1993’s “Jurassic Park” [IMDB] is a touchstone for a generation. The movie melded some of the richest, most evolved practical effects ever created with, then, bleeding-edge digital effects to bring every child’s fantasy to life: dinosaurs. After dragging audiences through two stunted, heavy-handed sequels, this movie promises nothing less than a rekindling of that original magic.
Spoiler: It doesn’t do it. There is no rekindling.
George Miller’s [IMDB] original Mad Max trilogy is an enigmatic classic. 1979’s “Mad Max” [IMDB] told the story of a vengeful cop losing his humanity against the backdrop of civilization on the brink of collapse. It was the only offering not set in a desert wasteland and, more importantly, the only story about Max, himself.
There has been an unending glut of young-adult fantasy romance adapted to film since the successes of “Twilight” and “The Hunger Games”. Authors are going to have to start leveraging love trapezoids because we’ve literally run out of triangles.
Still, it was my daughter’s 13th birthday and she wanted to watch this with her friends. They were deeply invested in the books and they promised – cross their hearts! – that they would watch it.
Teenage girls lie.
Teenage girls lie a lot.
Giving the benefit of the doubt, I don’t think that they intend to lie, but lie they do. I was able to capture this timelapse of them “watching” the movie. Does it look like much watching is getting done?
Phones, giggling, moving around, phones on sticks, snacks, jumping on each other and jumping off the furniture. These are, I remind you, huge fans. Personally, I was less animated and able to pay more attention.
Not that I really needed to. The basic framework is so terribly familiar: a blank teenage girl discovers that she’s actually incredibly special and is part of a fantastic hidden world. She then spends the whole movie moaning over, but never choosing between, two guys. The teenage girls squealed like… well, like teenage girls, when the blank girl started kissing the amazingly effeminate guy, but a few did argue for the merits of the nerdy guy.
The plot is built from common ingredients in a different blender: angels and demons, werewolves and vampires, secret societies and ancient feuds. The good guys have hidden a magic cup that the bad guys want. Really important information is delivered with a British accent, because.
The special effects are nice enough and the pacing is pretty good when not bogged down by the kissing parts. Teenage girls seem to enjoy ignoring it while looking at their phones. The whole thing is basically harmless.
In the past decade we’ve been flooded with gimped, sanitized PG-13 action movies. Bloodless, asexual, effects-driven action replaced the hard-hitting, foul-mouthed classics of the 80’s and early 90’s. Similarly, spy movies drifted away from fun, gadget-filled contests between womanizing gentlemen agents and volcano-habitating super-villains to gritty, dystopian melodramas featuring corrupt governments and more double-crosses than a confirmation ceremony for twins.
The tent pole of the Marvel cinematic universe is back with a vengeance after the massively successful 2012 “The Avengers” [My Review]. The entire main cast returns joined by many smaller characters from the various individual films. Joss Whedon [IMDB] is also back at the helm; rumors have it, for the last time.
One of the benefits of the comic book media explosion – one that we need to enjoy before the inevitable implosion – is that production companies are more willing to fund experiments. This spring two companies with non-traditional distribution methods lept into the world of comic book adaptations.
Smart sci-fi has seen something of a resurgence in the past few years (let’s just forget how stupid “Lucy” and “Prometheus” were). People seem more willing to actually think about the stories and so production companies seem more willing to fund them. Of course, the fact that this particular movie is from a guy that’s made gajillions (yes, that’s gajillions with a “G”) of dollars could also have something to do with that.
I’m having some trouble. I am absolutely convinced that I reviewed this movie months ago. More than that, I remember really liking my review of it. I remember it being clever and funny and insightful – one of my best, really.
As fans know, the Marvel cinematic universe is split across multiple production companies; the result of a coordinated sell-off to stave off bankruptcy years ago. This is why you won’t see an X-Man helping out an Avenger or Spider-man chatting with The Fantastic Four even though they live a few blocks from one another. It’s worked out well enough for all involved, but it does create some friction.
So, we’ve successfully slogged through “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” [My Review] and “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug” [My Review] and we’re finally now ready to wrap things up in the shortest entry in the series at only 144 minutes. So, for those keeping track at home, that’s just a shade under eight hours to adapt a book you can read in under 10.