The Lego Batman Movie

Spoiler-free.

After the explosive success of the bright, hilarious and unexpectedly deep The Lego Movie, it's no surprise that the series was continued. This spin-off flick was given to Will Arnett for his brilliantly rendered serious goof of a Batman. No other character deserves the solo spotlight more, and it couldn't have been handled any better -- leaving me wondering whether it might have actually surpassed its mother film in hilarity and excellence.

Because... he's Lego Batman.

Right off the bat (Get it? It's a bat pun!) there's around twenty minutes of non-stop gut-busting comedy. Really smart stuff too. Jokes flew over the heads of the crumb-crunching, popcorn-barfing target audience at the same impressive speeds at which the plot moved along to keep them interested. I think I laughed more than they did. Will Arnett was already the comedy highlight of the last Lego Movie; here, the entire script was catered to that wonky, surprisingly highbrow style of comedy that works so well for the humorously serious, satirized character of Lego Batman and leaves me in stitches embarrassingly often... some might say.

The humor does tone down eventually, just enough so that the plot can be developed with the proper amount of importance. There's not much to the plot -- the threat of the movie being directly connected with Batman's character development, with just a few unusual elements, so everything fits together neatly and simply. Just as it should be. It leaves more time for the delightful wise-cracks and overly-dramatic parody, and you gotta pack it in with the kiddie run time.

The wit is strong with this one.

The theme is similarly connected and similarly simple. Granted, it didn't move me nearly as much as the theme of The Lego Movie, but it did have some nice things to say about unity and love that mean a lot it the world today -- but was presented more tactfully than most movies with a purposeful message these days, without placing blame or pointing fingers or encouraging the creation of bad guys at all. With help from a Michael Jackson song, it says to take a look at yourself first when there's a problem, and suggests that the people you're fighting against may actually be important in the big picture and not as evil as you might think.

The movie made me very happy with the amount of movie references it made, including many references to other Batman films, and also films outside of the universe. The supporting cast, made up of Michael Cera as Robin, Ralph Fiennes as Alfred, and Rosario Dawson as Batgirl in the core group, to Zach Galifianakis and Jenny Slate, and spreading out into cameo after cameo including many returning cameos from The Lego Movie, Jemaine Clement as the Eye of Sauron and Siri as... a... computer... -- they were all great. I'm bad at the game of "Guess the Actor without Seeing Their Face" but I enjoyed playing nonetheless.

You might think the Joker is played as the main villain by now... which is perfect for this.

In direct comparison to The Lego Movie there are some wins and some losses. It's at least just as funny. I would argue funnier. The plot isn't as creative or original, but it's a Batman movie, and in spite of being Lego is somehow is relevant when held up against even the best live action portrayals of the character, which cannot be a small feat. The theme wasn't as personally effective and moving as the last Lego film, but I enjoyed it plenty, and (for whatever it's worth) approved of it equally.

One random comment: the medium of this film allows for something to be done with Batman that no other film has done -- make the Wayne mansion huge. It was really, truly, mindbogglingly, depressingly, no-way-even-James-Cameron-could-get-the-budget-for-live-action-scale-like-this massive. Almost as cool as that was how it was used not only for comedy, but for effortless dramatic effect too. For some reason all that impressed me.

But, mostly, it's just a whole bunch of goofy fun.

It was almost exactly what I expected, so color me a satisfied consumer. The biggest worry I had concerning this spin-off was that it might just ride the coattails of the original flick, but that apparently wasn't even a potential issue that was worked around. Hardly even worth being called a spin-off at all -- it is after all, Batman. Comedy or drama, fighting or dancing, saving the day or beat-boxing, Batman -- and especially Lego Batman -- flies on the merit of his own wings.

GET IT?

Hail, Caesar!

Essentially a day-in-the-life movie about a film studio producer and "fixer," Hail, Caesar! follows Eddie Mannix (a guy whose name and vocation is true to real life -- who knows about the rest) played by Josh Brolin as he goes busily to and fro various movie sets, smoothing wrinkles and covering up scandals.

Hail, Hollywood!

Set inside of Hollywood's golden age of bright cheesiness, 1951, this latest caper from the Coen Brothers has gobs and gobs of distraction on it's surface. So much so that you might not even notice that it actually is about something underneath all that cheese and glam. Mannix is mulling over the idea of leaving his hard job of long hours for something else that is tempting, but he feels is lacking in some way. Then one of the studio's biggest actors (and star of their new epic "Hail Caesar," a story of Christ told from the perspective of a Roman soldier), Baird Whitlock, (George Clooney) goes missing! He's actually been kidnapped by commies -- a bunch of Hollywood writers who came up with a ransom scheme to get the money they believe they deserve. They sit around and fill Baird's head with communism while Mannix continues to take one problem at a time.

This one thing at a time attitude is where the distraction comes in. Every time Mannix visits a different film set, we get a lengthy view into the world of filmmaking, which may or may not be your cup of tea, but it sure was mine. Water sets, tap dancing scenes, cowboy flicks, period drama romances, all with their own thing going on and their own problems. Played for comedy, and really quite amusing. I was almost disappointed at times when we didn't get to see a second take -- or the third take -- and instead had to move along. Here we are introduced to the film's wide spread of big-name talent, most of whom are really no more than a fun cameo. Like Jonah Hill's very amusing part, or Ralph Fiennes' humorously refined but irritated director. Everyone is some stereotype or another. Scarlett Johansson was unexpected in a part that reminded me slightly of Lena Lamont of Singing in the Rain. Tilda Swinton's duel-role was brilliant. And Channing Tatum was... well, more then I expected.

Hail to the guy who leads?

Some of the characters felt unnecessary if you think about it. But, at the same time, I wonder if you go even deeper, would they all eventually make some kind of sense? I certainly get the feeling that the film is very purposeful; more purposeful than meets the eye. To get to the theme and the message of the story I had to go deeper than I expected to considering the style of the storytelling and the fun and quirky atmosphere, but there it is. Maybe Tilda Swinton didn't need to play one, let alone two characters, maybe she did, but some of these characters do play into a purpose, and drive home a rather abstract, but interesting idea.

Of course this is most obviously found in our lead Mannix. Josh Brolin hits the perfect key with this guy, by the way -- as he always does. He's a great lead, and the character is a powerful guy; he has respect and authority, but he also is very religious going to confession every day. He tries very hard to make people happy, especially his wife (Zelda Fitz-- I mean Alison Pill) who wants him to quit smoking. He seems very much like the boss, but of course he has a boss of his own, albeit an absent one. Then there's Baird. He's not a really likable character and Clooney plays him well in that vein. He's a huge actor. Mention his name and people go "Ohhh!" But he's an empty coconut if ever there was one. He has an influential voice but his words are given to him -- by a script, or by a commie, or couple hard slaps upside the head. He's importance in on the surface only.

Hail to the guy who looks like the leader?

Then there's the guy who you wouldn't think is important but really is. That's Alden Ehrenreich as Hobie Doyle. Hobie is a smaller-time lead; the cowboy guy. He's always in the pursuit of doing something right, whether it be a handstand on a horse, or, when he's moved over to the posh romantic drama, saying that line just as he's supposed to. Maybe he doesn't have the talent for certain things, but he's a dedicated worker and does everything he's given to do the very best that he can. And in the end that devotion makes him a pivotal character to the plot. Ehrenreich of course is a delight to watch which helps even more -- he has that screen presence that makes everything he does twice as interesting, and then he actually does quite a lot of interesting things! He's a dedicated performer himself, learning those lasso tricks. And he was the movie's scene-stealer, hands down.

And Mannix himself, as high up as he is, is only a background worker. The movie studio would fall apart without him, but he gets very little of the glory. However he (and we) discover the importance of the way things work, and get a reinvigorated belief in the importance of the work being done. (A little bit of a love-letter to film never hurts!) The movie's multiple layers of the movie within the movie is neat and draws some interesting parallels, but at the same time, there is a jumbled aspect going on that is difficult to see through, with all those distractions of so many films being placed together in this one. I was impressed at how neatly everything tied together though, in the end. I expected it to be more pointless going in.

If only it were so simple. If only it were so simple. If only...

I can certainly understand criticism of this film, as it is very unusual, and not what one might naturally expect it to be. It has the plot of, I guess, I popcorn flick, with it's bright-and-breezy entertainment qualities, and what seems like a main arc of trying to recover the missing actor. That's something that could very easily go action-y in the final act, but instead the film at the surface stays the same; light and inconsequential. Underneath builds the mildly abstract and not exactly prominent ideas of power, authority, and dedication that is driven by characters; characters, who, for the most part, don't get it any more than we do. For them, it's just another eventful day. But it was an important day, and this film does have some interesting things to say, in typical, understated Coen fashion. It may not a be a masterpiece, but if you want more from it than a plethora of quirky performances, hearty laughs and light, colorful entertainment, it's there for you to find.

Spectre

So the organization called "SPECTRE" is back -- or up and coming for the first time -- and James Bond is-- wait no, that's not important. Here's what's important: There's an organization, called "SPECTRE," their logo looks like this:

And it's an octopus? It's not -- you know -- a spectre? I'm confused.

Anyway, Bond (Daniel Craig) is out to stop Blofeld (Christoph Waltz) and SPECTRE, without the help or permission of M (the new M, Ralph Fiennes!) because there's this guy called C (but who was an "M" in another lifetime, Andrew Scott) who came out of nowhere and is trying to do evil things from inside the agency and the only way to stop it is for Bond to go solo (with a little help from adorkable Q (Ben Whishaw) and Moneypenny (a terribly underused Naomie Harris)), team up with a beautiful young woman (Léa Seydoux) who's important to the plot somehow (have I got this right so far?), wear a tux, drink a martini, introduce himself to someone, fight intimidating henchmen (man -- Dave Bautista), fly, boat, fly, ski, fly, and boat -- in that order, with various gun and hand fights thrown in the mix, all the while looking as expressionless as possible. Did I leave anything out? Oh yes...

He's got a license to kill. But, he's also got a license... not to kill.

I've never been very approving of Daniel Craig's 007, though I did enjoy Skyfall, and Casino Royal had its moments as well. Craig has epic action-star abilities, which get put to good use in these films, but character-wise, Bond has never been duller than in this movie right here. A bored expression does not a cool character make. He gets one or two fleeting slick moments, but otherwise the occasional subtle eye-roll is the biggest expression his face ever makes. He's so cool, that he's not actually cool anymore.

Everyone else can be boiled down to one thing: wasted potential. Andrew Scott was where this was most obvious, because who would cast him to play a placid character? No one, that's who. Yet placid his is for placid they all are. I literally the day before seeing this watched Rory Kinnear play an extreme creepy stalker for laughs in Man Up; and then he shows up here, and just stands there... with words coming out his mouth. I know for a fact that these actors are capable of infusing a film with energy and making you care for the characters they are playing. I have witnessed every single one of them do it. But this film is so tonally dull that anything resembling liveliness gets sucked away.

I was really looking forward to her Moneypenny after 28 Days Later, but 'twas a fruitless hope.

And what is left is a pompous sense of carelessness, and one dimensional characters that only exist to move the plot along through the paint-by-numbers Bond coloring book. And all the colors are grey. One thing Spectre does that is useful is a kind of experiment, it seems. They appear to have wondered if action films are exciting and entertaining just because they have action in them, and then tested the theory, creating an action film filled with action pieces that are treated as if they were a nice stroll through a park. The result is a high-speed car chase where James is pursued by villainous henchman Bautista, and has a casual chat with Moneypenny on the phone about unrelated plot-development-exposition-what-have-you. I think it was supposed to be for laughs, but it was ironically just like the rest of the film, where casual delivery of action results in boring action.

Technically the stunts and action sequences were difficult and well-executed, and visually the film is pretty fairly striking. Silhouettes is the name of the game here, and I enjoyed the high-contrast (if not colorful) look. But impressive feats and a pretty face mean nothing if there's not anything in a movie to engage you and invite you to care. And no matter how pretty the shot is, there comes a point where it's too long -- here, you can almost see Sam Mendes wave at that point as he flies past it, muttering about how the movie has to be two and a half hours long, and calculating how many extra seconds of how many unnecessary shots he'll need to make that goal.

"A spy without a gadget is like a shopping cart without a broken wheel." -- Spy Fox

I don't care what kind of statement you're trying to make; having James Bond toss away his gun like that is just plain out of character. Maybe it could be pulled off jokingly, but I never could tell if this film attempted any jokes. This character and the elements that must surround him are the opposite of conducive to the lesson the film was trying to teach. This serious and bored Bond, trying to be what he used to be simultaneously with a new, hip, moral him is forced and trite. It just plain doesn't work.

Dark but not deep; dull, slow, and plodding but not smart, and filled with trivial action that is too easily forgettable, 007's latest adventure is only able to offer slight, relaxed moments of entertainment in a franchise meant to gleefully thrill. Spectre is not a cool and original octopus, nor a dark and haunting spirit, it's just a dry, grey wisp of expensive and useless smoke -- interesting enough in the moment; gone and forgotten at the next breeze.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - February

January saw no surprises, and I was so busy that I didn't even get out to a third Star Wars viewing! I enjoyed Sherlock: The Abominable Bride at home, and am currently enjoying Agent Carter's second season. February has a few movies to talk about and a few movies I'd like to see at home sometime, but it seems that I can just copy and paste my theater plans from last month: if I go to the theater, it'll probably be for The Force Awakens. And that's fine by me!

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies
Feb 5th; PG-13
Ugh, I feel like such a bad Jane Austen fan for even mentioning this. But look: I love Jane Austen. I love zombies. I have already seen many Austen-knock-off movies (Lost in Austen, Jane Austen Book Club, Austenland, etc.) and they were all their very own special brand of terrible. Some more so than others. If I were to not watch this movie, it would be because I'm be afraid that it would ruin my enjoyment of the good, 1995 P&P. But I've already been subjected to all those knock-offs, and the 2005 P&P, which didn't ruin the other one, and how much worse could it be with zombies? Not much -- at least there's no Keira Knightley! It might be dumb and terrible and disrespectful, but it'll also have zombies, so it's not supposed to be taken seriously. Plus, it's got Lily James! And Matt Smith! And Sam Riley! (And wow, I'm actually kinda sad this isn't just a regular P&P adaptation...) So that's my explanation for this next sentence: I want to see this movie. Help.




Hail, Caesar!
Feb 5th; PG-13
WELL -- the Coen Brother's new movie looks like a win! (It's got a comma and an exclamation point in its title, so you know it's gonna be good!) This trailer is downright brilliant, and I would watch it if the whole movie was like that even without a plot. The Coens always seem to be doing something new, and totally out-of-the-box, and this one fits the bill more than ever. It even almost feels like a Wes Anderson film from the trailer, though with a distinctly Coen's sense of humor. This total oddball throws back to Hollywood's Golden Age, and follows around a Hollywood "Fixer" (Josh Brolin) as he... fixes.... things.... ... The whole cast is absolutely giant -- George Clooney, Ralph Fiennes, Tilda Swinton, Scarlett Johansson, Canning Tatum, Jonah Hill... It doesn't really matter to me whether the movie is generally considered bad or good. I want to see it. That cast, those directors, the 50's, Hollywood -- I just must see it. But, if I were to venture a guess, I would think it'd certainly be on the good side.




The Choice
Feb 5th; PG-13
Okay, anyone who knows me know that I am not in any way a Nicholas Sparks fan. But, anyone who knows me well knows that I surprisingly often watch movies based on his novels anyway. When it comes to sappy romantic drama, there is nothing better. And I really do meant that; these movies are tear-jerking, squishy, cheesy cry-fests, but they are of a very high quality. So high, in fact, that actors I like very often get cast in them. Like this one, for instance, stars Teresa Palmer of Warm Bodies and Benjamin Walker of Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. The zombie killer and the vampire killer come together for a little Southern romance. Nicholas Sparks or not, that's interesting enough -- maybe even if someone winds up dead! Maybe.




Deadpool
Feb 12th; R
[Rant] Not watching Deadpool will probably be one of the most disappointing moments in my movie-watching career. I love Deadpool. When I saw X-Men Origins: Wolverine I didn't even know who he was, but since this movie became a thing I've looking into him and found out more about him than any other superhero yet. The strips he's in are absolutely hilarious, and his powers are brilliantly gory. But this movie... I guess I knew from the first trailer when I actually had to specify "green band trailer" in order to find the appropriate one, but this movie goes beyond what I'll allow myself to watch, and in fact, what I want to watch. It's rated R. No duh. But let me break it down: Violence -- okay, that's good. Deadpool would probably be terrible without R violence. Language -- "language throughout" specifically. That'll be about 100 f-bombs. Whew. I can brave language, but even then it usually detracts from the movie. All I see here is 100 times someone could have said something original. Sexual content -- yep, can I just ask, WHY? Why does the movie need this? Answer: it actually doesn't. And here's the real kicker: Graphic nudity -- that takes the cake. And that brings me to my point which encapsulates the whole problem I have with this movie. This movie is not out to make a good, fun, original Deadpool movie. It's all about the shock and awe. It wants to push the envelope as far over the edge of edginess as it will go, and see how many fans eat it up like so much grocery store birthday cake. If I'm right about this movie, it won't be funny, it won't be original, and it certainly won't be well-acted, but if I'm right, everyone will still believe it is. If you're excited for this movie and plan to see it (and if you see it and love it) I'm sorry to be so harsh, but I've thought on this subject a lot and have some pretty passionate opinions about it. I'm just really disappointed right now. [/rant]




Gods of Egypt
Feb 26th; PG-13
Huge monsters. Ancient heroes. Cheesy, low quality dialogue, and gobs and gobs of visual effects that aren't-really-that-impressive. It looks like the new class of Clash of the Titans is here! Which means it'll probably be a fun popcorn watch, but I would never pay to see it. But, since it also has Rufus Sewell in it, I'll watch it as soon as I can for free.



How's the month of February looking for you?

Skyfall

Everyone's favorite British super-spy is getting a fresh start. After failing a very important mission due to being accidentally shot by a fellow agent, Bond "enjoys" being dead for a while, but James Bond can never stays dead for long. When he hears that MI6 has been attacked, he dutifully returns to lend his now significantly diminished skills to M, who ignores his failed evaluative tests, reinstates him, and puts him right to work. Because if agent 007 can't save Britain, no one can.

Sadly, despite his best efforts, our hero doesn't save much of anyone or anything this time around - besides himself by the suave skin of his teeth. Yeah. It's one of those movies. It takes two and a half hours to accomplish a plot line that could have been squeezed into a tv show. But as technically unnecessary as about an hour of the movie might have been, I didn't mind it one bit; I was too busy enjoying myself with the spectacle.

Visually, at the very least, Skyfall is a masterpiece. This whole film is a feast of light, shapes, and colors. Strikingly beautiful, unique locations and sets abound, and are displayed with style, completely free of cheap effects and frills - a great reflection of the persona of the film's hero. And I just love it when fight scenes are actually choreographed. Never take the little things for granted.

My favorite of many visually stunning moments.

Judi Dench as M is just as she always is and always should be, and I'm looking forward to more of Naomie Harris and Ralph Fiennes. Daniel Craig has never really fit my idea of how agent 007 should look, but I will give him that he can definitely act the part. So well if fact, that I can forgive his less than perfect "007" appearance. He is nearly overshadowed, though, by the villain. It's not Javier Bardem's fault - he simply can't be a normal, forgettable bad guy. Mr. Silva is very up-to-date, and has everything a villain needs these days. Understated creepy looks, a calm and cheerful disposition, sympathetic back-story, and even knew to include in his evil scheme that important point where you get captured on purpose and held in a glass prison for a while.

"An ant has no quarrel with a boot." No, that's not right...

Oh yes, and one more - they put Q in this movie. Played by Ben Whishaw. He looks like a hipster and is undoubtedly the best addition to the movie, as were his scenes of bantering with Bond. I give his hair and 11 out of 10, and the epic-ness of his speaking voice - while a little nuanced - rates squarely between Benedict Cumberbatch and Richard Armitage. This is all high praise from me, for anyone who may not know.

If I had hair like that... I'd stay out of high wind.

But here's what really made this movie: the references and illusions to the classics of James Bond films. "My name's Bond, James Bond" may be cheesy beyond compare in any other movie, but here it's necessary. He's gotta wear the tux too, and the martini's gotta be shaken. These are the moments that make me happy and these are the reasons I watch these movies. And director Sam Mendes was happy to give us these things plus some. He must know that sometimes going back to the classics can be just as fresh - or even fresher - than scrounging up a weak, but "original" film. Especially when it comes to a certain British secret agent.

Where else but a Bond film can you reasonably see this sort of thing anyway?

It seems that 007 is back from the dead.

- 4/5 Stars