Jumanji: The Next Level (3/5 Stars)

I had written in my review of Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle that it was the type of movie that you had to take a step back and shake yourself into realizing it was a great film. Jumanji: The Next Movie is the same concept, with the same actors, and the same director, but it is not a great film. Again, one has to take a step back and contemplate what exactly is the different since there is so much in common.

The most obvious difference is the disappearance of the original writers: Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers. I sung their praises before so I will not dwell on their greatness here. Notice instead how this movie lacks the sheer efficiency and ingenious character development of the first movie. In particular, the game itself was more fully realized (and more obviously a video game) in the first movie. Here, the video game’s plot is not so clearly constructed. It is hardly to imagine the various scenes as video game levels. Still, this movie has a few good ideas and does its best to exploit them to their most enjoyable.

The best idea of this sequel, and a further confirmation into what made the first movie work so well, is to fully lean in on the actors doing impressions of other actors. Regardless of what the plot is doing, I always find this interesting. This sequel introduces two more real-life characters: Uncle Eddie played by Danny Devito and his ex-business partner Milo Walker played by Danny Glover. When the real people are sucked into the game this time, Danny Devito inhabits of Dr. Smolder Bravestone, played by Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson. Likewise Danny Glover inhabits Moose Finbar, played by Kevin Hart. Both are fun impressions. I would give Kevin Hart the upper hand on his though. (Favorite line: “Did…I just kill Eddie…by talking…too slow…just like…he always said I would).

Dr. Shelly Oberon, played by Jack Black, who was the avatar of the mean girl in the first film, is now the avatar of Fridge, the black football player. So Jack Black's impression this time around is a complete 180. This is one of those things that might seem controversial but much like Robert Downey Jr.’s performance in Tropic Thunder has inexplicably not raised eyebrows. Also joining the cast is Awkwafina as another avatar player character in the video game. Near the end she  switches places and becomes the avatar of Danny Devito. She does a great job (dare I say better job than The Rock) in acting like an old short fat outspoken Italian man.

The acting shenanigans are the most interesting part of this movie. So much so, that the action sequences, though packed with special effects, feel like they are get in the way of the performances. In the original movie there was more of a balance (or at least the action sequences seemed to be more intertwined with the character development). What is also lacking from the original movie is any particularly interesting development in the original four teenage characters. The pathos of this movie belongs entirely to the characters of Danny Devito and Danny Glover who have had some bad blood in their previous business break-up and are seeking away to heal old bonds. In effect, this makes them the main characters as they have the more emotional territory to cover. Unlike the first movie, there is not enough for all the characters to do, less balance between the character plots and the character's skills/weaknesses do not pay off as well.

Overall, Jumanji: The Next Level is a decently good movie. It is what a sequel should be in a way: the same, but more of it. I got enough of exactly what I was looking for.

Sorry to Bother You (5/5 Stars)

Sorry to Bother You has lots to say and uses its time wisely. This is one of those movies that you can spend much time afterwards discussing what it had to say. On an originality scale from 1 to Being John Malkovich, it is around 8 or 9 Charlie Kaufmans. It starts off in a new place and then half-way through goes completely crazy.

Sorry to Bother You was written and directed by Boots Riley. Never heard of him, but the way this movie plays, it feels like he’s had half a decade worth of material backed up in his system wrestling for position at the floodgates of creative fulfillment. Sorry to Bother You is about many things: wealth and poverty, capital and labor, ambition and community, individuality and conformity, weird art, wrong-headed genetic experiments, and slavery.

Our hero Cassius Green (played by Lakeith Stanfield) starts with an existential crisis. He lives in his uncle’s garage and hasn’t a job. He is simply surviving. What will his life amount to future generations? (Even when the movie is small, it is big.) Cassius Green lands a soul-crushing seemingly impossible job at a telemarketing firm. They will hire anyone who walks in the door. He is not doing well. Then, a fellow colleague played by a wonderful Danny Glover (still alive!) gives him great advice. Use your white voice he counsels. “White Voice?” asks Cassius. Glover explains what he means. Its not just sounding nasal. It means sounding like you don’t have student loans, that you pay all your bills on time, that you don’t have a care in the world. You are who the other person on the phone wants to be like. Oh, that white voice. Cassius Green gives it a shot. (He sounds remarkably like the actor David Cross, best known as Tobias Funke the therapist turned actor in “Arrested Development”.) This apparently is what black people think white people sound like. Like the movie in general, it’s too funny to be truly offensive.

Pretty soon, Cassius’s telemarketing career takes off and two subplots run right along side his growing success. The first is that the telemarketing center tries to unionize. This is led by a guy named Squeeze, played by Steven Yuen, who stages a work stoppage during prime calling hours. As one character remarks, it is some very Norma Rae shit. Having seen that movie, I agree. The second is that after Cassius gains a promotion he starts selling a product called “Worry Free” labor. “Worry Free” is a company that contracts with regular people to provide guaranteed food and shelter in exchange for otherwise unpaid labor. Its not necessarily slavery but Sorry to Bother You wants to liken it to such. Obviously, Cassius, being black, has some qualms about selling slavery to anyone, even if the slaves are of all races. But he also doesn’t want to be poor loser anymore and what exactly is his responsibility to everyone else?

Then there are weird art show, at least one riot, and the horse people. But I’m not going to get too far into that. It would be impossible to explain here. Two more points. First, this is the second movie this year that puts Oakland, California on the map. The first was Ryan Coogler’s “Black Panther”. It is beginning to feel like that place is the next hot place to make great movies. If one more great movie from one great new filmmaker springs from there in the near future, it would be fair to say its a trend.

Second, is a philosophical qualm. Unlike Boots Riley, I don’t believe slavery is a particularly profitable or productive way to run a business. Here, “Worry Free” is making cash hand over fist by this type of business practice. History disagrees. As the Adam Smith would say, the problem with slavery (besides all the evil) is that, because there is no hope of bettering their situation, the workers are not incentivised to worker smarter and/or harder. Rationally, a slave will work just as hard as they can to avoid punishment. I’ve heard this weird argument flitting about that the wealth of America was produced through slavery. That is a bit like saying the economy of South Korea was built by North Koreans. If slavery produced wealth, the world would have been a whole lot richer a whole lot longer ago. This the truth of the matter. Having said that, Boots Riley made a great film and Lakeith Stanfield, well, his character reminded me of some great white characters like Peter Gibbons from Office Space and C.C. Baxter from The Apartment.

Death at a Funeral (4/5 Stars) April 18, 2010

Different Corpse. Same Laughs.

Let it be known that I throw my full support behind Hollywood remaking good movies that nobody has seen. Death at a Funeral is a remake of a 2007 British film by the same name. I remember when it first came out. It got good reviews but almost no distribution. None of the theaters where I lived were showing it so I never saw it. It must have been hilarious though because the remake is pretty funny and is currently getting a low 40% on RottenTomatoes. That sort of rating baffles me. I can only assume that most of the critics actually saw the British version and simply didn’t think the American interpretation was enough like it. Sort of like how people who saw the original British TV Show “The Office” don’t like the American version. Now, I’ve seen both versions of “the Office” and I’ve liked them both equally. In fact I got sort of a kick out of seeing different people interpret the same material. I bet I would like the British version of "Death at a Funeral" as much as this one. I'm not about to say that remakes somehow denigrate the original version. That's just stupid. With that logic we should stop putting on new productions of Shakespeare. I hope the movie industry remakes more good movies for several reasons. 1) A good remake will raise awareness of the classic movie it reinvents. The reason I saw the original “Manchurian Candidate,” an awesome movie, was because I liked the remake. 2) Not all classic movies are perfect! They have flaws that can and should be improved upon. The best example of this Peter Jackson’s “King Kong” which not only updates the special effects and action sequences but provides much more depth into the relationship between the girl and the Big Ape. 3) Hardly anybody has seen the original movie. When a movie ages a couple generations all the jokes become new again. I find it deplorable that a movie like “Date Movie” can come out with absolutely nothing creative in it when the writer could have simply watched a bunch of Billy Wilder movies, plagiarized all the great jokes, and incorporated the ones that still work into his screenplay. Keep in mind that it is the studios that own the original movie. There’s nothing illegal about sifting words you own from the past. You may find that somewhat unethical but as far as I’m concerned it is much better than the alternative: Knowingly putting out a bad movie. 

“Death at a Funeral” takes place all within a single day at a single place: Chris Rock’s house on the day of his father’s funeral. His entire family has shown up to share their respects. Each one of them has their own storyline. There is Rock’s brother played by Martin Lawrence. Lawrence is the successful one in the family who never visits and owes everybody money. There is a sibling rivalry rising from the fact that Lawrence is a published author and Rock isn’t. There is Rock’s wife Regina Hall who is on the last day of her cycle and wants Rock to take time out of his busy day to help make a baby. There is his mother Cynthia who won’t stop crying about her husband’s death and the lack of grandsons. There is his cantankerous Uncle Russell played by Danny Glover and his infantile helper Norman played by Tracy Morgan. There is his niece played by Zoe Saldana who is in the middle of a romantic triangle with Luke Wilson and James Marsden. Her father, Rock’s other Uncle, hates the one she likes and likes the one she hates. James Marsden, the one he hates and she likes, is super nervous to meet him again. She calms him down by giving him one of her brother’s, Rock’s nephew Jeff (Columbus Short), valium. Except it isn’t Valium. Jeff happens to be a chemist and Zoe just gave her nervous fiancé a hallucinogenic that will last the entire movie. The priest is played by an underused Keith David. Finally there is a strange little person who inexplicably shows up to the funeral and wishes to talk to Rock privately about his relationship with his father. The little person is played by the only holdover from the British Cast: the irreplaceable Peter Dinklage. He informs Rock that his father was having an intimate affair, with him, and that he’s got pictures to prove it. He wants $30,000 or he will walk into the next room and show the pictures to Rock’s mother. All of this happens in the first 30 minutes. The increasingly complex plot builds up from there into some pretty funny screwball territory for the rest of the movie. 

Complex ensemble movies are harder to write and direct but it really pays off in the comedic department. For one thing it adds in the spontaneity of all the jokes. A big scene for one of the characters can also serve as a subtle setup for the next big joke for another one. Also it helps the pace of a movie when there is always a different person to go to for a cutaway joke even if it is only for a second. The director Neil Labute does a very good job of organizing the whereabouts of everyone and keeping the comedic rhythm between all of the different storylines as they expand and interweave with each other. I don’t want to give away too much of the intricacies of the plot except to say that it gets pretty manic near the end. And yes, it’s all very funny. 

I hate to say this about Chris Rock but this might be the best movie he has ever starred in. That’s not much of a compliment. Rock may have been a classic standup comedian at his peak but he has almost never been in a good movie. His best before this just may have been 2000’s “Nurse Betty.” In this movie he’s not that funny either but that’s mostly because he is pulling his weight as the straight man all the other crazy characters goof off around. I can say basically the same thing about Martin Lawrence. This is his best movie since 2000’s “Big Momma’s House.” He's consistently funny though. He spends a significant portion of the movie hitting on the youngest girl at the funeral. When his brother bothers him about it, he tells him to take a hike because he’s too busy grieving. If there were a character that is probably nothing like his British counterpart it would have to be Tracy Morgan. I got the impression that he was ad-libbing most of his lines in his “30 Rock” persona. I can’t imagine the British screenwriter coming up with the story he tells the priest about finding God in a strip club. 

Perhaps the best performances though are by the non-comedians Peter Dinklage and James Marsden. Dinklage has the very modern task of presenting his character in a way that is not offensive in terms of race, sexuality, and height discrimination. He does a very good job in still being hilarious. I think it works even better when his motivation isn’t shady greed but a sense of betrayal and outrage that he wasn’t included in the will of the man he had a serious relationship with. As far as Marsden is concerned, his performance is the type that is very hard to critique on any level. He spends the majority of the movie tripping on acid and the entire second half buck-naked and freaking out on the roof of the house. I’m just going to go ahead and say it: This is the best performance I’ve ever seen him give (Other movies of his are, “The Notebook,” “X-Men,” and “Enchanted.” He’s usually the fiancé of somebody) and he deserves some sort of award. (Oh and there are gratuitous shots of his ass. He like totally works out.) 

If I ever see the original someday I will add a caveat here that says which one is better. Till then I’m pretty sure either one would be enjoyable.

Be Kind Rewind 03/07/08

There are three fatal flaws in this "want to be Capraesque" movie. Jack Black once and director Michel Gondry twice. The story takes place in a VHS store that has its tapes erased by a magnetized Jack Black. Since they have no money and nobody uses VHS anymore the team of Black and Mos Def remake the movies themselves instead of buying new ones. They soon become neighborhood Gods and business booms and there's that cliche scene where a crowd of people stand below a window and chant for Mos Def to come out of a depression and make more movies.
This is a ridiculously sweet and cheesy premise and Gondry would like to instill in us that warm and fuzzy community feeling. Mia Farrow says at one point, "Here is to movies with heart." Unfortunately this movie doesn't have heart, and it is a grand suspension of disbelief that anyone would turn up to this store wanting their movies or Jack Black's autograph.
Reason #1: Jack Black's character is a deutschebag. He's mean and hard to work with. He complains incessantly and suffers from a bit of crazy attached onto an inflated ego. I think this movie would have worked infinitely better if they had a stock Owen Wilson character in his place. He can still have Black's energy just not so much acidity. 
Reason #2: The movies that these two guys make suck ass. They're horrible. The audio and video are terrible. They plot lines are completely stolen and they contain very little ingenuity apart from how certain low budget special effects are achieved. Why anyone in the neighborhood would want to watch these blows my mind. Sure it may have some cool effect by starring people from the neighborhood, but like I said the Black character is a deutsche. Why would these people pay to see him in a bad movie.
Reason #3: Another thing that bothered me tremendously is the ridiculous production value these homemade movies contain. For instance, they only had two hours to make the Ghostbusters movie. Somehow they shot several scenes, constructed costumes and cardboard models of a city in that time. I only mention this because being a broadcasting student I have made movies before. I felt like the poor hockey player who sees "Mighty Ducks" for the first time. This movie is for people who haven't the slightest idea what goes into making a movie. The premise of this movie is bullshit, and Gondry, someone who makes movies for a living, should know better.