Man or Muppet

"The Muppets"

It's been twelve years since we've seen a Muppet movie on the silver screen.  That's probably due to the fact that "Muppets from Space” was a critical and financial failure.  With the exception of the occasional cameo here and there from our favorite frog, pig, and bear, the Muppet franchise may as well have been laid to rest.  When it was announced that actor Jason Segel and director Nicholas Stoller (both having worked previously on Forgetting Sarah Marshall) were in the process of writing a screenplay in hopes of reviving the beloved fleece puppets, I couldn't help but crack a smile of anticipation.  

Walter (voiced by Peter Linz) is a puppet while his brother Gary (Segel) is of flesh and blood. After coming across The Muppet Show on television he instantly falls in love with everything and everyone on the popular show.  Walter's dream is to someday go to the Muppet Studios and meet Kermit the Frog.  Luckily for Walter he is invited by Gary and his longtime girlfriend, Mary (Amy Adams,) to come along with them as they are planning a trip to visit Hollywood and celebrate their tenth anniversary together.

Upon arrival at the famed studio, to everyone's dismay, the property is in ruin.  Kermit and company are nowhere to be seen.  Our tourists learn that Kermit sold the studio to Tex Richman (Chris Cooper) who plans to turn the monument in to a museum.  Or so we lead to believe.  While underneath a table, Walter overhears from a behind closed doors meeting that Richman is actually going to tear down the studio and drill for the oil buried beneath it.  The only way to save the studio now is to reunite Kermit with the rest of the gang.  Despite their waning popularity, the Muppets need to come back for one last show and raise the money to save the one thing that made them who they once were, a family, together again.

I went into this film with fairly high expectations and it met them every step of the way.  I think The Muppets greatest strength is that it never comes off as a parody.  I get the sense that Segel and Stoller were avid fans of the Muppets when they were growing up.  But the film doesn't come across as, "Get it?  We're writing a Muppet movie!  Look at how much this is Muppet movie."  The picture comes off as genuinely feeling like a Muppet movie.  

All the actors do their own singing and dancing which is a huge plus.  They all look like they're having a lot of fun at playing their roles.  The songs are fresh and original and are still stuck in my head as I’m writing this review.  The film is also filled with constant jokes, mostly about acknowledging the fact that yes, this is a movie.  You'd think that would get tiring after the first couple of zingers but I just kept laughing.  I liked the continual breaking of the fourth wall humor because it was a pleasant reminder not to take the film too seriously.

The Muppets is a prime example of what good, clean, enjoyable fun filmmaking can be to an audience.  And although it was released by Disney, it stays away from being overly cutesy and well you know… Disney.  This is the kind of film that can be enjoyed on a number of levels and can appeal to wide range of ages, much like a Pixar film.  I will say this though, if you did not grow up with the Muppets or just don't have a place in your heart for them this probably isn't the film for you.  If however you are looking to have a good time and you're eight years old, or want to feel like you're eight again I highly recommend this piece of entertainment.  It's one those films that made me laugh as well as want to sing along with the characters.  I can't remember the last time a movie made me feel that way.  Whether you like them or not, the Muppets are back and hopefully are here to stay, at least for a couple more sequels.     

All Quiet on the Equestrian Front

"War Horse"

I don't quite know how director Steven Spielberg does it.  Love him or hate him, let's give credit where credit is due.  The man knows how to make a movie.  He is a master at what he does.  Spielberg has had an interesting career with the art form of filmmaking.  Some of his films will remain forever vivid in all our heads and have their own place in cinema history.  Films like Jaws, Raiders of the Lost Ark, E.T. The Extraterrestrial, and Schindler's List; just to name a few.  Yes, it's hard to believe that those four monumental features were directed by one man.  Those of course are some of Mr. Spielberg's more popular titles.  Let's not forget 1941, Always, A.I. Artificial Intelligence, and The Terminal.  Like any major A-list director's career their filmography is going to consist of some good ones, some mediocre ones, some forgettable ones, and the occasional masterpiece.  I'd say over the past decade or so Spielberg has put out some decent pieces of work but nothing that particularly stands out.  In fact the last film of his that I thought had something to say was Munich, and that was six years ago.  Spielberg's latest undertaking is War Horse, a film based on the Tony award winning play which in turn is based on the novel.  In regards to the director's impressive career, I would put War Horse somewhere in the middle.  

War Horse takes place on the eve of World War I.  The story centers around a young horse named Joey who is strong, but by no means built like a plow horse.  That's what he needs to be though for Albert (Jeremy Irvine,) one of many people Joey will encounter in his life.  Albert is to train Joey into becoming a mighty plow horse so his mother and father (Emily Watson and Peter Mullan) can keep their farm from being taken away by their landlord (David Thewlis.)  A strong bond is developed between Joey and Albert, much like a boy and his dog.  But as the film likes to points out, let's not forget, horses are not like dogs, they're just animals.  

Soon after Joey's agricultural success, he is taken away from Albert and sold to Capt. James Nicholls (Tom Hiddleston.)  Joey is in the army now and England is at war.  This doesn’t take place until a good hour into the film.  And for the latter 90 minutes we see Joey change hands many times and meet lots of other characters.  Eventually Albert enlists in to army in hopes of reuniting with his faithful steed someday.

I liked War Horse, but it wasn't quite what I was expecting.  I thought this was going to be about a boy and his horse throughout the entirety of the film.  I didn't realize that all these other characters were going to pop in and out of Joey's life and not even stay for any prolonged period of time.  Albert's character is fleshed out and I was able to really care about the relationship he had with Joey.  All the other characters though come and go so quickly it makes me wonder why story decided to take that route.  Much of the supporting cast is dispensed with in way another, although when any of them do have screen time it is not wasted.  Their performances are good; it's just that I wanted to spend more time with each of them.  I can see where this might translate better to the stage, opposed to the silver screen.  The film does boast a respectable ensemble cast and I'm sure they were all thrilled to work with the great Steven Spielberg, but their entrances and their exits leave something to be desired.

I will say this though; Spielberg always has the best crews working with him.  The aesthetics of War Horse are top notch, as one would expect them to be.  From the meticulous art direction, to the commanding sound design, and of course the arresting photography, War Horse is a beautifully mounted production.   The relationship that Spielberg has had with Director of Photography, Janusz Kaminski, since the two collaborated together so long ago on Schindler's List is truly extraordinary.  I can tell in every sequence, every scene, and every frame that Kaminski shoots there is a certain level of unspoken communication and trust between him and Spielberg.  The images in War Horse are staggering.  I knew from the trailer that this film was going to be magnificently shot. 

I know that WWI and WWII were different from each in many ways, one being that WWI was primarily trench war fare.  I will say this though, there is an intensely choreographed battle sequence in the film that I felt had shades of Saving Private Ryan.  There were times where even though I didn't find the story particularly interesting, Mr. Kaminski's gorgeous photography was still affecting me.  I think that in itself is something that should be appreciated because after all film is a visual medium and Spielberg's frames are still saying something powerful. 

Light in character development resulting in a story that should have been more engaging than the end result, War Horse is problematic throughout its second act.  There are however several choice scenes that are put together exceptionally well do to Spielberg's expert direction.  There are distinct trademark qualities that all of Spielberg's film have.  With this film, it's a little harder to discern them.  To go into War Horse expecting another Schindler's List or Saving Private Ryan is unfair and not the right kind of mind set.  I think what's there is good but at the same time is flawed with definite room for improvement.  In the end though, I believe that Spielberg is still at the top of his game and shows no signs of slowing down.  This was different and challenging project for him.  But he still knows how to adeptly tell us a story.  The man is skilled at his trade and deservedly earns his paycheck.  War Horse at times gallops with a full head of steam but for the most part stays at a canter.    

 

Life, Liberty, and Freedom

"John Adams"

 I've mentioned this before, but prior to director Tom Hooper winning at the Academy Awards for his work on The King's Speech, I had no idea who he was and what made his direction so great.  Since The King’s Speech I have seen two more films by Mr. Hooper.  The first flick being Longford and second film now being John Adams.  Now that I have seen more of this director's works my opinion of him becomes higher and higher each time.  Clearly Hooper is an actor's director; no question.  The performances he gets from his actors in this seven part miniseries is magnificent.  The founding fathers of these great United States come alive in this bio pic based on the novel by David McCullough of the same name.  This film is about so much more than just the man who became our second president.  It's about the labor pains suffered by men with beautiful minds as they gave birth to our nation.

Nothing is hurried or rushed as we are treated to a 500 minute miniseries about Mr. Adams (Paul Giamatti.)  From his humble beginnings as a lawyer defending a group of British soldiers for a crime they did not commit to the creation and signing of the unmitigated Declaration of Independence and eventual formation of Congress.  The film spans the entire adulthood of Adams up until his death.  We are introduced to characters that until now we've only been told about in school or seen in history books.  Characters such as Thomas Jefferson (Stephen Dillane,) Benjamin Franklin (Tom Wilkinson,) and George Washington (David Morse) all play keys roles in Adams' life and we get to see these actors make them come alive once again.  Oh and I can’t forget his wife, Abigail (Laura Linney.)  

John Adams is an incredibly strong, character driven piece.  I shouldn't be surprised at the cast assembled to play these great historical figures.  I did read the novel before watching this film and I think that helped a lot.  McCullough's words paint a grand picture of not only what it was like to live in the 1700's, but more importantly what sort of personalities these men, these founding fathers had and how they interacted with one another.  The film adaptation translates McCullough’s words meticulously and authentically. 

All we have to go off of are paintings and scripture from that time period, so from an actor's standpoint to be able to craft a character's vocal inflections, physical mannerisms, and overall identity so it doesn't appear to us that it merely is a bunch of players pretending to be these historical figures would prove challenging to any actor.  I applaud everyone involved for working on their characters with Hooper to create a sense of believability and responsibility in being able to handle the sheer weight of these historical presences.

Adams' triumphs and struggles are accurately depicted in a richly complex manner as we move from one historical event to another.  They are presented in such a way that we definitely get a sense just how difficult it was to get anything accomplished back then.  This is a side of American history that goes beyond what we learn in elementary school.  It was an ugly time for America and concepts that we now take for granted did at one time have to be created, approved, and established in our government.  The film brings this to our attention without making it into something we’d see in a classroom.  

Powerfully acted, historically fascinating, and presented with such composure, John Adams stands tall brimming with confidence due to its cast and director.  I've seen other HBO miniseries that have a different director for every episode.  There are advantages and disadvantages to working with a variety of directors.  I however like the fact that Hooper directed all seven parts.  It shows above all, consistency and continuity.  Everything flows together nicely making for an interesting period drama. 

Hooper’s next project is Les Miserables which due out just in time for the Oscars to take notice.  I haven’t seen him do a musical before but I am confident Hooper will impress me once again.  His distinct direction in regards to his framing and more importantly the performances draws from his actors has established Mr. Hooper as an A-list director.  I have a feeling he will be around for a quite a while giving us films that appear cinematic on the surface but retain a certain theatrical quality to them as well.  John Adams follows suit in what I expect from watching any picture by Tom Hooper.  He is a director from across the pond that has made quite a splash.         

'S Wonderful

"An American in Paris"

There is a wonderful and lengthy sequence towards the end of Vincente Minnelli's An American in Paris that plays to actor Gene Kelly's greatest strength, dancing.  Kelly looks to be having too much fun.  I don't know how he does it.  Kelly is one of those Hollywood legends that could do it all.  He could sing, dance, act, direct, and choreograph.  For this film, Kelly did all five, but was credited with only the first three.  We are treated to a mesmerizing arrangement of beautiful movement and glorious Technicolor in this film.  The music of George Gershwin is fully realized in such stunning and grand fashion you can't help but fall in love with this picture.

Jerry Mulligan (Kelly) is a struggling and starving artist living in a space so cramped and small it makes a studio apartment look substantially spacious.  He seems content with his life though.  The man loves Paris.  Jerry's buddy Adam (Oscar Levant) is a musical genius who earned a scholarship because really knows how to tickle the ivories on his piano, but alas he is also going nowhere as well.  They both are waiting for their big break.  The two also have a mutual friend, Henri (Georges Guetary,) who's dating a girl that embodies all the greatest qualities a guy could ever want.  While opening his street corner studio for the day, Jerry's paintings attract the eye of the rather wealthy and somewhat older Milo Roberts (Nina Foch.)  She admires his work and adores him.  Milo wants Jerry's dreams to come true.  She offers him the chance to have his own legitimate art studio where he can create masterpieces so they can be unveiled at his own private showing.  Milo is also looking for some male companionship out of Jerry as well but he has his sights set on the graceful and lovely Lise (Leslie Caron.)  Little does Jerry know, Lise is the girl who Henri is smitten with and soon a love triangle is formed.

An American in Paris is a ballad set to the works of Mr. Gershwin.  Imagine a blank canvas, and story of Jerry's life is the subject with Gershwin's compositions used as a reference.  Minnelli uses his brush to paint broad strokes of lively characters, a refreshing storyline, and bright, attractive costumes and sets.  I found myself enjoying this film much more than Minnelli's other film, Gigi.  The story is much easier to get into and the characters more interesting and relatable.  I understand the motives that drive Jerry to something more than just a starving artist.  He wants to better himself but also have a good time doing it through song and dance.

Something that most impressed me about Kelly in this film was his utilization of space when performing a musical number.  It didn't matter how big or small the set was, he really knew how to take advantage of every square inch of whatever space he was occupying.  It takes special level of talent to make an audience fall in love with a character.  A certain high level of on screen presence and showmanship follows Kelly through every minute of this film.  His relentless approach to creating a character that is so charming and likable seems so effortless for him.  The same could be said about how I felt about Kelly's performance in Singin' in the Rain.

Lovers of musicals and Gershwin will truly appreciate what this film was to offer.  The picture brims with confidence from start to finish in truly fantastic fashion.  I've said this before and I will continue to say it, I wish that Hollywood would revive the lost genre of musical cinema.  An American in Paris boasts a caliber of pleasant filmmaking that is rarely seen nowadays which is another reason I was so impressed with the picture.  I don't know what sort of person Mr. Kelly was like in his personal life, but his on screen persona is incredibly delightful.  Lots of fun scenes, breathtaking choreography, and an original, stimulating screenplay makes An American in Paris  a memorable and enchanting piece of cinema that left me pining for more.  I envy Kelly for being so talented.  He and Minnelli really know how to put on a good show!