Additional Thoughts: Jumanji

In my video reviews, I want to stay within the scope of that individual film.  I don't want to stray and explore its impact, its influence, what it should or should not have been, or even too much about what influenced the creation of it.

Welcome to Additional Thoughts.

I wish kids' movies today were as good as this.  Today's movies for children are madhouse ADD fests that are obligated by contract to have at least one joke every ten seconds.  It's insane.  Watch Jumanji.  Note that there aren't very many bright colors.  Note that nobody is over acting.  Note that the camera angles are normal.  Note that the music is not in your face.  I'm not sure where I'm going with this.  The point is that compared to kids' movies today, Jumanji is stoic as all get out.  Listen to the dialog between action scenes.  It's just people reacting much as you imagine they would!  No wise cracks!  There is one scene that descends a little bit into Home Alone territory (Home Alone was a BIG deal at the time), but other than that, the movie is literally played straight by the actors.

Contrast that with 2017's Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle.  This was a very funny movie, but when you hold it up to the original, it's so disposable.  Jumanji is a fine glass and Welcome to the Jungle is a red plastic cup.  The original is made to last, and the sequel (quite frankly) is not.

Welcome to the Jungle is full to the brim with throwaway jokes, one-liners, and gags.  Pretty much every single one of them was funny, but every time you give a character one of those kinds of lines, you could have given them a real character moment but you didn't.  And now your movie has less replay value.  It's VERY popular these days to sacrifice replay value for gags and laughs.

Remember: heroes get remembered, but legends never die.  Follow your heart, kid.

Speaking of legends, David Alan Grier is in Jumanji, and I think he has more funny scenes than Robin Williams.  He is so funny.  But like Williams, he is perfectly tuned to where the movie needs him.  It's something you see a lot of throughout the movie.  Compared to modern movies you almost want to use the word "muted" to describe the performances . . . but you really mean they serve the story instead of a random gag.

Serving the story has become so rare that when actors do it it now seems "muted".  That about sums up the difference between Jumanji and Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle.  And it serves as an example of the difference between filmmaking in general then and now.  Sad.

Big Shot Critic

Additional Thoughts: Star Wars

The temptation is so strong to introduce a character as an archetype, and expand the character from there to OUTSIDE the archetype, for fear of cliché.

I would say within an individual movie, stick to the archetype.  Unless you are using the switch as a twist in your story, in which case be careful to avoid all the pitfalls that come with that, such as consistency issues.

Going from one movie to another, it is okay to demonstrate a character's growth by showing that he or she is now an entirely different kind of character.  However, don't do this just for its own sake.  It must serve the story, otherwise it's entirely meaningless.

This has been Additional Thoughts with Big Shot Critic