I'm writing a spoiler review of JUMANJI: WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE for two reasons. One, that there is one part of this film that needs, for me at least, to be noted for why I think it didn't work, and two, a remark about the marketing of this film, how it is considered to be a remake, when there clearly is evidence that it is actually a sequel.
My first problem can seem to be nit-picky, but hear me out. One thing I truly DID like about the original JUMANJI was the use of Jonathan Hyde, as both Alan Parrish's father AND as the villainous Van Pelt. Van Pelt, if you didn't know, (which is why this is a SPOILER review) is the name given to the heavy in WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE. This is both good and bad, which is why it is a problem for me.
The good, is that it supports the notion that this is a SEQUEL, not a reboot or a remake. The bad, is that the original Van Pelt had a purpose. He HAD a character, and while it could be argued that he was simply an entity of Jumanji, casting him with the actor who played Alan's father was a masterstroke. Who better to be constantly hunting him in Jumanji than the ghost of his own father, the very thing that drove him away in the first place?
In WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE, we have no such definition for Van Pelt. He's just a villain, one who's rotting from the inside out, it seems, as bugs and other insidious creatures crawl in and out of him. But that's the most character we get. He barely has any lines, he doesn't have a focus. And unlike the original Van Pelt, who represented Alan's fears as well as his father, this one has nothing at all on any of the characters whatsoever. I honestly think you could have filmed around him completely and the film's quality wouldn't change.
Don't get me wrong, however--it doesn't detract from the overall quality of the film enough to bother me. It's just interesting to note.
And then we get to my second problem, the marketing. It frightens me, considering just how many remakes are coming out, that somehow this is looked at as not only a marketing gimmick, but a PROFITABLE one, at that. In a day and age when movies can be watched, in a variety of ways, from a very wide variety of time periods, are we really accepting "okay" to such a degree that we're making remakes good business strategy?
PLEASE tell me it's not true. The only remake I've ever seen (so far) that was better than the original was IT (of which I've recently written a review, if you're interested), and that was a remake of the first part of a mini-series. I'm not saying that's why it worked (honestly I couldn't tell you exactly why it worked at all, it just DID), but I am saying making a remake that's better than the original is as hard and unlikely as making a sequel that's better than the original (which, ironically, we have here, with WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE).
This is NOT a remake, for several reasons. One, the most obvious for me, was the scrawl carved into a board at Alex's refuge spot, "ALAN PARRISH WAS HERE". Adding to it that the villain of the game's name was Van Pelt, who was the most dangerous of all the threats in the original, and you've got a strong case for identifying this as a sequel.
I have a couple more. The original JUMANJI ends with the game's thumping drums as it lies, half-buried in the sand. This is EXACTLY where the game is re-discovered, at the beginning of this film. It evolves, showing the passage of time, into a video game that's closer to our time. If it's just a reboot, or even a remake, why use the original board at all? Why not just have Alex find it, or buy it in a used game shop or something?
See, I don't have any moral arguments against sequels. Trying to make another story out of one that worked, and worked WELL, is not surprising. What IS surprising is having one that works, and what's even MORE surprising is having one that outshines the original. Out of the more than 1600 films I've seen (and counting), only TWENTY that I've found have either matched the originals in quality, or superseded them.
Well, now it's twenty-one.
My first problem can seem to be nit-picky, but hear me out. One thing I truly DID like about the original JUMANJI was the use of Jonathan Hyde, as both Alan Parrish's father AND as the villainous Van Pelt. Van Pelt, if you didn't know, (which is why this is a SPOILER review) is the name given to the heavy in WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE. This is both good and bad, which is why it is a problem for me.
The good, is that it supports the notion that this is a SEQUEL, not a reboot or a remake. The bad, is that the original Van Pelt had a purpose. He HAD a character, and while it could be argued that he was simply an entity of Jumanji, casting him with the actor who played Alan's father was a masterstroke. Who better to be constantly hunting him in Jumanji than the ghost of his own father, the very thing that drove him away in the first place?
In WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE, we have no such definition for Van Pelt. He's just a villain, one who's rotting from the inside out, it seems, as bugs and other insidious creatures crawl in and out of him. But that's the most character we get. He barely has any lines, he doesn't have a focus. And unlike the original Van Pelt, who represented Alan's fears as well as his father, this one has nothing at all on any of the characters whatsoever. I honestly think you could have filmed around him completely and the film's quality wouldn't change.
Don't get me wrong, however--it doesn't detract from the overall quality of the film enough to bother me. It's just interesting to note.
And then we get to my second problem, the marketing. It frightens me, considering just how many remakes are coming out, that somehow this is looked at as not only a marketing gimmick, but a PROFITABLE one, at that. In a day and age when movies can be watched, in a variety of ways, from a very wide variety of time periods, are we really accepting "okay" to such a degree that we're making remakes good business strategy?
PLEASE tell me it's not true. The only remake I've ever seen (so far) that was better than the original was IT (of which I've recently written a review, if you're interested), and that was a remake of the first part of a mini-series. I'm not saying that's why it worked (honestly I couldn't tell you exactly why it worked at all, it just DID), but I am saying making a remake that's better than the original is as hard and unlikely as making a sequel that's better than the original (which, ironically, we have here, with WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE).
This is NOT a remake, for several reasons. One, the most obvious for me, was the scrawl carved into a board at Alex's refuge spot, "ALAN PARRISH WAS HERE". Adding to it that the villain of the game's name was Van Pelt, who was the most dangerous of all the threats in the original, and you've got a strong case for identifying this as a sequel.
I have a couple more. The original JUMANJI ends with the game's thumping drums as it lies, half-buried in the sand. This is EXACTLY where the game is re-discovered, at the beginning of this film. It evolves, showing the passage of time, into a video game that's closer to our time. If it's just a reboot, or even a remake, why use the original board at all? Why not just have Alex find it, or buy it in a used game shop or something?
See, I don't have any moral arguments against sequels. Trying to make another story out of one that worked, and worked WELL, is not surprising. What IS surprising is having one that works, and what's even MORE surprising is having one that outshines the original. Out of the more than 1600 films I've seen (and counting), only TWENTY that I've found have either matched the originals in quality, or superseded them.
Well, now it's twenty-one.