Three Days of Sequels, Part 3: Rio 2

Oh yes, I'm really going to do this. I'm going to talk about a picture which is unabashedly a family film - a children's film. I saw the 2011 picture Rio on a flight where it was the in-flight entertainment (ie, no channel selection). I was surprised to find the picture wasn't that bad, so three years later I gave Rio 2 a shot. Before I get into it, let's look at some numbers, okay chief?

Rio's Budget: $90 million; Rotten Tomato Rating: 72%; Domestic Box Office: $143,619,809

Rio 2's Budget: $103 million; Rotten Tomato Rating: 47%; Domestic Box Office: $131,536,019

These are interesting figures; on the one hand, Rio 2 didn't cost much more to make nor earn much less than Rio - but boy, the differences in the critical response suggests something went awry.

The first film concerned Blu, a blue macaw whose species is endangered. Raised in Minnesota by his owner Linda, Blu is thoroughly domesticated and mimics humans. When Brazilian ornithologist Tulio learns of Blu, he brings bird and owner to Rio de Janeiro so Blu can mate with Jewel to help preserve their species. However, Blu and Jewel are pursued by rare bird smugglers and matters are complicated by Blu's inability to fly, his unfamiliarity with Rio and reliance on humanoid thinking. By the end of the film, Blu and Jewel have fallen in love, begun a family and moved into the wild. The story's over then, right?

The makers of the sequel (including returning director Carlos Saldanha) essentially tell the same story again only with less flair. The five writers (FIVE?) can think of nothing more to do with the characters they've created than run them through the most obvious scenarios. Now that Blu & Jewel are together, they introduce a rival for Jewel's affections so Blu can act jealous (though this rivalry exists primarily in Blu's head - Jewel doesn't have agency in this picture). Now that Blu is able to fly, instead his human-like habits are played up so that he ventures into the Amazon with a fanny pack full of human devices. Blu is so human-like and awkward amongst birds that if anyone who hadn't seen the original came to the conclusion Blu must be a human who was turned into a bird, I would understand their confusion.

There is a minor change to the cast as Blu & Jewel now have three children; their respective stock character types are: The Smart One; The Cynical One; and The Token Boy. Blu's friends Rafael, Nico & Pedro are shoehorned into the story primarily to remind viewers they exist but serve little usefulness to the story. The previous film's villain Nigel also returns in a subplot, now flanked by two lackeys: Gabi, a poisonous frog who is in love with Nigel (okay?) and Charlie, a silent anteater. The humans Linda & Tulio also return but in a diminished capacity; although they're the characters who first stumble upon the villains of the picture (an evil logging company) they do little more than cameo in the film.

When I think back on some of the pictures I grew up on (ie, the Dark Crystal or the Black Hole) I get the impression filmmakers of children's pictures had only a rough idea of how to approach younger audiences. The makers of Rio 2, by contrast, are working within a factory-assembled formula. It's not going to hurt kids - it will probably amuse them - but it's lacking in ambition. Do I expect too much from a film whose cast of characters includes "rapping sloth?"

In the film's climactic showdown, our outsider hero has found it difficult to obtain acceptance from his mate's father and their people. However, the outsider proves an adept leader as he guides his fellow blue people in a successful battle against the evil humans whose machines have been decimating their rainforest home and by doing so, the outsider is fully embraced by the others. Wait, that sounds familiar. What film am I thinking of? Shoot.

Unlike the previous two entries on this blog, Rio 2 doesn't indulge in xenophobia, going so far as to include a (very) minute amount of Portuguese (minute enough that I understood it all) and showcasing Brazil in such a way that both films have probably left some kids wishing to visit the country. Compared against Muppets Most Wanted's message of "Europeans are lame," that's not too bad.

Thank you for indulging me as I sift through my thoughts on these - hey, wait a minute, I got it! I know what film I was thinking of! Dances With Wolves, right?

Three Days of Sequels, Part 2: 300: Rise of an Empire

In 2007, director Zack Snyder gave us 300 and caused a minor sensation; earlier this year, Noam Murro ushered in 300: Rise of an Empire and... you probably didn't notice.

300's Budget: $65 million; Rotten Tomato Rating: 60%; Domestic Box Office: $210,614,939

300: Rise of an Empire's Budget: $110 million; Rotten Tomato Rating: 42%; Domestic Box Office: $106,580,051

I'm not sure if before now I've paused to consider why I like 300. Perhaps it's a guilty pleasure? All I'm certain of is that I quite enjoyed myself in the theater and on subsequent viewings of the film. Yes, I've heard the criticisms about the picture - it's sexist, it's homophobic, it's xenophobic - but as a straight forward action film, I liked it; perhaps there's something in author Frank Miller's worshipping of men of clarity? I'm not particularly interested in Miller's post-80s output with the exception of 300, so I certainly had an interest in another story from that milieu.

Of course, right out of the (hot) gate, 300: Rise of an Empire is problematic as a sequel. It claims to be based on Frank Miller's graphic novel Xerxes, even though said novel does not exist (Miller released a preview in 2011). Then there's the question of titling the film 300 when - although footage of the 300 Spartans from the previous film is recycled - this is not a story of the 300 Spartans. It's not a story of Xerxes either; he returns and his origins are recounted, but then he takes a backseat to the sequel's villain, Artemisia, almost as though the filmmakers were hoping to save a final confrontation with Xerxes for a third "300" movie. Other characters from 300 recur, including the Persian messenger, which probably excited his fan.

What is this film? It's no longer the story of the 300 Spartans resisting Xerxes' army. It's no longer a showcase for Zack Snyder's style - he's only an executive producer in this picture. It's not an adaptation of a Frank Miller comic book. Some will be glad that this film jettisons the fantasy elements of its predecessor (ie, the giants). The sexism, homophobia & xenophobia isn't as potent either, which might be a reaction to the first film's criticism. But what is this movie?

If you have the patience to sit through it, you'll discover this is a film about Themistocles leading the Athenian forces into naval battles against the Persian fleet commanded by Artemisia. Themistocles' followers are largely indistinguishable, other than a father-son relationship (much as the previous films' Spartans were indistinguishable other than the pair who were father & son). And yet, Themistocles is not the central figure as Leonidas was in the previous film - Xerxes & Artemisia each seize control of the narrative early on until Themistocles finally elbows his way to the forefront.

Considering how long ago 300 came out, you might wonder why, if there were ever going to be a sequel, it took this long to prepare it. I wonder if they originally hoped Miller would finish writing his sequel first - it's a pity they ultimately beat him the punch as I have to imagine Xerxes would do more to promote 300: Rise of an Empire than vice-versa. I mean, this film sequel made me want to spend less time in Miller's version of the Greco-Persian Wars, not more.

Yet, why should that be? What, besides time, the cast and the director were lost between the two pictures? I suppose part of it is 300's sense of finality - that the 300 Spartans die at the end of the picture, but not before achieving some kind of victory against their enemies. 300: Rise of an Empire is a more traditional heroes-beat-the-bad-guys picture. This time the good guys seem even nobler (none of that "master race" stuff the Spartans spouted in the previous film) and the bad guys are possibly even more evil (they use suicide bombers because that's a popular trope when dealing with people from the Middle East).

Heaven help me, I think I enjoyed 300 especially because it was uncouth and politically incorrect. It was also a trailblazer, a picture which looked like nothing I'd seen before. Noam Murro, however, was hamstrung by the need to fashion a "franchise" picture that looked like a different director's style. It ultimately offers little more than a riff on someone else's picture - it has no perspective or message of its own. The picture even lacks a proper conclusion! It exists to perpetuate 300 as a licensed trademark, as though the graphic novel & DVD weren't already doing the job!

For all that, I wouldn't call 300: Rise of an Empire a bad film - it's more a waste of time than anything.

Tomorrow: Rio 2.

Three Days of Sequels, Part 1: Muppets Most Wanted

During my most recent international travels I made use of the in-flight entertainment to watch (amongst others) three films which were sequels to earlier works. The ways in which these films played off their earlier brethren happened to get me thinking; over the next three days, I'll try to sort out my thoughts here on the blog.

First, Muppets Most Wanted, a sequel to director James Bobin's 2011 picture the Muppets.

The Muppets' Budget: $45 million; Rotten Tomato Rating: 96%; Domestic Box Office: $88,631,237

Muppets Most Wanted's Budget: $50 million; Rotten Tomato Rating: 79%; Domestic Box Office: $51,183,113

Three things all three sequels I'm examining have in common (besides a 2014 release) are:

1. They reported higher costs than their predecessor
2. Their reviews were less positive
3. Their domestic box office totals went down

Considering these facts, one wonders why Hollywood bothers with sequels - they cost more, take in less and are generally less-beloved. I imagine there must be someone who does the math on how much more they can afford to spend versus how much less they think they'll obtain.

I think the Muppets are okay, but it would be a stretch to call me a fan; I tuned into 2011's the Muppets not out of nostalgia, but because the filmmakers had successfully marketed it as a picture which was supposedly "true" to the spirit of earlier Muppet pictures, while at the same time "hip" to modern audiences. It was a family-friendly picture that even a single guy like me could enjoy; it essentially lived up to the hype.

I feel Muppets Most Wanted skews closer to family audiences than singles. While the previous picture's plot (save the Muppet theater) was nothing more than a hook to bring the characters together and hang jokes from, the sequel's plot (the Muppets tour Europe) asserts a lot of control over the film. The humour is fairly juvenile: I'm not sure how I feel about the Muppets making jokes about bodily functions (like, isn't that Dreamworks' turf?) and someone thought Ricky Gervais dressed as a lemur was funny - I hope I never have to sit next to that person on a plane.

Muppets Most Wanted has two great things going for it: one is Tina Fey's campy Russian commandant character who forces a mistakenly-imprisoned Kermit to produce a prison talent show for her; the other is Danny Trejo, playing himself as one of Kermit's fellow prisoners (kids love Danny Trejo!).

I was a little dismayed at a subplot involving Sam the Eagle as a CIA agent working alongside an Interpol agent (played by Ty Burrell) while investigating the crime plot which the Muppets have become embroiled in. Many of the gags in Sam's subplots involve typical stereotypes about Europeans (they drive tiny cars and drink tiny coffees! they go about matters at a relaxed pace, finding time for vacations!) which offer absolutely no twists. The gags feel a little xenophobic and won't do the American kids watching them any favours in how they relate to Europeans.

Although the European gags were written by someone in a coma, elsewhere the film leans heavily on the fourth wall, notably in an opening song where the characters confess sequels aren't as good as their predecessors. There's also a gag about how the character Walter (introduced in the previous film) takes away screen time from other popular Muppets (which only serves to point out how useless Walter is as a recurring character, given that his character arc ended in the previous film and his personality doesn't stand out against the others). The film was made by people who were eager both to entertain and to hold on to the reflected glory from their previous outing. They succeeded in crafting an okay film, however, - unlike the previous picture - failed to fashion something worth talking up to your friends.

Tomorrow: 300: Rise of an Empire.