THE MUPPETS (2011)

DIRECTOR: James Bobin
SCREENWRITERS: Jason Segel, Nicholas Stoller, Jim Henson (Characters)

First, a confession: I have seen more episodes of "Muppets Tonight" than "The Muppet Show" (in the latter, namely the "best-ofs", and the "Star Wars" and "Elton John" episodes). A childhood favourite movie of mine was "Muppet Treasure Island" (1996) and it may still be my "favourite" of the Muppet films though in a more critical mindset, my vote for "best" might be "The Great Muppet Caper" (1981) though the original "The Muppet Movie" (1979) - the one I got round to watching last (during my first year at university) - is arguably the most cinematic. It is difficult to rank them in order, particularly when it comes to picking the (whisper it) *weakest*. "The Muppets Take Manhattan" (1984) is the one that takes itself most seriously although the wedding finale manages to bring a lump to the throat; "Muppets from Space" has less songs but still has some amusement and there is the moment where it's possible that Gonzo might be leaving.

Recently re-viewing of the previous films, I figured that the better ones are those in which it is clear that the Muppets are putting on a production (in which case "Muppets from Space" is probably the "weakest" in that there is no context for the Muppets all living together - Kermit is on vacation: what was his job? - though I believe the house in question is briefly alluded to in "The Muppets"). The first three make up a kind of trilogy which began with a kind-of retelling of the Muppet's origins (a more literal interpretation would see them travelling by map to London), then a fun jaunt to Great Britain to solve a jewel robbery, before portraying a group of students wanting to take to Broadway before having to disband and eventually reuniting for Kermit and Piggy's possibly real wedding (if the suggestions on IMDB forums are true).

Years later, the series was "rebooted" of sorts with literary adaptations of "The Christmas Carol" and "Treasure Island" in the cinema, and "The Wizard of Oz" on television. "The Muppet Christmas Carol" remains a favourite for Christmas viewing besides "It's A Wonderful Life" (and apparently "Elf").

"Muppets From Space" seemed a more literal film though Piggy has a job as a coffee pig despite being in a second-rate variety show (or third-rate, if you're Luke Skywalker) but there was still room for jokes that showed the characters were aware that they were in a film (there was probably room for more songs but the tone was perhaps too serious for breaks into jolly numbers and the music mainly consisted of backing tracks and the actual Muppets singing is saved for last and even then it wasn't the main cast performing it).

I've generally tried to avoid reviews of this film but one I briefly scanned seemed to indicate it was a return to the original movie. I agree in that it's a much simpler, light-hearted bright family film, which takes a similar plot involving the Muppets being rounded up one my one, which is also similar to the final act of "The Muppets Take Manhattan" as here the Muppets have disbanded and our protagonist Walter - who maybe a Muppet himself - starts a campaign that will lead to a telephon revival of the original show, having grown to love it after watched rented videos with his brother, Gary (the adult version played by Jason Segel - incidentally, fans of two paricular contemporary American sitcoms will finally seem them cross over). Walter has discovered that a rich tycoon aims to tear down the Muppet studios for oil (a plot as familiar as last year's live-action "Yogi Bear" movie) and seeks out his hero - and eventual friend - Kermit and is assisted by Gary and his girlfriend Mary ("Enchanted"'s Amy Adams).

While this is a more literal Muppet movie (although there are plenty of knowing injokes), it defintely works, specifically because: I laughed several times; I forgot it was a "Disney" film; I was sort-of won over to Walter; when they started playing the finale song, I tried to figure out where I heard it from and realised they were replaying the OPENING song. And while I might not have had warm fuzzy feelings of nostalgia, I am sure this film will grow on me. It is almost certainly the best family film I have seen in the cinema since "Toy Story 3" (2010) and stands as a beacon of hope in a multiplex filled with Michael Bay's Transformers, Jim Carrey's penguins, and Kevin James' zookeepers.

It is appropriate that it should open in the UK on the same day as the 3D reissue of "Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace". Responsible parents would have a choice between a fun, feelgood family film featuring REAL Muppets or go next door and watch a retro-fitted 3D film in which a Muppet has been replaced by a CGI substitute.

Some may be disappointed that their favourite Muppet might not get enough screentime (Gonzo is far less featured than in previous entries and Rizzo appears at least twice). My slight, minor problem with the film is the possible negative portrayal of rap (music that isn't necessarily to my taste but still...) - the tycoon gets his own(ly) number in the form of a rap song while in Fozzie's tribute band, his earless substitute wears a gold chain.

Generally though (while "Muppet Treasure Island" may be embedded as a favourite), I am wondering on the cusp of tabloid territory as I am tempted to describe this film as "Perfect".

Brief Review: "The Human Centipede (First Sequence)" (2009)

Written and directed by Tom Six

An updated twist on "Frankenstein" in which a German scientist stitches three living humans (rather than dead body parts) together to create a new creature based on the premise. Thrilling and gripping and though ultimately cruel, there is a surprising spark of humanity with one or two tender moments (namely the two female leads hold hands as they endure their predicament). After an uncertain start (who really cares about the quality of acting in a horror movie about eating poo?), Ashley C. Williams and Ashlynn Yennie prove themselves once they are in Dr. Heiter's house and out of the rain and Dieter Laser is very good. The concumption of fecal matter is far less overt than Pasolini's "Salo (Or 120 Days of Sodom"), in which it is served up as a meal. There are a couple of hints at ideas besides the central high-concept, with the idea of the scientist as God (c.f. "Frankenstein", 1931) and the Katsuro, Japanese tourist victim (Akihiro Kitamura) says how what a crazy world we live in, before making a terrible choice.

Short Film Review: Breaking Dawn Part 1

Breaking Dawn Part 1 (aka The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1)

DIRECTOR: Bill Condon

SCREENWRITER: Melissa Rosenberg (based on the novel by Stephanie Meyer)

While I've previously had something of an interest in Twilight (thanks to some positive reviews from two film critics I like and I ended up thinking the first installment was 'alright'), I had since been doing some catching up with TV's Buffy the Vampire Slayer (I've started on Season 3) and recent re-viewings of the Twilight films on television (thus diminishing the cinematic experience), I found myself getting more critical of them as being dull and sometimes stupid but with some moments of interest. The one problem though with comparing both though (although I am Team Buffy) is that one is a series of 45 minute episodes while the other is a series of 2 hour feature-length cinematic experiences.

However I saw Breaking Dawn Part 1 today and it's quite possibly the most respectable of the series despite some moments of silliness. If Eclipse was the first that resembled a horror film, this goes into steely Rosemary's Baby territory with it's 12A certificate pushed to the limit and the "conclusion" had me thinking there was almost no need for Part 2. Though I have not read all the books I would suggest it is the least "reverent" to the franchise and fanbase (particularly the darkly funny sequence in the end credits), and all the better for it.

As a matter of interest, not only do Twilight vampires not melt in the sunlight (and why does Edward not sparkle in he and Bella's Tracy Island honeymoon, unless it's because he's indoors?), they can also be reflected in a mirror.

POSSIBLE SPOILER

May I also be the first to suggest the next item of Twilight merchandise being an inflatable Bella?

Film Review: Machine Gun Preacher (2011)

MACHINE GUN PREACHER (2011)
Director: Marc Forster
Writer: Jason Keller (Based on the life of Sam Childers)

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD

Some films I have seen this year that I don’t like have been boring (“The Smurfs Movie”) and often to the point of not caring what was going on (“Anonymous”, “Fast Five”). While “Shark Night 3D” was disappointing and “Bridesmaids”, “Your Highness” and “The Hangover Part II” failed to elicit a laugh most of the time, “Machine Gun Preacher” is a kind of film that while perhaps well made – mostly of the time – it goes down a path that I find troubling.

An opening prologue set in the Sudan in 2003, where a young boy is forced to beat his mother to death.

We then go to Pennsylvania, “a few years earlier” (?) where Sam Childers (Gerard Butler, “300”, “Gamer”, “Law Abiding Citizen”) is released from prison and returns home (after having car sex with his wife Lynn, played by Michelle Monaghan). It turns out Lynn has quit her job as a stripper – much to Sam’s anger – and “found Jesus”. Sam goes on a raid to get some drugs with his junkie buddy Donnie (Michael Shannon) and here we find out how bad a person Sam is: he swears, does drugs, uses a gun, and uses racist language when threatening a black man. When Lynn finds Sam trying to wash some blood off his hands, he asks her to help him. Next thing we know, he’s going to Church (as opposed to Lynn calling the police over his apparent murder or manslaughter) and Sam soon accepts an alter call and is baptised. So far, so “conversion story”.

Sam’s lifestyle changes include working as a construction worker, wearing nicer shirts than his biker get-up (the mullet goes too) and saving Donnie from drugs in a scene showing his withdrawal that recalls the similarly “gritty Christian-themed” film “The Cross and the Switchblade”.

Sam is inspired by a guest speaker to do work in Uganda. When voluntarily visiting a “war zone”, Sam finds children gathering outside to sleep in safety (“night commuters”) and invites them in doors. Back at home, Sam stays up all night and claims to have had a vision from the Lord to build a Church across the street that will “not turn away prostitutes or junkies” – the problem being that there was no evidence that that’s what the Church he attended was doing. They seemed a nice bunch, wearing suits etc. and saying “Amen” to everything. Sam wants to build an orphanage for the children in Uganda and returns there. However during its construction, an attack leaves it destroyed and when he calls Lynn, she tells him to rebuild it.

Sam’s work builds him a reputation as a “white preacher” (never, as the title suggests, a “machine gun preacher”) and his dedication to helping the kids leads him on a path towards obsession (maybe the first clue was building them a play park). It begins to draw him away from his family (his first trip means he has to miss his daughter Paige’s (Madeline Carroll) play, which he has recorded on a camcorder.

On one trip, Sam and the men he’s working with find a large group of children and there are too many to take all of them in their truck so they would have to return for them. But when they do, they find the remaining kids dead and on his return home, Sam seeks out money for a new truck, taking his wife and daughter away from a party when discreetly given only $150 of the $5000 he wants. He given goes down the “dark” path again when he swears at his daughter, who asks him about hiring a limo and he goes berserk when told “You love them black babies more than me!” Leaping to her defence, Donnie is told that he is a “stray dog”. Next thing we know, he’s back on drugs while Sam is (*gasp!*) drinking. It does not end that as he sells his business and looks for money in a safe – Lynn has to tell him their daughter’s date of birth in order to get the combination – in order to pay for the truck.

A possible issue here is whether Sam is doing the “right” thing or whether the film thinks he is. Is he following Jesus, who said that a “man’s enemies will be the members of his own household” or the disciples, who complained that the money bought from the perfume used to anoint Jesus’ feet could have been given to the poor? Or perhaps in particular, Judas – Sam appears to doubt God, perhaps to the point of turning his back. However, Sam seems to find redemption of sorts in the form of a boy he rescued from being a child soldier.

The film ends with a similar situation in which they lack the transport to rescue all the kids and he says they are staying until it comes. We are then told via on-screen texts about the reality of Joseph Koney and the Lord’s Resistance Army and that Sam and Lynn are still together. The credits rolls while documentary footage shows us the real Sam Childers, his family and the kids.

One thing of note is that the real Sam Childers is very much unlike the much more “action movie”- friendly Gerard Butler (who even then seems puppyish compared to, say, Jason Statham. His best role that I have seen him in was probably “300”). Perhaps a documentary on the real Childers would have been more interesting. The last word on the film goes to the real Sam who, defending his use of a gun, asks if your child was kidnapped and help was sent, did it matter HOW they were brought back? And there lies my problem.

It starts off with Childers wanting to help the kids but soon he takes up weaponry in order to do so. There is a scene in which a woman who appears to work in humanitarian aid is confronted by a road block and when offering her hands up, is struck down by the butt of a gun. Promptly Gerard Butler appears with a rocket launcher and gets rid of the bad guys. It is also not entirely clear where Childers stands in his faith by the end. Earlier, during what could be his downward spiral, we hear him preach that God wants wolves, not sheep. One question could be whether Childers’ use of violence is any different from fighting in World Wars, or the Israelites acting under orders from God.

The title “Machine Gun Preacher” suggests a silly religious-themed B-movie (it can be an amusing title, certainly) but with perhaps (from the trailer) what appear to be honourable intentions. Thought-provoking as it is, I am unsure whether I can like or approve of the path Childers takes.

And when the title is onscreen, great emphasis is played on the word “GUN”.

Review: The Inbetweeners Movie

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Review: Final Destination 5 (2011)

Final Destination 5 (2011)

DIRECTOR: Steven Quale
SCREENWRITER: Eric Heisserer (based on characters by Jeffrey Reddick)

I had seen the previous four Final Destination movies but did not get round to having a repeat marathon before seeing this new entry. That matters little since every film essentially has the same plot (with only the first two films building an arc of sorts while subsequent films make references to previous ones while deaths from all the films are recreated or replayed as a montage in the fourth and fifth films). Kim Newman compares the films to the Road Runner animations in which the same joke happens again. Technically, as the "villain" - i.e. Death - has no visual form besides its manipulation of the environment then it requires no makeover should the series be rebooted and it can go on forever (perhaps, ironically, outliving its audience). Newman also points out the element of "safety in the workplace" and this might have played into the terror I experienced in this entry whereas previous viewings mainly concerned seeing how the deaths were staged.

This might be the best entry in the series since my favourite, Final Destination 2 (2003), the one which for me set the series as fun B-movies though I felt Final Destination 3 (2006) was too cartoony but I had fun with "The Final Destination" (2009), the first in 3D. Final Destination 5 is an example of proof, if needed, that 3D, if needed, is better used for trashy fun horror cinema (another example being Resident Evil: Afterlife, which sees a hot woman - Ali Larter also from the first two Final Destinations - battling a monster while water sprinkles down in slow-motion). The only thing that needs working on is the colour reduction (apparently the makers of Saw 3D turned up the brightness, which explains the fan-criticized "pink" blood).

Despite the fourth film promising to be THE Final Destination (which brings to mind Monty Python's The Meaning of Life including a chapter called The MEANING of Life, with emphasis on MEANING provided by the Narrator), there is a neat ending to this entry which somewhat justifies its existence (without giving too much away, I will just say that "5" is just a number) and this will probably, at least for now, really be the final destination.

This is probably also the only Final Destination to star lookalikes of both Tom Cruise (Miles Fisher) and David Milliband (Nicholas D'Agosto), the former's resemblance arguably being one of the scariest things in the film, besides the cringing health-and-safety hazards as Death sets of the Domino effects, and the gruesome deaths - the most gross-out involving the breaking of pretty much every bone in the body.

Top and Bottom Films of the Year (So Far)

As one of my favourite film critics, Mark Kermode, as reported on his five best and five worst films of the year (... So Far) (see YouTube videos), here are my approximate, revised lists of Top 5 (and five honourable mentions in alphabetical order) and Bottom 5 (as opposed to five worst) films of the year so far.





Top Five
1. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
2. 127 Hours
3. Sucker Punch
4. Black Swan
5. Never Let Me Go

Honourable Mentions:
Captain America: The First Avenger
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Source Code
Super 8
Thor

Bottom Five (alphabetical order)
Fast Five (aka Fast and the Furious 5)
The Hangover Part II
The Smurfs
Unknown
Your Highness (though I'm tempted to swap it with Bridesmaids)