DIRECTOR:
Phil
Lord, Christopher Miller LEAD CAST:
Johan Hill, Channing Tatum, Peter
Stormare, Ice Cube SCREENWRITER: Michael
Bacall, Oren Uziel, Rodney Rothman PRODUCER:
Neal H. Moritz, Johan Hill, Channing EDITOR:
David Rennie MUSICAL DIRECTOR: Mark Mothersbaugh GENRE: Action & Adventure, Comedy
CINEMATOGRAPHER:
Barry
Peterson DISTRIBUTOR:
Columbia Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer LOCATION: United
States RUNNING
TIME: 112 minutes
-->
Technical assessment: 3.5
Moral assessment: 3
CINEMA rating: V 14
A sequel to “21 Jump Street” (2012) this movie, like its
predecessor, spoofs a television series first broadcast in 1987. This time undercover agents Schmidt
(Jonah Hill) and Jenko (Channing Tatum) try to be creative and pose as brothers
enrolled in Metropolitan City State College in pursuit of the drug dealer Ghost
(Peter Stormare) who has introduced to the campus a substance that resembles
cocaine. Called “Why Phy”, the
substance gives young people an energy boost and lends them heightened focus
that lead to paranoia and death. They realize the drug ring is not that easy to penetrate—despite
their bravado a bust goes awfully wrong, and they get a tongue-lashing from
their boss Deputy Chief Hardy (Nick Offerman) who rebukes them for not just
relying on past successes.
The spoofy character of 22 Jump Street
is early on disclosed by co-directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller in the
advice Chief Hardy gives the two undercover agents: “infiltrate the dealers,
find the suppliers, just like the last time.” Read between the lines, it means: “Do the same thing as last time. Everyone's happy." The chemistry between Hill and Tatum
fuels the entire movie, and while the setting, many of the gags, and references
to a particularly American culture may whizz above the heads of the average
Filipino moviegoers, the plot which focuses on the dynamics of the duo’s
relationships more than compensates for the lack.
Marketed as a comedy (and therefore to most viewers light
entertainment not to be taken seriously), 22
Jump Street elicits conflicting reactions from audiences. On one hand it may be praised as a
substantial and god-intentioned story clad in a goofy cloak and dagger costume;
on the other its approach to spoofing is cheapened by vulgar language,
crotch-level gags, subtle racism, and flippant jabs at religion. For this reason the movie offers much
for discussion between young ones and elders, either in school or at home.
