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.

*** 

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.