Movies you've just watched

[boagman]

^ Don't worry, I'd never watch it anyway. Neeson is just picking up another paycheck. The curse of good actors these days is that they're forced to star in shit because there's nothing good being made.

Skykid, since you care about character development so much

I'm assuming you read my Jurassic Park critique on the last page?

Character development of some kind is integral to film-making, it's what connects the audience with the events unfolding on the screen. Deduct this crucial element from the whole and you're just watching things happen with absolutely no investment in the outcome, making it all hollow and shallow.

And character development doesn't need to be difficult, deep or complex. It can be The Breakfast Club or Weird Science, Planes Trains and Automobiles or American Pie. Meaning it can be superficial as required by the goals of the movie, but it should at least exist so you care about the protagonists and whatever opposition/rollercoaster ride they might face.

The reason it no longer seems to exist? I think Hollywood has become excruciatingly lazy. Actually writing a movie is not as important as scheduling the special effects in post production. The actors are like background material to move the CG along.

Yeah, I was referring to that post of yours. I wasn't even being snarky! Honest! I was just assuring you that it wasn't in AWATT, that's all.

[system11]

I just went to the cinema for the first time in ages to catch Mad Max: Fury Road before they replace it. Loved it, but...

1) Not too sure about the voice Tom Hardy used for max, but the look was perfect.
2) If this is intended to be a reboot, we needed a better or longer form of flashback to tell the story.
3) Cinema had the volume up way too loud and it feels like cotton is stuffed in my ears now.

[Ixmucane2]

I think Hollywood has become excruciatingly lazy. Actually writing a movie is not as important as scheduling the special effects in post production. The actors are like background material to move the CG along.

This is a great summary of the problem, but I cannot believe the cause is simple laziness: like in any other business, laziness leads to failure, and with rare exceptions all producers can be assumed to be industry-standard good and as drug-fueled as ever.
Rather, they shifted their care and effort from having a good story and a good script to special effects because it appears to make sense:

• CGI special effects are becoming so flexible and affordable that every production must treat them as basic technology at their disposal, increasing their importance automatically to the detriment of everything else.
  If you think to improve the marriage proposal scene of your love story with a composited sunset in the background, and you are proud that it's going to cost less because you can shoot it at leisure in front of a green screen and not on location in a daily 20 minutes window at sunset, it might be a good idea, but it's one idea less about what the characters are saying to each other.
• In genres that feature a lot of special effects, CGI budget is very large compared to everything else and reducing resources for less strategic departments is natural. The same applies to schedule: asking people to produce something quickly is easier with a couple of screenwriters than with several CGI companies.
• There's a trend towards revising scenes in postproduction instead of getting them right when you shoot, because it has become possible. Technology allows directors to do a bad job in many areas, including acting; this leads to not facing difficulties properly.

[Skykid]

^ But that is laziness inherent, because you're not as invested in the actual movie you're wrapping in CG. You're just farming out responsibility to Framestore or ILM, sticking an assistant director on overseeing the work, and fucking off for 2 months while artists fill in the stuff you couldn't be bothered to do with things like dramatic dialogue, acting and camera angles.

What's crazy isn't that these blockbusters are replacing real movies - real movies will always exist independently to the Hollywood blockbuster - but that the Hollywood blockbuster is actually suffering.

Go back to Raiders of the Lost Ark: when placed against today's equivalent movies it's like a masterpiece of film.

[Mischief Maker]

Blame the Star Wars prequels. Lucas showed Hollywood you don't need a script or character development or anything so long as you have shiny CGI and a name franchise to make a buttload of money.

[Lord Satori]

Blame the Star Wars prequels. Lucas showed Hollywood you don't need a script or character development or anything so long as you have shiny CGI and a name franchise to make a buttload of money.

Because badly scripted movies didn't exist before then.

[Squire Grooktook]

I have to agree with Satori a bit this time, I think the prequels were more a symptom of where things were already headed, rather then the direct cause of everything awful that followed.

[Skykid]

I have to agree with Satori a bit this time, I think the prequels were more a symptom of where things were already headed, rather then the direct cause of everything awful that followed.

I'd also agree they weren't the lynchpin of Hollywood's current nosedive, but they were important in demonstrating to the industry the superfluity of actors and the film making craft when you can fill everything in in post-production.

That said Star Wars isn't a good litmus test, it's a franchise that would make money no matter how artistically barren.

More relevant are the likes of Man of Steel, Godzilla 2014, Taken 2 & 3, Twilight, and directors like McG, Olivier Megaton and Paul W.S Anderson, amongst an enormous list of others.

Every now and then there's a redeemer - both Planet of the Apes movies have been surprisingly decent - but they're oh so rare.

[BrianC]

More relevant are the likes of Man of Steel, Godzilla 2014, Taken 2 & 3, Twilight, and directors like McG, Olivier Megaton and Paul W.S Anderson, amongst an enormous list of others.

The situation with Twilight is made even worse by how the novels were already messed up to begin with.

[system11]

Now that I'm less tired - more on Mad Mad: Fury Road.

Firstly, why are people calling this a feminist film? It didn't strike me as having any particular agenda other than to tell the story of a handful of characters in the Mad Max world. I think this is a strong case of seeing what you want to see, rather than what's actually there.

Secondly, the way the back story was told for the death of his wife and child is worse than I said, on reflection. It's sudden nightmarish flashbacks which are stylish, but I only knew his wife died because I've seen the original films. In fact you might not even guess the girl in his nightmares who appears as a screaming face every now and then, is even his daughter. It's really the only thing I'd change in the film though.

Thirdly, George Miller shows everyone how an action blockbuster should be done. It's thoughtful or clever where it needs to be, and it's ridiculously over the top when it doesn't. The heavy use of practical effects instead of relying solely on CGI makes a huge difference in selling the action too - when you see the truck turn over it's because they really crashed a truck onto its side.

Fourthly - The Doof Wagon. (spoilers)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsirxA_cso4

It's a converted missile truck apparently.

[system11]

Today I watched Metropolis - 2.5 times in one day.

1) Kino BR version of Moroders Metropolis
2) Masters Of Cinema BR version of the complete Metropolis restore featuring the Argentinian footage, German text inserts and original score.
3) Metropolis Redux DVD (Fan restoraton of the Moroder version)

This is one of my favourite films of all time, since the new MoC blu-ray release contains the fully restored version and now the Kino BR Moroder one, I decided it was time to upgrade and do a quick comparison. Obviously it's a fantastic film and if anyone hasn't seen it, you really are missing out - one of the first science fiction films ever made, telling a story as relevant now as it was in the 1920s. There are loads of versions now, but the only ones you should care about are the new restoration and the Moroder version - these are the distinct variants of note. Georgio Moroder restored the film in the 80s with as much footage as he could find, tinted the film in various places and added a modern soundtrack. Many people consider this a despicable creation, but I grew up seeing this one first and as such I actually quite like it.

The Masters Of Cinema BR release is stunning, some of the old footage (discovered in 2008 in a museum in Argentina) has a different frame size and is in very bad condition, but the rest of the film is surprisingly clean now given the amount of restoration work put in. There's no better time to see something as close to the original showing as possible, if you didn't know it was cut by about a quarter to suit the studios, against the directors wishes and much of the footage was presumed lost for decades. This is the full fat 'like it was' deal with German text inserts translated with subtitles and a full orchestral score - it's also quite long but some of the characters and motivations get far more explanation in this full cut - it was always a mystery to me why Rotwang helped Frederson at all, since the first version I saw was the Moroder one.

The Kino BR version of the Moroder one is ... honestly it doesn't look like it was touched much from their DVD transfer, it's just being presented at a higher resolution. That does help but the picture is too dark and it buries plenty of detail as a result. Disappointing and lazy. They've been trying to bury this version for years so it's no surprise little effort was put into it.

This leaves us with the Moroder Metropolis Redux version - which was fan restored by one crazy man and a video editor. He re-tinted some scenes and tweaked things here and there, but the amount of work put in results in a picture which while normal definition, totally blows the Kino BR away.

So these are my recommendations - you need to see the new Blu-Ray release (actually I saw this at the cinema when the restoration was first released in 2010-ish), and you need to see the Moroder Redux version for the shortened modernised one lots of film buffs can't stand. Trust me it's enjoyable though. The latter you can only get directly from the guy who restored it, google for 'metropolis moroder redux' and you'll hit his site. The copyright status of this is questionable depending on where you live, as such the Youtube comparisons keep getting blatted by Kino. Sigh.

[GaijinPunch]

Today I watched Metropolis - 2.5 times in one day.

Will the version on Netflix work for me if I've never seen this before?

[CMoon]

Today I watched Metropolis - 2.5 times in one day.

1) Kino BR version of Moroders Metropolis
2) Masters Of Cinema BR version of the complete Metropolis restore featuring the Argentinian footage, German text inserts and original score.
3) Metropolis Redux DVD (Fan restoraton of the Moroder version)

Sorry if I'm skimming over your deeper analysis, but do you have a favorite version?

[system11]

Today I watched Metropolis - 2.5 times in one day.

1) Kino BR version of Moroders Metropolis
2) Masters Of Cinema BR version of the complete Metropolis restore featuring the Argentinian footage, German text inserts and original score.
3) Metropolis Redux DVD (Fan restoraton of the Moroder version)

Sorry if I'm skimming over your deeper analysis, but do you have a favorite version?

I'm partial to the Moroder version, but it's pure nostalgia. Due to the shorter length and presence of vocals in the music it's easier to digest but there are some critical plot elements left out. By every measurable metric the MoC restored version is the one to see.

[system11]

Today I watched Metropolis - 2.5 times in one day.

Will the version on Netflix work for me if I've never seen this before?

What's the year and length? UK and US Netflix offerings are totally different.

[BIL]

Late Phases (2014) Elderly, blind veteran contends with his estranged son and a retirement community full of werewolves. Less interesting than it might sound. As both drama and b-horror it's played totally straight, with little surprise and virtually zero crossover. All competently done, with a magnetic lead performance from Nick Damici and a smattering of distinctive supporting characters, but ultimately it feels like two unremarkable films shuffled into the runtime of one.

Ex Machina (2015) Good uneasy AI fun with a compact, well-acted, unsentimental tale of human folly. Standout feature is the eerily sterile location, casting the whole film in a silently observant malevolence recalling The Shining. Worth a look for sure.

[JBC]

I've watched The Guest twice on my own & twice as a showing with friends now so I think that cements it as a winner. I also had a second viewing of You're Next with friends & they seemed to like it well enough (especially the blender scene, but it may have been because of my maniacal laughter).

[Obiwanshinobi]

Anna i wampir (1981).



About a serial women murderer, reconstruction style. Decent filmmaking with a very tangible sense of time and place - not because it ostensibly throws real toponyms left and right, but 'cause depicted world is like Atlantis now and as a para-document, the film is very thorough. Real crime scene material used here fits in and the procedures seem pretty faithfully recreated.
See, People's Republic of Poland had a notoriously hard time making films about "good cops". Nobody's liked them over here and when they actually tried to do their job, said isolation wasn't exactly helpful. So The Kingdom screenwriter's question "What would a murder investigation look like on Mars?” makes for a neat plot summary here as well.
Where it falls flat on its face is dialogue (and off-screen monologue coming back like a bad penny). On a plus side, much of the non-professional acting works in the film's favour.

P.S. I feel obliged to add that Zdzisław Marchwicki's execution (along with his brother's execution and imprisonment of the rest of his family) is considered judicial murder by a great number of people these days. I didn't know about it when watching the film.

[Some-Mist]

harmony and me by bob byington. I watched listen up philip last year and really liked it.. so I've been going through other byington-related movies, and this one is probably my favorite so far. very indie/bare bones cinematography, but really great dry humor that had me laughing out loud a couple of times. It's basically a breakup story that follows the guy around. everyone in his life is pretty much a dick, but he kind of is too. kevin corrigan, keith poulson and alex karpovsky play really funny roles, and the rest is a pretty decent no-name cast.

trailer is really bad

[BIL]

VHS 2 (2013) Anthology of trashy yet likeably earnest found footage horror. Its four shorts aren't outstanding examples of their respective subgenres, but all are neatly contained and executed with booming, vicious gusto. The third in particular really lets rip, after a well-paced initial burn. The original VHS's framing story is recycled almost entirely, though improved - the protagonists aren't total shitheads, and it packs a considerably creepy sequence.

Essentially, this is more of the original's rough-edged amateur horror with tighter scripting and more credible effects. Solid sequel for what it is.

edit: oh shit, the third sequence was directed by Gareth Evans of The Raid. Explains that then.

[JBC]

Chappie.

This one required a lot of suspension of disbelief & featured some major drawbacks but I don't think it deserves all of the hate. After all, it's still better than 90% of the crap that comes out today.

Great sfx, a few touching scenes. I'm glad I watched it & it took me out of reality for a minute. I hope his Alien 5 movie happens as there's really no one better suited for the job at the moment.

I'm not a fan of Die Antwoord or anything like them & I'm also picky about realistic depictions of computer stuff in movies. I just let those things go out of willingness to be entertained. It's still Sharlto Copley carrying the show.

[Skykid]

I hope his Alien 5 movie happens as there's really no one better suited for the job at the moment.

[MR_Soren]

Secondly, the way the back story was told for the death of his wife and child is worse than I said, on reflection. It's sudden nightmarish flashbacks which are stylish, but I only knew his wife died because I've seen the original films. In fact you might not even guess the girl in his nightmares who appears as a screaming face every now and then, is even his daughter. It's really the only thing I'd change in the film though.

I was doing some reading, and it turns out that those flashbacks are not his wife and child. Makes sense, since he has a son in the first Mad Max film, not a daughter. Preview cuts of the film contained longer scenes with those ghostly memories, and it is apparently clear that they are people who died because Max refused to get involved and help them, preferring to focus on his own survival and nothing else.

Thus, the point where Max rides into the salt to share his plan with the group is a big turning point for him. His travels with the group at that point were simply done out of a mutual desire to survive. After sharing his plan, he is saving them from wasting their lives on a futile quest and risking his life to help them find the better future they've been seeking.

Other cut scenes involved more stuff with the tattooed woman in the vault, the reason the Organic Mechanic (doctor guy) was not in the final chase sequence, and probably tons of other stuff. George Miller has stated that the Blu-Ray will have some deleted scenes on it, but he will not be doing a longer extended cut of the film because he wants to release the fast-paced version that did so well with critics and in the box office. It sounds like he has tons of unused material that fleshes out the characters more.




I watched Sorcerer (1977) last night based on some recommendations here. I thought it was pretty cool, but it was very different than I expected since the recommendations were aimed at people who liked Mad Max: Fury Road. Sorcerer had a very different kind of action and moved at a slower speed. That said, I felt like they did a good job of making every scene advance the story, the variety of obstacles they encountered kept me interested, and there was a good feeling of suspense throughout the journey. The setting was very detailed and felt realistic. The old trucks were great. My wife thought it was slow, boring, and difficult to follow.


I watched Hairspray (1988) two nights ago. My wife had the DVD for a while and I finally decided to watch it since I remembered enjoying Cry Baby and A Dirty Shame from the same writer/director. I was shocked by how "clean" it was compared to the other John Waters movies I've seen. It still had some great odd humor, but I came away thinking nothing more than "It was okay." Glad I saw it, can't say I'd ever watch it again.

[CMoon]

I watched Sorcerer (1977) last night based on some recommendations here. I thought it was pretty cool, but it was very different than I expected since the recommendations were aimed at people who liked Mad Max: Fury Road. Sorcerer had a very different kind of action and moved at a slower speed. That said, I felt like they did a good job of making every scene advance the story, the variety of obstacles they encountered kept me interested, and there was a good feeling of suspense throughout the journey. The setting was very detailed and felt realistic. The old trucks were great. My wife thought it was slow, boring, and difficult to follow.

If you enjoyed Sorcerer you need to go back and watch the film from which it is based: Wages of Fear. A lot of people will argue the first is better (and I'd be likely to concur), but Sorcerer is a damn good film. I don't quite see the Mad Max connection, but Wages of Fear/Sorcerer are films for true men and they are more like some of the gritty novels I've read than any other film that comes to mind.

[Obiwanshinobi]

I admit that CHAPPiE movie poster is the first one in ages that looks any good to me. I feel tempted to pick up a Blue-ray, but can't justify the expense these days.

Serpico - I don't think much of Al Pacino's acting, but he makes for a decent fashion model in this one. Shame I can't watch Hollywood movies without thinking about politics anymore. Did you know Serpico was screened with Italian dub in Eastern Bloc countries because the American distributor wouldn't sell any copies over here?

[BIL]

Oh wow, being laid up with a busted elbow makes it so easy to clear the movie backlog.

You're Next (2011) I often find even better slasher flicks difficult to like, particularly the home invasion variety. Obligatory cannonfodder dispatches tend to be too close to snuff for my liking. Don't get me wrong, I can fap 2 a ballpeen shattering a screaming captive's kneecaps as much as the next guy! Has to be the right sort of captive with the right sort of blowback though. Faceless Redneck Murderer ripping Shaggy's spine out? Right after he busts a nut peeping on Velma in the shower?! Oh wow tell me more rofl! Not.

Good buddies like this though, so I gave it a shot. It's very well-done indeed. Plot is knowingly a bit of a wacky caper, but the scenario is pure nightmare, tight-run with a bloodcurdling air of terror and cruelty. Credible horror movie. That is until the second half bails out for more of a vicarious survival thriller. Though unlike Skyfall, the cathartic indulgence in home defense extravaganza is well-earned. Not bad!

[Obiwanshinobi]

I need a break. Watching The Public Woman, well, I'm not sure if I've felt this sorry for not just a flick, but the whole acting kind before. Here I was just thinking Al Pacino wasn't great, but the chap impersonating Stavrogin is something else. Where should I start?

I wouldn't choose to watch The Public Woman (the director came as a jerk in some interview I read some years ago) if it wasn't for Serpieri's statement Valérie Kaprisky's appearance here was a major inspiration for his creation of Druuna character.
She's a fine looking actress, well-liked by the camera alright, but you see, last year I worked with a woman looking incredibly Druuna-like, so I had to see if there's much resemblance.
The verdict is - not really. Kaprisky's leaner, with higher-pitched voice and I've seen something of the type many a time before (not so sure if I'd find her a knockout met in person). Still, she's photogenic and the film's nicely shot, so I didn't mind watching.

Then they started to produce Dostoyevsky's Deuces adaptation (I don't care what anybody says; Deuces is the most proper English title) and I actually liked some of this fanservice (wouldn't mind seeing some of it staged or screened).
Then it struck me that the two-handed male with bleached hair is not a placeholder but he's actually gonna play Stavrogin. It's like watching Tommy Wiseau play all over again. Shit iz real.
That Kaprisky's carries on under such circumstances filled me with both compassion and even greater (than I felt before) respect for those who march into this machine of doom. Good and bad actors alike, they all have it bloody tough.

My golly, is the adaptation they are making atrocious (think Get Shorty, or that film about titoist resistance they were shooting in the 1995 Underground). Come to think of it, Kusturica films and this one are in some way equals.
...
Hard to believe it run under 2 hours. Kept going on and on and on.

[Skykid]

Ghostbusters

More charming and brilliant an adult comedy than it ever was. Excellently conceived and directed by its starring cast and Ivan Reitman, it's punchy and full of life and energy. The ensemble is still glued almost completely by Bill Murray of course, but Ackroyd's schoolboy enthusiasm, Rick Moranis' comedy nerd and just the right dash of African American in Winston makes a great fusion for Ghostbusting. Critically, the dialogue is superb and the improv nicely handled. Doing the whole celebration of New York city long before Raimi's Spiderman, perhaps the most impressive feat is the way it blends a touch of genuine horror with sophisticated adult humour and a concept that seems totally for children. Only in the 80s.

Simply great fun.



Ghostbusters II

Suffering from the Back to the Future III effect where everything awful about the 90s started to infest everything great about the 80s, this is almost total shit through and through.

[Skykid]

Skykid's Special Exercise in Movie Trash: The Picture of Dorian Gray in Film





You lucky bastards you!

WARNINGZ: Some Spoilers Herein

Having just finished Oscar Wilde's fantastic The Picture of Dorian Gray, and doing a little reading about its author, I was interested to see some of the filmed versions.

Like a fool I decided to look at the very recent 2009 adaptation starring Colin Firth and Ben Barnes, fashionably titled 'Dorian Gray' to make it cooler for the kids.



I turned it off after 30 minutes. Appalling in too many ways to count, I did so anyway.

The screenplay deviates from the book for no apparent reason almost instantly, and continues to bastardise it to the detriment and believability of the unfolding plot. Ben Barnes is uselessly flat and vacant as an actor, but it's not his fault that the director decides to paint him as some kind of clumsy dork by rewriting key aspects of the story.

In the book Dorian Gray is painter Basil Hallward's good friend, and has been for some time when he comes to his house to have his portrait painted. He may be innocent, but he's also intelligent, friendly and upbeat, so he finds himself intrigued by Basil's friend, Henry, who entertains him with cynicism and the virtues of decadence in youth, while he observes the portrait being made.

Henry in the book is a wonderful character. Jovial, playful, rude, misanthropic but brilliantly wise beyond his years, he's a person of smiles with an electric personality. His wisdom and beliefs about living a hedonistic life are what makes Dorian so interested in spending time with him.

In the film Colin Firth (playing Henry) is completely misdirected. He's a moody, glum, horrible bastard of character from the word go. The circumstances of their meeting is changed entirely - indeed Dorian meets Basil and Henry at a dinner party simultaneously - and within five minutes Henry has got the two of them in a shit-hole bar downing vodka while whores are getting fingered in an almost carry-on manner on the table behind. To put this in perspective, in the book they take a break from Basil's painting and sit in the garden on a sunny afternoon, smoking cigarettes while Henry philosophises. That may sound less interesting. it's not. Because Henry's dialogue is so marvellous it can never be sufficiently supplanted with crude imagery in its place.

Clumsy as fuck and forced in every which way it needn't be, Henry in the film has none of the book's charm: he's instead a despicable corruptor whose reasons for wanting to poison Dorian's mind are completely unclear (because they've done all the introductions in about 2 minutes flat). Basil Hallward played by Ben Chaplin (who has been fairly decent an actor in the past) is also miscast: far from the timid and soft-natured contrast to his friend Henry, here he's got far too much alpha in him to qualify as the right choice.

Essentially, the movie is trash from the word go, and not just because it rips up the book for some unknown reason, but because it's amateurish in every facet.

So for respite I went looking for The Picture of Dorian Gray, the 1945 adaptation.



I'd like to share with you two corresponding scenes from both films. The scene is when Dorian finally shows the painting to its painter, Basil, after many years, revealing the changing of its form into something hideous (because the picture is actually a picture of Dorian's soul, and the more he sins, the more vile it becomes). Basil is of course shocked.

The 1945 version uses much of the book's original dialogue, and follows the scene almost exactly, with Basil entreating Dorian to pray for his soul, which enrages Dorian who holds the painter responsible for the misery of his life, and leads him to murder him. Here is the scene:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qF8LWvkmAp4


And now watch the 2009 version of the same scene, which cuts out nearly all original dialogue, has Dorian murder Basil for no clear reason at all, and basically resembles a bad primary school production. Marvel at acting more hideous than Dorian Gray's painted soul and camera work suffering from sub-Michael Bay disease:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XTnGEUcoLE


Amazing how in 1945 they had the presence of mind to try and take the drama already in the book and bring it to screen in a simple and effective fashion. This contrast is a really good example of all modern film-making's toilet grade decline.

While not meaning to be too harsh, if this utterly inept director ever makes another movie it will be far too soon.

(Oh and read that book. It's great).

[Skykid]

The Lost World: Jurassic Park

Not sure why I bothered watching this, but after the discussion previously, and then being pleasantly fulfilled by the original Jurassic Park, I thought I'd give it a go.

It's fucking terrible, sorry GP. I don't know if Spielberg jumped the shark as much as he did jump the track, derail entirely, and kill a small village.

Everything about it is clumsy and totally off kilter. As much as I like Goldblum as an actor he struggles to reconcile some of the stupidity of the dialogue and its plot direction, while it's almost completely miscast elsewhere. I don't think Julianne Moore's presence has ever been so irritating and if she was entirely absent it would have increased the film's brownie points by at least 25%. Unfortunately she's awful, her character is awful, and her constant bungling is totally merciless for the viewer.

Her chemistry with Goldblum is nonexistent - it's absolutely impossible to believe them as partners - as is the relationship with the inexplicable black child he's fostering. If he had been childless and single the performances wouldn't have varied an inch.

Said black gymnastic child is altogether terrible for just being there, Peter Stormare is a weird and jarring addition, and Vince Vaughn barely scrapes by in doing his patented singular acting style.

It has none of the tension or grace of the original, and the use of CG is far more prevalent than its predecessor, and aged terribly. The twin T-Rex cliff scene is the only one that has any real redeeming features, and the pacing is sloppy and confused.

This feels as though Spielberg had a gun to his head and cobbled a movie together using his own personal film-making vernacular, unfortunately with little to no imagination, invention, or subtlety that made JP1 burn so brightly as it did.

The ride's over. After this I thought back to the criticisms he made about JP3 and his understudy director and felt as though he really didn't have the right.