Category Archives: Movie Reviews – M

“THE MUPPETS” – 3 1/2 STARS

by

0

The Muppets have been missing in action for years now making them complete unknowns to a new generation of children. Now they are back in a feature film simply titled “The Muppets” and in many ways, it’s a fun and nostalgic step back in time. It’s based off “The Muppet Show”, a parody-driven variety program which ran from 1976 to 1981 and branched out into several full length movies. The whole cast is back and the result is a family-friendly experience that will bring back some fond memories for parents while introducing these wonderful characters to a new younger audience. And while the movie certainly retains that Muppet magic in places, it’s not without it’s problems.

Jason Segal wrote and stars as Gary, a human and brother to Walter who is a puppet. The two are incredibly close and as adults still live together. Throughout the years, Walter has become a huge Muppets fan. He watches all of their old shows, has a Kermit watch, and has a bedroom wall plastered with Muppet posters and stickers. Gary and his girlfriend Mary (Amy Adams) plan a romantic vacation to Los Angeles to celebrate their 10th anniversary. Walter ends up coming along and gets an opportunity to visit the old Muppet Theater. There he overhears the plot of an evil oil tycoon, appropriately named Tex Richman (Chris Cooper), to tear down the theater and drill for oil in it’s place. Walter makes it his mission to save the theater by convincing the Muppets, who have long since parted ways, to get back together for one last show to save the theater.

Both Gary and Mary are simple and sometimes cheesy characters and for the most part that’s ok. Segal and Adams make them both likeable even though their cluelessness is sometimes overplayed. Chris Cooper is a lot of fun as the stereotypical cold-hearted businessman and he hams it up without short-changing the character. But the Muppets are the real stars and while there are a few different voices, they all pretty much have the same personalities I remember from the show. They’re all here and I was surprised to see how much I remembered about them. Being this is a fairly concentrated movie, I was disappointed that some didn’t get as much screen time as I wanted but there’s not a lot you can do about that.

The story, while straightforward and predictable, does offer some pretty good laughs. There are several musical numbers throughout the film some of which are quite fun. Cooper’s bad guy rap is hilarious and works so well due to it’s absolute absurdity while others fall pretty flat and add little to the movie. But often times jokes are made at the song’s expense and they’re actually quite funny. “The Muppets” features several scenes that are like nostalgic flashbacks but it also has a few dull moments. The story drags in places and doesn’t maintain a steady pace. These lulls certainly don’t kill the picture but keep it from being as good as it could have been.

“The Muppets” may not be a great movie but it did leave me feeling like I had stepped back in time. I really enjoyed seeing these characters that I loved as a child back together again and there were several instances where I gave a hearty laugh at the genuinely funny jokes. There are also some fun cameo appearances by James Carville, Emily Blunt, Mickey Rooney, Selina Gomez and several more. While the movie hits a few speed bumps along the way, overall I did have fun and I guess that’s all that counts.

REVIEW: “Melancholia” (2011)

by

3

 

“Melancholia” is a solemn and unsettling examination of depression wrapped up in an end-of-the-world, sci-fi drama. It’s written and directed by the sometimes controversial Danish filmmaker Lars von Trier, and it’s been said that the picture was inspired by some of his own experiences with depression. In many ways it does feel deeply personal to the filmmaker and his treatment of the material is painfully real. But there are also a few instances where he forces his penchant for stylization and uniqueness onto the script. But even with the occasional lapse into self-indulgence, “Melancholia” is a lighter von Trier which for the most part really works. 

“Melancholia” has a very interesting structure. It starts with a brief prelude set to the beautifully haunting music of Richard Wagner. The prelude features a synoptic montage of stylistic imagery that we later find out is directly tied to events in the film. It’s a pretty no-nonsense, straight-forward approach by von Trier and it seems like an attempt to put the audience’s focus in the right place. On the other hand, it wasn’t until after I had finished the film that I really appreciated the prelude. It was then that I saw the brilliance of this clever device. 

The main story is broken into two parts and focuses on two sisters, Justine (Kirsten Dunst) and Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg). The first half of the film is simply entitled “Justine”. It follows Justine and Michael (Alexander Skarsgard) and their lavish, high-priced wedding party thrown by Claire and her husband John (Kiefer Sutherland) at their luxurious home. Things start poorly when they arrive two hours late which clearly frustrates the cost-sensitive John. We’re then introduced to the sister’s immature and irresponsible father Dexter (John Hurt), their angry and cynical mother Gaby (Charlotte Rampling), and Justine’s self-absorbed boss Jack (Stellan Skarsgard). While at first everything seems perfect for her, we slowly see Justine swallowed up by her genuine inner struggles with frustration, uncertainty, and depression. We watch as her happy bride facade crumbles, and she becomes more and more detached. It’s painful and heart-breaking yet exquisite and utterly mesmerizing. 

The second half of the film, titled “Claire”,  jumps ahead in time and takes a drastic change of direction. Justine is brought back to live with Claire and John after succumbing to severe depression.  But we begin to see that Claire has struggles of her own. She is battling fear and anxiety brought on by the possible destruction of the earth by an approaching rogue planet called “Melancholia”. It’s hinted at in the first half of the film, but we learn that most scientists believe the planet will pass by earth. John, who is enthralled with the astrological phenomenon, tries to ease Claire’s mind, but differing internet theories fuel her despair. It’s sad to watch both sister’s fall victim to their own mental frailties and the planetary threat, while real, is a subtle but agonizing metaphor. 

“Melancholia” is a gripping, meditative film that’s delivered like an operatic mood piece. While sometimes slow and deliberate, the film moves at a measured pace that’s fairly effective even though the second half of the film does require some patience. The movie occasionally flirts with being ostentatious but von Trier manages to keep things reined in. But there are some exceptions. There are a few scenes that seemed forced upon the story and served no other purpose than to be provocative or erotic. These speed bumps pulled me out of the movie which hurts a picture that depends on our deep involvement in the story.  

Despite the movie’s few flaws, there is no denying the strength of Kirsten Dunst’s performance. You almost feel yourself being pulled into her collapsing world as she delivers what may be one of the most authentic portrayals of depression and it’s devastating effects. But to be honest, there isn’t a bad performance. Gainsbourg is fantastic as the complex Claire. Early in the film I was disgusted by her only to be completely sympathetic towards the character later. And it’s great to see Kiefer Sutherland once again in a role of substance. He nails ever scene he’s in and never sells his character short. 

“Melancholia” is sure to be heralded by many to be a great film and in many ways it is. For my money a more tempered Lars von Trier is better, and that’s what we get for most of the movie. He maintains a steady and solemn tone which doesn’t always make for happy viewing, but it works considering the subject matter. He also steps back and lets his really talented actors go. He uses some striking visuals but never overdoes them. They move poetically and almost hypnotically throughout the picture, and I couldn’t take my eyes off each strategically placed sequence.  But he did yank me out of his picture with a few self-indulgent scenes that should have been left on the cutting room floor. It’s here where von Trier seems to be putting style over substance, and the story suffers for it. But the movie is carried by the performances. I never doubted any of the characters or their individual plights.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

REVIEW: “MEEK’S CUTOFF” (2010)

by

0

To call “Meek’s Cutoff” a unique film would be an understatement. It’s a historical western of sorts from director Kelly Reichardt that follows three families and their guide as they travel on the Oregon Trail. Reichardt certainly doesn’t romanticize the American frontier life, instead creating one of the most genuine portrayals of the hardships and struggles that faced the settlers in the new territory. But while the movie draws you in with it’s visual beauty, nice performances, and high stakes, it ultimately falls victim to its unsatisfying ending..

The film takes place in 1845 as the Tetherow, Gately, and White families follow the lead of Stephen Meek, a shaggy and rugged mountain-man hired to guide them over the Cascade Mountains. He claims to know a shortcut, but as the trip grows longer and the water starts running out, the families begin to question Meek. After running across a Native American and uncertain of his motives, they capture him much to the dismay of Meek who would rather just kill him. Eventually they’re faced with a dilemma. Do they continue to follow Meek who by all indications seems lost or do the follow the Native American who they can’t communicate with but may be able to lead them to some much needed water?

“Meek’s Cutoff” is an incredibly slow developing picture which is sure to turn off some people. It does require a good deal of patience, but it wasn’t long until I was thoroughly involved in the story. Reichardt does an incredible job giving the story an authentic look and feel. The cinematography is wonderful, and there some truly beautiful shots scattered throughout. There are also some solid performances particularly from Michelle Williams, Will Patton, and Paul Greenwood who completely loses himself in the Meek character.

But while it flirts with greatness, it ends up falling short mainly due to an ending that left me feeling frustrated and shortchanged. Now I have no problem with ambiguity, leaving things open for interpretation, or allowing the audience to come up with their own conclusions. But this ending is terribly abrupt and features nothing that would cause me to come to my own conclusion about anything. To be honest, it felt unfinished and I couldn’t help but feel letdown.

It’s tough to watch a picture that does so many things right but fails to stick its finish. It’s easy to talk about what all Reichardt accomplishes in her film. It’s a brilliant and arresting movie that had me sold right up to the very end. This one glaring black eye took so much away from my experience. I understand this was a creative decision and many people have been satisfied with it. But for me, not only did “Meek’s Cutoff” not offer any real conclusion, but it gave me nothing to build mine upon. It felt a little cheap and ultimately made a potentially great film just a good one.

VERDICT – 3 STARS

REVIEW: “Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol”

by

0

“Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol” is the fourth installment in Tom Cruise’s action spy series and it’s also the best of the bunch. It’s a fast paced summer-styled popcorn picture that is perfectly constructed and moves from one big action set piece to another with an almost rhythmic and poetic flow. I wasn’t surprised that I liked the film. But I was surprised at how polished and effective this Mission Impossible movie was.

Director Brad Bird, best known for his Oscar winning work in animated films such as “The Incredibles” and “Ratatouille”, makes his live action debut and one of my biggest questions was how he would make the transition. Bird is to be commended for his handling of material that necessitates moving from location to location and not allowing the audience to spend too much time thinking about plot details. He melds together those fun elements from high octane action movies and clever spy pictures and the result is an energetic, globetrotting, gadget-filled piece of robust entertainment.

Tom Cruise returns as Ethan Hunt and he is in true movie star form. He and his team is framed for a terrorist attack on the Kremlin which leads the President to execute “Ghost Protocol”, the complete disavowing of the IMF. On their own and with limited resources, the team seeks to track down the individual responsible for the bombing, a dangerous mystery man who works under the name of “Cobalt” played beautifully by Michael Nyqvist. Cruise continues to be a perfect fit as Ethan Hunt and he’s certainly comfortable in the role. Simon Pegg returns as the team’s tech geek and comic relief and Paula Patton is a field agent with information on the bombing. But the best addition to the team is Jeremy Renner as William Brandt, and IMF analyst with a few secrets of his own. Renner gives a more reserved performance than what we have seen from him in films such as “The Hurt Locker” and “The Town”. This role required a bit more subtlety and Renner nails it.

The story moves all over the globe stopping at locations such as Moscow, Dubai, and India. The movie captures each location with energy and vibrancy and I was completely engaged. The action scenes are huge and sometimes jaw-dropping and Bird’s visual style makes it easy to overlook the sheer unbelievability of some of the sequences. The Dubai skyscraper scene alone is worth the ticket price. The gadgetry is as futuristic and outlandish as anything we’ve seen in the series but who cares? It works perfectly in this picture. I could go on and on but simply put, “Ghost Protocol” is technically flawless. Now just imagine it in IMAX.

As with the other Mission Impossible films, the plot does fall together a little too neatly and sometimes you just have to take things at face value. But the film moves along at such a fast pace that you’re never left to dwell on it. To be honest, I didn’t care that everything fell together so smoothly. I was having too much fun. Even at over two hours the film never lost me. “Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol” is getting a lot of critical praise even though it’s not the type of movie that would get awards buzz. But I judge a good movie by many things and one of them is how much fun I have watching it. Based on that, “Ghost Protocol” is surprisingly one of the better movies of 2011.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

“MONEYBALL” – 4 STARS

by

0

I’m a sucker for a good baseball movie and “Moneyball” is a good baseball movie. But it’s not a traditional baseball movie. Based off of Michael Lewis’ book, “Moneyball” is the story of Oakland Athletics general manager Billy Beane and the team’s 2002 baseball season. In much the same way as “The Social Network” was a successful movie about Facebook, “Moneyball” takes sabermetrics, something that doesn’t seem like movie material, and creates a thoroughly engaging film around it.

At it’s core, “Moneyball” is a film about old versus new. It’s about winning or losing. It’s about adapting or dying. It’s a baseball movie but there is so much more going on underneath the surface. It’s an intelligent film that lives off of it’s clever and often witty script instead of the “stand up and cheer” moments that you usually get in sports movies. Another positive is that this isn’t a movie just for baseball fans. Obviously it will resonate with those familiar with the game but there is plenty of great character work to please anyone who appreciates good films.

This movie would never work without the strong performance from Brad Pitt. I’m certainly not the biggest Brad Pitt fan, but here he gives steady and somewhat restrained performance. He never overdoes it and his Billy Beane character feels natural and authentic. Pitt is hindered by a script that doesn’t allow for much emotion from the main character. With the exception of a couple of brief angry outbursts we rarely see what Billy is like inside. I would love to see Pitt flesh out this particular character a little more.

“Moneyball” may not sound like your cup of tea but there’s plenty to like here and it’s merits are hard to deny. Pitt shows that he is a solid actor and when he reigns in his performance he can deliver something memorable. He effortlessly handles the slick and polished dialogue while submerging himself into a character that’s thoroughly engaging. “Moneyball” is a fun and memorable experience that not only satisfies the baseball fan in me but also the fan of great storytelling.