Film Essay: Steven Spielberg and Melodrama

Melodramas are widely regarded as films involving predictable yet exciting story-lines filled with emotion to cater to the feelings of the common audience than logic through the aid of easily identifiable characters. The literal meaning of a melodrama is that they were drama's that relied heavily on music. The silent era was the height for the genre because where a drama has the characters talking about their emotion, a melodrama focuses on capturing the emotion without relying on words through expression, extreme camera angles, unusual sets, and especially music. Most of these films tend to focus on romance, or a family struggle, however that doesn't mean they are all set in reality. Given how the films are focused on delivering emotion visually, they can indeed take place within a fantasy world. An animated Disney film, for instance, has easy to follow stories with conventional characters set in a world that focus' little on logic because they are aimed to touch our hearts. Many Christmas movies are very asinine from a logical stand-point, but people still watch them every year for the good feelings and morals the films bring in an environment that's different yet relatable. People watch and still praise Spielberg's films for the very same reasons. A director who specializes in creating melodramas that people still watch and praise is Steven Spielberg.

Take one of his crowning achievements "E.T. the Extra Terrestrial" for example. It's easy to pin-point the direction of when and where the film is going. We know Elliot and E.T. will eventually become friends, otherwise there would be no film. Obstacles get in their way from sending E.T. back to where he belongs, but in the end, we know the characters will succeed because the film would do poorly if all this action (in a film made for kids mind you) was left in vain. When trying to study E.T.'s powers, though it’s shown that he has the ability to heal and form a telepathic connection with Elliot, it's never really clear how far his powers go, why he has them (other than being an alien), and how and when he and Elliot suddenly start having a mental connection to the point where they both become ill. You can even say the film's beginning and end leaves us with questions than it does answers. What is E.T.'s race doing on earth in the first place, what becomes of Elliot and his family after E.T. leaves since they just escaped from the government with an alien that they're after? For being so predictable and at the same time confusing when you analyze it, on paper, it doesn't sound nowhere near as a masterpiece as critics and audiences have claimed it to be. If anything, it almost sounds as dumb as the infamous "E.T." knock-off "Mac and Me".

 

So why is it considered to be one of Spielberg's best films? Because the story isn't the main ingredient that Spielberg was focusing on. The sole of the film's success is fueled by emotions between E.T. and Elliot, where the story serves more as a road map, much like in a lot of melodramas. The characters themselves are not exactly very complex either, they're pretty average. E.T. himself, despite being an alien, is nothing more than a confused child. The villains themselves (with the exception of an understanding government agent) are just a bunch of scientists and government agents who want to capture E.T. for research that will most likely lead him to a lot of pain. As simplistic as they are, people still find themselves connecting to them. Elliot's curiosity and love for E.T. mirrors our own. We care about E.T. because we know he's harmless and afraid of his new surroundings that are shown effectively from his expressions and movements as opposed to dialogue. When we see the scientists and agents searching for E.T. we are intimidated by them from how Spielberg chooses to keep their faces hidden until the third act, by using darkness and an intense score to make them seem more like monsters than the actual alien. Spielberg plays more on visual storytelling and sound to get audiences emotionally invested than he does with having drawn-out scenes of conversation. It all comes from the actors and the puppetry having so much expression, close-ups of the two interacting, lighting that gives the film's its magical look, and John Williams' whimsical score to fuel our emotions than it does with wordy dialogue. If you were going to watch the film with just the score, the emotional appeal wouldn't change.

It's often in melodramas that animals and kids can play a large part in playing on emotions for their innocence, only here a pet is traded in for an alien that people found to be so unique about this film upon its release. Family (one of the elements found in a melodrama) is a theme that Spielberg likes to portray in many of his films, and it is certainly not an exception here. Most of the film takes place at Elliot's home as we watch him and his siblings interact with the alien as they try to keep him a secret from their divorced Mom. Elliot practically adopts E.T. to his family, who wishes for him to stay even though he's helping "E.T. phone home". In fact, the whole goal in the film's story is Elliot helping E.T. to go back to his planet where his family lives after being separated by them by some of earth's authorities. By the end of the film, as sad as it is to see the two part ways, E.T.'s family unity is restored, as to how melodrama films involving family usually end.

 

During the scene when E.T. is demonstrating his healing powers to Elliot, Elliot's Mom is reading to his little sister the story of "Peter Pan" when Peter heals Tinkerbelle. Undoubtedly it’s a magically sweet scene showing both the power of friendship and the comfort of family with the story that's being read serving as a metaphor for E.T.'s ability to heal. However much like the sound of T-rex's roar used during the monsters death in "Duel" and "JAWS" that would foreshadow one of his groundbreaking film projects "Jurassic Park", the use of "Peter Pan" would foreshadow another one of his films "Hook"."Hook" did not reach the same popularity as Spielberg’s other works. It wasn't hailed by critics and Spielberg fans at the time as one of his good movies.  The idea of Peter growing up have split audiences apart as half found it weird, as others found it fascinating. As fascinating as the idea was to the audiences who were looking for a different take of Peter Pan, it was still predictable. Many have found the tone to be very uneven, as it constantly seems to switch back and forth from a family film with the same dark edge as "Raiders of the Lost Ark" to an innocent kids film with the same kind of forced cheese and corny acting from the "Kick the Can" segment in "The Twilight Zone: The Movie". The film was nominated for 5 Academy Awards for its effects, but critics felt that "Neverland" looked more like a theme park than a magical world filled with danger and wonder for how limited it was. And the film is filled with so many plot holes and unanswered questions that without the proper emotional support they will stand-out as painfully distracting. However, despite the film not being a huge hit, it has gained a cult following over the years from people who grew up with the movie, finding more things to appreciate from it as they get older. It became one of Spielberg's films that got better with age for being able to touch the heartstrings of audiences new and old after its release.

"Hook" has the qualifications for a melodrama as "E.T." does. The characters contain easily identifiable traits such as Peter as the daring carefree hero, Captain Hook as the mustache-twirling villain, Tinkerbelle as the strong charming heroine, Peter's children as the innocence, and the Lost Boys as rebels. However, before Peter remembers who he is, he himself carries an antagonistic trait that can be found within the melodrama genre. Most antagonists in melodramas are people who are intelligent and well-financed who turn out to be manipulative phonies with a loss of emotion. Peter starts out that way, selfishly putting his job before his own family. For having a deep loss of childhood memories since they all come from a magical world, he has forgotten his sense of fun and imagination, yelling at his kids who want to play with him as he works, and shattering their dreams by stating reality.

Based on Peter's motives and relationship with his kids, family plays as one of the main themes in the movie, just like in "E.T.". Peter may not be the best father, but he still cares about his kids. When Hook threatens his family unity by kidnapping Peter's children, he must remember his past in order to restore that unity. It's not just about Peter fighting his foe to rescue his kids, he has to restore himself to gain back his values since he himself is already failing as a fun supportive loving Father. Hook himself does more than threaten the family's unity by holding them captive, he tries to brainwash them into loving him like a Father by using their Father's neglectful habits and how they used to be happier without children against them. Peter's daughter Maggie doesn't give in, but his son Jack who always finds himself disappointed by his Father's broken promises does. But like in any melodrama, the unity is restored after Peter regains his memories, saves his children, wins Jack back, and puts his work aside to spend more time with the family.

The two places where the film is set are also fitting for a melodrama. Most of the first act is set in the very same home where Wendy met Peter, and when Peter met his wife Moira, both are environments where Wendy and Peter have chosen to grow-up yet still keep being a child at heart. Peter doesn't learn that lesson until the end of the film, where he fully embraces this lesson when he returns to the nursery playing with his kids and hugging the people he loves. Wendy's home is the domestic setting where family unity is held, "Neverland" is the world of emotional phenomenon and moral. The emotional phenomenon is delivered from its wild inhabitants who live a life of no rules, where the morals come from Peter's experience after his long absence. To visually display emotion Spielberg uses these environments to establish the characters feeling through its imaginative sets, fantasy-like lighting, and enchanting score conducted once again by John Williams. Whether it involves a Lost Boy touching Peter's old face to find his young face, or Peter re-visiting the nursery where his memories are creeping back only for him to repress them, emotion is displayed visually without the need for dialogue. A strength of an important film method, "show, don't tell", is also one of the key rules in melodramas.

For incorporating the elements of melodrama through the use of family, conventional characters, telling a story visually, and focusing on emotion instead of logic has helped make Spielberg a director that people still study and praise. Most of Spielberg's films (including the ones mentioned) are filled with plot holes, and scenes that completely defy logic. Yet audiences still tend to overlook these flaws. The key to that success is based on how Spielberg knows the amount of suspension of disbelief an audience will lend if he succeeds in entertaining them and touching their feelings. If both of these elements are done well, along with giving audiences something inventive and unique to make the story and environment captivating, then a director has fully succeeded with his/her job.

RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK

Allow me to talk a little about my exposure to one of the most popular heroes in cinema, Indiana Jones...



The first time I ever heard of the character was from a trip to Disney World when I was 7 years old. Even though I went on "The Great Movie Ride" (which wouldn't impact my life the way it did until my second trip to the park), I had no memory seeing the character during that portion of the ride. The only bit I remembered during that section was the skeletons. After leaving the park, my Mom had generously bought me a souvenir video called "Around the World with Mickey & Friends", that showcased all 4 parks. Once I saw "The MGM Studios" segment, I was thrilled to see the footage of "The Great Movie Ride" which had helped refresh my memory with certain parts, but I still had no idea who the two people lifting that giant ancient golden box were and what movie was being recreated. Immediately after watching Mickey and Minnie ride "The Great Movie Ride", came Goofy watching a live show titled...



As soon as I saw the actor dressed as Indy climb down a rope to the stage and took notice of its temple setting, I instantly recognized him being the very same character in the temple full of snakes and skeletons on "The Great Movie Ride" (the fedora hat was the big give away). I became dazzled by the amount of action and excitement that was being duplicated from the film. The bits that really mesmerized me was watching spikes pop-out from underneath the floor towards almost every step Indy would take and watching him run away from a giant boulder.



A little after I saw the footage, I re-watched the opening of "The Rugrats Movie" noticing that the scene is supposed to pay homage to Indiana Jones from the giant boulder chasing after the babies, and Tommy holding a jump-rope in place of a whip calling himself "Okey-Dokey Jones". Once after seeing Disney and the Rugrats take on the film, I asked my Dad to rent me a copy. Instead of getting one film, I was given two, which were "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "The Temple of Doom". I saw the opening to both films and was thrilled by its sense of action and adventure, however, given how small my attention span was with live-action movies at that age, I began to turn them off as soon the action stopped.



During my second trip to "Disney World" when I was in the 5th Grade, after seeing the trailer for "Raiders of the Lost Ark" during the queue for "The Great Movie Ride", and getting a better view of the animatronics of Indiana Jones and his sidekick Sallah trying to move the ark, I left the ride anxious to see the movie again. My Dad gave me an old VHS copy of the film that he recorded off of HBO (I guess he must have found it when cleaning up the closest, since he rented me a copy a couple of years prior to it), and having more of an attention span to watch a movie in full, I left the film in awe by the character, sets, effects, score, and action. The only thing that disappointed me was that the great stoned gargoyle that contained a jewel protected by the gods was only created for "The Great Movie Ride" than originating from the movie where the scene takes place.

After re-watching it a few more times, I began to grow distant from the film when I went to High School, and haven't had the pleasure re-watching it since then. After previously covering a few of the films from "The Great Movie Ride" last year like "The Searchers" and "Footlight Parade", admiring how extremely well they held-up, it is time for me to once again dig-up this piece of nostalgia to take a closer look at it than I did as a kid. This is...



Taking place in the year 1936, daring archaeologist and college professor Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) is contacted by two Army Intelligence agents. Aware of Indy's fearless reputation of finding ancient artifacts in some of the most dangerous places on earth, he is given the task to find the lost Ark of the Covenant before the Nazis with the aid of his rival Dr. Rene Belloq (Paul Freeman) find it in belief that its power will make their army invincible. Indy takes on the task and goes on a series of adventures to recover it with the help of his ex-lover Marion (Karen Allen) and a skilled digger from Cairo, Sallah (John Rhys-Davies).



Harrison Ford came fresh out of the successful "Star Wars" sequel "The Empire Strikes Back" to play Indy in George Lucas' next project. Originally Lucas didn't want Ford to play the role of Indy after Steven Spielberg has suggested it to him because he didn't want him to star in every project he's made since his wide success as Han Solo in the "Star Wars" movies. It's hard to picture anyone else taking the role of this iconic hero if these films were to be made without Ford in the lead role for how perfectly he fits it. And while many people would say that Han Solo is Ford's best role when working with Lucas, I would say that Indiana Jones would be his best. Not to say that there's anything wrong with his performance as Solo because there most certainly isn't. It's just unlike how Ford is required to only be tough, snarky, and show a little emotion when expressing the softer side of Solo, he must be the badass daring hero while still showing a nerdy and passionate side to his character. For all the cool moments that people remember the character for, people tend to overlook that he can be at times awkward and geeky. Given that he is an archaeologist, it wouldn't seem believable if he didn't seem passionate and obsessive when talking about history to the point where it feels a little geeky. And when around women he doesn't try to go for the romance like how a hero like James Bond would, if anything he can be downright uncomfortable or put in an odd situation that leads to a few moments of comedy. It's also intriguing to see Ford play a character who isn't as perfect when fighting against the bad guys. He's calculating, slick, strong, and even at times downright cold when taking on an enemy (which has me wondering why Lucas is fine with Indy killing a person in cold blood, and yet Han shooting an alien holding him at gun-point caused him to make such a controversial change), but he can make serious mistakes and have his weaknesses and downfalls. He can face all these booby traps without fear, and yet snakes scare him to death. He'll take out a few assassins in such a cool fashion, but he winds-up accidentally killing a person who's helping him. He just feels like a more rounded character and performance when compared to his role as Han, as well as having a more distinctive outfit that says so much about his character just by looking at him, which is why I find him more appealing.



Watching this film again after so long, I found myself surprised that Indy's love interest Marion is just as tough and skilled as he is. I remembered her being more as the typical damsel in distress who only exists to be a prize for Indy, and that's not to say there isn't any truth to it. She does get taken hostage numerous times in the film. But with that aside, while containing a charming and sweet personality, she can be strong and feisty. When being interrogated, she can be fearless and rough before being put in a vulnerable position. Though she becomes a prisoner of the Nazis, she uses her beauty and abilities as a means of escape when interacting with one of the main antagonists. And just like our hero, when an action scene unfolds, she doesn't suddenly run, hide, or get caught, she fights back killing any Nazi that stands in her way and saves Indy's skin on a few occasions. Allen herself doesn't look like an innocent when she takes part in the action, she becomes just as much as badass as Ford does. The relationship that both characters share is like the relationship between Han Solo and Princess Leia. They both bicker and argue but show their feelings for each other. In comparison "Star Wars" handles this kind of relationship much better. However, the chemistry that they have is just as engaging for how they both contain a love for adventure and danger, as their reasons for not getting along with each other, are legitimate after discovering (a grim part of the story that completely flew over my head as a kid) that the two were unhappy with the fact they were once lovers when she was a teenager who was ten years apart from Indy's age. Even though she "knew what she was doing" her frustration toward Indy for loving and leaving her is understandable for feeling betrayed and dirty, as Indy feels guilty for it but is trying to stay professional in his search for the ark.



Another surprise that came to me when viewing the film after so many years is discovering that John Rhys-Davies is in the film. The supporting actors in the film all give strong solid performances, but apart from Allen, the villains (will get to shortly), very few of them are memorable since their only purpose is to provide exposition. Davies' character isn't strictly around to give Indy the information he needs to move the plot forward, he also serves as his side-kick during his expedition for the ark by helping him penetrate in restricted areas and locating "The Well of Souls" where the ark is hidden. While being very loyal, Davies brings a lively performance to his character that makes him entertaining to watch, while containing a humble presence where you admire how much he cares for Indy. All he just needs are a few scenes of him getting involved in the action (after all he would later play Gimli in "Lord of the Rings"), otherwise, he makes for a great companion to our leading protagonist.



A treasure hunt action-adventure film wouldn't be complete without containing villains who are menacing and colorful, and this film certainly does deliver by providing a wide variety of different types of villains. The film's main antagonist is Indy's arch-rival Dr. Rene Belloq, who is a dark sophisticated counterpart of our leading hero. As Indy goes into life-threatening situations and fights against bad guys to find the artifact he's looking for, Belloq would always be a step ahead of him joining forces with such awful people like Nazis and terrorists to aid him in his quest. And unlike how Indy searches for these ancient artifacts for his love of history and preserving them, Belloq though is very knowledgeable about the items he's after only wants the money, power, and recognition. He's a character so nasty that a fly crawling inside his mouth doesn't faze him. Paul Freeman's performance hams up the character as if he was playing a Bond villain, he's just enjoyably dastardly as Indy's rival. Upstaging Belloq is the Gestapo agent Major Arnold Ernst Toht (Ronald Lacey). Like the villain Angel Eyes in "The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly", despite doing very little, his appearance and personality are so slimy and vicious while showing great enjoyment over the people he intimidates that his presence alone is what makes him so chilling. You're never sure when he's going to strike or how far he goes when using brutal force on the people he meets, all you know is that it's going to be slow and incredibly painful where your screams will just increase his pleasure. There are other villains who stand-out in the film too, like the eye-patch terrorist with his Nazi saluting monkey, the giant bald head Nazi, and Alfred Molina as Indy's backstabbing guide, but they're only in the film for a short time.



The film's villains are indeed threatening, but nowhere near as fleshed-out as our hero, and for a film like this, that's fine. The film's focus is not about Indy and his rival challenging each-other wits, it's your simple point A to point B adventure film where the hero, the action he takes part in, and the treasure he seeks is the primary focus, like in a Bond film from the time or an old film serial. As a matter of fact, a lot of the film was inspired by old Saturday Matinees from the '30s and '40s (particularly the ones made from "Republic Pictures) for their fast-paced action, stunts, adventure setting, and thrilling cliff-hangers. Only instead of the film being shot on the same small scale as these types of films were, it's made to look as big and grand as classics like "Lawrence of Arabia" or "Citizen Kane". It takes the same kind of influences as the "Star Wars" films did, except Lucas' idea of having the film centered on an archaeologist when paying tribute to serials was the first idea he had in mind before deciding to set his tribute to the genre in space.



Most audiences and critics would consider the action in this film to be some of cinema's greatest, and they certainly aren't wrong. I was blown away at how well the action in this film holds-up. There's not a single sequence that bores or drags-on. Scenes such as Indy escaping booby traps in a temple, the fist-fight by a spinning plane, the shoot-out in the bar, and Indy dangling on a moving truck are all just one big thrill ride. The tension and obstacles that Indy faces in these scenes never die-down and only get worse by creating new problems for him thus making the situations more captivating for how high the stakes are. The pacing itself perfectly moves from slow and intense to fast and exhilarating when the action begins to start as you're still given time to breathe and admire the images in front of you through terrific editing that doesn't rush. Being able to see everything, unlike today's action movies where most of it uses CGI to the point where you can't fully appreciate the stunt-work, since this film was made at a time when these advantages weren't around, the stunts performed here (some by Ford himself) are breathtaking for how dangerous and insane they are. The stunts not only still stand the test of time, but so does most of the effects. This film uses nearly every single effect that was around at the time, such as blue-screen, matte paintings, miniatures, animation, live animals, sets, on-location shots, and so much more. It's incredibly impressive the kind of imagination and effort that went into making these effects look so dazzling, especially in the film's climax! The only effects that haven't aged too well are some of the blue-screen effects, but even so, they still add so much to the atmosphere of the scenes they're used in that it doesn't matter if its obvious or not. Adding to weight to the parallel for the stunts being performed and the special effects looking so grand are the sound effects. Hearing people being punched, the giant boulder rolling, the slithers of a thousand snakes, and Indy's whip being cracked, add a large thrill for how brutal they sound (you'd be amazed at what was being used behind the scenes when creating these sounds). The element that overpowers the sound effects is John Williams score. The score may have similar cues to the music he composed for "The Superman" movies, but it's still a score as spectacular as the very scenes it plays for, coming across as exciting, triumphant, and big, while still maintaining a sound reminiscent to themes for adventure serials back in the day. This is another one of those films directed by Spielberg that if Williams score was absent the impact wouldn't be as strong regardless of how epic the action scenes are.



From all its stunning action, the film does carry tons of enchantment to it as well. The talks about the ark provide a dark sense of wonder for how powerful and yet full mystery it is. Hearing the ominous score and eerie sound effects being played in the background matched with the excitingly intense delivers from the actors becomes incredibly haunting, effectively building-up of what an important find it is, and the chaos that may occur when fallen into the wrong hands. The visuals depicting the ark, and the artifacts that Indy finds on his journey don't disappoint as they are shot and lit to appear to be larger than life despite its size. As beautiful as the treasures are, the set designs for the temple and lost tombs where Indy goes are appropriately the opposite, looking old and grim giving you the feeling that booby traps and snakes aren't the only things protecting the treasures.

SPOILERS IN THIS PARAGRAPH!



The only problems that the film really has are the plot-holes that happen in the film's third act. The first two acts are very solid in terms of writing. There are of course historical liberties being taken when portraying the Nazis, and the famous opening scene being pointless to the overall plot of the movie, but nowhere near as questionable as the stuff that happens as soon as Indy rides on top of a Nazi sub to their hidden base. It's amazing how the submarine never dives, nor are there any troops guarding the top. Indy himself doesn't even look dehydrated during a voyage that may have taken days if not weeks to get to his destination. Indy later threatens to blow-up the ark in exchange for Marion when he reaches the Island, but doesn't he realize that blowing-up the ark will also kill her if the Nazi's refuse to turn her loose? A common criticism that people give the film is how Indy's involvement in finding the ark would have no effect on the story. One way or another, the Nazi's are going to die after unveiling it. I don't agree with this criticism for a few reasons. Belloq may have been searching for the ark, but it's made clear that his discoveries are from following Indy around, and without Indy's involvement, Belloq probably wouldn't have come close to discovering it. After all, he had Nazi's following him to retrieve the amulet that will help lead them to it. And if the Nazi's still did discover where the amulet is, Marion would be killed if Indy wasn't there to save her. But the main reason why Indy's involvement matters is that his goal to bring the ark back to the United States before the Nazis grab it, and even though the first troop that opened it up will die, that doesn't mean the Nazi's don't still have it. Indy knew how to keep himself safe from being killed by the angels of death by not looking at them, what makes people think the Nazi's can't learn about it too? They can still use the ark as a weapon to help take over the world after learning how to use it to their advantage. The only problem with the film involving Indy's involvement is we never see him escape the Island (that I'm sure is still crawling with Nazis) with the ark! That's a very important detail to leave out, almost as if there wasn't enough time or money to shoot a final action sequence before the last scene in the movie.

OVERALL THOUGHTS

As massive as the plot-holes are, that doesn't mean they're distracting because the film is so awesome that it doesn't matter. The film has everything you could ever wish for from an adventure film! It's action-packed, atmospheric, dark and edgy, full of wonder, romantic, humorous, has outstanding performances, a relatable daring hero, menacing villains you love to hate, plenty of tension, amazing special effects, fun mind-blowing action-scenes, a variety of different locations, and a tremendous score. It's as perfect as a film like this can get that can appeal to all audiences! To think that every studio in Hollywood (before "Paramount" gave in) would turn down a film like this with the combined talents of George Lucas and Steven Spielberg is very jarring because have this film not been made, we wouldn't have had a timeless classic that has revolutionized action-adventure films the way we see them now.

THE LOST WORLD: JURASSIC PARK

Last July 4th I reviewed the first film that Steven Spielberg ever directed, which was a horror film called "Duel". And as I was reviewing the film, I talked a bit about the kinship that Spielberg has always felt between "Duel" and two of his other works involving man vs monster which are "JAWS" and "Jurassic Park"; that I wholeheartedly agree with. They are different films that many would see as just three separate films that have nothing in common except that they were directed by the same person. But they all still carried similar traits in terms of premise, thrills, directing, and effects, along with having a few other little subtle nods and references to each other that many may not catch on. And because of the similarities that these three classic monster flicks shared, I personally gave them the unofficial title of being known as "The Spielberg Monster Trilogy". The reason why I say "Unofficial" (aside from the obvious fact that Spielberg never gave his monster trilogy a name, despite the kinship that he feels between these three films) is because they unfortunately got sequels as films like "JAWS" and "Jurassic Park" became their own separate film franchise, as their sequels have always paled in comparison. The majority of sequels weren't directed by Steven Spielberg, which would explain why I wouldn't consider them as being part of his Monster Trilogy, and why they failed at being as great as their predecessors. But Spielberg however did direct one of the crappy sequels from his unofficial trilogy, and that's the first of the sequels to follow after his Summer Blockbuster "Jurassic Park"...

  

As a kid growing up in the 90s, I was probably one of the few 90s kids who wasn't crazy about Dinosaurs. I had nothing against them; I just wasn't all that interested in them. But if there was one thing involving Dinosaurs that I kept hearing from almost everybody around me talking about (not counting the purple one who was annoying and creepy), it was the Dinosaurs in "Jurassic Park". Whenever these reptilian creatures were ever brought up, people would keep telling me how cool they were in that movie and that I had to go see it. Eventually my Dad bought me a copy of "Jurassic Park", but it wasn't the classic that everyone was raving about. It was instead its sequel. But since I had a "Jurassic Park" film in my possession, I figured that since it had Dinosaurs in it, doing cool Dinosaur stuff, I didn't think it would matter. Plus the sequel has been advertised nearly every where I went, so I assumed that it was just as good as the first film was. When I sat down and watched the film, just like when I saw "The Phantom Menace" in theaters, I was so incredibly bored by it (Even when we got to the Dinosaur action), I decided to not see the first film, thinking that it was going to be just as boring as this film was, where the only good things in it are the Dinosaurs. It wasn't until 2005 when I was in the fifth grade, where I finally decided to give the first film a look, despite how much the sequel prevented me from seeing it. And when I finally rented a copy of the first film at my local library and watched it on my VCR, I was hooked, and completely blown-away by it, with the thought that I was seriously missing out on something spectacular. I didn't see the sequel that scared me away from seeing the first film, until I was at my senior year in Middle School, and when I sat down and saw it again, my reaction was "eh". It had good effects, but every thing else felt pretty dull. Now that I'm an adult with more of a critical mind, did the film get any better? ON WITH THE REVIEW!

Four years after the chaos of John Hammond's (Richard Attenborough) attempt of creating a Dinosaur theme park and miserably failing at it. Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) is told by Hammond about another Island that they contain the Dinosaur's on, where they created them before moving them to the park. But after the tragic accident in the park itself, a hurricane wiped out the other Island that inhabited the Dinosaurs, and now the Dinosaurs are loose and free without any supervision. Hammond also asks Malcolm to go to the Island to document the Dinosaurs with two other people in hope to encourage people to go against human interference on the Island, since his Nephew Peter (Arliss Howard) plans to capture the Dinosaurs and transfer them to a Park in San Diego. But Malcolm refuses Hammond's pleas for help, until he discovers that his girlfriend Sarah (Julianne Moore) is already on the Island documenting the Dinosaurs, by herself. After going to the Island to find that his girlfriend is completely fine, Malcolm then decides to sabotage Peter's plan of capturing the Dinosaurs fearing that it'll lead to more chaos. But as they have to fight and run away from Dinosaurs, while stopping Peter and his gang of poachers, Malcolm also discovers that his daughter Kelly (Vanessa Lee Chester) has stowed away on the boat heading for the Island because she can no longer take being neglected by her Father.



If you read my review on "Jurassic Park" then you already know that Jeff Goldblum as Ian Malcolm is my favorite character and performance in the movie. The majority of the film's best quotes undoubtedly come from Goldblum's cynical personality and dry sense of humor. And every time I see him appear on screen making sarcastic comments, and discussing about the dangers of Hammond's handling with the Dinosaur's with his "deplorable excess of personality"; I always find myself being enjoyably entertained by him, while also getting a good laugh every now and then. Due to Goldblum's popularity in the first film, Spielberg decided to make him the star of the second movie, and the result of casting Goldblum as the sequel’s leading star was highly disappointing. Turning this once wisecracking scientist, into a leading badass with a bit of a more serious approach compared to his comical personality in the first film, fails on so many levels that I still can't believe that Goldblum is playing the same character. All personality and likability that was given to the character feels completely sucked out of him, for how dull and lifeless he sounds and acts in the film. There's hardly a single expression that Goldblum gives to the character that doesn't feel lifeless or half-assed. Even when he's angry or worried, he doesn't at all seem like that he actually cares. It almost feels like that Goldblum doesn't even want to be in this film for how uninterested he looks on-screen. In fact, when he first enters the film, he just stands there yawning looking very tired; that's how you introduce a beloved comic relief character in your sequel?



Goldblum does get plenty of lines that are supposed to be funny, but even those moments feel very half-baked, and even at times forced. For example, there's a scene where Goldblum and two other characters are dangling over a cliff, and when one of his assistants tries to save them and asks if they want anything else,  Goldblum responds that he wants a cheeseburger, as the rest of the gang join in on his sarcasm! Holy smoke, you're dangling over a cliff, and yet you just hang there joking around as if you don't care that you could fall to your death at any second?! That was completely the wrong time to give Goldblum a sarcastic comment that's supposed to be funny. I honestly can't remember a single time where I found myself chuckling or getting so much as a giggle when Goldblum delivers these comical on-liners for how tedious and at times out of place they are. And when a famous comical character who’s played by the same actor in a sequel, fails to make you laugh, that's when you know that there's a problem with the movie. Now in all fairness for Goldblum's presence and his character's sudden change of personality, the sequel does explain why he's serious since he lost his job as a scientist for telling people about the accident in "Jurassic Park" which caused Hammond's nephew to make him look like a lunatic so that no one would believe him. But I still call bull on that because his change of personality isn't just flat out boring to the point where even his "Uhs" are not enjoyable, but you're telling me that none of the other survivors (Not even the kids) told anybody about the Island where there are man-eating Dinosaurs without any restraint? I don't buy it, not for one bit!



On top of the poor choice of casting Goldblum as the lead, as I was watching the film I always found myself getting the impression that the character of Dr. Alan Grant played by Sam Neil should have been the sequel's star instead. I say this because even though I love Goldblum a lot in the first movie, Grant did have a story-arc, and more of an interaction with the dangers surrounding the park than Malcolm did. In fact, Malcolm spent the entire second half of the film recovering from his wounds safe and sound in the control room as all the chaos was going on. He wasn't constantly being surrounded by danger like Grant was, and he didn't have any development through his experience in the park since he was right about every thing. To add to my theory of feeling like Grant should have been the star of the sequel is the scene when Malcolm is having a bit of a reunion with the kids that's supposed to be heartwarming. Why would the kids be so happy and excited to see Malcolm? They didn't spend any time with Malcolm in the first film. I don't even remember them ever sharing a piece of dialogue together. It was Grant who they had a close connection with (with the exception of their Grandpa of course), not Malcolm. Grant was the one who escorted them through the park and taught them a few facts about Dinosaurs. So the idea of having the kids being excited over a visit of a character who we never saw them spend time with, makes no sense, as Goldblum himself seems to acknowledged how out of nowhere this moment is by how disinterested he acts when he encounters them.



And to top off my reasons why I feel like Grant should have been the film's star is because of the overall reason why Malcolm goes to the Island. First of all, wouldn't it make more sense for Hammond to hire Grant instead of Malcolm, since he specializes in Dinosaurs, while Malcolm specializes in "Chaos Theory"? There's no reason for Hammond to hire a Mathematician on an expedition to document the Dinosaurs (aside from the B.S. reason why Malcolm is no longer a scientist). Grant should have been Hammond's first choice, and Malcolm should have been his last choice out of all the survivors from the first film (not counting his children). And there's not even so much as a poor excuse or hint of why Grant refused to go to the Island. He's just overall forgotten, despite that he rescued his grandchildren! Second and last of all, wouldn't it be more interesting if Grant's girlfriend Ellie Sattler was on that Island, who decided to go to the Island for finical issues or something? I know Hammond was kind of sexist towards her in the first film, but after turning on the power and helping Grant and the kids get away from the Velociraptors, I think she would have earned Hammond's respect. Plus Hammond did invite Malcolm's girlfriend on an Island full of unsupervised Dinosaurs despite that she's a women, so why not Ellie? This film was pretty much begging for Grant to be the lead, and yet we have to deal with a now serious Ian Malcolm as our hero, who has lost all sense of charm.

But as much as I bash Goldblum's character and performance, I'm not going to act like that he's the only person in this film who gives a bad performance, because everybody else in this movie are just as badly acted and poorly written as Malcolm is, which is an obvious sign of bad writing and directing. And even if they did cast Sam Neil and Laura Dern in their respective roles, despite that their presence in the film would make more sense than Malcolm's appearance; I still don't think they can rise above the poor directing, or overcome the bad writing that the characters in this film are given. Every single character and performance in this film is just unwatchable. I can't think of a single character that I cared about when watching this movie, or so much as a moment where I found their conversations or interaction with one another to be interesting or believable. Sure the characters in the first movie were very simplistic, but at least you still enjoyed being around them. You were interested in hearing them talk about Dinosaurs; you loved watching Malcolm work-off his humor on the characters; you understood and felt Hammond's passion for bringing the world something great, only to see him fail miserably at it. These were characters that you legitimately liked that can appeal to both kids and adults, as you still find yourself remembering these characters as you get older. With these characters on the other hand, they're dull and forgettable. Julianne Moore is that typical damsel in distress who acts smart but foolishly gets herself into trouble or other people in trouble, as she and Goldblum have little to no chemistry together. Malcolm's daughter Kelly is the bland whiny innocent who suffers from the busy Father who never spends time with his family trope, that's not at all interesting, nor even has a resolution (at least not one that feels earned). Richard Attenborough as John Hammond (who only appears in two scenes) is trying hard to capture the same charm that he had in the first movie, but he unfortunately comes off as corny and tiring. Richard Schiff as Malcolm's equipment expert leaves little to no impression on you, as his only purpose in the film is to get killed by the Dinosaur's. And Vince Vaughn as an experienced documentarian and environmentalist is boring and quiet, and yet still somehow comes off as annoying and obnoxious, where half of the time I'm not sure if he's supposed to play his character as a badass, a subtle comic-relief, or both.

The film as I mentioned earlier, does have villains, and not one of them is memorable, or even comes off as threatening. They hunt the Dinosaurs and plan to bring them back to an area based on the original park in San Diego, but they aren't the ones responsible for the chaos that goes on in this film, unlike how Wayne Knight's character in the first film was. They don't even release the T-Rex when she arrives in San Diego, some idiot guard investigating the crash of the ship that she was in releases her by mistake without even knowing that she was in the ship's cargo hold. Knight's character actually turned off the fences that caused the Dinosaur's to break free, these villains don't so much as make a mistake of letting the Dinosaur's run wild and attack our heroes. It's really the heroes that cause a good half of the mayhem that happens in this movie. They steal a wounded baby T-Rex that attracts the Mother and the Father. Set-free the Dinosaur's from their cages, only to have them cause a ruckus of endangering people's lives, including their own. And foolishly lure a T-Rex to their camp, because Moore simply did not bother to wash off the blood from the Baby T-Rex on her jacket (though to be fair, I thought the T-rexes' instincts were strictly based on movements). It also doesn't help their case of being a complete pair of unlikable idiots that are responsible for the dangers around them, when they steal the ammo from the poachers to leave them to be eaten by the Dinosaur's, despite the fact that they have saved them from death once, and escorted them through the Jungle! I get that they are trying to stop them from bringing the Dinosaur's to the US, and that they believe that the Dinosaur's should be left alone in their natural habitat, but these characters only make things worse than they already are! People are dying because of them! And their attempts of preventing the poachers from bringing the Dinosaur's to the U.S. still miserably fails, since they forgot to...oh I don't know...steal their tranquilizer darts, which is the way more efficient way of capturing an animal, then with bullets! And don't get me wrong, the poacher's are greedy assholes who are just as stupid and unlikable as the heroes are, but at least they're not heartless! This whole entire "Animal Rights" message of protecting Dinosaur's (that will kill you regardless) is just a pointless and half-assed moral, that's a complete mess. As old and basic as the moral of not trying to play the role of god was in the first movie, it at least stayed focused on that moral and theme, where Spielberg and the writers knew exactly what they were doing to execute this moral so beautifully. This whole concept of involving dinosaurs with "Animal Rights", just doesn't at all feel well thought out.



But I know what you're thinking. You don't care if the characters are boring, or if the story and its moral doesn't make sense. You just want to be blown away by the effects for the Dinosaur's, and see them eat people and stuff like that. And yeah, that's why people would ever consider watching this movie to begin with. So in terms of action and effects involving the Dinosaur's, does the film deliver? Well the Special Effects for the Dinosaur's are still cool. It is obvious that the film is more reliant on its CGI than the first film was, but at least this film still used animatronics and puppets that look pretty damn convincing (unlike in the rest of the sequels that followed after this movie, where the Dinosaur's look so computer generated that you hardly ever get the feeling that they're actually there). The most realistic looking effect for the Dinosaur in the whole entire film, that made me believe that it was actually living and breathing, was the baby T-Rex. I never at all felt like I was looking at a Dinosaur that was an animatronic; I actually thought that the baby T-Rex was in pain as he was being carried away by our leads.

 

The sequel also does offer some cool ideas and things that we haven't seen in the first film. While the first film showed audiences a wide variety of Dinosaur's that most of us are familiar with, the sequel gets to show a few more Dinosaur's that many people wished to see such as Compsognathus', a Pteranodons, and the most popular requested one of them all, the Stegosaurus'. And since we have a few new Dinosaur's to add to John Hammond's collection, we get to see them cause twice as much the chaos as they did in the first film. Furthermore unlike how the last film was a Sci-Fi Family Adventure flick mixed with horror; this film has more of a darker edge then what the original film carried, by giving it a dark and gritty adult look and feel, and just simply have the Dinosaur's kill people left and right, rather than having us be enchanted by them during half of their on-screen appearance. Plus, since the Dinosaur's are no longer restraint from killing people, we do get some very interesting set-ups involving them, such as the Compsognathus' attacking a little girl wandering alone on the beach; two T-Rex's knocking a Van over a cliff with our leads inside it; and setting the film's climax in a city with the T-Rex on the loose. We also get to see them commit some cool deaths that I wish were in the first film, such as seeing a person getting stomped by a foot of a Dinosaur, and witnessing two T-Rex's tare a guy apart that's on the same level as cool as seeing "the blood-sucking lawyer" being eaten to shreds by the T-Rex in the first movie. So this movie does seem to give us what it promises.



But as good as the effects are, and as awesome as everything that I just mentioned sounds, the pay-off is still just as disappointing as seeing Jeff Goldblum lose everything that we admired about him in the first movie. Spielberg may have put some new Dinosaur's in this sequel, but half of the new ones that I just mentioned hardly do anything. The Pteranodons only appears for the final shot of the movie; and the Stegosaurus' only get one scene that tries to be both enchanting and thrilling, but goes by so fast that you get the feeling that Spielberg was only shoehorning them into the movie because the fans simply wanted to see them. As for making this film darker than the first film was, while I'm not totally against the idea of having a dark and more realistic jungle environment as the Dinosaur's come across more as monsters, instead of a creatures trying to adapt to their environment; the overall result of changing the film's look and tone from the first movie just looks and feels incredibly boring. The film is covered with so much black and grey that it doesn't make the environment interesting to look at, or make it feel dangerous for how bland it looks; when in the first film, it had a warm and colorful environment that made it look visually interesting, while still giving it a dark and ominous look and feel that was terrifying! And since the Dinosaurs in this film are now portrayed more as monsters, instead of wild animals trying to survive and adapt, it not only makes the "Animal's Rights" message even more pointless and confused, but part of the reason that made the first film so great was they did take their time to give these animals a sense of awe and enchantment. When we see the character's gazing, or interacting with a Dinosaur that's harmless, we the audience wish we could actually be there with the characters experiencing their encounter with them for these moments. And even though this film does have some whimsical scenes involving the Dinosaurs, they come and go by so fast that you don't find yourself taking the time to embrace these enchanting moments. Also if the film's bland look, and lack of respect for the Dinosaur's as Animals isn't less enchanting for you, the film's pace runs so slow, that I almost felt like that 3 hours went by, instead of 2. When in the first movie the pacing knew when to be slow and relaxing, and when to be fast and thrilling.



And if you're thinking at this point that I find the action involving the Dinosaurs to be boring and slow, you're absolutely correct. I really do want to like the action that these scenes have to offer, because the effects and the set-ups are cool and inventive. I was trying very hard to get invested into the action and thrills that the film threw at me. But no matter how I hard I try to push myself to enjoy these moments, I simply can't for how stale and unintentionally goofy they are. I wanted to be enchanted and scared of the Compsognathus' as the little girl was in the beginning. But the scene felt like a weak duplicate of Nedry's encounter with Dilophosaurus (that's duplicated again when we see these seemingly harmless creatures a second and third time) only without a death (which would have been disturbing knowing that a little girl was killed by a Dinosaur), that ends with one of the silliest transitions that I've ever seen in a movie. I wanted to be thrilled by the Mother and Father T-Rex's attack on the van dangling over a cliff, just as much as when the T-Rex attacked the Jeeps in the previous film. But I found myself overall bored with it for how slow the sequence moves, how little the two T-Rex's were attacking on-screen, and how much it reminds me of the T-Rex's first attack in the sequel's predecessor. But I will admit, the part with the glass breaking whenever Julianne Moore breathed was pretty suspenseful; too bad that only lasted for a very short period of time.



What really infuriates me about the film's lack of scares and wonderment involving the Dinosaur's is how the film portrays the Velociraptors. Remember how awesome, scary, and smart they were in the first film; well that's all pretty much gone here. When I saw them appear on-screen killing people and attacking our leads, I was never once scared by them. There was no suspense or tension involving the human's encounter with these awesome Dinosaurs, it felt lacking. The way they pop-up are just cheap jump scares with no pay-off. Their first scene of killing the hunters as they were hidden in the bushes had me bored, instead of leaving me in complete terror like the rest of the crew running to save their skins. And the chase that they have with our boring leads didn't at all hold me on the edge of my seat, especially when comparing it to the Raptors hunting the character's in the climax to the first film. In addition to the insult to injury of the Raptors losing everything that made them scary, some of the things that they do in the movie are just as painfully idiotic as the things that the human characters do. They let their prey get away because they're too busy fighting each other because of an accident. And one of them literally gets their face kicked by a little girl, just by simply being told to look at her, as the Raptor just stares at her for 5 seconds, rather then jumping up at her. I can buy the kids in the first movie outsmarting the Raptors since they are hunting them in a kitchen, an environment that they are completely unfamiliar with. But seeing a little girl physically kicking a smart Raptor by using the oldest trick in the book to gain the animal's attention is a stretch too far that gets very cringe worthy. The Raptors overall presence in this movie feels more like an afterthought, as Spielberg and the writers felt like that they had to fit them into the sequel somehow since they were as big of a hit as the T-Rex was.



Speaking of the T-Rex, the whole climax when she's running wild around San Diego I'll admit is the only entertaining part of the movie, but there is still plenty of things wrong with. As a teenager when I saw the movie from beginning to end, I remember being disappointed for how short the scene was. But after not seeing this movie in quite awhile, I thought maybe the scene was actually longer than I realized, and that my memory of it was just vague. But after seeing this scene again, it turns out that my memories of being disappointed in the sequences' overall length weren't deceiving me. The whole sequence of the T-Rex causing havoc on the City only lasts for at least 4 minutes, and instead of seeing her destroy stuff in dramatic fashion, the scene instead sadly plays itself more as a joke. We have a kid who see's the T-Rex in his backyard drinking water from the pool and eating a dog while it's still inside the dog house, as the kid doesn't look scared or blown away by it. The reactions that the screaming people running away from the T-Rex have are unbelievably comical. There's a movie store that a bus crashes into that's full of fake posters that are so silly and cheesy, that you'd thought that they would be in a parody film, instead of a "Jurassic Park" movie. And one of the film's writers David Koepp makes a forced and over the top cameo appearance as a civilian getting eaten by the T-Rex, whose credited as the "Unlucky Bastard". This sequence is so out of place with it’s over the top comedy and style, that it's almost as if Spielberg didn't have the budget to make a long and exciting climax of destruction that's thrilling and intense. He couldn't do a scene where the Velociraptors jump on board of the ship carrying the T-Rex and kill the crew as he originally intended (which would explain perfectly how the T-Rex was able to kill people in places of the ship that she couldn't fit in and not leave so much as trail of destruction behind. And why she's still trapped down in the ship's hold after she supposedly ate the crew), so I wouldn't be surprised if Spielberg was like "SCREW IT ALL! Let's make this climax as incredibly silly as possible" because of budget and time restraint.

Spielberg himself actually admitted that he wasn't into creating this sequel the same way he felt when he created the first film by stating "I beat myself up... growing more and more impatient with myself... It made me wistful about doing a talking picture, because sometimes I got the feeling I was just making this big silent-roar movie... I found myself saying, 'Is that all there is? It's not enough for me.'"; and man does the overall result show. I do think the effects are great, and that the film does have some cool and exciting ideas; but the execution for these interesting ideas and set-ups are so weak that the effects for the Dinosaur's don't even save these good ideas from failing. The characters and performances are dull. The film's dark look is boring. The scenes with the Dinosaurs lack any of the awe, and scares that first film had with them. The "Animal Rights" message involving the Dinosaur's feels forced. And I don't overall get that same sense of adventure, thrill, and excitement that the first film brought. It's a very bland movie that's hardly entertaining. I don't care if Spielberg directed this unnecessary sequel, because part of what made his three monsters films so successful was because they were huge staples in Spielberg's career as a filmmaker that he put a lot of heart and passion into them. When with this film, he seems to be forcefully creating it by popular demand and money.

RATING 1/5