Skip to main content

White sharks are dangerous. I know 'em. My father, my brother, myself. They're murderers.

Jaws 3-D
(1983)

(SPOILERS) Well, not 3-D the way I saw it, although you’d have to be deluded, or fallen asleep (the latter most likely) not to (sporadically) be alarmed at the manner in which it was dressed for that format. A belated sequel, five years down the line from Jaws 2, showed Universal all at sea and floundering, rather than making the most from their unexpected cash cow. The premise of Jaws 3-D (more commonly known as simply Jaws III outside of theatres) was arrived at after Steven Spielberg nixed a much more daring shake up of a franchise that was already lacking spark with its first follow-up, but his dogmatic resistance to Joe Dante’s version only underscored that this was a drowning franchise gasping its last.


Joe Dante: There was a lot of power play on Jaws 3, People 0. It was the first time I’d ever been in a real Hollywood situation. I’d go to these meetings and there’d be all these different people in the room and somebody would say something and then I’d look and everybody’s eyes would look around to everybody else to see what they thought of what was said. Could they endorse that? Was that something they could buy? Did they take issue with that?... And I realised I was really in over my head because I was just the hired director.


Dante had come aboard Jaws 3, People 0,  pitched by series producers David Brown and Richard Zanuck; it would cash-in on the Airplane! spoof boom, already several years old at that point, and a National Lampoon producer and writers (including John Hughes) were tapped to come up with the goods. The suitably self-reflexive concept concerned the titular shark hunting the makers of a sequel and included Peter Benchley being eaten by a shark in his pool as well as a shark’s stomach being emptied to reveal an unending and voluminous number of items. The reasons for its permanent beaching have variously been put down to chagrin on the part of the studio (on the Jaws 2 commentary, Brown said their attitude was that it would be like “fouling your own nest. We should have fouled the nest. It would have been golden, maybe even platinum”) and Spielberg himself nixing the project, threatening to walk away from Universal if they went ahead (“He though it demeaned him and demeaned Jaws” said Simmons; how exactly 3-D and The Revenge didn’t is not a matter of record).


One can only speculate, but it may have been for the best; if Spielberg was sour on the idea, he might have been soured on the director by extension, and then we might never have got Gremlins, or Gremlins 2: The New Batch, which would have been a disaster for western civilisation. It’s curious though, that the ‘berg has birthed two similar moribund franchises he’s eventually kept a distance from, but has rejected sequel concepts for both that might have laid claim to a wholly different approach, most notably John Sayles’ human-dinosaur hybrids in Jurassic Park IV.


Funnily enough, what we got with Jaws 3-D was a conceptual precursor to Jurassic Park; a brand spanking new aquatic theme park (SeaWorld Orlando, but with new underwater tunnels realised via lousy green screen) goes awry when a violent predator is unleashed (gets in). There’s a clueless millionaire behind the project (Calvin Bouchard, played by Louis Gosset, Jr, who may have been a recipient of an Oscar earlier that year but was understandably singled out for Razzie attention here) and a push-pull between destroying the creature and arguing for its preservation (Bess Armstrong as marine biologist Kay Morgan for the latter, while Simon MacCorkindale’s Philip FitzRoyce’s hunter bears some similarities Bob Peck’s Muldoon). Spielberg’s movie stops short of humans killing any dinosaurs (the franchise’s biggest hand-wringing flaw is pinning a thematically ludicrous environmentalist badge to its chest) so doesn’t need Dennis Quaid (as Mike Brody, grown up an awful lot in half a decade and seemingly confident enough in the water) blowing velociraptors up with grenades, but that aside, the most salient difference between the two is directorial competence.


Screenwriter Richard Matheson certainly thought so, suggesting Joe Alves (who had worked on the first two movies) was “a very skilled production designer, but as a director, no”. He also – having evidently seen the picture in cinemas – thought the 3-D, further aligning the series with the horror genre, which was experiencing a minor resurgence during the early ‘80s, added nothing (“It was a waste of time”) There are a couple of nice 2-D shots of sunsets in the picture, but otherwise nothing that suggest style or basic acumen (it remains Alves’ solitary motion picture). Matheson had been given a shopping list of elements to include (the Brody siblings, Mickey Rooney – who proved unavailable) but nevertheless felt he had turned in a decent screenplay, one series old hand Carl Gottlieb promptly revised. As these things go, I wonder if the movie didn’t have a subliminal impact on Cameron’s Aliens, with Mike ordering FitzRoyce not to use grenades during his shark hunt because of the danger it would pose to the infrastructure.


Jaws 3-D is more interesting as a curiosity of several nascent careers than the players’ actual performances. Quaid toplines, the same year he made much more impact for a supporting turn as Gordon Cooper in The Right Stuff, but the role is curiously muted, aside from some “teenage” hijinks early on when he embarrasses his baby brother. It isn’t until the climax that he’s required to jump in the tank for some standard-issue heroics, instead making way for the picture’s actual star turn, MackCorkindale.

FitzroyceIf we kill this beastie on camera, I can guarantee you media coverage.


The thesp, who also appeared in infamous/much-loved and short-lived Manimal the same year, effortlessly steals the proceedings by taking the unapologetic manner of a days-of-the-Empire big game hunter. He’s sexist (surprised that Kay is in charge, although he should have been more surprised by Armstrong’s simpering, insipid performance), endlessly self-impressed and self-promoting, and up for any interaction or altercation with the beastie, aided by more reserved assistant Jack Tate (PH Moriarty),. Naturally, this leads to Fitzroyce being chomped (in particularly squelchy and screamy fashion).


Lea Thompson also makes her movie debut, as water-skiing park performer Kelly Ann Bukowski, designated the romantic interest for Sean Brody (John Putch, now better known as a TV director). It’s something of a bimbo part, most notable for Kelly Anne actually being on the receiving end of the shark’s gnashers (though not fatally). As Bouchard, Gosset Jr does the slightly manic manager thing and is asked to deliver some faintly suspect dialogue with a grin (“It’s what we call marine segregation”).


Kay’s preservation instincts are so ridiculously out of touch with what we as the audience know about sharks of this ilk, she’s practically begging to be bitten, yet somehow escapes intact. As for the Brodys being in the vicinity of yet more shark carnage, if there’d only been a few allusions to that in the dialogue, 3-D might have had the drop on Die Hard 2. It also warrants mentioning that there are a couple of saviour dolphins in the mix, aiding Mike and Kay during a particularly stressful shark interlude.


Alan Parker delivers a lacklustre score, failing to make the most of the riffs he’s inherited. There’s a reasonable fake-out in which the baby shark is assumed to be the predator, but we also had a less protracted one of those in the original movie. As for the kills, they’re mostly ruptured by reliance on superimposed 3-D effects, severed limbs standing out listlessly in sequences devoid of any accompanying suspense (the climactic shattering of the viewing gallery window is particularly risible).


Despite being rubbish, Jaws 3-D made a pretty penny. It was much cheaper than Jaws 2 (and there was no expense in securing Roy Scheider, who had gone off to make Blue Thunder for the express purpose of being far away from sharks at the time of production) and much less popular, but still hit number 15 for the year at the US box office, beating out Blue Thunder, Scarface, Psycho II and Porky’s II and coming within snapping distance of Never Say Never Again and Superman III. It was a year for patchy sequels. And yet – despite being rubbish – the opprobrium for another entry in the series rather leaves this picture uncherished but relatively forgotten; Jaws: The Revenge would further confirm the familial bond of the Brody family with the unholy killer fish, but it would become best known for providing Sir Michael Caine with dinner party anecdotes. But was it really worse than III/3/3-D?



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism