Book review - "The Andromeda Strain" by Michael Crichton

 Admire it. Never been huge fan. Great opening - the town wiped out - and ending - ticking clock. In between it's a medical drama, trying to figure out what caused the illness. Tremendous sense of realism though. You can see why it was a sensation.

Book review - "Disclosure" by Michael Crichton

 I appreciate all the research that went into creating the computer program and it's not Crichton's fault it was about CD Roms which became obsolete. But I hated all the characters. 

Also Meredith the baddy - I get she wanted to bring Sanders on side. But she's a psycho - to try to seduce him then assault him. Here she's seducing him for leverage but she also does it at other firms, is that right.

I'm not sure middle aged white men who've been divorced a bunch of times and are multi millionaires shouldn't write books about sexual harassment. 

The book does hold as a story, just a regular corporate melodrama. It's long - a lot of the interrogations, cross examinations and editing could have been trimmed. As per the editorial about how tough it is men can't pick up kids in the bath. 

Movie review - "Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom" (2018) **1/2

 Look, not a great movie - as pointed out by Honest Trailers it copies the structure of The Lost World, continually references back to film #1 (and the Alien franchise), and the characters are just types. Also it's not as fun to see dinosaurs running amok in a mansion as opposed to an island or a city.

But the action is well staged and consistent; it doesn't pause. I found the subplot about the girl realising she was cloned quite effective. 

I wish they'd kill some of these raptors with poisoned eggs, like in the book. 

Book review - "Jurassic Park" by Michael Crichton (1990)

 Crichton's masterpiece. It's got everything - a big concept, a world that is well thought out (he fleshes out the theme park more than he could do in Westworld), fantastic sequences. Crichton's description of action wasn't always the best in his novels but it is here - it must be because he wrote it first as a screenplay. The initial attack of the T Rex, the aviary sequence, Grant poisoning eggs to kill raptors...

The violence is quick, brutal, terrifying. The films were so jokey in comparison.  I wish they'd do a film with the violence and terror of this, and the intelligence. You can't aruge with success though.

Movie review - "Jurassic World" (2015) **1/2 (rewatching)

 I respect the money this film made. It passes the time. Decent effects. But it's silly. So light. Dinosaurs on a rampage and no one seems to care. Chris Pratt camps it up as does Bryce Dallas Howard. Lauren Lupkus and Jake Johnson play it too light. That kid Nick Robinson is a sulky teen.

I just didn't like it. 

Good to have the park up and running though. 

Movie review - "Jurassic Park 3" (2001) **

 Written a few weeks before filming and you can tell. No characters are intresting. No relationships. Sam Neill is professional but his relationship with Alessandra Nivola is dull, as is Nivola (with a backpack, come on). Tea Leoni and William H Macy never seem like they were married or parents, the kid is dull, no support characters. Why no decent villains?

They could've just had Laura Dern looking for Sam Neill or vice versa.

Decent effects. You can see the money on screen. 

Movie review - "Dealing: Or the Berkeley-to-Boston Forty-Brick Lost-Bag Blues" (1972) **

 Annoying. Dull. What's the point. Is it a comedy, a drama? Not much story.

The highlight is Barbara Hershey taking her top off. But she's a manic pixie dream girl. Robert Lyons is one of those early 70s leading men who got chances because they looked counter cultural. 

John Lithgow is fun as a drug dealing Harvard musical theatre director. 

Perks up at the end when corrupt cop Charles Durning comes in and Cubans and violence. 

Utterly weird Michael Crichton co wrote this original novel but he was actually a little counter cultural around this time with his pro Choice Case of Need and X rated Extreme Close Up. 

Book review - "Congo" by Michael Crichton (1980)

 Fast paced, exciting, silly: talking gorillas, killer gorillas, great stuff. There's a mercenary role for Sean Connery, a hard tough talking woman, a nerdy guy, some porters to be killed. Plenty of science gobbledygook. Entertaining.

Movie review - "The Andromeda Strain" (1971) **1/2

 Starts brilliantly with tremendous design and style. Don't mind lack of stars. Making one of the scientistists a woman was a good move especially as she has a sense of humour. But then it bogs down in chat - it's too faithful. Staring at screens. Chat, chat, chat. 

Terrific last twenty minutes. But the film is over two hours. I felt sorry for that baby crying all the time.

I wonder if this movie is why Sphere the film was so faithful - "well The Andromeda Strain did it and that worked well." 

Movie review - "Rising Sun" (1993) **

 Stylishly directed by Phil Kaufman, who likes a bit of female nudity in a good cause and that's on display here. Michael Crichton didn't like the changes Kaufman made to his book - I haven't read it for a while. It's a whatever mystery with some nudity and 90s silliness (Wesley Snipes shakes Japanese by escaping to the hood).

Snipes and Sean Connery bring a lot of star power. Ray Wise is entertainingly sleazy and Tia Carrere is sweet. Kevin Anderon's bouffy hair is entertaining. Cary Tagawa is always reliable.

The mystery isn't very involving. The stuff on the Japanese take over of the economy has been stripped so there's not much point. The film got dumber as it went on. It was as though Kaufman was a little too cool for school adapting this. 

I didn't really like it. Connery and Snipes are both genuine stars though. That helps. 

Book review - "Eaters of the Dead" by Michael Crichton (1976)

 Brief, tight, fascinating, clever. I wonder if influenced by Flashman. Not good at action. Strong on atmosphere. A lot of raping. The vikings can get rooted really.

Easy to see how to adapt - make more of the characters of the Arab and a few Vikings, use the kingdom political subplot, have some women. These weren't done. 

Movie review - "Timeline" (2003) *

 Awful. Two main problems (a) an awful ensemble acting job, led by hey dude Paul Walker, and (b) completely unbelievable depiction of the medieval period. 

For (a) - there's all these talented actors running around in medieval gear going "hey hey hey" as if they've improvised. Walker plays it completely surfer dude, not that interested going back in time just looking for his dad.

For (b) the middle ages just look like... a theme park. And we're meant to go for the French? I'm sure the French did.

Michael Sheen camps it up. Frances O'Connor goes down with the ship, as does everyone really except maybe Lambert Wilson.  Billy Connolly seems absurd. So does Ethan Embry. Could they have not found a French actor to play Anna Friel's part?

Awful. 

Movie review - "Sphere" (1998) **

 The movie that kicked off Barry Levinson's cold streak which he never really got out of. It's a too faithful adaptation of Crichton's decent novel - far too much chat and chapter headings, not enough plain old spookiness and thrills.

Too much computer screen - why not make Jerry a voice? 

Everyone is trying to do a professional job. There is money spent. Production design neat. I'm glad the actors got their full fee.

But it's so dull. 

Chat, chat, chat, chat. 

Movie review - "The 13th Warrior" (1999) **1/2

 Michael Crichton's hot streak in the 1990s - which included Jurassic Park, Disclosure, The Lost World, ER, Airframe - came to a halt with this big budget flop. In hindsight they made a mistake throwing too much money at this story which didn't have to be done on a large scale.

I'm not a fan of slow movies but this one moves along too fast - for instance, it would have been ideal to spent a bit of time with Banderas in Persia before setting out on his journey (why not dramatise him shagging the married woman that led to his exile?). Him being enlisted to go on the journey with the vikings is skirted over - why not dramatise it? Why not have some variation in the characters of the vikings? Why not flesh out the character of the slave girl Banderas sleeps with? 

Decent action. Gorgeous production design. Banderas ideal.

Movie review - "Disclosure" (1994) **

 So 90s. Sexual harasment. Michael Douglas. Demi Moore. Hair. Political correctness. Big Clothes. Open plan offices. Tech that has aged badly (CD-roms!)

It's meant to be about sexual harasment but really it's corporate intrigue - the same way Airframe was about the media but really corporate intrigue. 

It has two perfectly cast stars - Douglas and Moore - doing specialised things - white man attacked by predatory female and a strong willed woman. Dylan Baker and Donald Sutherland are superb slimebags. Roma Maffia is good as Douglas' lawyer. Caroline Goodall does what she can in a hopeless part as the wife.

But it's talky and daggy. The best bit is when Demi Moore tried to seduce Douglas. There'a reference to their skanky past which sounded fun.

Generally this film sucks though. 

Movie review - "Lost World: Jurassic Park" (1997) ***

 Gets a bad wrap but I quite liked it - it's a stripped back B picture version with everyone doing it for a pay cheque. There's fast pace and excellent action movies with a last act in San Diego for Spielberg to do his Godzilla homage.

It's fun in a way to see two excellent actors, Vince Vaughan and Julianne Moore, so awkward in Spielberg world, Goldblum gets to be heroic, Richard Schiff dies gorily. we miss out on a death for Vaughan and Pete Postlethwaite.

Movie review - "Jurassic Park" (1993) ***1/2

 I've never been a huge fan of this. I recognise it's loved. Just seems to be Spielberg going through the motions - stock angles, John Williams. Laura Dern shows her legs, Sam Neill wears a hat, Jeff Goldblum adds some life.

It picks up once the TRex goes on the rampage - a genuinely strong sequence. The ending with the raptors is a little underwhelming. Pulls punches for Richard Attenborough who is too cuddly.

Fine effects. Bob Peck a little campy. Jeff Goldblum doesn't do that much he gets knocked out quite quick. The kids offer stakes. 

Book review - "Airframe" by Michael Crichton (1996)

 Entirely decent mystery-thriller investigating an airplane accident - only a few people died which feels relatively tame so the stakes are raised by having the airline wanting to sell to China and a woman must investigate what's going on. Plenty of authentic seeming research into airlines - wings and stuff and what goes wrong. Crichton seems more alive in bagging the media who are doing a hit piece on it - they're doing their job, mate, but he's obsessed with the old days when the media supposedly reported what happened and didn't rush to judgement or something. Well, things weren't going to get better, Mike! And the plane company does have dodgy people in it.

The baddie is a female producer - who like the female hero has a fuck buddy. I guess this is Mike being progressive?

It moves at a fast pace, the corporate intrigue is clever, it's a solid yarn.

Movie review - "The Great Train Robbery" (1978) ***

 Unsurprisingly faithful to the book although there are a few changes - things that were worked out on the page have to be brought into dialogue, there's a bigger part for the mistress of the hero, less reference to sex with twelve year olds and Victorian slang, the final capture is accelerated, there's less analysis of the society.

Because Crichton's characters were so weak his films depended on casting more than others - he was lucky to have Sean Connery here as the arch thief. Lesley Anne Downe is sexy as his girlfriend though her role is pretty much just "sexy". Donald Sutherland does his best as the second lead. 

There is pleasing period detail, decent production value and that's really Connery at the end on the train, ducking his head under. The cleverness of the story worked better on the page - this has some of the life drained (could not Crichton have done more with Connery's minion, Barlow? I wish George Lazenby had played this part)

Still, totally fine. 

Movie review - "The Terminal Man" (1974) **1/2

 Michael Crichton hoped to direct this adaptation of his novel but Warners decided not to, giving the job to the more experienced Mike Hodges. Hodges is clearly a better director than Crichton - his work is full of style and confidence.

I had read Crichton's original adaptation was not faithful enough so they changed it - this isn't that faithful. It completely downplays the character of the handsome male doctor who tries to chase the killer at a hanger and gets wounded (a memorable sequence). Also the ending bit in the book,  a terrific sequence in the hospital, becomes one where George Segal falls in a grave and the lead lady is never in danger.

Joan Hackett is okay as the physiciatrist - a better part in the book. Segal is excellent - his manic quality works well. Other characters from the book who were vivid - the scientis behind the whole thing who had various ailments, the whiz kid computer nerds - are not here.

It's like an interesting cover version of the novel rather than a faithful adaptation. not as good as the book.