Jumanji: The Next Level

Score:  B

Directed by Jake Kasdan
Starring Dwayne Johnson, Kevin Hart, Karen Gillan, Jack Black, Danny DeVito, Danny Glover
Running Time: 123 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  Jumanji: The Next Level is the expected follow-up to the surprisingly effective 2017 action reboot - and, surprise once again, it's not an empty money grab.  The filmmakers kept as much of the original intact as they dared, but any concerns about that are sidelined by Johnson and Hart pulling a new imitation scheme, this time as grumpy old men.  Not as fresh as the 2017 film, but it's often just as hilarious, and the action to the bits of drama are made with just as much care.  Recommended.


Young friends Spencer, Fridge, Martha, and Bethany have graduated and drifted apart, but plan a reunion when they all return to their hometown.  Spencer, however, yearns for the excitement and empowerment of his magical - if dangerous - experience in the Jumanji video game, and so he returns.  His friends suspect what happened and attempt to follow him back, but the game has a glitch and they find themselves in new "avatars" - and joined by unexpected guests.  Once again, the group is confronted with a crisis in this imaginary world with very real consequences, and it is up to them to save the day.  This time, of course, they are also looking for their lost friend, and they'll need every bit of the skill and courage they developed last time to win again.

The core cast of the Jumanji reboot of 2017 returns, and is joined by several fun and familiar faces.  Dwayne Johnson is the lead again, with a twist: for a significant part of the film, he is representing Danny DeVito's character rather than Spencer.  His attempt at the DeVito accent is unsurprisingly mediocre and inconsistent, but he seems to enjoy playing the curmudgeon, and this check on his usual tough-guy persona is once again a welcome trait.  Kevin Hart, likewise, gets to mimic Danny Glover, affecting his esteemed but hoarse and oft-confused character.  Hart does better than his co-lead, but the interplay between the two - DeVito and Glover are old friends, and Johnson and Hart pick up that element better than anything else - is even funnier, and more interesting, than that of the first film.  Jack Black gets to do Fridge this time, and while he's still good it's not riotous like in the first (it's also a little uncomfortable, at the least, to watch a middle-aged white guy mimicking a young black man).  Karen Gillan gets to be Martha again like last time, but she gets a much more bland part this time, unfortunately.  Nick Jonas, returning from the first film, and Awkwafina are also Jumanji characters in smaller roles, the latter of whom is a nice if underutilized addition.  DeVito and Glover are briefly in the film themselves, of course, and their simple presence helps lift the early, introductory parts.  The young actors get less to do this time, instead maximizing the time spent in the Jumanji video game; while understandable, since the characters have already been introduced, they are capable of doing more.

Jumanji is the best kind of sequel you can reasonably expect, keeping the best qualities of the original while mixing up the details enough to keep it pretty fresh.  The overall structure is basically the same as 2017's Welcome to the Jungle - brief drama with young friends in the real world, entering the video game world using adult avatars, and fulfilling a standard adventure quest while rescuing a missing real-world companion.  This works out alright, though they definitely need something new if/when they do another one.  Rather than shake up the plot structure, they reshuffled the specifics, most significantly in the franchise's key concept of Hollywood-star avatars representing the characters in Jumanji.  As already mentioned, the modern day star duo of Johnson-Hart imitating DeVito and Glover is comedy gold.  The film's second act, upon re-entering Jumanji, is particularly good, with Johnson and Hart's "Smolder Bravestone" and "Mouse Finbar" bickering and generally being awed and confused by their new, younger bodies and the mysteries of the video game world.  Sadly, they don't stay that way through the whole film, but it's worth the cost of admission itself.  While the missing-person quest in the first is played as a mystery, The Next Level opts for the search for a main character you already know (though for me the Johnson-Hart antics overrode this and any other "plot" elements).  The action, like in the first, really is secondary.  While it does a better job at traditional blockbuster action, via desert ostrich chases and rope bridge escapes, it's not as clever at making it seem like a video game world being "played".  The sequel also interestingly pushes the kid characters aside in favor of their elders.  It's a pretty basic feud, as you'd expect, but it doesn't get swallowed up by the action of the climax, and resolves nicely.  The bad guys don't pose much of a threat, but focus on the struggles of the individuals and conflicts among friends is even better.

***

Jumanji: The Next Level is hardly groundbreaking, but it is the way Hollywood should be making more of its blockbusters.  After thoroughly enjoying the surprise hit Welcome to the Jungle in 2017, I was pretty much automatically onboard for the sequel.  As much as I gripe about Hollywood relying too much on sequels and reboots, they can still be done well when they retain the elements that made the original special while mixing up other parts enough to make it also feel new.  It's a difficult balance, and why so many attempts fail.  The Zombieland sequel earlier this year succeeded for many of the same reasons that The Next Level does.  I would rather watch either of those films again than a lot of "original" Hollywood blockbuster trash, let alone something from the growing pile of lifeless reboots/sequels (I'm looking at you, Men In Black: International).  Hopefully Johnson and Hart will keep making movies together; though if more Jumanjis are among them, I'd like to warn them to tread those waters carefully.



* By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=61874882

Little Women

Score:  A

Directed by Greta Gerwig
Starring Saoirse Ronan, Emma Watson, Florence Pugh, Eliza Scanlen, Timothee Chalamet
Running time: 135 minutes
Rated PG

Long Story Short:  The classic tale from Louisa May Alcott receives a triumphant modern adaptation from one of Hollywood's most talented filmmakers, Greta Gerwig.  Ronan, Pugh, Watson and Scanlen form its essential, vibrant foundation as the sisters, but Gerwig steers them skillfully with touches like a reframed chronology.  It's a winner - highly recommended.


In 1861, a mother (Dern) looks after her four boisterous daughters Meg, Jo, Amy, and Beth (Watson, Ronan, Pugh, Scanlen), distinct yet inseparable.  In 1868, the sisters are separated, life taking its toll on each and in fact balancing precariously for one of them.  The years between show the growth of these loving yet competitive, teasing, consoling and above all faithful siblings.  A father away at war and a rich neighbor's volatile son play their parts, too, as the March sisters savor and struggle with life.

Little Women has a very impressive cast, ably led by the four title sisters.  Saoirse Ronan as second-oldest child Jo serves as the first among the leads.  Ronan is probably the best of the actors (three Oscar nominations already), and she demonstrates it in her performance as the most independent of the sisters, Jo, whose passion is in writing.  Ronan gives Jo a natural air of responsibility in sharing leadership duties with Watson's Meg, yet she also does a great job showing her exasperation (and discomfort) with some of the expectations of a young lady of the era.  While she's the most introverted, her passion also shines through whether in a private jig or long, quiet sessions of scribbling.  Florence Pugh plays Amy, the second youngest sister, the classic "middle child".  Pugh has a challenging role here, easy to overplay her passions, but she keeps control and has her own form of nuance.  Comfortable in public - at times too much so - Pugh shows Amy seething in private yet also tender, too.  Emma Watson is well-placed in the role of eldest sister Meg.  Perhaps not quite as strong an actor as Ronan or Pugh, Watson is entirely convincing and affecting in the right situation. Here, she's the most traditionally lady-like, "well-behaved" one who can still let her hair down now and then.  The youngest sister, Beth, is played by Eliza Scanlen, who's unfamiliar to me.  As the "baby", Scanlen is a bit more reserved, but shows a maturity and confidence in her quiet actions that bely her age (and plays a mean piano sonata).  Timothee Chalamet as Laurie gets the most significant supporting role, his relationships with the sisters and mercurial nature providing extra intrigue to the story; Chalamet does well with it.  Among plenty of other interesting but smaller roles, the sisters' mother and aunt, played by Laura Dern and Meryl Streep, respectively, are particularly well done.

Little Women is an excellent, traditional (naturally) piece of filmmaking that combines deftly modern touches with the classic tale to provide a touching portrait of the famed sisters.  Gerwig, one of Hollywood's brightest rising stars, is typically known for more modern styles, as in Lady Bird.  Thus this seems a curious fit for her, but by focusing her efforts on more subtle elements while letting the actors own the story, Gerwig respects the tradition while optimizing its presentation for a modern audience.  The most significant change is moving from a linear to an interwoven (between an "early" and a "later" period) chronology.  This is a brilliant move: as the film is really about the relationships and growth of the sisters, going back and forth allows the audience to track the developments in both throughout the film, not to mention providing some crucial foreshadowing.  It also evens out the tone well, since the earliest scenes are the more cheerful, almost carefree while the later ones are often somber or at least quieting.  The style also is nicely balanced.  It eschews the strict formality - everything "just so", from dialogue to choreography - of a typical period piece, while retaining a straightforward, at times refreshingly earnest, feel.  Having set this "table", Gerwig unleashes her actors to do the rest.  Most importantly, the sister actors seem to have a true bond.  Their happiness is infectious as they wrestle and laugh on the floor, and the hurt is deep when they sabotage (intentionally and not) each other.  Crucially, each sister gets her own story, too, and feels like a well-rounded individual; this is where Meg and Beth shine in particular.  But it's when they are there for each other, in good times and bad, that the film really sings.

***

Little Women is not the kind of film that I usually look forward to, but as you can tell I'm quite glad that I saw it.  In fact, I really knew very little about this classic in advance, which ended up working out as well as it does for any other film.  I didn't have any preconceived notions of how it "should" go, let alone what would happen at all.  Given its amazing cast, great reviews (95% on Rotten Tomatoes), Oscar buzz and - at least as important as the rest - the direction of Greta Gerwig, I was fortunately drawn in to see this in the theater.  It's a genius choice for Gerwig; while it clearly fits with her fondness for telling great stories with women at their center, it shows how that can easily be accomplished through revisiting the classics, too.  Along with being an excellent film overall, it is also an entertaining and inspiring one.  Highly recommended.




* By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=61598613

Uncut Gems

Score:  C

Directed by Josh and Benny Safdie
Starring Adam Sandler, Julia Fox, Lakeith Steinfeld, Idina Menzel
Running time: 135 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  Uncut Gems sees comedy king Adam Sandler turn to darker, grittier material in the story of a gambler's downward spiral.  He does very good work - it helps that he seems well-suited to the lead role - but the filmmakers fail to create any redeeming value in this realistic yet intensely unpleasant work.  There are surely better options for whatever kind of movie you're in the mood for.  Skip.


Howard (Sandler), a New York jewelry dealer, is in the red yet feels that he has finally struck real gold.  A months-long process has put him in possession of a rare and dazzling black opal, still encased in the hunk of rock in which it was found in Africa.  When a co-worker brings in basketball star Kevin Garnett, the man is transfixed by the treasure.  Howard sees his opportunity, and puts in motion a plan to make a small fortune.  However, his shady creditors lurk around every corner, impatient to settle up - and as they get wind of their debtor's secrets, things get deadly serious.

Uncut Gems has a small cast, built around the driving performance of the lead.  Adam Sandler takes a turn away from his usual crappy comedies for a dark and dramatic role, and he shows that he has impressive talent (at least in the right situation).  Sandler's acting is far and away the best part of the film, an intensely vile and unlikable - yet equally convincing - man who seeks redemption yet is clearly incapable of it.  A moron and an asshole, Howard's advantages are his persistence and skill with manipulation.  Sandler puts to use his well-practiced shouting (by turns unintelligible and laced with the F-word every two seconds) and quieter but equally grating begging and cajoling.  It's all very unpleasant - like the film itself - but at least he's the perfect actor for the job, and makes it feel quite real.  Veterans Steinfeld and particularly Menzel (playing Howard's estranged wife) both do good work, too.  But it's newbies Fox, as Howard's employee/mistress, Julia, and Garnett, playing himself, who impress the most, due to having more crucial roles and excelling despite their lack of experience.

Uncut Gems is a fairly well-crafted film, to go along with some good performances - but it's also one of the most unpleasant films I've ever seen, particularly because it's ultimately pointless.  Howard is an extremely flawed character who has quite a few bad experiences, largely of his own making.  This would seem to lend itself to a redemption story - even if Howard doesn't become a better man or triumph over adversity, at least there should be movement in the right direction, becoming a tragedy.  But no, Howard doesn't seem to learn a thing or become better in any way; if anything, he gets worse as the film goes along (as does his predicament - at least that's appropriate).  So... I guess it's all one big PSA about the dangers of gambling?  I mean, Howard is just so awful and stupid it makes your head want to explode, in both his personal and professional life (poor Julia gets it in both worlds).  The one positive is that the film does feel like a realistic portrayal of New York's sleazier corners; Howard's not the only one who does dumb things, and the confusion and emotion is interesting at times.  There's also plenty of shouting - often multiple people at once, so you can't tell what anyone is saying - filled with cursing.  I can totally buy this as realistic, again, but also a bit headache-inducing and while I have a moderate tolerance for the F-word, it started to bother me.  The soundtrack is also very bizarre, a lot of electronics and 80s or sci-fi feel; it's also loud and obtrusive, particularly in the first part of the film, and thus adding yet another layer of unpleasantness.  Notice a theme here?

***

Uncut Gems is one film that I wish I had done a bit more research on before going to see.  Generally I like to know as little going into seeing a film as possible, so that I can have a fresh perspective and few expectations.  As this film is in the Oscars/awards conversation, I wanted to check it out.  Now, I want to know why it's considered in the realm of good films at all.  It has a bewildering 92% on Rotten Tomatoes currently, so I'll be checking out at least a few critics' reviews to try and find what the hell I'm missing.  In the mean time, I can't recommend this to anyone - unless you happen to be in a sadistic (perhaps even masochistic) mood and want to see an asshole get his just desserts.




* By Source (WP:NFCC#4), Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=61865131