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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Espionage isn’t a game, it’s a war.

The Avengers 3.3: The Nutshell
Philip Chambers first teleplay (of two) for the series, and Raymond Menmuir’s second (also of two) as director, The Nutshell is an effective little whodunit in which Steed (again) poses as a bad guy, and Cathy (again) appears to be at loggerheads with him. The difference here is how sustained the pretence is, though; we aren’t actually in on the details until the end, and the whole scenario is played decidedly straight.

Set mostly in a bunker (the Nutshell of the title), quarter of a mile underground and providing protection for the “all the best people” (civil servants bunk on level 43; Steed usually gets off at the 18th) in the event of a thermo-nuclear onslaught, the setting is something of a misdirection, since it is also a convenient place to store national security archives, known as Big Ben (Bilateral Infiltration Great Britain, Europe and North America). Big Ben has been stolen. Or rather, the microfilm with details of all known double agents on bot…

This is no time for puns! Even good ones.

Mr. Peabody and Sherman (2014)
Perhaps I've done DreamWorks Animation (SKG, Inc., etc.) a slight injustice. The studio has been content to run an assembly line of pop culture raiding, broad-brush properties and so-so sequels almost since its inception, but the cracks in their method have begun to show more overtly in recent years. They’ve been looking tired, and too many of their movies haven’t done the business they would have liked. Yet both their 2014 deliveries, How to Train Your Dragon 2 and Mr. Peabody & Sherman, take their standard approach but manage to add something more. Dragon 2 has a lot of heart, which one couldn’t really say about Peabody (it’s more sincere elements feel grafted on, and largely unnecessary). Peabody, however, is witty, inventive and pacey, abounding with sight gags and clever asides while offering a time travel plotline that doesn’t talk down to its family audience.

I haven’t seen the The Rocky & Bullwinkle Show, from which Mr. Peabody & Sh…

Ah yes, the legendary 007 wit, or at least half of it.

The World is Not Enough (1999)
(SPOILERS) The last Bond film of the 20th century unfortunately continues the downward trend of the Brosnan era, which had looked so promising after the reinvigorated approach to Goldeneye. The World is Not Enough’s screenplay posseses a number of strong elements (from the now ever present Robert Wade and Neal Purvis, and a sophomore Bruce Feirstein), some of which have been recycled in the Craig era, but they’ve been mashed together with ill-fitting standard Bond tropes that puncture any would-be substance (Bond’s last line before the new millennium is one Roger Moore would have relished). And while a structure that stop-starts doesn’t help the overall momentum any, nor does the listlessness of drama director Michael Apted, such that when the sporadic bursts of action do arrive there’s no disguising the joins between first and second unit, any prospect of thrills evidently unsalvageable in the edit.

Taking its cues from the curtailed media satire of Tomorr…

I know what I'm gonna do tomorrow, and the next day, and the next year, and the year after that.

It’s a Wonderful Life (1946)
It’s a Wonderful Life is an unassailable classic, held up as an embodiment of true spirit of Christmas and a testament to all that is good and decent and indomitable in humanity. It deserves its status, even awash with unabashed sentimentality that, for once, actually seems fitting. But, with the reams of plaudits aimed at Frank Capra’s most enduring film, it is also worth playing devil’s advocate for a moment or two. One can construe a number of not nearly so life-affirming undercurrents lurking within it, both intentional and unintentional on the part of its director. And what better time to Grinch-up such a picture than when bathed in the warmth of a yuletide glow?

The film was famously not a financial success on initial release, as is the case with a number of now hallowed movies, its reputation burgeoning during television screenings throughout the 1970s. Nevertheless, It’s a Wonderful Life garnered a brace of Oscar nominations including Best Picture and…

Dude, you're embarrassing me in front of the wizards.

Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
(SPOILERS) The cliffhanger sequel, as a phenomenon, is a relatively recent thing. Sure, we kind of saw it with The Empire Strikes Back – one of those "old" movies Peter Parker is so fond of – a consequence of George Lucas deliberately borrowing from the Republic serials of old, but he had no guarantee of being able to complete his trilogy; it was really Back to the Future that began the trend, and promptly drew a line under it for another decade. In more recent years, really starting with The MatrixThe Lord of the Rings stands apart as, post-Weinstein's involvement, fashioned that way from the ground up – shooting the second and third instalments back-to-back has become a thing, both more cost effective and ensuring audiences don’t have to endure an interminable wait for their anticipation to be sated. The flipside of not taking this path is an Allegiant, where greed gets the better of a studio (split a novel into two movie parts assuming a…

Perhaps I am dead. Perhaps we’re both dead. And this is some kind of hell.

The Avengers 5.7: The Living Dead
The Living Dead occupies such archetypal Avengers territory that it feels like it must have been a more common plotline than it was; a small town is the cover for invasion/infiltration, with clandestine forces gathering underground. Its most obvious antecedent is The Town of No Return, and certain common elements would later resurface in Invasion of the Earthmen. This is a lot broader than Town, however, the studio-bound nature making it something of a cosy "haunted house" yarn, Scooby Doo style.

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

What if I tell you to un-punch someone, what you do then?

Incredibles 2 (2018)
(SPOILERS) Incredibles 2 may not be as fresh as the first outing – indeed, certain elements of its plotting border on the retread – but it's equally, if not more, inventive as a piece of animation, and proof that, whatever his shortcomings may be philosophically, Brad Bird is a consummately talented director. This is a movie that is consistently very funny, and which is as thrilling as your average MCU affair, but like Finding Dory, you may understandably end up wondering if it shouldn't have revolved around something a little more substantial to justify that fifteen-year gap in reaching the screen.