Movie Review: The Lego Movie

It's always awkward when you show up late to a party. The Lego movie opened last week to widespread acclaim. Rotten Tomatoes has it at 96% fresh, and it's already blown past the $100 million dollar mark (and that doesn't include the toy sales). It's performing at summer-movie levels in February, which just demonstrates what most of us already knew: this "summer blockbuster" thing is nothing but a self-fulfilling prophesy. Movies have been performing at blockbuster-levels during the summer because all the blockbusters have been getting released during the summer. People will go see a good movie whenever it's released, and - in some circumstances - there are more opportunities outside the crowded summer and Christmas seasons than within.

There are a lot of interesting aspects of The Lego Movie worth considering. It represents the first official big-screen appearance of Wonder Woman, even if her role was only slightly more than a cameo. It's also the first time Batman or Superman have appeared in a motion picture in supporting roles.

By now, you've probably already seen The Lego Movie, and even if you haven't, you've certainly heard it's worth watching. I'm not going to contradict that: it's more or less indisputable. This is, without a doubt, the best toy commercial since the 1986 animated Transformers movie. It might even be better.

It's fun, it's entertaining, it's sweet, it's emotional....

But, you know something? It's actually a little overrated.

Not a lot. All that stuff I just said is true: it's a great movie. The directors, Miller and Lord, have once again established themselves as the best in the business when it comes to transforming an incredibly dumb premise into a heartfelt and intelligent movie. But the end of the movie doesn't quite deliver the punch it should have.

Okay. I'm going to try to keep this as close to spoiler-free as I can by being vague and non-specific. But if you're good at putting pieces together and you haven't seen The Lego Movie yet, this might be a good place to stop reading. Just in case.

Let's talk about how Will Ferrell's character was portrayed at the end of the movie. Ultimately, the entire film was built around this scene - the emotional core of the film came down to this moment. And it wasn't bad. Ferrell did a fine job, and the scene worked all right. But given its importance, they should have made it perfect. As it was, there was something artificial, something overly animated about how his dialogue was being written.

Like I said, it still worked. But imagine how much more powerful the sequence would have been if we'd believed in his character. I don't think there was anything wrong with his point-of-view, just in how he was presenting it. He explained his perspective the way a cartoon villain does, when a more nuanced, realistic approach would have been better.

I don't think it's a trivial issue, either. I think it would have elevated this movie, which was clearly already great, into the running for best-of-year. It would have given it an emotional resonance few films achieve. And all it would have taken was a few minor adjustments to the dialogue.

Oh, well. I guess we'll have to settle for a great movie.

Movie Review: Her

Her is a neat science fiction film that would appeal to fans of the novel, Facsimile, if Facsimile had any fans for it to appeal to. Don't get me wrong: they're very different stories and even different settings, but they're in the exact same sub-genre. I don't know of anything else that is.

Sorry - I'm getting off track.

At any rate, like all of Spike Jonze's movies, there's a lot more going on in Her than the premise implies. What you've likely heard about Her is that it's a love story about man and a conscious computer system. And, on the surface, it is. In fact, if you're not a fan of science fiction, it'd be really easy to watch Her and think that's all that it was about. The movie follows its lead around constantly. Its focus rarely wanders at all. And, to him, this is a simple love story.

But there's so much more here. While I liked the quirky love story, I was much more interested in what was happening off screen. There are huge things happening in this film - massive, world-altering events - that the movie implies or mentions in passing. The main character doesn't grasp the ramifications, and it would easy for the audience to miss them, as well.

From an SF perspective, the movie handled these really well. Where it faltered was in the smaller details. For instance, rather than demonstrate an emergent consciousness, the OS came out of the box with a complex inner life. Sure, she had to learn to love and want and all that, but she started with a sense of self, which suggests it was something she was programmed with. While this didn't devolve into a Skynet situation, one wonders why the programmers took that chance.

There were several details like this. Small factors that raised unanswered questions. For example, if computer consciousness is this advanced, why haven't jobs like the one held by the main character been automated?

It'd be easy to give these issues too much weight, though. The larger ideas and themes work extremely well. Like Jonze's earlier movies, Her leaves you with a lot to mull over and piece together. I enjoyed it quite a bit.

2013 Movies Revisited

I don't see enough movies - at least not new movies - to warrant a top 10 list. Instead, I rank every movie I saw that was released in theaters this year from the worst to the best. Well, really I'm ranking them from movies I liked the least to movies I liked the most... but that's a pain to type out.

In total, I saw sixteen new movies this year. I'd only describe one of these as bad: the rest were at least decent. The catch is that none of these movies floored me like Avengers or the first Hobbit did last year. Overall, I thought 2013 delivered a large number of good movies, but nothing I saw struck me as great.

Granted, my tastes generally keep me away from most anything that has a shot at Best Picture. Plus, I still haven't seen Catching Fire, which is supposed to be awesome.

Here's the list:


16. G.I. Joe: Retaliation
The only thing I expected from this - THE ONLY THING - was that it would be better than the last G.I. Joe movie. Every review I read promised it was, and the trailers made it seem like a slam dunk. So imagine my disappointment when I finally sat down to see it and found it less engaging, less funny, and less exciting than the pitifully mediocre Rise of Cobra.

This movie was a let down on almost every level: I honestly don't know why so many people gave it a pass. The one thing they did right was assemble an appropriate cast. Not that they made use of them.

The first one was bad, but at least it had a few enjoyable scenes.


15. Warm Bodies
I enjoyed Warm Bodies quite a bit, though it's easy to imagine how it could have been improved. The inclusion of the "Boneys" felt like a cheat, and the ending was uninspired. I mean, come on, at least have Julie turn into a zombie and have R help her regain her humanity like she helped him. Sure, it would have been corny, but at least it would have been felt satisfying.

Regardless, the movie offered a great twist on the zombie genre. It was funny, sweet, and - most importantly - as disturbing as a romantic comedy about brain-eating zombies should be.


14. Monsters University
Monsters University wasn't bad. In fact, it was pretty good. It's about on par with Pixar's other release this year, the Toy Story Halloween special. But that's the issue: this wasn't remotely good enough to justify a theatrical release. At one time, Pixar was the company that made a direct-to-video sequel so good, it was released theatrically. Now, they're making theatrical releases that should go right to DVD. They're still producing good movies, but there's no question they've fallen a long way.


13. Thor: The Dark World

I seem to be in the minority here, but I found the Thor sequel a little disappointing. The Loki sequences were a lot of fun, as was the end fight, but I think this is one of the Cinematic Marvel Universe's weakest movies.

12. Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters
Probably the year's most under-rated film, Hansel and Gretel is a good reminder there are some movies out there that critics still can't understand. Yes, the swearing was anachronistic - that was intentional, just like all the anachronisms. It was a steam-punk hard-boiled noir comedy/adventure story set in the middle-ages, and it pulled those genres together in an extremely interesting manner.

In addition, the movie stands out as having an almost unheard female-leaning cast. Not that it scores perfectly on issues of gender: they fridged a character who should have made it out alive and strangely focused on Hansel for the final battle (shouldn't that have been Gretel's fight?). Still, Gretel was a great character and a good example of Hollywood starting to come around on female action heroes.

The movie was fun - a hell of a lot of fun, in fact - and I'm excited they're making a sequel.


11. The World's End
In case you're confused, this is the one about a group friends on a pub crawl who uncover an alien invasion, not "This is the End," which is about a bunch of actors hanging out during the Apocalypse (I haven't seen that yet, by the way).

This was good, but it was also a victim of sky-high expectations. The first Frost-Pegg movie was Shaun of the Dead, which remains one of the best comedies of the past twenty years. Both this and Hot Fuzz were good movies, but neither managed to match Shaun.


10. Star Trek Into Darkness
For the first few days after Star Trek Into Darkness came out, everyone loved it. Then a funny thing happened: someone pointed out that the movie didn't utilize its female leads to their potential. Pretty soon, it was being decried everywhere I looked.

I want to take a minute to defend this, though. While it's true the movie underutilized Uhura, it wasn't really about her anyway. This was about Kirk and Spock. And I think that's all right.

Don't get me wrong: there's something seriously wrong with Hollywood right now. The fact studios refuse to green-light more than a handful of movies with female protagonists is idiotic and sexist. But that doesn't mean that every movie made needs to focus on a female lead to be good. In other words, the real problem is with the industry, not this movie.

Yes, the underwear scene was dumb. A lot of scenes in this movie were dumb, in fact - same with its predecessor. But, on the whole, Into Darkness was dumb and fun, which is why it's as high on this list as it is.


9. Riddick
I really enjoyed this movie, though I can't defend the bizarre direction they took with Katee Sackhoff's character in the last couple minutes. Overall, the movie is a great Conan in space story. The first third is particularly awesome. I just wish they'd been able to make a more faithful sequel to The Chronicles of Riddick, but I've made my opinions on that clear already.


8. Frozen
Frozen is an intelligent film, sometimes to its detriment. It feels extremely intentional, as if every plot beat was debated by a committee of scholars before they arrived at the story line that best outlined their thesis: that true love is that of family and not of flights of fancy.

Its saving grace is its characters: all five of the leads are great, and the character we all expected to despise turned out being the movie's best. The movie didn't fill me with wonder, but it certainly entertained me for an hour and a half.

Plus, it's about time Disney made a princess movie about sisters.


7. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
The Desolation of Smaug is a weird one. On one hand, I was extremely disappointed with it. I don't mind the liberties taken with the plot, but it bothers me that this doesn't feel like Tolkien anymore. The intricate character moments and emotional arcs that have carried us through all the previous Middle Earth movies were missing or felt forced. The love triangle was unnecessary and lacking subtlety. I hope I turn around and eat those words after part three, but for the time being, I thought it was ridiculous.

All that said, as a fantasy-action film, it was still a lot of fun. If you divorce it from its source material, it still buries 90% of fantasy out there. I just wish it felt like part of The Hobbit.


6. Gravity
Gravity is an experience film. Is it gimmicky? Sure, but when the gimmick is that the whole thing is in space and the flow of zero-G is realistically portrayed, it's not something to complain about.


5. Pacific Rim
Depending on who you ask, Pacific Rim is either an example of Hollywood incorporating women at its best, it's worst, or both. There are a few reasons for this discrepancy. The movie deserves credit for having one of its main characters be a woman with extensive combat skill who's not a love interest. But there's a lot of debate over whether she comes off as competent or timid. Then there's the fact that she's almost alone: only one of the movie's minor characters is female.

In the movie's defense, you could pretty much replace every human character with a hamster without seriously impacting the film. Ultimately, this is robots punching monsters and monsters biting robots. The rest is there to fill time.

And the fight scenes are spectacular. Easily the most memorable visual experience of the summer.

But maybe - just maybe - the script could have used some more work. And maybe it's time for Guillermo del Toro to reflect on the fact that he keeps putting women into his movies who are strong... but eerily similar. How many adult female protagonists have been shy, repressed women with a deep inner strength? I hope he continues incorporating female characters in major roles, but maybe it's time he got over that girl he liked in high school.


4. Iron Man 3
I love almost everything about Iron Man 3, but I just like the movie. It's a lot of fun, but - at least for me - it doesn't really come together. I feel like the plot points are there to pull us from bit to bit, but none of it ever adds up to a complete story.

To be fair, the same could be said about Iron Man 2, which is my second favorite Marvel movie after The Avengers. The difference is that IM2 was filled with comic book nonsense, while IM3 contained 80's action movie tropes. Personally, I prefer comics, so I love part 2 and just like part 3.


3. Man of Steel
It's not that I disagree with the criticism being leveled against Man of Steel - that Jonathan Kent's death was idiotic, that the level of destruction was a tad excessive, and that more time should have been devoted to Superman minimizing the loss of life - I just don't think these flaws were enough to ruin the movie.

This was a great Superman movie; in many ways, the one we've been waiting for. We finally got to see Kal-El in a real fight: that's never been accomplished in live-action before. Yeah, I miss the red shorts, but the core character felt right. That scene in the church when he's discussing his dilemma with a priest was perfect. And Lois... they got Lois right in a way I don't think anyone has before. They sacrificed a massive piece of the mythology, but wound up with something far, far better: a version of Lois Lane who's as capable as she should be.

I honestly have no idea whether the sequel will be the most amazing thing we've ever seen, a pile of garbage, or something else entirely, but I enjoyed this one quite a bit.


2. Much Ado About Nothing
Yeah, it's this high. Based on the reviews, I expected to like Joss Whedon's Much Ado. But, when I finally got around to seeing it, I discovered I really, really liked it.

The movie is a hell of a lot of fun. Just about everything about the production is inspired, but the casting is especially fantastic. I loved the take on the characters and setting, and the jazz version of Sigh No More was the best take on that song I've ever heard.

This almost made it to the #1 spot, but then something unexpected happened....


1. The Wolverine
I loved The Wolverine when I saw it, but there's no denying there were serious issues. The issues were things I felt like we had to accept: you can't make an R-rated superhero movie. That's simply a reality of the business. It's impossible to show Wolverine impaling enemy after enemy: you just can't do it.

Here's something you might not know: they managed to make that movie anyway. Turns out, you can make a violent, gritty Wolverine movie. You just can't release it in theaters.

You can, however, release it on DVD. The version of this movie that tops my list for 2013 isn't the one I reviewed last summer. The theatrical cut was already good, but the extended version exceeds it on every level. The action is greatly improved, but so are the characters. Mariko is given a lot more to do here, and Yukio is even more kick-ass.

The extended edition is as good - if not better than - any of the X-Men movies before it, including X-Men 2. I highly recommend you track it down.

Movie Review: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

I loved An Unexpected Journey and have spent a good portion of the past year arguing with people who thought it was too long. Ultimately though, most of the scenes in the first Hobbit installment people whined about were straight out of the book. There's not a minute of the movie's forty minutes in the Shire I'd cut. Hell, I even love the extended edition. Sure, the "Pale Orc" felt a bit silly, but that felt like a minor price to pay for a great interpretation of the first part of the book.

So then. All that makes this rather uncomfortable.

I just got back from seeing Desolation of Smaug, and... uh.... Why the hell didn't Peter Jackson just do these as two movies?

Let me back up a bit. I actually like Desolation of Smaug. Or, more accurately, I enjoyed watching it and expect to enjoy watching it at least once more before it leaves theaters. Then I'll buy the extended edition and enjoy that. It's a fun movie, full of zany action sequences, incredible monsters, and beautiful settings. But as a narrative story... it ignores or rewrites the book. What we get instead is, well... kind of dumb. Cool, but dumb.

The movie touches on moments from the book and even has some good twists on a few. Beorn was neat, and I really liked Jackson's twist on the Mirkwood spiders. Unfortunately, he rushed through these, which was an odd decision for a 2 hour, 40 minute film based on a third of a book.

But he had plenty of time for the adventures of Legolas and Tauriel. I don't mind so much that these characters weren't in the book (or in Tauriel's case, any book): I just don't like what he did with them. Legolas would have been amazing in an extended cameo, but his presence here felt absurdly out of place. Hell, it didn't even feel like Lord of the Rings: his scenes were more reminiscent of Pirates of the Caribbean.

I liked Tauriel when she was introduced, but when they revealed where they were going with her... ugh. I get what they were going for, but I wish they hadn't. I'll put it like this: when they reveal a detail so cheesy you cringe, rest assured they haven't even touched on the cheesy part yet.

The movie's last act focused on Smaug, and it was awesome. But it involved a major rewrite in the same scale as Frodo, Sam, and Gollum being dragged to Osgiliath. It gave us some great adventure moments but added nothing to the story.

I said this movie was fun, and I mean it. I compared it to Pirates, and that's not a bad thing - the scenes where Legolas is jumping around make for a rollicking, swashbuckling adventure, and that's a hell of a good time. But as an adaptation of Tolkien, this is way off mark.

So, I'll ask again, why do three movies? If they'd cut the Pale Orc entirely, you could have left in everything else in the first movie - songs included - and still had time to get through almost everything in this movie that had some basis in Tolkien. Maybe you'd cut when they reached Laketown, but I'm betting they could have filled in the rest with the time they'd have saved cutting him from part three. 

Is it worth seeing? Sure. Just be aware it's by far the weakest of the five movies we've gotten so far. Let's hope the last installment is better.

Movie Review: Thor: The Dark World

Thor: The Dark World was an entertaining movie. I'm just not certain it really deserves to be called a good one. It was far more like its predecessor than the trailers would have you believe: this is still more comedy than action, though the producers were far more liberal in the special effects budget this time so the fight scenes were bigger.

I was mostly bored for the first third of the movie. The jokes didn't really win me over, and I didn't find the various plot threads all that engaging. A number of characters from the first movie showed up, but their roles felt more like cameos. Once again, Sif felt underutilized - I think she had a bigger part in the first installment. Other characters are given brief sequences, some of which seem to set up subplots that are immediately dropped. Is there a longer cut of this movie out there that delivers on some of this? Jane Foster is a major character, but she essentially comes off as comic relief.

I was about ready to write this one off when a funny thing happened. About forty minutes in, Loki stole the whole damn movie.

I've never been anywhere near as big a fan of the character as some people. I enjoyed Hiddleston's Loki in the first movie and in Avengers, but I certainly didn't worship him the way many of his fans do. But here, once he becomes a major character, he's really able to cut loose and enjoy the role. And in doing so, he makes the movie fun. As soon as he's unleashed, the movie's much stronger. There are some hilarious exchanges and ridiculous adventures.

The finale revolves around a strangely constructed fight sequence that works extremely well, despite fundamentally being slapstick. It's kind of fascinating to see: it's played for laughs, but the scope is large enough to be awesome.

This movie is, if nothing else, a lot of fun, even if it takes some time to get up to pace. There's a lot that needs to be overlooked - and it's essential you go into this understanding it's a comedy - but it's an enjoyable experience.

This is worth seeing for Loki, but - in my opinion at least - it's Marvel's second worst after Captain America.

Give Us Your Worst, Part 23: Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer

In 1994, a Fantastic Four movie is made that's so bad, Fox decides not to release it. Ten years later, they produce and release a movie that's actually worse. Three years after that, they make a sequel, introducing the Silver Surfer and a cloud that is not, under any reasonable definition, Galactus. It was, in fact, the worst of the three.

Two years from now, Fox is planning on releasing a relaunch. If the present trajectory continues, mathematics dictates the movie will be so abysmal, its presence onscreen will create a black hole of awfulness that could swallow the Earth.

Rise of the Silver Surfer was already damn near that bad, and they'll have had an additional eight years to screw the characters up further.

You may be wondering what we should have expected from the people who made the previous installment. I'd respond by saying, at bare minimum, we should have been able to expect that the sequel wouldn't be worse than part one. History has clearly proven me wrong.

I just tried typing out a synopsis of this movie, but the result was so awful, I deleted it. Look, I just... here's a paragraph from Wikipedia that explains this better than I ever could:

After an animal has digested eaten material, the remains of that material are expelled from its body as waste. Though it is lower in energy than the food it came from, feces may still contain a large amount of energy, often 50% of that of the original food. This means that of all food eaten, a significant amount of energy remains for the decomposers of ecosystems. Many organisms feed on feces, from bacteria to fungi to insects such as dung beetles, which can sense odors from long distances. Some may specialize in feces, while others may eat other foods as well. Feces serve not only as a basic food, but also a supplement to the usual diet of some animals. This is known as coprophagia, and occurs in various animal species such as young elephants eating their mother's feces to gain essential gut flora, or by other animals such as dogs, rabbits, and monkeys. 

I want to explain why this movie is as bad as it is, but I honestly don't even know where to start. Maybe Sue? Alba has a major role in this movie, very little of which has to do with her as a superhero. Instead, she's stressed about her wedding.

Think about every cliche they could possibly include. Guess what? You missed a few. Unfortunately, the writers did not: the first half of the movie is mostly a string of scenes that would feel trite in a 50's comedy.

Then, at the end, she inspires a male character to save the world.

But before you accuse this movie of sexism, rest assured it mistreats its male characters, as well. Reed and Ben are given next to nothing to do the entire movie, while Johnny gets all their powers at the end to fight it out with a galactic-powered Doom. And yet, when all's said and done, it almost feels like he was absent the whole movie.

The Surfer actually has a few sequences where he looks cool at the end, demonstrating the technology exists to bring him to the screen, but the not the talent. He's got maybe a half dozen lines the whole movie, none of which are remotely interesting.

Then there's Doctor Doom. Look, the character this guy's based on is easily one of the best villains ever created. Hell, you could argue he partially inspired Darth Vader. The fact they can't make him remotely interesting is astonishing.

This movie looks better than Origins: Wolverine or X-Men 3, but it's actually worse. For what it's worth, it's not as bad as the lowest tier, reserved for movies like Barb Wire and The Spirit, but it comes disturbingly close.

If you've avoided this so far, pat yourself on the back. Kudos. Most importantly, keep your distance, folks. This is an awful, awful movie.

Give Us Your Worst, Part 22: Fantastic Four

I had so much fun with the 1994 film, I decided it was time to revisit the 2004 streamlined remake (when I say "streamlined", I just mean they dropped the word "the", and when I say "remake", I'm just trying to insult Fox). Unlike its predecessor, this was released on the public, which tells us the studio was less humane than it had been a decade before.

Okay - maybe I'm exaggerating. In the scheme of things, this movie isn't actually that awful. There are a handful of amusing moments and gags that are occasionally funny. But this movie irritates me quite a bit, and a big part of that comes from just having seen the Corman version. Because that movie was bad - it was low budget, cheesy, and badly produced. But, for all its flaws, it managed to feel like a Fantastic Four movie. Not a good Fantastic Four, but at least authentic.

And the Fox version is just a generic superhero movie. Sure, it tries to be funny, which is a feature of the comics. And it leaves in a character trait here or there, but it doesn't come close to delivering the experience. The reason is pretty clear: they don't even try.

Fox obviously had the rights to these characters and wanted to repeat the success they'd had with X-Men and Sony had with Spider-Man. So they tried to make them modern, sexy. They tried to turn the FF into a team modern teens would relate to.

And that's not who the Fantastic Four are. None of these characters felt right, though The Thing and Human Torch came a lot closer than Mr. Fantastic, who was in turn a hell of a lot better realized than The Invisible Woman. God, they mangled her character, and even she came out better than Doctor Doom.

Any director who can't at least make Doctor Doom fun has no business working in film.

The script was as boring as the direction, which resulted in a movie lacking any real tension. Its attempts at fun were undermined by a self-serious tone. This is worse than a bad movie: it's an utter waste of time.