turotufas

iTrader: (7)

I'd like to see a Bonnie and Clyde remake.

Full_Tilt_Boogie

iTrader: (1)

Yes. Very yes.

2.22 was even more full of win IMO. The epicness was nearly overwhelming.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Saw the film on Friday with my sister and niece. Some of the voices were "wrong" (relative to the 1970s version) but all in all, a damn good movie. Lots of nostalgic meta-humor to keep us old folks happy, and thoroughly entertaining for the younger crowd, too.

GeneSplicer

iTrader: (14)

+3 Me too!

viperormiata

iTrader: (24)

Probably my favorite remake. I'm less than excited about the new one being released, although, I did really enjoy the "The Thing" themed haunted house at Hollywood Horrors Nights via Universal Orlando. While my friend was screaming his head off, I spent the entire walk through critiquing the costumes and settings; comparing them to the 1982 version Yeah, I'm cool like that.

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

The original "The Thing" scared the **** out of my young self at the time. Something that is lost on most modern shinamatograpers (sic) is the art of not showing all details but allowing the human mind to make it worse than pictured. As a psychologist I can say that it is much more effective to let the mind run wild sometimes.

y8s

iTrader: (8)

saw it on saturday. i had a feeling you'd be satisfied.

was it me or did some of the songs sound a little TOO Flight of the Conchords?

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

To be honest, I don't know if I've heard any of their stuff, and I haven't seen the TV show.

I thought that soundtrack was pretty well executed. The whole film had the feeling of being an homage to the original 1979 Muppet Movie (along with many, many in-jokes with reference to same) and the big musical numbers supported that theme well.

To be perfectly honest, my sister and I both got a little misty during the reprise of Rainbow Connection at the end.

viperormiata

iTrader: (24)

NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO !NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!N O!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO! NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO !NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!N O!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO! NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO !NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!N O!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO! NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO !NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!N O!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

btw I saw the muppets. I was unimpressed.

i mean, kermit just looked like a hand in a sock.

olderguy

iTrader: (19)

Finding Nemo

Faeflora

iTrader: (2)

The Muppet movie was good. Actually almost great.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

really? i really thought it was weak. the story was poor, the human actors were pointless. amy adams is fat and stupid.

y8s

iTrader: (8)

did you watch the original show and all of the movies?

kermit IS a hand in a sock.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

that was a joke, and yes ive seen them all. i dunno it was just a weak plot, the human actors were stupid, amy adams was a brat and that storyline was stupid. an oil tycoon in LA doesn't make sense, the sudden change in dollar amount at the end was stupid, the contract that allowed them to lose the place was dumb, the voices sucked, the dog dude wasnt in it enough, chaning his mind in the end and giving the place back over was stupid, the cameos at teh end were annoying, the crowd at the end was stupid.

but the rest was good.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

It's a character film. The plot is just there so they don't wind up standing around in an empty room for 2 hours.

So Doc Hopper & his sidekick Max (from the first film) were somehow not?


Well, yeah. It was supposed to be campy.


And a french-fried frog legs tycoon who has an army of professional hitmen in any city makes sense?


It was a Hollywood inside-joke meant to spoof the "ticking clock" cliché.


The contract in question was the original "standard Rich and Famous contact" which was presented to Kermit by Lew Lord (Orson Welles) at the end of the first movie in 1979. The fact that it contained a "you lose everything" clause in the fine print is, again, a Hollywood joke.


Yeah, I can't argue that.




I interpreted this as satire of the fact that, historically, Rowlf has always been kind of a neglected character who is never really "involved in the action." I mean, that was kind of the point of his little flashback sequence- all the other Muppet characters were recruited to join the team in some interesting or exciting way, whereas Rowlf was just lounging in a hammock drinking whiskey & cola when Kermit & Fozzie showed up.


Have you ever seen Wayne's World?


?


Again, satire.

Faeflora

iTrader: (2)

The movie had a nice lighthearted feel to it. Jokes were fairly witty. They humorously broke the fourth wall. It was also funny the whole way through. Most "funny" movies "go serious" into some stupid "life lesson" after about 45 minutes.

As for the plot, it was a koan: It was a movie that brought back the muppets, and it was about the muppets bringing back... the muppets. Smart.

Also, how could you not love the villain revelling in his power, with empty red bull cans all over his office. That was a fantastic G-rated scarface reference.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

I forgot fozzy's fart jokes.

It's just my opinion, I was excited to see it. I like Jason Siegel, but I left with a sour taste.