Skip to main content

Gosh, there’s a lot of you, isn’t there?

Jungle Cruise

(SPOILERS) If anything gives the lie to Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl being a piece-of-cake no-brainer, it’s this. Although, the floundering of The Haunted Mansion and Tomorrowland might also have served as pertinent pointers. Disney evidently understood the right kind of production formula at the outset – start with some decent writers – but proceeded to go awry as soon as they opted for an ancient curse (hey-ho, Curse of the Black Pearl), the director pick and… Dwayne Johnson.

Because casting Dwayne Johnson means your movie instantly becomes a Dwayne Johnson movie, not a Jungle Cruise movie, with all the mediocre performative and posturing baggage that goes with him. Johnny Depp may have been a one-off, once-in-a-generation, out-of-a-hat actor-character fit (albeit, one might claim similar of Robert Downey Jr and Tony Stark), but responding to that challenge with such an undeniably lazy choice as the Rock was not the solution.

Like Red Notice, this is another Johnson treasure hunt. And like Red Notice, there’s a twist involving his character. And likewise, it’s one you don’t expect because Johnson’s range is so restricted, you assume what you see is what you get. Johnson’s Frank Wolff – really cursed conquistador Francisco Lopez de Heredia – has a penchant for terrible puns (a feature of the ride, it seems), but all this proves is that Johnson’s intentional bad delivery is exactly the same as his normal delivery.

Because this is Johnson all the way, there’s no opportunity to build a tangible Jungle Cruise world (yes, I know); it’s junk. Also, true to form from a guy who starred in an SNL-sketch as the designer of a child-molesting robot and joshes to minors about eating them during press junkets, Frank makes jokes about dead kids. Cos it’s a Disney movie. We’re also supposed to care enough about him that we’re all for Lilly sacrificing the last McGuffin-riddled petal to revive him. As if.

Emily Blunt is, naturally, playing a super-capable progressive feminist botanist who wears pants – oh, the hilarity – and is inspired by Indiana Jones (or inspired? Jungle Cruise is set in 1916). But this isn’t interested in diligence to period in the manner of Indy, or even in the loose-fit manner of The Curse of the Black Pearl. This one’s a lark, to be treated as such, so the attempts to invest in the adventuring aspect come across as desperate and ill-fitting. Plus, Raiders had a meaningful McGuffin. Pirates had an irresistible protagonist. This has neither.

Lily: It will change medicine forever. The beginning of a scientific revolution.

The Tears of the Moon, a flower with miraculous healing properties – shades of Medicine Man – isn’t necessarily a terribly unlikely idea (no worse than med beds) but it’s an inherently doomed one; we know Lily’s research yielded nothing; locking the flower away in a vault at the end, courtesy of the Rockefeller institute, might have added a smidge of verisimilitude. But only a degree.

The conquistador teaser isn’t bad, actually; if Jaume Collet-Serra (Unknown, Non-Stop, Run All Night, The Commuter, and a few other movies that don’t have Liam Neeson in them) had made an entire movie about them, it would surely have been more worthwhile than this. Nothing he’s done hitherto suggests an aptitude for light-touch comedy-adventure, and nothing he does in Jungle Cruise suggests it either. Johnson and Collet-Serra would have been better suited to making Shane Black’s Doc Savage script (they’ve since collaborated on Black Adam).

Location filming in Hawaii fails to inhibit the general CGI sheen of the production, adding to the overall fakery. It isn’t as horrific as Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (regular Serra DP Flavio Martínez Labiano is better than that), but combined with over-designed, over-pristine period costuming, the combined effect is of watching a promotional tie-in rather than a movie. Yeah, funny that. It has that horrid, resistible quality of assuming it’s an irresistible, fun-filled jollity (Wild Wild West, Hook). We’re more Stephen Sommers than vintage Spielberg.

Blunt is fine, but she’s too much of an actress to go the extra mile for a star-wattage part like this. It needed either a Goldie Hawn type, or to double down and deliver a proper Indiana Jones romp rather than an apologetically lightweight lark. Jesse Plemons as Prince Joachim has the right idea, but without a director putting him to good use, he just comes over as frantically mugging. Paul Giamatti is a past master at frantic mugging, of course, so he’s right at home. Édgar Ramirez plays villain Aguirre – based on the Spaniard searching for El Dorado – straight, and he and his men are rendered very much in the Pirates style.

Jack Whitehall is likeable, which is something – they might have cast the wretched James Corden – as Disney’s second “officially” out character, which means he’s obliged to struggle through a gay-by-committee campfire confessional with a very understanding Rock; notably, there’s sexism and homophobia in this plastic period, but zero racism, owing to the miraculous powers of presentism.

Whitehall has, it seems, received some criticism for not actually being gay, but it wouldn’t be a Disney attempt at woke-sense if they didn’t get – hilariously – bashed for ineptitude in dotting every line and crossing every T in the wokester rule book. To his credit, Whitehall is going for a slightly camp pitch that suits the picture’s very broad tone (if you can ascribe it such a thing, as that sounds intentional), and even gets away with “Frank, would you like to bite down on my stick?” A line that would have caused Kenneth Williams to rupture.

Mostly, though, lame comedy and inept mugging abounds. There’s even a Last Crusade gag that exemplifies how even Spielberg, when he was tiring of Indy, was way more on the ball. There’s a CGI jaguar, who’s at least more real than the Rock. Somewhere along the way, Glen Ficarra and John Requa (Bad Santa, I Love You, Phillip Morris, Focus) mis-stepped, as did Michael Green (although his record is much spottier). He’s attached to the commissioned sequel; I presume Jungle Cruise wowed on Disney+, as it’s inconceivable a USD200m price tag movie, one that only made fractionally more than that at the box office, would usually merit such treatment.

Popular posts from this blog

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money (1986) (SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money , however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

I said I had no family. I didn’t say I had an empty apartment.

The Apartment (1960) (SPOILERS) Billy Wilder’s romcom delivered the genre that rare Best Picture Oscar winner. Albeit, The Apartment amounts to a rather grim (now) PG-rated scenario, one rife with adultery, attempted suicide, prostitution of the soul and subjective thereof of the body. And yet, it’s also, finally, rather sweet, so salving the darker passages and evidencing the director’s expertly judged balancing act. Time Out ’s Tom Milne suggested the ending was a cop out (“ boy forgives girl and all’s well ”). But really, what other ending did the audience or central characters deserve?

Listen to the goddamn qualified scientists!

Don’t Look Up (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s testament to Don’t Look Up ’s “quality” that critics who would normally lap up this kind of liberal-causes messaging couldn’t find it within themselves to grant it a free pass. Adam McKay has attempted to refashion himself as a satirist since jettisoning former collaborator Will Ferrell, but as a Hollywood player and an inevitably socio-politically partisan one, he simply falls in line with the most obvious, fatuous propagandising.

Your desecration of reality will not go unpunished.

2021-22 Best-of, Worst-of and Everything Else Besides The movies might be the most visible example of attempts to cling onto cultural remnants as the previous societal template clatters down the drain. It takes something people really want – unlike a Bond movie where he kicks the can – to suggest the model of yesteryear, one where a billion-dollar grosser was like sneezing. You can argue Spider-Man: No Way Home is replete with agendas of one sort or another, and that’s undoubtedly the case (that’s Hollywood), but crowding out any such extraneous elements (and they often are) is simply a consummate crowd-pleaser that taps into tangible nostalgia through its multiverse take. Of course, nostalgia for a mere seven years ago, for something you didn’t like anyway, is a symptom of how fraught these times have become.

Doctors make the worst patients.

Coma (1978) (SPOILERS) Michael Crichton’s sophomore big-screen feature, and by some distance his best. Perhaps it’s simply that this a milieu known to him, or perhaps it’s that it’s very much aligned to the there-and-now and present, but Coma , despite the occasional lapse in this adaptation of colleague Robin Cook’s novel, is an effective, creepy, resonant thriller and then some. Crichton knows his subject, and it shows – the picture is confident and verisimilitudinous in a way none of his other directorial efforts are – and his low-key – some might say clinical – approach pays dividends. You might also call it prescient, but that would be to suggest its subject matter wasn’t immediately relevant then too.

You ruined every suck-my-silky-ass thing!

The Matrix Resurrections (2021) (SPOILERS) Warner Bros has been here before. Déjà vu? What happens when you let a filmmaker do whatever they want? And I don’t mean in the manner of Netflix. No, in the sequel sense. You get a Gremlins 2: The New Batch (a classic, obviously, but not one that financially furthered a franchise). And conversely, when you simply cash in on a brand, consequences be damned? Exorcist II: The Heretic speaks for itself. So in the case of The Matrix Resurrections – not far from as meta as The New Batch , but much less irreverent – when Thomas “Tom” Anderson, designer of globally successful gaming trilogy The Matrix , is told “ Our beloved company, Warner Bros, has decided to make a sequel to the trilogy ” and it’s going ahead “with or without us”, you can be fairly sure this is the gospel. That Lana, now going it alone, decided it was better to “make the best of it” than let her baby be sullied. Of course, quite what that amounts to in the case of a movie(s) tha

You just threw a donut in the hot zone!

Den of Thieves (2018) (SPOILERS) I'd heard this was a shameless  Heat  rip-off, and the presence of Gerard Butler seemed to confirm it would be passable-at-best B-heist hokum, so maybe it was just middling expectations, even having heard how enthused certain pockets of the Internet were, but  Den of Thieves  is a surprisingly very satisfying entry in the genre. I can't even fault it for attempting to Keyser Soze the whole shebang at the last moment – add a head in a box and you have three 1995 classics in one movie – even if that particular conceit doesn’t quite come together.

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

It’s always possible to find a good moral reason for killing anybody.

The Assassination Bureau (1969) (SPOILERS) The Assassination Bureau ought to be a great movie. You can see its influence on those who either think it is a great movie, or want to produce something that fulfils its potential. Alan Moore and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen . The just-released (and just-flopped) The King’s Men . It inhabits a post-Avengers, self-consciously benign rehearsal of, and ambivalence towards, Empire manners and attitudes, something that could previously be seen that decade in Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines (and sequel Monte Carlo or Bust , also 1969), Adam Adamant Lives! , and even earlier with Kind Hearts and Coronets , whilst also feeding into that “Peacock Revolution” of Edwardian/Victorian fashion refurbishment. Unfortunately, though, it lacks the pop-stylistic savvy that made, say, The President’s Analyst so vivacious.

This guy’s armed with a hairdryer.

An Innocent Man (1989) (SPOILERS) Was it a chicken-and-egg thing with Tom Selleck and movies? Did he consistently end up in ropey pictures because other, bigger big-screen stars had first dibs on the good stuff? Or was it because he was a resolutely small-screen guy with limited range and zero good taste? Selleck had about half-a-dozen cinema outings during the 1980s, one of which, the very TV, very Touchstone Three Men and a Baby was a hit, but couldn’t be put wholly down to him. The final one was An Innocent Man , where he attempted to show some grit and mettle, as nice-guy Tom is framed and has to get tough to survive. Unfortunately, it’s another big-screen TV movie.