Don’t Mess with Hellboy

     Everyone loves a good anti-hero. There’s just something intrinsically-appealing about a monster with a heart of gold: a grizzly bear with a teddy's soul. All sorts of fictional series capitalize on this idea, from John Wayne’s signature role as the gruff wanderer Ethan in The Searchers, to the unstable Illya in the recent Warner Bros. reboot of The Man from U.N.C.L.E. that was just released into theatres.

     However, of all the antiheroes that I have ever encountered, there is one character that is about as literal as they come. Allow me to explain (in my usual spoiler-free manner) why you should be looking into the movies based on lesser-known comic book character and literal hero-from-Hell… er, Hellboy.

Hogwarts Hellboy, A History

     Whereas comic-book paragons like Superman or the Incredible Hulk have been around since the 1930s and 60s respectively, Hellboy is a fairly recent newcomer on the graphic novel scene. Created by comic book artist Mike Mignola (who has worked with characters like Daredevil and Rocket Raccoon), Hellboy was published with Dark Horse Comics* in 1993. Since then, it's inspired a handful of video games, animated direct-to-DVD videos, and two live-action films… as well as some impressive intercompany crossovers with the likes of Batman (1999) and supposedly even the Ninja Turtles (1996)!

     * Dark Horse comics have included popular sagas like Conan the Barbarian, Joss Whedon’s Buffy and Firefly, and even the adventures of samurai rabbit Usagi Yokimbo. They’re best known for their work with Star Wars… or at least they were until recently, when Disney bought the rights and partnered with Marvel for any and all future comics.

     The live-action movies, Hellboy and Hellboy II: The Golden Army, starred Ron Perlman as Hellboy and impressive contortionist/actor Doug Jones (a la Silver Surfer) as his counterpart, Abe Sapien. (There have been scattered rumours of a Hellboy III, but nothing substantial yet.) Both films were considered to be only loosely-based on the comics, since the plots deviated and went in their own independent direction, but fans couldn’t deny that the stories had style — especially with noted director Guillermo del Toro (of Pan’s Labyrinth) at the helm.

Yeah. Some of his stuff gets a little weird.

The Plot

     Contrary to what my grandmother originally thought when she heard the title, Hellboy is actually not about a young man who bullies the other kids at school. (I still crack up every time I remember that conversation…)

     In the films, the tale actually begins in the middle of WWII, when branches of the Nazi party start dabbling in the occult in order to gain victory over their enemies.

     When their collaboration with Russian mystic Grigori Rasputin causes a portal to the netherworld to open, an infant demon is accidentally summoned to earth before Allied troops can close the gateway. In the wake of the battle, the child (nicknamed “Hellboy” by the soldiers) is adopted by Professor Bruttenholm (played by John Hurt, you Doctor Who fans) of the United States Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defense, and raised as a normal child despite his very un-normal appearance.

     This humanoid demon has bright-red skin, cloven hooves, a tail, a stone "Right Hand of Doom," and two horns on his head, which he keeps filed down as nubs. (Most people think he does it to fit in… in reality, he does it mostly just to fit into doorways.)

     Many decades later, the quasi-immortal Hellboy acts as the right arm (get it?) of the BRPD whenever they investigate reports of monsters, ghosts, or anything otherworldly. At his side is the methodical man-fish known as Abraham Sapien…

     …and the pyrokinetic human woman, Liz Sherman.

     Together, the three of them battle all sorts of creepy-crawlies and keep mankind safely ignorant… all the while trying to run from the fact that Hellboy’s real name is Anung Un Rama, and his birthright is to be the fallen angel supposedly destined to bring about Ragnarok (the destruction of the world).

The Appeal

     Much in the same way as the Ninja Turtles, the Hellboy series doesn’t strive too much towards believability, because the creators know that their real power lies in simply entertaining us by mixing ancient mythology with a family of ridiculous misfits. 

     And thanks to Del Toro, the films are both colorful and clever. Despite some initial pressures about budgeting, the prosthetics and makeup provide a fantastic element of tangible realism to the adventures (which makes the now-aged CGI a bit easier to swallow when it is used). Furthermore, Del Toro crammed the scripts chock-full with snark and wit — which is especially impressive when you realize that English is actually his second language, and not his first!

     And on top of that, Hellboy appeals to viewers because of how relatable he is. For one thing, his bloodline doesn’t make him invincible. He may be able to brawl like a literal monster, but he still doesn’t like getting stitched up afterwards. He may carry a big gun, but he’s a very lousy shot (and he knows it).

     He may eat over a hundred pounds of food in one sitting, but that food might be nothing but piles of “pam-cakes”. He may argue with his friends for 90% of the time that they’re together, but he’d also lay down his life for them without question.

     Hellboy is just as lovable as he is gruff, and that soft side is what draws audiences to him over and over. Because despite his appearance or even his heritage, Hellboy never stops making the effort to be a better person, and he won’t take words from anyone who attempts to look down on him just because of what he was born to be.

The Rating

     Hellboy is roughly PG-13, just for one or two adult words and some nasty monster encounters… I’d say it’s roughly in the same boat* as Pirates of the Caribbean.

     * Pun not intended, but still very applicable.

     Violence: Hellboy does battle with a lot of scaly or slimy bad ’uns that bleed green goo, but every now and then he does encounter an unsettling foe that kills without mercy, and those battles can get intense.

     Along with a few creepy undead creatures or cringe-worthy deaths that could feature in Indiana Jones movies, there are also some characters that quote religious texts and use talismans to perform ritual rites. So there’s a slightly-spiritual element to these stories, but for the most part it’s pretty vague and often gets mixed in with sciency-magic and magicky-science.

     Sex: There’s not much shown to audiences beyond a few intense kisses, but there are a few creepy stalker characters encountered here and there. It’s probably also noteworthy that some of the major romance storylines occur between characters of different species… so goodness knows what the children could look like.

No, this isn't from Hellboy, but you have to admit,
it's a very applicable Treasure Planet reference...

     Language: True to his name, Hellboy has a bit of a foul mouth (as well as a strong taste for beer and cigars)… 

     …but hopefully [sane] audiences won’t see this red-skinned demon as anything like a role model. And honestly, the closest anyone comes to uttering R-rated words in the series is when a foreign newcomer in Hellboy II has an accent that causes a bit of unintended hilarity.

The Genre

     Scooby-Doo meets The Lord of the Rings in this ridiculous monster action-comedy a-la-Men-In-Black, where tooth fairies and giant squids collide with bullets and holy water. Hellboy and his friends may have occasional brushes with death (sometimes almost literally)…

     …but the saga mixes religious philosophies into such a blur that viewers can’t mistake the whole combination for anything but fiction. No spiritual agenda here: just an attempt at good fun storytelling. Even the film commentary is entertaining!

     So is it worth it?

The Decision

     That depends on you. I can understand if the “demon” storyline or oozing monsters aren’t your cup of tea, but they’re not hard to swallow if you’re already a fan of stories like Harry Potter, The Lord of the Rings, or even Thor. There’s no point in worrying about getting caught up, since there are only two films in the series, best seen back-to-back (whereas if you want to start with the comics, then good luck to ya).

     Trailers

     And if you’re still on the fence, just give it time. There are plenty of trailers on Youtube that might interest you if you’re more of a visual person (like myself). Since there were only two movies made, there aren’t any ultimate trailers, really — but original previews like this one are still worth watching!

Conclusion

     In the end, I’d recommend that you check with any of your friends to see if they’ve encountered this series before, and whether they think you’d enjoy it yourself. Personally, unless you’ve got a grandmother who doesn’t want you watching any movies about bullies, I’d say the first film at least is worth a gander.

     In fact, I suggest that you make room between Nightmare Before Christmas and It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown! during your Halloween movie-marathons this October; this series is a great popcorn-stuffer of a monster movie, and at the center of it all is an antihero with a heart of gold. Hellboy is about a demon fighting to overcome the evil that he was born with… and I daresay we all can relate to that struggle every now and then.

Continue Reading →

Bourne to Be Awesome

     When someone says “spy movie,” chances are your mind immediately goes to the likes of James Bond, Mission Impossible, or maybe this weekend’s smash-hit The Man from U.N.C.L.E. (which I very highly recommend).

     But while the flashy casanovas and their gadgets have their place in the theatres, there are also quite a few political thrillers like The Fugitive and The Hunt for Red October that get overlooked. (Don’t worry. I’m sure I’ll write an article to praise Tom Clancy's movies soon enough.) These films are just as full of undercover action, but they’re grittier and provide a more believable take on the age-old spy genre. However, of all the hyper-realistic espionage films I’ve encountered over the years, there is one saga that stands above the rest: the Bourne trilogy.

     For those of you who haven’t seen this series (or only know of it because The Bourne Legacy was the closest thing we got to a Hawkeye origin story), allow me to explain in my usual spoiler-free fashion why these decade-old movies are still worth your time today.

Hogwarts Jason Bourne, A History

     Like most good sagas, the tale of Jason Bourne started out as a book written by Robert Ludlum, beginning in 1980 with The Bourne Identity. The novel eventually gave way to a trilogy, featuring the additional books The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum. Many readers and moviegoers actually consider the books to be one of the top spy series of all time, right alongside James Bond and all the rest.

     Warner Bros. made a television-movie of the first novel in 1988: it starred Richard Chamberlain and featured slightly more loyalty to the book’s original Cold War-era storyline. However, most fans tend to be more familiar and accepting of the film adaptation starring Matt Damon made by Universal Studios in 2002. Though the plot was altered and set in the modern world ("modern" meaning the turn of the century, so some of the computers already look obsolete now), the fascinating script and Damon’s exceptional performance paved the way for the other two books to be adapted in 2004 and 2007. They drifted further and further from the books as they went, but they formed their own new, coherent storyline that still satisfied viewers overall.

     Then, of course, Universal tried to bring the saga back by casting Jeremy Renner as a spy of Bourne’s caliber in the 2012 movie The Bourne Legacy (which was the first film that didn’t really have anything in common with its original novel besides the title).

     In Legacy's defense, it did a decent job of incorporating footage from the previous films to set up its story… but even so, most Bourne fans generally choose to ignore it. For one thing, it tried to introduce the idea of a Captain-America-esque "super-soldier" program that took away from the previous realism of the genre. And for another, since Matt Damon didn’t return to reprise his role at all, a lot of people passed it over. It’s a fair action movie, but since it doesn’t feature Jason Bourne, it simply doesn’t have the same emotional caliber as the other films.

The Plot

     The story begins when a half-drowned American is hauled out of the Mediterranean by a fishing boat, and when he wakes up he has no clue who he is or how he got there. The only clues he has to his identity are two bullet wounds in his back and the number for a bank account in Zurich that was implanted in his hip.

     Upon reaching Zurich, this man discovers that his name is Jason Bourne, and that his account holds an excessive amount of money… along with a handgun and multiple false passports with different names. As Jason crosses Europe trying to retrace his steps and figure out who he is, strange men keep trying to assassinate him, and he instinctively reacts with combat training and espionage tactics that he doesn’t remember learning.

     Along the way he ends up sharing his story with a young woman named Marie, who is willing to help him track down his true identity.

     But the deeper Jason and Marie go into Bourne’s past, the more government secrets they keep uncovering. Was he once a merciless assassin like the men that are hunting him? Was he brainwashed, or did he volunteer for all of it? Will he ever be able to leave that past behind forever? Will other spies like Aaron Cross (Renner in The Bourne Legacy) be sent onto different paths because of his actions?

The Appeal

     Fancy spy movies are all well and good on their own, but the problem with secret agents like Bond is that they’re more and more difficult to empathize with. With all those fancy fast cars and taylor-made tuxedos, the world of espionage seems a little further away every time a new movie is released. The genius element of the Bourne trilogy is that it brings the world of spies back down to earth and makes it much more tangible for everyday viewers.

     Jason’s amnesia makes him a blank slate that everyone can immediately relate to; he assumes in the beginning that he’s a relatively normal guy (despite the two bullets in his back).

     He and Marie don’t go looking for trouble, but the trouble comes to them — and that makes the trauma of being attacked all the more real.

     They’re not going undercover with fancy clothes or high-tech gadgets. They’re not given the chance to procure a sports car for the high-speed chase. They may not even be holding actual weapons when the bullets start flying. They have to trust their instincts, use whatever’s close to hand, and hope for a miracle… which is what will have you on the edge of your seat every time.

     Another powerful element in the movies is Matt Damon himself. He did do a lot of the stunts himself (a la Tom Cruise), including the wild krav maga and high-speed driving. But the real reason why he was (thankfully) cast instead of stars like Brad Pitt, Russell Crowe, and even Sylvester Stallone… is because Bourne isn’t just an action hero: he’s an emotive person.

     Damon’s investment in the psychology of the character is what makes the movies so powerful, and that’s what will have fans coming back to them time and time again no matter how old they get.

The Rating

     Book violence differs from movie violence, but the films are a solid PG-13.

     Violence: Most of the saga’s rating comes from this department; Bourne encounters all sorts of assassins, and they fight many bloody battles with whatever’s near to hand. Bones are broken; limbs are impaled; bodies are riddled with bullets or thrown from tall buildings; prisoners are tortured; innocent people are slain. Even though a lot of that may sound par for the course in a Bond movie, Bourne handles every incident with the gravity it deserves, which makes the violence all the more serious even if you are just watching it from the sofa.

     Sex: The audience doesn’t see much more than a few passionate kisses, but the majority of the plot isn’t centered around romance. There’s not much room for dating when you’re running for your life.

     I will say, though, to the series’ credit, that its female characters are solid and independent. They’re not deadly ninja assassins like Black Widow, but they’re still credible people, and that’s what makes the story feel much more real. (Because, frankly, the ridiculous “strong women” that action movies always try to feature nowadays are pretty unrealistic role models. There are just some of us ladies who are too short, too slow, and/or too lightweight to ever prove our worth by besting men in combat. So it’s nice that the Bourne trilogy caters to our demographic a little bit.)

     Language: There are a few adult expletives scattered here and there, but they’re not used with reckless abandon, and that gives them a little more [respectable?] weight when they are used. Furthermore, the words themselves are just scarce enough to allow the films their PG-13 label.

The Genre

     The Bourne movies are a nitty-gritty take on spy thrillers, where assassins must survive by their wits and the skin of their teeth rather than on any fancy technology or helicopter-parent organization.

     There may be one or two small stunts that are a bit excessive, but for the most part there was an incredible effort made to keep everything as realistic as possible, from ricocheting shrapnel to Bourne's ability to speak other languages without an accent. The action-packed productions were often filmed with indie-style handheld cameras, which makes many of the chase scenes shaky and hard to follow unless you’re extremely focused. (Some viewers dislike the technique, but it definitely adds an element of chaos for audience-members so that they can’t feel in-control of the situation… just as Jason often doesn’t feel in-control, either.)

     As Bourne encounters more and more enemies, he and Marie must often come face-to-face with the moral dilemmas of murder and self-defense. They’re not able to walk away from the corpses and straighten their cuff-links like James Bond, nor should they. And once Bourne’s past is revealed piece by piece, it is his (and our) duty to wonder just how far a government should really go in the name of national security.

     There’s no telling how real Bourne’s story could actually be, for all we know, and that’s what makes these films so compelling and impossible to forget.

     So is it worth it?

The Decision

     If you at all consider James Bond movies to be enjoyable, then this series definitely is worth your time. It’s a much more realistic (and respectful) adventure for anyone, male or female, looking for an adrenaline rush.

     There’s really no way to watch it except to start with The Bourne Identity and go straight through all three films… or all four, if any of your friends think Legacy might be worth watching. (I just prefer to think of it as the Clint Barton movie we never had.)

     Trailers

     And if you’re still on the fence, just give it time. There are plenty of official trailers on Youtube that might interest you if you’re more of a visual person (like myself). For me, though, the best one is a compilation of all four films including The Bourne Legacy… and it's actually one of the best ultimate trailers I've ever seen for any series, hands-down.

Conclusion

     In the end, chances are either Bourne will become a staple in your action-adventure diet… or else you won’t be into the series at all because you’re a movie vegetarian who only dines on indie dramas and romantic comedies. (…So, if I'm going to run with this metaphor, that makes Michael Bay flicks the cinematic equivalent of canned spam… Yeah, that sounds about right.)

     It’s true that fictional movie characters can’t exactly be declared as “real”. But if ever any spy were to walk through your door, I can tell you right now that he probably wouldn't look anything like James Bond. He’s going to look a lot more like Jason Bourne.

Continue Reading →

Preparing for Jurassic World - A Series Recap

     In preparation for the much-anticipated release of Jurassic World this week on June 11th, The Fangirl Initiative is celebrating the event with a countdown of articles surrounding the Jurassic Park franchise. There are plenty of things to be excited (or nervous) about when preparing for this premiere. However, it’s very possible that you haven’t watched the movies in years (unless you’re like me, in which case you’ve already marathoned the first three films to make sure you’re up to date before this Friday). But for those of you who are a bit rusty with the Jurassic Park series (or haven’t seen it at all), allow me to provide you with a fresh, spoiler-free reminder of what Jurassic World could be (or at least ought to be). There will also be a pretty structured comparison between the three existing films.

Hogwarts Jurassic Park, A History

     If you didn’t notice, this seems to be the year of the 80s/90s remakes.

   Of course, Hollywood has been banking on sequels since before the start of the millennium, but this year they’ve been diving into major franchises that range from legendary (like Star Wars) to the simply bizarre (like Mad Max). Frankly, it’s all very exciting — if for no other reason than because it gives everyone an excuse to go and watch some really iconic pieces of filmmaking (and then their parodies, naturally).

     Of the many blockbusters that graced the silver screen in the 80s and 90s, one was the impressive 1993 science fiction adventure Jurassic Park, based on a novel by Michael Crichton and directed by Steven Spielberg (the mastermind behind Jaws, E.T., the Indiana Jones saga, Schindler’s List, and Saving Private Ryan). The book was very graphic (after all, it featured carnivorous dinosaur attacks), and the movie adaptation involved a major downplay of the blood and gore. However, Spielberg was careful to keep the story filled with enough adrenaline to make his audience jump. He created a perfect mixture of terror and awe, showing the wonder of behemoth creatures and then the consequences of trying to live alongside them. The result was both a swashbuckling adventure and a chilling, survival-based thriller.

     Needless to say, Jurassic Park was an instant success. In a way, it even sparked its own genre centered around men and dinosaurs, inspiring more productions like Dinotopia, Primeval, and Terra Nova. And of course, a slew of sequels followed. The Lost World: Jurassic Park was released in 1997 and Jurassic Park III came to theatres in 2001, both gaining impressive revenues but mixed reviews. While no other sequels were attempted until Jurassic World, several lines of comic books and video games were released with storylines that continued where the films left off.

The Plot

     Jurassic Park

     The first movie focuses on paleontologist Alan Grant and his partner, paleobotanist Ellie Sattler. They receive an invitation from an eccentric billionaire named John Hammond, who wants their opinion on a theme park that he’s constructed on a remote island near Costa Rica. Of course, this theme park is anything but ordinary, because it houses — you guessed it — dinosaurs.*

     *   (I almost didn’t even include that fact for spoilers’ sakes, but let’s face it; even the title is enough to give the premise away. It’s like trying to keep the subject of Vampire Diaries a secret. There’s really no point.)

     Along with Hammond’s grandchildren and the chaos theorist Ian Malcolm, Grant and Sattler must take a test ride through the park to approve it for public audiences. However, before the day is over, human greed and tampering with nature will threaten the lives of every person on the island… and not everyone is going to make it out alive.

     The Lost World: Jurassic Park

     Four years after the incidents of Jurassic Park, this film shows Ian Malcolm (the chaos theorist from the first movie) still struggling with the near-death experience he had in Hammond’s theme park.

     When Hammond informs him that there is a second hidden island, Isla Sorna, kept specifically for breeding the dinosaurs, Malcolm wants nothing to do with it… until he finds out that his girlfriend was already sent there to photograph the creatures in their natural habitats.

     Now he and a few trusted companions must fly in on a rescue mission, not knowing that a wave of trophy hunters are also on their way in the hopes of making some fast cash.

     Jurassic Park III

     Another four years later, paleontologist Alan Grant receives an impressive financial offer from an eccentric couple who want him to fly them over Isla Sorna for their anniversary. However, once they arrive there, it turns out that the couple enticed him there under false pretenses… and before long they find themselves trapped on the island with no way to escape.

The Appeal

     In General

     Even if you haven’t seen the films, I can guarantee that after watching any trailer for the Jurassic Park series, you’ll be at least curious. That’s because Spielberg has an incredible skill with showing audiences just enough to get them hooked, while still keeping a large portion of the film a secret: in fact, this is often called the “Spielberg Effect.” The previews for the very first film didn’t even show any dinosaurs at all — but Spielberg teased his audiences so well that they were curious enough to come and see the movie in droves when it was released.

     Of course, the trailers were’t the only reason why the movies have been successful. We have the dinosaurs themselves to thank for that: specifically the fact that they simply look so real.

     Due to the growing development of computer animation, the early 90s were filled with extremely impressive fantasy and science fiction films. Studios still relied almost 80% on animatronic puppets and physical props, but they also had the safety net of CGI whenever a shot seemed too impossible or too expensive.

     Jurassic Park sprang up right in the middle of that “golden age.” Many of the actors and actresses in the film actually interacted with physical ‘dinosaurs,’ that special-effects artists had rigged up on the set. As a result, the wonder in their faces and the movement of their fingers when they touched the creatures was entirely natural. Audiences could (and still do) sense that the dinosaurs were physically present with the humans; they could see the texture of scales and see how a person’s touch could effect the dinosaur’s movements.

     And think of all the souvenirs that came from the films as a result! My college has the styrofoam head of a T-Rex proudly on display in their Communications building (it was massive, but still light enough for me to hold on my own).

     Physical props often go overlooked nowadays, because why spend hours creating a puppet with limited movement that will get thrown away later when you can instead create a digital puppet with millions of possible muscle contractions? But the major appeal of the Jurassic Park series is that Spielberg generally made an effort to include physical animatronics on the set (at least in the first few films), which made the adventures seem more tangible than any cheesy 3-D effect could.

     Now how about the films individually? How do they hold up against one another? I’m glad you asked…

     Jurassic Park

     The Characters: 1st Place

     While the main appeal of the series is probably the presence of dinosaurs, another reason why so many people are partial to the first film is because the characters are all so vibrant. The colorful personalities of the wonder-filled children, the introverted Dr. Grant, the cynical Dr. Malcolm, and all the rest make for a fun mix that allows the audience to relate to at least one — if not several — people on the screen at once.

     The chemistry between characters helps to drive the plot, keeps the movie interesting even when the dinosaurs aren’t present, and encourages viewers of all kinds by portraying competent women and children.

     The Plot: 1st Place

     For one thing, it’s hard to imagine that a sequel could really beat this film out for originality. The story is simple in concept, but it also has a wide scope that incorporates the viewpoints of several people from all different walks of life. And unlike today’s action flicks where there have to be explosions and deaths every five minutes to keep the audience from boredom, Spielberg builds up anticipation gradually and doesn’t feel the need to rush into the action-thriller portion of his movie. The result is a well-paced and well-planned mix of intrigue that enhances the adventure as it grows.

     The Dinosaurs: 2nd Place

     Now I know that some of you have probably noticed (and are likely fuming) that I’ve only given this film second place in this category. To be sure, the movie very nearly did get first place; it used animatronics wherever possible, and as a result looked larger than life. I'm sure it would earn first prize from many of you if you were writing this article.

     However, on the rare occasions that it did use CGI to animate its dinosaurs, they do occasionally look ever-so-slightly off from their surroundings, as many CGI creations did in the early nineties. The movie is certainly to be lauded as revolutionary for its time, but in an impartial comparison of how real the dinosaurs appear or feel… it just falls a tiny, tiny bit short. But that's just me being nit-picky.

     The Lost World; Jurassic Park

     The Characters: 3rd Place

     While the characters in this film aren’t necessarily deplorable, most of them don’t go through any major development or interesting changes. In fact, billionaire John Hammond even appears to have relapsed and practically forgotten all the lessons he learned in the first movie; this sequel seems to have been made mostly for viewers to gawk at more dinosaurs.

     The Plot: 3rd Place

     Because of its poor characterization and its inability to see where it’s going, this movie doesn’t really give itself a place to go or a foundation to build on. There are some major decisions made by the characters that don’t make sense, and many of them manage to survive situations that really aren’t survivable (maybe Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull was partially inspired by this movie). 

    However, there are a few scattered, very exciting Spielberg-esque scenes that build impressive suspense.

     The Dinosaurs: 1st Place

     This movie did seem a bit more comfortable with computer-animation than its predecessor, but the puppets and animatronics were just as much improved, too — mainly when it came to Spielberg’s impressive scenes centered around the baby t-rex. As a result, the dinosaurs felt a bit more tangible (even if nothing else did. It's as if there was a trade-off between the quality of the dinosaurs and the quality of the plot and characters).

     Jurassic Park III

     The Characters: 2nd Place

     While perhaps not quite as stellar as the original film, this sequel did a decent job of bringing an unlikely team of people together, and sometimes it was fun — even a bit comical — to watch them interact. There were certainly times when they made poor or illogical decisions, and there was only one female character (who wasn’t exactly a competent role model for viewers), but they were still more dimensional than the characters in Lost World.

     The Plot: 2nd Place

     Once again, this film wasn’t up to par with Jurassic Park but was still more structured than Lost World… which is actually kind of strange, considering that this was the first of the films that wasn’t based on a novel. There were still several moments worthy of a facepalm or two, including the characters’ final escape, but I still enjoyed it in general, because it didn’t try to entirely mimic its predecessors by focusing on the t-rex or money-hungry business-moguls as the main threat(s).

     The Dinosaurs: 3rd Place

     Unlike the first two films which mixed computer animation with manual puppeteering, this movie tried to use almost no physical props or animatronics, and as a result it didn’t have the same larger-than-life feel whenever the characters came face-to-face with new creatures.

The Rating

     While there’s really no language or adult themes, the frightening thriller genre and the somewhat-gorey deaths probably merit a strong PG that’s very close to PG-13.

     Violence: The books are extremely graphic, but Spielberg made an effort to tone down the films so that younger audiences could join in on the adventure. There are still plenty of cringe-worthy deaths and bloody limbs, but the presence of young characters brave enough to endure through the danger is perhaps notable.

     Sex: None. Parenthood is discussed occasionally, and one formerly-married couple briefly change shirts in proximity to one another, but that’s it. There’s not much time for romance in you’re life when you’re being chased by velociraptors.

     Language: There’s very little language for the most part, except in reference to the excessive amounts of feces that dinosaurs can produce. It's all fairly PG-13 or below.

The Genre

     The movies are primal survival thrillers, with a good dose of action-adventure and science fiction thrown in. Many of the characters debate about whether or not man should really meddle with nature on such a scale.

     So is it worth it?

The Decision

     I suppose that depends on whether you really enjoy the action or sci-fi genre (chances are, if you’re reading this blog, you probably do). You may not have missed much by ignoring the sequels, but the original Jurassic Park really is a classic, and classics are few and far-between these days. It’s not a perfect film, to be sure…

     …but it jump-started a major genre (and a lot of hearts)…

     …and is still beloved by fans around the globe.

     Trailers

     And if you’re still on the fence, just give it time. There are plenty of trailers on Youtube that might interest you if you’re more of a visual person (like myself), whether for the original film or for the latest one set to be released this week, which had multiple impressive trailers… including one where Chris Pratt (from Guardians of the Galaxy and Parks and Recreation) goes a hunt alongside velociraptors! 

Conclusion

     I’m not sure how much of Jurassic World will rely on the events of the previous films. If I had to wager a guess, I’d say that it will probably ignore the third film altogether, possibly allude to one or two events or places mentioned in the second film, and stick mostly to the foundation that the first film built in 1993. While I wouldn’t outright recommend that you ignore the sequels, I’d definitely say that, of the three existing movies Jurassic Park is the one that’s most worth-watching. You may even find some friends who are in your same shoes, either because they’ve never seen it, or they just haven’t for a long time.

     In that case, set aside your next free Friday night; grab your popcorn, flop onto the sofa with the gang, and get comfortable. Jurassic Park is about to open.

Continue Reading →