Jack Reacher - Never Go Back
I like Tom Cruise, I really do. He's made some truly brilliant movies in the last decade. This sadly isn't one of them. It's the kind of hokey action movie that lesser stars were making around 20 years ago. A by-the-numbers plot about clearing the name of an Army colleague spliced with a generic soap opera storyline concerning a young girl who may or may not be Reacher's daughter - it all felt so...predictable.
Sure Tom tries his best with the material, looking suitable intense and gritty. The thing is, the main character is a bit of a dull bore to be honest so there is little to work with. There are a few violent and wince-inducing stunts which make you wonder how he hasn't broken every bone in his body, but dare I say it? - The Cruiser is actually starting to look a bit flabby around the middle. In the main this is lazy, formulaic stuff - it's certainly not as good as the first movie in the series - and that was just about above average.
My wife is a big Reacher fan, having read all the Lee Child books, but even she struggled to think of something positive to say after we watched it. It doesn't linger in the memory. Perhaps Tom should stick to science fiction as he's been in three of my favourite movies in that genre. Based on this outing he should certainly...never go back...to Jack Reacher.
The Jungle Book
When I first heard that Disney was mining their back catalogue of animated classics to produce "live action" versions, I inwardly groaned. Were there no new ideas any more? Does everything need to be a remake or a reboot or a sequel ? (Okay I know that there are lots of original films out every year, but the major studios do seem to be particularly risk adverse lately). But when I watched this umpteenth version "The Jungle Book" I have to say I was really pleasantly surprised.
I suppose the fact that it was produced and directed by Jon Favreau (of "Zathura" and the first "Iron Man" fame) should have given me an inkling that this was not going to be some half-hearted cash-in.
As you would expect, it stays pretty true to the well-loved story of the cartoon version but adds in a bit more depth from the source book by Rudyard Kipling (particularly around the wolf pack). The big update is obviously the visuals and boy-oh-boy is the CGI amazing. The entire film was made on a studio lot, but you would never know. The jungle feels vibrant and alive, and the animals ? - if you thought the tiger in "Life of Pi" was good, this is a whole other level. It's a testament to the hordes of programmers that they have integrated just one human boy (Neel Sethi makes an excellent Mowgli) so seamlessly into a world created almost entirely out of pixels.
A film featuring anthropomorphised CGI animals obviously needs a good voice cast and in the main I think they pull it off. Bill Murray is as laid back as you would imagine as Baloo the bear and Sir Ben Kingley brings his understated clipped tones to Bagheera. The highlight is Christopher Walken as King Louie - now classified as a Gigantopithicus ape. He plays Louie as a kind of Mafia gangster which basically allows him to be himself and give full reign to his uniquely identifiable speech patterns.
Scarlet Johansson as Kaa the python is okay as an inversion of the original silky smooth performance by Sterling Holloway. What is less successful (at least for me) is turning the terrifying tiger Shere Khan into a North East London bovver boy by using the voice of Idris Elba. It was very jarring to hear his rough accent coming from a character I always associate with being so refined. Maybe that was the point, but it just didn't seem right.
Overall then it's a fun, highly successful "refresh" of the classic story for a new generation with enough nostalgic touches to satisfy the oldsters like me. It will be interesting to see if Disney's other upcoming live action versions of their properties are as good. Emma Watson as Belle in "Beauty and the Beast"? That I'm not so sure about...
No comments:
Post a Comment