KingFilmsCo

Seeing Jaws 3-D makes me wonder if I was too harsh on Jaws 2. I recently reviewed Jaws 2 and criticized its sloppy and poor storytelling and pacing, but nonetheless thought it had moments of good film-making, especially in its action set-pieces - so you had a decent, albeit not exceptional movie. Well, the third Jaws movie makes Jaws 2 look like Jaws. Jaws 3-D is a movie that, to my astonishment, makes me feel nothing. Well almost nothing. The only emotion that stirred inside me during its entire one hour and forty minutes... was embarrassment for this "amateur hour."

I was mildly interested in seeing the movie because it seemed to be the last Jaws movie with the crew of the previous movies working on it. Longtime Spielberg production designer Joe Alves directed, as he was a second unit director on the previous movies and played a part in getting them to look good. Jaws 3-D was also the last Jaws screenplay penned by Carl Gottlieb. Gottlieb, who contributed to the screenplay of Jaws and largely wrote Jaws 2, had shown some competency in staging suspenseful scenes and allowing moments for characters to breathe and develop. I am not sure if they were under strain from studio executives, but it is clear watching Jaws 3-D why Alves never directed again, and why Gottlieb's writing career more or less fizzled out after this movie.

Characters, such as the two Brody sons, have little character and less to do. There's no meaningful exchanges between the brothers or other Sea World workers, or the park owner (an enjoyably slimy performance by Lou Gosset), or the Australian... hunter? photographer? Even Jaws 2 managed to have moments where people acted (even if that was rare). Here everyone goes through the motions. Dennis Quaid gets his paycheck. Sean Brody, played indistinctly by John Putch, has a... uh, character arc where he's afraid of the water, but gets over it because a hot chick offers to bang him by the beach. I guess that's character development. But he leaves the movie two-thirds of the way through, severing one more connection with the series' cast and history that we have grown attached to. Now, I am always for movies, especially genre/franchise flicks bucking convention and cleverly moving past their forebears, but without good writing or characters, all those efforts are worthless. Jaws 2 didn't have a particularly strong script, so it leaned on the setting of Amity Island, and some familiar faces to make up the deficit. Jaws 3-D thought it could lean on the setting of Sea World and the presence of other sea creatures like dolphins, orca, and the like. The outcome is a total dud, and cynical misjudge of what will keep the audience engaged.

The setting is totally wasted - see Deep Blue Sea to see a film that at least tries to take advantage of its location in an underwater observatory. Making an amusement park the site of widespread bloodshed and chaos has immediate potential (see: Jurassic Park), but Universal did not seem to want to spend the money fleshing the premise out, so what is left is a real cheap production: extending from the sets all the way to the marquis attraction - the shark itself.

The shark has never looked so bad. Jaws 2 showed off a shark that was in some ways superior to the original, and the resultant construction allowed for some inventive and fun action scenes from the director and crew. In Jaws 3-D the shark was stiff, mostly motionless, and seemed to have consisted of a single model that was capable of opening its mouth and wiggling a little bit. The action scenes were mundane and executed in a dull manner and lacked the dynamic camera movements and smart cuts of the previous movie. Instead, we have "fin chases something in the water" scenes, mixed with some laughable "shark-torpedo" moments where the shark slowly inches towards something to attack. The film's other effects are likewise poor. The optical shots and overlays were so so shoddy that you wonder how anyone signed off on them, other than slimy producers looking for a quick buck. They say that while making Jaws Spielberg called the SFX crew the "special defects department." He had no clue how good he had it.

Here's a rule for creature movies. If you can't show the monster all the time, at least have a good writing/actors. If you can't have good writing/characters, than at least keep the thing short and moving so my time isn't wasted. Jaws 3-D wastes your time and feels longer than its 1hr40min length because it lacks a good monster, good performances or writing, and has a terminally slow pace riddled with filler. Jaws 2 had me pining for more shark scenes. When compared to Jaws 3-D, Jaws 2 feels like non-stop shark tail slapping you in your groin. The movie tries to pull of some cheap jump-scares and gross-outs, but the make-up and special effects are c-movie grade and incredibly silly. Worse still, they are spread out so far and few that they are less like exclamation points than they are a dull rapping on the TV screen to make sure you are still awake.

Is there anything positive about Jaws 3-D? Surprisingly, yes! The music, composed by Alan Parker is fun, adventurous, and well-suited to the action. While leaning on the score of John Williams, it nonetheless manages to achieve its own sound and feels fresh and enjoyable. Mr. Parker deserves a commendation for doing the best he could with a bad source. It's a shame he seemed to retreat largely into made-for-TV movies after this, never getting a huge Hollywood movie to sink his teeth into again.

In summation: this movie definitely feels like the death-knell for this "franchise." There wasn't even enough happening to offer a "so bad it's good" experience! Despite having a few of the original hands working on it, the movie demonstrated that they lacked the skill, the time, or the artistic freedom to bring about something worthwhile. I'll give it to the crew of Jaws 2: they tried to make a good movie, they just didn't really succeed. The makers of Jaws 3-D didn't even try!

Jaws 2 does not get an "A" for effort, but it definitely earns a "B" or "B-" for effort. To be fair to Gottlieb, Szwarc, et al., they attempt to build characters, flesh out ones we already knew (sorta), and try to still tell a story while ramping up the shark mayhem from the first movie. And to their credit, I was surprised by the movie's insistence to get to know a wider range of side characters on top of Roy Scheider's world-weary Brody, anchoring it all.

That being said, just because the movie tries does not mean it particularly succeeds. Jaws, aside from the shark, really focused around the fine performances of three very talented character actors, playing believable, well-written, and likable characters. Brody, Quint, and Hooper were clearly-defined personalities that played well off one another, with their own motivations, backstories, and skills.

While it's unfair to judge the sequel *solely* in relation to its predecessor, it is only to temper your expectations. Suffice to say: the characters introduced in Jaws 2 are not compelling, have believable reactions and motivations, and are not particularly interesting. You have a parade of one-notes: the sleazy real-estate developer, the incredulous doctor ("Sharks don't take things personally, Mr. Brody!"), and a gaggle of annoying teeny-boppers who were put in because the producers knew which audience to cash in on. In a cynical display of movie-making, you have every archetype of teen present - someone for every baby boomer to relate to!

More effective are the returning cast. Cashing in on the nostalgia of the first was somewhat successful, as it is nice to see characters like the Deputy, the Brody's, and Mayor Vaughan again - as well as the town of Amity itself (counting it as a character). The best moments are between returning cast members/veteran actors - the world-weariness on display is either an appealing way of establishing the story, or an authentic reaction to being dragged on to do a sequel to a giant shark movie! I likewise saw myself enjoying the return and to "see how things were going." It is depressing to learn that more interesting ideas - such as Amity being ruined because of the shark attack and resorting to mob financing - were scuttled in favor of a rehash of the first story, complete with "we can't close the beaches its tourism season!" beats. I don't know how the producers/writers can be so dismissive of the billion Jaws rip-offs when they themselves are guilty of the same crime. Hypocrisy of the rich/famous I suppose!

It seems as if half the movie is dedicated following around the lives of Amity's teens, as they try to go through the pangs of growing up: going to dances, asking each other out, sailing, and avoiding a gigantic rubber shark mounted on a motorized platform. I can understand, and on a conceptual level, appreciate the attempt to make the adolescents more than mere shark fodder. However, none of their stories or personalities are interesting, and their scenes slow the pacing down to a crawl - to the point where you start to think of them *as* mere shark fodder, hoping, hoping, hoping that that damn thing shows u p and eats one of them (particularly Donna Wilkes, who spends the back half of the movie screaming non-stop) to pick the movie up.

If you have been wondering this whole review "When is he gunna start talking about the shark?" then I've given you a taste of what you will feel watching Jaws 2. Whereas Jaws saved its payoff for the end, and allowed strong writing to propel the movie, Jaws 2 lacks those strong moments and thus makes you yearn for the shark. Szwarc decided, against the opinions of his crew, to show off more of the shark. On the downside, it means more chances to see how fake the thing looks (you will see its rubber mouth crease and fold inwards in one bad shot). On the upside, it gives the movie a means of punctuating the doldrums with some shark action! In an inverse of its predecessor, the shark is the best thing about Jaws 2. It does more silly stunts, well shot by the talented crewmen. It rams many more boats, it generally acts like a dick, grabbing teens and launching them into the hulls of their own craft, and even gets involved in a incredibly stupefying scene in which a lady, attempting to kill the shark, pours gasoline on herself and lights herself (and the shark) on fire. From that point on it sports some cool, wicked scars.

If Szwarc cannot be praised for his job at adapting a screenplay, he nonetheless made sure that the real breadwinner - the action scenes - were well done, and entertaining. It has the unfortunate side effect of making the movie incredibly stupid, though, especially as teens start behaving as slasher victims would and destroy their own attempts at survival (the boat version of tripping over one's self, ha ha). Oh, and helicopters too. Lots of fun to be had with these moments!

You only wish there were more. Between the over-extended focus on unimportant side-characters, and the lack of interesting things for Scheider to do, the movie quickly starts to rub you the wrong way - with the exception of the shark sequences. As a movie, and a monster movie, it is still an above-average effort from a competent crew, but it is brought down by an overly commercial approach to its setup and payoff. Reading further into the making-of, it was said that Arthur C Clarke and Peter Benchley each had sequel scripts that were turned down. Otto Preminger at one point was even a choice for director. Weep for what could have been bold, weird, or idiosyncratic choices and direction - for what we were left with was Jaws 2: an ok, so-so movie that takes few chances and doesn't give us the goods nearly enough.

I won't belabor the point that you can gather from reading 40+ other reviews, so I will offer a few short words on the theme of the movie, as well as caveat, for watching Orson Welles' Chimes at Midnight.

The film overall deals with that time-honored notion noted by St. Paul "When I was a child, I used to talk like a child, and see things as a child does, and think like a child; but now that I have become an adult, I have finished with all childish ways." Prince Hal is growing up and becoming an adult, and as such must soon leave his childish pranks and habits behind. His friend, Falstaff, is that childhood friend (paradoxically old in age, as if he never grew up himself). Boisterous, drunk, and a glutton, the blowhard gleefully recounts all the good times that he, Prince Hal, and their other misfits used to have, doing the things that children and adolescents do, like being a nuisance, harassing others, and goofing off. It is the type of life Falstaff still leads and he is quite happy with it. Prince Hal is, too, until the weight of responsibility is slowly thrust upon him thanks to his sick father. As the stakes are raised, he slowly loses the time and desire to be a silly young boy and now must be a man.

Falstaff is oblivious to this development all the way until the end, thinking that these are just momentary phases before the parties can begin anew. He is ever hopeful that the Prince and the world will see things his way. He fails to see how the world moves past a fat, blundering fool. His love for the prince, for the girls of the bawdy bar, for his compatriots is, while sometimes humorous and self-serving, he nonetheless wishes no real ill on anyone and merely lives for fun and pleasure. In his old age, he has decided that being an adult (if he ever was one) is not something worth putting time and energy in to. He is unimportant and carefree enough to have that luxury; however, his closest friends cannot shirk away from their duties as men, and thus Falstaff fails to realize how he is left behind.

All of this is turned into a moving portrait. We realize that Falstaff is wrong, and that sometimes the world calls for more than just joking around, goofing off and indulging one's self. But we sympathize with him, because we can see a gentle and loving person underneath the bluster and idiocy - and perhaps we ourselves wish the world were more "childish" and carefree. At the climactic battle scene (were Welles' camera work makes a hundred men or less look like a thousand), men grind and pulverize each other into hamburger meat - but Falstaff never manages to hurt a single soul. Perhaps there is some good in being childish!

For those wishing to watch the movie, the Criterion package is an excellent one. The customary supplemental materials are fascinating, and the picture brings out Welles' cinematography. Criterion and co. did there best with the sound, and the sound is the biggest single issue with which you will struggle with (or at least I did) with Chimes. Even with work done on it, the sound levels are inconsistent, especially with actors' lines. Sometimes whole scenes will go by with what sounds like dubbers mumbling their lines, straining your ears and making you crank the volume up on your TV. Then all of the sudden someone will speak loudly and clearly, blowing you back with the force of it and making you quickly turn the volume back down... only for the process to repeat again. I have not done this yet, but I would probably recommend watching with subtitles on to help alleviate the issue of figuring out what some of the whispers and mumbles are supposed to be. Not an elegant solution, but with Welles' later work, you will have to deal with some technical issue or another.

Don't let the above turn you off from seeing this beautiful, and moving film. It is a worthy adaptation and remix of Shakespeare and one of Welles' greatest movies.