Something old, something…old

Before Reaction Shots, I kept a running scroll of reviews and synopses of what I’d watched, for my own amusement. I thought the file was deleted until I came across it in a folder right where it should have been the whole time.

I’m not going to poach from it just to pad out the blog,?though. I’m actually thinking of self-publishing the whole thing on Amazon for a buck or two. My Patreon subscribers will get a free PDF. 

For giggles, here’s an excerpt:

Jurassic World and Mad Max: Fury Road

Talk about a study in contrasts. “Jurassic World” is everything that “Mad Max: Fury Road” isn’t. It isn’t subtle; it is replete with underwritten, idiotic characters; it’s chock-a-block full of CGI; it’s vacuous; it’s monodimensional; it’s boring; it’s unsuspenseful; in all, it suffers by comparison.

Why would I compare them, then? Well, because they are two big summer releases (“Jurassic Park” is very, very big), they’re both recent additions to legendary franchises, and they’re both emblematic of their respective film cultures. In the case of “Jurassic World”, we have a representative of Hollywood’s “let’s throw a whole bunch of money at development, cross our fingers, and hope we have a hit” mentality. “Mad Max: Fury Road” is representative of what happens when someone with a sense of character, film and art decides to take the reins and drive a single-minded vision to screen. Oh, and they have immense reserves of talent and genius. 

In “Jurassic World”, there is talent, to be sure; but there’s no genius; indeed, there’s little that’s remotely clever. In “Mad Max: Fury Road” there’s sheer audacity of execution and a mastery of the filmic language. It’s a joy to watch even as terrible things transpire. The former is pretty in places and the CGI gives rise to the best performances. A joy to watch, though? Hardly. It’s pretty tedious.

I was genuinely moved the second time I saw “Max”. Miller has become even more of a master of the medium and his vision is singular. The committee behind “Jurassic World” presented some of the most forgettable fluff I’ve seen since “Titanic”. Seriously. 

I could whinge on about the differences and the cruddiness of Hollywood aesthetics and economy-driven film-making and the uniqueness of what a genuine auteur can bring to audiences. Particularly one with this level of skill/mastery. I could, but I won’t.

What I will say is that I continue to bask in the sheer joy of the art that George Miller imbues this film with. Theron and Hardy are remarkable and get across so much with relatively few words. Indeed, everyone else brings some serious game to the playing field. 

By contrast, “Jurassic Park” is painting by numbers and the Spielberg template, right down to the escapees from ABC Lifetime Movie storytelling. Oliver Platt acquits himself well, I suppose, but Dallas Bryce Howard has the most thankless female role of the year. B.D. Wong was fine, as was Vincent D’Onofrio. But I’d much rather see this cast under the direction of a George Miller. 

This “Max” is a great example of tight storytelling, well-drawn characters, and a love of all the characters. Even the War Boys were fleshed out and to be fair, all the characters were well-written and rendered. Made for a fraction of “Jurassic World”’s budget, it’s remarkable what Miller accomplished. Maybe someday, we’ll get over our fascination about how much something cost to make; it would be great to see original talent be recognized.