Score: *** out of ***** (C)
Long Story Short: Summer's "biggest" film (if we're measuring by size of the film's star) comes out in the form of an updated classic, Godzilla. Despite very promising previews, this film is a disaster, and I don't mean the genre. A suspenseful intro with interesting characters quickly dissolves into a senseless, even dull chase/disaster film with too many boring humans and not enough monster mayhem (until there's too much). Skip.
May keeps bringing more big movies to the theater, and so far I'm keeping pace! I'm back to action with this one and, if I get to see the films I'd like to for the rest of the month, there will be more action and comedy to follow. I'm not a particular fan of Godzilla - in fact, I've never seen any of the originals (saw the 1998 version but don't even remember it). However, a trailer made it look quite promising as a disaster film, along with Breaking Bad's great Bryan Cranston. Godzilla, the 2014 update, was directed by Gareth Edwards and stars Cranston, Aaron-Taylor Johnson and Ken Watanabe.
Starting off in 1999, a team of scientists is called to a quarry in the Philippines where a massive skeleton is found deep underground, along with two mysterious cocoon-like structures. At the same time, in Japan, Joe Brody (Cranston) works at a nuclear facility and a seismic event causes a catastrophe that leaves him with a deep personal scar. Flash forward to 2014, and Joe relentlessly pursues the source of the 1999 disaster. His son, Ford (Johnson) comes to Japan to get him out of trouble for snooping around. In exploring the wreckage of their former hometown, the two stumble upon a shocking operation.
The 1999 event was no "natural disaster", as Joe and Ford discover a new world. And just in time, because that event is about to repeat itself, and this time there's going to be much more trouble. A small group, including the scientists from the Philippines, help in the race against time - but can mankind do anything to stop the impending doom?
Godzilla features an impressive cast that is given an increasingly awful script to work with. Bryan Cranston plays the traumatized, conspiracy-theory father, Joe. Spoiler alert: despite his prominent role in advertisements, he's only in about the first 30 minutes or so. He does a great job with much of the set up at the beginning of the film, then gets handed crap (which he delivers as well as possible) near the end of his time. After that, Aaron Taylor-Johnson takes the lead's reins as Joe's son. Like Cranston, Aaron does good work with some of his early scenes (a warm-hearted protector), but his role crumbles into dullness and cliche as the film goes along. His wife is played by Elizabeth Olsen, a role that is so meaningless it should have been scrapped entirely. Ken Watanabe is intriguing as a scientist, Dr. Serizawa, and doesn't get enough screen time for his part to be ruined. There are more stars with small roles, none of them particularly notable (Sally Hawkins, David Straitharn).
On those cheerful notes about the cast, what about the rest of the film? Godzilla represents an interesting, perhaps unique, challenge as a modern film. It has a huge and loyal following, back to the days when Godzilla was a man in a monster suit - but today, technical wizardry can make just about anything look real at the click of a button. Old Godzilla films featured fun, epic throw downs between giant monsters, while today's films tend more toward ominous themes directly related to present challenges (terrorism, climate change, etc.). This film tries to have it all. It is sparing, in a modern way, with its use of monsters: Godzilla doesn't really show up until about halfway through. Yet by the end, we have mayhem on a truly immense (I would say ridiculous) scale. Godzilla has an interesting, suspenseful introduction, but this unspools rather quickly into bland "how do we kill the monster?" talk which proceeds as expected.
***
I really had high hopes for Godzilla. The trailer presented what seemed to be a fairly realistic version of the classic as a disaster film, featuring top-flight acting talent led by Bryan Cranston. Talk about false advertising (even more misleading than last year's Now You See Me). All the problems basically come down to the film wanting to have it all, as described earlier. The film has such a promising start, but they don't stick to the intelligence, suspense, and interesting human elements that it offered. If they wanted to have the monster mash that it ends up as, then fine: but if so, then a much more silly (there are so many opportunities for humor!), much less serious attitude needed to be taken throughout. As it is, a neat set-up and characterization gets flushed down the toilet, and the "serious" scenes of the massive devastation caused by the monsters (hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people killed) are superseded by an unaffecting "family" element. The only reason that this gets a "C" is that it's fairly entertaining in some spots despite being a pretty bad film (like last year's Kick Ass 2 - also starring Aaron Taylor-Johnson!). If you're going to see this, it should be in the theater - but it's also not worth the money. So, if you have a decent-sized screen at home, go rent/Netflix a similar but superior film: Pacific Rim. Godzilla has finally met his match - Hollywood executives and their writers!
Score: **** out of ***** (B+)
Long Story Short: Neighbors, the latest vehicle of star Seth Rogen, is positioned as one of the comedies of the summer. While many recent such films have disappointed, this one lives up to its billing. The cast fits into their roles quite well - even more from a dramatic than comedic stance. But while the story offers much more than its contemporaries', it's also pretty darn funny and entertaining. Well recommended, particularly for groups of friends.
Well, it's two movie reviews in consecutive weekends! Hopefully I'll be able to keep this up, now that we're fully in summer movie season. The NBA playoffs are also in full swing and the French Open is coming up soon, so there will likely be one or more sports posts, too. Having seen my second superhero film of the year last weekend, I was pleased to switch genres to comedy this time. Although I'm a fan of Seth Rogen, his recent movies have disappointed me. Still, Neighbors got good reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and the premise looked fun. Neighbors was directed by Nicholas Stoller (Forgetting Sarah Marshall) and stars Seth Rogen, Zac Efron, Rose Byrne and Dave Franco.
The plot of Neighbors, as you might imagine, is not tremendously complicated. And since I don't want to give too much away, here is just a brief summary. Mac (Rogen) and Kelly (Byrne) are a young couple with a new baby daughter. Although they long for the fun of earlier times, family life has put those days seemingly out of reach. To compound their frustrations, the couple gets a new next-door neighbor: a fraternity from a local university. As Mac and Kelly try to provide a safe, quiet place to grow up for their daughter, they go to war with Delta Psi and their leaders, Teddy (Efron) and Pete (Franco).
Neighbors has an interesting cast, one that does the "serious" parts as well or better than the comedic. Seth Rogen as Mac is the film's co-lead, the exasperated, former-partier father. Rogen has a unique style that, while sometimes off-putting, works well enough here. You can see him as a young father who pines for his party days yet genuinely wants to develop his family life. As in other films, he's typically funniest as the object of jokes rather than the producer, and his trademark long-winded, overly "realistic" back-and-forths are starting to get stale. Rose Byrne is quite good as Mac's wife, Kelly. She pulls off the strange, commendable feat of being a secondary character yet very distinct and valuable to both story and humor. Rather than just being the stereotypical mother representing only the "responsible adult" view, she also has a realistic desire for fun and freedom. Her humor flows naturally, as expected from an actress more familiar in dramatic roles.
I'm not too familiar with Zac Efron, of High School Musical fame, who plays co-lead, fraternity top dog Teddy. So, coming in with only popular opinions in mind, I was pretty impressed. The role fit him to a "T". He is by no means a great comedic actor, but he provides a very fun, charismatic presence. He mixes the asshole and the brotherly love components well, and displays genuine vulnerability alongside his arrogant fraternity personality. Dave Franco as Pete does pretty well, too. I've seen him in few roles, but have to say that he's a repellant presence on screen for me, whether or not that's fair. But again, he's ideally suited to the role he plays, a stereotype like Efron's yet one that is also equally nuanced. Franco has even less comedic sense than Efron, but that didn't surprise me.
Two things have really dragged down a lot of recent comedies, in my opinion: pathetic and/or overly large dramatic components, and lack of true belly laughs. Neighbors manages to turn the first of those problems into an actual strength, and makes progress on the second. The setup was ripe for boring stereotypes: a young family that wants to be serious yet gets dragged into old hooliganism, and the hidden social drama behind a hard-partying frat. But both of these elements are handled quite well in this film. They are played out with very smartly written dialogue and scenes, some with humor and some without. And it pulls off a fine balancing act in not overwhelming nor being overwhelmed by the parallel comedic craziness. Neighbors is also quite funny, which is obviously the most important thing. The main thrust of the humor is an old-standby with a new twist: frats behaving badly/hazing, with ordinary family life in close proximity. Strangely, none of the actors are stand-outs here, but the situations and scenes are often brilliantly composed (especially the final showdown). Rogen naturally pulls in a good bit of his usual shtick, which is becoming less and less funny (to me at least), but it's kept to a reasonable minimum and is not the primary style, fortunately.
***
Neighbors gives me hope for the short-term future of comedy films, in addition to being enjoyable itself. Too many recent comedies have been severe letdowns, from last year's wildly overrated This Is the End to the Anchorman 2 bellyflop. I often find comedies the hardest to grade, and this one was a little tricky, too. I think "B+" is about right. It's entertaining and pretty well-paced throughout, with above average humor and way above average dramatic backdrop. Still, it couldn't quite punch through to the hilarity of, say, last year's The Heat, and none of the cast comes close to the presence of a Ferrell, Wiig, or similar comic. That said, while it may not reach the "A" range for comedies, Neighbors is a very good time at the theater, especially with friends. Keep in mind, of course, the type of humor you'll find here. If vulgar humor, particularly sexual in nature, offends you, stay away (though I've seen far worse). But you could probably figure that out. Enjoy!
Score: *** out of ***** (C)
Long Story Short: Like superheroes, just because the first effort of a strong franchise fails doesn't mean he/she/it won't get up and return better than ever. Not the case for this "Amazing" Spider-Man franchise. The sequel isn't a carbon copy of the first, at least, but for every improvement there are two more problems that pop up. Plot, supporting characters, ending - you name it. Please go see Captain America 2 instead (even if it's for a second time).
I should stop making predictions about when and which movies I'm going to see, because I've been doing it quite badly this year. I hope to see a number of movies in May, though. It's not looking like the most exciting summer movie season, but there are several films that look promising. The first weekend always offers one of the biggest releases, and this year it's The Amazing Spider-Man 2. I was pretty underwhelmed by the first one (you can read my review), but since I love these superhero movies and this is a tentpole release, I thought, why not? The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was directed by Marc Webb (returned from the first) and stars Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, and Jamie Foxx.
The movie opens with a flashback to Peter Parker's parents' final days: Mr. Parker, a prominent scientist, is on the run and manages to erase mysterious data before his end. In the present, Peter Parker (Garfield) is graduating along with girlfriend Gwen Stacy (Stone) while fighting crime as Spider-Man. Tormented by his promise to Stacy's deceased father, Parker decides he must leave Stacy. Meanwhile, at OsCorp (owned by Parker's childhood friend, and where Stacy works), a lonely worker named Max (Foxx) is involved in an accident - much like what turned Parker into Spider-Man, just with different creatures. And while Parker struggles to get past Stacy and look into his parents' past, his friend Harry Osborn (of OsCorp) returns to see his dying father.
Parker is soon confronted with dilemmas from two of the people closest to him. Stacy announces a major change that will permanently change their relationship, and Harry seeks out Spider-Man to find a solution for his family malady. Oh, and Max isn't handling his powers quite as well as Parker. When it all comes together, Parker faces his greatest challenge yet - both to Peter the boy and to Spider-Man the hero.
The core of Spider-Man 2's cast - Garfield and Stone - remains from the first, and several new faces join the mix. Garfield, unfortunately, does not display significant improvement from the first film. It's clear that he's a talented actor, but not experienced enough yet to overcome the disaster handed to him by the screenwriters. In some scenes, he even reminded me of Hayden Christensen's Anakin Skywalker. Stone does a superior job working with a crappy script, and is one of the film's highlights. Emma is charming and funny, but an equally strong and independent woman as well (without forcing it, which is sometimes a pitfall for the role).
Jamie Foxx as Max - and alter ego "Electro" - is ostensibly the main new character, but he really doesn't get that much screen time. Which is OK, because Max is a one-note, somewhat irritating character, and Electro is given an extremely vague "conflict" that goes nowhere. Wasted talent. Dane DeHaan has a bigger role as Harry Osborn, Peter's friend. Well, actually, they don't really seem to be very good friends. On one hand, this could be accidental realism (the two had been apart for years) - but Harry is such an asshole that I'm not sure why Peter continues to hang out with him. Dane plays the entitled, whiny, slimy heir pretty well, but he's not fun to watch. Paul Giamatti's presence was marketed more than his actual role deserved, and if you're partly going just to see him, forget about it.
Now that the origin is done (again), we can finally get to the good stuff with this sequel! Right? It's true - Parker and Stacy's relationship is developed, and Spider-Man is swinging from the very start. Unfortunately, the Parker-Stacy relationship often makes the film feel YA in all the wrong ways. There are some good moments between the two, but also some quite bad ones that are forced and/or out of character. Some of the action is pretty good, and overall considerably better than the previous film's. Particularly in some early scenes with Electro, there is fantastic CGI and the beginnings of the presence of a real threat. However, there is quite a long stretch in the middle where Spidey is entirely absent, and the finale battle is so over the top it's numbing (except for the very last minute or so, which I won't spoil here). This Spider-Man isn't as funny as the first, but the soundtrack is more distinctive - Electro has a bass-heavy feel from Hans Zimmer, and I believe Pharrell Williams and others helped out with some nice pop music.
***
The big question this time: does Amazing Spider-Man 2 improve on the tepid start to the franchise? The answer: it's one step forward, but two steps back. First, the step forward. At least the sequel isn't bogged down by the origins story, and a lot of the action is much improved. Plus, it's overall a more entertaining film with a slightly improved style. But director Webb still hasn't learned to make a tonally coherent superhero film. Sometimes it's the gag-worthy YA, as previously mentioned; sometimes (not often enough, IMO) it's just silly fun; sometimes it's serious "with great power comes great responsibility". The script is poor and the plot meandering, generic, and disengaging. The editing is a little better up until the end - which turns out not to be the end, and the extension is painful and unnecessary. This franchise is by far the worst major superhero franchise going right now. To Webb and Garfield: I gave you a second change, and you failed. Next time (sequels are planned for 2016 and 2018!!!), I'm staying home. Probably.
Score: *** out of ***** (C+)
Long Story Short: One of the most critically-praised films of the year is starting to find its way into non-urban America. Cult-favorite director Wes Anderson's latest, The Grand Budapest Hotel, is a sort of thriller with the usual stylistic flair of its filmmaker. Fiennes is great as the main character, with many Anderson regulars flanking him. However, Anderson's style is simply a poor fit for the story here, overwhelming any of the individually positive elements.
I had given up on my local rural theater ever getting this indie film, but, over a month after its U.S. debut, it arrived! I'm glad to have some contrasts in the genres of the films I see, with Captain America the week before and probably Noah to come after. In other news, the NBA Playoffs start this weekend; while I didn't follow the league closely enough to come up with a preview, I'll definitely do a post at the end and perhaps one or two along the way. As for Grand Budapest Hotel, I was intrigued since I enjoyed 2012's Moonrise Kingdom by the same director. With phenomenal reviews, I just hoped that it would come to my area which it eventually did. The Grand Budapest Hotel was directed by Wes Anderson and stars Ralph Fiennes, Tony Revolori, Edward Norton, et. al.
After a series of clips through time - linking this story to the present and several other years - we are brought to the Grand Budapest, the pride of made-up European nation Zubrowka. Set in the 1930s, the Grand Budapest is a bustling place, led by its charming professional concierge, Gustave (Fiennes). While he goes about his duties - including unofficial ones involving wealthy older women - Gustave begins training a new lobby boy, Zero (Revolori), whose name describes what he comes to the hotel with in experience and background. Zero goes with Gustave to the funeral of one of the hotel's regulars, Madame D (Swinton), who passes away suddenly.
Here the trouble begins: Madame D leaves a valuable possession to Gustave, infuriating her son. As war descends on the nation, Gustave and Zero find themselves pursued by a more intimate set of enemies as they try to discover what's really going on - and get themselves out of trouble.
The Grand Budapest has a fine cast with many Wes Anderson "regulars" acting in the quirky way that is found in Moonrise Kingdom (and probably Anderson's other films, too). Fiennes plays the main character, Gustave. While he commands attention and is fascinating to watch, it was hard for me to get a read on the character. Perhaps the contradictions are intended, but he is both professional and crude, gentlemanly and flirtatious. Despite being fun to watch, there is little emotional impact to what happens to him as he is more a set of characteristics than a single, believable person. The young Zero, played by Revolori, isn't as exciting but is more believable and relatable. The few moments focused on him are some of the film's strongest, but mostly he is just along for the ride.
There are plenty more characters (and big-name actors) in the film; I'll touch on just a few more. Edward Norton plays a military commander; he fits himself to Anderson's style well, and I like him a lot in both Moonrise and Grand Budapest. He has some of the funniest lines, but sadly has a very small part. Jeff Goldblum is a pleasantly surprising presence here. Another small part, he sticks in my mind (other than the fact that he's Jeff Goldblum) for his funny lawyer stuff. Willem Dafoe plays a scary villain (shock!), and Adrien Brody the whiny, furious son of Madame D. Most of the other parts are essentially cameos, including Bill Murray.
Before anything else, I should say that I am by no means an expert on Wes Anderson. I saw and enjoyed Moonrise Kingdom. Other than that, I saw Rushmore when I was young and stopped watching from extreme boredom. Even from just two films, though, it's obvious that Anderson has a distinct style: in the visuals, tone, and dialogue (and probably other parts) of his films. I do not love nor do I hate this style; however, I think that this special style is better suited for certain types of stories and characters than for others. Grand Budapest Hotel is, basically, a "buddy thriller" in which you have the odd pair of Gustave and Zero being framed (and chased) for a crime. To put it simply, I do not think this was a good choice for Anderson's style, which is the main reason for the score I gave it. There are also supposedly "layers" in this movie, with the aforementioned introductions. However, this doesn't amount to anything in my opinion and it's actually kind of good that they didn't try (although one might ask then why Anderson attached it to the beginning and the end at all...).
***
The Grand Budapest Hotel has received glowing reviews from most major national film critics. Perhaps I am not cultured and/or sophisticated enough to appreciate what the film offers, but I disagree with them significantly. The major issue begins, as I just noted, with the story's ill fit with Wes Anderson's style - the most pertinent characteristics being silly, meandering and underlying subtle (sorry for the grammar; not sure how else to put it!). Those elements aren't bad in and of themselves - in fact, they were ideally suited for Moonrise Kingdom. However, put them into this story and it just feels bizarre; the emPHAsis is on the wrong syLLAbles you might say. Most of the performances are good or great (Fiennes is likely an Oscar nominee), the sets and visuals are fun, it has good humor - but as a whole, it's just one big mess. And the ill-fitting style causes some scenes to just drag on, making the fairly short runtime (1 hour 40 minutes) seem considerably longer. Whereas a film like the Muppets was pretty obviously a "B" (give or take half a grade), Grand Budapest Hotel likely varies much more wildly depending on the individual and even your mood. For me, though, the enjoyability of its specific elements doesn't nearly make up for the faults of the overall experience.
Score: ****1/2 out of ***** (A)
Long Story Short: Captain America is the last major Avenger to get his post-block party solo outing - and they definitively saved the best for last. Johansson and Jackson are welcome carry-overs from The Avengers to aid Evans' Captain America who is good but not yet great. What is great is the bone-crunching, edge-of-your-seat action. Add a rock solid, ominous yet occasionally humorous script, and a highly contemporary theme and you've got an outstanding blockbuster.
A little change in my movie plans resulted in my seeing the Captain America sequel on opening weekend (which worked out great considering its neat synergy with ABC's "Agents of SHIELD"!). I hope to eventually get to see Noah before it leaves theaters. At any rate, there's a good chance of a nice string of movie reviews coming out and before you know it, we'll be in prime summer blockbuster season! I liked the first Captain America (subtitled The First Avenger) film a lot, with its fresh tone for a superhero film and some great performances (Tommy Lee Jones, etc.). Since then, the Marvel Avengers universe has only grown, and I looked forward to seeing the Captain America sequel. The Winter Soldier was directed by Anthony and Joe Russo, and stars Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, and Samuel L. Jackson.
Steve Rogers (Evans), aka Captain America (or "Cap"), is getting adjusted to life in the 21st century (the first film takes place during WWII... long story, just watch it). Now an agent for SHIELD, an international defense/intelligence organization, Rogers soon gets called in for a mission to free SHIELD hostages on a ship captured by pirates. With fellow SHIELD agent Romanoff (Johansson; aka Black Widow) and a team of commandoes at his side, Rogers triumphs - although he also catches Romanoff sidetracked with a different task. Rogers debriefs at SHIELD's headquarters in Washington, D.C., where director Nick Fury (Jackson) shows him SHIELD's latest high-tech defense plan, Operation Insight.
Soon after, an attack on one of Rogers' friends startles him and makes him question just who he can trust. With fellow skeptic/mistrusting ally Romanoff at his side, Rogers must figure out what is going on - and who the real threat is in an increasingly complex and dark world.
No one in the cast of The Winter Soldier is on track for an Oscar - but perhaps just as importantly, none of them stink, either. Chris Evans proved himself a charismatic hero in the first Captain America film; while he got a little lost in the big cast of Avengers, he continues his growth in his solo sequel. Evans doesn't waver in portraying Rogers as a humble, earnest man powerfully guided by his moral code. But it doesn't mean he's boring; Evans has good comic timing, typically with dry humor. Scarlett Johansson is making even more rapid progress in her role as Black Widow. A nondescript femme fatale in Iron Man 2, Johansson has made her character relatable and tough, with a backstory that has promise but yet to be fully fleshed out (semi-antihero).
Samuel L. Jackson also returns as SHIELD director Nick Fury. His role is about as big as it was in Avengers, which is considerable. He doesn't have a lot of nuance - he's a badass, of course - but has shown interesting willingness to bend if not break some moral standards ostensibly in the cause of safety, not something many heroes do in these films. I was pleasantly surprised to see Robert Redford show up, naturally as the head honcho. His presence gives the film a great boost to its serious tone. There are a number of smaller roles, most notably Anthony Mackie as Steve's friend in SHIELD; perhaps the most "likable" character, though unspectacular.
While packed with action, Captain America: The Winter Soldier has higher ambitions than mere popcorn flick. But the action is a fine place to start. Honestly, I've been unimpressed with the fight scenes in many recent action films, superhero or not. This film's action, however, is quite simply kick-ass. It's certainly helpful that Captain America is stronger than the average human, but not boringly overpowered like Superman. They don't rely much on CGI, and the hand-to-hand combat is brutal, fast-paced, creative and thrilling (the 300 sequel could only do "brutal"). As mentioned, The Winter Soldier goes beyond just action to dive into some ideas, most notably the very contemporary issue of surveillance and targeting of terrorists/"threats". Is it a subtle exploration? No. But, the film keeps the focus on its characters and when rhetorical language is used it's neither too cliched nor overdone. And there are actual repercussions at the end of the film, rather than the good guys winning and everything going back to the way it was. With all the tense action and frighteningly relevant themes, this might have been too dark a film, but it keeps a good thriller-esque tone. Plus, there's an appropriate amount/type of humor to keep the mood from sinking.
***
Captain America: The Winter Soldier is the best superhero movie (though The Wolverine remains an underrated gem) I've seen since The Dark Knight Rises. Heck, it's one of the best movies I've seen since 2012, period. Overall, these Cap movies are the best of The Avengers' solo outings. I love Robert Downey, Jr. as Iron Man, but the films built around him are less compelling than these. It starts with having a strong foundation: good old fashioned bare-knuckle throw downs that rival any action film in recent memory. There's also eventually a fantasy-like scenario involving the villain, but it's kept to what qualifies as a "minimum" in today's world of cinema. Add a strong, diverse trio - Evans, Johansson, and Jackson - good scripts and humor, and you have a very good franchise. There are no major weaknesses here; it's a pretty long film, but the pacing is great. I guess I'd like to see Evans really become a top-tier superhero/star, but other than that, soldier on, Cap! Highly recommended.
Score: ***1/2 out of ***** (B)
Long Story Short: The Muppets are back again, ready for more after their smash hit comeback in 2011. We even get an upgrade in the human department, starring three of today's top comedians in Ricky Gervais, Tina Fey and Ty Burrell. But these stars, plus a slightly overemphasized plot, steal a bit too much of the spotlight away from our old friends Kermit, Miss Piggy, and Co. It's an amusing entry with some really good songs, but ultimately Most Wanted falls well short of classic.
Well, it's been a bit of a drought for me recently, with my last post coming nearly a month ago. Due to scheduling, I got to see Muppets Most Wanted a week late so the review, which I normally write the weekend after its release, is two weeks late. The good news is that there should be a review each of the next two weeks - although each will also be delayed two weeks from the films' release date. As for Muppets, I was interested in this sequel after Netflixing the reboot from 2011 and enjoying it. I almost decided to just wait on this one, too, but I was itching to see a movie and this seemed the best option. Muppets Most Wanted was directed by James Bobin and stars Ricky Gervais, Tina Fey, Ty Burrell, and of course the Muppets.
Muppets Most Wanted picks up literally right where 2011's The Muppets left off, and the gang is wondering what to do next. Thanks to their successful comeback, they get plenty of attention, including from Dominic Badguy (Gervais). He suggests that the Muppets do a world tour, and they are all (except Kermit) excited by the idea. They first travel to Berlin, where Badguy insists that the Muppets upgrade from their shabby planned venue to the best scene in town. As Badguy takes charge Kermit gets more and more frustrated, before getting jumped by his criminal look-alike, Constantine. Before he knows what's happening, police are taking Kermit off to the gulags while the criminal takes his place.
The Muppets continue from city to city on their tour, happy as Badguy gives them free reign - and also oblivious to Badguy's secret plans. Meanwhile, Kermit finds life in the gulags to be as difficult as you'd imagine, being watched closely by prison guard Nadya (Fey). Investigators Napoleon (Burrell) and Sam Eagle start on the case, but this is one that will take the whole gang to resolve.
As with the 2011 film, Muppets Most Wanted features a few main human actors to accompany the Muppets, along with a large cast of cameos (which I won't spoil). Ricky Gervais has the biggest part, although even he is just #2 to the criminal mastermind, Constantine (a relationship put to song in the film). Gervais was a very nice choice, as Badguy ingratiates himself to the Muppets with ease, praising their talents and raising their expectations for success. At other moments, Gervais entertains by playing the smirking villain even as he's kept in check by Constantine. Tina Fey is also fun as prison guard Nadya. Perhaps her accent is not the greatest (not that that matters in a Muppet movie) but she does a great job adjusting to the silly, semi-villainous humor of her role while also embodying the human warmth required in this kind of family film. Finally, there's Ty Burrell playing Interpol agent Napoleon. This character is the most stereotyped of the three, but Burrell, as he is on Modern Family, is plenty amusing nonetheless.
I'm far from a Muppets aficionado, but I know that the films have certain required components to make them worthy additions to the franchise. Primarily the films are about the Muppet family itself, and how it deals with various challenging situations. While that may seem obvious, Muppets Most Wanted actually goes a little bit off script here (admittedly, I didn't think of this until I read a few other reviews, but I agree with them). Kermit, Miss Piggy and the rest just aren't the dominant focus here; instead, the heist aspects take center stage, and that mainly deals with the Constantine-Badguy and Napoleon-Eagle duos. However, Muppets Most Wanted is faithful in its use of song, and here it does a great job. In fact, I think they are the best parts of the film, when I usually find these routines boring and unnecessary. Finally, the Muppets need a good sense of humor, and Most Wanted is decently if not wildly successful here. All three human actors are great in this department, but most of the humor is more chuckle-worthy than hilarious.
***
All week, I've been going back and forth between a "B" and "B+" for Muppets Most Wanted as I've thought about it. Either way, it meant that I found it a very solid film, but also one that does not really rise to the level of a great Muppet movie. In the broadest terms, this is quite a fun film; it's doubtful that it won't entertain you as long as this type of film appeals to you. The plot is clever and, while not unique, doesn't abandon the Muppets and actors to carry the film by themselves. Gervais, Fey, and Burrell make a great trio, I'll say again; and many of the songs are really good. However, in the end it just doesn't feel very "filling"; I don't think that this is one that'll stick with me. I think a large part of that is the aforementioned mysteriously shrunken parts for the main Muppets, including even Kermit and Miss Piggy. Maybe if they'd wrapped it up with a killer ending, it'd get a "B+", but it's only a tepid conclusion, especially in comparison to the 2011 film. Certainly, Muppets Most Wanted is worth seeing - but unless it's for a family outing, you can probably wait for it on Netflix.
Score: **1/2 out of ***** (C-)
Long Story Short: Seven years later, the long-expected sequel to the surprise hit 300 arrives in theaters. Although it tries to offer up some variety with a naval setting and a female enemy, 300: Rise of an Empire is more of the same - but worse. Newcomer Eva Green is fun but the other humans are either just meat cleavers or the cleaved. Add a butchered story and incessant, numbing repetition of action and you've got a film that most should avoid.
After a nice run of movies early in the year, my prediction of a short drought proved accurate. Looking ahead again, I'm not sure which films I'll see next and when (I've got my eye on a few), so we'll just wait and see. My decision to see 300: Rise of an Empire was driven primarily by desire to see a fun action film; since Liam Neeson's latest clone of Taken didn't interest me, I chose this one. I saw 300 in the theater back in 2007; I wasn't nearly as impressed as some but at least it was unique. Previews showcasing naval battles and - shock! - a female main character gave the impression that this wouldn't just be a carbon copy of the first. Despite middling reviews (43% on RT), I went ahead with it. 300: Rise of an Empire was directed by Noam Murro and stars Sullivan Stapleton and Eva Green.
The first act of this sequel is an extended prologue, narrated by Spartan Queen Gorgo (Lena Headey). Prior to the events of 300, Athenian General Themistocles (Stapleton) led his troops in defending Greece from a Persian invasion. In the process, he kills the Persian King Darius with the king's son Xerxes at his side. Persia retreats and grieves its king, but a cunning naval commander, Artemisia (Green), convinces Xerxes that he must exact revenge on the Greeks. The Greeks discover the imminent invasion, but are divided on how to respond. The proud Spartans refuse to cooperate, instead sending the famous three hundred to defend their own land.
It's up to General Themistocles, then, to try to stop as much of the Persian fleet as he can before it reaches Greece. Though outnumbered, he quickly shows tactical brilliance and develops a rivalry with Artemisia. The fate of Greece hangs in the balance as Themistocles tries to hold off the Persian hordes at sea while Leonidas (in the background; see 300) does the same on land.
The cast of 300: Rise of an Empire is not very good overall; the filmmakers clearly prioritized fit bodies over talented thespians. Leading the charge in this sequel is Sullivan Stapleton (what a name!). While I'd hardly call Gerard Butler a great actor, he was a much better choice (as Leonidas in 300) for this kind of film than Sullivan. He's simply bland; nothing distinguishes him at all. When he started to launch into one of many "pep talks", my attention immediately began to wander. Fortunately, at least his co-star, Eva Green, is intriguing to watch. Green, in stark contrast, is highly distinctive and the one human worthy of attention in the film. She isn't just a girl who happens to be on the enemy team - she is more sadistic than any of her brethren. Unfortunately, despite being leader of an army, Artemisia ends up being another cliched female villain - using her sex as a weapon (which the hero enjoys momentarily then rejects as beneath him) and ultimately losing the war due to her "feminine" arrogance and emotionality.
OK, OK, you might be saying. The acting might be bad, but that's not the point of these films! It's all about the action/violence and visual effects! Don't worry, that is certainly the case. Despite a bizarrely long prologue which leads to an unnecessarily complicated yet arbitrary plot, there are precious few minutes in which blood is not being spilt. For the first few minutes, it's kind of neat to watch the stylized violence (this coming from a young man). However, it gets a bit dull and numbing after, oh, the fiftieth kill or so - and there are still about a thousand to go. 300 ran into the same problem to some degree, but they mixed things up considerably better. And the naval battles? Boring (with the exception of one neat engagement). Much of the failure in this area is due to the "despite the fact that the enemies are more numerous and powerful, they are also dumb as ****" syndrome. The special effects are well done, technically speaking, but they just pile on more and more rather than making it truly special (other than a few instances). To conclude, there were a number of times that I laughed, but I believe only once was I supposed to (during the sex scene of all places).
***
It's official - 300: Rise of an Empire is the first dud of the year (that I've seen). I probably should have been more prepared for it; considering my lukewarm feelings about 300, it was never likely that the sequel would be any better (and, in fact, it's significantly worse). On the other hand, it's kind of fun, in a mean way, to write reviews for films of this quality. Much easier to write about what a film does badly than about what it does well. And this film isn't all bad; I didn't give it an F or even a D, after all. Eva Green's Artemisia is entertaining to watch (even if the script slowly destroys her), a few of the battles are interesting, and it's visually unique. Of course, the ridiculous/cliched/bland plot, lack of interesting characters other than Artemisia, and numbing abundance of (over)kills far outweigh the positives. I'd only recommend this if you were crazy about 300 - and even then, you still won't like this one as much as the first.
_poster.jpg)
_Poster.jpg)
