The thing that pisses me off about Hyperdrive is that it was written by Andy Riley and Kevin Cecil who wrote for The Armando Iannucci Shows and some of the funniest episodes of Black Books and that vastly under appreciated gem on Radio 4 The 99p Challenge.

So it should have been funnier, but I did enjoy parts of it particularly the actor Kevin Eldon being a bit evil and the crew member who got drunk when he thought they were going to die and gets put in a room full of videos of kittens to sober up.

You realize the The Wizard of Oz, was a book first right? It seemed to get along just fine without being a musical.

The Great and Powerful Oz has a LOT of problems, none of which would have been solved by throwing in songs just to parrot the 30's movie.

I wish I could remember this to credit it properly, but when Attack of the Clones came out, I recall an observation to the effect that this was the first film in history to get good reviews simply for not being awful.  And if that's the case, then I think The Muppets is the second one. 

The fact that it even occasionally, for brief moments, manages to recall the brilliance of the Muppets in their heyday is probably a minor miracle (and is to be celebrated).  But there's a constant drag on the proceedings, what feels like a pervasive, all encompassing lack of faith: the Muppets aren't really special, they can't carry the film, we need to have all this other stuff in it, and they end up playing second-fiddle in their own movie to people/things who are not anywhere near as interesting.  It's just like "Puppet Show and Spinal Tap" except, ironically, Jason Segal is the puppet show. 

Like the whole running...I hesitate to call it a 'gag'...about the 80's stuff, which seemed wildly misjudged/out of place.  The Muppets were never of their time.  And if anything their 'time' was the mid/late 70's, back when variety shows like The Donny and Marie Show were still on TV.  Geez, it's not like it was Knight Rider. 

The most important thing for me, though, is that something feels off about Kermit's characterization.  Part of what's important about Kermit is that he always represents the best of us, the best of humanity.  Yes, he occasionally loses his temper, has moments of doubt and crisis, etc., but at the end of the day he never gives up and he always does the right thing.  So what's supposedly happened in the intervening years doesn't feel right, nor do his initial scenes with Walter, Mary and Gary.  He seems defeated and quasi-broken, and that's not Kermit.  And then at the end of the telethon, when they fall short, Kermit's like "Oh well, fuck it.  Let's throw in the towel." And that's not him either. 

I'm sure that part of it is the fact that he's not the protagonist, so it can't be him that takes the "come on, you can do it" line.  That now has to come from outside, from Gary/Walter.  And another part of it may be the perceived need to "update" things, where "update" means make "darker" and "edgier" (though we're not talking about The Dark Knight or anything obviously).  But I think that just underlines the fact that those decisions were a mistake. 

Again, it's not that it's awful, and there are some really good moments.  But I think Frank Oz was right in a lot of what he (and others) said, even if I don't feel it quite as strongly.  However much of a fan Jason Segal apparently is, the script doesn't entirely respect the characters.  And so much of it just feels so generic, and bland, and uninspired and safe (including the songs, which I find desperately banal), and that's 100% not what the Muppets are about.

Now lest anyone think that I'm just a bitter old man who remembers a time when stuff didn't suck, "Muppets Tonight" is absolutely tremendous -- fully the equal of the original series.  It's a crime against humanity that that's not out on DVD (along with Seasons 4 and 5 of The Muppet Show).  (TOS is better than TNG though.)

As one of the guys said on the Roger Rabbit commentary: you can get a blowjob from somebody who doesn't respect you.

Really enjoy this one aswell. So much is left for your brain to imagine that you end up imagining different things every time you watch it. If you've got an imagination, this movie will deliver every time.

My expectations were pretty low, but this turd managed to disappoint me anyway. It's a weird mix of childish humor and adult references (Silence Of The Lambs etc.) that reminds me a little of The Phantom Menace. On a positive note, I gotta admit that the squeaking furballs are far less annoying than Jar Jar Binks (at least they're competent at something).

I would recommend it only to preschoolers.

I tried watching OSS 117: Cairo, Nest of Spies (2006), a French spy spoof with Jean Dujardin (The Artist). It's part of a long-running (longer than Bond) spy series that used to be serious and has since turned comedic. But I didn't find myself laughing much, altho Dujardin is good (and looks a hell of a lot like Sean Connery from 1963 in moments). It's set in the 1960s and has a bit of an Austin-Powers-meets-Mad-Men vibe.

I originally thought it was one of the 1960s entries but quickly realized what it really was and was willing to go with it, but it just didn't work for me, and I checked out after maybe 25 minutes.

Maybe it's too dialog-intensive for an American reading the subtitles. I'm curious about Saniss's perspective.

PS: Loved that little Facel Vega.

Last edited by Zarban (2013-11-03 15:46:17)

We watched Olympus has fallen last night. My word, what a violent, thoughtless, America, fuck yeah!

I was away in Japan for a couple of weeks and the long flights allowed me to catch up on a couple of movies, one of which was White House Down. I liked it, it was fun. I'm not entirely sold on Channing Tatum, he's not quite as charismatic as Bruce Willis was in Die Hard (the film's obvious template) but he's competent enough.

The Lone Ranger - kind of a mixed bag I thought, with some neat ideas that are drowned amidst the dominance of Depp's bizarre performance as Tonto. There's a tone problem as well, most of it is light hearted cartoon fun, then we get dark dramatic turns that seem out of place.

The Wolverine - a big tentpole comic movie ostensibly aimed at young men that turns into a predictable love story throughout its entire long second act. Weird choice. I did find it interesting what they did with his mutant power, but it seemed they didn't really do much exploration with it on a character arc level. I saw a cut plane version so the action seemed rather tame, and although there was some nice shots towards the end, I found I had lost interest.

Red 2 - what a cast, and this ironically kept ruining the illusion that I was watching a story unfold. 'Hey! it's so and so!' I'd never seen the first, but it didn't seem entirely necessary to enjoy the sequel.

Depp was still Disney Depp in Lone Ranger, but it was a bit more subdued, which I apperciated. I don't feel like he stole the show; I enjoyed the movie.

With the American hero played by a Brit. Always find stuff like that amusing

Both are 'Die Hard in the White House', aren't they? I actually like both but White House Down is more fun and less grim. Also, that scene in OHF with Melissa Leo getting beaten is pretty hard to watch. It's hard to have fun with films like that and the rest of the film is ridiculous, so you should have fun with it.