Summer 2014 Box Office Predictions

IN MILLIONS, OF COURSE by Bennett Campbell Ferguson

 

 

Michael Fassbender (left) stars in "X-Men: Days of Future Past"

MOVIE	OPENING WEEKEND	FINAL GROSS
“The Amazing Spider-Man 2”	$130	$300
“Godzilla”	$40	$100
“X-Men: Days of Future Past”	$100	$315
“Maleficent”	$90	$250
“Edge of Tomorrow”	$30	$100
“How to Train Your Dragon 2”	$70	$250
“Think Like a Man Too”	$30	$80
“Transformers: Age of Extinction”	$100	$300
“Tammy”	$40	$150
“Dawn of the Planet of the Apes”	$90	$200
“Guardians of the Galaxy”	$30	$100
“The Expendables 3”	$40	$90

 

Potential Hits (If They Pick a Different Date): “Blended” and “Sin City: A Dame to Kill For”

Sleepers: “Begin Again,” “The Fault in Our Stars,” “Get on Up,” “Lucy,” “Magic in the Moonlight,” “The Purge: Anarchy,” and “Sex Tape”

Bombs: “The Giver,” “Hercules,” “Jupiter Ascending,” “A Million Ways to Die in the West,” and “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles”

Too Soon to Call: “Chef,” “Jersey Boys,” “Million Dollar Arm,” “Neighbors,” “22 Jump Street,” and “The Trip to Italy”

Movie Review: "Captain America: The First Avenger" (Joe Johnston, 2011)

THE MAN BEHIND THE SHIELD by Mo Shaunette

Above: Captain America (Chris Evans) and Bucky, the future Winter Soldier (Sebastian Stan)


“Whatever happens tomorrow, you must promise me one thing: You will stay who you are. Not a perfect soldier, but a good man.”'
 

This month I’m doing a retro review.  Why?  Because everyone else on staff had dibs on the interesting April movies.  So, since “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” came out earlier this month, I figured we could take a look back at a movie that investigates the origins of the star-spangled man with a plan: 2011’s “Captain America: The First Avenger.”

            Steve Rogers/Captain America, the sickly citizen turned super soldier turned American icon turned World War II legend, was always going to be one of Marvel’s tougher characters to adapt (especially since Steve’s upright morals and unflappable patriotism seem out of place in a more cynical blockbuster scene).  Yet Marvel Studios realized that the best way to bring an old-fashioned character to life was by making and old-fashioned movie.  Thus, director Joe Johnston, writers Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, and producer Kevin Feige put together a sepia tone-drenched World War II adventure in which good guys are good, bad guys are worse, and the basic premise of “beat the Nazis” is enough.

            Still, where “The First Avenger” really shines is in the characterization department.  Supporting players like Tommy Lee Jones’s Colonel Philips and Stanley Tucci’s Dr. Erskine (who recruit Steve for the war effort) are made memorable through humor and heart; Hayley Atwell’s Agent Carter makes you believe she’s earned her place in the army (as well as her own television series, which is currently in development); and Hugo Weaving’s Red Skull is a strong nemesis, a Nietzschean Übermensch whose maniacal ego plays off against his enemy’s more humble nature.

That enemy is, of course, Steve/Cap himself.  And while some may find the man’s sense of duty and wide-eyed optimism hard to relate to, actor Chris Evans makes the character into a compelling and engaging protagonist.  In a terrific cast, he is the clear standout, even if it’s ultimately Cap’s daredevil stunts and the earnestness of the proceedings that makes this unconventional hero’s journey a fantastically enjoyable ride.

            Nevertheless, “The First Avenger” has its flaws.  Particularly head-scratching is the film’s improbable climax, during which Steve resigns himself to crashing the Red Skull’s oversized bomber …despite the fact that he has control over the plane…as well as having been able to fly a similar bomber earlier.  And that’s to say nothing of the film’s over whelming cheesiness, which, despite being necessary, may turn off some watchers.

And yet, at the end of the day, “Captain America: The First Avenger” holds together extremely well as a shamelessly bright, fast-paced, and fun action movie that leans heavy on characterization and absolutely nails it.  It’s a blast from start to finish and comes highly recommended, especially if you plan on seeing its darker sequel soon.

Anatomy of a Scene: "Star Trek Into Darkness" (J.J. Abrams, 2013)

BENEATH THE STARS: A TRAGIC MOMENT FROM ABRAMS’ “DARKNESS”

by Bennett Campbell Ferguson

 

 

Left: Benedict Cumberbatch             stars in "Trek"

 

 

An alarm clock blares.  Almost immediately, a man’s hand slams across it, silencing the sound.  Then, he slowly stands, staring out the window at the coolly shiny city in the distance. 

Later, the man drives his wife away from their home while Michael Giacchino’s score lapses into a quiet, mournful piano solo that doesn’t end until they reach their destination—the London Royal Children’s Hospital.  Inside, a doctor tells the man and the woman something we cannot hear, but their reaction suggests that it’s not good news. 

We soon find out why.  As the couple enters a small room, we see their daughter asleep, looking painfully frail.  Gently, her mother places a stuffed animal in her hands.  But after that, her composure dissolves.  She falls across her daughter, sobbing while her husband watches.  And though he remains motionless, the rising music and the camera’s head-on zoom toward his face tell you exactly what you need to know—that he feels angry and powerless.

            Apparently, the feeling is too much for him.  Via a steep overhead shot, we see the man walk outside to the concrete railing that surrounds the hospital.  But his reverie in interrupted by footsteps—someone is standing there, not far from his back.  And as the interrupter begins to speak in a tone of rich metallic menace, we understand that the journey into darkness has begun. 

Movie Review: "Transcendence" (Wally Pfister, 2014)

TRANSCENDING BLOCKBUSTER CLICHÉS by Bennett Campbell Ferguson

Above: Johnny Depp stars in Mr. Pfister's movie

In "Transcendence,” Johnny Depp plays Dr. Will Caster, a scientist seeking the secrets of artificial intelligence.  His wife Evelyn (Rebecca Hall) regards his goals with warm adoration, but the movie is less certain.  And why shouldn’t it be?  Never mind the world; look at what rapidly-advancing technology has done to movies alone.  Oh sure, I’ll admit that digital evolution gave us the giddy spaceships of “Star Trek,” but it has also helped create the sleekly soulless battlefields of “Avatar” and “The Avengers,” thereby leaching much of the  joy out of popcorn entertainment. 

            In comparison to those films, “Transcendence” is practically sedate; too sedate, in my opinion.  There are moments when the pace seems too slow; the camera too still; and the characters too simple.  Yet as the movie progresses, it develops visual and emotional momentum, turning into a story that, while sometimes sloppy, leaves you with more than a little to think about.

            Mr. Depp’s Will, of course, has little time to think at all—the film has barely begun when he’s shot with a radiation-laced bullet and given one month to live.  Yet Evelyn, tearfully unable to accept her husband’s inevitable fate, uploads Will’s mind into a supercomputer, preserving his spirit (Mr. Depp’s face appears digitized on various screens throughout the picture) and, unfortunately, creating an increasingly domineering and power-hungry new life form.  Thus, despite her loyalty and love, Evelyn begins to wonder if she’s done the right thing.

            Honestly, I never doubted that she’d done the opposite.  There’s something slightly aggravating about Evelyn; I love Ms. Hall, but Jack Paglen’s minimalist screenplay doesn’t give her a discernible personality to work with.  Besides, I have a feeling that the film would have been far more electrifying if it had focused on the strident anti-technology terrorists who pursue Evelyn like a virus seeking a host vessel (they’re led by the duplicitous Bree, played by Kate Mara).  Yes, they are minor characters, but even so, Evelyn’s generic grief pales in comparison to their brutal radicalism.

            Considering that “Transcendence” director Wally Pfister has never made a movie before (although he did work grittily poetic miracles as the cinematographer of the “Dark Knight” trilogy and “Inception”), these narrative imbalances aren’t shocking.  Yet in his awkward amateurishness, there is still a measure cinematic and intellectual richness.  The early scenes featuring Will and Evelyn at home may be boringly comfy, but tension arises elegantly when Evelyn journeys to Brightwood, a broken-down town where she makes a home for Will’s computerized consciousness.  Here, in the heart of rural America (the film was shot in New Mexico), we get an eerie vision of a battered community revitalized by technology—a chilling development made all the more unsettling by Evelyn’s pained isolation.

            Of course in the end, everything blows up.  Once the military gets wind of computer-Will’s limitless capabilities (he ultimately gains the power to brainwash and control other people), they pull into Brightwood, spurring a climactic battle in which ghostly solar panels are split into tiny metallic particles while cars crash and fists fly.  Yet the sequence is more than simple spectacle—it’s the moment where Evelyn has to choose whether to save Will one last time or to cut him loose once and for all. 

            It’s not the hardest choice in the world to make (who wouldn’t choose free will over the restrictive utopia that Will’s abilities promise?).  Yet Mr. Pfister still musters some admirable ambiguity, condemning Will’s increasing authoritarianism while celebrating his environmentalist idealism and his love for Evelyn.  Those contradictory elements make the movie mean something, even if the real takeaway of the film is that computers are already destroying our planet.  They can’t save it too.

Commentary: The Scarlett Johansson Controversy

THE SCARLETT JOHANSSON CONTROVERSY by Bennett Campbell Ferguson

Above: Ms. Johnansson in her latest film, "Under the Skin"

It started out as a simple job.  Anthony Lane, film critic for The New Yorker, was assigned to write a profile of Scarlet Johansson.  With limited access to the talented actress (it’s obvious from reading the piece that he only had the opportunity to interview her once), he crafted an article that was simultaneously thought-provoking and maddening, in that fascinating way that so much of his writing is.

            And yet, the piece made many people genuinely mad.  In its wake, Mr. Lane has been attacked for being an intellectual pervert who squeezed a Johansson fetish into his writing, thereby objectifying a gifted and intelligent artist.  Yet his work has called our attention to something important—the role that attraction plays in film criticism.  No reviewer can avoid being called upon to write about a film starring an actress or actor that they’ve fantasized about.  How they react to that assignment raises the question of how desire and celebrity worship fit into a form of writing that is supposed to be coolly objective.

            When in doubt, I say be honest.  Mr. Lane may be under fire for his adoring description of Ms. Johansson’s form, but some reviewers do manage to intelligently address their lust for certain stars.  Remember when New York Times critics Manohla Dargis and A.O. Scott bantered about upcoming movies back in 2004?  It was a compelling dialogue, but the fizziest moment was easily when Ms. Dargis asked Mr. Scott, “Is there anything you’re salivating over?”  His reply: “I don’t tend to salivate…unless there are certain actresses involved.” 

            For the record, it’s hard to miss Mr. Scott’s celebrity crushes on Nicole Kidman and Emily Blunt.  Yet he never demeans or drools over the performers he reviews.  Yes, the man acknowledges the pleasure he takes in seeing beautiful people onscreen (as does Ms. Dargis, who described Michael Fassbender and Penelope Cruz as “beauties” in her review of “The Counselor”), but he does so without descending into exploitive idiocy.  Instead, he’s honest (and slyly self-mocking) about his feelings.

            For a lot of people, Mr. Lane crossed that line; in particular, Mercury critic Zac Pennington memorably accused him of writing the Johansson profile “like a grad school application to Esquire.”  Do I agree?  Yes and no.  I don’t approve of the article’s queasy rapturousness; I don’t see how anyone could.  But anyone who has read Mr. Lane’s other work knows that he is one of the most insightful film critics on the planet—that his contributions to the industry far outweigh his recent failings.  And besides, criticizing him for being a soulless hack ignores the compassion and goodness that is so evident in his other reviews.  All you need to do is read his write-up on the Swedish film “Lilya 4-Ever” to be reminded of how much he loves not movies, but people.

Of course, Mr. Lane’s other great strength is that he writes reviews that are both memorable and frustrating; in fact, I rarely agree with him (not least because he doesn’t share my passion for Christopher Nolan).  But I would never deny his writing ability because he always manages to make you think about movies and how we view them.  And now, inadvertently, he has done it again by starting a crucial discussion via his own gooey transgressions.

            I have to wonder how this will all play out.  Will Mr. Lane apologize?  Will he insist on the validity of his writing?  I have no idea.  But whatever happens, the whole mess has reminded me of the danger of presuming your own objectivity.  Indeed, that may have been Mr. Lane’s greatest mistake—had he been upfront and self-deprecating about his adoration for Ms. Johansson, I might not be writing this article now.  Really, we are all at the mercy of our own romantic instincts; the trick is not to suppress them, but to address them, before we write something we regret.

Summer Preview: "Palo Alto" (Gia Coppola, 2014)

THE NEW FACE OF FRANCO by Bennett Campbell Ferguson

Above: Gia Coppola and James Franco

 

Actor.  Writer.  Soap star.  Ape wrangler.  Any (or all) or those labels could apply to James Franco, the dark-haired, mischievous-eyed movie star who’s reinvented himself so many times that he’s become the opposite of a job description.  He’s been on TV; he’s gone back to college; he’s hosted the Oscars; and he’s even starred in two of the stupidest (and highest-grossing) blockbusters of the past three years.

          Which begs the question—what kind of man is the multifaceted Mr. Franco?  I’m not sure, though it is tempting to construe him as a gonzo performance artist, walloping senselessly across the high wires of pop culture.  Yet the James Franco I always remember is the young man of Sam Raimi’s “Spider-Man” trilogy—the man who quietly broke your heart the moment he said, “None of that matters now, Peter.  You’re my friend.”

          Personally, I’m hoping that some of that sincerity resurfaces in Gia Coppola’s new movie “Palo Alto.”  It’s certainly an unusually Franco-fueled project—not only is it based on a collection of stories by the man himself, but he also stars in the film as Mr. B., a soccer coach who romances one of his young students.  On paper, it sounds like an interesting role and I’m curious to see how Mr. Franco will play it.  Will he be sleazy?  Soulful?  Both? 

We’ll know on May 9^TH.    

Flashback Friday: "The Bling Ring" (Sofia Coppola, 2013)

BEHIND THE BLING: THE SOULFUL SIDE OF SOFIA COPPOLA’S MOVIE

by Bennett Campbell Ferguson

Left: Israel Broussard (and not Emma Watson!) stars in "The Bling Ring"

When interviewed about her film “The Bling Ring,” there is one thing that writer-director Sofia Coppola has repeated constantly—that the film is a reflection of contemporary pop culture and its noxious effect on kids.  And there’s certainly truth to that; after all, the story is about a group of tabloid-crazed teenagers stealing designer clothes from celebrities. 

            Yet there is something else that needs to be emphasized—the fact that, like all of Ms. Coppola’s movies, “The Bling Ring” is ultimately about someone longing to be free of loneliness and stagnation.  Because even though much of the film is focused on the media menagerie surrounding the kids’ glamorous misdeeds, inner turmoil burns beneath the glitz, even after the film’s coldly disaffected conclusion.

That uneasiness is never clearer than when we meet Marc (Israel Broussard), Ms. Coppola’s version of the young thief Nick Prugo.  Because though this young antihero is fairly quiet, his silent yearnings are the most clearly felt sensations in the film, especially when we see him look in the mirror and carefully arrange his clothes.  It doesn’t take a genius to see that he’s nervous and dissatisfied with his appearance.

            Thus, Marc seems doomed to be a self-loathing outcast, something that’s confirmed when he seems mercilessly out of place in his new school (“Watch it,” a girl snaps when she bumps into him).  And yet for some reason, the stylish Rebecca (Katie Chang) takes Marc under her fashionable wing.  “Hey, new kid,” she says coquettishly, before inviting him to come to the beach after school.  Of course, he says yes.

            The next scene is where it all comes together.  Marc is in a car with Rebecca and her friends, sitting in the backseat while brash pop music blares and the Sun shines.  And the look on his face is one of absolute innocent excitement.  Cars, in Ms. Coppola’s movies, often seem to beckon the way to emotionally exhilarating adventures, and here it’s true again.  The music, the company, and the ride have all relieved Marc from the anguish of insecure boredom. 

It’s because of that moment that when Marc joins the Bling Ring’s stealing spree, you never forget that though he’s partly doing it for the rush, he’s also doing it so he won’t be alone.  “We had so many beautiful and gorgeous things,” he says ruefully later on.  Yet in the end, we are made to understand that the thing Marc treasured most was his friendship with Rebecca and her posse, however insubstantial it may have been.

Movie Review: "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" (Anthony Russo and Joe Russo, 2014)

DISMANTLING A WORLD WITH “THE WINTER SOLDIER”

by Maxwell Meyers

Left: Chris Evans returns as Cap

So let me say this right up front—Captain America is my FAVORITE superhero, from either Marvel or DC. Thus, when I was asked to give this review, I feared I might be a little biased. Luckily for me, at midnight last Thursday I had the wonderful privilege of seeing Cap's new adventure and at the end, there was this huge weight lifted off my shoulders. Why? Because I now knew that the movie was so wonderful that I wouldn't haveto be biased. Suffice to say that if you are a fan of superhero films, Marvel movies, older political thrillers, or all three, then you are in for a treat. “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” has elements of all of those and could very well be the best film of the year so far.

Directed by Joe and Anthony Russo and written by Stephen McFeely and Christopher Markus, the movie brings us to present-day Washington, D.C., where we are reintroduced to Cap (Chris Evans), a World War II superhero frozen in ice for seventy years. In the first “Captain America” film, we saw him awakened and shocked to find himself in the twenty-first century. Yet in “The Winter Soldier,” he is almost fully adjusted to the world that he now exists in, thanks to his awareness of the internet and his useful list of things to catch up on (including “Star Trek,” “Star Wars,” and the music of Marvin Gaye).

From here on out, I will be as spoiler-free as humanly possible. The basic plot of this film involves Cap attempting to pick up his life as a soldier by working for the secret agency S.H.I.E.L.D. alongside the rubber-moralized agent Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson). Yet Cap finds something suspicious about the way S.H.I.E.LD. director Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) operates behind half truths and the "compartmentalization" of information. These policies conflict with the straight-and-narrow Cap’s moral compass, even as his battles with the Winter Soldier of title (a mysterious and masked assassin) lead him closer towards a larger conspiracy within S.H.I.E.L.D.

Needless to say, this is a huge plot laid out in front of us, and “The Winter Soldier” does so well with all the characters on hand. There are four major players (Cap, Black Window, Fury, and the Winter Soldier), as well as four new ones to deal with (most notably, Anthony Mackie’s new-to-the-game hero The Falcon and Robert Redford’s sinister and secretive schemer Alexander Pierce). Yet the film does an amazing job balancing the characters’ screen time—not only does it give you an in-depth look at Black Widow and Nick Fury in addition to Cap, but it wets your appetite for more.

Equally masterful are the film’s behind the scenes personnel. I certainly noticed the spectacular score by Henry Jackman, which does what I believe all scores should do—it is there without being there, elegantly accenting every scene (I love listening to it on its own). And, just like the music, the direction by the Russo bros. is impeccable. They take a terrific story with so many moving pieces (including memory loss, secret evils, and subterfuge) and blend them expertly. As a result, while watching the film I never felt lost or bewildered...until they wanted me to be.

Which brings me to my final point (which requires me to dabble lightly in spoiler territory for a moment, so bear with me). Going into “The Winter Soldier,” you might think you have a handle on what is going to happen. But then, just as you figure out what could be in store for Cap and the other Marvel heroes, it all crumbles in your hand. This film literally changes the entire Marvel universe in every way—all of the worlds created by the studio are affected by it. Thus, the expected end credits sequence (which sets up Cap’s next adventure) sits like a decadent cherry atop the most glorious red, white, and blue sundae. If you don't know by now to not exit the ride until they turn the lights back on in the theater, woe be unto you and you don't know how much you are missing out on.

I honestly have nothing but good things to say about the film. I’ll admit that it’s a little heavy-handed in dropping hints to the Winter Soldier’s identity, but the overall secrets and revelations of the movie are so compelling that I’m happy to give it a pass. This is, after all, not just the most impressive Cap film, but the most impressive Marvel film to date—a picture that was satisfying and left me with truly compelling questions. The best news? That Marvel has already signed Mr. McFeely, Mr. Markus, and the Russo bros. for “Captain America 3,” which will be squaring off against the untitled Batman/Superman film in 2016.

In conclusion, “Captain America: The Winter Soldier”gets a solid A. Go see this film ASAP!!!

Movie Review: "Noah" (Darren Aronofsky, 2014)

SAILING INTO D(ARK)NESS by Bennett Campbell Ferguson

Above: Noah (Russell Crowe) and family face the apocalypse

Fifteen—that’s how old I was when I first encountered Darren Aronofsky’s “The Fountain.”  Back then, sitting in a downtown multiplex with my first girlfriend, I laughed gleefully at the film’s kookiness, especially during the scene where Hugh Jackman transforms into an inferno of urine-colored light.  Yet I never forgot the movie and in time, it taught me one of the most important things I’ve ever learned—that films don’t always need to have a clear meaning.  That sometimes, poetry and emotion can be meaning enough.

            I also loved “The Fountain” because it was a mythical fantasy and for years, I looked forward to seeing Mr. Aronofsky return to that realm with his bible-based epic “Noah.”  But having seen the film, I find myself sadly disappointed.  Yes, “Noah” is clearly an Aronofsky joint, but it is also oddly pedestrian, devoid of eloquence, and leached of beauty by the dull mountains and colorless oceans where the story unfolds.  And even though the movie is thematically bold (it contradicts popular belief by painting Noah as an axe-murdering soldier of god), it is also painfully straightforward and, I’m sorry to say, boring.

            Alas, the main reason for that is Noah (Russell Crowe) himself.  In part because of Mr. Crowe’s inability to properly emote, his presence is remarkably sleep-inducing, especially when he stoically lectures his family (get used to it; more than half the film is taken up by Noah pontificating about The Sins of Humanity).  Soon, however, it is Noah’s turn to be schooled when he visits his grandfather, Methuselah (Anthony Hopkins).  And it is there, in Methuselah’s cave, that Noah realizes that god means for him not only to survive a coming apocalyptic flood, but to save the animals of the Earth as well.

            Whether or not you are religious, you will probably find this story familiar.  Yet Mr. Aronofsky chose to dampen the usually lighthearted tale of Noah with familial strife.  To begin with, Noah’s family is horrified by the prospect of letting every human being die while they survive on the ark Noah builds.  Yet there are other, more personal prospects at play.  Noah’s son Ham (Logan Lerman), for one, wants to get married before the big flood—something that Noah is adamantly against.  Thus, much of the film hinges upon a clash between the human desires of Noah’s children and the superhuman desire of Noah to carry out god’s will, stubbornly stifling the needs of those closest to him. 

            On some level, I admire Mr. Aronofsky for spinning out this conflict; it does make the film more satisfying than a painfully paper-thin blockbuster like “The Avengers.”  Yet in trying to make a complex and meaningful movie, he has instead a made an excruciatingly depressing one.  Gruff and invincible, Noah carries out what he believes to be god’s will with ruthless determination, even at one point attempting to murder a baby because he believes his creator wishes it.  Interesting?  Maybe.  Yet the movie is filled with so much grim anguish that it becomes intolerably dark, even as its hero becomes increasingly sheep-like and difficult to connect to. 

            Of course, that moment with the attempted baby killing has something to do with that.  It is the film’s most pivotal scene—the one where Noah must decide how far he’s willing to venture in the service of his creator.  And in the end, he chooses not to make the kill.  Why, he is asked?  “Because,” Mr. Crowe declares in his ceaseless monotone, “I felt only love in my heart.”

            But I don’t buy it.  In the scene where Noah almost commits this savage act, the camera focuses only on the sharp blade hovering over the baby’s small forehead; not even for an instant does it peer into Noah’s eyes to reveal the love that he claims to feel.  And that is why I believe that for all his talent, Mr. Aronofsky has made a film that is less a profound exploration of a legendary story than a hulking slab of high-minded torture porn.  Doubtless, he believed that dramatizing Noah’s cruelty would lead to a realm of fascinating moral ambiguity, but the character struck me as little more than a bad parent and a lame excuse for a director to indulge his penchant for queasily fetishistic brutality. 

Still, if that’s the kind of movie Mr. Aronofsky wanted to make, I’m happy for him; he’s a bold and talented artist and he deserves the chance to flourish.  But for me, the result of his efforts is too bleakly one dimensional to enjoy, even on an academic level.  And beyond that, the film is simply too flat and unimaginative to sustain your attention for long.  “Let me tell you a story,” Noah says to his family in the film’s third act.  Compelled by the script, the actors look at him with something resembling rapt attention.  But I must confess that all I could think was: please don’t. 

Movie Review: "Muppets Most Wanted" (James Bobin, 2014)

“MUPPETS MOST WANTED”: LESS FEELINGS, MORE FELT

by Mo Shaunette

 Above: Kermit the frog leads the Muppet gang in their latest adventure

 

In the opening number of “Muppets Most Wanted” (should there be a colon in there?  I’m getting “Star Trek Into Darkness” flashbacks), singers Kermit and Fozzie lament under their breaths that sequels are never quite as good as the original.  Sadly, by the film’s end, their prediction turns out valid.  Despite its self-deprecation, “Most Wanted” isn’t on the same level as its excellent predecessor (2011’s “The Muppets”), even if it’s still fun enough to warrant a watch.

            Our story takes place immediately after “The Muppets” – in fact, the first shot of the movie is fireworks spelling “The End,” before the camera pans over body doubles of non-returning players Jason Segel and Amy Adams.  Then, with the Muppets now famous and relevant again, the group hastily accepts an offer for a European tour managed by Dominic Badguy (Ricky Gervais).  But unbeknownst to them, Dominic is also a con artist and second-in-command to Constantine, a world-class thief and doppelganger for Kermit the Frog.  

Naturally, this is a recipe for Muppet-style madness – one that involves Constantine escaping from a Siberian gulag, switching places with Kermit, and then leading the Muppets on the tour while our intrepid host remains trapped behind bars and under the thumb of a strict warden (Tina Fey).  Meanwhile, Constantine uses the Muppets tour as a cover to stage his elaborate heists while being pursued by the unlikely team of CIA Agent Sam the Eagle and Interpol’s Jean Pierre Napoleon (Ty Burrell).

            Those last two paragraphs reveal “Most Wanted’s” biggest problem: a distinct lack of focus.  Most damagingly, it’s a movie with multiple plot threads going that can’t seem to decide which is the A story.  You’d think it’d be the tour/heist storyline, but there isn’t really much of a focus to that.  What’s more, there’s no main character beyond the villains and the Muppets as a collective unit, and their respective arcs aren’t given much screen time and sort of just happen in the third act.  And while the B story in the gulag at least has a main character in Kermit, he doesn’t really change by film’s end.  In fact, the point of the movie is to demonstrate Kermit’s necessity to the Muppets, how his level-headedness amidst a sea of insane performers and egos keeps the show running, so Kermit himself doesn’t have anything to learn.

That said, the C story of Sam and Jean Pierre is stronger because it has main characters and an arc for them – namely, the development of the bickering agents’ begrudging friendship, despite Sam’s expediency clashing with the arbitrary bureaucracy of Jean Pierre’s job.  Honestly, I’d like to see a major story centering around Sam.  Think about it: this guy is obviously a Muppet and performs with them onstage sometimes, but considers himself separated from their behind-the-scenes antics.  That’s interesting.  There’s comedy there.  But I digress…

In the end, the film’s greatest problem might be the fact that about half the jokes miss.  Yet that still leaves half that hit.  Mr. Gervais doesn’t have much to do as Dominic after Constantine shows up and he ends up playing second fiddle, but Ms. Fey and Mr. Burrell have a lot of fun with their roles.  Plus, the celebrity cameos still provide laughs (particularly a trio of gulag inmates played by Jemaine Clement, Ray Liotta, and Danny Trejo), though some of them fly by so fast that you’re left scratching your head, wondering who those cops are or if you were supposed to recognize the mover in the background while the film moves on without you.  And while the songs are still fun and catchy, Academy-Award winner and Pretty Prince of Parties Bret McKenzie doesn’t knock them out of the park like he did with “Man or Muppet” in the first film. 

Which brings us back to “The Muppets.”  If there was one thing that made that film succeed, it was that it was a movie with a purpose: it was meant to declare that the modern world not only had a place for singing frogs and joking bears, but a need for them.  By contrast, “Muppets Most Wanted” is simply a romp, a fun little diversion for 113 minutes that won’t change any lives or pluck many heart strings.  If you’re a diehard Muppets fan or just looking for a quick giggle, you could do worse than “Most Wanted,” but otherwise, I’d recommend waiting for the DVD.

Breaking News: Christopher Nolan and Nancy Meyers to Team Up

AUTEURS ASSEMBLE! 

CHRISTOPHER NOLAN

AND NANCY MEYERS

JOIN FORCES FOR

“SOMETHING GOT

 IMPLANTED”

by Bennett Campbell Ferguson

In Hollywood, mixing genres is often considered to be risky, or even dangerous.  But that’s exactly what Nancy Meyers and Christopher Nolan intend to do.  As of yesterday, the two directors have confirmed that they will co-direct the new film “Something Got Implanted,” which they describe as a “sci-fi romance about love, life, and the distortion of reality.”

            The film will star Diane Keaton as Jane Simpson, a divorced novelist struggling to complete her long-gestating memoir while preparing her daughter for college.  But then, everything changes with the arrival of Jane’s ex-husband Ray Cobb (Michael Caine), an amoral scientist who manipulates Jane by placing a computer chip in her head.  As a result, Jane begins to hallucinate and lose her grasp on both sanity and morality. 

            Upon announcing this unusual project, Ms. Meyers and Mr. Nolan agreed to answer a few short questions about the film (which this critic transcribed from online coverage).  Intriguingly, the two directors supplied somewhat different answers when asked about the picture’s story and tone.  “It will be a gentle and witty comedy,” Ms. Meyers stated.  “It’s about how old loves come back to haunt us, often when we most need to move on.  We hope the result will be warm and human and entertaining.”  “But with some very dark undertones,” Mr. Nolan interjected softly.  “There will be one particularly intense scene in which we will cut between Jane’s mind and the real world and Cobb’s mind and the real world and back again several times.”  At this point, he paused thoughtfully.  “We really want to use this fantastic story as a chance to explore the possibilities of a radically fragmented narrative.”    

            In addition to Ms. Keaton and Mr. Caine, the film will feature Miley Cyrus as Jane’s daughter and Cillian Murphy as an unbalanced real estate mogul who wears a bag over his head.  “That’s of great thematic import, the bag,” Mr. Nolan explained to the press.  “It symbolizes the elusiveness of truth in the film.”  At this point during the questionnaire, Ms. Meyers could clearly be seen glaring at her co-director.

            It may seem unlikely that two directors as different as Ms. Meyers and Mr. Nolan would collaborate on a single project—after all, the former is best known for romantic comedies such as “What Women Want,” whereas the latter’s career has been centered on blockbusters like the “Dark Knight” trilogy and “Inception.”  But the filmmakers’ mutual friend, composer Hans Zimmer, insists that the Meyers-Nolan team up is a match made in heaven.  “They are completely different in terms of their styles, their personalities, and their work habits,” he explained.  “But they share a key commonality.”  When asked to explain what this key commonality is, Mr. Zimmer frowned and answered, “It’s self evident, I believe.” 

            Sadly, Mr. Zimmer’s busy schedule will prevent him from scoring “Something Got Implanted.”  But he’s not worried.  “I recommended a friend of mine!” he said excitedly at the press conference.  “Loof Lirpa, a true genius and a visionary.  He’s eccentric, but you can probably tell that from his name.  The really funny thing is that when spelled backwards, ‘Loof Lirpa’ looks a lot like ‘April Fool’!”

HAPPY APRIL FOOL’S DAY, FRIENDS!

~The Healthy Orange Gang J