A "Kids" Movie for the Grown-Ups

I remember my childhood being punctuated every few years by some momentous "Muppets" movie.  Stand outs were "The Muppet Christmas Carol" and "Muppet Treasure Island."  By 1999's "Muppets From Space," I had lost interest; I grew up.  In 2011 we have "The Muppets," now a Disney property, and the aim here seems to be to remind audiences that not only is it okay to grow up, but it's okay to be a little silly, too.  It didn't stir any great sense of nostalgia, per say, but quite a few times I found myself laughing out loud, and then I realized that is exactly what The Muppets always aimed to do anyway.  According to Walter, a new Muppet introduced here, laughter is the third greatest gift in the world.

I'm not sure younger generations have the familiarity with The Muppets that I had as a kid so their relevance has more or less faded throughout the years.  One of the wisest choices of "The Muppets" is that it acknowledges this fact within the first few minutes.  That fact is sort of the driving force behind the whole plot, and the reason for the movie being made at all.  The story couldn't be simpler.  Gary (Jason Segel) is the big brother, or maybe twin, of Walter (voiced by Peter Linz), who is a Muppet.  Never mind that Gary is a human, I didn't take much time to wonder how these two are siblings; the relationship is strangely convincing.  Gary and his long-time girlfriend Mary (Amy Adams) are about to travel to L.A to celebrate a ten year anniversary.  Since Walter has been an avid fan of The Muppets for years, Gary figures Walter should come along and tour the long-abandoned Muppets' studio.  Here Walter finds a snarly oil tycoon named Tex Richman (snicker) played by a never-better Chris Cooper.  Tex's plan is to wait out the expiration of the dusty ole' Muppet studios contract so that he can tear it down and drill for oil!  Walter is frightened into convincing Gary that they must assemble the Muppets for a show once again so they can earn the 10 million required to save the studio.

That's about it.  All the details are delivered every few moments in hilarious expository dialogue.  One of the pleasures here is that all the "Muppets" motion pictures have invited the audience in by acknowledging their presence.  Here is glorious proof that a fun family movie need not be offered in 3D to violate the fourth wall and have a good time with the viewers.  "The Muppets" has been written by Jason Segel, himself a long-time Muppets fan.  The writing has a crisp simplicity that doesn't condescend.  It functions to merely side-step the need of staying focused on the finer details so that the Muppets can get to having a lot of fun.  They all still look great and the gang's all here; Kermit, Miss Piggy, Gonzo, Animal, Fozie Bear, and my personal favorites, Bunsen and Beaker.  As directed by James Bobin, the movie is a musical extravaganza, well choreographed and full of the energy you would expect from Jim Henson's beloved creations.

Considering its many joys, I'm not convinced "The Muppets" is entirely successful.  Disney has done a wonderful job here at dusting off the property and given a fresh spin by Segel, it certainly takes an energetic stab at finding new relevance, but there are a few elements that prevent it from fully coming together.  Most of the songs are fairly excellent, but a few wander into awkward territory, such as the middle act duet with Amy Adams and Miss Piggy.  Come to that, "The Muppets" never quite knows what to do with Mary as a character.  I found Gary and Walter's relationship much more intriguing and I thought it would have been more touching if they learned what they needed to learn about themselves from each other.  Another issue is that while this new film mostly handles the Muppets with reverence, there are a few too many fart jokes toward the last act of the movie.  The Muppets never really went there; and when a movie is trying to convince the audience of their timeless relevance, it isn't the best way to leave a lasting impression.

Aside from those few qualms, I couldn't help but grin for most of the proceedings.  "The Muppets" is littered with celebrity cameos that are actually pretty funny.  A few of them are obvious attempts to get a "hey, it's that guy" reaction, but it's still nice to see so many talented people wanting to be involved with the ever-lovable Muppets.  Most of the humor here comes from the utter sincerity of the actors along with the expressive puppet design that has always been a vital aspect of making them fun.  The choreography is actually a great deal more exciting when watching the Muppets strut their stuff, whether through graceful dance numbers or bumbling accidents.  It all gets a laugh.

The energy is pretty high throughout the film's fairly brisk running time of 98 minutes, which makes it a safe bet for kids of all ages.  Here's the kicker though.  While this is certainly a family-friendly entertainment, it is as clear as the Muppet's marquee that this movie is for the people who grew up with these characters.  Where I thought I had outgrown the Muppets, here I was enjoying myself more than at most so-called "kids" movies.  For any adult hesitant to go see "The Muppets" this holiday season, I challenge you to go anyway and pay close attention to the audience within the film at the Muppet's theatre at the end.  How many kids do you see sitting in that audience?  I didn't see any either.  Not a one.

Team Jacob

I must preempt my review of "The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn-Part 1" by stating that I put the novel counterpart down after the events that this movie translates to screen.  Everything Stephanie Meyer had built up her readers to expect was shattered with her horrific description of vampire pregnancy and birth.  It went too far and I was disgusted.  I must also mention my bias in my dislike of Stephanie Meyer's writing in general; within the novels, characters act out according to contrived plot developments and speak things that just don't make much sense.  Her main character, Bella Swan, attaches herself to dangerously possessive men and loves to punish herself.  The first "Twilight" film adapted these shortcomings into a script that didn't give the actors much to work with; it was awkward.  The subsequent films in the saga, each with a screenplay by Melissa Rosenberg, have evolved in such a way that the actors, I believe, have taken liberties to invigorate these characters with some much needed humanity.  Having increasingly qualified directors helped too.  As directed by Bill Condon, "Breaking Dawn-Part 1" is an exceptional offering in the series and a pretty terrific film in its own right.

Anyone who has read the novels or listened to teen girls talk must know that the opening events of "Breaking Dawn" see human Bella (Kristen Stewart) about to marry Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson), the very handsome vampire.  Since vampires are immortal, "death do us part" doesn't apply here.  It's a very nice wedding, well accepted by everyone except Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner), the werewolf.  Within this love triangle, females across America have by now made a choice between 'team Edward' or 'team Jacob' and as far as the novels go, I'd say either one was a raw deal.  The actors are talented enough to create some depth that was lacking in the books.  Perhaps that is because Taylor Lautner and Rob Pattinson must instinctively know what goes on in a young man's mind, whereas Stephanie Meyer can only imagine.  Forget about Vampires and Werewolves, anyone can hash out a mythology for that; it's been done for centuries.  But I digress.

What follows this wedding is a honeymoon that only Royalty have experienced and that Stephanie Meyer can only dream of.  The only caveat to that is Edward has skin that is basically cold granite disguised as flesh and poor, virginal Bella is a fragile human.  How they make this work, the movie graciously doesn't reveal.  Needless to say, Bella is left with minor bruising and something worse writhing around inside her.  This requires an emergency trip home so that Edward's 'father' Carlisle (Peter Facinelli) can try to figure out what exactly is in there.  He can't.  This leads to complications with Jacob's pack of werewolves because, as they see it, whatever Bella is about to produce from within is an abomination and violates an already fragile treaty.  This development forces Jacob to make a choice between his family, and a family comprised of his natural enemies and the girl he has inexplicably loved despite her growing attraction to the un-dead lifestyle.

It is in these events that "Breaking Dawn-Part 1" carries its emotional heft.  I have felt throughout the series that Taylor Lautner is the better actor and he really applies himself here and conveys an agony that resonates well.  Certainly, Edward has been making hard choices for a long time, and makes them still.  But as the film gathers tension, it was in Jacob's hard choices that I was most involved.  If it comes down to logic and well-being, he is clearly the better choice for Bella, as he has lamented for three films.  Even after her choice is clear, Jacob sticks around and makes vital decisions that save the entire Cullen clan more than once.  These scenes are captivating and well-choreographed, some with really impressive digital effects.  Other digital effects are convincing, but also disturbing because of what they convey.  You won't have to guess which.

Each subsequent film in the Twilight Saga has had a new director.  This choice was deliberate and with David Slade directing "Eclipse", I didn't think it could get much better than that offering.  Bill Condon has raised the stakes, only to be outdone by himself when "Breaking Dawn-Part 2" comes out next year.  He has a great eye for shot composition and is a marvelous visual story teller.  This is a beautiful motion picture with a vibrant color pallet that seems to shift with the tone and themes.  I have a hard time deciphering the themes in the novels, if there are any; but since "New Moon", the movie versions have seemed to each convey a self-contained resonance.  For "Breaking Dawn-Part 1", I felt a strong sense of sacrifice and how it forces people to grow up, even when there are comforts around them.  Bella is about to say goodbye to mortality, Edward faces his worst fears about himself and Jacob puts aside everything he thought he knew about himself to make the right choice.

I was completely unprepared for this movie.  Compared with the original "Twilight", it is hard to believe they are adaptations of the same literary universe.  I am never one to get very involved with comparing novels to their film counterparts, but in this case, there is no comparison; the films are far and away the better medium to tell this story.  Perhaps the freshness of new directors has been the driving force behind the relevance of this franchise, as with the "Harry Potter" films.  Whatever it can be attributed to, there is no denying that Bill Condon has crafted a moving and elegant film.  It does not make me want to finish reading the Breaking Dawn novel, however.  For whatever happens next, I'll catch it in "Part 2" next November.  The novel is just too gross.  The film is engrossing and for me, that is worth the wait.

Million Dollar Robot

Hit for hit, you know where "Real Steel" is headed within the first ten minutes.  This is a common rags to riches boxing tale that you've seen countless times before, only instead of Rocky and Raging Bull, you get the Rock Em' Sock Em' Robots. It's also a well done movie with good acting and impressive visuals.  Oh, we've all seen robots beating on each other before, but at least the ones in "Real Steel" are more level-headed than any of the frenetic action of the "Transformers" series.

"Real Steel" starts nicely with an aerial tracking shot of a big rambler rolling down the highway before coming to a stop at a small town fair.  Charlie Kenton (Hugh Jackman) is there to try to earn some money by throwing a famed robot boxer into the ring with a bull.  Jackman plays Charlie with a familiarity seen in many films of this type; he's into this guy for thirty grand and that guy for another twenty grand, yada, yada, yada.  He needs the money.  Charlie isn't very trustworthy it seems, and makes careless decisions to make a quick buck.  This never ends well.  One can imagine he's probably equally as irresponsible in his love life and could even have a child out there somewhere.  Well wouldn't you know it, but here comes his son out of the blue, needing somewhere to stay for the summer.  What do you want to bet that the kid is interested in robot boxing, and knows a thing or two about how to put them together?

These observations might make it sound like a strictly generic movie.  That would more or less be true if not for the performances and direction.  Hugh Jackman might be playing a combination of a lot of familiar characters, but he also played Wolverine, so when he talks, you listen, got it?  Dakota Goyo plays Charlie's son Max.  He reminded me a bit of Jake Lloyd but not as annoying.  As directed by Shawn Levy, the film does a nice job of letting us know that this is a near future where technology has advanced just enough to where human boxing is all but forgotten.  It's all about metal on metal now.  You see the occasional high tech cell phone, but for the most part, "Real Steel" has a timeless feel that really works.  The down-home opening understates the futuristic sensibility and that's the right decision, I think, because it puts the focus on Charlie and Max, and at its heart, that is what "Real Steel" is about.

Of course, what would a boxing movie be without a montage?  Here, a unique spin on that is provided through the technology of the robot that Max finds to be a contender.  It has a "shadow" mode that allows it to mimic the movements of its handler or trainer.  You guessed it, Charlie was a champion boxer before the sport went high-tech.  He and Max are able to craft a robot champion out of a sparring-bot.  Together, they put the bot into prize fights and learn a thing or two along the way about each other.  Even though hit for hit, this is all familiar territory, just like in boxing, it's the way the movie moves its feet that makes all the difference. The dialogue isn't too simplistic and the screenplay is surprisingly nuanced with exposition; the story flows from the action and unlike most movies of the type, the ending doesn't have the expected outcome and that choice elevates the emotional impact.

"Real Steel" is certainly no "Warrior."  It doesn't take any big risks or invite new thought on either genre that it depicts.  But as a sheer entertainment, you could do much worse for your price of admission.  Seeing robots battle it out in the ring is pretty cool and it also helps the movie to be more family friendly by skimping on the bloodshed.  The other nice thing it pulls off, perhaps without realizing it, is that it shows that it doesn't really matter who, or what, is in the ring fighting.  What good is a boxer without having someone in his corner?  "Real Steel" is all about the guys in the corner and it's all the better for it.