Most Muppet movies were spoofs of other movies such as Wizard of Oz, Christmas Carol or Treasure Island. But this time round we return to basics and focus on the characters themselves and what has become of them since their career launch pad The Muppet Show was cancelled by the networks. Now the Muppet Theatre lies derelict and echoes with the maudlin sounds of fun gone by. Our favourite characters have now resigned to less glamourous jobs to make ends meet and now the theatre itself is under threat from an evil developer. Cue Walter, a massive fan of the Muppets and someone who will later himself discover IS a Muppet, who goads Kermit into ‘getting the band back together’ and raising $10 million to save the Muppet Theatre from closure.
This film is very enjoyable. It seems that since Shrek, companies such as Disney and Dreamworks have realised what British pantomimes have known for a long time. That children’s films don’t necessarily have to be exclusively designed for children and that if the adults who escort the children enjoy the film, then the children will also. And, indeed, the adults won’t mind having the DVD of it on constantly too. In the case of Shrek it is often a nudge and a wink to innuendo. But this film has cleverly catered for the adults own childhood by making reminiscence of the Muppets 1970′s success a strong theme. Mix that with some great music from Flight of the Conchords’ Bret McKenzie (most notably the Oscar winning song “Am I a man or a Muppet?” complete with cameo from Jim Parsons) and the adults are sold, ergo, so are the kids! Not to mention the subtle film parodies, again for the 70′s-80′s generation, including The Blues Brothers and Bugsy Malone to name a few.
Studios can often make a mistake by seeing a product as a itemised commodity rather than the collective experience it is for many. When “Dr Who” returned to TV it owed much of its success to the fact that it was made by people who loved it, understood it and fought to get their way with it. I got a similar impression from this movie. Nothing was re-invented, nor dully repeated, but was embraced and enhanced by a production team who understood it. I appreciate I may be being over-analytical about a film on the Muppets, but I also believe giving credit where it’s due and if something is worth doing, it’s worth doing properly. After all, great films can be ruined if remade/sequelled badly and can even eclipse the originals (St. Trinians, Carry On Columbus, Blues Brothers 2000)If I was to be picky, I would love to have seen more of Miss Piggy, but I imagine that was a contractual thing (her lawyers are said to be quite ruthless). And where was Kermits nephew Robin? Actual, he would have stolen the show so probably best he didn’t appear. And like Walter felt in the start of the film, once it’s finished you do end up pining for the Muppets company. No more spoofs. The day of Variety Show lives. More Muppet Show please. Or how about The Muppet Factor!
The Muppets [DVD]
Matt Weston (Ryan Reynolds) mans a secret safe house/interrogation chamber for the CIA. His life both professionally and personally is about as buoyant as an anchor dragging along the sea bed. One day, the notorious bad egg Tobin Frost (Denzel Washington) is brought to the safe house for interrogation and water boarding. Some “terrorists” arrive, trashing the Safe House and Weston flees for his life taking the cool Frost as his prisoner. Inevitably the two grow a “Stockholm Syndrome” love-hate bond founded on wits, nerve, agility and experience.
The film is ok but other aspects let it down. Weston is a character whose journey through movie sees him grow from boy to man. Reynolds seemed an odd choice to play the character, possibly too old to be believably naive. He seemed more like a Ryan Gosling understudy. Also I found Washingtons character, aptly named Frost, to be just a little too cool. As a result, his character was quite plain and lacked depth. I realise he was meant to be an enigma but even enigmas can enjoy, for example, a sense of menace. His expressionless face just made him dull to watch.
This new adaptation of the chiller differs occasionally from Hill’s original story. For example, Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe) is a widower caring for his young son. He never attends the funeral of Alice Drablow (one of the most iconic sightings of the Woman in Black) and the ending is completely different too, though no spoilers there! But WiB fans don’t fear! There is still an Eel Marsh House out on the Nine Lives Causeway which, if not computer generated, must have been a nightmare for the location manager. And the nearby village, Crythin Gifford, is aptly rustic and yokel if a little over eager to be so. And quite hilly for what is supposed to be the east coast of England, but that’s remote for you!
Despite numerous parts on stage and screen, it was never going to be easy to shake the cloak of Potter, but Radcliffe appears to have chosen wisely with this film. Fans of the actor have not had to re-invent him too much in their minds-eye whilst the film itself does well to showcase his abilities without a wand and specs. One would like to think that he owes this unique level of shrewdness for a man of his age to years of experience as Potter. I imagine it’s probably got more to do with the advice he’s heeded from the wealth of many highly experienced contacts he’s made! Whatever it is, I think it’s worked!
Ryan Gosling plays a stuntman and getaway driver who falls for his neighbour Irene (played by Brit Actress Carey Mulligan), whose husband is in prison. On his release, the husband has a hangover of trouble and debt, which Goslings character (who is only ever known as “The Driver”) attempts to help him out of, by being a getaway driver at a raid on a pawn shop. The trouble kicks off from there and the Driver is the only one savvy enough and alive enough to do anything about it. And for the sake of his neighbour and her son, he does!
All sounds like a great action film. But for some reason this film doesn’t want to be that. It wants realism, it wants us to emotionally invest and it tries to have poignant moments. The awkward result is reminiscent of the interstitials computer games have between levels that crowbar a story line into what is otherwise just another plain old driving game, in the feeble attempt to make it different from, you’ve guessed it… all the other plain old driving games! Indeed the film is reminiscent of an old 1999 Playstation game, funnily enough called “Driver”. A cross between that and a Tarantino film.
However, director Nicolas Winding Refn has openly admitted to many influences, especially films including 
With another year-long presidential race taking up space in daily news reports, fascination about who will land “the worlds top job” remains disproportionally high especially amongst Americans. Increasingly, other countries media devote more and more time to the issue and foreigners, such as myself, get roped in to listening about various congressional caucuses, committees and sub-committees, campaigns and primary voting, whatever the hell any of that means!
This adaptation of Beau Willimon’s play Farragut North tells the story of young campaign officer, Stephen Meyers (Ryan Gosling) working for a Democratic Presidential candidate Governor Mike Morris (George Clooney) who naively falls victim to the dodgey side of politics, till he himself sells his soul to stay afloat. The movie includes splendid performances, including Philip Seymour Hoffman as campaign officer Paul Zara and Evan Rachel Wood as Molly Stearns. I was particularly impressed with some of the directorial decisions too including a brilliant moment when Zara enters Morris’ car for a chat. That’s all I’ll say on that for risk of spoiling it.
American television drama has reached such cinematic standards that when one watches a film such as this, one does wonder what is to be gained by putting it on the big screen first. Especially given that Clooney (who also co-produced and co-adapted the film) has experience in both mediums. Perhaps there was politics in his decision, who knows. And Seymour-Hoffman deservedly nominated for Best Supporting Actor at the BAFTA’s – whilst I don’t think he will win, I personally believe he should.
“Everything has it’s time” and this is very much the theme in this movie set in Hawaii. A successful lawyer, Matt King (George Clooney) finds himself having to reconnect with his family after his wife suffers a boating accident that leaves her in a coma. The prognosis is not good and King not only has to deal with the reaction of his two daughters to the news, but also unearth some skeletons in his wifes cupboard that he has no choice but to face up to. Add to all that a backdrop story of a land sale of 25,000 acres of unspoilt Hawaiien beauty bequethed to himself and a vast body of cousins, then at once the movie aptly reflects the feeling of life moving one on before, if ever, one is ready to move with it.
Adapted from the book The French Connection by Robin Moore, this film won a whole host of awards after its release in 1971 including 5 Oscars – Best Picture, Best Director (William Friedkin), Best Screenplay (Ernest Tidyman), Best Film Editing (Gerald B Greenberg) and Best Actor for Gene Hackman who plays Jimmy “Popeye” Doyle, a role that cemented his international status as an actor. Supported by Roy Scheider, they are a couple of cops who stumble across a plan for a large heroin shipment. The otherwise streetwise cops appear to become slightly out of their depth and Doyle becomes dangerously obsessed to a French connection in the plot, a man whom he terms “Frog 1″.
Hackman is enjoyable to watch and even though his character is quite un-PC for this day and age, he is still our affable hero throughout, though it is questionable by the end. All in all, an enjoyable film. About as fun as 
Film was born in France, but it found its feet in Hollywood. So it’s almost poetic that The Artist is a French film that pays homage to the golden years of Tinseltown. George Valentin is the star of silent comedy and helps nurture the talent of up and coming heart-throb Peppy Miller. But the advent of the “talkie” chimes the death of his career whilst the young, but not ungrateful Miller sails into stardom. What follows….. I’m not saying. You’ll have to watch it! To be frank, if you’re unlikely to see this film , then you have no business reading this blog or even considering yourself a fan of film!
Is this film just a homage? Or is it also a reminder of the basics of cinema? Unlike the current checklist for Hollywood films there was no violence, colour grading, sex-scenes, swearing, fast edits, special fx etc… Instead it used limited dialogue (using intertitles like you would have in a silent movie), tableau shots, melodrama and a simple interesting story, to name just a few of it’s features. In Hollywood, the winning formula has become exactly that. A formula. It’s regurgitated without understanding or development, followed to the letter like a patented franchise. No soul, no love, no passion. Hollywood will love this film about Hollywood. It’s like a breathe of fresh air. Yet it’s not a Hollywood film. Enough said.
