‘The Muppet Movie’
(1979)
It wouldn’t be until the Nineties that the whole television-to-movie adaptation became so ubiquitous, but 1979 was a pretty big year for it. After all, there was ‘Star Trek: The Motion Picture‘, I guess we could throw in ‘Monty Python’s Life of Brian’ (although it wasn’t their first movie), and, of course, there’s ‘The Muppet Movie’.
Watching this film taught me a valuable lesson, and that’s that all the celebrity cameos in the world don’t matter a lick if you don’t have an interesting story. Frankly, I found the “guest star appearances” to be frustrating; most of them are there and gone in the blink of an eye. The only one who gets close to a full scene is Mel Brooks, and even he can only brighten the movie so much (although I did find a humorous parallel between his scene and the torture scene in ‘SPECTRE‘, but that’s neither here nor there).
This is not to say that ‘The Muppet Movie’ doesn’t have its moments, it’s just that they come so few and far between, and the core story is such a boring tease that I can’t recommend this to anyone trying to get their Muppet (or general Jim Henson) fix. Perhaps the problem is that the Muppets on their own aren’t very interesting, but when they’re telling a real story (or doing sketch comedy on TV), even if its somebody else’s (e.g. ‘Christmas Carol‘ and ‘Treasure Island‘), you can mine a lot more humor out of that.
Hate to say it, but this one’s easily on my skip list.
Rating: ★★☆☆☆
‘Marathon Man’
(1976)
If you didn’t already know, and without really spoiling anything, there’a a famous scene in this movie involving some malevolent dentistry and the repetitive question, “Is it safe?” which had quite a cultural impact (maybe not the same as what ‘Jaws‘ did to the beach, but not dissimilar). I wish I could say otherwise, but the mark left by that particular scene belies the overall quality of the movie.
‘Marathon Man’ isn’t bad, it’s worth seeing once, but seeing it multiple times won’t help you with your confusion. I’ve seen it twice (once at home and once in a theater), watching intently on both occasions, and there are still elements I don’t have a firm grasp on, despite the story not appearing to be all that complicated, so, just be prepared for that if you ever watch it.
What’s even more frustrating is that the screenplay was written by William Goldman, adapted from his own novel (which reportedly is way better than the movie; maybe I’ll get around to reading it if I ever start reading books again), so such confusion seems needless, but I’ll give him a little leeway since it was his first time adapting his own work (he’d have a little more success with that later on).
That said, there are certain elements of this movie that are downright wonderful. In particular, Laurence Olivier’s performance is something to be truly savored; perhaps the ultimate embodiment of the phrase “deliciously evil.” It’s funny that Oliver quickly moved from a Mengele pastiche in this film to a Mengele hunter in 1978’s ‘The Boys From Brazil‘, a movie I find to be more entertaining (though admittedly more sensational) than ‘Marathon Man’, but I prefer Olivier’s performance in the latter.
Anyway, as I said, worth seeing once. Lots of great NYC stuff.
Rating: ★★★☆☆
‘Psycho II’ (1983)
Thought Disney were the ones who first thought of releasing sequels decades (and decades) after the original films? Then you don’t know about ‘Psycho II’ (or ‘III’, or ‘IV’).
The original ‘Psycho‘ is a seminal piece of cinema history. Not only did it inspire the slasher genre (pretty much starting with 1978’s ‘Halloween’ and continuing through today), but it’s probably the first best example of “classy sleaze” (a term recently coined by Red Letter Media’s Mike Stoklasa to refer to such films as ‘Gone Girl‘ and ‘Don’t Breathe‘). It’s also a movie I stepped away from for a number of years, as back in college I had to do a shot analysis of the first half hour for a film class, so I got rather sick of the sight of it, but I was happy to revisit it in preparation for the sequel (although ‘Psycho II’ does begin with the most famous scene from ‘Psycho’).
‘Psycho II’ is definitely not terrible. Given that it’s a sequel made two decades after the fact, it’s actually pretty good, and I appreciate that the filmmakers were able to get not only Anthony Perkins (giving a surprisingly sympathetic performance) but also Vera Miles to reprise their roles from the first movie (John Gavin was hypothetically available, but was otherwise occupied at the time as the U.S. Ambassador to Mexico). However, and I feel like I’ve been saying this a lot lately, what begins (and sustains for quite a while) as an engrossing and effective film eventually goes on for too long and kind of falls apart in the third act, which is a shame.
Performance-wise, it’s a mixed bag. Perkins delivers great work as Norman, and Dennis Franz and Robert Loggia put in solid shifts (though abbreviated) in support, but I can’t decide if Meg Tilly’s performance is adequate or terrible, and I was not feeling Hugh Gillin as the sheriff, although that may be more so because of the character as written (hard to tell sometimes).
And, once again, I’d be remiss if I didn’t at least mention Jerry Goldsmith’s score. It’s not his best work, but I give him credit for doing something original and not merely doing a Bernard Herrmann impression.
So, yeah; not great, but not terrible. If you love the original ‘Psycho’ so much that you don’t want anything to spoil your image of it, maybe skip this one, but if you’re open to a continuation of the story, it’s worth checking out.
Rating: ★★★☆☆
