The WTF? Worst Films Extravaganza Presents: Shark Attack 2 (2001)

DIRECTED BY
David Worth

STARRING
Thorsten Kaye - Dr. Nick Harris
Nikita Ager - Samantha Peterson
Dan Metcalfe - Roy Bishop
Caroline Burns - Amy Peterson
Danny Keogh - Michael Francisco
Rob van Vuuren - Daryl Waker
Warrick Grier - Morton

Genre - Thriller/Horror/B-Movie/Sharks

Running Time - 92 Minutes


PLOT
A crooked business owner named Michael Francisco (Danny Keogh) is opening a new aquarium in South Africa called Water World. He learns that a dangerous great white shark is living inside of an inlet. Wanting to capture it for an exhibit, Francisco hires Dr. Nick Harris (Thorsten Kaye), a marine biologist, to capture it for his aquarium. Nick successfully captures the shark, helping Francisco make it his star attraction.

During Water World's grand opening, tragedy occurs when a worker falls into the great white shark's tank and gets eaten in front of an audience of kids and their parents. Not only that, but the shark manages to escape Water World during the attack. Not wanting to take the blame himself, since he was the one who forced this worker to feed the shark in front of an audience, Francisco fires Nick. Without any sort of authority, Nick takes it upon himself to capture the shark before it hurts anyone else.

During Nick's mission, he encounters a woman named Samantha (Nikita Ager), whose sister was murdered by this shark during a scuba diving activity. Wanting revenge on the shark, Samantha decides to help Nick. However, Francisco finds out what Nick and Samantha are up to, wanting to capture the shark for himself. He hires an Australian television host named Roy Bishop (Dan Metcalfe) to find and kill the shark, who plans to film it all for ratings and publicity. As the hunt for the shark begins, Nick and Samantha realize that there may be more than just one great white around, all suffering from some genetic enhancing that makes them more deadly than ever.

REVIEW

I got three words for SHARK ATTACK 2:

WHAT THE FUCK!?

HITS

- Thorsten Kaye and Nikita Ager. SHARK ATTACK 2 isn't a good movie in any stretch of the imagination, but at least the two leads try to carry the film as best as they can. Thorsten Kaye, who would be more popular in the soap opera world for his time on the now-cancelled All My Children, is better than he should be as Nick Harris. While the dialogue is dull and sometimes terrible, at least Kaye tries to make it work and convey the right level of emotion for each scene. I honestly got the 'hero' vibe from him and I thought his performance was pretty good. As for Nikita Ager, she was decent as the female lead/love interest. She looked better than she could act, but at least she took her role seriously. Kaye and Ager were the two actors in the film that didn't annoy me in anyway throughout this bland sequel.

- A couple of good scenes. SHARK ATTACK 2 manages to be better than the first one due to a couple of scenes that are actually executed pretty damn well. The first scene is the grand opening of Water World, where the worker who's feeding the great white shark is killed by that very shark. It's nothing really special, but it's memorable because it's the first major scene of violence [not counting the death of Samantha's sister, which is okay] that sets up the rest of the story. It's also quite tense and effective, as the children are horrified by this man's death while Michael Francisco quietly panics at the situation. It's a scene that needed to be in the film because it moves the rest of the narrative along, and it's done logically well.

The other scene is the beach scene, where the escaped great white shark attacks beachgoers, including two of Nick's surfer buddies. It's obviously inspired [or stolen] by JAWS, which a lot of the same visual cues [Nick noticing the shark before everyone else, Nick warning others to get out of the water, etc.], but it's done really well. It's done seriously and watching random characters panic builds tension in a good way. Plus, some people actually get hurt and/or killed here, so the scene manages to mean something. Yes, the Spielberg film does the scene better obviously. But they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. And SHARK ATTACK 2 does a pretty decent imitation. Probably the best scene in the entire film, which isn't saying much.

- Roaring sharks. This should probably be in the MISSES section. After all, sharks don't roar and it sounds pretty damn silly when they do. But I couldn't help but laugh anytime a shark would leap out and roar like a lion [which is the actual sound the filmmakers used]. Unintentional comedy works here because this film really needed more entertainment value. I'll take what I can get at this point.


MISSES

- The rip-off, I mean, the story. SHARK ATTACK 2's biggest issue is how unoriginal and predictable it is. Now in this day and age, a film has trouble being both original and unpredictable because we've pretty much seen it all already. I have no issues with that as long as the film is done reasonably well. Unfortunately, SHARK ATTACK 2 would rather just settle in stealing ideas from most of the JAWS films and stitching the greatest hits as some sort of narrative. Water World is obviously based on JAWS 3D. The beach scene was taken from JAWS. The two divers at the beginning of the film was done in JAWS 2. Add in a character that's obviously based on Steve Irvin, the late Crocodile Hunter, and some love story elements and you got SHARK ATTACK 2. Nothing more, nothing less.

It would have been nice if the filmmakers had used these "inspirations" in more unique, or even interesting, ways. But not much is done with any one of these to make them stand out from the shadow of better films [whether JAWS 3D is a better film than SHARK ATTACK 2 is debatable at this point]. This would be okay if everything else in the film was better than these moments, but it's just generic and pedestrian.

The love story doesn't work because the two actors don't have much chemistry with each other. Plus it happens so fast that you'll miss their attraction if you blink! It's not believable and totally forced. I mean, a killer shark is out there and sex is on the brain?? Wow, they really want to catch this thing! The shark hunter guy is supposed to be the antagonist of the film, but he's just annoying and doesn't really become enough of a presence to be any sort of threat to the two leads. Even Michael Francisco ends up being a bland villain because he's only one-note and is just there to set up the hunt for the great white. None of the characters here are all that interesting, which makes it difficult for a viewer to give a shit about anything that's happening on screen.

The dialogue is also very badly written. The characters all sound the same and what they say never resonates long enough. I couldn't even tell you what these characters were discussing with each other now that I think about it. It's just so generic. The dialogue never really reveals any of the character's personalities. They all sound like robots forced into stereotypical roles to complete a narrative. Nothing in the story ever seems to happen naturally. The only thing I did like was that it somewhat connects to the first SHARK ATTACK when it comes to the sharks. Other than that, this script is a lame duck.

- The direction. David Worth, who directed 1989's cult classic KICKBOXER starring Jean-Claude Van Damme, seems to be bored by the screenplay as well since the visual presentation is dull as fuck. Besides the two scenes I mentioned earlier in the HITS section, the rest of the film just drags. There's no atmosphere. There's not much thrills. The photography looks cheap, like a TV show. The editing is off more than once. The use of cheesy love songs just makes you want to turn the film off rather than enhance the supposed love arc. The visuals were as boring as the narrative. Maybe I should give David Worth points for consistency. But if the screenplay is terrible, then you should have interesting visuals to compensate for that. SHARK ATTACK 2 fails at even that. The film feels like a 92-minute Baywatch episode without the hot female lifeguards running down the beach in slow motion. Without that, who's going to care?

David Worth would return to direct SHARK ATTACK 3: MEGALODON, which will be the next shark flick I'll be covering. At least I'll have more positive words for him there for creating one of the best-worst films ever.

- Terrible dubbing. So SHARK ATTACK 2 is supposedly a South African production, where the story actually takes place as well. So why would most of the actors be dubbed with American accents? It makes no sense to me. Besides Thorsten Kaye and Dan Metcalfe, who are German and Australian respectively, everyone else sounds American. In South Africa. Who's bright idea was this? There is nothing wrong with an actor having a local accent. I don't understand the mentality for any reason to dub these actors. If it was to make the film unintentionally funny, then the filmmakers failed hard. I just found it ridiculous.

- The CGI. As a low budget film, I understand that SHARK ATTACK 2 wouldn't have the best special effects. I expected the use of stock footage, which is used better here than in the first SHARK ATTACK. I expected CGI sharks underwater, like in DEEP BLUE SEA [they look just as fake here than they did in that film]. But the model shark was just really bad. It just looks so incredibly fake, you can't help but laugh at how silly it is. I mean, the mouth doesn't even move! It has no movement as it swims! It's just bad. It's rare for the special effects to look convincing enough, but they're not visually pleasing for majority of the film. Plus, the main shark is supposed to have one eye [it was stabbed in the beginning of the film by Samantha], but I could have sworn it still had two most of the time. Well if you don't care about that major detail, then I won't care about liking your film, filmmakers.


THE FINAL HOWL

While it's an improvement over the horrible SHARK ATTACK, this sequel is still pretty bad in itself. The direction is dull, the narrative stinks, the CGI is bad, and the awful dubbing just left me scratching my head. At least some of the actors were decent and some of the scenes were shot above average. Not the worst shark film I've seen, but still worthy enough to be captured and sent to the shark tank inside the WTF? Vault. I would rather be fed to the sharks than watch this film ever again.

SCORE

1 Howl Outta 4

The B-Movie Bungalow Presents: Deep Blue Sea (1999)

DIRECTED BY
Renny Harlin

STARRING
Saffron Burrows - Dr. Susan McAlister
Thomas Jane - Carter Blake
LL Cool J - Preacher
Samuel L. Jackson - Russell Franklin
Michael Rapaport - Thomas Scoggins
Jacqueline McKenzie - Dr. Janice Higgins
Stellan Skarsgaard - Jim Whitlock
Aida Turturro - Brenda Kerns

Genre - Thriller/Horror/Science Fiction/B-Movie/Sharks

Running Time - 104 Minutes


PLOT
Dr. Susan McAlister (Saffron Burrows) has been busy working on finding a cure for Alzheimer's at a research center called Aquatica, a former Navy base located in the middle of the ocean. Using sharks [since they seem immune to the experiments done on them], Susan is hoping to find an enzyme that will prove her research was no in vain. However, a problem occurs when one of those tested sharks escapes Aquatica. Before her project gets shut down for this careless mistake, Susan desperately convinces the funder of her research, Russell Franklin (Samuel L. Jackson), to give her 48 hours to find the shark and prove to him that she's getting closer to a cure. Russell agrees, but goes with Susan to Aquatica to see the research himself with his own eyes.

After a couple of tests, Russell and Susan see that the experiments Susan has been conducting are actually working when they revive some dead brain tissue. Before they can really celebrate, another test shark chews off the arm of one of Susan's scientist helpers, Jim Whitlock (Stellan Skarsgaard). As they try to fly him to a hospital via helicopter, the test sharks attack the helicopter and use Jim's injured body to shatter one of Aquatica's windows. As gallons of ocean water now flood the facility, the sharks begin to experiment on the humans who have been studying them.

As the scientists in Aquatica try to survive, Susan realizes that manipulating the shark's DNA during her experiments has actually increased their brain sizes [which she did purposely to harvest enzymes to fight Alzheimer's], which have increased the sharks' intelligence. The scientists, afraid of drowning or getting eaten by smart sharks, decide to make their way to the top of Aquatica to stop the sharks' plan: to escape into the ocean to take it over.

REVIEW

HITS

- The direction. DEEP BLUE SEA isn't the greatest shark film out, but it's an entertaining one for many reasons. One of those reasons happen to be Renny Harlin's energetic direction of the film. Best known for his films like A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET 4: THE DREAM MASTER, CLIFFHANGER, and THE LONG KISS GOODNIGHT, Harlin may not be the best director in cinema history but he knows how to create good action and thrills visually.

For a silly B-movie, there's genuine suspense and tension once the sharks start having fun with our characters. The chase scenes are tense and somewhat nail-biting. The action sequences and special effects [not including the sharks] are visualized really well. I really like the entire sequence where the sharks begin to destroy Aquatica. You know the characters are about to be shark bait with super smart sharks knowing exactly how to trap them. And the tension never eases up after that due to Harlin's knowing eye.

There are great jump moments that you wouldn't expect. The pacing is pretty much at a breakneck pace during the last two acts, which keeps the audience from getting bored [and probably think about how stupid the story really is]. I also like that Harlin injected humor during some of the visuals, so the audience can breathe a bit as well as rightfully laugh at the entire situation. The picture also looks pretty darn good and the editing is well done. I think DEEP BLUE SEA is one of Harlin's better directed efforts, as he takes a really silly movie and injects a ton of fun visually into it. It's obvious Harlin was having fun directing the actors in this movie, which makes the viewing experience a good one.

- The acting. While it won't set the world on fire, the actors carry the film quite well. Saffron Burrows is okay as the female lead, Dr. Susan McAlister. Her character is not really likeable, but Burrows tries to make Susan somewhat sympathetic. Burrows does have quite the lovely British accent though and looks great in bras and panties. Thomas Jane is somewhat better as the male lead, Carter Blake. He sort of plays a one-note character, but makes Carter somewhat of a bad ass quite believably. Jane also plays a convincing hero well. Always been a fan of Thomas Jane and I liked him here.

The supporting actors are more entertaining for me in DEEP BLUE SEA. LL Cool J is great as comic relief, Preacher. He sort of plays the same character he did in 1998's HALLOWEEN: H20, which would usually be an issue, but it actually works in this film. LL Cool J comes across as very likeable, funny, and sympathetic. Probably the best actor and character in the film. Samuel L. Jackson is also great as the more serious Russell Franklin. Jackson always brings the awesome, and his exit is one of the film's major highlights. Stellan Skarsgard is also very cool as the poor Jim Whitlock. I also liked Michael Rappaport as well, as he also brings the funny. An interesting cast of actors that manage to gel really well with each other, and are self-aware enough to make DEEP BLUE SEA a lot of fun to watch by being serious and silly all at once.

- The silly premise. Cinema snobs would really hate this dumb premise, but viewers like me really love it - especially since screenwriters Duncan Kennedy, Donna Powers & Wayne Powers manage to balance the tense, humorous, and serious moments pretty well. The plot is so over-the-top, that you really can't take it serious. Super smart sharks destroying their 'prison', knowing exactly how to escape while eating those in their way? Who comes up with stuff like this, except crazy people and me? If it wasn't for the cast, DEEP BLUE SEA would fit in perfectly as a Saturday Night feature on the SyFy Channel. Even though the narrative does try to give a serious, logical explanation for what's going on, the film still comes across as silly. But that's what makes the film so good.

The fact is, the screenwriters know that their premise is stupid and actually relishes in that fact. The narrative never takes itself all that seriously and would rather have fun with the story rather than give the audience a thinking man's movie. DEEP BLUE SEA is nothing but popcorn entertainment where you need to leave your brain at the door before watching it, and it totally works. The film doesn't want to recreate or emulate JAWS, which is obviously inspired by somewhat. JAWS was a serious film meant to creep audiences out. DEEP BLUE SEA is a B-movie that wants to entertain you and make you laugh at how ridiculous the whole deal is. It wants to have its own identity and you got to respect the filmmakers for that. While silly, the premise is still a great one because you know it'll be hard to make boring - which DEEP BLUE SEA never is.

- Pretty unpredictable demises. The characters in DEEP BLUE SEA are in the film to be victims for the sharks. Nothing more, nothing less. If they actually had depth to them, it'd be a different story. But they don't, so they're nothing but chum for these bloodthirsty fish.

That being said, it makes for good entertainment and keeps the film's deaths pretty unpredictable. Good people die. Bad people die. And in not in the order you would probably imagine. You can look at the cast list and tell yourself, "So and so will live because they're a pretty big star, while this lesser known person will die because no one knows who they are." This may happen in many other films, but DEEP BLUE SEA throws that out the door. If you haven't watched this yet for whatever reason, you'd be surprised by who makes it out alive. Some big name actors and/or actresses die pretty early into the film - and in really surprising ways that come across as more funny than anything. In fact, one actor in particular gets a memorable death that comes out of nowhere after they deliver a strong monologue that would make you believe they're going to be one of the people who will survive by the end of the film. Not knowing who will live or die, and in what order, makes the film pretty fun.


MISSES

- Not much depth. As much as the shallowness of DEEP BLUE SEA makes the film pure poporn entertainment, the film doesn't have much depth. I don't mind that the situation itself is shallow, because that's the fun part. But at least the characters should be somewhat fleshed out so we can care about them. Only a random few get this treatment. Susan is doing research to find a cure for Alzheimer's disease and doesn't want the sharks hurt, even when they try to kill her crew, because she's afraid her research would be for nothing. That makes her somewhat unlikeable, but at least she has a clear motive and you understand her character. Preacher loves his bird and tries to save him from the sharks. When the bird suffers a horrible fate, Preacher takes an active role in fighting the sharks and finding the rest of the survivors to band together. He's also very self-aware about his potential fate, feeling that he won't survive because black people don't live at the end of horror movies. Preacher happens to be the most fleshed out character and the most likeable. The other characters are given moments, but you don't know much about them besides they're stereotypical personalities.

Sure, depth shouldn't matter in a film like DEEP BLUE SEA. But you still need to care about the characters you write about for the audience to care about them while watching them. While it's fun to watch one-dimensional characters get eaten by sharks, I would like to feel something for them - positive or negative.

- The CGI sharks. Probably what really brings DEEP BLUE SEA down for me are the sharks themselves. I understand that, for the story to work, the sharks had to be computer generated. I'm totally fine with that. But after 13 years, the effects have not dated well at all and sometimes take you out of the film. The mechanical sharks used are fine and look pretty good. But when you see the sharks smash into things and attack our characters in the water, the animated sharks just look really silly and end up being more funny than thrilling. This was probably okay in 1999, but CGI has come a long way since then. These villains stick out like a sore thumb - and not in a good way at all. I've seen sharks on SyFy Channel films that look more realistic than these do.


THE FINAL HOWL

DEEP BLUE SEA gets compared to JAWS due to the villains being bloodthirsty sharks, but it really has more in common with ALIEN in how the film presents itself. It's cliche and not all that original, but it's still an entertaining film that will probably have you laughing and jumping at the same time. While the CGI isn't great and the film doesn't have much depth for its characters [you're really not going to give a damn about most of them], at least it has very good direction by Renny Harlin, solid enough acting, and unpredictable moments that make it very memorable. All in all, DEEP BLUE SEA is a good B-movie and pure popcorn entertainment that you'll probably want to watch more than once with your friends. Don't take the film too seriously and you'll have a good time. Isn't that the point of watching cinema anyway?

SCORE

3 Howls Outta 4

PRESS RELEASE: Trailers for [REC] 3 & V/H/S

A few weeks ago, I posted a press release on a very anticipated indie horror film called V/H/S and promised I would post more if new information was sent in to me. Well, not only has a red-band trailer for the film been released, but a regular green band trailer has also made a presence. Looks like an awesome time.

Here's the synopsis for V/H/S:

When a group of petty criminals is hired by a mysterious party to retrieve a rare piece of found footage from a rundown house in the middle of nowhere, they soon realize that the job isn’t going to be as easy as they thought. In the living room, a lifeless body holds court before a hub of old television sets, surrounded by stacks upon stacks of VHS tapes. As they search for the right one, they are treated to a seemingly endless number of horrifying videos, each stranger than the last.
 
Bringing together some of the top filmmakers in the game today, this wickedly conceived horror anthology sends the viewer through a gauntlet of suspense, terror, shock, and downright brutality—instantly distinguishing itself from a sea of lackluster found-footage horror flicks. The diverse and deviously creative minds behind V/H/S shatter any preconceived notions about the genre, making it feel inventive and captivating once again.



Green Band Trailer
Official Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/VHSfilm

*** V/H/S will be available through Magnolia On-Demand starting 8/31; in theaters starting 10/5 ***



I also have news on another anticipated horror film. [REC] 3 finally gets a red band trailer that also looks pretty sweet. Magnet Releasing will distribute the film on VOD on Friday, August 3rd. Those who want to see it in theaters will get a chance when it's released selectively on Friday, September 7th. As a fan of this series so far, I'm looking very forward to this one.

Here's the synopsis for [REC] 3:

Koldo and Clara are about to celebrate the most important day of their lives: their wedding. Everything appears to be running smoothly and the bride, the groom and their families are enjoying a wonderful day in the countryside until some of the guests start showing signs of a strange illness. Before they know what’s happening, the bride and groom find themselves in the middle of a hellish ordeal, as an uncontrollable torrent of violence is unleashed on the wedding. What started off as an idyllic day quickly descends into a nightmare of the worst kind…

It has a running time of 80 minutes and is rated R by the MPAA.






*** Official Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/rec3 ***

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

DIRECTED BY
Marc Webb

STARRING
Andrew Garfield - Peter Parker/Spider-Man
Emma Stone - Gwen Stacy
Rhys Ifans - Dr. Curt Connors/The Lizard
Denis Leary - Captain George Stacy
Martin Sheen - Ben Parker
Sally Field - May Parker
Irrfan Khan - Rajit Ratha
Chris Zylka - Eugene 'Flash' Thompson
Campbell Scott - Richard Parker
Embeth Davidtz - Mary Parker
C. Thomas Howell - Jack's Father

Genre - Action/Adventure/Fantasy/Science Fiction/Comic Books

Running Time - 133 Minutes


PLOT
At a young age, Peter Parker's parents leave him in the care of his Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and Aunt May (Sally Field) after someone breaks into Peter's dad's office. Years later, Peter (Andrew Garfield) is in high school and his parents are believed to be dead. This creates angst and bitterness to boil within Peter, as he doesn't understand why his parents would abandon him. He also has to deal with being called a nerd [due to his high level of intelligence, especially in math and science] and is constantly bullied in school by Flash Thompson (Chris Zylka), one of the school's popular jocks. However, Peter has an admirer in fellow classmate Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), who Peter has feelings for as well.

One day after school, Peter finds a satchel that belonged to his father with secret documents hidden inside a compartment. The documents reveal a special equation for an unfinished formula that Peter's father was working on with Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), an one-armed scientist at Oscorp who is an expert on cross-species genetics. Connors also happens to be Gwen's boss as well. Wanting to know more about the documents, Peter sneaks into Connor's lab during an internship orientation. He finds a chamber of genetically-engineered spiders, with one biting him on the back of his neck.

Peter soon discovers that the spider has given him superhuman abilities, like heightened senses, better agility, and super strength. Struggling with his powers and feeling his personal life is crashing around him, he gets into it with Uncle Ben and runs away. As Uncle Ben searches for him, a robber that Peter encountered at a corner store fatally shoots him. Feeling guilty, Peter creates a disguise and begins hunting down the robber. Never finding him, Peter decides to teach all criminals a lesson, gaining notoriety in the press which catches the attention of Captain George Stacy (Denis Leary). Feeling he can do what the police could not, Peter creates a costume resembling a spider, along with wristbands that will shoot synthetic webs - becoming Spider-Man.

Meanwhile, Peter gains the respect of Dr. Connors by finishing the formula Connors had started with Peter's father - a formula that would regenerate cells like those of a lizard. Feeling pressure from Oscorp, Connors decides to inject the formula into his amputated arm. While the arm regenerates to his delight, Connors also becomes a lizard-like monster. Realizing that Peter is Spider-Man, The Lizard attempts to stop him before he could turn the entire city of New York into a lizard lounge.

REVIEW

HITS

- The retelling of the origin. It took me a while to review THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN for a number of reasons. One, plans to watch it sometime during the week fell through. Two, so many other people were talking and reviewing it - so I wanted to stay quiet until talk died down a bit. And three, I just wasn't all that excited about it. After all, this franchise started quite strongly in 2002 due to Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire giving life to the character, followed by two sequels that ended up at the opposite ends of the quality spectrum [2 was fantastic, 3 was meh]. SPIDER-MAN 3 was released in 2007, so I felt it was too soon for a reboot five years later. But after watching the Raimi films, I realized that the story told in those films was pretty much done, so Sony Pictures and Marvel had no choice but to restart the franchise. Plus, the trailers looked pretty good and I decided to give the film a shot. After all, Warner Brothers and DC Comics rebooted Batman brilliantly with BATMAN BEGINS [eight years after 1997's BATMAN & ROBIN]. So why couldn't Marvel do that with Spider-Man?

And while the origin story being redone didn't really engage me into watching this new version of Spider-Man on the big screen, at least THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN presents it well. Sure, it's a bit of 'been there-done that' [BATMAN BEGINS was praised because Batman never really had a full origin story done on film], but it accomplishes what it needs to do and sets up what's coming in the next two sequels well. Everything that needs to be in a Spider-Man origin story is in place - Uncle Ben getting killed due to Peter's carelessness, Peter getting bit by a genetically engineered spider, Peter trying out his powers for the first time, the making of the costume, dealing with Flash Thompson and high school, and falling for Gwen Stacy [and vice versa]. But in THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN, the origin is done in a more realistic, and darker way. And I liked that, to be honest, as it's a different interpretation and gives the characters and the story an edge that separates it from the original trilogy.

I felt the origin here was definitely more faithful to the comics than the Raimi origin was. We finally get web-shooters. Gwen Stacy is the first love interest, not Mary Jane Watson. And The Lizard was one of Spider-Man's earlier villains, even before Green Goblin. THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN explores the origin in more detail, which probably wasn't needed but I didn't mind it too much. I especially liked the Uncle Ben/Peter dynamic [an improvement over the original films, which made Ben's death more powerful here]. Peter's need for vengeance against Uncle Ben's killer felt more real to me because the two characters spend a lot of time together before the incident happens. I also liked the mystery as to what happened to Peter's parents, which has been touched upon in the comics [especially during the 1990s]. This sets up the entire trilogy, which is great because at least there's a foundation for what's to come. The love story had proper build [even if there wasn't enough drama to it] and Peter's guilt about Connors turning into The Lizard made sense, due to Peter constantly feeling guilt about his parents leaving him and his Uncle Ben getting killed.

Honestly, I liked the origin retelling more than I thought I would. Was it necessary? No. I'm sure you could have started this film with Spider-Man already in costume in the first shot and people wouldn't have cared, since the origin has long been established. But the screenwriters turn it into an interesting character study of Peter Parker in a way, letting the audience sympathetic with him during his trials and missteps as a costumed crime-fighter. Peter matures from a conflicted young man into a strong and confident hero, which is the right way to go. I felt everything before Peter actually becomes Spider-Man was very strong and more interesting than what came after it, even though the last half of the film wasn't terrible.

- The acting. The best part about THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN, without a doubt, is the acting by a very good cast. Andrew Garfield, who's probably best known to many for his portrayal of Eduardo Saverin in 2010's THE SOCIAL NETWORK, does a fantastic job as Peter Parker and Spider-Man. Without Garfield, this film would collapse on its own ambition. While Tobey Maguire played the character very nerdy and sensitive, Garfield gives the character an edge. Garfield handles the dramatic moments more believably than Maguire ever did, making me feel for his pain and frustration more than the Raimi films ever could. His one-liners are delivered well [I wish they were funnier though]. He also has great chemistry with everyone in the cast, as he's charismatic and a presence on screen. He may be a bit too handsome to play the role, but Garfield takes it and never looks back. I really liked him more than I thought I would in the role. I look forward to seeing him grow more confident as Parker/Spider-Man in the sequel.

Emma Stone is also fantastic as Gwen Stacy. She plays the girl-next-door quite nicely, while maintaining a strong sense of independence that makes her character likeable. Stone never plays Gwen for weak, displaying a lot of depth for the stereotypical superhero's girlfriend role by giving Gwen spunk and intelligence. Stone also has explosive chemistry with Garfield, which doesn't surprise me since they're dating in real life, helping their love story angle a whole lot. Stone is a great actress and really erases any memory of how Gwen Stacy was portrayed in SPIDER-MAN 3 by doing the character justice. It's nice to see a female love interest portrayed as a human being rather than an object.

Rhys Ifans does well as Curt Connors. He brought a bit of class to the film and did what he could to flesh out an underwritten character. The split personality deal was a bit too 'Green Goblin' for my tastes at times, which reminded me how much better that villain was, but Ifans did his best with what he was given. Martin Sheen plays a better Uncle Ben than Cliff Robertson, only for the simple fact that he gets more screen time. Sally Field is a feistier Aunt May, but is underutilized unfortunately. Rosemary Harris is still Aunt May to me, though. Denis Leary is great as Captain George Stacy, bringing some dry humor and snarkiness that was much needed in the film. The other actors fit their roles well. I liked the cast a lot here, as you can tell they genuinely cared about the story they were trying to tell.

- The direction. Marc Webb's first foray into a big budget motion picture, after directing a few musical videos and the great 2009's (500) DAYS OF SUMMER, is pretty much a success visually. I didn't see this in 3D, as I heard it wasn't all that great [surprisingly since this film was actually filmed with 3D cameras], but I liked the tone and look of the film. While Raimi had a much brighter and more energetic film, Webb is much bleaker and subtle. Webb's best moments come from the quieter, human moments where the characters are able to explore their relationships with each other, themselves, and the world around them. The first hour definitely defines that, as I felt it was the stronger half of the film.

That's not to say that Webb has no grasp on the action sequences. As a matter of fact, I'm surprised as to how well he managed them. When Spider-Man swings and moves, it's exactly how I feel Spider-Man should swing and move. I thought Webb did the costumed character more justice than what Raimi had managed to do in three films. I also loved the first-person POV shots as Spider-Man swung through the city, plus some vertigo shots that are great during the final act. The highlight of the action happens when The Lizard invades Peter's school to attack him when he's least expecting it. It felt like it came out right from the comics, truly feeling like a real Spider-Man moment. I also loved the scene where Gwen is hiding from The Lizard in Oscorp, actually managing tension.

The picture looks nice and the pacing is pretty good as well. The editing had its off moments, especially when the CGI effects would lead into real-life action, but it was fine. Webb did a good job on his first blockbuster film and I hope he continues with the second film. I'm sure it'll be better now that he's more comfortable directing a film of this stature.

- The chemistry between Garfield and Stone. Let me just get it out of the way: the way Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy get together for their love story is pretty weak. They're already attracted to each other, with barely any drama. Not even being together for much time, Peter easily tells Gwen that he's Spider-Man. Gwen, surprisingly, takes it really well and actually doesn't find it strange. At least it took two films in the original Raimi films for Mary Jane to sort of realize that Peter was Spider-Man, although she pretty much figures it out by the end of the first one without saying so. The whole thing just felt way too easy and way too convenient, now that I think about it.

However, Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone have such powerful chemistry with each other that you don't really care about the flaws in the love story. You want these two to be together because they heat up the screen with their cute interactions and magnetic appeal for each other. You can just tell the two actors really like each other just through their body language and the way they interact. I never really felt that with Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst [especially in SPIDER-MAN 2 and definitely in SPIDER-MAN 3]. Garfield and Stone's attraction for each other gives their love story depth and bite. Plus they both played characters I could imagine meeting in real life, as they were three-dimensional. You believe these two kids want to be together, so you don't really care how they get there. That's some great acting because if the two actors had forced this angle, THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN would have been a total failure.

- CGI for Spider-Man. I thought the CGI was a mixed bag. But when Spider-Man was involved, I liked it. With Garfield actually doing mannerisms that resembled how a spider would move, the CGI helped it along during the action sequences. I thought the CGI for the character resembled the effects from SPIDER-MAN 3, looking pretty realistic and not so much as a cartoon like 2002's SPIDER-MAN. Practical effects are a hard sell for a film like this, so I'm glad the computer generated effects did the character justice.

- Stan Lee cameo. Probably his best one and pretty damn funny to boot. 'Nuff said.


MISSES
- The Lizard in general. I really hate putting The Lizard on the negative side of the review, because he's one of my favorite Spider-Man villains. The Lizard is one of Spider-Man's most classic foes and has a pretty simple backstory. THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN gives him a good backstory and how Curt Connors evolves into The Lizard is more than fine. Connors never comes across as evil until his metamorphosis takes shape. He also has lizards helping him, which is also a great nod to the comics and the 90s FOX cartoon [The Lizard was actually the villain in the pilot episode]. I thought The Lizard would be the perfect first villain for a new SPIDER-MAN franchise.

Unfortunately, I ended up being disappointed with how he was portrayed. Not that The Lizard was a terrible villain. He was alright. But he's just not that interesting and doesn't really add a whole lot to the main story other than being a typical villain for a superhero movie. The Lizard has a split personality with Curt Connors, which reminded me of Norman Osborn/Green Goblin [couldn't help but compare the two], but you never really saw it enough to become invested. Also, I like the idea of The Lizard wanting to create an army of mutated lizard-men like himself. But the angle never goes anywhere and I forgot about it until I saw the resolution for it. Plus, he doesn't get a whole lot of screen time to be honest. I felt more tension between Spidey and Captain Stacy more than I did between Spidey and The Lizard.

Plus, the CGI was okay at best for the character. I understand that practical effects would have looked worse, most likely, but The Lizard looked like he could have been in a SyFy Channel movie and not look out of place. It wasn't all that special really.

Like I said, I liked the choice of the villain. But I think more focus on The Lizard would have benefited the film greatly.

- The score. James Horner is a great film composer. He's done so much great stuff on TITANIC, ALIENS, FIELD OF DREAMS, and a couple of the earlier STAR TREK films. The man has a great body of work. Unfortunately, he's no Danny Elfman.

I think a lot of the reason why I felt a disconnect with THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN is due to Horner's score on the film. For a film that demanded dramatic cues and an edgier soundtrack, Horner's score was too subtle and quiet. And in a lot of scenes, I felt like the music didn't really match up to what I was watching, making me feel as if something was off. When I watch an action scene, I expect music that will be dramatic and energetic to enhance the visuals. Instead, all I got was muted music that belonged to some scene where a character would feel some sort of emotional connection to something or someone. How do those two things match? It was so odd. It was too soothing to get anyone into the scene. This isn't a romance movie like TITANIC. This if freakin' THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN. This film needed some strong composition to match up with the strong visuals.

It also didn't help that I heard cues from STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHAN without a single note being changed. That's just lazy, dude. It also made me wish I was watching that movie instead of this one on the big screen. James Horner has natural talent for this and should have done a better job than he did. I think his soundtrack ruined any feelings of excitement that I had for THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN. I just couldn't get into it and I believe this is why.

- Certain subplots. I thought the screenplay handled well what it needed to accomplish. However, I felt certain subplots were either rushed, or just ignored without any sort of resolution. While the mystery of Peter Parker's parents is the foundation of this new trilogy, it seems, I felt the film could have used more moments between the three of them. We don't really know the extent of their relationship or how close they were. They are glimpses shown, but I felt more could have been done. I hear a lot of those scenes were actually cut from the film, making me wonder how much of a focus Peter's parents had in earlier plans of the movie. I guess we'll find out more in later sequels.

The issue with the robber who murdered Uncle Ben also was a bit off to me. Peter was so hell bent on capturing this guy and beating the crap out of him, that he interrupted any crime that was occurring, just to see if this specific robber was involved. And while this subplot lasted a little over ten minutes, there really was no resolution for it. The guy never gets caught and Peter never gets justice for what this man did to his beloved uncle. I guess one could say that Peter realized that this sort of vengeance was wrong and needed to use his powers in a much better way, which is why he adopts the Spider-Man identity full time. But part of the Spider-Man mythos is Peter finding his uncle's murderer and realizing what his careless and selfish actions had led to. "With great power comes great responsibility." By the way, that very quote is never used in the film [it's said in a much different way with less impact] and the robber gets away with his crime. Huh?

I also had issues with how Aunt May was used. Instead of being Peter's moral compass, she didn't do much of anything once Uncle Ben was murdered. She scolded Peter and watched the news, worried about things. That's it. Even when Peter would come home every time with bruises and cuts, she looked concerned but didn't really dwell on it. Maybe in this trilogy, she realizes that Peter may be Spider-Man. I don't know. But it just seemed weird. At least have Aunt May offer to take Peter to the hospital or something.

Also, what happened to Rajit Ratha, one of Norman Osborn's suits? He had the regenerative serum [which was meant to cure Norman Osborn of some illness supposedly], planning to go to a Veteran's Hospital to test it out on amputees. But The Lizard stops him before he could do that. However, Ratha is never seen again. Obviously, he didn't go to the hospital since no one else turned into giant lizards. Maybe he gave the dose to Norman Osborn? It wasn't really clear.

Also, The Lizard's plan to turn people into lizards like him went absolutely nowhere. He turns several cops into lizards, and I'm thinking they'll be his army or something. But it never happens and only appear again when the effects where off. So what's the point then? It's cool that The Lizard's plan would have worked if Spider-Man and the Stacys didn't stop him. But why tease us like that and not go anywhere with it? It felt like an afterthought.

Obviously, there were a lot of ideas in the script that never got fleshed out for whatever reason.


THE FINAL HOWL

Man, I really wanted to like THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN more than I did. Spider-Man has been my favorite superhero since I can remember and I will watch, read, and support anything related to the character. And while THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN was a big improvement over SPIDER-MAN 3, it lacked the fun factor of SPIDER-MAN and the overall epicness of SPIDER-MAN 2. The score, the unfinished story arcs, and a generic villain let this film down. But with great acting [and chemistry between Garfield and Stone], a capable director in Marc Webb, and an origin story that keeps it closer to the source material while giving it a modern touch, THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN is still a good start and a decent enough foundation for a much better second installment and hopefully a worthy conclusion.

For those who are still against the existence of this film, I do believe a reboot was needed. Did it have to be this soon? That's debatable. The film wasn't as unnecessary than I thought it would be, but it didn't blow me away either. Stuck in between THE AVENGERS and THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN got the short straw. Still, I have a feeling it'll lead to some good things in the franchise's future. We'll find out in 2014.

SCORE

2.5 Howls Outta 4

The WTF? Worst Films Extravaganza Presents: The Omen (2006)

DIRECTED BY
John Moore

STARRING
Liev Schreiber - Robert Thorn
Julia Stiles - Katharine Thorn
David Thewlis - Keith Jennings
Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick - Damien Thorn
Mia Farrow - Mrs. Baylock
Pete Postlethwaite - Father Brennan
Giovanni Lombardo Radice - Father Spiletti
Michael Gambon - Bugenhagen

Genre - Horror/Thriller/Supernatural/Satanic

Running Time - 110 Minutes


PLOT
U.S. Deputy Ambassador to Italy Robert Thorn (Liev Schreiber) deals with personal tragedy as his wife Katharine (Julia Stiles) loses their baby on June 6. The news of the child's passing is kept from her, due to Robert feeling she wouldn't be able to take it since she really wanted a child. A priest at the hospital gives Robert an option: either tell Katherine the truth, or trade his stillborn son for a healthy one, whose mother had passed away during birth. Wanting his wife to be happy, Robert agrees to the trade and names their son Damien.

Five years pass, as Robert and Katharine are loving parents to Damien (Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick) in London, England. During Damien's 5th birthday party, his nanny decides to hang herself in front of all the guests. Stranger things continue to happen, as Damien freaks out on the way to church - as well as zoo animals acting scared of Damien. The Thorns hire a new nanny, Mrs. Baylock (Mia Farrow), to take care of the boy. Baylock knows who exactly Damien is, and plans on guiding him towards his destiny.

People continue to die around the Thorns, such as a scared priest (Pete Posthethwaite) who believes Damien is evil. Keith Jennings (David Thewlis), a journalist, has taken photos that show how certain people in their lives will die. After much investigation, Robert and Keith find out the truth: Damien is the anti-Christ and plans on taking over the world.

REVIEW

I have three words for THE OMEN (2006):

WHAT THE FUCK!?

HITS

- Some of the acting. While THE OMEN (2006) should have never been made [and I will get to that soon], at least it's held together by mostly a strong cast of actors. Liev Schreiber doesn't carry the presence or charisma that Gregory Peck did in the original film. But Schreiber is still a good actor and makes the most of playing Robert Thorn. He's watchable enough, but seems a bit miscast in the role. Julia Stiles handles herself better as Katharine. Lee Remick is still great in the original, but Stiles seems to care about the role and makes her dislike and fear of Damien pretty believable. I also like that the remake actually gives her character more to do in terms of Damien, allowing Stiles to play the character differently than Remick a bit.

David Thewlis is great as Keith Jennings. He plays the role just as good as David Warner did in the original. He's very charismatic in the role. Pete Postlethwaite does well as Father Brennan, although he wasn't given much to do but act desperate and scared. But he makes the role sympathetic. But the best actor was definitely Mia Farrow as Mrs. Baylock. Inspired casting, due to Farrow's iconic role in 1968's ROSEMARY'S BABY, Farrow has a ball playing the evil nanny for the son of Satan. She's one of the main reasons to even bother with this remake.

I can't hate on the acting all that much. Most of them had to live in the shadow of the other actors who played these iconic roles, but they leave unscathed and do their best with the material. Definitely a major highlight for a bland film.

- The direction. I had trouble whether to put this in the HITS or MISSES column, since the visual presentation was very 50/50 in my opinion. But I put it on the positive end because the direction by John Moore was competent enough. The film looks polished and nice [it should for $60 million] and it's visually pleasing. The CGI is handled well and some of the more action-laced scenes are done nicely. I also loved the dream sequences, that were very Stanley Kubrick in nature. These were very trippy and cool, adding much needed creepiness to the film. I thought these were the best visual moments of this remake.

And while the pacing is uneven as hell [the middle 'investigation' act drags on, putting me to sleep literally], the production design being too polished that the film ends up being less real than intended, some of the same shots being used like in the original, and the tension and suspense isn't as strong as it is in the original, I don't think the direction was all that terrible. Should it have been better? Absolutely. But the film has bigger problems than the visuals, so I'll put the direction in the middle of the spectrum for now.

- The story. While it's not that much different than the original [it pretty much uses the same screenplay as the 1976 version with subtle changes], David Seltzer [who also penned the original] still created an interesting story about good vs. evil. How can I hate the exact same story that worked in 1976 that still worked in 2006? I wish it was a bit different - maybe certain characters that lived in the original dying in the remake - or something that sets it apart from the film its based on. I do like the addition of dream sequences that involved Damien being at the center of them all. I also appreciated having Katharine dislike Damien once the strange things began to happen, feeling a disconnect from her own son. It gets worse when she becomes pregnant again and she wants an abortion, due to Damien's effect on her. It's sort of implied in the 1976 film, but we see it play out more here, which I appreciated quite a bit. It gave the character more to do and made her fear of Damien more real and convincing. Other than that, the narrative plays out exactly the same as the 1976 film. Obviously I think this is a huge issue that hurts this remake, but it's a good narrative. So again, I can't hate on the story it wants to tell.


MISSES
- It's pointless. On the flip side, not changing the narrative in a substantial way makes THE OMEN (2006) pointless as all hell. It's like that stupid PSYCHO remake - it's the same story, with the same characters, doing the exact same things within the same events. What's the point?

And while the narrative didn't change, other elements brought it down. While Schreiber and Stiles were good in their respective roles, they really had no chemistry with each other. For a loving married couple, they were colder than a popsicle. The 1976 THE OMEN gained its human strength from the chemistry of Peck and Remick, making you feel for them as they were tricked into adopting this evil child. You don't really get that here, as Schreiber plays it kind of cold and Stiles being more concerned about her fear for Damien. It may be the same story, but it changes the dynamics for the worse.

Also, there are no surprises to be had here. Sure, some deaths are a bit different here, but they're not necessarily better. If you've seen the original film, you know exactly what will happen here. Some moments are even shot-by-shot with the original. Who thought this was a good idea? I know this was made because some marketing genius saw "June 6, 2006 (06/06/06)" and felt it was the perfect date for a remake of THE OMEN. That's fine. I get that. But at least put some care into the product you're marketing! Change the script a bit. Give the characters new motivations or even different things to do that still fit within the same narrative. Using 9/11 [which I still feel is tacky] isn't the way to make THE OMEN modern to a demographic who may have never seen the original. Other remakes have used the same narrative as their originals and still managed to breathe some new life into those films. Look at THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (2003), HALLOWEEN (2007), and DAWN OF THE DEAD (2004). Even A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET (2010) and FRIDAY THE 13TH (2009) managed to do different things, while keeping the same story intact - and I wasn't even a big fan of those films. Hell, I would have taken a remake only by name over the exact same film as the one I've seen from 1976. At least it would have had more of a point than this film does.

- Less effective classic sequences. Again, here we have the exact same moments from the original play out the same way in the remake. Only this time, they're not as effective. The suicidal nanny scene in the remake doesn't effect me in the same way as it does in the original. It's still a good moment, but there's no "oomph" to it. The church scene was done better in the original. The zoo scene had more drama in the original. In the remake, it's missing tension. Katharine's fate is different, and not for the better. The original had a great exit for the character. Here, it's just whatever. Even the final act feels a bit off. I don't know what happened here. Was it the direction? The acting? Both? None? THE OMEN (2006) just felt stale and nothing felt powerful to me. That's not good.

- The score. Marco Beltrami tried to best Jerry Goldsmith here, but it doesn't work. The soundtrack just felt flat to me. I didn't think it was a complete mis-fire - some stuff was pretty good - but the film itself wasn't able to match up to what Beltrami was trying to do for it. With no visual tension or suspense, there was nothing for the score to enhance to a higher level. It's a shame.

- Damien Thorn. I won't blame young Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick for his portrayal as Damien. I'm sure it wasn't his fault that Moore directed him to look at emo as possible to portray "evil incarnate". But it's because of how he's visually portrayed that ruins the character for me in the remake.

In the original, Harvey Stephens played Damien as a normal kid who just happened to be evil. He was angelic and innocent looking, always smiling and acting like nothing was up. That made his character deep and interesting. Here in the remake, you know right away that this kid is evil as hell. He has an expressionless face and stares at people with menace and coldness. That makes him dull because he's one-dimensional now. Tension is gone. Suspense is no longer needed. He's just an evil kid, instead of an evil kid under the guise of an innocent little boy. For the main villain of the film, there's nothing interesting about Damien at all.


THE FINAL HOWL

THE OMEN (2006) is no substitute for the 1976 it's based on. This remake was only made because of a marketing idea, forgetting that it needed to entertain audiences at the same time. Even with decent acting, polished visuals, and a narrative that still works after all these years, there's nothing else worth watching this remake for. You're better off just watching a much superior movie from the 1970s than wasting your time on a modern take that happens to be the same as the old version but with a different crew. THE OMEN (2006) will sit in the WTF? Vault, where it can be in Hell with the rest of the crap that's been put there. Just a pointless remake - which may be the biggest movie sin of them all.

SCORE

1 Howl Outta 4

Jaws (1975)

DIRECTED BY
Steven Spielberg

STARRING
Roy Schieder - Police Chief Martin Brody
Richard Dreyfuss - Matt Hooper
Robert Shaw - Quint
Lorraine Gary - Ellen Brody
Murray Hamilton - Mayor Larry Vaughn

Genre - Thriller/Horror/Adventure/Drama/Sharks

Running Time - 125 Minutes


If you've noticed the new banner and different background, Summer 2012 on Full Moon Reviews has a theme: shark films. It's time I stepped into the dangerous waters and watch as many shark films as I can before September comes around. While not every film I review this summer will be related to sharks, they will be a major focus. I love shark films, good or bad, so this will be a fun little theme for me for the next two months. Hope you all enjoy the ride.

To begin this summer's theme, it wouldn't be right if I didn't start it with the reason why so many shark movies exist today. The inspiration to films, like DEEP BLUE SEA, the SHARK ATTACK franchise, and all those MEGA SHARK films by The Asylum, is a movie I have been wanting to discuss on this blog for a couple of years now. In fact, this film was my original choice for the 500th review [which ended up being THE WARRIORS instead], but was changed due to timing not being right for it. This film is associated with the summer film season, so it needs to be reviewed during the summer film season. After 37 years, the film still carries a ton of bite and a huge amount of love and fandom - proving it stands the test of time without much doubt. I think it's fitting that this film happens to be my 525th review, because that milestone deserves a film worthy of it. 1975's JAWS is that film. And while Martin Brody made me asking for a bigger boat, this Steven Spielberg classic still manages to sail quite proudly after so many years.

PLOT
The beach town of Amity, New York is about to celebrate its most popular time of the year - July 4th weekend with locals and tourists coming in to have fun. However, a few days before July 4th, a young woman swimming in the ocean is murdered by a shark attack. Police chief Martin Brody (Roy Schieder) finds the body washed ashore and wants to close the beach. The Mayor of Amity, Larry Vaughn (Murray Hamilton), doesn't agree. Vaughn wants Brody to keep quiet about the shark attacks in order for the festivities to still happen and build money for Amity, worrying that any knowledge will stop the important tourist season.

Brody reluctantly keeps the beach open, but is paranoid about another shark attack. Under his watch, two more attacks occur, which makes the community lose faith in Brody and forces Mayor Vaughn's hand in closing the beach and hunting down the shark. With the help of a rich oceanographer named Matt Hooper (Richard Dreyfuss) and a rugged boat captain named Quint (Robert Shaw), Brody sets sail into the ocean to hunt down the killer Great White - not realizing that the shark is really hunting them.

REVIEW

JAWS is considered a classic for multiple reasons. It's the first film to ever make over $100 million at the box office. It's the film that coined "summer blockbuster", for better or worse. It's the film that put a young director named Steven Spielberg on the map. It's the film that inspired many other shark, and sea animal related films for the past 37 years. And JAWS is still a classic because it's still that damn good.

JAWS is based on a 1974 Peter Benchley novel by the same name. I have never read the novel, but I hear it's a pretty dull book that Benchley [and co-writer Carl Gottlieb] improved upon in their screenplay for JAWS. I can't give my opinion on the novel, since I've never read it. But I can say that the screenplay for the film adaptation is simply fantastic and strong. It helps that the script is really told in two parts - each part having a different purpose and a different tone and feel.

The first half of JAWS is more of the thriller/horror portion of the film. Here, the shark attacks people, killing three. Police chief Brody knows that the beach is unsafe and warns everyone that will listen about the shark attacks. Yet, no one else seems to take it all that seriously until the situation gets worse. The local government, especially Mayor Vaughn, is in denial about the situation because he doesn't want it affecting tourism during the July 4th weekend - which is their most bankable weekend of the year. Brody's wife feels that he's overreacting and needs to calm down. When a shark is caught [proven to be a tiger shark instead of a Great White], the community automatically believes the threat is over, even when Brody [with Matt Hooper's urging] says they should open it up to see if they caught the right one. In a lot of ways, it plays out like The Boy Who Cried Wolf - where Brody has to struggle to make the community believe him. He doesn't get help when two boys use a fake fin to scare beach goers, the Mayor is persuading beach goers to go into the water so journalists could record footage for the evening news, or a piece of driftwood scares some fishermen who believe are being chased by a shark. We get a lot of character development for Brody during the first half of the film, along with some nice jump scares as well. It definitely has a nod to Alfred Hitchcock's thrillers, in how the narrative builds tension and suspense.

The second half is more of the adventure drama portion of JAWS. It's very much like 1851's Moby Dick - where Brody, Matt Hooper, and Quint are on a boat hunting down the Great White that seems more supernatural than it actually is. Personally, this is the best part of the film, as it allows for some strong character development and creates an extremely tense cat-and-mouse game between the three characters and this vicious shark. For a little more than an hour, the film takes place on a small boat with three people who couldn't be more different. Brody is the flawed working class hero trying to right the wrongs he made on land by helping to catch the menace at sea. Hooper is the rich guy who went to fancy schools and knows all about ocean life, using the opportunity to hunt the shark as a way to study it once it's caught. And Quint is the outsider of Amity - a gruff and rugged boat captain who likes to hunt and is quite eccentric and erratic at times. These three have the usual cliche differences, that cause them to see their current plan differently and creates strife and tension between themselves. But then they get drunk and start revealing their battle scars, which gives them a common foundation for future respect and friendship. We also learn a lot about the characters during this half, making them instantly likeable and sympathetic when not everyone makes it to the end. It also helps that the shark is also a major character itself, popping up unexpectedly and scaring not only the characters, but the audience, as it attacks the boat. This half plays out like a roller-coaster - starts out slow to build suspense and then goes all out by the climax, where the shark becomes a true threat. You totally get sucked in by the narrative.

JAWS also has some great moments that keep it iconic in terms of cinema. The first murder, even today, is one of the most famous scenes in any film. Watching Chrissie gets pulled under and then dragged in the ocean until the shark ends her life sets the tone for the rest of the film. Even today, I still find the scene tragic and sort of creepy, since this sort of thing could definitely happen out of the blue. Another great moment is during the first beach scene, where the little boy dies by the shark. Brody telling everyone to get out of the water has been used over and over again in many shark-related horror films since. And probably the most famous moment from JAWS is actually the first appearance of the shark on screen. Brody just throwing chum into the ocean while his back is turned to the water, as the shark leaps out to attack, scaring Brody. This leads to one of the most classic lines of dialogue in cinema - "We're gonna need a bigger boat." There's a lot of other ones as well, but these three are the most associated with JAWS.

Speaking of dialogue, the script is extremely well written. Each character speaks differently and what they say sounds realistic and believable. You actually believe these characters could exist in our world and what they say would be things you'd expect these characters to say. My favorite bit of dialogue is actually Quint's monologue during a drunken night on the boat. In one of the more quieter scenes, Quint reveals why he's erratic and eccentric, as he was in World War II near the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - upset that the government didn't give his squad intel about what they were planning. It's a truly revealing scene and it's written so damn well. You're totally captivated by what Robert Shaw is saying as Quint, making you understand why he acts the way he does. It explains his previous and later behavior - even when he does stupid things, you still feel for the guy. That's the sign of great screenwriting.

The special effects of JAWS really helped Steven Spielberg direct a much better film than he had planned at first. And by special effects, I mean the problems they had with all the mechanical sharks planned for the film. It's well known that Spielberg had issues with the fake sharks not working the way they should have, forcing changes in how the shark was going to be used visually in the film. I will get into how this effected his direction in the next part of the review. But the shark we do see in the film looks great and realistic, totally making the entire scenario extremely believable. You wouldn't think it moved or acted mechanically at all. And the gore is pretty good as well. We get some blood and even a few chewed up body parts as well. Can't complain at all.

Steven Spielberg, directing his first blockbuster here [although he directed the popular 1971 feature, DUEL], proves here why he's still a force in Hollywood today. Spielberg crafts a psychological thriller here, using the lack of working sharks to his advantage by keeping the shark a complete mystery for more than half of the film before unveiling "Bruce" 81 minutes in. The lack of a visual shark builds a ton of tension and suspense, as the terror is unseen and in the shadows for much of the film's running time. The first person angles really help the audience use their imaginations and wonder what this shark may look like and gives us its perspective. Even when the shark does appear, he doesn't really become all that visible until the last few minutes of the film. Even though Spielberg planned to use the shark in a more visible way at the beginning, the special effects flaw worked in his, and the film's, favor. JAWS proves that "less is more" totally works when it comes the villainous force.

Spielberg also does well in terms of pacing, as the film never feels like its two-hour run-time, feeling much shorter. This is due to the build of tension that Spielberg excels at and the wonderful character development he allows to play out for the audience to bond with the characters. The editing is tight as well [the editing during the first beach scene is just wonderful], and Bill Butler's cinematography is fantastic, as they are a ton of beautiful shots, compositions, and framing that reveal a ton of information without saying much at all. Plus without John William's iconic score for the shark, JAWS wouldn't be as effective as it is. The shark's theme gives it its menacing character - something later horror films would use to create effective villains and moments of their own.

Also, Spielberg did well in getting rid certain side plots from the novel. One of the more controversial ones, Matt Hooper having an affair with Brody's wife, was taken out completely. Keeping this out of the film allows the characters to be more likeable and maintain the focus on where it should be - the terror of the shark and how it effects the people in the community. JAWS launched Spielberg's career, and it's interesting to wonder how it would effected cinema if it was a bomb. Would we get CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND? E.T.? SCHINDLER'S LIST? Luckily we never have to wonder because Spielberg directs the hell out of this movie.

The acting is also fantastic. Roy Schieder, who had received an Oscar nomination for 1971's THE FRENCH CONNECTION prior to JAWS, keeps the film together as Police Chief Martin Brody. He brings this calmness to the film, even during the more intense moments, that gives him a ton of cinematic presence. He gives a lot of humanity to a typical main character, making Brody a regular guy who is flawed and likeable. Richard Dreyfuss is energetic and intelligent as Martin Hooper, bring the voice of the audience. He also brings some of the more comedic moments, which help lighten the mood. This is one of his better performances for sure. Robert Shaw is just fantastic as Quint. Playing opposite of Dreyfuss, Quint steals every scene he's in and brings the awesomeness as a mentally disturbed sailor who is obsessed with hunting down the Great White. His delivery is just brilliant, and he even wrote the monologue I mentioned earlier [the WWII one about the USS Indianapolis being torpedoed and how the survivors in the water were picked off one-by-one by sharks] that is a major highlight of the film. He brings a sense of realness and vulnerability to the role that makes him quickly sympathetic. Shaw deserved an Oscar nomination for this role, yet didn't get a mention. We also have good performances by Murray Hamilton as the flawed Mayor Vaughn, and Lorraine Gary as Ellen Brody - who would return for two sequels. Just a great cast that helped build a classic piece of cinema.

THINGS I'VE LEARNED WHILE SPRAYING SHARK REPELLENT BEFORE ENTERING THE OCEAN

- Chrissie was manhandled around the water by a shark. Obviously our finned friend is not John Travolta because there wasn't any sort of happy ending.

- Brody found Chrissie's body covered in crabs. It's going to be embarrassing for her family to have the entire community of Amity learn what a big promiscuous slut she was.

- Some guys tried to catch the shark by feeding it meat, which it ate but left uncaught. Hmmm, maybe the shark is John Travolta...

- The mother of the dead boy blamed Brody for her son's death, due to his knowledge of previous shark attacks. I'm sure this will make Brody feel guilty and ALL THAT JAZZ.

- Mayor Vaughn, only seeing dollar signs, ignored Brody and Hooper's pleas, keeping the beach open on July 4th. There's nothing more American than getting eaten by a shark, next to getting famous from a sex tape. This Great White and Kim Kardashian are one and the same - and both need to be stopped!

- Brody, Hooper, and Quint hunted down the Great White on a boat called The Orca. This boat was so envious of the shark's attention that it decided to do its own killing two years later.

...Oh, that was an actual orca? Eh, my version's probably better.

- The shark attacked the boat while Brody, Hooper, and Quint were singing. looks like we have our new judge for American Idol...

THE FINAL HOWL

What can I say that hasn't already been said about JAWS? It's a masterpiece from beginning to end, and has inspired more shark and aquatic monster films than I can count. It's an excellent thriller, with great performances, suspenseful and tense directing, and a strong narrative with stronger characters that the audience will relate with. JAWS is the blueprint on how future summer blockbusters would be filmed, for better or for worse. Still, after 37 years later, this movie still entertains the hell out of me and is still one of the best thrillers out there. Definitely worth swimming in the water for, without a doubt.

SCORE

4 Howls Outta 4