Review: Jurassic World - A Contradictory Creature

Jurassic World

Starring: Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, Jake Johnson, Omar Sy

Director: Colin Trevorrow

Written By: Amanda Silver, Colin Trevorrow, Derek Connolly, Rick Jaffa

Rated M   109 minutes 

I’m old enough to remember seeing the original ‘Jurassic Park’ twenty plus years ago. I’m old enough to remember the wonder of seeing Steven Spielberg’s creatures seem so real most of us wanted to believe they were. Many, like me wished there was a Jurassic Park and how fun it would be to go there.  It was a stunning piece of film making and a fantastical start to computer generated images that would set the way for what we almost take for granted now. Looking back it was probably quite primitive and kids today might be unconvinced but gee it was great stuff back in the day. Looking forward the danger with familiarity is it can be the breeding ground for blandness.

‘Jurassic World’ takes us to the park now establish as John Hammond’s legacy and what a park it is. The creatures roam, there are rides galore and if having the actual creatures isn’t enough you can also get up close with a hologram or two (I don’t know why either). I must say park and the island look gorgeous and inviting. Not so sure about the rather extensive Shopping Mall but I guess it was ideal for the ubiquitous product placement of which there is much; Samsung gets a good run as does Mercedes, Trader Joe’s and Verizon. My teeth were clenched often with this as I sipped my also mentioned Pepsi.

The thing about theme parks though is that you can never have the thrill of visiting the first time again. We humans always need something ‘more’ to go back and this is the problem this little fun park is facing which worries the owner and the marketing manager. The raptors and T-Rexes no longer a draw-well let’s get us some new creatures; oh look they’ve been working on just that, nifty. The very engaging Chris Pratt (a favorite since ‘Parks and Recreation’) plays Owen adding believability and humour to the archetypal hero role. He’s just going to win the day for us and we’ll go along for the ride. But we need the archetypal heroine and sure ‘nuff we have her in Bryce Dallas Howard as Claire . Why she even gets to wear the white outfit with slit skirt and gosh darn it even gets to sprawl out on the ground at one point with left leg exposed through the slit. In cast they weren’t enough we have the baddie played by Vincent D’Onofrio who was only missing an accent to really gives us an archetype and the traditional child dynamic of the cluey, slightly annoying older sibling constantly clashing with the younger, smarter and endearing younger bro. Ah, we can improve CGI but we can’t quite get away from movie archetypes.

There’s drama aplenty and we know there’ll be victims, humans and animals alike but good will win over bad. There’s a lot of noise and ‘oh wow’ moments which I frankly loved.  I was a bit concerned that the current owners of the Jurassic Park complex had obviously learnt nothing from their predecessors and the tragedy that had befallen them, not the least that the creatures will eat people when crossed. Seriously wouldn’t the last thing be to have a park where the humans get up close with the creatures?

In the end though the story was a bit thin and relied on the gee whiz moments to carry it through. The dramatic moments, the jumps and heart starters made the humans even more two dimensional and if you’re looking for an emotional arc don’t hold your breath. As mind blowing as the effects are they are symptomatic of the ordinariness of the amazing these days, not a lot really blows our mind. So the patrons of Jurassic World aren’t satisfied anymore by the wonder of Jurassic creatures walking among them centuries beyond their existence. Similarly the patrons of cinemas today don’t get enough from the masters of creation who have put together this perfectly entertaining but ultimately empty film, an unwieldy beast in itself. That’s a shame but the beast is hungry now and if you build and feed the beast well you just better have the right ingredients, diet and magic. When you think about what the premise of this film is one might almost call that thought a bitter irony or a sad dichotomy.

This film looks like it will end up being the most successful movie EVER and that’s ok. If the role of movie making is primarily to entertain and give value for the dollar then it ticks the boxes. Some of us like a bit more than a tick the box effort.

3 out of 5

Book Review: Fourth of July Creek. Masterful and Readable

Fourth of July Creek

Smith Henderson

Windmill Books 

Last year I had the sublime pleasure to read John Williams’ masterpiece ‘Stoner’ and have been waiting to read another book that so inhabited me again. The stunning debut novel of Smith Henderson ‘Fourth of July Creek’ has done just that. Just as Williams wrote rich characters and sadly beautiful language Henderson also crafts his characters beautifully and uses language perfectly and appropriately, rarely a misstep and often muscular yet spare – a true craftsman. 

Mainly set in rural Montana in the years 1979 – 1981 as Jimmy Carter was trampled by Reagan, the hostages in Iran, Opec’s artificial oil shortages, economic reviews and the thawing out of the cold war, even the Mt St. Helen’s eruption. A perfect breeding ground for suspicion of government and fellow citizens as well as a time for giving up some things and tightening our grip on others. All being nourishment and ingredients for this fine novel. 

The main character is Pete Snow, a social worker who is living in the shadow of a failed marriage and his desperation to be reunited with his daughter Rachel while rescuing kids of dysfunction. Pete’s own brother is a parole breaker and his sister’s death has left questions and scars. The connections to his own life are tenuous at best as he tries to face (or run from) these various challenges, loss, danger, grief, loss of control and uncertainty. A social worker has to have answers, has to be able to anticipate but Pete’s world doesn’t want to go along with the position description it seems. 

Along comes Jeremiah Pearl, destined to be one of the great creations of fiction, and his son Ben. Poor old Jeremiah is a conspiracy theorist with an Old Testament fascination and absolute influence over young Ben. He faces the power of his paranoia somewhat counterfactually by hiding out in the woods and waiting for the arrival of the Feds to pounce on them and presumably take them out. While he’s waiting Pearl distributes ‘broken money’ coins out into the community, holes bored into coins defacing them with symbols reflecting his ‘story’ of doom and endtimes. Quaintly the coins become collectors’ items and curiosity pieces perhaps shining a brighter spotlight on Pearl as a fascination although we might fear it will make him a figurehead for other whackos or malcontents. 

As with much of the story Pearl has us wondering or sensing a seam of violence waiting to erupt and often it does. It’s not always punch ups or shoot outs but there is violence in the way Pete lives and in the way some of his clients face the world. When Pete gets on the grog (as he often does) he ends up with physical bruises to match his psychic ones, his brother encourages violence while on the lam and his parole officer just feeds that, Pete’s daughter faces violence in the way her life plays out. 

Of course what we want to know is how Pearl got to the point he is at, what fed the paranoia, who was he before this and why is Ben here but not the wife and several other kids in the family. Pete is not at all welcome in Pearl’s life but he ends up being tolerated. Thankfully Pete takes up the reader’s curiosity and investigates Pearl’s story through former friends etc. Fantastic stuff. 

The richness of the writing makes the characters come alive, they are believable and interesting. There is so much going on in this book but it is so deftly and handled and so accomplished. We have shifts in tense to accentuate sections and give immediacy when needed and distance to dramatise. Sometimes we have third person perspective and others are second person. Throw into the mix Rachel’s story being told as a series of vignettes in the style of social worker file notes, you start to crave these little bon mots and they are placed perfectly throughout the book even though they cut into the flow, never distracting but rather an extra ingredient in the mix.  The transitions are seamless and not at all disorienting such is the skill of Henderson.  

I do think the opening chapter or two are a bit hesitant and maybe uneven but I wonder if that’s because we are at a point in the main character’s life that is also hesitant and uneven.  That is pretty neat and astonishing but there is a danger that people who bail from books after the first chapter if they are not ‘into’ it might give up and that would be a huge mistake. 

There are so many beautiful scenes in this novel that I can’t single them all out. When we finally get to the horror of Pearl’s story it is devastating. What happens to Pete’s daughter will make you want to sit quietly and weep or hug someone. Pete’s journey either looking for his daughter or tracing Pearl’s story is so rhythmic and real. How one of his other ‘clients’, Cecil, fares in a home or in foster care is startling and oddly satisfying.  The end of the novel gives us much to think about and isn’t a great ‘ta-da’ but a ‘what will happen when I wake up tomorrow’, just like life really – not a plot requirement but a point at which we have the answers and the characters can now be left alone. So, so much to make this a great read. 

All of us carry scars through life and often they are made from unreliable memories which inform us and our way of seeing the world and the people we relate to and with. Maybe this book gives us pause to review that and see how that’s working out for us. 

This is an intense book that is not a difficult read (in fact it’s quite a page tuner), the people are mostly unhappy even somewhat unstable and Henderson has no problem in showing us them. At times it is bleak to be sure but the quest that all these people are on it seems to me is seeking their truth and that is a beautiful piece of compassion isn’t it? We can live wretched lives or have a troubled mind or skewed world view but deep down all any of us wants/needs is truth and to be ‘known’ and understood. That doesn’t mean being agreed with but it does mean being recognised as valid, valuable and equal to the rest of us. I think that’s what Smith Henderson would want for the wondrous people he created. 

This is a novel that will reward any real reader, any true book lover, anyone yearning for the perfect possibilities of fiction. Do read this magnificent book.

Review: 'Woman In Gold' - Flaws in the Works

Woman in Gold

Starring: Helen Mirren, Ryan Reynolds, Katie Holmes, Daniel Bruhl

Director: Simon Curtis

Written By: Alexi Kaye Campbell (with consultation of Randol Shoenberg)

Rated M   109 minutes 

Look I think it needs to be said; the Nazis weren’t very nice people. Oh sure the uniforms were nicely designed and cut, the swastika was a neat little device albeit a corruption of what it originally represented and their architectural style was impressive if a bit severe and stark. But let’s face it they had their failings. Apart from being murderous bastards, anti-Semitic pricks and non-respecters of sovereign borders they were also thieving mongrels. No not very nice at all. Sorry if that offends but I’m putting it out there.

Witness the story of Maria Altman whose aunty Adele was the subject of a painting by Gustav Klimt in his famous ‘Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I and II’. These and three other paintings were family treasures pilfered by the Nazis and then ‘acquired’ post war by the Austrian government, declared  national treasures and proudly displayed at the Belvedere in Vienna ne’er to be removed let alone returned to the family of Adele let alone . It would only be a matter of time sure before the family would seek reparation for or maybe even repatriation to the arguably rightful owner.

‘Woman in Gold’ takes up the story of the legal fight for Maria to be reunited with the painting of her aunt and to regain possession of it. Although the other four works aren’t given much of a run in the film (they were bequeathed to nieces and nephews but also held by the Austrians) the case must have been monumental and this all gives the film a terrific story to tell. We are shown flashbacks from the war years to fill in the backstory and is effective and affecting.

Helen Mirren plays Maria and she is a little cheeky, occasionally brusque but mostly determined. I am a huge fan of hers but I felt in this role she was too sharp, too well rehearsed and too ‘actorly’. I never felt for most of the film that she hadn’t mapped out exactly how she would play a scene, how she would say the lines, which way she’d turn her head or curl her lip, drop a shoulder a bit here,

look away on that word, all too crafted. Towards the end there was a bit more spontaneity and looseness but for the first two acts I was distanced from her because of the ‘acting’. A film that was not too dissimilar 'Philomena' is a good contrast in the performance of Judi Dench, natural, fresh and as though it was happening in front of us as it happens despite much rehearsal and finessing I'm sure.

The film also stars Ryan Reynolds as Randol Schoenberg the young lawyer who takes on the huge and intimidating Maria and the case itself. He is convincing and charmingly sheepish, you feel for him in his frustrations and you silently cheer him on even when his marriage and career look to be in strife because of his dedication to an outcome for Maria and posthumously for Adele. I many have only seen Reynolds in one film before (yes, I know he has done many including an action film or two), I think he did really well in this.

Great supporting roles from Katie Holmes as Reynold's wife, actually she's terrific and Daniel Bruhl as Hubertus Czernin. Daniel is building up a portfolio of British Dames after working with Dench, Smith and now Mirren, surely a musical with Dame Julie Andrews next?  

The film is well directed by Simon Curtis (gee he does lovely films doesn't he?) and Vienna stars as much as the humans, it is shown off very nicely and it's not all the 'pretty photo spot' places that feature but some of the lesser known or less frequently filmed areas. There is a nice short scene near the Holocaust Memorial that made me all gooey.

I liked this film a lot and really found the story fascinating. I had remembered the saga of the Klimts being fought over but only in those terms and not so much about Maria Altman and the Bloch Bauer's. It's a fairly recent story (I think Maria only passed away in this decade) so my dim memory didn't have to surface too hard to remind me. I have to say there is some teeth clenching dialogue though but overall the script serves the film well although opportunities are missed to explore the morality or maybe conundrum of the whole art restitution process. Bearing in mind Adele's own dying wishes that the painting not leave Austria let alone the family this saga was fraught in many ways as it probably has been for all families/beneficiaries. In the end this film may not have been designed to explore all the intricacies/vagaries. There were many gaps and truth stretching in 'Monuments Men' for instance but it was only telling part of a rather incredible story.  I think that's ok isn't it? In the end these are films, a version of a true story but not a documentary. I doubt we have ever seen the 'true' and 'full' story of Henry VIII so...

My reservations over Helen's performance detracted from me having a consummate experience but I do recommend it to you.

And raise a middle finger at those nasty Nazis while you're at it.

3 ½ out of 5