Swingers was a fun little ?talky?. If you agree with that, you will probably at least moderately enjoy Made, like I did. If you?re one of the disciples who believe it to be the best film ever, like the gentleman who proclaims on the imdb that ?this film is so laid back it?s horizontal,? you don?t need me to tell you Made is worth your money; you probably traveled to NY just to see it first, you freak. What kept me from loving Swingers like some did was the way the whole film relied on Vaughn?s and Favreau?s chemistry to work. Take away the fact that they work very well together onscreen and Swingers is nothing but a movie quote for Bracket Battles: ?You?re so money!?

The actors? personas worked in Swingers because Favreau is a natural at playing whiners while Vaughn?s six-foot-plus frame and his big mouth naturally engender overbearing, controlling characters. Their characters in Made follow the same lines; Favreau is the pouty boyfriend of a stripper and Vaughn is his chatterbox tag-along friend. What doesn?t work is the predicaments Vaughn?s character sinks them into over and over again.

Bobby (Favreau) wants to help his girlfriend Jessica (Famke Janssen) get out of the stripping business. To do so, he goes to Max, the Mob boss who gives him occasional work (Peter Falk), and signs on to fly to NY and act as ?muscle? for an associate of Max?s named Ruis (Sean Combs, obviously not wanting to be the last rap star to crossover into film). The hitch, and item upon which all of the film?s humour is based? Bobby brings along his friend Ricky (Vaughn). And therein lies the problem. I know this is a comedy, and comedies aren?t supposed to be based on plausibility, but the amount of idiocy Bobby, Ruis and Max put up with from Ricky is just silly. It wouldn?t be any more ludicrous if Bobby?s friend were a cross-dressing midget. Alright, it would be a BIT more ludicrous. . . Please don?t take this to mean that Vaughn is not funny in Made. He is quite often hilarious, especially when there is little action going on and the characters are just relaxing in a hotel or a limo (in other words, when Made is most like Swingers). I just could never believe what I was watching. Made has a clumsy sub-plot surrounding Janssen?s character that serves only to slow the film down, something it doesn?t need.

Favreau as producer and director is fairly amateur, employing lots of annoying camera tricks and loud songs off of the soundtrack, but he holds the action together. He also throws in an occasional hip reference to Swingers at which fans laughed uproariously. And his screenwriting talents are strong; despite the implausibility, his script is packed with non-stop attempts at humour, much of which works. It is easy to focus too much on nitpicky weaknesses in a film and miss the fact that it made you laugh more than most other recent comedies.

Which is why I recommend seeing Made, especially if you enjoyed Swingers. Many comedies, like HeartBreakers, can be poor on paper, but funny as hell in reality. Made is like that. Flawed and misguided at times, it?s still money.

Grade: B-

Tim Chandler

Dinosaurs have fascinated mankind for hundreds of years. From their immense size to the cause of their extinction, every aspect of their story finds a welcome home on the Discovery Channel and in museums across the globe. It is for that reason that Jurassic Park was such a massive success; these things actually walked the Earth once, and we all know deep down that we wouldn?t last a second versus a T-Rex. Here was a movie that made the beasts seem real, and it was an unforgettable cinematic experience.

More than just the dinos, Jurassic Park?s story held our attention too. With lots of talk about DNA, and how with the right genetic information we could actually make a dinosaur, news flashes about Dolly The Sheep became much more ominous. The film warned of the dangers of tampering with extinct species, but simultaneously whispered in our ear ?Damn, but wouldn?t it be cool to see real dinosaurs?? And, honestly, wouldn?t it?

The major problem with Lost World: Jurassic Park II was that director Steven Spielberg still wanted to preach about the dangers of nature tampering, while audiences just wanted more dinos. Jeff Goldblum?s caustic chaos expert was brought back to warn of impending doom, the rest of the original cast was left behind, and the effects stayed about the same. In short, nothing new.

Enter new director Joe Johnston (Jumanji, Honey I Shrunk The Kids).

With Spielberg only executive producing, Joe Johnston jettisons most of the heavy-handed morality play (there?s only one mention of ?playing God? this time) and gets Jurassic Park III to the true heart of the series; in short, he made a B-grade monster movie. All that?s left of the DNA talk, the embryos and Jurassic Park itself is the ruins of the buildings. In Park III, two people get stranded on Isla Sorna and a group of others go in to get them out. That?s it.

Sam Neill reprises his role as Dr. Alan Grant, the noble paleontologist. This time, he is tricked into returning to the island by Paul Kirby (William H. Macy), a man who apparently knows all kinds of government figures, allowing him access to the Isla. It is Kirby?s son, along with his stepfather, who get stranded following a parasailing accident. Kirby, along with ex-wife Amanda (Tea Leoni) and the requisite group of Men Who Think Their Guns Will Stop A T-Rex, leads Dr. Grant and his assistant Billy into the danger zone for a large helping of peril, death and terror, which the audience laps up handily.

Apparently worried that the T-Rex wasn?t cutting it as a bad guy anymore, the special effects team behind the dinosaurs invented a bigger, meaner dino to take its place: the Spinosaurus. They also added Pterodactyls, which had to show up in the series eventually. Such is the disdain Johnston and screenwriters Peter Buchman, Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor have for scientific dialogue that they don?t even bother to explain what kind of animal the Spino is (I only know its name because the press kit mentions it). They also choose to not bother explaining a. why we never noticed the giant birdcage structure holding the pterodactyls in Lost World, b. why if Raptors can communicate and are smart enough to set traps, they chose not to in the first two films and c. what exactly caused the parasailing accident in the first scene? I did mention that this was a B-Movie, right?

Dinosaurs will continue to fascinate mankind for centuries and as long as the people behind the Jurassic Park series continue to pack their sequels with as much bang as part III has (and it has plenty), audiences will gladly return to watch more nameless mercenaries get chomped. Steven Spielberg and original screenwriters Michael Crichton & David Koepp covered intelligent material with their original movie, but I?m glad the series has ?dumbed down?. After all, once you?ve made the point that creating new dinosaurs is wrong, what more is there to say?

Tim Chandler