Skip to main content

I’ve seen detergents that leave a better film than this.

The Muppet Movie
(1979)

(SPOILERS) I like The Muppets – love some of the individual ones – but I’m not sure the movie format has ever entirely suited them. Their best puppeteered foot forward in this regard may actually be the spoof/pastiche format adopted by The Muppet Christmas Carol and Treasure Island in the 90s, since it ensures a robust frame for whatever mayhem and gags they wish to hang on it. Here, in their first big screen outing, events are strung together in a freewheeling “genesis of The Muppet Show” narrated prequel format that only fitfully offers inspiration (and laughs).

The Muppet Show writers Jack Burns and Jerry Juhl duly transfer to screenwriting and James Frawley, of The Big Bus – producer Julia Phillips said of him, “I always think of him as Jim Fraud-ly. His claim to fame is that he failed as an actor and succeeded as the director of most segments of The Monkees” – was signed as director. It seems no one was very happy with the choice, Frawley included, hence the Jim Henson and Frank Oz helmed sequels. The picture does make that transition to locations effectively, though, even if the choice of full body muppets (Kermit on a bike, Fozzie dancing on stage) sometimes feels unnecessarily ostentatious.

The travelogue format – Kermit leaves his Florida swamp for LA with the promise of auditions for frogs (“You get your tongue fixed, you could make millions of people happy”), meeting various regulars along the way, while hassled by Charles Durning’s frog legs restaurateur, who wants Kermit as spokesperson – is simultaneously loose enough to insert whatever business comes to mind, but not sparky enough to lead to anything truly off the wall. The succession of cameos – James Coburn, Telly Savalas, Carol Kane, Elliot Gould, Bob Hope, Richard Pryor, Orson Welles, Madeline Kahn, Dom DeLuise – pass by largely without a titter. Steve Martin’s Insolent Waiter at least gets to riff a bit, while Mel Brooks rolls out a mad German scientist. Paul Williams also shows up, as well as providing the tunes. He’s a fine songsmith but none of the songs here really count as classics.

So it’s left to the more meta-elements to yield the best and cleverest laughs. The framing device finds the Muppets gathering for a movie screening showing how they really got started (“Well, it’s approximately how it happened”). Statler and Waldorf roll up in a limo (“We’re here to heckle The Muppet Movie”). At one point, Kermit pulls out a copy of the screenplay to avoid providing Dr Teeth and The Electric Mayhem with a lengthy recap of how he and Fozzie Bear came to be at their old church. Subsequently, this is used by Dr Teeth to find them when they are stranded in the desert (I did think they shouldn’t have cut away when Dr Teeth stops reading at the point of Kermit and Fozzie entering the church, and should instead have carried on to the point where Kermit hands him the script).

Later, the film breaks down – à la Gremlins 2: The New Batch – thanks to the Swedish chef’s inept projecting (“I’ve seen detergents that leave a better film than this” observes Waldorf). Come the end, Lew Lord (Welles) allows them to turn their trip to see him into their first movie (complete with studio flats), and as it concludes, Sweetums, who has been chasing after Kermit for most of the film, bursts through the projection room screen.

There are also some dependably dry remarks from Sam the Eagle (“Kermit, does this film have socially redeeming value?” he inquires before it starts; asked what he thinks at the end, his verdict is “It was sick and weird”) The characters themselves are dependable, from the Kermit and Piggy simmering, one-sided passion (“Miss Piggy, you look beautiful” before adding to the audience “Movie talk”), to Gonzo and his derring-do (in the desert, Kermit finds himself talking to his better self: “He’s a little like a turkey”; “Yeah a little like a turkey, but not much” comes the reply).

What’s notable is how massive the movie was, released as it was during the heyday of the show. Inflation-adjusted, it was far and away the biggest of the franchise, and reached seventh for the year at the US box office, trailing Star Trek: The Motion Picture and Alien, but beating The Jerk and Moonraker. It thus sent Lew Grade on an unwise mission, boldly expanding his film productions, which led to Saturn 3 and more particularly, the enormous bomb that was Raise the Titanic. The Muppets would return to diminishing interest in The Great Muppet Caper (that’s the one with the John Cleese cameo), and by the time of the next, The Muppets Take Manhattan, they were due one of their periodic hiatuses.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Doctors make the worst patients.

Coma (1978) (SPOILERS) Michael Crichton’s sophomore big-screen feature, and by some distance his best. Perhaps it’s simply that this a milieu known to him, or perhaps it’s that it’s very much aligned to the there-and-now and present, but Coma , despite the occasional lapse in this adaptation of colleague Robin Cook’s novel, is an effective, creepy, resonant thriller and then some. Crichton knows his subject, and it shows – the picture is confident and verisimilitudinous in a way none of his other directorial efforts are – and his low-key – some might say clinical – approach pays dividends. You might also call it prescient, but that would be to suggest its subject matter wasn’t immediately relevant then too.

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

I said I had no family. I didn’t say I had an empty apartment.

The Apartment (1960) (SPOILERS) Billy Wilder’s romcom delivered the genre that rare Best Picture Oscar winner. Albeit, The Apartment amounts to a rather grim (now) PG-rated scenario, one rife with adultery, attempted suicide, prostitution of the soul and subjective thereof of the body. And yet, it’s also, finally, rather sweet, so salving the darker passages and evidencing the director’s expertly judged balancing act. Time Out ’s Tom Milne suggested the ending was a cop out (“ boy forgives girl and all’s well ”). But really, what other ending did the audience or central characters deserve?

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money (1986) (SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money , however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

Your desecration of reality will not go unpunished.

2021-22 Best-of, Worst-of and Everything Else Besides The movies might be the most visible example of attempts to cling onto cultural remnants as the previous societal template clatters down the drain. It takes something people really want – unlike a Bond movie where he kicks the can – to suggest the model of yesteryear, one where a billion-dollar grosser was like sneezing. You can argue Spider-Man: No Way Home is replete with agendas of one sort or another, and that’s undoubtedly the case (that’s Hollywood), but crowding out any such extraneous elements (and they often are) is simply a consummate crowd-pleaser that taps into tangible nostalgia through its multiverse take. Of course, nostalgia for a mere seven years ago, for something you didn’t like anyway, is a symptom of how fraught these times have become.

You just threw a donut in the hot zone!

Den of Thieves (2018) (SPOILERS) I'd heard this was a shameless  Heat  rip-off, and the presence of Gerard Butler seemed to confirm it would be passable-at-best B-heist hokum, so maybe it was just middling expectations, even having heard how enthused certain pockets of the Internet were, but  Den of Thieves  is a surprisingly very satisfying entry in the genre. I can't even fault it for attempting to Keyser Soze the whole shebang at the last moment – add a head in a box and you have three 1995 classics in one movie – even if that particular conceit doesn’t quite come together.

This guy’s armed with a hairdryer.

An Innocent Man (1989) (SPOILERS) Was it a chicken-and-egg thing with Tom Selleck and movies? Did he consistently end up in ropey pictures because other, bigger big-screen stars had first dibs on the good stuff? Or was it because he was a resolutely small-screen guy with limited range and zero good taste? Selleck had about half-a-dozen cinema outings during the 1980s, one of which, the very TV, very Touchstone Three Men and a Baby was a hit, but couldn’t be put wholly down to him. The final one was An Innocent Man , where he attempted to show some grit and mettle, as nice-guy Tom is framed and has to get tough to survive. Unfortunately, it’s another big-screen TV movie.

Listen to the goddamn qualified scientists!

Don’t Look Up (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s testament to Don’t Look Up ’s “quality” that critics who would normally lap up this kind of liberal-causes messaging couldn’t find it within themselves to grant it a free pass. Adam McKay has attempted to refashion himself as a satirist since jettisoning former collaborator Will Ferrell, but as a Hollywood player and an inevitably socio-politically partisan one, he simply falls in line with the most obvious, fatuous propagandising.

Captain, he who walks in fire will burn his feet.

The Golden Voyage of Sinbad (1973) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen returns to the kind of unadulterated fantasy material that made Jason and the Argonauts such a success – swords & stop motion, if you like. In between, there were a couple of less successful efforts, HG Wells adaptation First Men in the Moon and The Valley of the Gwangi (which I considered the best thing ever as a kid: dinosaur walks into a cowboy movie). Harryhausen’s special-effects supremacy – in a for-hire capacity – had also been consummately eclipsed by Raquel Welch’s fur bikini in One Million Years B.C . The Golden Voyage of Sinbad follows the expected Dynamation template – blank-slate hero, memorable creatures, McGuffin quest – but in its considerable favour, it also boasts a villainous performance by nobody-at-the-time, on-the-cusp-of-greatness Tom Baker.

Archimedes would split himself with envy.

Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger (1977) (SPOILERS) Generally, this seems to be the Ray Harryhausen Sinbad outing that gets the short straw in the appreciation stakes. Which is rather unfair. True, Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger lacks Tom Baker and his rich brown voice personifying evil incarnate – although Margaret Whiting more than holds her own in the wickedness stakes – and the structure follows the Harryhausen template perhaps over scrupulously (Beverly Cross previously collaborated with the stop-motion auteur on Jason and the Argonauts , and would again subsequently with Clash of the Titans ). But the storytelling is swift and sprightly, and the animation itself scores, achieving a degree of interaction frequently more proficient than its more lavishly praised peer group.