Jurassic Park 4: I Knew it was Coming

I can't be credited with special powers of prediction for this one, because Jurassic Park 4 has been rumored about for the better part of ten years. I do however want credit for special powers of prediction when I said that Cate Blanchett should play an evil stepmother in a Cinderella adaptation, because guess who is now playing Lady Tremaine aka Evil Stepmother in a Cinderella adaptation? Called it.

But anyway that's irrelevant to the subject at hand. What I'm talking about today is the fact that the studio finally did what they've been threatening for ten years or more: actually work on a Jurassic Park part 4, now named Jurassic World. 

With the details that have already been leaked, this isn't looking good. In the original Jurassic Park, your location was something of a game reserve like you would see in various parts of Africa. The animals roam about and you drive through and observe. Jurassic World seems to make the whole experience a theme park, and there are really only so many directions that can go, and all of them end with carnage. But Universal is fairly certain they can give us something new and unique. On that note, here is what we can expect from Jurassic World so far: 

1. Hey, look! Kids!

 

Oh good, because we didn't see kids in any of these previous Jurassic Park movies: 

Jurassic Park
Lex and Tim

The Lost World: Jurassic Park
Kelly

Jurassic Park III
Eric

2. A redheaded female scientist who looks unlikable

 

Because that's never happened before either. 

The Lost World: Jurassic Park
Dr. Sarah Harding

3. Some guy on a motorcycle.

 No one knows who this guy below is, but the point is, he rode a motorcycle with dinosaurs first, so he gets some sort of credit for that. 

Disposable unnamed character from The Lost World: Jurassic Park

4. An island (although I will admit that the settlement over the water there in the front concerns me significantly...)

But in all fairness, an island is really the only plausible way to contain the artificially generated wildlife, as shown in every other JP movie: 

Isla Nublar

5. And of course, a big terrifying T-Rex

Unlike the beast seen here: 

Jurassic Park

 And the bonus two of them here:

The Lost World: Jurassic Park

Until the mighty T-rex was unceremoniously disposed of by the Spinosaurus here:

Jurassic Park 3

     Judging by the rumors about the genetically engineered super-dino that combines the DNA of a T-rex, velociraptor, cuttlefish, and snake, I'd say that if old T-rex features in Jurassic World, we probably shouldn't get attached to it.

     Sorry Universal, you're not convincing me of anything, least of all originality. Then again, I don't know if I can fault anyone for that since that seems to be the rarest commodity these days. It also doesn't help that I barely recognize anyone in the cast, and if you know me, you know that's saying something. 

     I'm still waiting on some sort of positive news that would excite me about this whole thing. However, I'm glad to hear that of the leaked plot details, at least the one about raptors being tamed to the point of assisting humans was disqualified. That is such a relief, because I was really afraid of you going this direction: 

Beast Wars! 

Or worse....

For some of my other thoughts on sequels and part fours, see Sequels, The Movie Murderer, and The Gamble of Part Four. I know; I'm beating a dead horse. I wouldn't have to if they'd just learn their lessons... 

The Redeemed Jean Valjean

Jean Valjean is nothing now! Another story must begin!

When Valjean (Hugh Jackman) wails this line, a story has already taken place that sets the tone for the rest of the story. After living twenty years under the ruthless eye of Inspector Javert (Crowe), Valjean is a hardened and forgotten man. "I have learned to hate the world, the world that always hated me... this is all I have lived for, this is all I have known..." he sings. In one transforming act of mercy at the hands of a noble bishop, Valjean is crushed and made new. Now given the chance at redemption, Valjean rejoins the miserable world a free man with new determination. But what a miserable world it is.

Without giving away too much, by the time the credits roll and tomorrow comes, Jean Valjean has behaved selflessly from the moment of his conversion to the last sweeping musical note of the movie. Two characters play an enormous role in his transformation, the most obvious being the bishop. The bishop (tenderly played by Colm Wilkinson) sees Valjean as a desperate man in need of grace instead of a soulless convict. He treats Valjean with love and respect, and when Valjean wrongs him, the bishop covers Valjeans sins and offers him another chance, calling him brother. For all real intents and purposes, the bishop represents the voice of God in a truly beautiful way that is sealed when he surprisingly appears a second time at the end of the movie. Generally speaking, movies have not been kind to clergy. But the bishop of Les Miserables is a man of warmth, tenderness, and hospitality, whose love and grace are a glorious reflection of the God he serves. Valjean sees God in the bishop, and he is permanently and irrevocably changed. Because of the actions of the bishop, Valjean puts his past behind him and becomes a picture of grace and redemption ("I"ll escape now from that world... from the world of Jean Valjean...Jean Valjean is nothing now! Another story must begin!"), never forgetting the kindness that saved his soul. Later it is clear that as a result of this transformation, Valjean will extend grace and mercy to others who are not unlike what he was.

A second more subtle influence on the heart of Jean Valjean is Cosette, the girl who becomes his daughter. In a selfless act, Valjean seeks out the orphaned daughter of a prostitute and saves her from the sordid innkeeper she has been in the "care" of. Cosette's innocence and immediate love for him move Valjean. He indicates that she has touched his heart in a way that he has seemingly never been touched before ("you have brought the gift of life and love so long denied me..."). Suddenly Valjean is no longer alone. From this point onward, Valjean dedicates his life to protecting hers, and placing her happiness before his own, to the point of standing in the way of harm to protect the man she loves. Despite her abusive background, Cosette embodies innocence, and Valjean strives to protect the fragility of it in the wretched world they live in. Although at times Valjean comes off as overprotective, it becomes understandable when one considers everything that Valjean has been through, and how he longs to protect his only loved one from the gross realities of the world.

By the end of the story, Cosette, the bishop, and others commend Valjean for living according to love rather than succumbing to the many opportunities he had to take an easier way. At every turn, the stone-hearted Javert tempts Valjean to take revenge or slip back into a life of crime, taking every opportunity to remind Valjean of who he was. Javert is for this story, the Great Accuser, but is also a mirror of what Valjean could be if he succumbed to the pressure of bitterness and callousness. Yet from the moment of his conversion to the day when he breaks past the earthly barricades, Valjean refuses to ever be 24601 ever again no matter how strong the temptation.

Time and time again, Valjean could make his own life so much easier by doing something easy. Most of the time, these choices are so grey that most people wouldn't have condemned him for taking the easier road. Yet he does not. In fact, not once does he take the easier road to save himself. He strives to keep himself alive, but that is the extent of his self-interest. He adopts the illegitimate daughter of a prostitute. He willingly identifies himself as a former convict to save someone else from being imprisoned in his place. He carries his daughter's love through the sewers of the city. He spares his enemy when he had the power of life or death over him.

Jean Valjean is a redeemed man who refuses to revert back to his old self. This is the power of mercy and love, and it is portrayed beautifully in the character of Jean Valjean. Hugh Jackman's heartfelt performance as the protagonist shows Valjean not as a saint; merely a man who has seen undeserved mercy and is changed by it. Rarely has a picture of redemption ever graced the silver screen so clearly and eloquently, with such engagement and captivation. Jean Valjean encapsulates the depths of desperation and the heights of grace, and Jackman masterfully pulls the audience along this journey with every beautiful, miserable, desperate, heavenly note.

How to Train Your Dragon 2

I officially want my own dragon.

How to Train Your Dragon 2 was one of my most anticipated movies of the summer, possibly of the year, so I'm not going to miss an opportunity to review this one.  The first Dragon is a favorite among my animated movies, and I've been waiting with anticipation and nervousness for the inevitable sequel. Personally I'm not sure how you can really dislike these movies unless you just reject animation in general. How to Train Your Dragon made Vikings an affable people! If you know a little history, JUST a little, you know that Vikings are a really unlikely choice for a movie that will attract children. Vikings on dragons might sound a little too ridiculous for the unimaginative, but if the Vikings had mastered the art of dragon-riding, our world would be a very different place today.

But anyway I digress. So How to Train Your Dragon 2 starts up a few years after the first installment has left off. You can surmise this from the dragon-friendly modifications to the village of Berk, and the grey hairs that Stoick has sprouted. As usual Hiccup is off with Toothless being very un-Vikingly, peacefully exploring and mapping the surrounding world, without intent of conquest. Stoick has decided that Hiccup will be the next chief of Berk, but Hiccup just wants to keep being an explorer and inventor leading a peaceful but adventurous life. But as so often happens in life, things happen, and life doesn't go according to plan.

First off, Toothless is one of the most lovable characters to grace the animated screen in recent years. His big green-yellow eyes, facial expressions, and body language are more communicative than all the spoken words in the entire script.  He doesn't need to talk-- it's all clear with a little dragonly grumbling. Toothless is like a big, playful, sonic burst-spitting puppy, with a few cat-like tendencies.  The way he bounces, wags, rolls over, plays, and even smiles is positively endearing. Toothless has all the intelligence, emotions, nobility, courage, and honor of a real warrior, but is still just....sorry, adorable. He's a pet worthy of a Viking, but also fits the youthful adventurous spirit of his rider Hiccup.

By this point in time, Hiccup himself seems less worthy of his name than he once was. He's less bumbling and clumsy, though not a shred less adventurous. Hiccup has no interest in becoming the next chief, but it should be noted that it's really less to do with shirking responsibility, and a lot more to do with his desire to continue being an explorer... and a lot to do with some insecurity about being able to fill his father's boots. But Hiccup has grown up a lot since the first installment, being more confident in himself that ever before, even to a fault. Example, despite repeated warnings and evidence to the contrary, Hiccup is convinced that he can talk the evil Drago out of his nefarious plans.

As much as I loved Toothless and Hiccup, what really stuck with me was Stoick and Valka. The tender reunion and rekindled love between Stoick and his long-lost wife was sweeter and more emotional than Hiccup meeting his mother for the first time. In genres such as this, young love is usually the centerpiece, but here the older, constant love takes the stage and steals the show in two exquisite moments with a look and a dance. Initially I wasn't sure what to think of Valka, who had been alive all this time, willingly abandoning her husband and child, but it's clear that she deeply regrets this decision and longs to start over with her family. Furthermore, seeing the mighty Stoick suddenly melted to butter at the sight of Valka, taking her back without any question at all, and loving and protecting her as if she never left, was simply beautiful.

Yet would this movie be worthy of its predecessor without the fantastic humor that accompanied the first movie? Of course not, and this one delivers plenty of chuckle-worthy moments, mostly at the hands of the (seemingly) last single girl in Berk, Ruffnut. Personally I would have liked more of Craig Ferguson's Gobber, but the humor surrounding Ruffnut delivers plenty of laughs. Furthermore the relationship between Hiccup and Toothless has always been one that is light-hearted and playful, and that is as much the case here as it was in the first film.

The first movie's villain was tradition and prejudice, but here the antagonist is a real person with disturbing powers that yield serious consequences. To say that Drago is a powermonger would be a serious understatement. Drago wants worship and sovereignty. Not in the religious sense necessarily (though he does at one point command a posture of bowing down), but in the sense that he wants all people and dragons to fear him, and he is ruled by this lust. The power he already possesses leaves absolutely no barriers for him to do as he chooses, and he does just this without a second thought, making him a rather disturbing figure.

In many ways, How to Train Your Dragon 2 follows the formula for a sequel by being bigger, darker, and more explosive, but in other ways it dodges some of the woes that Part Two's are prone to. While the movie certainly does increase its levels of action and suspense, it doesn't overload itself with such sequences, but is sure to make these moments impressive. But leaving the theater, it was not the battle moments that left the greatest visual impression. The visually impacting moments were the ones that captured the magic and wonder of adventure: when Hiccup is flying with his mother and she walks effortlessly from dragon to dragon in mid-air; when Hiccup shows off his newest invention that allows him to fly independently of Toothless, while Toothless keeps him aloft by firing heat-bursts in front of him; the moments of sheer splendor where dragons dance like butterflies in a hidden refuge, break the surface of the water like dolphins, or suddenly appear from the clouds in peaceful but majestic glory. This is where How to Train Your Dragon 2 embraces its world, revels in its beauty, and makes you so jealous that you're not on that dragon, soaring above the clouds.

All in all, How to Train Your Dragon 2 was just as enjoyable as the first movie, bringing a perfect blend of comedy, drama, and action to the screen, with plenty of awe-inspiring moments. The only things I found remotely disappointing were that one of the biggest showdowns is over too quickly, and one character will definitely not be returning for the inevitable Part Three. For this review, I have ever so considerately put one spoiler-ish analysis in the postscript under the picture, so you won't read it accidentally. But in conclusion, I would say whole-heartedly that How to Train Your Dragon 2 is a sequel worthy of its excellent predecessor.

For all the dragons and evil villains and Godzilla vs. Godzilla showdowns, there was one area that How to Train Your Dragon 2 significantly surprised me by the time the credits rolled. At the start of the movie we are shown that Stoick is ready to pass the chieftainship to Hiccup, but Hiccup doesn't really want it. Astrid on the other hand can think of no greater honor. Considering the advancement of time, I somewhat expected that Hiccup and Astrid would tie the knot and Astrid would assume the chieftainship while Hiccup resumed being an explorer and peacemaker to outlying regions. A little later I wondered if the movie was setting up newcomer Eret to take this position. What was surprising to me was that eventually, it is in fact Hiccup that takes the honor. After a great battle and a huge loss, Hiccup acknowledges that being a chief isn't about being born with the right look or having intimidating strength-- it's about character. "I was so afraid of becoming my dad. Mostly because I thought I never could. How do you become someone that great, that brave, that selfless? ... I guess you can only try... A chief protects his own." In the end Hiccup steps up to the position, proving that leadership can come in many forms, and a good leader doesn't always fit the mold of a strong and mighty chief.

Man of Steel

More than a character, Superman is a symbol of the power of goodness to ultimately overcome evil. Superman represents a childlike fantasy to have the power to change things in mighty ways. Superman is an imaginative ideal in which one man really can do everything, save the world, and get the girl. And yet, it's hard to identify with a guy whose greatest challenge is an allergy to a rock from an extinct planet. And to some degree, that is where Man of Steel succeeds where no other Superman has.

While it may not be difficult to imagine that a young Clark would have difficulty with the necessity of hiding his abilities from the world, rarely have we seen how Clark is forced into heart-breaking dilemmas right alongside common juvenile temptations. Before Clark is fully realized as the Man of Steel, he has two life-defining moments in which he must make the choice to protect his identity, or let others die while he stands by. Clark responds differently to the two situations, and the outcomes are invariably affected, as is Clark. One situation proves to him that as one who has the ability to save lives, he has the responsibility. The second scenario shows him that while failure to act can (and does) result in someone else's death, he must be able to act without compromising his cover.

Thanks to creative writing and good acting, Clark is finally a fairly sympathetic character. His loneliness is incurable, and his desire for belonging can never be met. As far as Clark knows, he is the last survivor of a world he never even knew, the only son of a family whose love he can never remember. His emptiness is more than just a lack of identity, but a penetrating lonesomeness in every sense, and that is what I found most personable about Clark. It's not that he doesn't fit in because he's hiding who is, he doesn't fit in because he is a stranger in a strange land.

In more technical areas, it should be noted that Man of Steel differs from previous Superman adaptations in some significant ways.

1. No Kryptonite. Clark's only true weakness is that he has adapted a little too much to the atmosphere of earth, which complicates his energy and breathing when he visits General Zod aboard the spacecraft.

2. Krypton's fate is not natural. In other Superman movies, Krypton seems to be the unfortunate recipient of a natural apocalypse. In Man of Steel however, Krypton is reaping the consequences of harvesting the planet core for resources, therefore making the core unstable.

3. No Lois-Clark romance. It's well-known that Lois has complicated feelings for both Superman and Clark, completely oblivious to the fact that they are one in the same. In this version of the story however, Lois never meets Clark as just Clark. She meets him because she knows that he is something different, and he is thus the mysterious man from moment one.

4. Spoiler! Superman kills. That's a spoiler by the way. Though it should be noted that he had no choice, and that he expresses great remorse for it. All the same, this was apparently seen as highly controversial by the purists.

These differences made for interesting viewing, but all in all I would give Man of Steel a seven out of ten, which is far more generous than any adaptation I've ever given any Superman movie previously.   I will say without hesitation that this is the finest Superman adaptation I have ever seen, and I thoroughly enjoyed the more in-depth origin story from both the Kryptonian side, as well as the Kansas side. The modified technology that allowed Kal-El (Russell Crowe) to be part of the movie long after his character's demise was a nice variation on Marlon Brando's Fortress of Solitude appearances. Lois Lane finally has some sense, though still remains true to her character by giving in to dangerous curiosity.

So why not a ten out of ten?

Well, the fact is, Superman as a symbol, icon, and superhero is no longer an untold story, and to a large degree there is not much more that can be untold before it strays into the territory of complete rebirth. Yes it's true that Man of Steel delivered a few things we haven't seen before, and General Zod managed to give a few twists, but at it's heart, we know Clark too well. So well in fact that there really can't be very many surprises.  Eventually he will always do the right thing, save Lois from an impossibly precarious situation, and then go back to his thankless job as a reporter. And I'm not saying that I would really want to see these vital aspects of Clark's character changed necessarily, because he does embody a goodness that is admirable and seemingly unattainable at times. At times I would like to see him wrestle a little more with the nature of right and wrong, such as his reluctant decision to kill Zod. But therein lies my point: the greatest surprise to his character or to the story in general is that he kills the bad guy.

For Superman, this might be groundbreaking. For a superhero, it's common responsibility.

Man of Steel was thoroughly entertaining and interesting, and it did manage to make things as new and fresh as it possibly could have without reinventing the wheel entirely. For that, I applaud them. Clark, as a thoroughly good and untouchable power may be one of the most difficult alter-egos ever written, yet here he is just about human, and that is a good thing.

Oblivion

This is a very delayed review, as it's been sitting in my drafts begging to be edited and posted, and I only just now finally got around to it.

As I was sitting down to begin this piece, it occurred to me that I have no idea why the movie was entitled Oblivion. From my understanding of the definition, it didn't seem to fit the post-apocalyptic sci-fi film, so I asked my faithful friend dictionary.com. The definition at the top of the list reads "the state of being completely forgotten or unknown."

I suppose Jack Harper (Tom Cruise) is living in such a state. He lives in a pristine little apartment with one other person on an otherwise deserted and desolated earth. The rest of the humans are living off-planet, having evacuated after earth lost its livable conditions in a war against alien invaders. Whoever Jack's friends once were, they have forgotten him. Not that he minds-- he was subject to a mandatory memory wipe for security purposes, so he remembers nothing prior to his assignment to earth, and is far less eager to get off the planet than his partner Victoria. Jack is your typical Tom Cruise action-hero character: quiet desperation, resistance to the system, "moral" core, military fitness, unsolved mysteries of his past, etc. Naturally there is a reason for this, as there always is, and we're given the basic story about halfway through. As for Victoria, all we know is that she is paranoid of the outside world, and dresses for the office every day despite the fact that she never leaves the apartment. She might know more than she lets on, but we never really find out for sure.

This is one of those cases where the trailer to the movie unfortunately gave away too much, at least for me. For example, when we first glimpse the "aliens" dashing in the shadows, we already suspect that Morgan Freeman is somehow behind it. And due to the trailer, I also already had a few guesses about the real plot, and for the most part I was spot-on. I guessed a scenario similar to The Island involving false incentives and dark purposes, and I was correct. Even saying that just now is a huge spoiler for anyone who hasn't seen it, but it wasn't that hard to guess. The point is, going in to the movie I was already suspicious of the setup, so there were a few less surprises for me.

The few surprises that Oblivion did manage to pull off were very Isaac Asimov-ian, but excellent. If you don't know what I mean by that, think I, Robot. Dangit, that's another spoiler. BIG SPOILER WARNING: At the heart of Oblivion is not aliens, but sentient machinery, which is exponentially more terrifying. I don't just mean that this technology has been well-programmed for a variety of scenarios; it is in fact self-aware and frighteningly intelligent. In a way, the main collective consciousness known as "Sally" (similar to V.I.K.I. of I, Robot) is presented as an evil deity full of wrath, that sees all, knows all, and double-crosses its own pawns when they step out of line.

All in all, I would call Oblivion a pretty good and fully enjoyable popcorn flick. Mostly, it just plays like an action summer flick that uses Tom Cruise and Morgan Freeman to make it look like a big-budget blockbuster. It also tries to follow the trend of using the captivating one-word title to sound intense. It's not great-- just pretty good, and that's really no one's fault. The fact is, originality is running out. With a few added elements, Oblivion felt like a union of The Island and I, Robot. It was definitely enjoyable, but not entirely novel.

Star Trek: Into Darkness

Upon exiting the theater after my first viewing of Star Trek: Into Darkness, I was fairly certain that there would be absolutely no point in seeing any other movie for the rest of the summer, convinced I had already seen the best one. While purists of the original series might be experiencing mental short-circuits at some of the turns Into Darkness dared to make, as a sci-fi piece Into Darkness is one of the finest that the genre has produced in recent years, with or without the Star Trek title. Purist readers (you know who you are): remember what alternative universe means. Things can be different. Moving on.

Into Darkness moves seamlessly and rhythmically from mood to mood, gliding from comical to heart-pounding to melancholy. Kirk's violation of the Prime Directive leaves a primitive tribe in a state of comical confusion, and then, with no transition or explanation, we're shown how far into darkness and depravity a man will go to save his dying daughter. This is where the story really takes off and sets up the theme of the movie: the needs of many vs. the needs of the few, and the true meaning of sacrifice.

With all the main characters already well-established, Into Darkness doesn't waste too much time with expository cutscenes or dialogue except with the antagonist Harrison. Otherwise the audience is thrown right into the story with familiar knowledge of all the returning characters. Although some of Spock's decisions might surprise Kirk, they're not really surprising to the audience, and likewise with Spock's surprise at some of Kirk's decisions. The friendship between the two is still young and developing, but at least at the start of the movie they like each other, which is an improvement.

Kirk, Spock, Uhura, Scotty, Dr. McCoy, Chekhov, and the rest of the Enterprise crew are all as good as they were last time, but the real show-stealer here is John Harrison, ingeniously played by Benedict Cumberbatch. While it's certainly no spoiler to reveal that he is in fact the villain (shocking!), that knowledge somehow didn't prevent me from occasionally wondering if he might be just misunderstood. This is especially impressive when one considers that he enters the movie as a terrorist who first manipulates a desperate man into setting off an explosive, and then flies a small aircraft right up to Starfleet Headquarters and proceeds to fire upon a gathering of officers, taking the life of one in particular. And yet despite these introductions, his mysterious demeanor demands investigation and intrigue, maybe even fleeting sympathy. He has believable motives that almost justify his heartless extremism, and the course of the story reveals that he is not the only heartless villain at play; the Enterprise is merely caught in the middle.

Harrison's manner is regal, edgy, and cold. He seems both tigerish and serpentine, yet undeniably admirable. Whether supremely evil or just driven to extreme measures by strong loyalty, he commands respect but also, caution. While his motives can be guessed at, they are not fully revealed until the movie's third and most heart-racing act, where momentum has built to warp-speed, and the victory or defeat of the Enterprise is at a breaking point. And someone's head is at breaking point.

Paramount to a great movie is a great villain, and Into Darkness has a great villain. Although his origins are based on a previous Star Trek nemesis, Cumberbatch takes the character in an entirely new direction, leaving only a few basic elements of his history to resemble the previous portrayal of the character. Truthfully, the moment when "Harrison" reveals his true identity, there was a sharp intake of breath all across the theater, and I applaud the writers for not giving it away too early or giving too many hints to spoil that surprise.

One of the most delightful things about Into Darkness besides its compelling plot, is how it pays homage to the original series and gives allusions to some of the most famous moments of the vintage Star Trek movies, without being too obvious. For example, Dr. McCoy casually mentions a Gorn, tossing a bone to a classic moment in the original series. Dr. Marcus mentions Nurse Chapell, who never features onscreen, but would be well-known to a real Trekkie. As would the mention of a tribble, the true identity of officer Carol, and so on. Other moments deliberately play off of well-known scenes, but steer in an opposite direction. This is a parallel universe after all, so no one is bound by needing to remake anything-- things can play out in any variety of ways. For that reason, I toyed back and forth with how I felt about the appearance of Nimoy-Spock. In some ways it seemed to be just a memo to the Trekkies that this is still Star Trek. In other ways it seemed to serve as a brief reminder of what happened in that Spock's universe when they were in a similar situation, so as to prep the audience for what occurs shortly thereafter to the current Enterprise.

With a sterling plot, excellent twists, well-timed comic levity, sweeping cinematography and solid performances throughout, it can be honestly stated that the only flaws to this film are the overuse of solar flare effects, and the superfluous shot of Carol in her underwear. Apparently a lot of Trekkies took issue with the latter, and everyone else with the former. These are minor flaws in an otherwise shining piece of science fiction entertainment. Star Trek Into Darkness does justice to its genre and its legacy, at least as good if not better than The Wrath of Khan.
Whoops!
Spoiler...

The Gamble of Part Four

Good morning readers!

In case you haven't noticed, which I doubt anyone has, I've been slacking off from blogging lately. And oddly enough, it has nothing to do with having no good movies to write about. Maybe it's that I have SO much to say about Les Miserables and Star Trek: Into Darkness that my overwordy brain just can't put that much glorious entertainment into words just yet. I might take a stab at Iron Man 3 here soon, but for the moment I'd rather ramble.

Recently in a discussion with a coworker at my job that has almost nothing to do with entertainment (although we find entertainment in our own odd way), I posed the question "has there ever been a good 'part 4' of anything?" My coworker quickly replied "The Land Before Time" but when I asked him what that was even about, he replied "dinosaurs." Indeed. I pretend that The Land Before Time never had sequels, because it was one of my favorite movies as a kid and I feel my memories being violated every time one of these inane pieces of toddler fodder comes forth.

But back to the more serious point, has there ever been a good part 4 of anything? And by part 4, I don't mean stories that are at heart one big story, like Harry Potter, or stand-alone films featuring continued characters like James Bond.

Let's break it down. The first part 4 that comes to mind is Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. At the risk of losing all but one follower, I will admit that for the most part, I rather enjoyed it. However, I will also admit that it seemed to be more on par with The Mummy Returns than the original Indiana Jones trilogy. Personal opinion aside, I can't deny that the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, though not terrible, simply didn't turn out worthy of its iconic title character.

Jaws, The Revenge. There's a reason you probably haven't heard of this. In fact when I mentioned this during my conversation with Coworker, his response was "there's a part 4?" I go into some detail about the flaws of this film in an older review called "Sequels: The Movie Murderer," so you can check that out and save me the trouble of re-ranting how bad it was. Suffice to say, the fact that Michael Caine hasn't paid someone to wipe this film out of the archives is a testament to his great sense of humor.

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides left off on a note that indicated we might even be in for a part five, but there has been not even a whisper about it since part four's fiasco of a movie. Zombies, mermaids, and the fountain of youth was a little too much even for this ambitious franchise to pull off well.

When I googled movies that have a part four, I discovered several from somewhat well-known trilogies that had a part four as an afterthought that didn't even go to theaters. That's saying something when you consider that every Free Willy movie until part four did go to the big screen.

But then again, one of my horror movie aficionados tells me that Resident Evil: Afterlife was good if you like that sort of thing, but since I don't like that sort of thing I can't really comment. And I would argue that Mission: Impossible Ghost Protocol might well be the best since the original (I actually enjoyed it more since I've seen the first one 10 too many times). It might be fair however, to say that had M:I IV not had the familiar names that it did, and instead struck out to make a movie with the same story-line without using the familiar title and characters, it probably wouldn't have done well. I can't say I would have paid much attention to a movie simply called Ghost Protocol that looked like a cookie-cutter action/intrigue movie.

So what's the verdict? Well clearly there have been terrible part fours. But there have been good ones too, just not enough to redeem the pattern. Successful fourth installments don't seem to have a steady formula, but unsuccessful ones almost always carry the common ingredients of being an afterthought, a desperate attempt at more money, or drawing out an already overdone story-line. It seems that although there are a handful of acceptable 4ths, it's a rare enough occurrence that it ought only to be attempted now and again when a truly original idea surfaces.