Skip to main content

A Mostly Fun, Adequately Absurd Jungle Adventure


It seems that Hollywood lately has been  really interested in resuscitating the action-adventure movie -specifically that classic model of exotic archaeological treasure hunt that is the most pervasive in pop culture. I think it started with the unexpected success of that Jumanji reboot, because those that have followed in its’ footsteps have been generally geared towards a similar winking comic sensibility. There was of course last years’ neutralized Jungle Cruise from Disney and this years’ disaster Uncharted from Sony, but I think it’s Paramount’s newest offering, the blandly titled The Lost City, that comes closest to a sense of fun and originality matching that 2017 video game satire, even if it too isn’t nearly as smart or necessarily unconventional as it could be.
One advantage it may have is that The Lost City has a slightly older target audience than those other titles I referenced. Its’ directed and co-written by a pair of young filmmakers called the Nee Brothers, and their humour seems informed by the kinds of movies their stars have already made: The Heat and the Jump Street movies (co-writer Oren Uziel was in fact a writer on 22 Jump Street). There’s a lot of irreverence and pseudo-improv, even a couple bouts of dark comedy, and not all of it lands (in fact a couple jokes are rather tired or long-winded), but it still feels somewhat fresh for this genre: a slightly tweaked approach that makes the difference between a dull retread and an inspired reinvention.
Some of that may be giving the film too much credit, it’s not the most original take, though it is a funny one: a dime-store romance novelist who drew on the work of her late archaeologist husband for a series of harlequin adventure novels is kidnapped by an eccentric billionaire looking for a hidden treasure and the only one to rescue her is her dimwitted cover model. Sounds like fun, and the filmmakers do take advantage of a lot of the inherent silliness of the premise, such as how being as she was kidnapped at the end of a press junket, Sandra Bullock’s Loretta Sage must spend most of the movie in an uncomfortable bright purple jumpsuit. There’s a goofy self-awareness to the whole evil enterprise, complete with dozens of henchmen on an island setting with a volcano set to erupt -but never to an obnoxious degree like other movies now might tend towards. Because it’s not trying to be cool or in any way much realistic, this movie doesn’t feel the need to lampshade everything to the point of sucking the fun out -indeed it exists in a slightly heightened reality, one where the dejected son of a tech mogul seeks ancient riches as a means of validation, and where a guy who poses for romance paperbacks is somehow a big star.
The movie is not self-serious in the slightest. And even its’ weakest material never feels ham-fisted the way the humour in Uncharted did. Some of that can be attributed to the writing, but the Nee Brothers’ direction isn’t without smart comic choices -as much as they overuse their ironic cuts. The initial escape from the camp is a beautifully absurd image, Loretta restrained to a chair in a wheelbarrow being pushed by a wild Brad Pitt while Channing Tatum’s Alan meanders directionless alongside. However the key to what keeps The Lost City entertaining, and indeed saves it through its’ dimmer digressions is the cast. Tatum’s comedy brand may be old hat by now but it is still very effective. He just makes for a really fun dope and the way he uses his sexiness for humour somehow evades the egoism of other extremely attractive men who try their hand at comedy. It’s never been as good as when he was under Lord and Millers’ purview, but it still works through a lot of this movie. Da’Vine Joy Randolph is great as Loretta’s publicist, with Patti Harrison stealing a few moments as her social media manager. Pitt’s cameo is nicely bizarre, another in a line of random comedy appearances that come in and elevate the whole project. And nobody is having more fun than Daniel Radcliffe as Abigail Fairfax, the villain of the piece, whom he plays with a deliciously hammy upbeat eloquence that gives way to cold insanity. It’s a real treat to watch any time he’s on screen.
Bullock doesn’t get quite the same chances to shine, and I think it is down to the writers being less interested in material for her -certainly comic material. Her character is much less innately funny, this sad, unsatisfied romance novelist who most often is saddled with being the straight character to Alan or Fairfax. Humour for her seems concentrated in the physical, which is sometimes good, and her chemistry with Tatum, which is very mixed. Their rapport can often be awkward, Bullock not quite suited to the rapid-fire verbal style of the comedy in use here, and she’s made to carry a couple bits that don’t really match her performance. And then there are just some clichés around how she sees Alan, both his character and sexuality, that feel terribly forced. However, there are glimmers of something more believable between the two, Bullock and Tatum feel much more in sync by the last act especially. It’s unfortunate though as that is where the movie leans most heavily into plot.
Something else that doesn’t do Bullock any favours is how she is the primary vessel for the movies’ sincerity -and this is not a movie that needs that sort of thing. The actual plot involving the Lost City, the fabled ‘Crown of Fire’, the ancient texts pointing to its’ location, and the mythology around the civilization it belonged to is the least engaging aspect of the movie, the most formulaic. And there’s no reason it needs to be. Similarly, the personal journey Loretta is on, in her curiosity and in the closure she’s looking for with her husband’s death, it’s uninspired and underdeveloped. And both these elements take centre stage in the final stretch where the momentum dries up and even some of the novelty in the performances wears thin. It culminates in a dry climax and a hackneyed resolution to the treasure hunt that is thematically dissonant to what the movie seemed to be about. A just as trite ending then gives way to a mediocre spoil of a post-credits scene that nullifies one of the movies’ best jokes.
It’s not by any means a consistent experience and yet The Lost City is probably the most fun to be had at a studio blockbuster so far this year. In addition to its’ performance and script highlights, it also happens to be a pretty decently shot film (the fact it’s clearly not all set to a green screen is really refreshing) –it’s made by talented people. As has been proven, you could do much worse for a Hollywood adventure comedy.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

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....
1 comment
Read more

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...
Post a Comment
Read more