Jungle Cruise - What If Werner Herzog Made a Disney Adventure?

It’s been a while, but my seemingly yearly burnout has come to an end, and I’m writing about movies again. I don’t technically own Jungle Cruise, but I do have Disney+, which the film will eventually be a part of without an extra fee. Also, thanks to the studios realizing that digital screeners are a good idea, I was actually able to watch this at home rather than drive three hours to the nearest theater providing an advance screening, so it inspired me to write about a new movie for a change. Here are my thoughts.

A Sleepy Movie

Jungle Cruise is the latest attempt by Disney to turn one of its famous rides into a movie franchise a la Pirates of the Caribbean. Though it’s unlikely that Jungle Cruise will turn into the unwieldy juggernaut that the Pirates films became, it is still a very solid, and very predictable and plain, summer film. 

Predictable and plain are not typically considered a good thing when it comes to film, but in this case it was oddly refreshing. Jungle Cruise attempts to be a modern twist on classic adventure films of the 1940s. It’s a classic adventure in that the story is very simple. In 1916, a doctor (Emily Blunt) enlists the help of a con artist boat captain (Dwayne Johnson) to navigate the treacherous Amazon River in search of a fabled tree that has flowers said to be able to cure any ailment. Of course, other nefarious parties (an evil German [because why not?] and cursed conquistadors) want to find the tree, as well. Adventure, romance, action, and hijinks ensue.

The modern twist of it all lies only in some minor character elements. Emily Blunt is a woman who dares to wear pants! Which is such a big deal that “Pants” becomes her name for much of the film. Another character is gay...in 1916! And...that’s pretty much it. These elements are a bit gimmicky, but they do add another layer to a simple film. The homosexual reveal is easily the most emotional moment in the film. And the misogyny of the time is rightfully mocked (a historical society has no issue with the idea of 400-year-old cursed conquistadors [I really like typing the phrase “cursed conquistadors”], but is outraged at the idea of a female tribal chief). These elements don’t elevate Jungle Cruise beyond being a simple adventure, but they are a nice touch.

What makes all of this oddly refreshing is that Jungle Cruise is as relaxing as its title suggests. This movie is the cinematic equivalent of floating down a river. Certainly, that could be a negative experience for anyone seeking more from the film, but if you’re in this for a couple hours of distraction and not much else, then it’s exactly what you want from a summer movie. The best comparison would be to the National Treasure movies. Much like those Nicolas Cage films, there’s nothing about Jungle Cruise that’s annoying enough to hate, and even though the story isn’t as interesting (I just prefer American history, even when it’s mostly made up, to be more interesting than jungle curses), it’s just entertaining enough to enjoy.

Jungle Cruise is a good example of a sleeping movie. If you’re like me, you like to put on a movie or TV show as you fall asleep of an evening. I always try to pick something interesting enough to watch, but simple enough to fall asleep to. If I put on Aguirre, the Wrath of God at midnight, it’ll keep me up for the entire running time. But if I put on Jungle Cruise (once it’s available on Disney+ without a fee), I’ll be asleep before they even get on the boat, and that is the kind of movie I need Jungle Cruise to be.

A Werner Herzog Disney  Film

Jungle Cruise appeals to me beyond its simplicity. I’m a sucker for boat-trips-on-a-river movies. Apocalypse Now, Aguirre, and Fitzcarraldo are among my favorite films of all time. I guess it’s the sense of exploring the unknown, but the visuals of the dense, dangerous river and forest coupled with main characters on dangerous and/or insane quests just hit the cinematic sweet spot for me. That’s why Jungle Cruise is such a fun oddity to me. It features the plot points of one of the Werner Herzog films (Aguirre and Fitzcarraldo), but rather than focus on insanity or blind determination as those films do, this film is instead a family-friendly adventure. It’s as if Werner Herzog made a film for Disney.

Herzog is one of the most varied filmmakers of all time because he is interested in humanity in all its forms. It’s not impossible that he would make a fun Disney film, but it is very unlikely. Because of that, Jungle Cruise will always be an interesting watch for me as I compare it to Herzog’s river movies, and wonder what he would do differently. I like to imagine that he would try to insert more dark humor and a bit more of a focus on insanity. For instance, Dwayne Johnson’s character (SPOILERS from here on out), revealed to be one of the undead, cursed conquistadors, could be portrayed as genuinely insane due to his centuries-long life on the river rather than the pun-spewing con artist he is in the film. Johnson is a stronger actor than he is given credit for, and when allowed to go a bit crazy, he can turn in a memorable performance. Instead, he’s just the Rock on a boat.

But maybe Herzog wouldn’t have been meant to direct such a film. He has turned up as an actor here and there, most notably as a villain in Jack Reacher and The Mandalorian. I liked Jesse Plemons’s manic performance as the crazed German prince in this film (even if I somehow missed just why he is crazed aside from the need to turn any German villain in a film set in the early 20th century into a crazy person), but imagine Werner Herzog in the role instead. He would be much more menacing, and he can seem crazy without going big. I just picture Herzog talking to a bee (as Plemons does late in the film), and I think of the missed opportunity.

Herzog in The Mandalorian is probably the most Disney we will ever get, but at least Jungle Cruise provided me enough to wonder what could have been.

Random Thoughts/Favorite Quotes

Didn’t expect this to start with an orchestral version of Metallica’s “Nothing Else Matters.”

I prefer Werner Herzog’s story of Aguirre.

This would be a very different movie if those swords Emily Blunt knocked down at the beginning killed those dudes, but then Jesse Plemons wouldn’t have anyone to kill…

Within the first ten minutes I got some Aguirre (because, well, Aguirre is a character), The Mummy (because of the academic love interest with a dipshit brother), Pirates of the Caribbean (because of the curse), The Lost City of Z (because of the Amazon and the historical society stuff), and Fitzcarraldo (because of the boat) vibes.

“Might be me. Warm, liquid fear.”

That jaguar scene looked bad, and was pretty fucking pointless. How does fighting a jaguar prove that the Rock can successfully navigate the Amazon? I’m glad it’s revealed that he set the whole thing up since the fight was so ridiculous, but it definitely felt like tacked on shit because there hadn’t been enough “action” yet in the film.

Is Paul Giammatti just the go-to now when a film needs an extra, unnecessary villain?

"I don't trust you as far as I can throw you. Which clearly isn't very far, because you are huge." At over an hour in, this is only the second time anyone has mentioned the gigantic stature of the Rock. I kind of like that they mostly ignore it, but it's also more plausible to believe in a curse that turns a conquistador into a bee monster than it is to ignore what the Rock looks like compared to other humans.

Even as a snake monster, this Aguirre isn't as crazy as Kinski's version.

Jesse Plemons is having a very good time playing the evil German.

I honestly don’t understand how the flowers at the end of the film work exactly, and why they can’t just get a ton of them. But, in the film’s defense, I kind of shut down during some of the exposition in the later part of the movie.

..

"Sicario" Is the Dark, Tense Film the Drug War Deserves.

Sicario

Director Dennis Villeneuve has recently established himself as a master of tension, mood, and atmosphere. His two most recent films, Prisoners and Enemy set the tone for what to expect from his latest film, Sicario. Villeneuve’s ability to take basic establishing shots of arguably mundane settings and make them foreboding and intense is impressive. It’s a way of creating an effective style without calling too much attention to itself.

With Sicario, Villeneuve has the deserts of Mexico and the American southwest to play with. Lengthy establishing shots (renowned director of photography Roger Deakins impresses yet again) paired with a menacing score (by Johann Johannsson) let us know that this film about the drug war is going to be dark, intense, and disturbing. Mood isn’t everything in a film, but it certainly helps draw the viewer in. Working with a script from Taylor Sheridan (best known as an actor from Sons of Anarchy), Villeneuve is able to take what could have been a cookie-cutter action-thriller and make it into something special.

A movie about the drug war needs to be elevated because this is a story that has been told before, in a way. There have been movies about the drug war in Mexico for decades, but Sicario rises above the rest thanks to Villeneuve’s direction. That is not to say Sheridan’s script is weak. It is not terribly original, but it is interesting thanks to the perspective Sheridan chose.

The story is told from FBI agent Kate Macer’s perspective. Macer (Emily Blunt) is asked to join a joint task force made up of vague government types including Josh Brolin and Benicio Del Toro. Neither one wants to tell Macer much, so we do not know much. The most Macer, and the audience, is told is that the mission is to shake things up for the cartel and “dramatically overreact.” There is more to it, of course, which is the mystery of the film. The title itself is a bit of a mystery as “sicario” means “hitman” in Spanish, but we are not told who the hitman is. Having the main character be the new member of a group is a standard ploy of screenwriting to give the viewer someone to empathize with, but it is interesting here when you consider that Macer may represent the typical American’s reaction to the drug war. Not to get into spoilers, but Macer’s story arc is much more powerful when you view her as a representation of America in general.

While the character of Macer may be a bit plain, Blunt is still able to show her impressive range. Even though she plays a successful FBI agent, this is not your typical strong independent female role. Normally, a female character like this would be shown overpowering every man in her way, but Sicario takes a more realistic route. Macer can hold her own in a raid, but in a hand to hand fight with a man who has fifty pounds on her, things do not go so smoothly. While Macer is physically capable of her job, she struggles with the moral implications of her work with the task force. It is a role that requires Blunt to show equal parts strength and weakness, and she is great at both.

Brolin gives a fun performance in his supporting role, providing some much needed comedic relief to an otherwise joyless film. But it’s Del Toro who steals the film. As Alejandro, a mysterious and deadly soldier, he is able to make a menacing character surprisingly sympathetic. Del Toro comes across as the true star of the film. And Macer (and we the audience) are just there to watch him work.

Since this is a film about the drug war, there is a bit of action, as well. Villneuve does not glorify any of the violence, instead making most of the action scenes quick and brutal, showcasing how savage the situation has become. Each “action” scene is an incredibly tense moment that is much more effective than anything you will find in traditional action films of late.

Every positive element of the film is amplified by the style Villeneuve infuses into the film. Perhaps this is giving him too much credit, but mood and atmosphere cannot be undervalued when it comes to films about serious topics. Villeneuve’s style demands your close attention. And your close attention is rewarded with a tense, atmospheric “action” film that will have you contemplating a real world issue. In short, Sicario is what every serious film should be.

Sicario receives a:

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

I really liked the dark ending of the film, with the whole mission being about supporting one cartel to take over the entire drug trade. It's hard to fault Brolin's reasoning, especially when he points out the impossibility of getting Americans to stop using drugs. It's not a nice solution, but maybe it's a realistic one. 

I liked Sicario quite a bit because of my interpretation of Macer's character. By the end of the film, I saw her as representative of America in general because of her inability to bring real change to the situation. When Alejandro visits her at the end to coerce a signature that will legalize all the illegal things they did, he tells her she isn't strong enough for the war. She is not a wolf. So she should move away from it. I feel like that sums up most of America's citizens in regard to the drug war. Most people can't handle the brutality of what's going on, but their drug use or lack of attention allows it to continue. We are not wolves, so rather than do something about it, we "move" out attention elsewhere, hoping someone else fixes it. This interpretation was solidified for me when Macer retrieved her gun, aimed it at Alejandro, but was not able to pull the trigger. She was left on the balcony, powerless. That symbolizes the typical American regarding the drug war. We're above it on the balcony in America, and we have the power to stop it, but we can't pull the trigger. I really wish the film had ended there, rather than ending up at the kids' soccer game in Juarez. The ending makes a powerful point (that was also made in Traffic, by the way), but the theme of the film would have been more evident if the film had ended with Alejandro walking away as a powerless Macer stands, defeated, on the balcony.

After watching this, it is clear why Villeneuve is directing the next Blade Runner. This film is actually quite similar, stylistically. Blade Runner featured lengthy establishing shots set to a unique score that solidified the mood and atmosphere of the film constantly. I am not officially excited for what I previously thought of as a needless sequel. I know Villeneuve will keep the new Blade Runner just as dark as the original.

Finally, hats off to Sicario for that brutal dinner scene at the end. For a second, I thought Alejandro would prove to be sympathetic to the innocent woman and children at the table, but he turned out to be just as brutal as he had been the entire film. He was truly a man on a mission. I have not found Del Toro this interesting in years. Hopefully he keeps this up with his role in the next Star Wars film.

"Looper"

Written and directed by Rian Johnson, starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis, Emily Blunt, and Jeff Daniels - Rated R

 

"This time travel crap just fries your brain like an egg..."





Time travel movies are fascinating…and can be mind-blowing.  Wait, did I write, “mind-blowing”?  I meant irritating.  The concept can lead to fun, interesting, exciting, and gloriously complicated films, but it also makes your head hurt if you try to wrap your brain around every minute detail.  (Don’t worry.  I am not going to write a lengthy thesis about the ins and outs of time travel.  Go to the message boards if you want to read theories written by the time travel “experts” that populate IMDb.)  The films that use time travel to great success, like 12 Monkeys, The Terminator, or Back to the Future (to name a few), rarely waste much time with complicated plot points about time travel.  Those films feature a lot of explanation, 12 Monkeys being the closest film that could be complicated.  On the other end of the spectrum, you have films like Triangle, Timecrimes, and Primer.  These films, while great and thought provoking, can almost feel like homework assignments when you stop and think about them.  They become complicated because of all the alternate universes and timelines they create.  You almost need to take notes to keep track of it all.  (Sorry to the fans that find those films easy to follow.  They just feel more like work than play to me.)

 

Looper, the latest from writer/director Rian Johnson, thankfully falls in the former group.  It is an interesting, entertaining sci-fi movie that doesn’t get bogged down with the rules of time travel.  That is not to say that this is a simple film.  It is still about time travel and it still contains a paradox or two.  But if we’re willing to forgive The Terminator its paradox (sorry, I don’t buy any theories about how it is possible for John Connor to send his own father back in time to become his father) because of its awesomeness, then we should do the same for Looper. 

 

Looper is a great movie for many reasons, Rian Johnson being number one.  He has crafted such an interesting story.  In the relatively near future, time travel has yet to be invented, but it will be thirty years later.  Since it is impossible to get away with murder in the future, crime lords will use time travel to send undesirables into the past to be taken care of by hit men, or loopers.  Eventually, since time travel is so illegal in the future (and to protect the criminals’ own interests), a looper must close his own loop.  This means he must eventually kill his own older self.  All of their marks show up hooded, so a looper doesn’t know he has essentially killed himself until after the job is done. 

 

Enter Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), an addict (he's addicted to some future drug taken in the form of eye drops) who quietly goes about his business in the hopes of saving up plenty and eventually having a happy retirement.  Things go awry when Joe has to close his own loop.  His older self, or Old Joe, shows up without his hood on.  Being face to face with his older self (Bruce Willis) startles Joe, giving Old Joe enough time to distract Joe and get away.  Someone from the future being loose in the past is a huge problem for the mob, so young Joe must stop Old Joe no matter what.

 

What makes the plot of Looper more interesting is that Old Joe doesn't run simply because he wants to live longer.  He's there to kill the child version of the future's evil overlord.  I think it makes the film more interesting because it takes the common time travel scenario of going back in time to kill someone like, oh, let's go with the mainstay, Hitler, but adding the problem of said Hitler-type being a child.  You start to rethink things once you see a gun pointed at a child who has done nothing wrong...yet.  The moral implications of Old Joe's plan fascinated me and Willis did a fine job of showing steely reserve as he contemplated murder. 

 

Bruce Willis is right at home in a sci-fi film (he's even done the time travel thing a time or two, as well), and his scenes with Young Joe discussing time travel are great.  At one point it's almost as if he's predicting the internet message board arguments by yelling at Joe and telling him to forget about the time travel crap.  I'm with him on that; just enjoy the show. 

 

Joseph Gordon-Levitt makes it very easy to enjoy this film.  The first thing you notice is how different he looks in this film because they put makeup and prosthetics on his face to make look more like a young Bruce Willis.  The true joy of his performance, though, comes through his mannerisms.  His constant squint, that bark of a laugh; it's a great performance and it makes the film a lot of fun.  I only wish they shared more screen time. 

 

The rest of the cast is well-rounded.  Jeff Daniels plays a somewhat disinterested future immigrant in an interesting way.  Paul Dano is in his wheelhouse playing a nervous, stuttering looper.  Emily Blunt is does okay as a single mom on a farm.  Garrett Dillahunt has a great, tense scene.  And Pierce Gagnon is admirable if for no other reason than he is a child actor in a sci-fi film and he isn't annoying at all.  Kudos to the marketing team behind this film completely leaving the child out of the previews even though it is a vital part of the film.  I'm serious, this film probably did better because people were unaware that a child factored into the plot.

 

Speaking of marketing, this film is being touted as one of the “best action films” of the year.  But it's not really an action movie.  The few action scenes are great, though.  Willis's big action scene might go down as one of the best of his career, and that is certainly saying something.   

 

But Looper is not an action movie.  It's a sci-fi/time travel movie.  There's a great future world created with very few answers to any questions that might arise (and that's the way it should be, most of the time, in sci-fi).  There is a multiple time line aspect to the film, but it is handled in a very clear and stylish way.  In fact, the film is flat out stylish and it works on nearly every level.  I was left with only one issue with Rian Johnson's great film: I wanted more.  I wanted to see more of the world, I wanted more of the future world Bruce Willis came from, I wanted more one-on-one scenes with Gordon-Levitt and Willis, etc.  If the only issue you have with a film is that you wish there was more of it, then that is a good problem to have.  Check out Looper.  It might not be one of the best “action” movies of the year, but it is one of the best movies of the year.

"The Adjustment Bureau"

The Adjustment Bureau - Written and directed by George Nolfi, starring Matt Damon, Emily Blunt, Anthony Mackie, John Slattery, and Terence Stamp - Rated PG-13

The Adjustment Bureau is entertaining and compelling but, more importantly, it raises some interesting questions.



The Adjustment Bureau looked like an interesting film when the trailers debuted…then the film was delayed for quite some time, which is never a good sign. Delays don’t always equal disaster and, fortunately, The Adjustment Bureau is an example that a delayed film can be a decent film. It helps that it is also an adaptation of a Philip K. Dick story. To be honest, that can be good or bad as well, but it turns out to be one of the better ones. It’s no Blade Runner, but it’s certainly no Paycheck either.

The film is about David Norris (Matt Damon), an aspiring politician who meets his dream girl, Elise (Emily Blunt). The problem is that he was only supposed to meet her one time. When he runs into her again, it gets the attention of the titular Bureau. Everything in the world of this film is set to a plan written by a creator-type figure known as the Chairman. When the plan isn’t followed, adjusters are brought in. They have the ability to freeze time, travel through a subspace network, and mess with the physics of the regular world. Think of them as the destiny police. Despite these adjusters, David is determined to be with Elise.

This makes The Adjustment Bureau a kind of romantic sci-fi film, which is an interesting label, to say the least. The film works on each level, though. The chemistry between the two leads is palpable and the characters are likable and sympathetic. Simply put, you want things to work out for these two. On the sci-fi end, there is enough visual flair to keep things interesting and the whole idea of the Bureau is left open enough to lead to some of that deep conversation that all sci-fi films aspire to.

Hard core sci-fi fans may be let down by the film’s toned down style, though. The Adjustment Bureau is not a flashy film at all. The closest bit of style it attempts comes by way of the subspace travel the adjusters use. They can open a door in one location and travel to a completely different area. This aspect leads to some impressive sequences and individual shots, especially when the doors are left open for a bit. But the film doesn’t dwell on these visuals very often; they are just part of the story.

The film also stays away from going too deep into the story behind the Bureau. There are hints here and there, but the bulk of the mystery is left up to the viewer. That may mean the film doesn’t create much of a world behind the “real world,” but that is not a bad thing. It’s refreshing to see a sci-fi film that tries to take place in a real world. To be clear, though, there are definitely things happening in this film that are in no way realistic or even backed up by science.

The Adjustment Bureau, based on the descriptions above and especially from the trailers, may seem like a deadly serious film. It is, in fact, surprisingly light-hearted at times. John Slattery (“Mad Men”) looks like a menacing agent in the previews, but in reality he serves as a bit of comic relief for the film. It turns out that these adjusters not only look like white collar workers from the 1950s, they also act like them. Slattery complains about waiting for the case of a career and worries about exceeding his “ripple quota.” This light tone makes the film much easier to accept and makes it quite enjoyable as well.

Lighthearted as The Adjustment Bureau is at times there are still heavy questions asked. There aren’t really any answers to those questions and that is actually the way it should be. Do people actually enjoy films that end with a man in a chair explaining the world to the main characters and/or the audience (I’m looking at you, sequel to groundbreaking sci-fi film)? Films like that insult the audience’s intelligence. Scratch that, they insult the imagination of the audience. The Adjustment Bureau is interesting and entertaining because, in the end, the film is up to you. Some might actually call that lazy screenwriting, and sometimes it is, but when the questions you’re left with at the end are interesting, then that means the filmmakers (in this case writer/director George Nolfi) have accomplished something.

This is a film that is much more about ideas than it is about acting, but the leads are very good here. Damon can carry a movie in his sleep these days, but he livens this one up with his charismatic work…it’s easy to believe he is a politician. Emily Blunt does a fine job opposite Damon. She has to handle the more emotional scenes and she is very believable. Slattery, as mentioned above, gives a fun performance. And Anthony Mackie and Terence Stamp add sympathy and a bit of menace, respectively.

The Adjustment Bureau isn’t a sci-fi classic, but it will go down as one of the good Philip K. Dick adaptations, and that’s saying quite a bit. As for the moment, it’s exceedingly rare to see a movie in a multiplex that is willing to ask deep questions that you get to answer for yourself. Take advantage of that and check this one out.


Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

I dug the whole politician aspect of the story, especially the speech Damon gives when he decides to quit playing a politician and speak the truth to an audience.

The idea of someone having a ripple quota is amusing. It makes you wonder how much is too much. Slattery messed with a lot of lives while he was chasing Damon. I loved that Damon even commented on the fact that he was causing an insane amount of ripples by diverting so many taxis. I guess it all just confirms the idea that some humans are simply much more important than others and it doesn't matter what happens to most of us in the "plan."

I also liked the fact that the Bureau was not all controlling and, in some cases, they were just plain inept. Interesting to see a secret society that controls the world that doesn't have total control.

The hats... I was wondering why Damon was rocking the old hat in the previews and posters and whatnot. It made the film look like it took place sixty years ago and it surprised me when that wasn't the case. Glad that there was a reason for the hat. But it does sound kind of stupid when you have to put it in words: a magic hat allows you to travel through subspace.

The bureaucracy was almost like something out of The Hudsucker Proxy what with the way the adjusters talked about kicking problems "upstairs." It just added to the whole comedic element of the film.