R.L. Shaffer: On seeing Jurassic Park 20 years ago...

This is the second of a handful of essays regarding your first (and second and/or third) viewing of
Jurassic Park twenty summers ago, as we brace ourselves for the film's 3D IMAX rerelease this Friday.  I'm sure every single one of my readers has such a memory so feel free to share them in the comments section below.

Memories of Jurassic Park:

By R.L Shaffer

I was a mere 12 years old when I first visited Jurassic Park.

From the very first teaser (seen above) I was hooked. As a self-professed lover of dinosaurs (or dino-sars as Jeff Goldblum's Ian Malcolm pronounced it), it would be my duty to see any film about these mysterious creatures. I didn't know what I was going to get, either, but if director Steven Spielberg was going to take me there, I was more than willing to enjoy the ride.

Brandon Peters: On seeing Jurassic Park 20 years ago...

This is one of two of three essays regarding your first (and second and/or third) viewing of Jurassic Park twenty summers ago, as we brace ourselves for the film's 3D IMAX rerelease this Friday.  I'm sure every single one of my readers has such a memory so feel free to share them in the comments section below.

Jurassic Park Memories

Brandon Peters

Yes, that photo supporting the article is ridiculous…but I just kinda “had to” use it. Hilariously, its one of those images that sticks in your head from the movie.

Jurassic Park was one of those films that comes along once every 8-10 years that just restores your faith and fulfill the magic of seeing a film in a theater to the highest level.  There was an absolute joy and “level up-ing" of my love for cinema after viewing this movie.  An event movie in the greatest sense. And man, was there a craze following it.

Brandon Peters retrospective review: Die Hard 3 (1995).

It's time for another comprehensive franchise discussion from Brandon Peters, this time centering around the February 14th release of A Good Day to Die Hard.  As such, the third film on the list is obviously Die Hard: With A Vengeance.  Brandon, myself, and the OutNow Podcast crew did a commentary for this picture a few weeks back which just posted yesterday, so if you want a truly exhaustive and time-consuming look at the film, double-dip accordingly.  But I will say that the film's esteem has grown very much over the last 18 years, so the point where it's no longer scandalous to admit that you like it as much or more than the original.  In that sense, it's the Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade of the series.  I'll leave the floor to Brandon once again...

DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE

1995

Director:  John McTiernan

Starring:  Bruce Willis, Samuel L. Jackson, Jeremy Irons, Graham Greene, Colleen Camp, Larry Bryggman, Sam Phillips, Kevin Chamberlin

Rated R

Wait a minute. You mean to tell me I'm in this shit 'cause some white cop threw some white asshole's brother off a roof?

                        ~Zeus Carver

After a five year hiatus, Die Hard roars back…with a vengeance (*sigh* I tried, but I couldn’t resist).  And that’s literally the title.  John McTiernan resumes directorial duties and returns the franchise to the fresh original and fun that infused the original entry.  The film was a big success and went on to become the highest grossing in the series and the highest grossing film worldwide in 1995.  Instead of following the sort of “Die Hard formula”, McTiernan opens it up instead of keeping it closed in.  New York City becomes John McClane’s playground this time around.  Early on, the plans were for it to either happen on a cruise ship (that script later became Speed 2: Cruise Control) or the Los Angeles subway system.  Both ideas were scrapped for a hot script called Simon Says.  Simon Says had already been turned to down by the Lethal Weapon franchise for their third entry.  McClane was added and the script was infused with Die Hard and became Die Hard: New York.  Later as we know, the title became Die Hard: With a Vengeance.

Review: Django Unchained (2012) entertains but is oddly generic and surprisingly conventional.

Django Unchained

2012
165 minutes
rated R

by Scott Mendelson

Quentin Tarantino arguably made Django Unchained (teaser/trailer) because he wanted to try his hand at a Spaghetti Western, and that's basically what he has done.  Alas, the film is little more than a genre exercise, with little more than the obvious role reversals to justify its artistic existence.  That is is mostly entertaining and well-acted across the board goes without saying, but after the slyly subversive Inglorious Basterds, I frankly expect more from the filmmaker.  For a filmmaker known for narrative surprises and challenging the expectations of his audience, his newest entry is oddly conventional and almost timid in terms of how it approaches its subject matter.  Oh, it surely qualifies as another film focusing on revisionist revenge-fantasy history, as well as how we often use the cinematic lens to comprehend the least savory parts of our history, but as a stand-alone film it is lacking in substance.  It is a good movie, for sure, but it is quite frankly not a very good film.

Review: So close yet so far, Joss Whedon's The Avengers (2012) is an often soaring but occasionally frustrating B-movie with several A+ ingredients.

The Avengers

2012
142 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

In a film like The Avengers, which brings together strands of several prior pictures into a mostly cohesive whole, it is arguably inevitable that individual pieces will end up working better than the sum of its parts. That the film works at all is almost a miracle, and it's so purely entertaining and contains so much that works like gangbusters that it's tempting to ignore what doesn't work and merely salute the enterprise. It is a relentlessly engaging and confident motion picture, boasting a cast that in a more respected genre would make it an Oscar-bait film. But the film comes so close to out-and-out greatness that it's almost disheartening to point out the core issues at fault, both because it feels petty and because it's almost a genre masterpiece. Still, there is much to like and quite a bit to love about Joss Whedon's The Avengers. On a pure popcorn spectacle scale I can't imagine anyone feeling that they didn't get their money's worth. As a piece of art however, it's a trickier proposition.

Updated! The Avengers gets (surprisingly not terrible) character posters.

As you can see, Geek Tyrant snagged a full banner comprised of the posters below (individuals after the jump).  Maybe it's because the focus on each hero doesn't necessitate cramming six of them into a single one-sheet.  Maybe it's because the tight imagery makes the threat just outside the frame look genuinely world-threatening.  But for whatever reason, this is the first official piece of Avengers movie art in a while that I actually like.  Anyway, share your thoughts below, and kudos for finally getting Cobie Smulders on a poster.

Scott Mendelson

The Avengers gets a hilariously bad new poster, but provides marketing insights...

First and foremost, the photo-shopping on this poster is pretty terrible.  The proportions are off, Downey Jr's head is affixed on his body as poorly as the various male leads in that infamous Takers poster 2.5 years ago, and no one seems to be in the same scene (here's a great look at the various light-source issues).  And, just to annoy me, they went out of their way to make sure the lone female of the group is much shorter than anyone else in the poster.  Anyway, this one-sheet again sells the notion that the entire climactic battle scene (which seems to represent most of the film's action judging by the marketing thus far) takes place on a single street in downtown New York City.  More importantly, while director Joss Whedon has confirmed that the story will be somewhat Steve Rogers-centric, the marketing is (wisely or by decree) focusing on Tony Stark.  Not only is Robert Downey Jr. front-and-center on the poster, not only does he get top billing on the cast roll-call, but he actually gets his name BEFORE the title.  Anyway, Marvel/Disney is dropping a new trailer tomorrow.  I'm not sure why they aren't waiting nine days and attaching said trailer to prints of John Carter. That film will need what little help an Avengers trailer can provide on opening weekend.  But no matter, what are your thoughts on this particular piece of marketing?  Oh, and what are your thoughts on the news that the film will be titled The Avengers Assembled in the UK to avoid 'confusion' with The Avengers television series from the 1960s (edit - yeah, probably the infamous 1998 Avengers movie too)?

Scott Mendelson