Skip to main content

Yes, it appears that I speak camel.

Jumanji: The Next Level
(2019)

(SPOILERS) A sequel that, for the most part, repeats the strengths and weaknesses of its predecessor. Which means there’s a lot of fun to be had during the early stages of Jumanji: The Next Level and the “getting to know your avatar”, but an inevitable petering out as the straighter-playing action questing progressively takes over. And as before, it’s the natural comedians who come out best, Kevin Hart taking home the lion’s share of the laughs. Although, a mid-stage appearance from Awkwafina nearly passes him on the inside on the home straight.

The best notion by far Jake Kasdan’s sequel – co-penned with also returning Jeff Pinkner and Scott Rosenberg; presumably Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers are now far too busy wowing Marvel to repeat – comes up with is mixing up the those behind the familiar avatars, making it equally retrograde that they should eventually revert to the familiar personas.

Consequently, the most obvious dividends come from Hart’s superlative Danny Glover impression. Glover’s Milo, estranged friend and former business parter to Danny DeVito’s Eddie… Who is grandparent to Alex Wolff’s returning Spencer. Whose avatar was previously Dr Smolder Bravestone (Dwayne Johnson). This time out, Johnson “doing” DeVito isn’t really up to much, it has to be said (although, DeVito’s no great shakes at the “smoulder” when returned to the real world). Indeed, the essential limitations of half the actors as avatars are borne out by Karen Gillan, once again playing Morgan Turner’s Martha. Barring a brief interlude where she gets to be Ser’Darius Blain’s Fridge which… Well, I’m sure the writing team thrashed out the pros and cons of each performer being stretched before they put pen to paper.

Awkwafina’s far more successful at doing both Spencer (actually, frighteningly good at Spencer) and DeVito, and you wish she’d been given material with as many opportunities for yuks as Hart (maybe next time). Both seem readily able to get into the mannerisms and postures and pains of the elderly, something the Rock probably won’t relate to even when he is elderly. Jack Black meanwhile mugs effectively enough as Fridge and, briefly, Martha, before eventually reverting to Bethany (Madison Iseman), but his mode is one-note broad in everything (and often loud with it), so he fails to pull off anything remotely as impressive as Hart and Akwafina. Nick Jonas and Colin Hanks, an unearned afterthought, are equally forgettably bland in their returning combination of avatar and real individual.

What character development there is relates mainly to Eddie’s grudge against Milo for breaking up their business and their subsequent mending of fences, along with a half-hearted stab at discussing the aging process (DeVito’s final change of heart about getting old really doesn’t travel, as we’ve seen little reason for him to reach that conclusion).

The Eddie plotline is bizarre to say the least, since not long after he has revealed himself to be terminally ill, he is transformed into a (winged) horse and utters not a word for the rest of the movie, except to reveal via the Dolittle-ish abilities of Hart’s avatar that he wishes to stay in the virtual tech “heaven” that is Jumanji. As a horse. It’s a curiously warped idea; in another movie, the same basic device would be recognised as a Matrix-style deceit, a hellish prison sentence fit only for a psycho like Cypher, but here, it’s sunshine and roses.

Of the returning quartet, the excursion back into the game results from the slenderest of motivations, Spencer doubting himself when no longer cloaked in the guise of musclebound Dr Bravestone and breaking off with Martha as a result. Which means he regains his confidence quite swiftly when they are back in the bodies of Bravestone and Ruby Roundhouse – thus sending out all the wrong messages, if you were expecting Jumanji: The Next Level to send out positive messages.

Kasdan keeps things moving, and if he’s no action maestro, he and his effects team put together an energetic and effective centrepiece set piece involving a mandrill attack/rope bridges crossing. There’s also an amusing ostrich-related desert chase and Johnson as DeVito beating up an entire army of aggressors. Rory McCann (Game of Thrones’ the Hound) is imaginatively cast as great hulking brute of a warlord (and duly cannot do anything remotely interesting with it), while it’s nice to see Bebe Neuwirth reprising her role from the 1995 original, however briefly.

It’s already being suggested that Jumanji: The Next Level doesn’t stand a chance of coming close to Welcome to the Jungle’s global gross, chiefly owing to a tepid reception in China. But also because, even with the change up, it’s unable to reignite the original spin appeal of its predecessor. Still, it will surely do very nicely all the same over the holiday season, and more than guarantee the teased next instalment, bringing us right back round to the unleashed insanity in the real-world Jumanji. I think the key to sustaining this series going forward – aside from actually coming up with an interesting plotline – will be ditching cast members unable to keep things fresh; there are at least a couple who have already reached their sell-by dates.


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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

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…

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.