Eldorion.com

21 Jump Street

Columbia, R, 109 minutes 
U.S. Release: 16 March 2012

Conventional wisdom holds that Hollywood has run out of all originality and has been reduced to rehashing old ideas, often from the 1980s. 21 Jump Street is a film that, on its surface, appears to confirm this idea. However, the film plays more as a subversion of its source material than a straight adaptation or a rip-off, in part through its cheerful acknowledgment of its own roots as an adaptation of a late-’80s TV show (starring a young Johnny Depp) about cops going undercover as high school students. In the film, when the main characters are informed that the police department is reviving the undercover program, they are told it is because the people in charge are all out of new ideas and have been reduced to recycling old programs.

While poking fun at Hollywood’s all-too-frequent unoriginality is neither edgy nor new, this scene encapsulates several of the elements that elevated 21 Jump Street beyond the constraints of ’80s adaptations. In addition to moving the setting to the present day, the film addresses the earlier story on its own terms, even bringing back Johnny Depp for a cameo as his old character, decades after the events of the TV show. Devoted fans of the original show might not appreciate the story being turned into a comedy, but it’s hard to see the preposterous premise playing any other way, at least not in this decade. By winking at the audience, 21 Jump Street is able to transform a pedigree that would normally count against a film into the basis for some of its funniest moments.

The film makes effective use of its brief prologue, quickly establishing the characters of Schmidt (Jonah Hill) as a nerdy, socially awkward teen and Jenko (Channing Tatum) as a handsome, popular jock who is baffled by schoolwork. The real comedy of the film occurs after a time-skip to the present day, where Schmidt and Jenko have both grown up, but still struggle to escape the bounds of the social roles they inhabited in high school. The two meet for the first time in years when they both enroll in the police academy, and while Schmidt is an academic whiz who struggles with all things physical, Jenko is still the superb athlete who fails at book-learning. Both need help and so they gravitate towards each other in a surprisingly believable manner, not despite, but because they are opposites.

After graduating from the academy, the two botch the arrest of a drug dealer in a public park when they fail to read the dealer his Miranda rights. The two are transferred to 21 Jump Street, the headquarters of the department’s undercover high school program, where they are assigned to investigate a new synthetic drug that is spreading through the local school. Once in school the two struggle to adapt to the changes in high school culture since they graduated, which is made worse when they mix up their false identities and become enrolled in each others’ classes.

The film creates great laughs in nearly every scene, never missing an opportunity to poke fun at the idea of two grown men attempting to pass themselves off as high school students. Despite arousing suspicions, Schmidt and Jenko find themselves immersed in high school culture, only in opposite cliques from their first time in high school. Both embrace their new roles – to the point of losing sight of their overall mission – while drifting apart from each other. The film finds comedy in its premise, setting, and characters, so the jokes feels very natural. Moments of pathos are often forced in comedies such as this, but 21 Jump Street avoids playing things too seriously so that the character moments and the jokes often coexist simultaneously instead of infringing on one another.

Both Hill and Tatum excel in their roles and the the supporting cast is very solid as well, although the focus remains on the two main characters throughout the film. The most important supporting characters are the ones involved in romantic and bromantic relationships with the two leads, and these roles are some of the strongest, particularly Schmidt’s theatre partner and love interest (Brie Larson). The funniest supporting characters, however, are Ice Cube as the self-described “angry black Captain” in charge of the undercover operation and Johnny Depp in a late reveal that is too good to spoil.

21 Jump Street earns its R rating, but none of its language, sexuality, violence, or drug use (being integral to the plot of the film) is overdone. The movie constantly sees opportunities for comedy and avoids being too direct with its more mature elements. The few serious scenes generally reflect a theme of not letting yourself become permanently stuck in your high school years, which is a commendable message, although it never takes center stage. The movie keeps its momentum going throughout its two-hour running time, and while it flirts with drama and action, it remains focused on its comedic goals.

I give 21 Jump Street four-and-a-half stars out of a possible five. The entire audience in my theatre was laughing nearly constantly, and for good reason: this is easily the funniest movie I’ve seen since The Hangover. If you enjoy R-rated comedies, I cannot recommend this movie enough.

More information

Back to main Reviews page

Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace 3D

Fox, PG, 136 minutes 
U.S. Release: 10 February 2012

“A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.” This is one of the most famous introductions to a movie ever. It was first glimpsed in 1977 when the original Star Wars movie was released. As of this February, it can be seen again – as part of the re-release of “Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace” in 3D. “The Phantom Menace” is the first Star Wars movie to be released in 3D. It first came out in 1999 to great anticipation, and now returns to theaters for the first time since the Star Wars saga ended.

Needless to say, The Phantom Menace is a movie that carries a lot of baggage. It was perhaps the most anticipated movie of all time when it first came out, 16 years after the previous Star Wars movie, and it became one of the biggest blockbusters of all time. From the start, however, it alienated Star Wars fans and created a schism between lovers and detractors of the film – along with the rest of the prequel trilogy – that persists to this day.

For those who don’t know, the story begins with the activities of two Jedi Knights. They have been sent to negotiate with the sinister Trade Federation, who are blockading the peaceful planet of Naboo as an act of protest against the Galactic Republic. The Trade Federation betrays the Jedi and attempts to kill them, but they make it to the planet and eventually escape along with the Queen and most of her entourage. However, their ship is damaged while running the blockade and they are forced to seek repairs on the remote planet of Tatooine, where they encounter a young slave named Anakin Skywalker.

As an origin story of sorts, The Phantom Menace takes its time setting up the various characters and factions at play. This continues when the action eventually reaches the Galactic Capitol of Coruscant, but after being stranded on Tatooine, the movie becomes caught up in the (in)famous podraces, inspired by the chariot race in Ben-Hur. Through a complicated series of bets Qui-Gon manages to secure the parts needed to repair their ship along with Anakin’s freedom. The main point, however, is to showcase the film’s big SFX set piece. Even after 13 years, this race still sands up as an excellent piece of spectacle, and it is even better on the big screen.

However, the plot eventually kicks back into gear as the Jedi and friends reach Coruscant. Much has been made of the “boring political dialogue” in The Phantom Menace and these scenes are among the most criticized. While no one would mistake them for exciting, I was never bothered by it. We are not told very much about the complexities of Galactic politics or the motivations of the various factions, but enough information is conveyed that the adventure can continue. Nonetheless, one questions the point of including scenes of parliamentary debate if their role in the film is so pedestrian. Either explain Galactic politics or leave it off-screen entirely.

The Star Wars movies are of course adventure stories, and no one expects anything too complex or thought-provoking from them. There is a place for movies that do that, and there are place for movies that are just plain fun. Nonetheless, like original trilogy, the prequels sometimes strive for some greater meaning. At it’s heart, The Phantom Menace is a good-vs-evil story, and for the most part the token attempts at moral ambiguity never really go anywhere.

However, one of the main themes of the entire trilogy is corruptibility, as embodied by Anakin Skywalker, and the third prequel film (Revenge of the Sith) does address this matter, though not with much subtlety. For the first film, however, Anakin remains pure. It is not until the ten year time-skip for the second prequel that he becomes more complex, which retroactively makes the events of The Phantom Menace seem almost superfluous. It has never been clear to me why The Phantom Menace was structured as a largely stand-alone film when its success was practically guaranteed, but as its own work it is free from both the positive and negative trappings of its successors.

Finally, since this is a re-release, the issue of 3D must be addressed. I saw this movie in RealD 3D and was completely underwhelmed. Lucasfilm resisted the temptation to add obnoxious pop-out effects (which have gone out of vogue since Avatar anyway), but the result is that, like most 3D movies, the effect is barely noticeable. What was noticeable, however, was the darkened and blurred picture quality, as well as the headache that 3D glasses usually give me.

I give The Phantom Menace in 3D three out of five stars. It’s worth seeing if you are a die-hard Star Wars fan and/or were too young to see the films when they first hit theatres, but there aren’t many other reasons to spend your money on pricey 3D tickets for this film, which has been available on home video for some time.

More information

Back to main Reviews page

xx

The Hunger Games

Lionsgate, PG-13, 142 minutes

U.S. Release: 23 March 2012

As anyone reading this probably knows by now, The Hunger Games is a very successful series of Young Adult novels. Since the film rights were acquired by Lionsgate, it has been groomed as a potential successor to the lucrative Harry Potter and Twilight franchises of the past decade. For my part, I read the first book in late 2011 at the urging of multiple friends, but I would not describe myself as a fan of The Hunger Games. I was eager to see how a big studio would interpret the book while also looking to break box office records.

The Hunger Games trilogy of books, written by Suzanne Collins, is set in a post-apocalyptic version of North America, where a totalitarian country known as Panem has replaced the long-lost civilization of our age.  Panem is ruled by a Capitol, which controls twelves Districts that are spread across the Continent.  Decades before the story began, the Districts revolted against the rule of the Capitol, but they were defeated.  As punishment, they are forced to send one teenage boy and girl to the Capitol each year, where those children fight to the death in a gladiatorial contest that is broadcast on live TV.

The story has a lot in common with other Young Adult sci-fi/fantasy series that have sprung up in the wake of Harry Potter, but it stands out for the bleak world it presents and the level of violence in the story.  For better or worse, the story has shades of earlier dystopian fiction intended for a more mature audience.  In particular, The Running Man (a Stephen King novel turned into an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie), featuring a reality TV show in which the main character tries to escape a violent death, and Battle Royale (a Japanese novel and movie), about a government which forces children to fight to the death, appear to be major influences, though the Ms. Collins disputes this.  Nonetheless, the similarities are hard to miss, although the story goes in its own direction enough to dispel accusations that it is a rip-off.

Before going further, let me say that there are many good things about The Hunger Games. It is a thoroughly well-made film. The soundtrack is perhaps the best part of the film, but it is far from the only positive. The Hunger Games is well-acted throughout, with Woody Harrelson’s jaded ex-contestant and Lenny Kravitz’s sympathetic fashion designer as particular stand-outs. Jennifer Lawrence is also very good, but she is an adult and she looks it. Next to the rest of the contestants, all of whom looked like actual teenagers, she unfortunately stood out. The visual effects were better than the movie’s $80 million budget might have suggested. Apart from an overuse of shaky cam, especially in the early scenes, this is a visually engaging film.

I understand if my preceding comments come across as backhanded compliments, but they is not intended as such. When this film is good, it really is good. However, overall, The Hunger Games is a film that thinks it is much better than it really is, and this shows through in the way the story is told. Part of the blame falls on the original novel, which is quite predictable and sometimes falls into cliches of teen and dystopian fiction. Some of the changes for the film actually improve the story, but in many other cases they lessen the impact of the story.  For example, by repeatedly cutting away from the contestants of the Games to show the Gamemakers preparing each new challenge, the filmmakers ruined much of the suspense that kept the book engaging. After spending more than an hour – half the movie’s running time – on the build-up to the arena, I wanted to see more action there and more development for the various contestants, not a bunch of unnamed extras sitting around something that looks like a holographic table from Avatar.

This is related to my main issue with the film, which is the violent and disturbing content, such as it is. See, The Hunger Games, the book, is one of the only things I’ve read that left me feeling truly disturbed and somewhat sickened at the end. This isn’t a criticism, because the story was engaging and the disturbing content was part of what made it so.  Not just the child-on-child violence, but the struggle for survival against the elements were all depicted in stark and graphic terms.  In the movie much of the violence was blink-and-you-miss-it brief.  Many of the more disturbing scenes were toned down and when scenes of injury or death were not completely off-camera they were often obscured by excessive use of shaky cam. I wondered if the shaky cam was used deliberately to lessen the impact of the violence, but given it’s prevalence in the opening scenes of the movie, I think the director was just overly fond of the technique.

I realize that the film-makers wanted to bring in the younger crowd who helped make the book so popular, so I’m not at all surprised that they aimed for a PG-13 rating. However, more than just the violence was lost. Without wanting to spoil too much, a number of wolf-like creatures in the climax that were possibly the most disturbing part of the book have been stripped down to the point where they are indistinguishable from any old dog-like monster. They were startling when jumping out of the ground, but beyond that, they lacked the menace and creepiness that was essential to their more human book counterparts. On the other hand, I’m assured by people who haven’t read the book that the film is plenty disturbing on its own, so perhaps I’m being overly picky.

I’m in a tricky place trying to discuss The Hunger Games, since I honestly enjoyed the movie and I don’t think any of the things that bothered me ruined the movie. It’s just that, like the book, I thought it was good but not great. No matter how technically well-made or well-acted, the story just isn’t that original or shocking, and the film strips away the most visceral and gripping parts of the book. The hype and expectations put on The Hunger Games would not be fair to any movie, so I did my best to appreciate it without being overly critical. Nonetheless, I was not engaged by the story or setting as much as I have by other, better SF franchises that The Hunger Games is trying to follow.

I give The Hunger Games three-and-a-half stars out of a possible five.  Die-hard fans will probably love it and the movie is sure to be a financial success, but at the end of the day it’s just not on the level it wants to be.

More information

Back to main Reviews page