Skip to main content

Zorgons are the lizardmen. They eat meat and we are MEAT!


Zathura
(2005)

This is the forgotten movie Jon Favreau made between Elf and Iron Man. I would have said “little”, but it wasn’t especially cheap and it bombed at the box office. Yet it proved Favreau as a versatile director who could handle special effects, and was instrumental in getting him the Iron Man gig. As a kind-of sequel to Jumanji (both derive from children’s books written by Chris Van Allsburg), Zathura illustrates what happens when a studio lets too much time pass by, and then stumbles into trying to repeat earlier success with little idea why they are doing it. At the same time, it’s a highly enjoyable failure.

Jumanji was a significant hit, but also very expensive. It had Robin Williams attached to it, which at the time made it likely to at least open to solid business. But it wasn’t all that good, with journeyman Joe Johnston rather overwhelmed by the extravagant special effects. A curious footnote is that both directors of this “franchise” went on to call the shots on Marvel movies.

The illustrated book Jumanji is based on was first published in 1991, and had the curious hook of wild animals and jungle delights materialising as players progress round a magical board game. Presumably Van Allsburg had cash on his mind, as he came up with his sequel seven years after Jumanji was turned into a film (in 2002) and while another adaptation was in progress (The Polar Express). Like Thomas Harris, but with less consumption of human brain matter, Van Allsburg returned to the well of his most famous property. But this time he came up with a game with science fiction/space fantasy elements.

This might be one of the reasons the movie failed to catch on; Jumanji was very much a “family” film (it had Robin Williams in it!) but Zathura is for boys. The sister (Kristen Stewart) spends most of the film asleep or frozen, enabling the two brothers to learn to get along. Jonah Bobo is the younger brother, a sports-shy creative type, while Josh Hutcherson is the future-jock who finds Jonah a constant pain (Hutcherson’s square-jawed density certainly lends him to less cerebral roles). When Bobo finds the titular game in the basement, it isn’t long before play begins and they find their house adrift in space. Each move brings new dangers, be it meteor showers, carnivorous lizards or defective robots.

With a core set to work on but extensive special effects to incorporate, Favreau commendably keeps things as practical as possible. There’s a winning immediacy to the explosive carnage wreaked on the house, and it’s nice to see prosthetics and model work instead of CGI. He also extracts solid performances from his junior cast; there’s much shouting, Goonies-style, and Bobo’s inexperience is sometimes noticeable, but their relationship is well-realised. There’s even a twist that doesn’t make any sense but underpins their “arc” (so it’s almost excusable).

Tim Robbins plays the dad, Dax Shepard an astronaut. The former bookends the film, and he successfully smoothes over some rather laboured establishing scenes. The latter brings his usual dazed gopher demeanour to the proceedings, but is much less annoying than usual.

It’s noticeable how tepidly children’s book adaptations tend to be received if they aren’t Harry Potter or Dr Seuss. The likes of this, City of Ember and The Spiderwick Chronicles are much better than their box office would suggest. Perhaps kids don’t want to watch other kids as protagonists any more (although its debatable how much this was ever so). Favreau’s has made a likeable fantasy that doesn’t outstay its welcome, and one that’s superior to his recent uninspired efforts Iron Man 2 and Cowboys and Aliens.

*** 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds . Juno and the Paycock , set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.