but listening to the Delerue's main titles, you'd think you were about to see a rapturous love story, not a goofy Tom Selleck flick. thank God for the London Sessions CD that contains a track.

okay, I'm done.

Some of the best scores are written for really poor movies.

At the same time, every time the picture tried to up the ante -- TWO T-Rexes, a HERD of raptors -- I still couldn't bring myself to care. I was petrified by the original T-Rex, and completely unmoved by the appearance of two. There was something uncommitted about the whole thing, just a sense that Spielberg wanted to play with some new toys ... I think he felt crowded by the success of SCHINDLER'S LIST, which is why it took him four years to direct again; he probably knew he'd get critically slaughtered no matter WHAT he did, so he figured "what the hell, a sequel." (He also had AMISTAD already set up, so it could look like he followed the inevitably popular, but critically murdered movie with something "artistic." I also wondered if he was trying to duplicate, in 1997, the same one-two 1993 punch of JURASSIC PARK and SCHINDLER'S LIST.) And I think it was brave of him to return to a genre piece in the wake of his Holocaust epic: frankly, he's setting an example of a sort. Genre isn't inherently bad. Hell, Kurosawa is regarded as one of the greatest artists in the field, and people forget that A LOT of his movies were basically GENRE pieces, as far as the Japanese public was concerned.

As for the score to THE LOST WORLD: Once again, I think a lot of people fail to realize how SUBTLE a composer John Williams really is. Yes, his stuff sounds big and anthemic, and sometimes he and Spielberg go for a "big feeling" that isn't necessarily appropriate. But it's the HUGE themes that resound in people's minds, because Williams is one of those composers whose themes are INDELIBLE -- to quote a piece written as early as 1980 (perhaps earlier), "they don't come out in the wash" -- you CAN'T get them out of your head. Williams has a particular genius for this frankly unrivaled in the field. And as a consequence, the great subtlety and nuance of nearly all his writing gets utterly ignored. THE LOST WORLD isn't a great movie, obviously, but the virtuosity of it impressed me when I caught it again on TV -- and, speaking again of Williams, I LOVED his sneaky little interpolations of Max Steiner's KING KONG (mainly the Skull Island motif.)

Okay, getting back on topic, bad movies with good scores: John Barry's THE WHITE BUFFALO and STARCRASH (weirdly enough, STARCRASH sounds more of a preview for DANCES WITH WOLVES than BUFFALO does); Ennio Morricone's THE ISLAND and EXORCIST II (both movies I actually love, but they're in the "guilty pleasure" category); Akira Ifukube's BARAN; Jerry Goldsmith's (fill in the blank, he's got a ton of em -- THE SWARM, MEDICINE MAN, a jillion more.) KRULL is a movie that objectively isn't very good, but I enjoy, and of course James Horner's amazing score fills a lot of the void. (He said, "I saw a lot of potential in the rough cut -- but that turned out to be the version set for release.")

Marian, re JP3: My only worry about it is that Joe Johnston is a no-talent as a director. A fine special effects guy, but NONE of his pictures to date has worked, in my humble. On the other hand, from a plot point of view, I kind of wonder how they're going to up the ante THIS time. T-Rexes in space? Raptors duking it out atop the Sears Tower? You gotta wonder. It MIGHT be exciting. I know I'll see it, no matter what.

Oh yes, Kris and kompany, re Malcom's reappearance in the novel of "The Lost World": he was most definitively killed at the end of the original "Jurassic Park" book, it was just that Spielberg kept him alive in the movie, so Crichton had to backtrack in order to make the novel saleable, I guess. He is such a cynical hack. (I apologize in advance to his fans, of which I know there are many, but that's precisely what he is. He wasn't always, but I believe he is today. Sorry.)

CUTTHROAT ISLAND, LOST IN SPACE, THE AVENGERS, SUPERGIRL, STAR TREK V, THE SHADOW,
LOGAN'S RUN...I would throw in DEEP BLUE SEA, but that's a major guilty pleasure.

Chase&August, Joe Johnston isn't an incompetent, but I've been little impressed so far. THE ROCKETEER, in particular, had some awesome visual opportunities that weren't properly explored. (IMHO. Hmm, I should just change my handle to IMHO.)

NP: nothing, but John Barry's KING KONG is at the top of the stack at my elbow ... that's a signal of some kind ...

Gotta agree with most of the above--Barry has said yes to some questionable stuff to say the least and blown it away with great scoring.

In any case, there are more wretched films with great scores than great films with wretched scores.

Supergirl - Jerry Goldsmith
The Black Hole - John Barry
Star Trek: TMP - Jerry Goldsmith
Hamlet - Patrick Doyle
Battle Beyond the Stars - James Horner

Regards,
Sean Robert Abbey

I didn't think it was a terrific movie, but I was in awe of some of the acting. You mentioned Walken and Oldman, but what about Dennis Hopper, Bronson Pinchot, Saul Rubinek, Tom Sizemore, Chris Penn, and the then completely unknown James Gandolfini? Brad Pitt was funny as hell in his little role, as well. I'm not mentioning Val Kilmer because we barely saw him (his face appears in the trailer, but never really in the movie). A huge huge cast (God, I just remembered Samuel L. Jackson's in it too, for a minute -- who's NOT in it?), all of them doing better work, in some cases, than the script even would have suggested. (Walken and Hopper, in particular, made their scene a LOT better than it was the way it was written. I've read the script, yes. They brought a real humor to it, while Quentin was merely trying to be shocking and wiseass.)

mine would have to be Dragonheart. Terrible movie...great score..I did really like Draco though.

dave

"Don't believe everything you read!"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andre Lux:

Dr. Malcolm was obviously dead at the end of the "Jurassic Park" novel (which is a fine novel BTW, much better than the weak movie).

---

Though I too enjoyed THE MUMMY (1999), perhaps a movie that can’t be FULLY appreciated by the majority on its first viewing, fails for that very reason.

Ask yourself this, how many people are willing to give a movie more than one chance?

My comments about THE MUMMY, aimed at you SBD, do seem to come across as rather abrupt….that wasn’t my intention….apologies SBD, if that’s how you saw my remarks.

You make a fair point when you say THE MUMMY can only be FULLY appreciated after repeated viewings. I agree, and the same is true of many many other movie favourites, and some APPARENTLY ‘lesser’ movies too.

What I was trying to say, badly, was that THE MUMMY is an example of a ‘good’ and superficially entertaining film that ALSO has so much going on, that it may not be fully appreciated on its first viewing. And, there are obviously a lot of people who have taken great pleasure in viewing THE MUMMY many times, not least because of Goldsmith’s excellent score.

The trouble is, if you didn’t like the movie the first time, and not everyone did like THE MUMMY, you are far less likely to watch it again than if you did fall in love with it on the first viewing.

Still, it does happen. I remember seeing THE LAST ACTION HERO when it was released and not thinking a great deal of it. However, I watched it again recently, and realized just how good it really was….in my opinion. Some have said the same about THE SHADOW.

And my final point is, no matter how subtle and deep a movie is, if it doesn’t HOOK the majority of the audience in some way on its first viewing, then maybe it has fundamentally failed.

I’m sure there are many good or/and intelligent movies about that simply failed because they didn’t incorporate a superficial hook or veneer. Likewise, there are many very poor and unintelligent movies around (depending on your own opinion) that have succeeded at the box office mainly because of the superficial hook….it’s the same with music; many would cite some pop music as an example.

But, like I say, THE MUMMY is a great example of what we are talking about. It’s very popular, though not with everyone of course. It’s superficially charming, which explains its instant mass appeal and box office success. The movie has more than enough material to satisfy the viewer on repeated viewings….if that is your bent. AND, I’m sure that there will be some people who warm to THE MUMMY on the second viewing, even if they didn’t ‘like’ it the first time round, because there is, arguably, a lot to be uncovered on repeated viewings.

The difficulty is, persuading the sceptic to give the movie another chance. I would never have watched THE LAST ACTION HERO again by choice…it was only because the grandkids wanted to see it. Just think, I would never have discovered the hidden depths lurking in the shadows of THE LAST ACTION HERO, in my opinion.

So I'm just wondering what the "undercurrents" might be. (I'm tempted to rent the DVD, just to hear the whole score, but I'd also give the movie another look; it's well-produced and well-performed, and I'm sort of curious to see WHY it grossed some $400 million worldwide. Mere promotion does not always lead to such numbers. Even Hollywood types were startled at how well it did.)

I'm particularly interested in this support for THE MUMMY in the face of your own, Mr. 2's, mention of LAST ACTION HERO (not "The" Last, oddly enough), which I loved as a simultaneously sly and bombastic sendup of action pictures as they'd become at the time. Watching it a second time, the pace is lumpy and there are too many scenes that don't really matter (director John McTiernan loves to top-load his material), but parts of it are just hysterical. I haven't seen THE SHADOW again, but I remember being favorably impressed with some of its weirder touches (in particular the fate of Shiwan Khan -- Goldsmith's subtly satirical treatment of his theme in this scene is my favorite part of the whole score.)