Entry 3: The Lego Movie

Note: My apologizes for not posting this review sooner. Lost track of the time there for a second. And trust me when I say that it's easier to explain why a movie is bad, then why it is good. With that said, I hope you enjoy this entry.

When I first saw the trailers for "The Lego Movie", I wasn't sure what to make of it. I remember playing with them when I was little, and enjoying them very much. But a movie about LEGO's? Sounds more like a full blown advertisement for the toy, rather than an actual movie. But upon repeated viewings of the trailer, I began to reconsider my initial opinion. Yes it looked silly, but the movie seemed to realize that and take advantage of its bizarre nature.

So I went to see the film with my mother. When we got there, we noticed the line for the movie, and right then and there I knew this was going to be worth it. The line was long and full of anticipating children.And thankfully, their anticipation was meet with wonderful results.

But before I go any further, let me explain the premise of the movie.

Emmett (voiced by Chris Patt) is an ordinary LEGO mini-figure, who is thrown into a crazy scenario when he is mistaken for a Master builder. He's brought to a group of other Master builder's, who are all in a quest to stop a tyrant know as Lord Business, who is determine to glue their entire LEGO world with super glue. It's up to Emmet and the other Master builder's to save their world and stop Lord Business from his evil plans.

So yes, the setup for this movie sounds extremely idiotic and unoriginal. In fact, this movie uses several cliches, or common plot elements that are found in many movies (kid movies especially). And yet in some surprising way, it works perfectly, and makes it all the more entertaining.

First off, the movie is self-aware of it's use of cliches and generic plot points, poking fun at not only itself, but other films that have used it before. In a sense, the movie is a satire and parody of movies, yet it maintains its own special creativity.

Anyone who has played with LEGO's, knows how much creativity, and patience it takes to build something with them. Anyone who has played with it, knows that what makes it such an interesting toy, is that the idea of it is so simple, yet complex at the same time. When you really think about it, it's just a bunch of blocks to build with. But with LEGO's, you don't just build one tower, but two towers, or four towers. It doesn't even have to be a tower. It could be a pirate ship,or a space ship. Why not a space ship like the ones in the movies? You can build the whole set of "Star Wars", and even have a little Dark Vader to rule the galaxy with.

The creators of this film took those elements and used it to enhance the creativity of this story. They create a universe revolved around this world, and even go as far as to explain that the LEGO universe has many portals to other lands. So at the beginning of the movie, when we are introduced to Emmett, he lives in a LEGO city that looks like New York. But later on we venture into worlds like the old west, or a city up in the clouds, etc. Even characters like Batman, and Superman help expand the universe, because with LEGO's, comic book characters or movie franchises also exist actually do exist. In fact, not only does it expand upon the universe, but it also makes fun references that audience of all ages can understand. The movie is filled with many jokes, most of them a success. There are the occasional eye-rolling gags that don't always work. Some are hits and others are misses. For the most part, anything that revolves the side characters(especially anything with Batman or the other superheroes) are wonderfully delivered and always hit a home-run.

Speaking of characters, the film has a huge cast, some more appealing than others, but none the less serve a purpose to the story. Emmett is a goodhearted fellow, who wants to be special, but occasionally acts like an ignorant full. He's the underdog, a common archetype that has been seen before. The movie is aware of this, and does tend to poke fun of his character many times. But there is a heart to him, a kindness that is somewhat enduring, that makes him likable. For me personally, I have no problems with these types of characters. Sure, he's not particularly interesting, but there is nothing about him that I can say is hateful. But I completely understand if there are people who do not care for him. He's the type of character that has been done to death, that I'm sure many are tired of seeing. But with that said, as a main protagonist, he works fine. Ordinary enough to be amazed by the bizarreness of his situations, cheerful enough that he does not come off being phony, and competent enough to that you're not be completely annoyed by his moments of stupidity.

The two main supporting characters, Wyldstyle(voiced by Elizabeth Banks) and Vitruvius(voice by Morgan Freeman) are also good characters. Wyldstlye is the female lead, and love-interest of the movie. Once again, she is an archetype that has been done several times, but thankfully, she is very likable and interesting. She's the tough, no-nonsense girl, but walks a fine line between being strong, and kindhearted. Plus, they writers took time to explain her motives and flesh her out as a believable character. Vitrusvius, to my surprise, was surprisingly very funny. With someone like Morgan Freeman playing the character, you would think that they might take this character a little too seriously, specially since his character is suppose to be the all knowing being. But he had many funny lines, was an enjoyable character, and despite his voice, it never felt distracting listening to him. Instead of hearing Freeman's voice, I heard Vitruvius voice instead, and that was refreshing.

The villain(voiced by Will Ferrell) was cleverly handled. He's threatening, but also played up for laughs. His diabolical plan for ruling the world is silly, but also menacing. And by the end of the film, we find out something about this character that makes him much more complex than he appears.

It is also important to state that two of the characters in this movie are voiced by Liam Neeson and Will Arnett. Neeson plays a cop, that has both a good and bad persona(good cop, bad cop), and Arnett is Batman. I think it's interesting to see both these same actors that were in "The Nut Job" be in another animated film right after. But unlike "The Nut Job", which I feel did not portray their talent very well, "The Lego Movie" actually gives them roles that show what they can do as voice actors. Neeson is both enduring and intimidating as the cop with a split personality. And Arnett is perfect as Batman, depicting him as a campy, yet still brooding persona, with a love for the color black. They do an excellent job with these characters, and in my opinion one of the movies highlights. 

And as far as the animation to this film goes, it is absolutely gorgeous. I was not sure whether the movie was 100% computer generated, or if it was combination of that and stop-motion. It truly looks like if every piece that you see is an actual LEGO piece. The characters move like toys, certain effects like smoke and water are designed like LEGO pieces, and each world is meant to look like a particular type of set that was build for this film. Every shot and every frame is filled with massive detail, and you can see the effort that the animators put into their work. I suppose my only complain with the animation could be that it's little too much to take in all at once. The movie does tend to move very quickly at some points, and it's during those scenes that we are shown a lot of imagery with grand detail. But since the camera is going so fast, it can be rather flashy, and somewhat exhausting. But that's mainly a nitpick, as the look of the movie is just too impressive to say that it is bad in anyway.

Unlike "The Nut Job", where I was less than hesitant to spill out the details of the plot, I feel like I would be committing a capital sin with this film. Without giving too much away, the movie contains a twist at the end that not only gives the cliches a reason for being, but also gives the movie a lot of heart. This is a film that should defiantly be seen on the big screen. And more importantly, this is film that should be enjoyed with the whole family. Although this is only the second animated movie of the year, it delivered fantastically, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were to be nominated as one of the best animated films of 2014.

In short, "The Lego Movie" is a beautifully animated, quick-witted film, with humorous characters, and a huge amount of creativity behind it. Before I give it my rating, I like to add that the creators of this film, Phil Lord and Chris Miller, were also the writers of the "Cloudy with a chance of Meatballs" series. I personally was never a fan of those movies. But I'm happy to say that they both did a tremendous job with "The Lego Movie", and I hope they continue to make more films like this one.I give this flick 8.5/10 bags of popcorn.

Thank you all once again. And until then, keep reading, keep writing. Bye.

Entry 2: Review of The Nut Job

Warning: For those of you who don't like spoilers, you might not want to read this review if you have not watched the movie. And when I mean "spoilers", I mean SPOILERS!! With that said, here we go.

"The Nut Job" is about a Squirrel named Surly, who is interested in finding food for himself. He is considered an outcast from the other animals in the park. One day after being banished and sent to live in the city, Surly finds a Nut store and plans a heist to take all the food. He is followed by Buddy, his only friend and a rat of few words, who decides to help him with the heist. Eventually, one squirrel from the park named Andie, finds out about Surly, and forces him to make a deal about sharing the nuts and help feed the rest of the woodland animals.

The rest of the movie shows the animals trying to steal the nuts, and humor consisting of nut innuendos, and fart jokes. You know, the kind of humor children love, right? Oh, and there is also a sub-plot that involves a bunch of robbers posing as owners of the Nut store, but are actually going to rob a back next door to it... Yeah...

What I just wrote is a basic synopsis of a surprisingly complicated kids movie. I tired to make as mush sense of it as possible, but I will explain a little more as we venture on. For those of you who do not know, this movie is actually based on a  2005 computer animated short by Peter Lepeniotis. It's a ten minuted short that follows a squirrel (also named Surly) who is try to steal a slice of pizza for himself. The animals of the park, including the Raccoons and pigeons act like the police as they try to make Surly surrender. The short is also brilliantly intertwined with an actual heist that is going on in a bank across the street from the park. For a ten minute short, it does a fine job at mixing both scenarios, and even punching out some clever laughs. I should also mention that the original short is more geared towards an older audience, which I think is one of the MANY reasons this movie does not work.

This is what most people would call a "bad" film. I say it's mediocre leering towards being bad, if that makes any sense at all. I don't hate this film like many critics seem to. But while I don't hate it, I still couldn't say that it's a good movie, or one children would enjoy. It's a mix bag of many decisions that ultimately did not work out.

First off is the tone of the movie. As I mention before, this movie was based on a short, and it's aware that it's a simple story. The story is composed of many gags that would appeal to the ages of 15 and up. This movie tried to expand the story, but decided to make children as the targeted audience. But that is impossible to do, since they decided to keep the same tone of the short, which is not the most kindest, nor sweetest for children under the age of eight.

The movie does replace the profanity and harsher dialogue of the movie, but that does not change that the movie is still rather mean spirited or sloppy in it's construction. The main character, Surly (played by Will Arnett), is very unlikable. Now, to be fair, not every main character has to be "likable", but they at least have to be interesting, or have something that make the audience gravitate towards them. But here.... Surly is selfish. That's it. He wants the nuts for himself and doesn't want to share them. There is nothing more complex to him than that. Everything else about him is just downright unappealing. He treats his only friend like dirt most of the time, and only thinks of himself. The movie doesn't do a very good job at showing any real growth in him. In movies where there is a character that has to grow and change, they need to have the opportunity to do so. Surly throughout the whole movie does not seem interested in changing his selfish outlook, and when the change does happen, it unnatural. The movie tries to make you believe it's sincere, but it comes off as a last minute decision, almost like they needed to make him a good guy now because the movie is almost over, and he needs to learn a lesson so everyone could like him.

 All the other characters are also either unlikable or uninteresting. There's Andie (voiced by Katherine Heigl) who is the female lead of the film. To this movies credit, she's not exactly a love-interest to the main character, but she has no real personality. She's a one-dimensional, do-gooder, who is the only one who seems to give Surly a second chance (I don't know why), despite his mistakes. There's Grayson (voiced by Brendon Fresher), the parks hero. I found this character to be extremely irritating. Essentially, he is suppose to be the one that everybody believes to be courageous, but is actually a coward. Nothing about him was funny, or enduring. The worst part about it, is that the movie makes you believe for a second that he might be gone for the rest of the viewing, but then shows up out of nowhere.

Characters like Raccoon (voiced by Liam Neeson) and Mole (voiced by Jeff Dunham) are one-dimensional characters as well, so I didn't care for them. Quiet a shame in fact, seeing as I like Liam Neeson, and his character would have been a very funny villain, had they decided do more with him, and give him better material. And the robbers, who are also in the movie, are not nearly as cleverly used  in this film as they where in the short. One of the highlights of the short was how they blended both the conflict of the real life robbers, with the animals. The film unfortunately looses focus of whats going with them, relying mostly on pathetic fart jokes and pointless humor as filler. 

The only characters I generally cared about and enjoyed were Buddy the Rat, and Precious the guard dog. Buddy is shown to be undeniably loyal to Surly throughout the film. He doesn't say anything at all, but his expressions speak for him. Yes, I'm aware that many have commented that he looks like Remy from "Ratatouille", but that's beside the point. He was actually kind, and even rather cute, and Surly constantly treated him horribly. I felt sympathy for him. And then there is Precious, the guard dog. Maybe it's because I love dogs, but this little Pug was the only character that could actually make me crack a genuine smile throughout this film. She was cute, had the best lines, was actually funny, and designed nicely.

Speaking of the design, the look of the film should be talked about. While the animation of this movie is not nearly as good  or as impressive like Pixar's, or DreamWorks, it still has some nice elements. Compare to the original short, the animation is far better. The animals look more like real animals, with the squirrels looking fluffy and cute. You can see that they wanted the character designs to look more cartoon-like, which is also understandable. Not every computer-generated film needs to look realistic. The background design is nice, although I think the colors are just a tad too bright. The animation is definitely not the best, but not horrible.

I could go on writing about all the problems this film has. Despite the fact that this is suppose to be a comedy, most of the jokes do not work. They overcomplicated what was essentially a very simple story. The story is sloppy, the characters uninspiring, the message is just stamped on right at the end without fleshing out, it takes place in the 50's but has songs like "Gangnam Style" playing in the background, etc.

But as much as I can complain about it, I still really can't hate this film. First off, when I saw the trailers for "The Nut Job", nothing in me said this was going to be a winner. And it turns out I was right. Most people who have seen it, either say it's bad, or just ok. So, I didn't feel let down, or angry because this film did not live up to any expectations...because I didn't have any to begin with. Yes, I hate the fart jokes, and yes, the plot is horribly written, but it was not the kind of movie that made me mad, or disappointed about movie-making in general. Perhaps not expecting anything from it, improved my viewing of this film. I suppose if I were to watch it again, my feelings of it might change, perhaps worse than it is now. But regardless of what mood your are in when watching it, this movie could never be good, because it has too many faults that keep it from being so.

Perhaps the saddest aspect of this movie, is that it could have had potential, had it been done differently. I think the tragedy of some bad films is that the idea can sometimes sound compelling, but is executed terribly. That is the case of this film. It was based on a clever short, but failed to improve upon it, or stretch it out in a creative way. I have a theory that this would have done better if they had not tried to targeted for young children, but for an older audience. Like I said before, the original had a tone suitable for a teens and adults, which also explains why this film can feel rather mean-spirited. That tone would have been accepted if the film was geared for an older audience. It would have given the film a better identity. As it stands, it's simply a mess.

"The Nut Job" is definitely not the best animated film of 2014. While the animation is decent, it suffers from a poorly told story, characters who are unlikeable, and humor that quite frankly, is not funny. If you really want to watch it, just wait till it's on DVD. If anything, watch the short that this movie was based on. Believe me when I say it is much better. I will be attaching a link of the video at the end.Thankfully, this is the first animated film of this year, so hopefully the rest of the line-up is much more enjoyable. As for this flick, I give it 3.5/10 bags of popcorn.

Thank you for being so patient and until then, keep reading, keep writing. Bye.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y5ZRcsYP5o