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…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

I am so sick of Scotland!

Outlaw/King (2018)
(SPOILERS) Proof that it isn't enough just to want to make a historical epic, you have to have some level of vision for it as well. Say what you like about Mel's Braveheart – and it isn't a very good film – it's got sensibility in spades. He knew what he was setting out to achieve, and the audience duly responded. What does David Mackenzie want from Outlaw/King (it's shown with a forward slash on the titles, so I'm going with it)? Ostensibly, and unsurprisingly, to restore the stature of Robert the Bruce after it was rather tarnished by Braveheart, but he has singularly failed to do so. More than that, it isn’t an "idea", something you can recognise or get behind even if you don’t care about the guy. You’ll never forget Mel's Wallace, for better or worse, but the most singular aspect of Chris Pine's Bruce hasn’t been his rousing speeches or heroic valour. No, it's been his kingly winky.

If this is not a place for a priest, Miles, then this is exactly where the Lord wants me.

Bad Times at the El Royale (2018)
(SPOILERS) Sometimes a movie comes along where you instantly know you’re safe in the hands of a master of the craft, someone who knows exactly the story they want to tell and precisely how to achieve it. All you have to do is sit back and exult in the joyful dexterity on display. Bad Times at the El Royale is such a movie, and Drew Goddard has outdone himself. From the first scene, set ten years prior to the main action, he has constructed a dizzyingly deft piece of work, stuffed with indelible characters portrayed by perfectly chosen performers, delirious twists and game-changing flashbacks, the package sealed by an accompanying frequently diegetic soundtrack, playing in as it does to the essential plot beats of the whole. If there's a better movie this year, it will be a pretty damn good one.

You kind of look like a slutty Ebola virus.

Crazy Rich Asians (2018)
(SPOILERS) The phenomenal success of Crazy Rich Asians – in the US at any rate, thus far – might lead one to think it's some kind of startling original, but the truth is, whatever its core demographic appeal, this adaptation of Kevin Kwan's novel taps into universally accepted romantic comedy DNA and readily recognisable tropes of family and class, regardless of cultural background. It emerges a smoothly professional product, ticking the expected boxes in those areas – the heroine's highs, lows, rejections, proposals, accompanied by whacky scene-stealing best friend – even if the writing is sometimes a little on the clunky side.

It was one of the most desolate looking places in the world.

They Shall Not Grow Old (2018)
Peter Jackson's They Shall Not Grow Old, broadcast by the BBC on the centenary of Armistice Day, is "sold" on the attraction and curiosity value of restored, colourised and frame rate-enhanced footage. On that level, this World War I documentary, utilising a misquote from Laurence Binyon's poem for its title, is frequently an eye-opener, transforming the stuttering, blurry visuals that have hitherto informed subsequent generations' relationship with the War. However, that's only half the story; the other is the use of archive interviews with veterans to provide a narrative, exerting an effect often more impacting for what isn't said than for what is.

Prepare the Heathen’s Stand! By order of purification!

Apostle (2018)
(SPOILERS) Another week, another undercooked Netflix flick from an undeniably talented director. What’s up with their quality control? Do they have any? Are they so set on attracting an embarrassment of creatives, they give them carte blanche, to hell with whether the results are any good or not? Apostle's an ungainly folk-horror mashup of The Wicker Man (most obviously, but without the remotest trace of that screenplay's finesse) and any cult-centric Brit horror movie you’d care to think of (including Ben Wheatley's, himself an exponent of similar influences-on-sleeve filmmaking with Kill List), taking in tropes from Hammer, torture porn, and pagan lore but revealing nothing much that's different or original beyond them.

He mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable folly of the panned Pan, I was struck by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters, makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.

What about the panties?

Sliver (1993)
(SPOILERS) It must have seemed like a no-brainer. Sharon Stone, fresh from flashing her way to one of the biggest hits of 1992, starring in a movie nourished with a screenplay from the writer of one of the biggest hits of 1992. That Sliver is one Stone’s better performing movies says more about how no one took her to their bosom rather than her ability to appeal outside of working with Paul Verhoeven. Attempting to replicate the erotic lure of Basic Instinct, but without the Dutch director’s shameless revelry and unrepentant glee (and divested of Michael Douglas’ sweaters), it flounders, a stupid movie with vague pretensions to depth made even more stupid by reshoots that changed the killer’s identity and exposed the cluelessness of the studio behind it.

Philip Noyce isn’t a stupid filmmaker, of course. He’s a more-than-competent journeyman when it comes to Hollywood blockbuster fare (Clear and Present Danger, Salt) also adept at “smart” smaller pictures (Rabbit Proof Fence