Skip to main content

When I think of all the energy I spent visualising you as a radiant spirit.

Jumanji
(1995)

(SPOILERS) My main recollection of this original Jumanji-verse outing was that it was overly reliant on shoddy CGI. There is a hefty wodge of that, in particular the monkeys, but there’s also a significant physical effects element in Joe Johnston’s characteristically serviceable-but-nothing-more-than-that movie. Otherwise, while the actual environment is very different to the recent computer game-ised incarnations, it’s structurally fairly similar, in that the best of Jumanji is in the set-up, faltering somewhat once all hell breaks loose.

But while the new movies have comedy antics on their side – yes, I know this one has Robin Williams, but he’s in relatively restrained mode, and far less engaging once he gets rid of the whiskers quite early on; David Alan Grier probably gets more laughs – this undoubtedly has a better grip on the gameplay element. In that, while the mid-section of the picture sags significantly, you do actually get a sense of stakes. Nominally, the Jake Kasdan-helmed movies give you that with the three lives and varying limitations of special skillz, but the actual “plotting” of the game the players find themselves is on the indifferent and inconsequential side. In Jumanji, each roll of the dice unleashes some new torment or punishment, and if some of them come up short – Jonathan Hyde isn’t especially effective or amusing in his secondary role as big-game hunter Van Pelt – the later attempts to ensure all four players continue to take part while beleaguered by such impediments as being trapped in a floor work quite effectively.

Structurally, the picture singles itself out, offering not one but two prologues – so one less than John Carter – a brief one in 1869 in which the box containing Jumanji is buried, then an extended 1969 episode introducing us to young Alan Parrish (Williams’ character) and his fateful unearthing of the game. So the film proper begins about fifteen minutes in and 26 years later. There are some nice touches, such as adult Alan, now emerged from the game and teaming with its new players, youngsters Kirsten Dunst and Bradley Pierce, finding he must track down and persuade his childhood friend Bonnie Hunt to take part; previously, she fled the house pursued by bats rather than take her turn. These incremental parts are in their own way quite engrossing, so making the effects-fest that consumes the picture proportionally less so.

The conclusion is also perhaps a surprising choice, one I didn’t remember. In Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, Colin Hanks’ character escapes and is revealed to have grown up in full knowledge of his experiences, a twist on The Wizard of Oz “It was all a dream” scenario; here, due to the real-world impact, history itself is reformed, butterfly effect-like, and the present-day kids never even get to play (so creating a paradox). Such magical “business” is further emphasised by the festive setting of the final scene, as if to invoke A Christmas Carol, in which the players are reunited, yet only two of them are aware of their history together. The “It all works out nicely for all” requires rather a bit of leap for Alan’s dad, from detached and overbearing to suddenly empathic and understanding, but Hyde, in his other, bookended role, just about pulls it off (for what it's worth, which isn't much, there are limp thematic gestures in respect of the importance of one's parents, Dunst and Pierce having lost theirs, regaining them at the end, and Williams fretting that "26 years in the deepest, darkest jungles and I still become my father". It's probably for the best that none of this is very resonant). It’s also nice to see Bebe Neuwirth, even if it’s in a typically-for-her-thankless movie role.

Jumanji’s something of a messy affair, never quite giving the sense that its three writers have thrashed the source material – Chris Van Allsburg’s 1981 book – into a satisfyingly functional narrative. Nevertheless, it’s easy to see why it was reinvented and modernised, although it took almost twenty years of development hell to get there (a sequel had initially been planned for release in 2000). At the time, it felt like Jumanji was just another in a line of fantasy-tinged Williams pictures (The Fisher King, Hook, Aladdin, Toys, Being Human), so his presence held at least equal weight with the concept. You couldn’t say that of the current incarnation, even if those playing the avatars have become intrinsic to its success (indeed, all you really have to do when the concept inevitably gets stale is introduce some new comic faces to take over). 


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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.

I mean, I am just a dumb bunny, but, we are good at multiplying.

Zootropolis (2016)
(SPOILERS) The key to Zootropolis’ creative success isn’t so much the conceit of its much-vaunted allegory regarding prejudice and equality, or – conversely – the fun to be had riffing on animal stereotypes (simultaneously clever and obvious), or even the appealing central duo voiced by Ginnifier Goodwin (as first rabbit cop Judy Hopps) and Jason Bateman (fox hustler Nick Wilde). Rather, it’s coming armed with that rarity for an animation; a well-sustained plot that doesn’t devolve into overblown set pieces or rest on the easy laurels of musical numbers and montages.

You know what I think? I think he just wants to see one cook up close.

The Green Mile (1999)
(SPOILERS) There’s something very satisfying about the unhurried confidence of the storytelling in Frank Darabont’s two prison-set Stephen King adaptations (I’m less beholden to supermarket sweep The Mist); it’s sure, measured and precise, certain that the journey you’re being take on justifies the (indulgent) time spent, without the need for flashy visuals or ornate twists (the twists there are feel entirely germane – with a notable exception – as if they could only be that way). But. The Green Mile has rightly come under scrutiny for its reliance on – or to be more precise, building its foundation on – the “Magical Negro” trope, served with a mild sprinkling of idiot savant (so in respect of the latter, a Best Supporting Actor nomination was virtually guaranteed). One might argue that Stephen King’s magical realist narrative flourishes well-worn narrative ploys and characterisations at every stage – such that John Coffey’s initials are announcement enough of his…

We live in a twilight world.

Tenet (2020)
(SPOILERS) I’ve endured a fair few confusingly-executed action sequences in movies – more than enough, actually – but I don’t think I’ve previously had the odd experience of being on the edge of my seat during one while simultaneously failing to understand its objectives and how those objectives are being attempted. Which happened a few times during Tenet. If I stroll over to the Wiki page and read the plot synopsis, it is fairly explicable (fairly) but as a first dive into this Christopher Nolan film, I frequently found it, if not impenetrable, then most definitely opaque.

Do you read Sutter Cane?

In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
(SPOILERS) The concluding chapter of John Carpenter’s unofficial Apocalypse Trilogy (preceded by The Thing and Prince of Darkness) is also, sadly, his last great movie. Indeed, it stands apart in the qualitative wilderness that beset him during the ‘90s (not for want of output). Michael De Luca’s screenplay had been doing the rounds since the ‘80s, even turned down by Carpenter at one point, and it proves ideal fodder for the director, bringing out the best in him. Even cinematographer Gary K Kibbe seems inspired enough to rise to the occasion. It could do without the chugging rawk soundtrack, perhaps, but then, that was increasingly where Carpenter’s interests resided (as opposed to making decent movies).

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.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983)
(SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bonds 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.

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.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…