Chaplin (1992)

Director: Richard Attenborough

Cast: Robert Downey Jr., Dan Aykroyd, Geraldine Chaplin, Kevin Dunn

Have I Seen It Before: There was a stretch there in the early 2000s where I likely ran my VHS copy into sputtering dust from repeated viewings. But then, I’ll admit, I was sort of a strange kid. While I surely tried to keep the man Chaplin in my head when I was writing both The Devil Lives in Beverly Hills and parts of The Once and Future Orson Welles, but it would be hard to deny that a bit of this movie didn’t leak in there around the edges.

Did I Like It: But that may be the central problem with the film. I still enjoy it, but I do wonder if the whole experience rang hollow for many (and I can see now how it might be that way for some) because Chaplin himself is an unknowable figure, and therefore maybe not the best subject for a biopic. His contemporaries didn’t really know him. Attenborough and the screenwriters never really attained the level of understand for which they may have strived, hence the soft dramatic structure* of the film being a conversation between Chaplin (Downey) and the editor of his autobiography (Anthony Hopkins, never quite looking like he is doing anything other than doing Attenborough a favor). Even Chaplin himself never seemed to really know himself, as the filmmakers can’t help but note that his autobiography** is a prolonged attempt to dodge connection with the reader. Even Downey only seems to understand the man in fits and starts, although even that might be a bit of subterfuge hidden behind the confidence and craft on display.

That’s what we’re left with, unfortunately. A hagiographic survey which tries to re-create decades old comedy, but done well with Downey’s skill so it isn’t an embarrassing display of mimicry. That, and a John Barry score which sounds like it was taken from rejected tracks for a Bond score. 

*And to have a dramatic structure at all does put it above the larger pack of biopics. I’m looking in your direction, Napoleon (2023).

Magic (1978)

Director: Richard Attenborough

Cast: Anthony Hopkins, Ann-Margret, Burgess Meredith, Ed Lauter

Have I Seen it Before: Never. A Cabin movie, but one I only pushed for after seeing Siskel and Ebert (mostly; Roger had some reservations) about it on and old episode of their show).

Did I Like It: Yes, to a point. Hopkins is exceptionally effective as both ventriloquist and dummy, made all the better as before The Silence of the Lambs (1991), he didn’t feel the need to play “Anthony Hopkins, certified movie maniac.” This is a role which—had it been made after Lambs—would have lent itself to a typical Hopkins schtick. It’s a shame that all too often he has to play similar characters now, but there is not an ounce of self-consciousness here. For someone who made large parts of his fame and fortune off of the personae of a gleeful killer, it is an interesting counterpoint to see him play someone who is as horrified—if not more so—than the audience by the increasing violence in his life. He even manages to evoke a pretty competent ventriloquist, which is no mean feat for someone who hasn’t spent years training for that type of performance. I’ll allow for the possibility that some of this was accomplished via ADR, so at worst, the sound editors did a superlative job. Burgess Meredith and Ann-Margret do end up playing only slight variations on their established screen personae, but I would be hard pressed to say having them around in a movie hurts the proceedings

The plot, however, is where I’m left with something of bad taste in my mouth. There’s the final moments when Peggy (Margret) returns to the cabin, which feels too cute of an ending for my taste, but I’m willing to forgive that. I think the moment might have been more effective had we seen her re-enter the Cabin (and just before she could give voice to her horror) or just before she started saying anything and we see her walking into the cabin might have been more effective.

What I really have a problem with is two scenes that are positively load-bearing on the plot. In the key encounter where Greene (Meredith) tells Corky that if he can go without the dummy for five minutes, then he doesn’t need help, Corky can’t make it thirty seconds, indicating an undercurrent of compulsion in his psychosis. Later on, Corky takes a ride in a fishing boat with Duke (Ed Lauter) and can go without Corky for several scenes which are just as harrowing and stressful for the man. The plot is double dealing, and even if I could blame only William Goldman*, but Attenborough was certainly within his rights to make even the psychotic logic of that a little more cogent.

*Man, between this and my review for The Princess Bride (1987), these reviews are quickly becoming a microcosm of a feud with Goldman. I probably need to cleanse the system and take in Misery (1990) as quickly as possible.

Jurassic Park (1993)

Director: Steven Spielberg

Cast: Sam Neill, Laura Dern, Jeff Goldblum, Richard Attenborough

Have I Seen It Before?: I mean, I’m a child of the 90s and I like movies. How would I have gotten through my life without this movie?

Did I like it?: It’s only gotten better over the years.

I came to a revelation during my recent review for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008). With this film, Spielberg exorcised most of the populist impulses that had made his career. Sure, you have this film’s sequel, The Lost World (1997), and the aforementioned fourth Indiana Jones film, but those both seemed like chores Spielberg relented to, rather than films he was that interested in making. Double that sentiment for Ready Player One (2018). Perhaps he was indulging a return to form with the animated The BFG (2016), but I’ll let you know when I get around to seeing it.

But what a valedictory run this is. Every element works and became the standard for blockbuster movies to the present. The special effects have mostly not aged in over 25 years. I say that, but what I mean is that the physical effects (mostly by Stan Winston) still look like real things, which will keep this film working decades from now. The leading-edge computer images fare a little less well. Large tableaus of dinosaurs interacting with (read: eating) each other work pretty well, but any time ILM uses their tools to venture into the undiscovered country of the close-up, or if their sprites and polygons deign to interact with humans, the seams begin to show. It’s hard to be too critical of either Spielberg or the movie for this, as they were trying things that had never been tried before. However, with the knowledge that George Lucas saw this film and decided his own technology had finally elevated to the point where he could go back and make his long-gestating Star Wars prequels, well… the judgment of movie history might have

My wife points to this as John Williams best score, and I’m at a loss to argue the point. I’m also at a loss to come up with a theme that Williams has written since that was as memorable as the march he concocted with this movie. Everybody behind the scenes was going for broke here, it seems.

And yet the thing I am most tickled by during this, quite possibly my 100th viewing of the film—are the non-tech questions. The movie may be peak-Jeff Goldblum, and even when his character, Ian Malcolm, is vacillating quickly between smarm and snark, one can’t help but be amused by him. The movie might have worked had it just been him, and if Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018) had gone for that, it might have been a lot more satisfying.