I know another Peter Pan related post. I don’t intend on watching every film version (though I may, doubt it though.) Actually I’m about to watch Hook again. I’ve been trying to resist the urge, but can’t. Screw finals.
I’m a fan of Peter Pan. It’s always interested me. It has, however, been some time since I’ve seen any film/tele version. It’s also been a while since I’ve read Peter and Wendy (the only one I’ve read).
Peter Pan to me was a good adaptation. As far as I remember the overall gist of the story, this movie seemed to get the highlights that stick in my mind. It may be the best adaptation as far as the story goes or it may not. For me, it was good. It didn’t seem to bizarre in its interpretation and seemed to at least try to stay faithful to the source material.
This version of Peter Pan is interesting. For all intents and purposes it is very much a family/children’s film. It is however a slightly dark portrayal though and I don’t just mean visually. Things are quite intense at some points and I liked it. In fact I’d actually like to see a sort of gritty Peter Pan (Neverland I suppose attempted to take a step in that direction). The problem for me at least was the sort of, for lack of a better word, “wacky” slapstick humor that was thrown in here and there. At times it was pretty mild, other times not so much. For kids it was probably great. To me, it jut threw off the darker mood they were setting up. This was supposed to be a family film though, so I understand the humor being put. And it’s not that it was bad, it just didn’t mesh to me.
I have to say the visuals were one of my favorite aspects of the film and I can’t quite find the words to describe it. It sort of mixes an attempt at realism and fantasy. It’s kind of weird, but more cool than weird. I liked it a lot, especially since there was a really good balance. The whole space trip to Neverland however was a bit out off place to me, but that’s the only thing I can think of.
Jason Issacs doubles as Mr. Darling and Hook and does a great job at both. I really like Issas and he does a great job here as usually, especially at Hook. He does villains well. Lynn Redgrave and Olivia Williams both have nice parts and do well and I liked the dog. Jeremy Sumpter plays Peter and I really liked him. He has a sort of odd charm and was really good at being the little boy running around, while still being able to pull off the more serious emotional bits. Rachel Hurd-Wood was also really good as Wendy.
It’s really a great adaptation that I’m guessing most people will like if their fans of Pan. Even if you’re not, it’s still a good fantasy family film.
PS: At this point Hook is replacing BF3 in my 360 so I’ll probably have a post for it later.
So I was in the mood for some hack and slash, sword and sorcery kinda movie. Particularly, one I haven’t seen yet. A recent discussion of Dungeons and Dragons got me in the mood (I don’t know anyone anymore who plays D&D – at least no one who’ll admit it unfortunately). In the end I decided to watch Conan the Barbarian, which I’ve never seen.
The movie draws from other sources, none of which I’m familiar with. The story is basically about how Conan comes from nothing to someday be king (though we don’t see that here). As a child his parents are killed, he grows up in some tough shit, becomes a gladiator, latter is set free and becomes a sort of thief. In the end he manages to start a quest to get revenge on the weird and honestly, quite lame, sorcerer that killed his parents. The story line wasn’t exactly riveting to me, but at the time I guess it might have seemed better, mostly because we’ve had a chance to reuse this kind of thing more now.
Let me just jump to one of the things I really did not like about the movie. The pacing. The movie is two hours and it felt longer. Why? Because they structure the film like it was an epic along the lines of Ben-Hur or Lawrence of Arabia. It isn’t. Movies like that can get away with the long montages of nothingness, because in-between shit happens. Not only that but it’s good shit. Conan however uses a number of those long montage type sequences and there is little filler in between, especially for the first half of the movie. It’s just a lot of build up to finally get to the part where Conan is going to hunt down Doom.
I don’t know what to think of the acting either. Arnold Schwarzenegger is okay I guess. He at least looks great in the role. I liked watching him stand and fiddle with his sword, which really should have been bigger. James Earl Jones surprised me. I was unaware that he was in the movie and I’m kind of surprised. I don’t want to say he’s bad because it’s James Earl Jones. The role is what I’m choosing to blame. That and the make up. They gave him some weird looking long hair. The rest of the cast is all ok for the movie. I’m not dying to find out who anyone is because they blew me away, but it’s hardly the worst I’ve seen, especially from similar types of films.
The special effects were actually pretty good, more so probably because of the time and the action sequences were good, if again slow. The narration bothered me though. It wasn’t consistent enough for one and it just didn’t fit. Another one of those weird things that irked me.
As negative as most of that sounds, it wasn’t bad. I was just kind of hoping for something a bit more gritty and action packed I guess. Maybe I’m just spoiled from some good modern hack and slash sword movies, but Conan’s biggest drawback was just slow everything. Slow moving story, action, and dialogue (thank you Arnold).
I can understand why it’s considered a classic and I’m not set against watching it again. I’d defiantly need to be in the mood for it and at least now I have some idea of what is going to bug me.
Been sort of a while since I posted. Been a bit busy with the end of the semester and while I’m continuing to watch movies (or TV shows), I’ve just been too lazy to write any posts about them (though I do have probably twenty draft posts waiting to be finished). At some point I’ll sit down and finish a bunch of these posts so that when I’m busy I can at least provide some content.
So SyFy released a miniseries called Neverland last week (I think it was last week). I only learned about it a few das before it aired because of a banner on SyFy. Normally I’m not a huge fan of SyFy, but I’ve enjoyed some of these miniseries that they produced, though two episodes isn’t much of a miniseries.
Anyways, Neverland is supposed to be an origin story fo sorts for the classic Peter Pan, though there’s a fair mix fo science fiction and fantasy in this incarnation. The story basically shows how Peter, the Lost Boys, and Hook went from our world to Neverland. Incidentally all of them “lived” together in our world. It was actually kind of neat seeing how they took that relationship and played it out towards the classic tale we all know. Unfortunately it did seem a bit too much like Oliver Twist and Fagin.
Overall it was interesting, especially if you’re a fan of Peter Pan stuff. It’s not the greatest, but it was a good effort. By biggest problem was probably some of the science fiction stuff. I understand what they tried with it, but it was unnecessary. It just made the show run longer. The whole fairy/mineral dust thing wasn’t needed. And while the orbs were kind of neat, again they weren’t needed. It just gave them something else to focus on, when I would have rather seen more of the characters development for other reasons or just in general.
The effects and everything technical was ok. None of the CGI was horrible, but for what it was it worked. I’m not sure about the whole snow forest thing. That just seemed a bit bizarre to me.
Rhys Ifans plays Hook, which I actually thought he was a good choice for the role. He was ok, but he’s done a lot better and could have done better. He was good at playing a Hook that wasn’t a cartoon villain. I just wish he would’ve had more development in the character. Bob Hoskins plays Smee, essentially reprising his role from the Spielberg Hook. His performance in Hook was a lot better, though he was given a larger role in that movie. Here is is basically wasted. Keira Knightly is another star name added to the. Anyone who got their hopes up for this, don’t. She plays the voice of Tinkerbell. I honestly didn’t recognize it and I only knew because I looked on IMDB before watching. That and Tinkerbell again is another wasted role here. Q’orianka Kilcher plays Aaya, the chieftains daughter (what else?). I’ve seen her in other movies and liked here, so I’m not entirely sure what the deal was with this movie. She played a pretty stiff character which I wasn’t fond of. That and for whatever reason, her character spoke very stunted english. Most of the time. You could hear Kilcher talking better every now and then which made it even more bizarre. That and the other’s talked perfectly normal. I’m not sure whose decision that was, but she didn’t pull it off, whatever way it was supposed to go. Charlie Rowe plays Peter. I don’t really have a lot of thoughts in this. He was okay.
SyFy built a nice premise, wasted money on some big names for either pointless roles or doing god knows what with them and just kind of lead the second episode down hill. The first part was better. It seemed to move faster. The second part was just kinda blergh.
Some may like it, others not so much. It wasn’t so bad that I would tell people to just avoid it. It’s mostly a matter of whether you’re a fan of Pan and/or SyFy.
My advisor told me to watch this at my last meeting, so I did. It’s nice being able to watch movie as research for senior thesis.
Heathers was an interesting movie. On one hand the movie is like a lot of 80s teen comedies. It’s all about the various clicks in high school manly the popular vs unpopular students. Nothing new on that set up. The movie twists that view quite a bit. The students and parents are very much exaggerations of what they are making fun of, but they still manage to keep some realism there. The other twist is that the movie is incredibly dark. The movie is sort of about teen suicide, but more so it’s about acting on those little dark impulses everybody has, but doesn’t want to admit to. I love this idea. I actually wrote a short story about it, though I got odd looks. It’s like admitting to talking to yourself. It’s not something you openly discuss or admit to. Back to the movie though, it looks at those little urges people have when you “wish was dead” or you have the urge to hit someone or act out if they’re frustrating to you, but of course (usually) you don’t act on those impulses.
Anyways, the movie is a dark comedy. I love dark comedies usually. This one, I was not so fond of. It was funny in places, but most of that wasn’t really dark humor. Again, maybe I’m just missing things, but it wasn’t much of a comedy to me. That and it seemed to run a little long by the end. Especially the boiler room stuff.
Regardless of how much you laugh during the movie, it is still a good movie, more so because of the content the film explores. I wouldn’t advise watching this if you wanted to just relax and have some laughs. For me it wasn’t that funny of movie. It was more of a drama with some humor in it. Worth checking out, but really only if your a fan of darker themed movies.
Another British film that’s been remade. Alas, I saw the remake of Bedazzled before this original one. I don’t know if I’ve ever seen the full movie though, since I only caught it on cable.
Bedazzled is an interesting movie. Again, if you’ve seen the remake you have at least a board grasp of what goes on in this film, though as far as I can remember they really aren’t alike. Bedazzled is sort of a telling of Faust. Dudley Moore plays a cook who is infatuated with his co-worker. Peter Cook comes along as the Devil, although he goes by George Spiggott. Over the course of the film he gives Dudley Moore wishes essentially for his soul, yadda yadda yadda. Shenanigans ensue.
I hate to say that the film requires intelligence to watch, but it kind of does. The movie is a very sharp satire, one that to me seems like it was very much ahead of its time. The deliveries are very low-key and it’s very much a sort of dry sense of humor. It’s easy to miss a lot of the, for lack of a better word, jokes. Still, the sheer amount of content in the film makes it hard not to laugh every now and then. The movie also incorporates its fair share of physical gags, though again, it’s very understated. I’m a fan of Moore and Cook. I’m actually a dj on my college radio station and I play some of their recordings from Beyond the Fringe, so I guess I’m slightly biased on some of my love for the two men behind the film.
The acting really isn’t great. Dudley Moore and Peter Cook can do better, but it’s not like it’s horrible or it detracts from anything. The film also features Raquel Welch, a name most people my age don’t recognize, however she was an international sex symbol back in her day. She has a small role, but at the time it was understandably a big deal.
Dudley Moore enjoys playing instruments and creating music. In an interview he said that he basically had to decided between music and acting/comedy. In Bedazzled you get a nice glimpse at his musical talents since he wrote the music for the film. Just kind of further goes to show how intelligent and talented these two men are.
The movie did run a bit long for me. There were some bits that ran a bit to long and if you don’t enjoy what they’re doing in the bit, it just makes it that much longer.
Bedazzled wont be for everyone. There are plenty of people who don’t get satire. Clever wordplay is another one that get’s missed by some and when it includes particular references, you do have to be a certain type to get them. The movie does have nuns on trampolines, so that’s something to look forward to.
It’s not great. It has plenty of problems and doesn’t really appeal to a wide audience. Still, for self-professed comedy nerds I think it’s one of those movies you have to give a shot, if for no other reason than because it’s a creation of Peter Cook and Dudley Moore.
I’ve never read Fever Pitch. I’ve read some of Nicholas Hornby’s other works and enjoyed them. I’ve also enjoyed the film adaptations to varying degrees. This Fever Pitch is the original film version. It was remade in 2005 with Jimmy Fallon and uses Baseball (Red Sox) over football (Arsenal). I saw the 2005 version before ever seeing this.
So if you’ve seen the remake, you have a pretty good grasp on the basic outline of the film. Colin Firth comes from a broken home. His dad attempts to connect to his son and for whatever reason while attending an Arsenal match (his first) he falls in love with the game and team. Throughout the film we see flashbacks of Firth’s character growing up and proving his dedication to the team. Firth is an English teachers, as is Ruth Gemmell, though her character is new to the school. Firth is very laid back and is the “cool” teacher, while Gemmell is a bit more uptight, organized. Naturally they clash, although early on a comment is made about the two of them hooking up because of that. The rest is pretty strait forward, though there are plenty of detail differences between this and the remake.
I don’t remember the remake to really compare to this film so I wont even bother. I did like how they handled Firth’s character. He’s very aloof at first and they do a great job of making him out to be a bit of an ass early on. As the movie progresses, it’s kind of surprising that he grows on you. They also did a great job of portraying how much of a man-child he is and I think the flashbacks sort of help with that. The portrayal of how important that team (or any team) is to the fans is handled really well.
Colin Firth is pretty good. I don’t think it’s as good as some of his other work, but it’s pretty easy to see how he’s already getting typed cast in certain roles this early on. Ruth Gemmell did a really good job as well. I thought she was fantastic. And I love Mark Strong. I don’t think I’ve seen him do a crap job (other than maybe Sunshine, but that was a role). He’s basically playing Firth’s buddy and does a good job at it. Kind of weird seeing him in that capacity, but he’s fine.
Fever Pitch isn’t exactly redefining the rom-com, although I’m also sort of hesitant to call it a rom-com. It has a bit more depth to the characters development and there seems to be a more realistic view of life’s problems. I can also see where people uninterested in football (soccer) would be less than thrilled, although I think the movie does a good job at getting you invested in the sport, sort of like how the remake got a lot of people to pay attention to the Red Sox. It’s also a British film with some references to things some folks might not understand if you aren’t familiar with that culture. I’m a bad judge at this though since I’m a slight anglophile.
Still, it’s a good movie. I wouldn’t necessarily pop it in if I wanted to watch a light, fluffy, rom-com, since I still have a hard time as seeing it as one of those movies. Still, it’s a good movie to watch at some point and I can’t imagine that people would hate this if they liked the remake or if they like rom-com’s or similar such films. I mean Colin Firth’s in it so that’s always another reason to check it out.
I had low expectations for this film. It didn’t look exactly great from the trailers (though those things can be misleading). That and I’ve never been much of a fan of Cameron Diaz and I’m still not sold on Timberlake as an actor. Some friends saw it in theaters over the summer and liked it (though these Wednesday movie nights consisted of them drinking before and during the movie while smuggling in meals like full rotessiorre chickens).
Bad Teacher is pretty self explanatory. You have Cameron Diaz playing apparently an English teacher (took a while to guess that) who is teaching because it’s easy to just sit back and slide through the process. She also just has no ambitions other than to marry some rich guy who will take care of her. A sort of major character plot point for her is getting enough money to get a boob job. Other things happen, but really that’s all you need to know. By the end of the movie her character doesn’t really develop that much, if at all. The relationship part is obvious from the get go and nothing else changes much.
Again not a fan of Cameron Diaz or Justin Timberlake most of the time and neither really changed my opinion of them in this movie. I’ve liked Lucy Punch in the few things I’ve seen here in and I thought she was really good here. I also thought John Michael Higgins did a good job as the Principal. Kaitlyn Dever (Justified, Last Man Standing) plays the teacher’s pet kinda role. Not here best work, but it shows how diversified her talent is. She’s a really great young actress and it’s kind of bizarre looking at the different roles she’s played. Tom (Thomas) Lennon does a good job in the small role he has. Again, another one of those really good character actors. And of course Jason Segel who does a good job as well. Really The supporting cast is pretty good and has a lot of familiar faces for fans of some comedies out recently. Still, the movie is hardly anyone’s best performance, though I don’t know if it’s anyones worse.
The movie is funny. At times. It’s not one of those movies where you laugh nonstop, but there are some really good moments and probably more really bad ones. There are times I looked at the joke they were trying and was wondering why they bothered, but that’s comedy. It’s hard to judge some comedies since there exist those movies for people that you just laugh nonstop. It’s hard to go and watch a comedy that doesn’t do that and not treat it negatively.
As someone who is an education student and about to do their student teaching my thoughts on the depiction of the teachers was kind of wobbly. On one hand I wasn’t to fond overall (though yes I understand it’s a comedy), but teachers get enough crap that making movies that reinforce that doesn’t help. On the other hand, and maybe I’m entirely wrong on this, I thought the movie did a good job at showing how fucked up our school system is (which it is). None of the teachers in this movie are good teachers. The title really refers to all of the teachers in the film. It shows how easy it is for bad teachers to just skate through the system and sort of hits on the horrors of standardized testing. That’s not the point of the movie really however so it isn’t highlighted much and it probably just inspires people to bitch about teachers more if at all.
Still, the movie wasn’t great. Watching it like my friends did over the summer probably wasn’t a bad way to see the movie, though waiting for it on Netflix or something might be better. It’s a good movie to watch late at night or if you’re multi tasking.
I want to see this four more times, but I may not be able to make it. I’m defiantly going to buy it as soon as I am able.
I said that a couple of months ago in my review of Super 8 after I saw it in theaters. I bought it the day it came out (mostly because of a lovely coupon). I already watched the movie again and then I went on to watch the special features that my DVD came with. The Dream Behind Super 8 was good as was The Visitor Lives. Both were only about 15 minutes long. I also watched the movie again with commentary from J.J. Abrams, Bryan Burk, and Larry Fong (it was a couple of hours later after watching it without the commentary).
I’ve listened to the Star Trek commentary with J.J. Abrams and friends and I enjoyed that one as well as the Super 8 commentary. I don’t always listen to DVD commentaries. I only do it if a.) I like the movie, b.) the commentators are a director I like, and/or c.) the movie’s a comedy and a number of funny people are doing the commentary. Abrams has proved to be interesting to listen to during commentaries.
One of the reason I enjoy Abrams on the commentaries is that he actually talks about the film. He explains what’s going on as far as the behind the scens production. In Super 8 (and even Star Trek) it’s wonderful listening to him talk about the film because he is as amazed at the product as I am. He’s genuinely excited about making a film. A number of times he discusses how amazed he is at the editing process as far as filming one scene in two or three different places. He also at times puts in explanations as to choices to the film or anecdotes about the film or even growing up during this time period as this is a very personal film for him. I also enjoyed listening to him talk about Spielberg on occasion.
I already recommend watching Super 8, but if you’re a fan of the movie I’d defiantly advise getting a hold of the DVD and checking out the special features. In the commentary Abrams mentions some special features not present in the DVD. I’m assuming at this point they are only available in the Blu-Ray, so if you have a Blu-Ray you may enjoy the extras even more.
Well I’m fresh out of viewing The Muppets so this is going to be a glowing review. I haven’t had to much time to try and say anything negative, though I don’t think I need to.
The Muppets is about how the Muppets have been forgotten. That over the years their popularity has decreased and that times have changed. That we wouldn’t appreciate them now even if they did put on a performance.
The movie is a love song to the Muppets. There’s a lot of blowing smoke up their own buts it you want to twist things to a negative view. The fact is that the Muppets were a huge phenomenon and while younger generations may not be familiar with them, there are still young people and older audiences that love them.
In a way the new movie is similar to the orignal Muppet Movie, but not really. Out of all of the films, that’s the best comparison. In fact they reference the orignal film frequently to compare themselves to it. The orignal movie was sort of about the Muppets meting for the first time and the new movie is the Muppets meeting each other for the first time in years. It really is a sequel of sorts to the orignal film.
The original Muppet Movie however was very much a road movie and was very lighthearted. This film is actually quite different when you look at it. There’s a lot more exploration of the characters, or at least some of the main ones. The movie explores their dynamic and to an extent looks at why the Muppets were so great. There are a number of moments that are just horribly unfunny, because they’re sad. They are very good emotionally charged scenes.
The music of course was really good. They don’t hold up to the orignal songs, but I think that has more to do with time. “Life is a Happy Song” is actually really good and catchy. I think the movie needs more than one viewing for them to become as memorable as some of the older ones, but they are still pretty solid. Actually Chris Cooper does a pretty good rap at one point. The only two full old songs to make appearances are the Muppet Show theme and of course Rainbow Connection. There are some references and extracted lyrics from older songs, but they aren’t performed. There’s also a great cover of Nirvana.
The Muppets were all great. You have different puppeteers now that some of the originals have died or moved on, but honestly I thought they did a great job. The only issue I had was with the guy who does Staldorf’s (I think) voice. The voices for that duo were very iconic for me and the new voice just doesn’t match the original. As far as the new Muppet Walter goes, I thought he was ok. Nothing spectacular, but good for the movie. He actually isn’t really the main character. He’s more of a catalyst to get the movie going, which was nice.
Jason Segel, who incidentally is the reason this movie exists, did a good job as Walter’s brother. Amy Adams was really good as well. For the roles they were cast in they were pretty damned good. As was Rashida Jones as the TV exec. OF course the movie has to have a human villain which is where Chris Cooper comes in and he was great. Again he does a neat little rap at one point. Really the human cast was great.
The cameos. The Muppets are famous for their cameos. I’m almost disappointed in the cameos in this movie, but maybe that has something to do with my fondness for the cameos in the other films. At this point these may be spoilers for you. I’m going to list some of the cameos, mainly the ones I enjoyed, so you’ve been warned. Alan Arkin, Jack Black, Bill Cobbs, Zach Galifianakis, Donald Glover, Whoopi Goldberg, Selena Gomez, Neil Patrick Harris, John Krasinski, Jim Parsons, Rico Rodriguez, Mickey Rooney, Sarah Silverman, Ken Jeong, Kristen Schaal, and Emily Blunt. There are more, but those are the ones that I remember and stood out to me.
My biggest disappointment was the lack of Steve Martin. For some reason I just thought he’d make an appearance. He’s worked with the Muppets a number of times and I always loved his appearances. They did at least reference him a number of times by name or via a picture of him. I’m also glad that they paid tribute to Jim Henson frequently. His name is branded various places as is his picture. It was nice that they did that.
The Muppets is different. The tone has changed. Yes the movie is wacky, but they scaled it down in my opinion. Again it’s a love song to the Muppets. The scenario in the film is a plea for the Muppets to reunite and get attention again and really that’s what the movie itself is. It’s about putting the Muppets together again and trying to get an audience and hopefully inspire certain folks at Disney to make another Muppet and I can only dream of them doing the Muppet Show again.
It doesn’t top the Muppet Movie, but it’s damned close. Having not seen the other Muppet films recently I’d have to say this one has a good chance at being number two to the original film. And yes it has some flaws, but I’m willing to forgive them because it’s the Muppets. After all this time they made a movie and it was worth that wait. I can only hope that people will actually go see this, especially if you loved the Muppets growing up.
Everyone loves the Muppets right? I mean I remember growing up watching the Muppets and that was from reruns of the Muppet Show or some of the movies that they put out. I’m pretty sure my continuous re-watching of our VHS of The Muppet Movie killed the tape because it no longer works (actually that was a couple of years ago even). As I get older and continue to re-watch the Muppets I grow fonder of them with each viewing. There’s so much that was just over my head and the cameos/appearances that meant nothing to me. So obviously my views on the movie should already be clear and I’m very biased.
The Muppet Movie was released in 1979 and the Muppet Show ran from ’76 – ’81, so by this point the Muppet Show was actually nearing its end. The movie is highly meta and is a viewing of the Muppets on a film that is about how the Muppets less or according to Kermit, “It’s sort of approximately how it happened.” While not every Muppet is included, the big names all appear in the story and those that don’t show up either in the viewing theater or at the end of the “movie” where all of the Muppets sit and sign the end of the “The Magic Store.”
Which brings me to the first reason as to why this movie rocks. The music. “Rainbow Connection” is obviously a kick-ass and moving song. It’s probably one of the most memorable of the Muppet songs and the use of it in the opening of the film is fantastic. It’s beautiful. I’ve also always been a fan of the Electric Mayhem songs. I think Zoot is part of the reason I learned to play the saxophone. “Can You Picture That” and “Movin’ Right Along” are two great songs in here that are faster paced. Again the finale “The Magic Store” is brilliant as well. I actually welled up at the end of the song when the rainbow appears and they all start singing together.
The Muppets themselves are great and I wont even bother trying to critic their performances. I will say how incredible it is as to what Henson and co. did by showing the full body of some of the Muppets. For the opening in the swamp, Jim Henson was underwater performing Kermit and the bicycle scene is another one that’s remarkable to watch, among others.
The cameos/human appearances are for the adults I think. I’ve slowly learned to appreciate them more and more. I think the first person I recognized was Steve Martin. You also have some other greats such as Edgar Bergen, Milton Berle, Mel Brooks, James Coburn, Dom DeLuise, Elliot Gould, Bob Hope (Fucking Bob Hope!), Madeline Kahn, Cloris Leachman, Richard Pryor, and Orson Welles. Charles During and Austin Penleton also play Doc Hopper and Max. That’s some serious star power, especially comedic star power. They are cameos though, but still. Just seeing a bunch of those guys is great.
The humor is great as well. There’s a lot of meta references and breaking the fourth wall. The Muppets in general have a very sort of wacky style of humor and it still holds up. It’s timeless and works across the age ranges.
The other great thing about The Muppet Movie is the diversity in the film. In a way it’s almost a mockumentary, but it is defiantly a comedy. It also consists of pretty much every other film genre out there. Action, Adventure, Romance, Sci-Fi, Fantasy. It crams every little thing in one movie and it works because they don’t linger on anything to long. They knew where to draw the line.
The Muppet Movie still stands as a great film. I can’t imagine that kinds wouldn’t still like it and as someone who wasn’t born till 1990, I loved it as a kid and still love it. It’s simply a great movie.