Skip to main content

Prepare the tongue-apult.

Rio 2
(2014)

Rio was a fairly tepid affair, considerably enlivened by the most delicious villain to grace CGI animation in its near-20 year feature history. And so it is with Rio 2; Jermaine Clement’s Nigel makes every scene with his haughty cockatoo a delight and nearly balances out the over-familiar Meet the Parents storyline, in which Spix’s macaw Blu (Ben Stiller, I mean Jesse Eisenberg) reluctantly ventures into the Amazon jungle with mate Jewel (Anne Hathaway) and their fledgling brood seeking out others of their rare species.


The first Rio was a passion project for director Carlos Saldanha. It had been in development since 1995 (at which point the storyline involved penguins rather macaws; Happy Feet put paid to that idea) and by that time it reached cinema screens Saldanha had directed or co-directed all of Blue Sky Studios’ features. Unfortunately, as attractively mounted as Blue Sky’s animation is, they have consistently come up short in the story department. In contrast to Pixar’s painstakingly thrashed out characters and plots and DreamWorks pop culture & gags formula, Blue Sky stand out mostly for evoking a feeling that whatever it is you’re watching is derivative of something else. 



The best element of the pedestrian Ice Age films is the Loony Tunes-inspired Scrat, and each one of those is less distinguishable from its processor. They were enormous hits globally (if not so dominant in the US), however; the critical kudos may not add up to much, but the third and fourth instalments are in the all-time Top 10 animated features. The Ice Age films basically are Blue Sky, and Fox’s animation claim to fame. Every studio can be expected to milk a franchise for all it’s worth (Ice Age 5 will arrive at some point) and, even if Rio could barely scrape together half the receipts of their prestige series, it was more than enough to guarantee a second outing (which grossed about equal with the first, so expect a third).


Blue Sky’s best picture is comfortably Horton Hears a Who! Then there’s last year’s Epic, which wasn’t wholly successful but at least tried something different. Despite being released by the merciless Murdoch corporation, both that and Rio 2 wear their environmentalist badges on their sleeves. The problem with the latter’s global conscience is that it gets drowned out by a glut of conflicting storylines that leaves threads half-baked or dangling. The picture is top-heavy with Blu’s difficult induction into his new family, giving short shrift to the illegal logging B-plot. This also means Nigel’s involvement is reduced to peripheral (but very funny) comic relief (you’ll struggle to remember the main villain).


And the Blu plot thread is devoid of inspiration. It provokes a response, just as the successive humiliations of Greg Focker do, but for a family movie there’s a curious lack of responsibility required for the actions of anyone but Blu himself. Jewel is indifferent to his doubts about living in the Amazon, pushing the onus on him in the most guilt trippy of ways (think of the children; “Happy wife, happy life” is the solution to a case of marital discord that rivals Gone Girl). There is no pay-off as such; he must simply adjust to the new situation, which he does so without comment once the main threat subsides. No one else needs make amends for their behaviour. His “father-in-law” Eduardo (Andy Garcia) is entirely dismissive and only comes round when Blu saves their habitat, while Roberto (Bruno Mars) is the Owen Wilson character; a childhood friend with designs on Jewel and intent on snatching her away; again the device whereby Blu proves himself (Roberto turns to jelly in front of the marauding diggers) hardly offers recompense for his prior treatment.


Of course, in order for the underlying eco-theme to have any consistency Blu needs to opt for jungle life. Yet, as played out, the ruination of the rainforest flounders and lacks bite. There’s one great shot where Blu happens across the barren logging site and a pull back reveals his full perspective, but that’s about as far as it resonates. Blu leaves Rio missing the fumes and pollution (“Goodbye stinky city air” says Jewel, and Blu mournfully murmurs “Yeah… goodbye”). Just as Blu is horrified by the ways of the natural world (“She ate a bug. A bug!”), so Eduardo enforces a “no technology” rule.


It’s difficult for writers to stick to that, of course, so references to civilisation wash over the jungle idyll (Epic at least stuck true to its miniscule milieu). This includes the Brazilian full-on passion for football, tying in not so subtly with their host nation World Cup year, amusingly introduced as a turf war between Spix’s and Scarlet macaws (“It’s not a game. It’s war!”), monkeys spreading toilet paper through trees like this is one giant frat house prank and X Factor style auditions for the Rio Carnival hosted by Blu’s returning pals Rafael (George Lopez), Pedro (will.i.am) and Nico (Jamie Foxx). The latter sequence is hit-and-miss, and rather lazy filler truth be told. But it includes some amusing moments, including slow motion tortoises and a jaguar eating a small capybara that carries on singing from within (with a patient pay-off at the end of the movie). Actually, the more anarchic side of the picture is to be commended; a series of twisted sight gags involve small creatures and even humans being eaten (by piranhas, by crocodiles, by a snake). It doesn’t make the cute ickle macaws any more tolerable, but it’s something.


The opening section of the picture of Rio 2 is painfully plodding, and I feared the worst; it’s only when Nigel shows up with sidekick Gabi (Kristin Chenowith), a poison dart frog besotted with the malignant toucan, and Charlie the inept anteater that the screenplay (by Don Rhymer, Carlos Kotking, Jenny Bicks and Yonni Brenner) gets some wind under its sails. “We attack at the midnight hour - because it’s more evil” announces Nigel of his plan to take revenge on Blu. Clement’s performance (it’s very evident that he did extensive ad-libbing, because the quality of the laughs are a league above when Nigel’s involved) is hilarious; Nigel’s might be the most irresistible animated villainy since George Sanders’ lent silky, mocking tones to Shere Khan in The Jungle Book



Nigel’s general demeanour reminds me a little of the late John Savident, or Robert Morley. While the Rio 2’s songs generally are a burden, anodyne yey celebratory musical numbers that bring the action to a halt, those involving Nigel are definite hits; a version of I Will Survive that includes nods to Flashdance and autotune, and Gabi’s romantic fantasy sequence in which the love between a frog and a cockatoo takes the form of duet Poison Love. Nigel’s disdain and loathing is infectious (“It’s an infestation” he utters, aghast at flock of Spix’s macaws). It’s the sign of a great villain if you want them to win, and with heroes as unpersuasive as these, it’s doubly so here.


Rio 2 hasn’t been overly adored, which isn’t too surprising, but really it’s no worse than the spate of sub-par animated movies from the big studios over the past few years. It has a whole lot more going for it than Cars 2 or Kung Fu Panda 2. Back when Ice Age came out, Blue Sky was the weak sibling to superior product from Pixar and DreamWorks. Now it isn’t so much that they have upped their game as those studios are wearing the bottom line on their chins and their product is suffering the consequences.  This particular sequel suffers from overstuffed storylines, weakly connected and resolved, but the salvation of many a half-hearted animation is at hand; the bad bird is a blast. As long as Nigel is back, I’ll be happy to sit through Rio 3.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.