Skip to main content

Time for a New Game of Jumanji


Unlike a lot of other 90s kids, I didn’t grow up with Jumanji, the 1995 movie based loosely on Chris Van Allsburg’s childrens’ book. I didn’t watch it until later in life and thought it was only okay. So going into Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, I didn’t have the nostalgia a lot of other people do for its twenty-two year old precursor. And maybe that’s one of the reasons I didn’t find it so bad.
Four teenagers forced to work in their school basement for detention come across a console game called Jumanji. They decide to play it, but upon selecting their avatars they’re transported into the game. Now playing as Smolder Bravestone (Dwayne Johnson), Mouse Finbar (Kevin Hart), Ruby Roundhouse (Karen Gillan), and Professor Oberon (Jack Black), the four must survive the jungle adventure and complete a quest before they can be freed from the game, each granted only three lives to do it in.
Transplanting regular people in the world of the Jumanji game is a much more interesting premise than just bringing elements of the game into the real world. And though its not really original (hell this idea goes back to Tron), the story device of trapping someone in a video game has rarely been done well. Because of that, this does feel more fresh and certainly different from the original Jumanji, while still paying respects. This movie is a sequel as it establishes pretty early on, and makes a couple references to the earlier film. The world of the Jumanji game is fun to see too. It’s inspired by that jungle adventure genre of The Lost World or Edgar Rice Burroughs’ novels, and it’s nice to see on screen again, energetic and entertainingly campy. And the movie has a lot of fun with the video game world, playing with things like the limited responses of non-playable characters, player stats, and cut-scenes.
However it doesn’t quite take advantage as much as it should in this regard. There’s a lot of minutia inherent in video games that could be made fun of. After a while, once the characters become accustomed to their new environment, the efforts to satirize the mechanics and tropes of the art form dwindles substantially, mostly taking shots at the appearances of their avatars in contrast to their real-life looks and personalities. To this regard, the worst jokes are often related to this; specifically the frequent gags at the expense of a self-absorbed dimwitted high school diva now being in the body of Jack Black. This character will get a laugh sporadically and Black is putting his all into it, but there are a couple moments where it gets really bad. To a lesser degree is the overt sexiness of Ruby, who in one scene has to use this to distract some villains in a cliché that’s really outdated. The writing for these characters isn’t the strongest, especially when they’re just the kids. They’re a quartet of stereotypes: the insecure nerd, the football star, the conceited popular girl, and the reserved loner (all that’s missing is Bender). The actors aren’t bad, they just have to work with poor characterization, particularly Madison Iseman, who has to replicate Black’s later over-the-top performance. Once they enter the game though, it’s subverted somewhat and far less noticeable.
Johnson brings his usual charm and comedic prowess to this film, as well as his sheer stamina. Though the self-awareness with his character is mostly complimentary, he still conveys a sense of humility and is engaging enough to follow. Gillan is really good too, in a role larger than she’s had in Hollywood movies yet and demonstrates her comedic abilities well. Even Hart manages to get some good laughs, his manic delivery working within this framework. Again, the outlier is probably Black, who has his moments, but too often feels like a gimmicky impression. The chemistry between the four is good, though a few developments are once again, pretty lame and predictable. The movie also features Nick Jonas, a hilarious and very welcome Rhys Darby, a brief appearance by Marc Evan Jackson, and Bobby Cannavale in a good fit as a cheesy game villain.
The homages to the original Jumanji are relevant too in certain story beats, and even some of the effects. They aren’t awful, but there are elements of the animals and the world that are unconvincing. However it works here because of the video game environment and the imperfections that go along with it. In fact there are a number of minor issues that could be excused for this set-up.
Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is an above average adventure comedy. Whether you like it more or less than its predecessor depends on your nostalgia for it, but this movie is enjoyable. It doesn’t try to have the heart of the 1995 film, nor is it family-friendly, but it makes up for that with a likeable story, decent performances, and some good comedy. Far from the best movie to see this time of year, but way better than the other Christmas comedies still hanging around.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...