1. Welcome to the Muppet Central Forum!
    You are viewing our forum as a guest. Join our free community to post topics and start private conversations. Please contact us if you need help with registration or your account login.

  2. Save Muppet Central Radio
    Within days Muppet Central Radio could be off the air. Show your support and save the station by listening via Radionomy's website and apps. We're also on iTunes and Apple TV. Learn More

Muppets Most Wanted Press Reviews

Discussion in 'Muppet Headlines' started by MrBloogarFoobly, Mar 12, 2014.

  1. MrBloogarFoobly

    MrBloogarFoobly Well-Known Member

  2. Drtooth

    Drtooth Well-Known Member

    The negative reviews are laughable. Here's why.

    This is very much the first Muppet movie that's a direct sequel. The Muppet films have always been single, self sustaining stories. The closest thing a movie has to a follow up is that MCC was followed up by MTI.

    From all non-spoilery things that we know about the film, it's a continuation of the last film, but one that's a self sustained story. And the reviews are clueless in that aspect. Half the crap reviews are whining about the lack of the human stars of the last movie that, for all intensive purposes were not even the stars of the film. They were there to be the catalyst to Walter's adventure in getting the Muppets back together. They're gone. As direct a sequel as this is, that's like complaining that Doc Hopper didn't pop in for GMC, or that Michael Cain wasn't Long John Silver. And the other complaint is that the Muppets dare change the genre of their movie. Something they've... okay, the sarcastic answer is to say they never did it before when they totally did. Anyone who understands Muppet films knows that.

    I'm sure there's some substantial complaints somewhere, but these reviewers do not know how a Muppet movie works, and they're expecting it to be exactly like The Muppets, rather than its own thing, and condemning them for just that.
     
  3. MrBloogarFoobly

    MrBloogarFoobly Well-Known Member

    ^That was exactly what I thought of the negative reviews, actually. The audiences go to see Muppet movies for the Muppets; the human co-stars are bonuses. The Muppet Movie didn't have famous starring roles outside the Muppets themselves. Same with MTM.*

    I give the negative reviews 1 out of 5 stars.

    *By this I mean the human characters weren't the focus of the dramatic action, or, in MTM's case, the human co-stars weren't celebrities (Jenny, Pete.)
     
  4. Drtooth

    Drtooth Well-Known Member

    Jason was on hand for The Muppets to use his star power to get the film made. While I enjoyed him in the film overall, the human characters were nothing more than to help Walter get to the main plot. While they had their fair share of time, the film didn't completely focus on them (which is the major problem with every kid friendly movie reboot, so I'm starting to think it was done tongue in cheek). Even then, they weren't really defined, as it would have distracted from the rest of the film.... which most fans, especially ones that really liked the movie, felt had too much screen time.

    But the thing that baffles me completely is that they're essentially condemning the film for being a sequel and doing it's own thing. Like they're completely ignorant of how Muppet films work. The Muppets never made the same film twice (intentionally). The Muppets was emotional because it needed to be. This film doesn't seem as emotional because it doesn't need to be. GMC was a lot less emotional than TMM, and it worked for the film. Not to mention the fact that the reviews aren't calling this a bad movie, they're basically treating it like a mild disappointment... which is somehow worse than a bad movie. Not only are the reviews absolutely clueless, but they're far more negative than they should be.
     
  5. dwayne1115

    dwayne1115 Well-Known Member

    I'm not so worried about these reviews. I will be more worried about how well the movie does a week from now when it is released. I'm hoping that it grosses more then The Muppets and that we can finally get the last two seasons of the Muppet Show on DVD, and the Muppets back on there own TV show.
     
    ploobis, ElizaSchuyler and DrDientes like this.
  6. minor muppetz

    minor muppetz Well-Known Member

    ploobis and Muppet fan 123 like this.
  7. heralde

    heralde Well-Known Member

    Actually this reminds me of a surprise I got the other day. I asked a friend (life long Muppet fan) if she wanted to see MMW. And the first thing she said was she wasn't happy Jason Segal was gone, since it was because of him the Muppets had such a big comeback in the first place. I totally get that, but I had no idea how well received Segal's presence really was. It can as quite a shock to me.

    Frankly, it tells me that perhaps The Muppets (2011) did spend a little too much time on him and Amy Adams. I said from the beginning that film needed more funny and less Gary (& Mary).

    As for the Telegraph review, yes I know I haven't seen the movie yet, but I will definitely agree with this:

    It's not the Muppets' fault, but the caliber of celebrity has severely dismissed in the past few decades, lol. Hopefully when I finally do see the film, the Muppets can rise above that. :)
     
  8. MrBloogarFoobly

    MrBloogarFoobly Well-Known Member

    I found it weird, too. I remember a lot of reviewers complaining how underdeveloped Gary and Mary were.
     
  9. heralde

    heralde Well-Known Member

    Frankly back then I remember thinking they were in the film too much, lol.
     
    ploobis likes this.
  10. LouisTheOtter

    LouisTheOtter Well-Known Member


    Quite frankly, one of the reasons I'm looking forward to MMW is the human cast that was chosen. Apart from the fact that they're all unabashed Muppet fans, I've loved Ty Burrell's work on Modern Family (he's one of the few people on that show that consistently gets me laughing out loud) and Tina Fey has entertained me in pretty much anything I've ever seen her in.

    As for Ricky Gervais, I'm not a fan but I expect him to take a lot of abuse from Constantine, so he'll keep the John Cleese-Jack Black "a celebrity is not a people" continuity going for me. ;)

    Not worried by a few early negative reviews (haven't even read most of them as I'm determined to keep the next week spoiler-free), especially those written by people who don't get that this film is actually separate from the last one and that the Muppets have never needed to carry over non-Muppet performers from their various productions to make them work.
     
  11. heralde

    heralde Well-Known Member

    OK you guys motivated me to do some quick research. I checked out People Magazine's 1981 review of The Great Muppet Caper. Interesting, no?

    I also thought this was amusing. Charles Grodin was quoted by the NYTimes in 1981 regarding Caper:

    What I love about both these quotes is it shows how little has really changed. We always complain about how movies talk down to kids. And guess what? People complained back then too, lol. And of course the worry that lightweight movies overshadow drama has never gone away. All in all, things don't change as much as we like to think. :)
     
  12. Drtooth

    Drtooth Well-Known Member

    There's a difference. Grodin can give a genuinely hammy performance, while Gervais in every role he ever had, mind you, drones in a slimy insincere sincerity. That's apples to oranges, especially since there's a level of extreme joy and excitement from Gervais for living his dream of working with them.

    Above all, Grodin did a great job in the movie, but come on. Piggy and Kermit are the ones we remember more.

    These reviews are really clueless, if you ask me.
     
  13. LouisTheOtter

    LouisTheOtter Well-Known Member

  14. heralde

    heralde Well-Known Member

    After hearing all this fuss about Segal, I'm not so sure, lol.
     
  15. Drtooth

    Drtooth Well-Known Member

    There's probably a thin number of those who go to Muppet Movies to see the human actors. Most of us fans aren't them. The human actors are there to interact with the Muppet characters (why I hate MWO so much, they picked a human that couldn't act period, throwing the entire thing off). The fact that 2 of the reviewers are completely out of it, as to pan the movie for them not being in it is the height of ridiculousness. Jason was the main reason TM even got made, even taking that out of the equation, Mary and Gary's part of the story are over.

    I guess these guys were expecting a mission pack sequel?
     
  16. Muppet fan 123

    Muppet fan 123 Well-Known Member

    This is actually one of the reasons I was concerned about this movie being a "sequel" and then going and doing it's own thing. If it's a sequel, people will ask "hey, where's Gary and Mary" and complain that it doesn't really follow the last story, and if you look at it, no family films EVER follow the story of the last movie. The Muppets probably did a great job in living up to the last film.

    How could people be negative to the Muppets? Who are these cold-blooded, vicious, sour people? Have you no shame?
     
    Dominicboo1 likes this.
  17. heralde

    heralde Well-Known Member

    They're critics. If they loved every movie they reviewed, no one would take them seriously, hehe.
     
    ploobis and charlietheowl like this.
  18. Pinkflower7783

    Pinkflower7783 Well-Known Member

    Man I was at the Disney store today and some dude said he didn't like the Muppets I was so close to pulling out a Piggy karate chop!
     
    Muppet fan 123 likes this.
  19. JimAndFrank

    JimAndFrank Well-Known Member

    You should have!!

    Hiiiii-Yah! Take that you unimaginative weirdo!

    .....but then again, everybody's entitled to their own opinion.

    Still would have been funny though!
     
  20. Pinkflower7783

    Pinkflower7783 Well-Known Member

    They are but still that's one opinion that's unacceptable to a muppet fan. :p
     


Share This Page