Why is a film, which seemingly has a huge budget with big stars and sets, unable to bring on the shark action?
WE BARELY GET TO SEE THE SHARK! and when we do it looks lame (or weirdly tiny). You'd think by part 3 it would be an orgy of Shark attacks, but no. Part 4 is Citizen Kane by comparison.
There seems to be a period in the 80s where these kinds of movies always sucked (King Kong Lives comes to mind). Am I imagining that?
― ryan (ryan), Thursday, 31 March 2005 17:52 (twenty years ago)
Is this the infamous Jaws movie with Michael Caine? I've heard so many bad things about that one, I've been dying to rent it.
― Anthony (Anthony F), Thursday, 31 March 2005 18:12 (twenty years ago)
I saw some of this on AMC last night as well. I think I prefer AMC to TCM these days since the former caters more to people who are nostalgic for when they grew up watching mediocre films on television with commericals and remember them more fondly through imagination enhanced memory.
Jaws 3, if I recall, was released in theaters as JAWS 3D, which is why one notices an abundance of wide angle close ups throughout the picture.
On the subject of the Jaws 4 A.K.A The Revenge, here's a review from my favorite writer on cinema, the poet Christopher Mulrooney, as it appears on IMDB's user comments section...
"Sir Tom Stoppard was once asked by Charlie Rose how Shakespeare wrote his plays. Sir Tom did not tell him. The question is whether Shakespeare had his idea first and found his materials (an old play and a fable, say), or the other way around. But once you've settled that, you can see how writing verses and scenes is made easier, and he who writes may run.
Sargent exemplifies the method in this film. He has the Spielberg original on the one hand, and on the other Night Moves, which gives him a structure that is tenuous but visible at the last and forcible throughout.
The upshot is, if you will pardon me for saying so in the face of almost universal condemnation, a great masterpiece. For calm, breadth and self-assurance, nothing beats it. On top of that, the action is vivid and natural. The dramatic scenes are genuine, and there is no creepiness about the small-town life you see in Massachusetts or the Bahamas.
If newspaper critics were anything like newspaper reporters, the world would be a vastly different place from present accounts of it."
― herbert hebert (herbert hebert), Thursday, 31 March 2005 23:17 (twenty years ago)
the 3-D totally makes sense now that i think about it. esp that one scene with the shark moving
slowly straight at the audience. i imagine that's pretty stupid tho even in 3-D.
― ryan (ryan), Sunday, 3 April 2005 20:19 (twenty years ago)
Oh I remember Ebert's funny review in which he puts down the movie by itemizing all of the narrative's implausible details but Christopher Mulrooney's IMDB posts shouldn't be compared to traditional movie reviews. Mulrooney approaches film with an uncommonly open subjectivity which locates the poetry in Hollywood product, shows us how high and low art feed off each other, and most importantly identifies some of the unexpected ways in which the same plots and archetypes have reappeared throughout film history and where they originate. At their best Mulrooney's reviews are creative works in and of themselves that remind me why I enjoy making movies.
― herbert hebert (herbert hebert), Sunday, 17 April 2005 04:12 (twenty years ago)
I think a number of people who post here make their own movies. I've seen a lot of Jay's stuff, it's all very good I think.
I've been making shorts working with found footage for the last few years and just recently finished my first long-form piece called "Our Summer in Oklahoma 1990" which is sort of a post-feminist pro-white racialist propaganda piece about Whitney Houston's rise to stardom. As far as availability goes I'm pretty terrible at distributing my own work.
― herbert hebert (herbert hebert), Wednesday, 20 April 2005 01:40 (twenty years ago)
one month passes...