks to why the dinosaurs didn't show up on the tour). The people who run the park don't care about the dinosaurs the same way Hammond did. They just see them as profit that they want to create and aggressively control to please crowds. It's a beautifully perfect set-up for a story of playing God with nature, creating an environment that looks stunning yet lacks enchantment for having people's heart entirely in the wrong place.



The beauty of the film's premise is it doesn't just decide to have dinosaurs run amuck in an operational theme park; it goes out of its way to create a brand new dinosaur called the Indominus Rex. I've always considered "Jurassic Park" to be a dinosaur version of "Frankenstein" for its themes on life told through Sci-Fi and horror with the dinosaurs in the place of the monster who are scary and sympathetic. This film takes the extra step of combining different types of dinosaurs into one, similar to how Dr. Frankenstein stitched different body parts together to create a man. And the reason why they chose to develop it is a clever idea. It's not just for the sake of raising profits. It's because people have become so used to dinosaurs that they no longer are interested in them and are more fascinated with technology and social media. The film doesn't clearly state how many years the park has been running, making this disinterest confusing since it doesn't feel that too much time has passed.



Nonetheless, it's still an ingenious idea because dinosaurs are animals, and therefore will eventually be looked at as regular animals all the time no matter how long they've been extinct. There are practically a million creative ways to combine different dinosaurs into one. Also, given that this new breed has spent its whole life in captivity away from other dinosaurs and is a mixture of different dinosaurs, this could be a story as tragic the Frankenstein monster. Imagine the dinosaur confused about who it is and where it is, angry for humans showing no mercy, and frightened of not just the human's hunting it down but also with the other dinosaurs. All these reasons give the Indominus Rex a perfect motivation to violently destroy everything in its path as its only means to deal with its emotions. The idea and its possibilities can easily be the plot for the movie for how intriguing and innovative it is.



The only tragedy related to the dinosaur in the finished film is how the film decides to waste all this potential just to have the Indominus Rex be nothing more than a monster. There are talks in the movie of how keeping the dinosaur isolated will cause it to go insane and cause mayhem, but when it does, it never feels like it's doing it out of emotion. It's destroying and eating people because that's what wild monsters do. When interacting with other dinosaurs, it kills them just for sport or quickly gets them to team up with it. Sympathy is non-existent. But hey, if it looks cool and scary, that should make up for it? The film has been building it up to be as frightening as the Velociraptors were, as well as different. No, it looks very bland and uninspiring. It seems like a gray T-rex with bumps. I'm not expecting something as over the top as a monster from a movie from the Syfy Channel, but I anticipate seeing something scary, cool, and original. And it has neither. It has a unique ability to camouflage like the Predator, which is neat, but as soon as that is revealed, it never does it again. That ability's only used as a tool for it to escape when having a faulty system controlled by workers who are lazy and overconfident is more than enough.



The effects don't do the creature many favors either. After Spielberg stopped directing the films, the special effects in the third film took the series a step backward for relying too much on CGI and having animatronics that looks suitable for a ride at "Universal Studios." The effects in "Jurassic World" only get worse by having the CGI pretty much dominate the film. Practicals have been used on the set, probably originally intending to use animatronics unaltered. Little good that did since it's clear that CGI was used over them to give them more life. To be fair, most of the scenes that choose to combine both special effects do appear to be living and breathing animals that you can touch, particularly the raptors with the squeeze cages, and the Apatosaurus. Everything else looks as phony as the dinosaurs in the last film for how animated they appear. Some may argue that the CGI in the original movie may seem dated, and while I can see their points, the dinosaurs still look like they're present most of the time. I will say this in defense to the dinosaurs in this film; they don't look as bad as the CGI for the bird, goat, and helicopter. Then again, the Pteranodons in "Jurassic Park 3" look more realistic than the pterosaurs'.



For the dinosaurs looking like they belong in a video game, naturally, that would mean the scares that the film attempts will suffer. Sure, but it's more than just the effects looking too computerized. Going back to the original classic, the scenes involving horror would take their time to build-up tension before the dinosaurs attacked as many of the scenes took place in a dark environment. "Jurassic World" has minimal patients with creating terror, as the scenes that are supposed to be slow-moving move at a rapidly fast pace to get to the action. Making things worse is that half of the scenes with the dinosaurs killing people occur during the day, making the scenes look less menacing and more like a summer B movie. The death scenes themselves go by just as quickly as the suspense that there's no time to feel the impact of it. The only death scene that looks and feels brutal is when a woman gets attacked by pterosaurs and devoured by a Mosasaurus. It's a great death scene that's dreadfully wasted on the wrong character. Some characters are deserving a fate as horrible as this, yet the film decides to take its sweet time, showing every graphic detail of a character getting munched who has a minor role.



A definite weakness that the franchise has failed to recapture from the first movie are likable characters who leave an impression. The sequels' characters were either bland, forgettable, irritating, or downright insulting (considering what the sequels did to the characters from the original). The characters in this film aren't that different either. I can't say they're as dull as the characters in "The Lost World," or as insufferable as most of the characters in "Jurassic Park 3". They're bearable at best, which I suppose is a slight improvement but not by much. The film has a few characters who are altered versions of the characters in the original. Some who have potential, like the park owner played by Irrfan Khan, who's a younger version of John Hammond, who's carefree like him except he leans more towards the business side and plans to take action when the systems are down. Others who just exist to be exactly like a character with only one significant difference, such as the nerdy comic relief (Jake Johnson) working in a control room similar to Wayne Knight's role, except he is a good guy than the antagonist. And some are just bland copies, like the kid Gray (Ty Simpkins) who's just a modern version of Tim, as he accompanied by an older brother (Nick Robinson) (instead of an older sister) who (unlike Lex) has no personality during their trip through the park.



The kids are at the park for the very same reason that Lex and Tim are. They're sent to spend time with their Aunt Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard) who helps run the park due to their parents getting a divorce. Claire herself is given a similar arc that Alan Grant had with the kids, by having her slowly build a bond with them as they adventure through the park. Nothing about Claire herself before she gets in on the adventure is anything special; she's just the typical stock workaholic guardian. Once Claire sets her high-heels out into the jungle to rescue her nephews (it's ridiculous that she wears them all this time, but isn't as distracting as people make it out to be), by the end of the film her relationship with the kids don't seem to change. The kids for the first two halves of the film have been outrunning the dinosaurs on their own, leaving no bonding time between them and their aunt where the focus should be. And after they meet-up at the end of the second half, there's still little to no time for the film to be building a connection because they're focused on stopping the new dinosaur than just getting the kids to safety. Alan Grant spent the entire second half of the film protecting and interacting with the kids. Claire spends most of her time with the Velociraptor whisperer Owen (Chris Pratt) trying to find them as the movie forces an afterthought romantic subplot between them.



I have to give the sequels credit for this because as they continued, the human villains started feeling less like villains and more like humans. As forgettable as the poachers were in "The Lost World" they still were willing to lend a helping hand to the "heroes." And the antagonist in "Jurassic Park 3" wasn't a villain in the first place, just a kid with good intentions who didn't think of the consequences of his actions. Regarding earlier about how the park is so corporate that the love for dinosaurs doesn't feel existent, seeing how most of the characters we spend time with are people running the park, this film would take the extra step by giving most of the cast antagonistic traits. Characters who are doing wrong without realizing it as they are consumed by profits only to learn their lesson when they watch the park fall. After all, they are the ones who created the Indominus Rex, therefore responsible for the problems that happened, making this more of a cautionary tale compared to any of the previous films (including the first film) for how there is no real villain this time. Blind greed and wanting to control nature is more than enough to put people's lives at stake, and it can happen to people who mean no harm.



The message is there, but the film decides to shoehorn in an obvious villain with no redeemable qualities played by Vincent D'Onofrio. No, he isn't a cold-hearted businessman who has nothing but money signs in his eyes, not to say he isn't greedy. He's the cliched military warmonger who you'd swear came out of a Saturday Morning Cartoon for how stupid his goal is. He's not the gung-ho military archetype who wants to kill the dinosaurs without preserving them or is doing something foolishly extreme that could endanger the people at the park. He's on the dinosaur's side for a different reason. He plans to weaponize the trained Raptors and sell them so they can eat the enemies on the battlefields. This plan is so ridiculous for how illogical it sounds that Chris Pratt points out how implausible it is, only making this guy's idea sound sillier than a severe threat to humanity. It's a plan that's going to backfire as soon as someone officially more idiotic than D'Onofrio's character approves it. And out of nowhere, the film makes Dr. Henry Wu (the only character from the first film making an appearance, played again by BD Wong) a twist villain, that doesn't go anywhere after the reveal. The strange part is, he already looks and acts like an obvious villain before the twist by always resembling a bond villain. It's odd to see a pleasant character who only has one scene in the first movie, now suddenly looking menacing from start to finish. What exactly is it with the "Jurassic Park" sequels changing their original characters for the worst (except for John Hammond, at least he was spared)?



The only character in the film who's both fascinating and memorable is Chris Pratt's character Owen. Not so much his personality, more because of what he does. Going into this film, I was sure that I would be let down by this character's relationship with the Velociraptors. The Velociraptors have been through plenty of ups and downs in the franchise. They were frightening in the first film; lost everything that made them scary as they were dumbed down in the second film; and were given the silliest moment in the franchise only to regain some dignity when they took action in the third film. To now have Star-Lord from "Guardians of the Galaxy" team-up with some of the scariest dinosaurs in film history sounded as goofy as the villain's master plan. Little did I know that his relationship with them would be the best interaction in the entire movie. Just because Owen imprinted on them since they were born as he trains and feeds them doesn't mean they love him like a father. They're still wild animals that can turn on him at any moment if he or others makes a single wrong move or so much as turns his back. Their relationship is built on trust, then it is love, making the connection believable. Pratt's acting furthers the believe-ability of this relationship for how frustrated and nervous he always looks when he's around them while still trying to maintain his cool. It takes a lot of guts, patients, and discipline to train a raptor, and Pratt successfully displays all those qualifications on-screen. Forgetting how fake the raptors look most of the time, the only real downside to this relationship is that the film backfires its message of not controlling nature when in the finale, it proves that they can. And the raptors don't just randomly fight like the T-Rex did at the end of the first film, they do it for their master.



Owen is the most intriguing character in the entire franchise because there are so many things that can be explored about him compared to other characters in the franchise. To be perfectly honest about the characters in "Jurassic Park," they're boringly simplistic on paper. On-screen however, they feel like people that you'd like to sit down and have a conversation. In this film, most of the characters are disposable, yet aren't as bad as the characters in the sequels. So, what is it that the characters in the first film have that this one is lacking? One word, charisma. It's easy to tell where the arcs in the original are going to go, who's going to die, and which one is going to be the brute, the comic relief, and the villain. What saves them from coming off as bland character archetypes is through the performances that the characters give.



As over the top they can be at times, they give their characters plenty of personality than what's written. Ian Malcolm can joke around and still prove his points with his excessive nature. Alan Grant can be a buzzkill; only he doesn't feel like he has just one face the entire time until rescuing the kids. He does smile, chuckle, and look genuinely excited like a kid when he sees the dinosaurs. Nedry is an incompetent baddie we feel no sympathy for, but we love to laugh with and at him from Wayne Knight's energy and timing in his deliveries. Donald Gennaro and Mr. Arnold are undoubtedly going to be on the menu. But they still stand-out for how happily anxious Gennaro wishes to profit from the park, and Arnold's cool and laid-back personality, feeling less like dull characters who just exist to die. The characters personalities weren't just enjoyable; their chemistry felt legit. Grant and Sattler were a cute couple. The bond that Grant has with the kids was adorable without feeling forced. The reactions that people have from Malcolm when he interacts with them are funny because they seem genuinely annoyed. There are subplots in the first film that are pointless too but are often overlooked for how charming and entertaining they all are.



The acting in "Jurassic World" doesn't allow the actors to have fun with their characters. Colin Trevorrow's direction tries so hard to make these lighthearted characters serious that their reaction comes off as artificial as the dinosaurs' effects for how pretentious it is. Not to say they don't have moments where they turn in an excellent performance, such as Chris Pratt's determination to take care of the raptors, and Dr. Wu's conversation with the park's owner, they're just so rare. Everything about the performances feels unnatural. They sound way too rehearsed, and appear to all have the same blank expression. In some ways, they act like the kid working the Gyropshere who hates his job and doesn't care for how lacking they are of emotion. It's sadder when the character they act like is the only actor who has a consistently good performance out all of them for how he seems genuinely unhappy with his job and confused when things get out of control. I praised Chris Pratt, but even he has plenty of moments where he lacks emotions, including in some scenes when he's angry. There's a sense that the actors are forced to restrain their acting abilities than going all out. Simpkins, Khan, Johnson, and D'Onofrio always feel like they are held on a leash for wanting to give more personality and expression to the characters than the performances shown in the finished film. When the actors do go for big emotions when they're not trying to look serious while speaking in a nonchalant monotone voice, their performances are only sillier for how overdone they are as their eyes are covered in fake tears.



For all its faults, "Jurassic World" still contains some of the best scenes in the entire franchise. The scene involving the dying Apatosaurus is seriously the most depressing scene shown in any "Jurassic Park" film. It's a quiet scene where the visuals do all the telling rather than the dialogue, which is paced slow, contains appropriate soft music, and has the most emotion a dinosaur has ever shown for how detailed its expressions are without going overboard. The pterosaurs' causing havoc in the park offers more than how the third film handled these flying reptiles. It doesn't play out for any kind of suspense (not to say the third film handled it well), and the effects for them are still horrific, but I'd be lying if I said it wasn't an entertaining sequence when looking at it as a giant B monster movie scene. We're not seeing these creatures pray on a few humans in a jungle; we're seeing them at the park destroying buildings, picking up multiple people and killing them in many different ways. The absolute highlight of the movie is the final monster brawl with the Velociraptors and the T-Rex fighting against the Indominus Rex playing off like a climax to a Godzilla movie, filled with the perfect amount of action, excitement, tension, and destruction. It's a pity that the film doesn't contain more scenes of dinosaurs running wild in the actual park itself because those two scenes and its environment make the film a treat to watch.



Part of the fun of watching the movie is catching the many references to the first film. Usually when a sequel keeps calling back to the original, it's done out of laziness and can be quite annoying for how it obviously tries to bank on nostalgia. This film has its moments to wink at the fans of the first film, as well as having a whole scene dedicated to just pure nostalgia. For the most part, it's pretty subtle with its callbacks. In the new Visitor's Center, Mr. DNA and the hologram of the Dilophosaurus are featured clearly on-screen, but for those really paying attention to the Mise-en-scene can find a memorial statue of John Hammond and a television promo for "Jurassic Tennis" (one of the coming attractions featured in Hammond's dining room in the original). Jeff Goldblum makes an appearance as Ian Malcolm, only he appears on the cover of a book, as opposed to visiting at the park, that's a blink and miss catch. Sometimes, a reference can be right in front of a fan the whole time and wouldn't be noticed, like the color of clothing Claire and Owen wear. Some of the dialogue as well contains subtle references, whether it's Owen's comment regarding the difference between drones and dinosaurs, or a particular menu item heard on the loudspeakers.

Overall Thoughts

"Jurassic World" ironically has the appeal of visiting a theme park. There's a lot of waiting to get to the action and imagination that this film offers, but once those scenes happen, they feel worthwhile. The film is heavily flawed by having poorly written characters, performances that don't have charm, overuse of digital effects, great ideas that are wasted, and lack of scares. However, there's enough entertainment value to make it worth seeing. The park is phenomenal, the Easter eggs are everywhere, Chris Pratt's relationship with the Velociraptors is surprisingly intriguing, and some of the dinosaur action is some of the sequels best. "Jurassic World" is the best of the sequels for feeling less insulting than 3 and more entertaining than 2 combined with the scenes mentioned that make it an experience. But looking and thinking back to the previous two sequels, though my opinions haven't changed, I can still see the appeal they have in the same way people see the "Stars Wars Prequels." They're seriously flawed films that don't measure up with their predecessor. But they have a few scenes, ideas, impressive effects, and moments that shouldn't go unnoticed whether they're good movies or not and "Jurassic World" is no exception.

JAWS: THE REVENGE

This July 4th it is now time for me to take the final bite with reviewing the "JAWS" franchise by covering the last film of the series...



 A widowed Ellen Brody (Lorraine Gary) remains on Amity Island with her son Sean (Mitchell Anderson), while her eldest son Michael (Lance Guest) works as a marine biologist in the Bahamas. A few days before Christmas, Sean gets devoured by a shark as he goes out to remove a large log from a buoy. Devastated by the loss of Sean, Ellen becomes paranoid thinking that a shark is coming for revenge against her family. To help Ellen get over her fear, Michael takes her to the Bahamas to spend Christmas with his family where the water is too warm for sharks as they will be miles away from Amity Island. As Ellen finds love with a pilot (Michael Caine), Michael and his partner Jake (Mario Van Peebles) discover a great white during their research, forming the idea to study it for how rare it is to find a great white within these warm waters. It turns out that the shark they're trying to study was the same shark who killed Sean back at Amity, and has followed the Brody's to fulfill its revenge.



There is so much idiocy with the premise alone that leads to so many bigger problems, that I'm just going to start with the smallest problem first. As all the previous “JAWS” films took place in the Summer, this one takes place completely out of season by having it set in the winter during the holiday season. A part of what made the first "JAWS" film so appealing was for containing a good old-fashioned summertime feel that felt inviting for how well it captures the fun and beauty of the season. The only major drawback preventing anyone from feeling at ease was that there's a killer shark in the water. It was the comfort mixed with the terror that helped make "JAWS" one of the greatest horror films ever made. Christmas can suit that type of horror well too for how everyone associates the holiday of being wholesome, but having it revolve around a shark doesn't quite fit the setting. Swimming in the Northern parts of America isn't recreational at that season for how brutally cold the waters, so there's nothing to worry about keeping people out of the water. Midway through the movie as the characters are in the Bahamas, the Christmas visuals and environment that was represented strongly in Amity Island becomes an afterthought. The film pretty much treats itself more like a summer film than it does as a Christmas movie consequently making the setting more confusingly out of place.



Christmas, summer, who cares if the film is still cool to look at. Well, it certainly isn't that either. The first few noticeable errors that critics point out is how we seem to be seeing the surface from the point-of-view of the fin due to the number of times the shark is looking on top of the water as it swims. I guess it's questionable, but aren't we forgetting in the first film how the shark is occasionally shown to be swimming with its head sticking out of the water? Or that one point-of-view of shot of the shark hovering above little Mike when he's in the pond? I found this one to be a bit of a nitpick compared to the tons of other problems the film has. And frankly, I didn't think the film's opening scene was bad. It's shot effectively (if you can accept the shark gazing above water as it swims), the score sounds intensely grim indicating that there's going to be bigger things at stake, and it's nice to be back in Amity after being away from it in the previous film. As a matter of fact, the film completely ignores the third film's existence, by never mentioning the events at Sea World once. That's kind of a plus than it is a draw-back for how distant the third film felt from being a sequel. Returning to the Amity Community feels like a warm welcome after being on a horrendous vacation. The Christmas setting is puzzling, but it was still delightful to see the town covered with Christmas lights, as we watch the locals prepare for the holidays showing that it can be just as festive outside the summer. A bit later in the film some of Amity's famous locals appear sitting in a living room to comfort Ellen like Mrs.Taft (the woman on the beach who told Ellen she'll never be an Islander) and Mrs. Kitner (who also lost her boy to a shark), all played by their original actresses. The film had a promising start, until we see poor Sean get attacked.



After Sean's demise, the visuals than become incredibly boring for how gloomy it looks. I'm not against the idea of a depressing atmosphere in a "JAWS" movie that's supposed to be final the showdown. It would be an appropriate way to create tension between Ellen and the shark, but the scenes without the shark have the look of a television soap opera. It appears colorless, looks cheap, and doesn't do anything amusing with its cinematography and edits. The Bahamas that appears to have a little more life than the scenes of Amity after the attack, doesn't seem so festive for how focused we are on the drama than the shark and their surroundings. I was hoping things would look a little more exciting when the characters go out at sea, only to be disappointed for its lack of weight and size when capturing the thrill of hunting the shark as it moves at a pace as riveting as the previous sequels did. The music (the element that gave the first film its identity) doesn't provide much atmosphere either. It sounded awesome in the beginning, but after that point it sounds like the same score you've heard in the other films, with the same appeal as the score that the third film had. In other words it’s boringly generic. Though I wouldn't call it the worst score in the franchise because the opening theme did bring chills.



I can't even go as far to say that the effects are the worst in the franchise either. It's hard for the effects in the franchise to sink to a new low after looking at the laughable cheesy 3-D effects combined with a fake looking shark in the last film. All we get here is simply a shark animatronic that's so silly looking that the Universal Studios theme park wouldn't think of using it. It almost looks like that the shark in the second film somehow tried to cover his scar with make-up as it was taking a few hard jabs to the face while applying it. It looks incredibly cheap and beat-up. The way we see this thing swim doesn't help the shark's terrible design either. The shark's movements as he swims are so stiff that it's obvious that it's being pulled from underneath the frame. And seeing it chew on items makes it resemble more of a sock-puppet than a savage beast. The eels that Michael encounters when searching for the shark are far scarier than the actual monster he's searching for. On the bright side, the shark is given some special abilities, like having the power of leaving blood in the ocean whether before eating his first victim or diving in the water after chewing on nothing. The shark's most notable new skill among many is his ability to roar like a lion. Now to be fair, this isn't exactly the first time a sound was made from the shark's mouth even though it has no vocal cords. The shark growled a few times in the first film, and nobody says a word of it (and that film won the Oscar for Best Sound Mixing). Yet when the shark makes a noise here, everybody points fingers at it. So why does it get more attention here than the other film? Well knowing how the first film perfectly establishes terror and adventure, audiences became so captivated that details that wouldn't make sense are overlooked for how much these liberties add to the thrill of the experience. The ending, for example, wouldn't have left of an impact if Spielberg didn't choose to the break the logic of how air-tanks work to give us a finale that always leaves us cheering with every single viewing. So, noticing how the climax doesn't contain nearly the same kind of tension that was brought in the first film as we look at a goofy looking shark, naturally, it would be easier to spot these errors. And my oh my was watching this fake shark roar has got to be one of the top three silliest things that have ever come out of the franchise. It's not even subtle like the growls were in the first film, it's directly in your face where it looks cartoony. In fact, this sound effect was ripped right out of the Tom and Jerry cartoon "The Milky Waif" because the sound editor refused to create an original sound for the shark given its implausibility.



If you want real implausibility, let's take a closer look at the film's plot. The title and the characters suggest that this shark is out for revenge on the Brody family, however, there are so many things about the idea that doesn't make sense. There's no indication that it's any of the sharks from the first two films, and if that was somehow the case it's hard to swallow the fact that it managed to put himself back together after being blown to bits. So clearly this is a completely different shark taking revenge, but why does it want vengeance on the Brodys? Is it a relative to one of the sharks that Martin killed or a spouse, if so, how did it know who killed the other sharks? Do shark's secretly talk to one another? Was it a guppy that witnessed the murder of the last shark, hence why it took so long to take revenge? How does this shark even know about Martin's family? I'm still trying to figure out how this thing was able to track them down from Northern America to all the way to the freaking Bahamas? There are so many stretches with this ludicrous logic involving the shark, that having it under the control of a voodoo doctor (an out of place character that the original script intended to have) makes more sense than having it coming for revenge out of the blue. That's not to say the shark in the first film didn't take things personally too, but it made sense. After being hunted by three men on the boat who never wish to give him a moments peace of mind until its dead, it would seem plausible (if not realistic) for him to target the three people who are out on the middle of the ocean with the intention to kill him. Nevertheless, this isn't the first time when the series gave the shark a revenge scheme that made no sense. The shark taking revenge on Amity in the second film is as well established as the shark's reason here. It pretty much contains half of the questions that I (and many people) have about the shark in this film. If anything, a mother trying to rescue her son after being taken to Sea World in "JAWS 3-D" is more plausible than the shark's motive in the second film. The problem that this film has that makes it more distracting than it was in the second is how the shark targets a specific group of people it somehow knows all about and can track them down to the ends of the earth. That combined with the logical errors in the second film makes my head want to explode just by trying to rationalize it in a believable way.



You know what's dumber about the shark's revenge scheme, it lacks focus. It kills Sean, traces the family down like a bounty hunter, but after that, until the climax it seems to forget that it was taking revenge. Most of the time the shark focuses more on eating chum or chewing boats and subs instead figuring out ways to kill the family. There are many times when Michael would dive in the water to find the shark, and except for one occasion during a tedious underwater chase scene inside a sunken ship, it goes after people who are of no relation to the Brody's. It goes after Michael Caine as Ellen's son tries to swim across the ocean to save her. And when attacking a banana boat where Michael's daughter sits there helplessly across the shark, it attacks a random woman instead.

The absolute worst part of the shark's revenge plan is, it only kills two people! With such an intense title with a slogan indicating how personal this revenge is, it's not foolish to expect a higher body count than any of the past three films. This is supposed to be the final battle between the Brody's and the shark, things are expected to get messy and tragic. But instead, it has the lowest amount out of deaths in the entire franchise. That wouldn't be so bad if the deaths meant something. But aside from poor Sean, nobody in the family gets killed or so much as loses a limb. Not Michael, not his family, not so much as Ellen's lover for that matter. Michael's best friend Jake gets torn to shreds to the point where it seems that there's no chance that he'd still be alive. BUT GUESS WHAT?! It turns out that he somehow survived being chomped into a bloody pulp! He doesn't look that grotesque or hurt either, if anything apart from a few cuts he seems perfectly fine. Originally, Jake was supposed to die until there was a decision to shoot an alternate ending of him surviving five days after the film's release. WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?!



Maybe how the deaths are handled will make-up for its disappointing body count. It's a nice thought, yet not practical. Sean's demise has a good set-up that calls back to Chrissy's death in the original by having him scream for help as the carolers are too busy singing to hear him. Unfortunately, that gets ruined by terrible acting, sloppy editing, and the actor obviously using the oldest trick in the book to make it seem like he's missing his arm. The second death with the lady on the banana boat just happens with no real impact, if anything its quite laughable from the acting to the silly use of slow-mo (to be fair, it's sillier when it's used for Jake's encounter with the shark). There is one other "death" that happens in the film. Ellen for some reason is swimming in the middle ocean despite making it clear how she doesn't want her family near the water moments ago and gets attacked by the shark with the same annoying editing as Sean's death. Right from the very start, it's clear where this scene is going for how the film establishes Ellen's fear of the water. There is no way she would just go swimming without protest, and this film doesn't seem smart enough to go "Psycho" on us by killing the lead early in the movie. So, what does this scene lead up too; an annoying dream-sequence that's not scary or tells us anything different about what we already know of Ellen. And for some odd reason, the film provides another one, only this time it involves a random scene of the shark eating chum that suddenly cuts to Michael waking-up with fear.



The only memorable death the film offers is the shark's for how ridiculously stupid it is! Ellen rams the boat's broken bowsprit through the shark which causes him to spontaneously explode with no explanation. Audiences and critics were left baffled with why and how the shark would just explode from the impalement! I was too until I discovered an easy to miss detail that gives reason to this. Before the shark attacks Jake, he’s shown to be swallowing the device that fires electrical impulses. The reason why this detail is overlooked is that it isn't given much attention. In the first film, the air-tanks were built-up as being highly dangerous if they should ever roll loose on the boat. In the second film, the power cable is the source of power for the Island. Here, we get a device that Jake invented that we know little about it. We know it can stun the shark for a second, yet we never quite fully understand how lethal it is, or the dangers surrounding it for how much science mambo jumbo jargon is given to its explanation at a fast pace (it's not taking its time to sound smart). And unlike how you always saw the weapon that could kill the shark in the previous three films, we never see it again once the shark swallows it as it is shown very briefly. The scene focuses more on the shark attacking Jake than the shark swallowing the device that will kill it. I believe the reason why this wasn't given much attention was that there had already been another ending filmed. Rather than the shark exploding, he’s shown to be bleeding buckets of blood from the impalement of the boat's bowsprit before sinking to the bottom of the ocean with it. But audiences detested it so much that a new ending was filmed around the same time they re-shot the scene of Jake surviving. Now given its short amount time of changing such a big part of the movie at the last minute, it would seem likely that they missed giving Jake's Deus Ex Machina device a little more emphasis. I'm not saying the original ending was as incredible as the shark's demise in the first film, it just makes more sense when compared to the new ending as well as being way more visually appealing. Who doesn't want to see a giant shark squirt as much blood as "The Evil Dead" films do? It's better than watching an obvious miniature blow-up that's followed by shameful use of the stock footage of the shark sinking from the first movie.



Among all the dreadful things that this film has, what really kills it is the scenes involving the characters! I didn't think the characters in the series could get any worse after the third film. After all, we are spending time with at least one of the original stars from the first two films, it can't nearly be as bad as the characters we've met previously. And I really wish I was right too. The script did contain cameo appearances from characters like the Mayor, Matt Hopper, and Chief Martin Brody. But those ideas were scrapped. It's already disappointing that we don't see any of the other main characters from the franchise, however, the film's reason for why Martin isn't in the film is the poorest excuses I've ever heard in a sequel. The film states that he died from a heart attack in-between films which would've been reasonable, but to cater to Ellen's fear of shark's she claims that a shark gave him a heart attack through fear. Excuse me? You're telling me that the courageous Chief Brody who successfully killed two giant sharks lived the rest of his life in fear of sharks that caused him to croak?! If anything, he should be as fearless as Quint is towards them at that point! Why did Ellen have to make such an unbelievable claim that a shark was responsible for his death when the death of her son is traumatic enough for her to want to stay away from the water? The first death in the original script was going to happen to Martin, which would've have made for a depressing opening. But when Scheider was offered the appearance, he coldly turned it down stating "Satan himself could not get me to do Jaws part 4". I don't blame Scheider for not being in the film, given the quality of the sequels, it was a wise decision. He knew it was going to be chum from the very start, so why waste his time? It's just insultingly disrespectful to his character that the script decides to blame a shark for giving him a heart attack.



Now that Ellen is taking her late husband's place as the film's hero, she (like her husband) toughens as the film progresses. The concept of seeing a defenseless woman becoming a tough badass has been done well in other films, only Ellen will sadly not be remembered as one of them. Lorraine Gary was charmingly sweet as the caring Mother in the first two films, providing a performance so believable that her chemistry with her husband and sons feel natural. Yet as a leading character, she's a bore as Gary's performance isn't good enough for her to carry a shark film. When acting emotionally about the shark (unlike the first film at least) it feels very phoned-in, coming off as pretentious, and at times awkward for how weird and rushed her reactions can be. And when the film makes her be a badass, by giving her the sunglasses, having her acting tough when she's about to kill the shark, it's laughable for how old, sad, and amateurishly shot she is. Because of her hokey acting, as the shark does so little to her family to make her determination feel personal, there's little to no emotional connection to her character. If anything through this whole affair she spends most of the film just worrying to the point where you want the shark to just eat her, while making some rather stupid decisions. Like in the climax for instance. After finding out that the shark has finally come to the Bahamas to claim its "revenge", we get a silly shot of her looking like an old frail Terminator wearing a wig indicating that she has had enough of this. You'd think at this point she would act by getting help and gearing up to hunt and kill the shark like Martin did when he saw his son in shock from his near-death encounter. BUT NOPE! She steals Michael's boat, goes out on her own in search of the shark without any weapons, and angrily throws herself in front of the shark to be eaten! This is our strong leading lady?! Does she believe that sacrificing herself to the shark will prevent it from eating her family?! It's complete nonsense on every level! But not as nonsensical as giving her psychic powers allowing her to feel the shark's presence and having clear memories of other character's encounters with the shark that she did not witness! It's never explained why or how she got them; she just has them! And putting aside how stupidly out of place supernatural powers are for a "JAWS" film, they serve no purpose except as a lazy tool to create tension. It's no wonder why Gary retired from acting after this film (and when trying to making a comeback after an eight-year absence from doing Spielberg's comedy flop "1941").



To say that Lorraine Gary is the only person in this film who gives a bad performance would be unfair because practically everybody in this film does just as awkward of a job. Most of that has to do for how terribly paced the scenes are. These conversations feel so unnatural for how fast these scenes go, that the tension and connections you're supposed to feel for these characters feel very contrived. At times the characters themselves will go through quick mood swings by going from angry to feeling pity in almost no time. It doesn't help that the writing for these scenes is just as odd. You'll have characters talk about their sex life while a child is present on Christmas morning, Michael Caine blabbering stories for no reason, or see a serious conversation stop dead in its tracks just so Michael can randomly run. This may all sound funny, but it's just as dull as the acting was in the third film. The only real unintentional laughs come from the character's nonchalant reactions to the shark who are making it more obvious that the shark is fake. And speaking of which there is very little shark action in this movie unlike the others (as if the low body count wasn't a big give away). Most of the film is focused on the characters talking and sighing, which would be fine if the emotions were felt, except they aren't. And when the shark finally does enter the Bahamas, the film starts to get repetitive by cutting back and forth from a shark movie (that are shown brief except for an underwater chase scene) to a mellow dramatic love story, with neither one being entertaining.



The supporting characters are either too bland (Michael) or too annoying (Jake), however, I will admit that there are two performances that don't necessarily save the film nor are the characters themselves well written but are the most entertaining and charming part of the movie. Playing Michael's daughter is the late Judith Barsi who you may recognize her voice-work as Ducky in "The Land Before Time" and Anne-Marie in "All Dog's Go to Heaven". This film would be one of her last film roles before her tragic death of being murdered by her father the following year. It's delightful to see a voice actress from kids' childhoods in the 80s and 90s to be on-screen, while also heartbreaking for how devastating of loss it was. Whenever she's on-screen her wide innocence is so adorable that she never once comes across as unnaturally cute or annoying. Among all the actors in this film, she gives the most naturalistic performance. If there is one, and I mean one emotional scene in the entire movie, it's the scene when she mimics her Dad. It's a far from being a subtle rip-off of the classic scene with Martin and Sean in the first film (that this film generously features in a flashback to make it clearer), still, it's a very sweet moment none the less, that's given the right kind of direction. And what makes this moment sweeter is that Lance Guest would serve as one of Barsi's pallbearers at her funeral. Barsi's pretend Father was probably the closest to a real Father she ever had.



As Barsi manages to awe, Michael Caine provides the laughs. The character that Caine plays is as uninteresting as the characters, and his chemistry with Gary lacks any kind of emotional investment there is. The two don't develop a relationship, they just hook-up the next time they meet each other and that's it. Michael Brody suspects there to be something suspicious about him, but that goes nowhere. That's because there was originally a subplot of him smuggling drugs to the Island, which were shot and then deleted (I'm beginning to find the deleted scenes to be more interesting than the entire movie itself). But as boring as the character is, Caine shows little to no care about the film he's in that it looks that he might as well have fun with it than try to be as serious as everybody else is. He openly admitted to doing this film only for the money so he can go on holiday when filming and build a house. The only downside was that he wasn't available to accept his Oscar for "Hannah and Her Sisters", though he didn't seem upset about it. When asked about the movie his response was "I have never seen it, but by all accounts it is terrible. However, I have seen the house that it built, and it is terrific. Won an Oscar, built a house, and had a great holiday. Not bad for a flop movie." Now with that in mind, watching him acting in this film giving little effort with the drama is quite enjoyable where he gives a lively performance with a few funny lines (my favorite is how he tells Ellen to move on with her life). His best scenes are seeing what a maniac he is when he drives the plane, that makes him stupidly unlikable for how he's allowing to let his plane crash if Ellen doesn't drive, but I find the carefree personality of his character to be accurate to how Caine feels about making the film. Despite playing a character, Caine gives such an honest performance of how he feels about the movie that he might as well be playing himself.

OVERALL THOUGHTS

When being asked which "JAWS" sequel is the worst, the decision is greatly divided between the last two films. People hate the third film for being ridiculous with its setting and gimmick as it treats itself more like a stand-alone film than a sequel; while others hate the fourth film for being dull and slow-moving with little shark action. Though the third "JAWS" film has the worst effects and most forgettable score in the entire franchise, "The Revenge" is the worst. As silly, cheesy, and boring the third film was, it did at least manage to entertain more than the fourth film. It offered a unique location for a shark movie, colorfully tacky 3-D effects, and a few deaths that were creepy. This film doesn't have much to offer when it comes to entertainment value. It spends most of its time being a corny and bland romantic drama half of the time which drains out the fun even from a so bad its good standard. And the scenes with the shark are so far from any kind of scares or excitement as well as having little unintentional humor to make these moments funny, that they're forgettable (aside from a few moments). This film also contains writing that's worse than what any of the sequels came up with; an inconsistent tone; film-making so sloppy that it's not so much as amusing for how bad it is; a disappointing body count; awkward performances (with the exception of Barsi and Caine); and unappealing characters. The biggest offender of why I would consider it worse than "JAWS 3-D" is unlike how many people can just shrug it off as a shark movie disguised as a "JAWS" sequel for how little it has to do with the first two; this film makes it perfectly clear that it's part of the same universe, which only adds insult to injury than it does improve upon the failure of the previous movie. In that regard, I would rather have a bad sequel that had little to do with the original, than a bad sequel that acts as a continuation.

OVERALL THOUGHTS ON THE FRANCHISE



"JAWS" is a ground-breaking horror classic that hits all the right notes to such perfection. It was a B monster movie that Spielberg felt was destined to fail because of the shark hardly ever working, unknown to him that it was secretly working towards the film’s advantage by putting his skills as a director to the ultimate test. Thanks to the limitations of the shark, Spielberg was able to captivate audiences in suspense by always providing them a fearful presence of the beast by showing little of it with the aid of John Williams' iconic score. And when the shark did pop-out to attack, as faked as it looked at times, the terror involving the creature remained thanks to his superb direction. Plus having the film being backed up by characters who were likable and interesting through a strong cast when the shark's not present made the film just as entertaining as the scenes involving the shark are. It's a prime example of lightning that will never ever strike the same place twice. There had been tons of shark movies since then but not one has ever come close to recapturing the same amount of genius that the film that launched the genre brought, and its sequels are no exception.

The second film was close to being a decent sequel (despite some stupid moments) until the teenagers go out sailing in the second half where the film heads to mediocrity. The third film was worse and very outlandish for a "JAWS" film, but it's a memorable mess of a film. And the fourth film was a very uneventful experience that takes most of the problems that the sequels had to a giant leap of pure nonsense. As follow-ups to thee mother of shark movies, they're disappointingly dreadful that only get worse as they go along. But when judging these sequels as being part of a sea of shark movies, they're not the worst. There are tons of shark movies out there that are way less appealing than these films are. Many of them all happen to have the same exact problems that other shark movies have with its boring characters, god-awful acting, horrendous CGI, awkward humor, and containing no scares. They almost seem like the same films just with a different kind of shark. At least with the "JAWS" sequels, there was something to enjoy, as minor as most of the elements were. Some of the acting can be good, like Scheider and Barsi. There would be a few deaths or surprises that can be shocking if not as scary as the first film. And as laughably bad as the effects for the shark are, their more realistic when compared to the effects in so many other shark movies. The sequels are still a disgrace, yet I can't call these the worst shark movies ever made (though I would consider them to be some of the worst sequels ever made). If "JAWS" is the best shark movie ever made, then these sequels are some of the closest that a bad shark film will ever come to being close to good.

2-HEADED SHARK ATTACK

I've just reviewed two classic films that hold up better than I remember them to be, as I analyzed why they are considered to be such memorable and groundbreaking treasures of cinema, as well as personally reminding myself why I love writing about film so much! But I haven't reviewed a shark movie yet this summer like I always do, so it's time for me to once again dig into Hollywood’s obscure collection of trash by reviewing a crappy shark filmed that was picked by my work-buddy simply titled as...

A large group of college students taking a Semester at Sea on a ship headed by Professor Franklin Babish (Charlie O'Connell) and his wife Anne (Carmen Electra) hit a dead megamouth shark and accidentally send it to the ship's propeller while retrieving it, resulting with the ship's hull being damaged and the boat to slowly sink. Nearby they discover a deserted island where they seek refuge until the ship is fixed, that seems like a perfect place to explore and study since the island is actually an atoll. Once setting foot on the atoll their luck begins to drastically change when they find the grounds to be shaking, later on realizing that the atoll is about to sink into the ocean floor. Their hopes for the ship being repaired for them to leave the atoll before it's completely sunk becomes highly unlikely when the ship's ONLY mechanic gets devoured by a giant two-headed shark who craves to feast on the helpless and naughty students stranded in the shark's territory.

The idea of having a giant great white shark with two heads does sound like a goofy yet amusing concept when being put on paper. This is pretty much the shark in "JAWS" as if he was as big as Moby Dick and had twice as many teeth and brain power, it sounds awesome. But the execution on the other hand is quite boring. All the shark does is swim, and eat double of what an average shark can chew and that's pretty much it. It doesn't seem to make much of a difference in terms of behaviors if it has two brains or not since the creature behaves like any other shark you'd see in these kind of movies; or even so much as having two heads given the shark's unusual size where it would seem more than likely that he can eat just as many victims with one head attached to giant body as he could with two heads which makes the idea very pointless and not all that interesting. As poorly executed as "Ghost Shark" and "Sharknado" were they are at least imaginative and offered more variety than what this film gives us. The "Sharknado" can suck up numerous victims as the sharks inside the tornado would either eat the people inside it, or fall in various locations to devour anybody it encounters; a Ghost Shark can only materialize when water is present leading to many different and bizarre scenarios; a two-headed shark just follows and eats a couple of people at once that aren't as massive when compared to what the other sharks can do, as well as many shark movies that came out before the three films that I've mentioned.  The idea of a two-headed shark is just as creative as Timmy from "The Fairly Oddparents" wishing to be a crab with two heads.

If you've read my previous reviews on modern day shark movies, or seen one for yourself, the CGI for the shark is as bottom of the barrel awful as you would expect it to be, along with the rest of the film's CGI garbage that makes this boring concept even more uninteresting for how obviously digitized it looks to the point where you know that nothing is really there. Some of this animation is so ugly that it oddly enough made the crappy 3-D effects in "JAWS 3" look legitimately grotesque. The only time I ever found it to be amusing for how bad it is, is seeing the characters suddenly turn into video game characters for the Ps3/Xbox 360 as their being eaten for how obvious the graphics look despite how hard the film tries to distant and blur the images of the characters underwater. And what's even worse about the film's computer effects and making the shark look less scary or fun to look at is how inconstant its size is. It'll at times be as big as a boat, other times it will be appear to be average size only slightly bigger than a typical shark, and sometimes it would do the impossible by being able to somehow attack people in waist deep water! Does this shark also have some kind of super power to change size? It makes as much sense as having one or two moments when we see blood oozing out of its mouth when it munches on absolutely nothing.

I will give the film this in terms of effects; it's one of the very few modern shark films I've seen to use some kind of practical effects. In some shots as the shark attacks its victims, will get a few quick shots of a giant shark puppet with the actors interacting with it. That's not to say that they aren't as cheap as the CGI, because it's just as horrendous. The design for the shark looks rubbery and beat-up, and comes off as so lifeless that you get the impression that the actors and the effects team are moving the shark. Its looks so bad that the shark in "JAWS: The Revenge" or the exploding shark in Batman from 1966, look more life-like than this. And given how often the film relies on its CGI, no matter how fast the shots of the puppetry used for the shark are shown, they always stick out like a sore thumb for how incredibly different they are to the effect that the film loves to use and exploit the most!

With the averagely boring bad effects aside, the way the film is shot and edited is just as annoying, pretentious, and sleazy as those elements are in "Psycho Shark". During an attack as we're presented with terrible fast editing and hideous effects, most of the shots that we'd see during these scenes are shots of the ocean being filled with blood. And not as in we're seeing these shots with the shark and its prey; I mean just shots of the water filled with blood before cutting back to seeing the attack where the film does it so much that nearly half-way through the film they don't just get irritating, but the blood effects look more and more like red dye where even the shots that show the actors acting with the blood as they're being attacked gets worse and worse for how bad the acting is, and how overused everything else supporting the scenes are. Thankfully I'm glad that the film doesn't keep cutting to black and cutting back to seeing a bit of the attack as shown in the film's opening scene. That was insufferable and nowhere near as clever as how "Open Water" used that trick (pretty much because that film had an atmosphere and a scenario that gave reason to why the scene kept blacking out as the suspense surrounding it felt more realistic and less gimmicky)! However none of those shots are not as insufferable as the film’s excessive love for jump cuts and dissolves that are clearly not needed for whenever they are used. You pretty much see them in most of the scenes when a good half of the characters are together walking, getting on a life boat, heading towards the atoll, or just simply standing! I swear to god that they're some of the worst uses of these filming techniques that I've ever seen for how long, repetitive, and out of the blue they are! And hey, did I mention that this film also loves to use the shaky cam? How desperate is this film to make the attacks look less fake when it's only making them more obvious for using almost all the annoying editing and filming cliches in the book?! Alright, they do use the shaky cam to help create the effect for the ground shaking, which is understandable for why it's being used, but everything supporting these scenes such as the cheap and clearly added-in sound effects, the crappy CGI, and the actors not looking that frightened by it as they pretend to stumble from the vibration are so horrific that you become more aware of the film's manipulation, giving you the impression that somebody is literally shaking the camera as opposed to the ground actually shaking. As for those of you who wondering if this film rips anything off from "JAWS", it uses very little.  There's the underwater POV shot that looks like watching the opening credits to "JAWS" on fast forward; we get some shots of peoples legs in the water; and there is an explosion at the end that’s done by implausible convenient luck; otherwise that's it. It has as much JAWS references as "Psycho Shark" had, and that film is alternatively called "JAWS in Japan"!

And do you know what else that this film and "Psycho Shark" have in common? This film is nearly as perverted, from its bikini shots, images of women's butts whether it's underwater or them walking, and women being shot and edited in fashion as if they are posing for Playboy magazine or a beer commercial as we'd get music that you'd most likely hear in stripper clubs. The actress who spends most of her time looking sexy is Carmen Electra who is simply the film's eye candy. And for some of you pervs reading this wondering if she reveals anything, she doesn't. In fact there's only one scene in the movie where the characters get naked and show their breasts, and that's when three of them go skinny dipping as the two girls make-out to attract the guy joining them that's then interrupted by the shark implausibly swimming up to them in shallow water, and eating the two girls as we watch them twitch and ooze out blood from their mouths before being tugged underwater (that also appears to look sexy for how badly acted the scene is where the girls seem to be shaking their body and boobs intentionally instead of looking to be in pain, even with the blood present). So if you're expecting this film to be just as sleazy as "Psycho Shark" in hopes to get you through all this crap, you're going to be highly disappointed.

Now I've mentioned that there's very little creativity when it comes to seeing people being axed off, however that doesn't mean that the film doesn't have some laughable moments that stand-out. There's of course the skinny dipping scene that I just mentioned, that's weird, silly, cheesy, and sexy; a scene where two girls are running from the shark on land as the atoll is sinking where they stand on a dock thinking that they've escaped the shark as incredibly sappy music plays with the girls acting unnaturally happy until the shark devours them, that is so clear as bad as this movie is that they're going to die for where they're standing, how little we know these characters, and overly happy the scene is that it's hilarious; and a moment when the shark bites the mechanics leg that somehow doesn't bleed, get torn off, or the victim looking hurt in anyway showing how weak of a villain the shark is, despite being so gigantic, fierce and having more than one head. These scenes are the real highlights of the movie that gave me a legitimate laugh when compared to other shark movies, which is saying something from my viewing experience, even if there's so very few of those moments.

When diving into characters there are at least over 25 of them on this voyage where only a few of them stand-out, as most of them only exist to be shark food with little to no depth or personality being given to them. The characters who leave some kind of impression are the Professor and his hot wife, the muscle flexing "Jersey Shore" reject Cole, Paul the nerd, and Brooke Hogan as Kate who's afraid of the water and sharks, and foolishly hopes that this voyage will help her conquer her fears. Unfortunately there's nothing much to them for how bland, and generic they are. The acting as I established many times in the review is indeed as bad as you can imagine in a film like this to be. You'll have your average overreactions to the shark and the people he kills for how comically phoned in they are, as well as a few nonchalant moments of people screaming and gazing at the terror before them as if it's not that big of the deal. The unnatural expressions to the events happening around them only gets worse when we see them huddle together and talk about how they are going to deal with the situation, that contain so many pauses where their break-downs and how they communicate feels so unnatural that you get the sense that the actors are waiting more for their queues to speak and yet keep missing the moment when they are supposed to deliver their lines for how delayed it is. The worst actor in the movie who I wanted to see get devoured but knew that it wasn't going to happen since very few leads in these shark movies gets killed is Brooke Hogan who comes off as bored and annoyed rather than a woman that's trying to conquer her fears. Her I don't care attitude is almost as emotionless as Tara Reid in "Sharknado" except that it's not as robotic.

OVERALL THOUGHTS

If you’re looking to watch a movie about a shark with two heads with no quality what-so-ever, you'll definitely get it, and in a nutshell that's really what you have to expect in shark movies of these kind. Being a big fan of horror movies who always looks to find some kind of entertainment value in the awful ones, for some reason I just can't get into these kind of shark movies, because there's little worth seeing or coming back too for how unexciting and obnoxious they are, and this movie is no exception. The effects are so generically bad that they aren't interesting to look at; the concept of a two-headed shark is surprisingly boring; the characters are mostly disposable as the ones who stand-out are very dull; there are very few attacks that come across as funny or cool to look at; the acting is bad and is hardly ever laughable; and all the camera tricks that the film tries to use to hide how fake these attacks look, and try to give the film some kind of identity is more annoying that it is helping the film. I can see why people find entertainment value in these crappy shark movies, and I sincerely wish that I could find at least one bad shark movie that can do the same for me (that isn't a JAWS sequel), but until then, this one can be thrown into the ocean along with the other bad shark movies that I reviewed for good old Bruce to eat.