By Joe Gibson
Jurassic Park III has gone down in infamy as
perhaps the worst in its franchise. Time often gives perspective, and
now, over twenty years later, there is a small but rabid cult following for
this film in particular, as well as its own cult that despises this film. Here
on the 23rd anniversary of this underrated film July 18, 2024, with an entire
other disappointing Jurassic trilogy behind us and a new film on the way, I
would like to revisit it.
Compared to the rest of the series, especially
the first, second and fourth films, Jurassic Park III is light on the franchise
staple idea of the chaos that arises from playing God with genetics. Gone is
the Ian Malcolm as author insert character to state the theme while calculated
contingencies fail, and also gone is the less subtle circumstance that leads a
Tyrannosaurus Rex to rampage through San Diego. It is not entirely
missing, as the backstory for new antagonist the Spinosaurus hinges on a rather
brief scene of exploring newer Ingen experiments, but this is mostly a family
movie hearkening back to much older genre films where the franchise
connective tissue is the same challenge that different characters will face and
brave in different ways film to film (see Universal’s Mummy tetralogy from the
1940s as one such example of that trend where the antagonists and stakes remain
similar but the heroes win in different and unique ways).
Indeed, upon a rewatch, it was startling to see
just how many scenes from the original are homaged in this film but taken to a
different logical end. (Compare this to Jurassic World Dominion, which
just recreated shots from the original with no change in context down to even
the same clothing in certain scenes.) Paul Kirby’s scene of recruiting
Alan Grant and Billy Brennan plays off Hammond’s introduction in the first film
but without the flamboyant displays of wealth and status (since Kirby is, after
all, actually pretending to be wealthy). Whereas Grant was speechless on
the first tour when witnessing the first dinosaurs he sees, here he thinks he
is in control of the situation as a simple tour guide when they pass by the
first dinosaurs they will see. The Spinosaurus attacks the people in the plane
by poking his face through windows and crushing the vehicle, which also falls
out of a tree, similarly to the Tyrannosaurus and the car. When Grant
encounters a T-Rex, he tells everybody to stay still, but everybody else runs
away this time, necessitating him to run as well. Finally, the aesthetics
of the velociraptor scenes return to the pack hunting and plotting of the
original film (after the first sequel made them more like rabid play-fighting
puppy littermates), but they are even more intelligent this time, shown off
well in their coordination, Grant’s reactions, and the statements of other
characters in regard to their abilities and new resonating chamber, a concept
introduced to explain their social capacity.
The true appeal of Jurassic Park III is a
simplified, streamlined island adventure of old with simple but consistent
character arcs for Grant and some of his companions related to their specific
dinosaur antagonists. It's actually a pattern I have noticed in other Joe
Johnston films, especially Captain America The First Avenger, that they will be
nostalgic, simple stories with decent characterization for the leads but some
plot issues throughout. Jurassic Park III is the story of Alan Grant
stuck on dinosaur island with incompetent laypeople, specifically divorced
couple Paul and Amanda Kirby (who are looking for their son Eric Kirby), the
mercenaries those two hired to help, and Billy Brennan, an undergraduate
assistant to Alan. It is also the story of a wimpy father gaining his
courage and seemed to try to be the story of a hysterical woman taking her
place as a leader and a young man trying to atone for a mistake made during the
runtime (though these are more debatable in success).
Alan Grant’s role in JPIII is simple but
misunderstood. He acts as an extension of his character arc from the
first film (now bonding with an additional two children he is under no
obligation to get along with), and Johnston’s intent seems to be to give Grant
a new arc where he learns to ask for help. That is the thing Ellie
Sattler tells him to do at the beginning of the movie, and the thing he finally
does at the end that ends up rescuing the cast. But I am getting ahead of
myself. Many people oppose this film’s decision to break him and Ellie
up. I am slightly baffled about that. After the first film, I guess
people must have imagined Grant and Ellie settled down into their own family;
that did seem like a natural trajectory for them. No matter what happened
to break them up, it was amicable, so we still get demonstrations of their
bond. The more important matter is that Grant bonding with her child is a
more powerful expression of his attitude after bonding with Tim and Lex in the
first film, because it is entirely his choice to do so, not something thrust
upon him by fatherly obligation. Their first scene works as them
reconnecting, which makes for effectively masked exposition in their dialogue,
and the distance between them allows her to save the day but also for the
island segments to carry more tension since Grant and Eric are the only
characters we are really sure will survive by virtue of being returning star
and child respectively. In any case, the Kirbys look on Grant as an
authority figure, and even Billy, Grant’s assistant, screws up consistently
enough (running away from the T-Rex and stealing velociraptor eggs) to where
the audience and Grant himself understand that he is the only trustworthy and
competent character…that is until Eric saves Grant from a velociraptor
horde. This plants the seed that Grant can rely on other people, which
grows further when Billy redeems himself in saving Eric (at seemingly the cost
of Billy’s own life), and finally Grant phones Ellie for help in the final
fight against the Spinosaurus and has to give the stolen velociraptor eggs to
Amanda Kirby so she can de-escalate the final confrontation with the
velociraptors.
Paul Kirby, as a secondary lead, begins the film
a deceptive, cowardly pathetic man, unable to control his mercenaries, holding
fast to Grant’s advice in ways that do not reflect his own self interests, and
constantly contrasted with stronger characters like Billy Brennan in the
vending machine scene or Grant in any situation. However, whereas Billy
regresses into a weaker character and Grant leans more into teamwork, Paul
begins to grow more confident and decisive as the situation calls for it.
His ex-wife’s reactions to his decisiveness in the second half of the film
communicate that this is a side to him she has not seen before but enjoys, and
their dialogue confirms as much. In the final battle, Paul distracts the
Spinosaurus from the rest of the remaining cast and holds it off himself until
Grant can use a flare to set alight the oil the Spinosaurus inadvertently
spilled to win the fight. So far, the two leads have done very well in
expressing their dynamic characterization.
The film’s focus is less so on Billy Brennan and
Eric Kirby because they are stepping stones in Grant’s arc, but they have an
arc to their characters even if we do not see some of the most important
bits. Billy is a charismatic person, more hedonistic than Grant (Billy
wants the adventure that comes from paleontology, while Grant likes the
cerebral parts) but also very concerned with pleasing Grant (his justification
for stealing the raptor eggs is pragmatism to extend funding for their dig
site, a more desperate pragmatism than Grant’s to comply with Kirby’s fake
demands for the same end) as we also see by the half-dead Billy retrieving
Grant’s hat after Billy’s sacrifice in the birdcage scene separates them.
Eric makes sense as a child character that somehow competently managed to
survive. He offers a childlike perspective on things that Grant is
willing to heed, and the two can talk maturely about the dinosaurs on the
island and if Grant was too harsh on Billy or not. The mercenaries also
are fine. Only Udesky, himself not actually a mercenary, gets anything in
the way of likable characterization, but he only serves the purposes of
mirroring Billy as the more active and competent assistant to Paul and then
also being part of the trap the raptors set to show off their intelligence.
Amanda Kirby is a decent character. The
issue comes in insofar that I think the film was trying to pass her off as some
great character. She starts off by far the most irrational and frantic of
the group and ends the film level headed and the one character that resolves
the dispute with the raptors’ Queen. There just does not seem to be some
extraordinary arc for all of this. She just eventually found the person
she was screaming to, and stuff needed to be done, so she did (the dialogue
indicates that, unlike Paul, she has some degree of comfortability with outdoor
situations so it’s more just a realistic “she got tired of screaming and could
help out in the smalls ways she does” turn of events). It is the
matriarchal raptors that choose for her to be the point of contact, and Grant
still does have to help mediate the situation with a 3D printed resonating
chamber. My idea of an ideal Jurassic sequel would not only progress
Grant or whichever legacy character returns but also at least two others in
order to leave the franchise off in safe hands for later on. Paul would
be a relatively easy protagonist, following his growth in this film, but the
film did not do enough for Amanda, Billy or Eric to justify later importance.
Replacing the T-Rex in the marketing as well as
killing it in film, the Spinosaurus is a controversial part of this
movie. The odd unsubstantiated theories and quirks of Jack Horner
resulted in this film’s take on the uber-macho hunting Spinosaurus and
scavenging T-Rex when by all accounts the opposite is closer to the truth
(though we do learn contradictory information about both of these dinosaurs
periodically, so it is possible albeit unlikely that history will vindicate
him). If the goal was to portray the Spinosaurus realistically, this film
failed. It behaves less like a real animal than it does a slasher villain,
constantly determined to destroy the main characters until they can put up
enough of a fight to send it running. It seeks out T-Rexes for the thrill
of hunting them as well. While there is a sizable amount of time it is
missing from the film where it could have eaten the T-Rex, there is no
indication in the film that it eats that prey. The instance where the
obnoxious satellite phone ringtone plays to announce its presence also serves
to hype it up as some horrifying monster, not any normal animal. In that
regard, the Spinosaurus is a great obstacle and antagonist to measure our
heroes against. It takes a lot of growth, coordination and luck to beat
this thing, and it is very cathartic when they do.
That sort of half attention to realism extends to
the Spinosaurus and T-Rex fight, wherein it is brief with the dinosaurs using
only their best moves as would be realistic, but the actual way this fight
plays out is impossible biologically speaking. Within moments, the T-Rex
has its massive jaw on the Spinosaurus’ neck, and the fight would be over right
there. As film shorthand, it is effective to set up the Spinosaurus as a
greater threat by overcoming the most iconic and dangerous thing the Rex can
throw at it, but it just is impossible for it to escape that, especially when
the way it wins is by clamping down its weaker jaw on the T-Rex and contorting
its own arms to snap the Rex’s neck, even more impossible. If I recall
correctly, the original plan following the coast battle was to have the velociraptors
kill this spiny creature, and I am happy that did not happen because it would
seem very strange towards this whole shorthand if the original film’s T-Rex
could beat a pack of raptors but the Spinosaurus couldn’t.
Like Johnston’s 2010 Wolf-Man remake (initially
planned to include a sizable Paul Naschy cameo), the production on this film
was tumultuous with a lot of scrapped ideas. There were multiple
rewrites, notably affecting Grant’s character arc, as a persistent scrapped
idea in this film was to turn him into a Robinson Crusoe island dweller, and
the emphasis on the Ingen lab and aviary scenes. More importantly, the
final draft was still being written as the movie was filming, resulting in
Billy’s actor negotiating the character’s survival when his sacrifice scene in
the aviary was otherwise a constant throughout the scripts. Those aviary
scenes as well as the river raft segments loosely adapt the parts of the
original novel that did not make it into the original film (but this film’s poor
reception would motivate Jurassic World to try again on those scenes).
Because the only Jurassic films were this
trilogy for over a decade, the debate has long persisted: which of the two
sequels to Jurassic Park was better, and which approach (Ian Malcolm guiding
experts who act like idiots or Alan Grant assisting idiots that act like
idiots) should lead the franchise forward? In my own opinion, I think
Jurassic Park III is decidedly better than The Lost World: Jurassic Park
(because the structure of TLWJP very strangely de-emphasizes some of its most
engaging character arcs in the third act, and no plot hole in JPIII is more
egregious than the captured T-Rex somehow wiping out an entire ship crew just
so the plot could happen). The question would be if either one actually
qualifies as a good film, and now is not the time to weigh in on that question:
now is the time to remember on its anniversary Jurassic Park III and what it
tried to do. You can watch Jurassic Park III on Tubi and Peacock.
No comments:
Post a Comment