Tag / Comedy

by theactivespectator

Eurovision Song Contest – The Story of Fire Saga

Rating: 12A
Cast: Will Ferrell, Rachel McAdams, Dan Stevens and Pierce Brosnan
Written by Will Ferrell and Andrew Steele
Directed by David Dobkin
Length: 123mins

A Netflix release in the height of lockdown amidst Covid:19 fears and concerns, this film carries so much joy and silliness that helps to focus on positives amongst worrying times. Though at first glance it may look like a classic Will Ferrell comedy, surprisingly, it carries some moving moments; these moving moments intertwined with catchy songs, amusing accents, magical Elves and so much more…

Lars Erickssong (Ferrell) has always dreamed of winning the Eurovision Song Contest, with his doe-eyed childhood friend and not quite sweetheart, Sigrit (McAdams). Their band, Fire Saga, was selected at random to compete in the contest, representing their beloved Iceland. The drama that follows the pair is mostly nonsensical, but the story holds its own and keeps moving with the fun of outrageous ‘Eurovision-eque’ songs and dance routines paced throughout the film.

One of the most brilliant elements of this film is that it feels like Will Ferrell and Andrew Steele sat down to write the script and every possible hilarious idea that popped into their heads they wrote down and found a place for it to fit. There is a lot of detail in every scene, nothing is there to just connect the story and with each watch I found myself noticing more intricate choices.

What is truly lovely about this film is that amongst all of the busy, vibrant scenes are really well written characters with whom the audience can connect. Seen by most peripheral characters in the film as ‘freaks’, the performances of the lead pair are full of brilliant choices which allow the characters to feel authentic, if a little ‘out there’. Whilst some of the action is extreme, it doesn’t feel like you’re watching actors perform these characters, you are allowed into their sheltered world which encourages empathy. It almost creeps up on you as you enjoy the comedy and the silliness, then you’re hit with a moment that you can relate to in some way. With themes of perseverance, friendship and chasing your dreams there is something for everyone to take away.

This film isn’t going to change anyone’s life, but it might just lift your spirits. It’s an easy, entertaining watch with positive messages of inclusivity and finding what is important to you. It is worth warning, however, that you will most likely find yourself singing some of Fire Saga’s songs and they are not easy to get out of your head! If you need a bit of a release, a break from the worries of today, I suggest you give it a watch. Let yourself fall into silliness and have a good laugh.

by theactivespectator

Crazy, Stupid, Love – Review

Rating: 12A
Cast: Steve Carell, Ryan Gosling, Emma Stone, Julianne Moore and Kevin Bacon
Directed by Glenn Ficarra and John Requa
Written by Dan Fogelman
Length: 118mins

In 2011 Glenn Ficarra and John Requa teamed up to create the three strand multi-generational romantic comedy ‘Crazy, Stupid, Love’. The lighthearted story follows Cal (Carell) and Emily (Moore) as they negotiate issues in their marriage, serial ‘player’ Jacob (Gosling) as he meets his match in Hannah (Stone) as well as Cal and Emily’s son, Robbie (Jonah Bobo) as he falls in love with his babysitter who, in turn, has her sights on another…

While not a particularly deep or powerful plot, what holds the audiences attention is the mix of all of the storylines. Dan Fogelman created a story that brilliantly captures all these different characters; allowing them their own lives and issues while cleverly connecting them. The only element of the story that I found to be a bit ‘too much’ was that of Jessica – the baby sitter. Though Analeigh Tipton does a good job I find her character so uncomfortable to watch. This, of course, could be fully intentional; her character is an awkward teenager who makes questionable choices but for me it detracts slightly from the other elements of the plot and feels like an unnecessary push at some extra comedy.

It’s been proven that Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone are a fantastic pairing; brilliant chemistry and the ability to provide deep, moving moments while bouncing off each other. The same has to be said for their roles in this film which are enhanced by the directors willingness to allow the pair to improvise some of the warmest, most authentic moments of the film. Steve Carell also side steps from his usual goofy comedic style and settles into ‘socially awkward dad mode’; not drastically different but the result is a character that triggers the empathy of the audiences and is a wonderful opposite to Goslings character making their relationship in the film both hilarious and endearing.

One of the interesting elements in this film, and what makes it stand out from other romantic comedies, is the balance of the two genres. Although it stars some powerhouse women, it’s main focus is on the male characters which is unusual in itself for this sort of film. It pushes a smooth blend of modern comic genres with a somewhat unexpected undercurrent of more dark, difficult emotions – all while sincerely contemplating the idea of soul mates and true love vs the limits of romanticism which is typically avoided in most romantic storylines.

This is not a perfect film and yet I can’t help but love it, I would suggest it’s one of the most brilliantly formed romantic comedies. It appeals to more than just teenage girls and has a real feeling of authenticity, lightly touching on some very real issues that some couples may face alongside a good splash of humour. More than anything it’s just an entertaining watch and I would highly recommend it.

by theactivespectator

Hot Fuzz – Review

Rating: 15
Cast: Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Jim Broadbent, Olivia Colman, Paddy Considine and Bill Bailey
Directed by Edgar Wright
Written by Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg
Length: 121mins

In 2004, British director Edgar Wright released his comedic homage to the zombie genre in the form of ‘Shaun of the Dead,’ a brilliant and clever film that utilised the stereotypical tropes of the genre to create a film that felt completely unique. This would be the start of a three-part series of films that would each take on their own respective genre in a comedic manner, and would feature a recurring all-star cast led by Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. Concluded in 2013, the so-called ‘Cornetto’ trilogy (named after the recurring appearance of the ice cream in each film, with three different flavours to match the three different genres) was rounded up by ‘Worlds End,’ a take on the world of sci-fi and aliens. However, I think that the strongest of the trilogy was made in 2007, when Wright turned his attention towards the action genre, and headed to Somerset to create his ode to the blockbusters of ‘Point Break’ and ‘Bad Boys 2.’

After over-successful London Constable Nicholas Angel (Simon Pegg) is sent to enforce the law in the idyllic rural village of Sandford – hidden amongst the hundreds of other communities just like it – he begins to find that all is not what it seems, and after taking the Chief Inspector’s son PC Danny Butterman (Nick Frost) under his wing, Angel begins to believe that a series of grisly accidents may not be entirely so coincidental.

To say that Wright is thorough with details when it comes to designing his films would be an understatement. Within the script, the almost constant moments of humour are often accentuated by the smallest of details that may have alluded to future scenes in the earlier moments of the film. Not a line is wasted, and as a result, a moment of dialogue from the story’s beginning will only feature further along down the line. This extreme approach to script writing is what sets Wright and Pegg (who also co-wrote the script) apart from most, as their clever understanding of what adds humour to a scene is perfectly executed throughout the entire 121 minutes.

Wright isn’t only obsessive about recurring and subtle ideas in the script that may only be caught after repeat viewings, but also within the set and sound design. Moments such as Butterman’s peak of intrigue after Angel reveals that he’s been stabbed before is punctuated by a distant ‘ca-ching’ sound of a till opening somewhere within the pub, as well a burst of laughter from a pub-goer after Angel describes it as “the single most painful experience of his life,” are the kind of moments that could be easily mistaken for simple background noise, but are actually the work of meticulous sound design at the hands of a director who understands that if he’s creating a comedy, then he can use all areas of film form to add humour to a scene.

The fanatical use of noise doesn’t just stop at the sound design. Wright’s ideas towards musical accompaniment and the action of a scene are perhaps best displayed in his later work, ‘Baby Driver’ from 2017, where not a moment of action isn’t to the beat of a song, but ‘Hot Fuzz,’ still showcases some brilliant use of music. From Adam Ant’s ‘Goody Two Shoes’ accompanying the over-enthusiastic Angel in his police training, to Dire Strait’s ‘Romeo and Juliet’ accompanying a scene of tragedy after a rendition of the titular play is performed. Being aware of the relationship between sound and action is what allows Edgar Wright to create moments that flow to a beat without the audience perhaps even realising.

Aside from the later action of the film, Wright perfectly captures the life of so many small villages dotted throughout the English countryside. From the only after work activity being the Pub, to the frequent reiteration of “everybody knows everybody round here,” anyone who’s spent time in such a place will know that ‘Hot Fuzz’ perfectly depicts the repetitious and slow lifestyle of any English village. Wright himself grew up in Wells, Somerset, where ‘Hot Fuzz’ was actually filmed, and was quoted as saying “I love it but I also want to trash it.”

‘Hot Fuzz’ is one of those films that you can stick on anytime, anywhere and with anyone, and not only laugh out loud, but get something new from it every time. Edgar Wright displays his talents excellently in this film and I look forward to the release of his new film, ‘Last Night in Soho,’ sometime in the near future.

by theactivespectator

La La Land – Review

Rating: 12A
Cast: Ryan Gosling, Emma Stone, John Legend, J.K Simmons
Directed by Damien Chazelle
Written by Damien Chazelle
Length: 128mins

In 2016 Damien Chazelle brought the highly anticipated ‘old Hollywood’ style musical, La La Land, to the big screen. The film itself seems to have split audiences into passionate opinions of ‘love it or hate it’ and for that response in itself I think its worthy of comment. I have found it so interesting to enter into conversations with people who disagree with my own views; I would confidently say that this is one of my absolute favourite films.

Our story follows two artists in Hollywood – Sebastian, a hot headed but passionate pianist with a deep love for Jazz music and Mia, an actress, taking on the industry one audition, one rejection at a time. Their paths cross a couple of times before their conjoined story begins, but what seems to be key is that they are connected – both young people, with big, possibly unrealistic dreams. This story has a very raw feel, assisted of course by the cinematography and directorial choices, our main characters have such a normal feel about them. I find both Mia and Sebastian very easy to relate to, sharing explicit moments of vulnerability; weakness, frustration and emotion. All performed beautifully by Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone, both of whom received high accolades for their work including multiple nominations and awards. I feel that what this film has done so brilliantly is create something that people relate to. Mia and Sebastian express so much of human nature making it almost impossible to not connect with the characters on some level. This makes me question the impact that this level of empathy instills within it’s audience, perhaps some dislike the outcome of the story because choices made aren’t the ones they would have made? Maybe not, but it’s an interesting idea to consider.

In comparison to one of Chazelle’s previous hits, ‘Whiplash’, La La Land was an opportunity to show a whole different side to his vision and creativity. Where Whiplash is said to have been a very ‘tight’ production – heavily relying on editing with lots of shots, focussed on exact, predestined moments. La La Land was a much more ‘free’ production, relying on less shots than Whiplash but allowing time for rehearsal and regular retakes (to assist in the practicalities of syncing actors to playback etc…) I understand that there was plenty of opportunity for improvisation within the script – though the visuals were predesigned the key relationship needed a real casual essence as its driving force and so the relaxed atmosphere of two professionals, totally in character, improvising gave new layers of truth while keeping the relationship and story telling light. In considering the visual presentation on a whole you cannot miss the sheer attention to detail. Everything is so deliberate from the colour schemes, camera angles to moments of quiet and a small glance.

I’m not sure you can discuss La La Land without commenting on the music, another element that divides people. I for one was slightly confused at some peoples outrage at the use of seemingly ‘normal’ vocals. These vocals, though of an extremely high standard, rarely sound polished or like recording artists and perhaps it’s just not to some peoples taste, but I feel that, firstly; it was a deliberate choice and therefore was selected to allow for the tone of the overall story and, secondly; it still sounds great, it just doesn’t necessarily fit with the framework of modern day ‘moive-musicals’. For me, the music and the lyrics provide extra layers to the storytelling, layers that are perhaps unreachable through alternative methods. I feel like Justin Hurwitz, the films composer, has outdone himself. In the films that he’s worked on I always find myself paying attention to the music, not as a distraction, rather as another thread of the canvas so to speak. As someone without much musical knowledge I wasn’t sure i’d ever really have a ‘favourite’ composer, but I certainly do admire and respect Hurwitz’s ability to tell story through music. Each piece of music, each song is so deliberate and powerful.

This film is truly a piece of art. By nature it wont be loved and adored by everyone, but it will speak to people in different ways. I encourage you to look at this film through a slightly different lens than just ‘popping something on the tv’. Consider the films intentions, the messages hiding in each detail, in each lyric. It might teach you something about yourself or encourage something in you that you had pushed aside.

“Here’s to the fools who dream”

by theactivespectator

Lady Bird – Review

Rating: 15
Cast: Saoirse Ronan, Laurie Metcalf, Tracy Letts, Lucas Hedges, Timothee Chalamet and Beanie Feldstein.
Directed by Greta Gerwig.
Written by Greta Gerwig.
Length: 94mins.

Lady Bird is the striking directorial debut by Greta Gerwig that is assured, singular and affecting. It tells a beautifully plain coming of age story following a teenage girl called Christine (who calls herself ‘Lady Bird’) as we explore the complexities of her relationships and trials of growing up. Though I describe the story as plain, it is certainly not boring and with the absolute powerhouse of Saoirse Ronan at the helm, supported by the outstanding talent of Laurie Metcalf, there is so much for the audience to be invested in.

The opening of the movie shows a very normal conversation between a mother and daughter in the car on the way home from a college trip – both moved by a series of cassette tapes that had just come to an end and quickly escalates into a spontaneous teenage tantrum propelled by a mother who is quick to take a pop at her daughter. Straight away the scene is set – we are introduced to one of the main themes considered throughout the film, the ever changing, volatile, ups and downs of the relationship between a seemingly ‘normal’ mother and daughter. A daughter with big dreams, lacking in patience and somewhat unaware of others while wrapped up in her own plans and a mother who wants the best for her daughter but knows her temperament and is frustrated by her ignorance and lack of understanding surrounding ‘grown up problems’. The scene ends with the unexpected but hilarious moment of Lady Bird opening the car door and throwing herself out of it while still driving along, followed by the horrified screams of her mother.

The script is just brilliant, it’s so authentic and conversational whilst flipping to either hilarious moments of quick comedy or deeply saddening moments. It keeps each scene moving along nicely while showing the audience more of each character with each sentence. One of the reasons I rate this film so highly is it’s impact on me; each time I watch it I seem to focus on a different theme that is subtly woven into the plot. Thanks to Ronan’s brilliant charm, the audience very quickly empathises with her character and is invested in each challenge that she faces on a day to day basis.

In what was the first in an undoubtably long run of films directed by Greta Gerwig, we get a glimpse at the type of stories she wants to tell. We see strong but imperfect female leads, a consideration of social and economical division and a focus on human relationships; all important issues with hundreds of stories to tell. This film is an easy watch, it’s not long but it has so much to say. Completely original, refreshingly honest.

“What I really want is to be on math olympiad”
“But math isn’t something you’re terribly strong in”
“That we know of, yet”

by theactivespectator

Emma – Review

Rated: U
Cast: Anya Taylor-Joy, Johnny Flynn, Bill Nighy, Mia Goth, Josh O’Connor and Callum Turner
Directed by Autumn de Wilde
Written by Eleanor Catton (Screenplay) and Jane Austen (Novel)
Length: 125Mins

February 2020 saw Autumn de Wilde’s first feature length film hit the big screens, bringing a classic Austin Novel to life in a fresh, new remake. The task of producing yet another Jane Austin hit comes with the high pressure of competing with previous versions and some audience’s asking ‘why bother?’ but also paralleled with the reassurance that your story is a much loved classic that will ultimately draw in an audience.

This delightfully kooky retelling of Emma really brings forth the humour of the story. It doesn’t take itself too seriously and really allows the comedic text and situation to rise to the forefront. The jocular skills of Miranda Hart, Mia Goth and Bill Nighy bring laughs from start to finish while still creating characters that the audience warms to. The story is compelling, you fall into this wonderful, picturesque world and although I felt the first ten minutes a little disjointed, it doesn’t take long to be completely wrapped up in the wonderful world of Austin.

The story follows the titular character of Emma, known for her matchmaking ways, as she takes a young girl under her wing with hopes to set her up to marry a man of high esteem while sustaining her reputation and considering her own future. The story charmingly twists and turns giving the audience everything it could desire from the plot. I didn’t particularly warm to the character of Emma, but I love that within this story our leading lady makes mistakes. She messes up and as her character unravels, as demonstrated visually by her tight ringlet curls falling loose at climactic moments, we get to see a wonderful glimpse of the human condition. Someone making an error, having their behaviour questioned and then working to right their wrongs. Jane Austin herself wrote “I am going to take a heroine whom no one but myself will much like” which I just love – the very personal approach to writing this character, deliberately giving her a storyline and characteristics which readers might dislike, wrapped in a personality that the author so carefully constructed. I feel like this was honoured in this adaptation, we the audience like Emma just enough to stay interested but not so much as to be blind to her poor choices.

A large portion of Autumn de Wilde’s professional experience is in photography and I felt like that was obvious from the first frame of this film. Each scene was so visually pleasing, so much care taken on production design, costume and carefully selected shots that frame the actors, timeline and mood of the scene. This film is a true piece of art with careful consideration around the framing of her shots.

Overall this film is just lovely, you will know from the poster whether you’re going to enjoy it or not. It’s a quirky period drama intertwined with hilarious humanity and a good dashing of romance. I felt like for a debut feature film Autumn de Wilde has burst onto the scene with bright, bold choices and I’m really excited to see what she does next.

by theactivespectator

Charlie’s Angels – Review

Rated: 12A
Cast: Naomi Scott, Kristen Stewart, Ella Balinska, Sam Claflin, Elizabeth Banks
Directed by Elizabeth Banks
Written by Elizabeth Banks, David Auburn and Evan Spiliotopoulos
Length: 118mins

As soon as I heard about a third Charlie’s Angels movie I knew that people would love it or hate it. The first two films (2000, 2003), starring Drew Barrymore, Lucy Liu and Cameron Diaz, are not typically considered ‘great films’ and I would absolutely agree with the general consensus. The 2019 movie had a make over – new cast, writers and director, as well as a more contemporary approach to the whole thing. If, like me, you loved the idea of the first two films but cringed at the cheesy moments and physically impossible ‘stunts’ then I urge to you give this new film a go. If you hated everything about the originals then perhaps, I would suggest, this one isn’t for you.

This revamped story of female spies working for the Townsend Agency isn’t a retelling. It’s not replacing the characters of old and just jazzing up their story. It widens the world of the original, including a few nice subtle ‘nods’ to the past films without forcing it’s audience into confusion if this is the first Charlie’s Angels film they’ve watched. I think the one of the main reasons why I enjoyed this so much is because they made it that little bit more believable – in a world where so many films are about superheroes, I quite like that the film makers created a world with heroes that could, in theory, exist. Although it compliments the older films with little throwbacks, you don’t need to have seen them to watch and enjoy this film.

While not particularly complex, the story does have a couple of twists and turns which keep you gripped. The film is kept light by the comical moments, brilliantly executed (usually) by Kristen Stewart. My least favourite element was the somewhat comical villain, played by Sam Claflin. Don’t get me wrong, I really like him as an actor, but there are a few scenes where his squeals and slightly panto-esque facial expressions changed the tone of certain moments. I imagine they were choices made for comical effect, but for me, they weren’t really funny and cheapened it slightly.

One theme, explored in both the older movies and the new, is considering women and how they were/have been/can be perceived. I actually found the attempts from Banks to try to modernise the gender politics appropriately pitched – there were powerful messages of intelligence and strength alongside a sharper awareness of how men might underestimate the skills and physical competency of women which is nicely heightened. The leading trio are made to be sexy without being turned into sex objects. Equally, the film isn’t perfect, and it’s important to remember that one film will never cover all areas and, alone, wont impact the masses into social change.

If you pull this movie apart and analyse every frame, you’ll struggle to find cinematic genius or deeply powerful undertones. But I do believe that if you enjoy a bit of fast paced fun then you could thoroughly enjoy the watch and might find one or two moments that speak to you outside of the story.

by theactivespectator

The Gentlemen – Review

Rating: 18
Cast: Matthew McConaughey, Charlie Hunnam, Michelle Dockery, Colin Farrell, Henry Golding and Hugh Grant.
Directed by Guy Ritchie.
Written by Guy Ritchie, Ivan Atkinson and Marn Davies.
Length: 113mins

The Gentlemen is, on the surface, exactly what you expect it to be – it’s a Guy Ritchie, fast paced, gangster movie about the British drug industry. Raymond (Charlie Hunnam) is right-hand man to the UK’s biggest weed dealer Mickey Pearson (Matthew McConaughey). When Raymond gets home late one night he finds Fletcher (Hugh Grant), a sleezy journalist who’s waiting for him. Fletcher has a story he’s ready to sell to the highest bidder involving Mickey, drugs, violence, and more, and as we watch that story unfold it serves as an introduction to a mixed bag of characters who’s stories intertwine whether they want to or not…

The 18 certificate is undeniably down to the sheer level of bad language and violence. I don’t mind either of these elements as long as they are telling a truthful story, if it’s all within context. I felt like some of the language in this movie was just thrown about and wasn’t necessary which tainted the overall experience. What surprised me was the carefully considered story line which was executed really well. The viewer experiences most of the narrative through the lens of Fletchers blackmailing story which was really effective, it doesn’t feel like it disjointedly jumps between the present and the past, it’s much more smooth which also reflects the characters and their natures.

The film is well formed and pretty to look at. While that’s aided by the brilliant cast, credit is deserved for the cinematographer Alan Stewart and costume designer Michael Wilkinson. Every scene has an air of class about it in both the way its shot and the wardrobe giving each character their own sense of style and purpose. They’re clear in our minds even before the characters have opened their mouths to speak, and their outfits become an extension of the kind of men they are at heart. From the beautiful suits to the leather jackets to Farrell’s track suit, it assists in the overall telling of the story.

Several of the actors fall into their comfort zones with these characters and that is not a negative comment, it’s exciting to see people do something they’re so good at while wrapped up in a story that could take a different route at any point. Charlie Hunnam is both smooth and terrifying all at once with a real sense of danger in every slight gesture while maintaining a gentlemanly front, McConaughey is just brilliant, as he always is, commanding the attention of each scene. But the biggest surprise for me was just how wonderful Hugh Grant’s portrayal of Fletcher is. He’s the total opposite to the charming, awkward leading man we’ve seen so many times before but is so committed to this funny little character. I found it both hilarious and captivating and really enjoyed seeing him play out of his typical casting type. I also enjoyed Michelle Dockery’s portrayal of Mrs Pearson – again the complete opposite of her role which shot her to stardom in Downton Abbey, she settles into the role naturally and doesn’t over compensate, she still carries a classy nature while expressing a believable link to the criminal world with flashes of danger that she carries both independently and in communion with her on screen husband.

This film seems to have gone slightly under the radar. I’m not sure whether that’s down to it’s certification or the fact it’s not a part of a mega franchise but it really is one to watch if you enjoy a good gangster movie. The intelligence of the story gives it more layers than just guns and egos and while painted with a classic sweep of Guy Ritchie it’s exciting and captivating with dashes of humour.

by theactivespectator

Jojo Rabbit – Review

Rating: 12A
Cast: Roman Griffin Davis, Thomasin McKenzie, Scarlett Johansson, Taika Waititi, Sam Rockwell
Directed by Taika Waititi
Written by Christine Leunens (Novel) and Taika Waititi (Screenplay)
Length: 108mins

Jojo Rabbit is loosely adapted from Christine Leunens’s novel ‘Caging Skies’. The story unfolds during the Third Reich’s final days, when 10-year-old Jojo Betzler (Griffin Davis) dreams of fighting for the Nazi regime. What appeals to Jojo is the thought of spending time with Hitler himself – and for the time being, he makes do with an imaginary-friend version, played by Waititi. The story looks at the home life of Jojo, his relationship with his mother (Johansson) and the discovery of the young Jewish girl that his mother is hiding from the Nazi’s.

This is a very specific style of movie, straight away some people will love it and others wont. I expected to enjoy this film but not be blown away and that’s where I landed. The trailer expresses humour that feels somewhat tongue in cheek but is bizarrely appealing; to see how a brilliantly funny and creative director might push some boundaries of what is acceptable to mock while still dealing with one of the biggest atrocities in the worlds history.

Visually the film is great; it’s easy to follow, artistic and vibrant perhaps in a way which most war time films are not. This emphasises the childhood innocence of our lead character and helps to carry some of the humour through the story. My main issue is that, although I personally enjoyed a lot of the jokes, the majority are at the beginning of the story. I found myself watching and waiting for the next punchline or absurdly amusing situation rather than allowing myself to connect with the characters. As the story takes a more serious tone I found myself desiring that connection which, therefore, impacted my reaction to the rest of film.

Any negative press, for the most part, has been about how the film fails to cut to the dark heart of the matter around how Jews (amongst others) were treated and the light-hearted approach which simply dabbles with the atrocities of the third reich. I understand these feelings but can also see very clear creative choices in doing this – whether everyone warms to it or not. I was uncertain when I first heard about the movie’s age rating, I thought that a 12A would naturally limit what they could express on camera, which obviously it does, but actually think that allowing a slightly younger audience into the experience might actually be of benefit, to encourage education around the importance of loving each other and caring for people who you might not understand or are different to you.

My rating is down to my personal enjoyment of this film. It really is one to watch and make up your own mind. I would advise watching the trailer and attempting to grasp whether this particular style of film and humour is one that you would enjoy. If you find that you don’t enjoy the film stylistically, then there are definitely still specific moments or performances that you might find entertaining and fulfilling.

by theactivespectator

Jumanji: The Next Level – Review

Rated: 12A
Cast: Dwayne Johnson, Kevin Hart, Karen Gillan, Jack Black, Awkwafina, Nick Jonas
Directed by Jake Kasdan
Written by Jake Kasdan, Jeff Pinkner and Scott Rosenberg
Length: 123mins

2017 introduced a new generation to the thrilling and captivating world of Jumanji with a whole new take on the 1995 movie starring Robin Williams. With a fresh approach which saw our heroes pulled in to the game, rather than characters from the game entering our world, some were nervous that the new movie wouldn’t even come close to iconic original. The masses flocked to see the brilliant Dwayne Johnson, Kevin Hart, Karen Gillan and Jack Black play video game avatars, taking on the personalities of teenagers and audiences were taken aback by the hilarious performances, brilliant writing and completely fresh idea to compliment the original movie. Is making another film pushing it that bit too far? Or has Jake Kasdan managed to pull off another hit sensation?

Jumanji: The Next Level see’s our heroes returning into the world of Jumanji expecting to find the same ‘game’ as last time but are surprised to find a whole new quest. Not only are there new levels to face, but different bodies, skills and weaknesses. Part of the charm of the Jumanji: Welcome To The Jungle (2017) was it’s originality, it had never been done before and was funny to all ages. While still funny, this presents the issue that the audiences know roughly what to expect, it takes some of the ‘wow-factor’ out of it and requires more thought to captivate and hold it’s audience.

Jumanji: Welcome To The Jungle (2017) explored themes of friendship in high school and looking beyond individuals differences. Jumanji: The Next Level carries on with similar themes, but considers taking friendships further as you enter a more grown up world and, through the brilliant Danny DeVito and Danny Glover, the importance of forgiveness and the value of long lasting friendships. I love how there are two storylines intertwined throughout – as you would expect, the bulk of the story, humour and attention is on the world of Jumanji and it’s avatars, but the action that takes place at the beginning and end with the ‘real’ characters is just as interesting and entertaining. Separate stories, connected perfectly. The writers have managed to create characters that we as an audience are so drawn to in their ‘real’ forms, that it affects how we view their avatars and to me that is just incredible. Yes, of course this is hugely assisted by the wonderful cast and their detailed, intricate performances, but I found myself caring for the personality of the avatars, not just their amusing characteristics within the game.

There’s not too much more I can comment on without introducing spoilers and this is a film that will be best enjoyed if you go in with no expectations. But I would highly recommend this movie as a bit of exciting, family fun over this festive period. It has laughs for all the ages, with sufficient action, good pace and important underlying themes. A brilliant piece of lighthearted film making that you can share with everyone.