Reviews

This will be a redo of my previous (and frankly immature) review for 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey' in which I attempt to assess the film's flaws against its weaknesses. Back in 2012, a few film critics were quick to call this film the 'Phantom Menace' of the LOTR series, and that worried me to my core. But upon watching it for the first time, I fell in love with it as I did with the original trilogy and could not see eye to eye with that negative sentiment. So far, time has done little to dent my love of this first in the Hobbit trilogy.

The story so far is simple; respectable hobbit Bilbo Baggins is invited by the wizard Gandalf the Grey to accompany a band of thirteen dwarfs led by Thorin Oakenshield, the uncrowned king of the dwarfs, to embark on an adventure to take back their lost mountain kingdom of Erebor and the treasure within from a cunning dragon named Smaug. Along the way, the band encounters a trio of hungry trolls, ferocious wargs, lofty elves, troublesome goblin hordes and cruel orcs. Out of his element, Bilbo must use his wits and determination to help the dwarfs reclaim their home and has a chance encounter with a creature that changes the fate of Middle-earth. Meanwhile, Gandalf learns from fellow wizard Radagast that a mysterious Necromancer has taken hold in the forest of Mirkwood and may be responsible for the resurgence of evil creatures in Middle-earth.

All of the actors play their characters to perfection, especially Martin Freeman as Bilbo and Richard Armitage as Thorin. Bilbo wears his personality on his sleeves; he's kind, funny, nervous, and polite to a fault, if a bit prudish, yet he becomes brave and resourceful over time. His modest sensibilities make him very relatable. Thorin is a stubborn, regal, prideful dwarf who holds restoring his people above all else. He comes to respect and even appreciate Bilbo when the hobbit displays a feat of courage in the face of adversity. The standouts among the Dwarfs include Balin, a gentle grandfatherly figure, Dwalin, a gruff and suspicious mass of muscle, Bofur, a jocular and eccentric journeyman, and Fili and Kili, the laddish, loyal nephews of Thorin; all coming across as likable and spirited in their own way. Radagast the Brown; I actually quite like him. Upon hearing the comparisons to Jar-Jar Binks I was once again worried, but now I know this: Radagast is an eccentric hermit who actively assists Gandalf in his missions, Jar-Jar is a babbling idiot; they're as different as a tree to a rubber band. The returning actors step into their parts as though they never left them; Ian McKellan is majestic and endearing as Gandalf, and Andy Serkis slips back into the role of Gollum perfectly.

As for Azog, I honestly would have preferred him to be written out so that Bolg would take his place, but I know why they included him; to be a menace to the dwarfs and work as a pawn of the Nercomancer as the series progresses, but I agree that he and many of his subordinates should not have been CGI creations. However, I don't mind the CGI for the goblins as it gives them a distinctive and overall more vermin-like look.

The prosthetics added to the grittiness of the LOTR trilogy, but with a relatively lighter story in The Hobbit, CGI can lend itself well to creating vast locations and creatures, such as the enormous Stone Giants and Goblin Caves. While I understand that most people are annoyed by excess of CGI when it came to the orcs and some sets, do we really watch these films just for their special effects and makeup artistry alone?

While I can see how many consider the first 40 minutes being too slow, the scenes in Bag End are there to give the audience an understanding of who the Dwarfs are; how they have fun, get serious and interact with the other peoples of Middle-earth; and their history is beautifully represented and gives their quest a sense of purpose. I could plausibly see the opening scenes with Old Bilbo and Frodo omitted, as well as a few minutes of the Bag End party. Peter Jackson has demonstrated a flair for beautiful visuals and it shows; Middle-earth has never looked more vibrant and colourful, giving it a more fable-like appearance, and honestly I think it suits the tone, being lighter than 'Fellowship of the Ring'. Because the story unfolded naturally and allowed characters to breathe, I can forgive the time it takes.

Howard Shore returns to orchestrate The Hobbit, and the 'Misty Mountains Cold' song has been ringing in my mind since I first heard it; equally elegiac and epic. I enjoyed seeing this lighter side of Middle-earth and its charming and adventurous tone was broken only with flashbacks to darker elements such as Smaug's initial attack and Azog's first appearance. This first part feels like an epic fairy tale, depicting a realm at peace, filled with light and wonder. I found Gandalf's speech to Galadriel of why Bilbo is part of Thorin's company due to his kindness and capacity for courage incredibly heart-warming, especially when Gandalf smiles and says that Bilbo gives him courage. I loved Bilbo showing mercy to Gollum knowing how it will affect events in the LOTR trilogy, and I loved the conclusion to Bilbo's arc in helping the Dwarfs before the climax.

Despite deviating from the book in keeping Azog alive and bringing in Radagast as a prominent character, it still kept true to the book's spirit, heart and messages while integrating the wider lore of Middle-earth, preserving the story's sense of wonder. With an adventurous story, fun and relatable characters, solid performances, stunning visuals, a vast and untamed world with a sense of magic and wonder, this first part of the Hobbit is a strong start.

As problematic as 'The Lost World' may have been, it did expand the horizons of the Jurassic Park universe, 'Jurassic Park III' was a huge step backwards. The characters are sub-standard, the story is lazy and shamefully contrived, and the effects aren't as good as either of the previous movies, almost seeming to be a parody of a Jurassic Park film.

The plot, as thin as it is, centres around the rescue of a boy named Eric who ended up stranded on the now restricted Isla Sorna, and the survival of the rescue team led by Alan Grant. Alan is lured to Isla Sorna by seemingly rich businessman Paul Kirby on the promise of cash to fund his dig. The plane lands and Amanda Kirby, Paul's wife, attracts the attention of Spinosaurus which causes the plane to crash and devour members of the crew. The rest of the movie is a series of chase scenes involving the Spinosaurus and the Velociraptors, interrupted by cloying domestic drama between the Kirbys reuniting with Eric and coming back together. The climax itself is unsatisfying, requiring a military deus ex machina that just feels tacked on.

In all fairness, Sam Neill does a good job at bringing a jaded Alan Grant to the screen, working with what little he had. But his character is ruined by undoing his arc in the first film about learning to love kids and marrying Ellie, here Ellie is married to another man with two children. The writers could have prepared something special involving Alan and Ellie's relationship and their place in the world with live dinosaurs on the planet; it was insulting to undo all that development. His scenes in the prologue had potential, showing Alan's struggle to keep palaeontology alive and rekindle his love of dinosaurs. But it all amounts to nothing.

The film has only a few worthwhile action scenes, specifically the Raptor attacks and the group's encounter with a colony of Pteranodons in a giant aviary, a memorable scene conveyed with an eerie and mysterious atmosphere. Some of the musical cues are melodic and charming, but I yearn for John Williams's talent. At times, the visual effects for the Raptors are actually quite good, but the rest are incredibly rushed and don't allow the audience to soak it in like in the first film.

Due to the weak writing and wasted characters there are the many stupid moments throughout the movie. Barely twenty minutes into the film, Alan has a dream about a talking raptor on the flight to Sorna, it's intended to be scary and foreshadow the Raptors' capability of speech but it comes off as childish and goofy. (Real life raptors weren't even capable of human-level speech patterns). The ever annoying Amanda Kirby seems to exist only to scream, bicker and run away, never contributing anything but maudlin or moronic moments. William H. Macy is completely wasted. The rest of the characters are bland and forgettable. Some outright stupid moments include a satellite phone being heard from the belly of a Spinosaurus, said Spinosaur is shown as being able to break a fence designed to contain dinosaurs yet cannot break down a rusty metal door, a ridiculous cameo of Barney (I wish I was joking!!), and a cheap regurgitation of the dino dung scene from the first film.

Even the dinosaurs themselves have been ruined; the CGI herbivores are pushed to the background with little screen time, and the carnivores don't behave like real animals, like in the previous films. The animatronics are clunky and the CGI is too obvious. The movie tries to recreate the sense of awe and wonder from the first film, but it feels forced and artificial.

The most obnoxious change is the addition of the Spinosaurus. While I accept that it was larger than T-Rex, Spinosaurus was not a rampaging movie monster that hunted human-sized morsels like a serial killer. This leads into the infamous duel between the Rex and the Spinosaur, and it's a problem because the T-Rex was an integral part of the previous films and a childhood favourite. The fight itself was overly brief and anticlimactic. The T-Rex was set up as a predator with both ferocity and nobility, having it dispatched in such a way feels like a cheap shot. It was just a botched attempt to showcase a dinosaur that hadn't earned it's stardom like the Raptors.

What frustrates me the most about 'Jurassic Park III' is that there was potential to make up for some or more of the shortcomings of 'The Lost World'. Instead it's the shallowest and the least adventurous film of the entire trilogy, there's too much focus on the domestic drama. While the first two films dealt with themes of science, technology, playing god, and man vs. nature, 'Jurassic Park III' took the franchise away from exploring such themes, choosing to be safe and marketable and lacking in substance.

The first thing to know about 'The Lost World: Jurassic Park' is that it's not as good as 'Jurassic Park', which is a very high standard to reach. As a young boy, I had reservations about this movie, but it's actually started to slowly grow on me more over time. People may find this strange because of the huge amount of hate towards this film, but I find there's still merit to be found.

Story:

After a family on a yacht cruise discovers Isla Sorna, the factory floor island owned by InGen, and their daughter is attacked by a pack of compies, John Hammond is removed as CEO of InGen by his greedy nephew Peter Ludlow. Hammond summons Ian Malcolm, now scarred by experiences in Jurassic Park, and asks him to lead an expedition to document the dinosaurs (at a distance from the carnivores) to earn the government's protection. After discovering his girlfriend, Sarah Harding, is already there, Malcolm joins Nick Van Owen and Eddie Carr and sails to the island. Ludlow arrives with a taskforce led by Roland Tembo capture the dinosaurs and take them to San Diego to flaunt them in a zoo. At night, Nick sabotages the InGen camp and brings an injured baby T-Rex to their trailer to patch it's leg up after Roland had captured to bait the father Rex. The T-Rex parents soon retrieve the infant and push the trailer over a cliff, and Eddie is killed trying to save Malcolm and team before InGen arrives to help them out. Both stranded teams concede to join forces to get off the island. The film culminates in a fun (if divisive) 15-minute sequence when the male T-Rex rampages through San Diego searching for his infant, paying homage to 'King Kong' and 1925's 'The Lost World'.

One key problem most people have with "The Lost World" is that it's not as filled with wonder as the original, and this film certainly could have benefited from more scenes with the herbivores and characters enjoying the island ambiance. Judging by some unrealistic moments and plot holes, such as the way the trailer fell or the scene where Malcolm's daughter is able to defeat a Raptor with gymnastics, and the fact that the crew of the ship holding the Rex was killed with no clue as to how it happened, Spielberg was not fully committed to this film, which is a real shame. The build-up is also fairly slow, but can be skipped. Personally, the infamous gymnastic scene just makes me chuckle, it's not worth getting angry over. And I admit that I relished in the Rex's travels in San Diego and his reunion with the once-again captured infant.

Another major criticism is that main characters cause more death and destruction than the InGen team, and that is partially true. Sarah cannot seem to keep away from dangerous dinosaurs in the field and can be annoying at times, but she still helps lead the T-Rex away from civilians in San Diego. However, Nick is just awful; he's a self- righteous environmentalist whose actions include releasing the captive dinosaurs on the InGen team and stealing the bullets from Roland's rifle to prevent the T-Rex from being killed, thus putting more people in danger. Frankly, I regard him as a hidden antagonist responsible for the chaos, thankfully he's absent from the San Diego sequence. Ultimately, the lack of defined heroes and villains feels more in keeping with the grimness of Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park novel, which was very cynical, and potentially disconcerting to certain people.

In this movie's defence, some characters do stand out in a positive light; Ian Malcolm is just as eccentric and witty as ever if more cynical (Jeff Goldblum an acquired taste, really). Another worthy character is Eddie Carr, who is killed by the T-Rexes in the act of saving Malcolm, Sarah and Nick. Hammond's brief appearances were a delight to watch, and the character Roland Tembo is a bold, tactical hunter with an air of dignity and passion that earned my respect as an anti-heroic figure.

It isn't really a film about environmentalism so much a film about reaching compromise between two dangerous extremes, personified by Roland and Nick. Another theme is failure to treat what you create with responsibility, as seen with InGen's haughty regard for the dinosaurs as financial assets and not real animals, rather like Frankenstein's negligence towards his creation. Taking the dinosaurs to the mainland zoo would have been disastrous, as Crichton's underlying belief that humans and dinosaurs don't mix is still present.

It's also worth remembering that this is a movie of dinosaurs in the wild so there will be higher danger than on the theme park island. I personally find it appealing that we can see the dinosaurs out in the wild simply being dinosaurs, especially the parental instincts of the T- Rexes. The dark, primordial atmosphere of Isla Sorna, accompanied by John Williams' excellent jungle-themed score, does instil a sense that you are in the midst of the dinosaurs' domain, with a few reprisals of the original themes. The CGI dinosaurs look better than most CG creatures today; their behaviour feels genuine, much like real animals, especially with the scenes involving a herd of Stegosaurus and the scenes with the T-Rexes. The animatronics are just as sharp and engaging as the first film, from a technical standpoint, it's well crafted.

Ultimately, "The Lost World" is an enjoyable, if reckless, survival film that gives the incredible dinosaurs of InGen a visceral return. Spielberg's style holds it up as an advancement of the Jurassic Park universe. There are plenty of thrills, engrossing action scenes, and a dark and wild atmosphere that could have been helped by more moments of wonder. I certainly wouldn't call this Spielberg's worst movie. Despite being dwarfed by its grander predecessor, it's a fun movie, if flawed.