To begin with, the film is shorter than Jurassic Park II. So, despite being worse than Jurassic Park, like it's predecessor, there's less to take in. As a result, this film moves at a quicker pace, so you're rarely focused on processing just how poorly written and possibly acted the characters (other than Grant, Brennan, Udesky, and Paul) are.
So it's less painful because it's shorter? A lot of folks seem to use this as a defense for liking JPIII better, but it seems to me that's less of a compliment than an ancillary factor...
Speaking of characters...there's no horrible Nick (Prick?) Van Owen. When I was younger, I vaguely thought of him as a good guy. As an adult, I realize just how destructive and damn selfish his eco-terrorism really is. Why no one else on the "good guys" side calls him out on his actions is beyond me. Following this, Tea Leoni's Amanda Kirby is a breath of fresh air: i'll take stupid over arrogantly malicious any day of the week.
I agree about the radical environmentalism, and TLW would have been much better for wear had Nick operated independently of Sarah and was just portrayed as a loose cannon that eventually died because of his own actions. Would that have made the film better for you, Wesker? We can debate set pieces all day long but I find this particular angle of TLW impossible to defend because I don't condone the behavior.
Then, there's Ian and Sarah. While Goldblum and Moore turned in technically okay performances in this film (Goldlbum arguably being superior overall), I don't get a sense of chemistry between them. Yes, even remnants of past chemistry don't appear visible at all. Despite not being romantically linked, Alan and Billy have so much more of a rapport that seems genuine, which makes their interactions more interesting.
Well, they WERE fighting for most of the movie, and the rest of the time they didn't really interact independently of anyone else, save for in San Diego. But I can sort of tell what you mean. Their interaction certainly didn't leave me with a desire to see a buddy series based on their characters. As for Alan and Billy, their "chemistry" seems to be more the result of the casting than writing. Much has been said of the shoddy plot and characterization of JPIII, but like I've told you before, Billy only exists to cause Alan trouble. You can just hear the writers brainstorming:
Writer 1: "Who do we want back? Malcolm had the last movie."
Writer 2: "What about Dr. Grant? Some fans were disappointed he didn't come back for the second movie."
Writer 1: "Yeah, and the story could be that Ellie is on Isla Sorna and he has to rescue her!"
Writer 2: "We've done that already. And why would Ellie or Dr. Grant go back to a dinosaur infested island, anyway?"
Writer 1: "Well, what if some people are wanting to get on the island and want Dr. Grant to go with them? He doesn't want to go, but he has a gung-ho assistant that shoots off his mouth and gets him into it? Even better, Alan could give that assistant a stern lecture at some point in the film."Along similar lines, Malcolm as the protagonist didn't quite do it for me. He's much better as a supporting character ("The Lancer", for anyone wise to TV Tropes) than the front-and-center lead man. Grant has a subdued but rock-solid confidence that naturally elevates him to the position. Plus, he simply has more dinosaur/outdoor experience that logically qualifies him for a more action-oriented role.
Yes, but by equal measure Grant is more of a square-jawed, vanilla hero. Malcolm may be less suited for the role but I think he's ultimately more interesting in it.
How about the set pieces? JP II's take on Isla Sorna feels a bit too generic and dark on the whole. Moreover, it comes off as Pacific Northwest forest in nature rather than an outright tropical isle. About the only section I liked visually was the area containing remains of human construction near the communication center. JP III's side of Isla Sorna is decidedly lush and jungle-like through and through. The aviary and ensuing river segment are both well shot and well edited.
As illogical as it is, I found the coniferous forest to be a refreshing change from the tropical look of the first film. It also worked to give TLW it's own visual identity apart from the first film, which JPIII promptly retconned. Props where they're due to JPIII's aviary and boat sequences, but their quality is undermined by the fact that they were lifted from the first novel. Sure, TLW also has set pieces from it's namesake, but it was supposed to be an adaptation not a hack job of unused material. Plus, the writers came up with the T. Rex camp rampage, Raptor attack sequences and San Diego rampage all on their own.
The Tyrannosaurus Rex duo was cool, but I found the Spinosaurus to be a fresh and innovative take on the main super-predator that gives our heroes a bad time. You can mostly chalk this up to it's unconventional physiological design (shape of it's mouth plus the sail on it's back) plus distinctly different yet still terrifyingly ferocious roar.
As a T. Rex fan that was butthurt at the time over the fight, I think it would have been better and ultimately cooler if instead of chasing the people, the Rex had just roared to scare them away and went back to eating. That would have been a neat little cameo and a much less offensive passing of the torch to the Spinosaurus.
Truly, the only thing about Jurassic Park II I prefer over Jurassic Park III is it's soundtrack. Even though John Williams wasn't quite on his game like he was for Jurassic Park, his effort still thoroughly outclasses that of Don Davis.
I don't know, I thought Williams brought his A-game back for the second film as well. I like his atypical approach of creating all new themes and motifs with only occasional callbacks to the original score. It suited the film better than would the original themes. The newer music was also more complex in arrangement, which adds to its charm.
I would continue this battle of wits with you but I can see that you're unarmed.
reply
share