Skip to main content

Leveling Down



There’s a moment midway into the first act of Jumanji: The Next Level when athletic college student Anthony “Fridge” (Ser’Darius Blain) in the body of video game avatar Professor Shelly Oberon (Jack Black) complains about how the game he and his friends are playing through is different this time around. Their hope upon re-entering the adventure game they’d been trapped in in 2017’s Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle was to rescue their friend Spencer (Alex Wolff) by getting through it as they had done previously, only to find themselves in a new story. However as much as they may bemoan and fear the changed environmental aesthetic, it should not have taken them long to realize the layout is more or less the same as it was before, just with a different looking villain and a new McGuffin.
Such is the case with many video games, especially those of the era Jumanji is supposedly from.  However just because it makes sense, doesn’t mean it’s good, and this sequel, once again directed by Jake Kasdan, comments so little on this fact that there’s enough of a chance it isn’t an intentional joke; that the movie really is unironically treading the same water as before, just with a new look and without the same level of self-awareness. As pretty as some of the sights are, as interesting as a few of the new set-pieces can get (the best of which being an elaborate bridge puzzle guarded by hundreds of violent mandrills), as comfortably cliché as that Lawrence of Arabia motif is, there’s the overwhelming sense of having been through all this before as the plot feels trapped within familiar beats and safe predictability.
Of course Jumanji: The Next Level, like Deadpool 2 and The Lego Movie: The Second Part, has the misfortune of being a sequel to a movie where novelty was one of its’ main selling points, and like those the novelty is far less effective the second time around. Perhaps anticipating this, The Next Level downplays and often takes for granted the bizarreness of its premise, seemingly having exhausted all the best video game world jokes and devices in the earlier movie, and draws less attention to that aspect of the movies’ satire, except to revisit the same comedic bits of characters dying in unexpected ways or making fun of their respective strengths and weaknesses. The one new development pertaining to this context, the discovery of a means for the characters to switch avatars, is never used to its fullest or funniest potential. There is so much untapped comedic and narrative material in the realm of video games that is never brought up in either this film or the last, and I think it’s a great oversight of Kasdans’ not to take advantage of what’s open to him when the subject matter would resonate with mass audiences now more than ever.
Perhaps the greatest exception to this formulaic rule the movie seems to be operating under, and the reason for seeing it in the first place is the gimmick of Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart playing Danny DeVito and Danny Glover respectively –a pair of elderly estranged friends and business partners who are accidentally sucked into the game with the kids. Johnson and Hart are having a lot of fun with the exaggerated personas, and it translates into many of the best comedic bits of the movie –Johnson in particular not only nails DeVito’s cadence and delivery but gets so much mileage out of the very simple joke. More than the humour though it gets to a key for this franchise’s sustenance in the opportunity for each of the main actors to play different characters from film to film. Black is having a good time too, playing up an aggravated annoyance and sarcasm. It’s only Karen Gillan who doesn’t get the chance to diversify, remaining the straight man of the group only with more of a leadership role this time –I wish they’d give her a chance though as Gillan is quite capable of playing funny over-the-top characters. The female representation in that department is instead supplied by Awkwafina as a new avatar for Spencer. Her presence alongside the new dynamic keeps the movie engaging and entertaining through its mediocre progression. Unfortunately, a third act return to the status quo dulls a chunk of that fun and is an unnecessary retreat into the former movies’ comfort zone. It also results in quite a noticeable inconsistency in the character of Bethany, played as significantly more grounded and authentic by Madison Iseman, but by Black as the same stereotype she was in the last movie.
Like a lot of comedies, the films’ aspirations to genuine emotionality are misplaced, though not intrusive (there is one nice scene between Johnson and Hart that is sincere). The conflict between the former partners and complications in the relationship between Spencer and Martha (Morgan Turner) are typical of the kind of unremarkable subplots characteristic of this kind of genre comedy and never really rise above conventionality. Similarly, the villain, played by Rory McCann as just an imitation of his Game of Thrones character, is entirely banal and non-threatening, though that’s possibly an intentional facet of him being a one-dimensional video game boss.
Jumanji: The Next Level is once again attempting to be outsider counter-programming to a holiday movie season once again dominated by Disney (like Welcome to the Jungle, it is technically set around Christmas). I would urge people if they are so inclined to avoid that brand to see Cats instead, which at the very least is a far more ambitious and extravagant option (or of course, Greta Gerwig’s much acclaimed Little Women if you’re lucky enough to have it). This movie, though not bad, is neither of those things –it could do to have a little more of the experimental and conceptually exploratory vibe of its precursor. That at least might have elevated it above a merely lukewarm bit of adventure cinema.

Support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/JordanBosch
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Jordan_D_Bosch

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...