Post by drystyx on Jun 20, 2018 19:26:47 GMT
Like most movie series, the odd number ones are usually decent, and the even number ones are pathetic losers.
Jurassic is a fine example of this.
As a screenplay, Jurassic 3 is obviously the best, with the best theatrics and most credible characters.
However, Jurassic Park, the first movie, is deeper in thought than we think, if we don't think it is deep.
The main crux of the original is that some sick monster of a man tries to tell the world he has total control over predators more horrifying than any the world now knows.
John Hammond is a villain. It's to Attenborough's credit that he snake oil sales this monster as being sympathetic. Even the big veggie dinosaurs like the brontosauri can inadvertently squash a human just with a few steps.
The idea of being able to control everything is something one didn't see much of before this information age. John Hammond is a character that is unfortunately becoming more common. He's not only insane, but evil, because there is no way a human can actually believe he can control everything. I've met humans like this, and every one of them just scoffs when you prove they can't control everything. Every one of them continues to make dangerous situations, and their only possible motivation can be to accidentally on purpose hurt or kill or maim others. They don't even care who it is.
There are a few scenes in Jurassic Park where the more sane characters tell Hammond he isn't in control, and Attenborough does a great snake oil job in doing what Hammond does. Similar situations where actors have snake oiled their way through horribly evil characters are Fred March in Hombre, Van Heflin in Gunman's Walk, Barry Sullivan in Seven Ways From Sundown, and others.
What makes the movie "deep" is the same thing that makes Hombre and Gunman's Walk deep. That people can actually see these villains as not being villains. They're human monsters, totally demon possessed. Sure, any of us could be demon possessed. We are all attacked, but it's a fool who doesn't recognize it.
Anyone who claims he has things "under control" is not only a liar and a moron, but he knows he is a liar and a moron. He can't "not know" it. You can stand holding a peach and claim it's a fish all day, and insist it's a fish, but you know it isn't a fish.
As long as people don't see John Hammond as the monster he is, the movie is horribly relevant, and people need to see it over and over until they do realize that people like Hammond don't use evil as an excuse to make money. They use making money as an excuse for rationalizing their evil whims. In every case, they could make as much money by not making dangerous situations.
Jurassic is a fine example of this.
As a screenplay, Jurassic 3 is obviously the best, with the best theatrics and most credible characters.
However, Jurassic Park, the first movie, is deeper in thought than we think, if we don't think it is deep.
The main crux of the original is that some sick monster of a man tries to tell the world he has total control over predators more horrifying than any the world now knows.
John Hammond is a villain. It's to Attenborough's credit that he snake oil sales this monster as being sympathetic. Even the big veggie dinosaurs like the brontosauri can inadvertently squash a human just with a few steps.
The idea of being able to control everything is something one didn't see much of before this information age. John Hammond is a character that is unfortunately becoming more common. He's not only insane, but evil, because there is no way a human can actually believe he can control everything. I've met humans like this, and every one of them just scoffs when you prove they can't control everything. Every one of them continues to make dangerous situations, and their only possible motivation can be to accidentally on purpose hurt or kill or maim others. They don't even care who it is.
There are a few scenes in Jurassic Park where the more sane characters tell Hammond he isn't in control, and Attenborough does a great snake oil job in doing what Hammond does. Similar situations where actors have snake oiled their way through horribly evil characters are Fred March in Hombre, Van Heflin in Gunman's Walk, Barry Sullivan in Seven Ways From Sundown, and others.
What makes the movie "deep" is the same thing that makes Hombre and Gunman's Walk deep. That people can actually see these villains as not being villains. They're human monsters, totally demon possessed. Sure, any of us could be demon possessed. We are all attacked, but it's a fool who doesn't recognize it.
Anyone who claims he has things "under control" is not only a liar and a moron, but he knows he is a liar and a moron. He can't "not know" it. You can stand holding a peach and claim it's a fish all day, and insist it's a fish, but you know it isn't a fish.
As long as people don't see John Hammond as the monster he is, the movie is horribly relevant, and people need to see it over and over until they do realize that people like Hammond don't use evil as an excuse to make money. They use making money as an excuse for rationalizing their evil whims. In every case, they could make as much money by not making dangerous situations.
