The Muppets are great. They manage to be genuinely funny without straying from the family friendly appeal they have always purveyed. They don't rely on pop culture references or crude gags, because the brilliantly imagined characters are funny in themselves. They also manage to produce consistently heartfelt (excuse the pun) performances without being cheesy. The Muppets' return to the big screen epitomizes all of this, and will be a joy for old and new audiences alike.
One need only look at the people on and off the screen involved in this film to see that this is a most welcome comeback. Jason Segel (who's been in just about everything, most notably How I Met Your Mother which is just about the most popular television show in the world) is at the forefront, having penned the screenplay and taken the lead role. Bret McKenzie (of Flight of the Conchords fame) is behind the film's brilliant musical numbers, which possess the emotional punch reminiscent of Kermit's 'Rainbow Connection' as well as the witty quips Conchords fans will be familiar with. The cameos throughout may not be of the George Clooney or Matt Damon-esque heights rumours suggested, but if you're a fan of American comedy I can guarantee you'll recognize more than a few faces.
The story line is a familiar one; the Muppet Theatre will be closed down unless one more show can raise the sufficient funds. The familiarity of the plot is of no concern though, because it is pulled off with so much vivacity, warmness and a healthy dosage of self-awareness. Admittedly, this is not so much a film by The Muppets as a film about them. For the most part, the story concerns the protagonists Mary (Amy Adam), Gary (Segel) and Gary's brother Walter (why is he a Muppet? -Who cares?!) Some time is given to the rekindling of Kermit and Piggy's romance, but really it is a celebration of The Muppets and particularly The Muppet Show. This is a far cry from The Muppets' Christmas Carol or Treasure Island; it's these well-known characters doing what they do best - going insane on stage.
Ultimately, The Muppets is a return to form for a type of comedy that is not often seen these days. In a market dominated by Pixar-style CGI and 'family adventure' films starring ex-wrestlers, its encouraging to see that such an innocent form of fun and humour is still relevant. So, where do The Muppets go from here? It's unlikely that they'll be put away for a few from years, riding on such popularity. Could The Muppet Show return to television? Is it time to play the music? Is it time to light the lights? The Muppets have clearly proven themselves appealing to today's audience, so who knows? One can only hope.
Etep
Image courtesy of www.collider.com
Without knowing it, I've become a huge geek. Not the 'gaming' sort, oh no, the literary kind. The full blown science fiction, comic books kind. And I'm a girl! (Although I'd hate to promote a stereotype.) I only fully realised what I'd become the other day, when I was shopping with my Mum and headed straight into the science fiction section. She visibly recoiled and spent the time fervently looking to see if there was anyone she knew about. I was suddenly embarrassed, and I didn't really know why. What is this stigma to reading science fiction? And don't tell me there's not, there is. I know because I used to be that person who upheld it.
So how did I become obsessed? It was like any addiction, started soft. A couple of marvel films, bit of H.G Wells. I quickly moved on to Lord of the Rings (still acceptable), Star Wars, Neil Gaimon, G.R.R. Martin*. Soon I found myself borrowing from my Uncle's vast collection of sci-fi, and not even to be polite. But after the 'incident', the problem of stigma had really got me thinking: why is it bad to read science fiction and comics as an adult?
In some ways its not. Its like being part of an elite club. When I buy my books from a shop, every so often the shop assistant will look at the book, give a nod of approval, and look at me with a bit more respect. And with all the knowledge you learn, it's like being a genius. Screw our world, I can tell you all about the geography of Middle Earth or Westoros and no one would know what I was talking about! In these respects, it's pretty cool. And yet, I still was embarrassed. Why? Is it the sex? Because there does tend to be a lot of sex; anyone who's read Alan Moore can attest to that (I know that that's probably tame for sci-fi, but I do try to keep away from the saucier books, I am but a faint-hearted lady). There's no denying, the books are very male oriented.
Personally, I think it comes down to the fact that as an adult, we're meant to be all about 'reality'. We're grown-ups now, we can't believe in magic, or get lost in other worlds. As a child its sweet, as an adult, its sad. It's the condescending idea that reading about fairies and imps means you can't have a foothold in reality. And even if I didn't - so what? If 'reality' consists of pain, suffering and 'Made in Chelsea', then surely it is my right as a human to lose myself in my fantasy worlds; retreat into medieval quests, prophecies and dragons. What are novels but places to lose yourself in? And no offence to realist writers (who I do love, for different reasons), but why would I want to lose myself in a book about reality? I already live in reality! And for the record, I am firmly grounded in the 'real world'. I can't go half an hour without checking the news, and I know everything about 'Made in Chelsea', and other 'real life' things. Where others take drugs, or drink, or whatever they do to get away from real life, I retreat into fantasy worlds. And really, I can't see anything wrong with that. So the next time you're in Waterstones, dear fans, watch out for a girl standing proudly in the science fiction section, potentially wearing a cape (or is that too far?)
*On that note, read my review!
Evans
When I think of Hockney’s paintings I imagine the crisp lines of LA architecture, the block colours of swimming pools and the light flooded montages of the Californian desert. The new exhibition at the Royal Academy celebrates Hockney’s return to the landscape of his childhood, the not so sunny and glamorous East Riding of Yorkshire. His seaside home of Bridlington is a far cry from the paintings of the Grand Canyon and Mulholland drive with the weathered beach huts and gaudy arcades replacing the epic scenery and minimalist mansions. The exhibition sweeps from his American landscapes through his large Yorkshire paintings and finally to his ipad images. It gives you a sense of an artist developing in skill and maturing in interests whilst returning to his roots.
His Yorkshire landscapes show an extraordinary eye for detail and a pensive quality, focusing on light moving through the landscape at different times of day and year. By painting the same scene in each season, Hockney illuminates the brilliant changing colours and forms of the land and trees. However, Hockney’s landscapes have not recoiled into the safety of the chocolate box image with pastel colours and feathery skies. The jarring colours and stylistic forms of the furrowed fields and bulbous bushes create a wonderfully original depiction of the countryside. Hockney also toys with the viewer’s sense of perspective, directing the eye through the painting and cutting his large pictures into a grid of small canvases to suggest how we view a scene in fragments.
One thing I am always interested in when I go to exhibitions is to look for those people discreetly sketching, in the corner, quick caricatures and rough likenesses of paintings. Prying over the shoulder of one particular man I couldn’t help but notice that he was meticulously sketching out the details of a Hockney painting onto his ipad. Looking around the room it struck me that all the Hockney paintings in there had in fact be drawn on the ipad. Although many may be dubious about this medium as new vehicle for art, the pictures were undoubtedly beautiful, detailed and effective. In fact, it was only when seen at close proximity that you could detect the flat colours and pixelated forms. Forget any primary school foray on Paint, these images were mini
masterpieces, exquisite little excerpts of the Great British countryside for the Apple generation.
The exhibition is a wonderful display of British art at its best. Don’t be fooled into thinking that the British painting tradition died with the rise of Tracey Emin and other YBA’s, it is still alive, evolving and highly relevant to contemporary life. If you can cope with the jostling crowds and the heaving gift shop it really is a wonderful way to brighten up these winter months.
Ernest
Images courtesy of Royal Academy Online
Amidst the hype surrounding, most noteably, the new Marvel releases The Avengers and The Amazing Spiderman (particularly following the world's exposure to their latest trailers via the Superbowl) it is refreshing to see an original entry into the superhero - or at least 'super-powers' - genre. Where both Marvel releases have a platform of preceding films, big name casts and iconic characters recognized the world over, Chronicle relies on a concept alone - and there's no doubt its an intriguing one.
The film follows, primarily, Andrew (Dane DeHaan) a shy and troubled teenager as well as his cousin Matt (Alex Russel) and coolest-guy-in-school Steve (Michael B. Jordan, who has covered significantly more screen time than his co-stars having starred in The Wire - and is of no relation to the Space Jam star). The three students stumble upon a crater in the woods, having strayed away from some sort of rave, in which they find a presumably extra-terrestrial entity which bestows upon them telekinetic powers. So far, it sounds very much like any superhero origins story. However, it is how the three of them react to their new-found abilities that makes this film stand out. The following scenes depict Andrew, Matt and Steve getting up to relatively harmless mischief as they learn to use their powers - not to mention a truly inspired scene involving the interruption of a game of football 30,00 feet in the air by a passenger jet. By this point it's already clear that this film is trying to do something different - unlike, for example Kickass which tackles relatively similar themes. In the early scenes of Chronicle it feels like a very real attempt to depict how real people would react to acquiring such abilities.
At this point, Trank could have introduced some sort of superhero plot line which would have been a more obvious but no doubt safer approach, and nonetheless had an interesting film on his hands. The success of this film, however, is that he doesn't. The film begins to take a darker turn, as Andrew embraces not only his powers but what he soon sees as his superiority over the people around him. This sets up a CGI-fueled finale that is an appropriate display of the great responsibility that comes with great power (perhaps it's not so different to the Marvel stories after all...)
There is little explanation given for how these telekinetic powers come about or what the mysterious object that produces them is, but this is of no real concern and is clearly not the point of the film. The handheld camera-style format, often pointlessly or ineffectively used in science-fiction, is put to good use and the three leads give mostly convincing performances (that suffer slightly from some needlessly hyperbolic back-stories) that will surely provide them with a platform for future roles. The finale comes about rather suddenly and could have benefited from a more gradual build up, as it is in fact the more low key scenes that are the most absorbing. Nonetheless, thanks to its unique approach, Chronicle is an undeniable, if not unanticipated, success and a welcome addition to its genre - a well that you would be forgiven for considering dry.
Etep
Image courtesy of: www.moviespad.com
A Dangerous Method is David Cronenberg’s first effort at the historical biopic, and it’s certainly a step away from the type of films for which he is predominantly known (The Fly or Shivers for example) – he is after all the 'Baron of Blood'. Nonetheless, having worked along a less obscure line with his more recent releases (eXistenZ, Eastern Promises) and with a cast and crew he is familiar with, Cronenberg has a solid platform on which to furry into the realm of period drama.
Viggo Mortensen, who plays the iconic Sigmund Freud and was Cronenberg’s lead in Eastern Promises, is not an obvious choice for the role – in fact he admits his first thoughts when offered the role concerned his lack of a beard – yet he pulls it off quite successfully. In contrast with the stern figure we see in most photographs of Freud, Mortensen portrays a man who despite his intellectual prowess is modest, generous and surprisingly witty. In Carl Jung (played by the omni-present Michael Fassbender), on the other hand, we see a man who takes a more restrained approach to his work. Fassbender’s performance, like Mortensen’s, is a convincing one; particularly so as we watch him become convinced by the arguments of Freud’s former patient Otto Gross (played by another former collaborator with Cronenberg, Vincent Cassel) against the restraint of one’s sexual desires. This leads to his inevitable affair with Sabina Spielreim (Kiera Knightley), a former patient whose interaction with both Freud and Jung leads to their eventual conflict. Knightley’s performance is certainly the most interesting one, and her role the most challenging without a doubt. Early scenes depicting her reaction to treatment can be rather uncomfortable to watch but there’s no denying that she’s gone out on a limb to convince us of her character’s condition. She may often be criticised for bringing nothing more to her performances than her natural beauty (and pouts), but Knightley’s performance here will surely persuade at least some critics that she can indeed act.
The performances on display from the three leads in particular are no doubt impressive; however whereas the acting succeeds the plot development struggles. Although the issues at hand are undeniably interesting, and will leave audiences with plenty to talk about, those looking for a moving or shocking story will find themselves disappointed. The affair between Jung and Spielreim is predictable, and while there is conflict between the two great psychoanalysts it is carried out rather politely. Much of the plot is developed via a correspondence of letters and, while this is true to the reality of Jung and Freud’s relationship, it does not leave much room for emotiveness or sentimentality.
For the most part A Dangerous Method is a great film; the locations are both stunning and accurate, the issues covered are engaging and the relatively small cast is an impressive one - with Fassbender and Knightley demonstrating why they are some of the most on-demand British talent at present. However, it is the story that lets it down. Quite simply, not a lot happens – at least, not a lot that you wouldn’t expect. In my humble analysis, the film suffers as a result of what Freud would no doubt diagnose as repression; it lacks that extra bite that would allow it to be truly engrossing.
Etep
Images courtesy of: cinemaviewfinder.com, blogs.indiewire.com
