The Lego Batman Movie – Is It Better Than The Lego Movie?

     So The LEGO Batman Movie is pretty good. Really good, in fact. I’ve gone to watch it twice in IMAX 3D – besides the obvious addition of the great sound and picture quality that the IMAX experience offers, the physicality of the LEGO world and all its elements lend itself perfectly to 3D viewing.

      But is it better than The LEGO Movie?

      In a word, no. The Lego Movie is still slightly stronger than The LEGO Batman Movie, but we’ll get into those precise reasons later.

      Let’s first look at some similarities. Both go in unexpected narrative directions (not just extended toy commercials with simplistic ‘good vs evil’ plots as you might expect); both feature surprisingly mature themes beneath the colourful and child-friendly exterior (in a fashion not too dissimilar from Disney’s recent output); and both showcase a diverse range of humour (including jokes that are broad, ‘adult’ jokes for the parentals to enjoy, in-jokes for LEGO fans – as well as a ton of content for fans of Batman too).

      Particularly in regards to the last point – it seems the more you know about The Dark Knight, the more you will be tickled.  A lot of the humour comes from poking fun at the various iterations of the Batman universe over the years: the costumes, the personalities, the colourful villains (yep - they are all real, even the more outlandish ones!), and so on. Despite being regarded by some (including myself) as being THE BEST SUPERHERO EVER (‘Batman beats everyone’ - so the mantra goes), it's undeniable that he has also had his fair share of laughable moments throughout the ages; and the constant knowing winks that the film repeatedly throws out to the fans is one of its great joys.

      And maybe that’s part of why we love the character of Batman so much. Although there have been many interpretations of the character over the years that have been wildly different (even more so if you include the 'Elseworlds' comics versions) – deep down the fundamental core remains the same. And that’s why the film works so well. Despite all the flashy action scenes and myriad of jokes flying off the screen, the filmmakers really know what the core of Batman is – and this cleverly makes up the narrative thrust of the plot as well as occupy much of the themes that run through it.

      This particular iteration of the character in The LEGO Batman Movie may be the narcissistic-loner-asshole version of Batman (amped up to a ridiculous degree) that likes to think he is nigh on invulnerable in the fray – but the core of the character is still consistent – that is: a man who has lost loved ones in tragic circumstances and has the purpose and meaning of his whole life changed drastically as a result of it. Although this iteration of Batman doesn't cover his origin story (it’s a blessing that we don't have to sit through yet another version of his parent’s murder again), we see why he is so afraid to let others get close to him or to have a family of his own – in case he loses them too.

      And the film plays wonderfully with that. In fact, the main theme of the movie embodies that sentiment wholly: although you may be afraid of losing others, trust, love and understanding how we are all connected is what gives us purpose and meaning in life. Even when it comes down Batman’s bromance with The Joker (again, something that was unexpected in this movie but actually does play a significant part in a vast number of other Batman stories); and also leading up to the film’s climax, the message is clear: we are all co-dependent with each other on some level. No-one has to go it alone. And that’s a beautiful sentiment.

      Now The LEGO Movie’s message about creativity and celebrating individuality (whilst simultaneously busting the traditional story myth that only a few ‘chosen ones’ are destined to be ‘special’), is a bit more universal to the human experience – not forgetting the meta-ness of this theme simultaneously describing and being illustrated through the use of LEGO as a toy (or “highly sophisticated interlocking brick system” – whatever…).

      It’s a bit more inspired and moving than Batman’s overall theme. That’s not to say Batmandoesn't have the occasional tear jerking moments: watching The Joker’s face dropping when Batman lays it out for him (‘You mean NOTHING to me…’), as well as a moment when he helplessly watches a dear friend slip out of his grasp to certain doom. These parts move you, in spite of the childish trappings that these sorts of animated features are often associated with.

      Admittedly though, at end of the day – the ‘LEGO’ part of this Batman just adds to the overall charm of the film, and it’s not 100% integral to the movie as a whole. With a bit of re-jigging of the certain story elements, this could have been told in any kind of medium, yet The LEGO Movie could not exist without being done in LEGO. I realize that when laid out so bluntly it sounds obvious - but this just illustrates how much the plot and themes of The LEGO Movie are inseparable from the very fabric of LEGO and what it means in terms of its design and potential.

     And that’s why I think The LEGO Movie is overall a better movie. Let’s also not forget that it featured great original characters and ideas – whereas Batman has a bit of an easier time in this regard as it uses pre-existing characters and our pre-conceived notions of them (also often played against expectations to great effect).

      Still, The LEGO Batman Movie is an excellent film. I had my expectations in check before I went to see it; as it is a spin-off to The LEGO Movie (which I’ve written about HERE), I was worried it wouldn't be anywhere near as good. But it certainly delivers – doubly so if you are a fan of Batman.

27th Feb 2017

Read More

January Film Roundup - Part 2

 

Part 2 of the January Film Roundup!

Click here for Part 1.

Your Name

      Another 2016 film that I managed to catch at a special re-release showing. The screening was billed as 'subtitled' but it ended up being the dubbed version – oh well, never mind. Once again, this was one of last year's films that was lauded by many western critics (not to mention a very healthy box office run in Asia), so naturally i had to go and check it out.

      The animation style itself was beautiful and captures the feeling of Japan well, the nuances of life in both the countryside and city. The detail in each frame is incredible, not to mention how it all feels instantly familiar to me (having spent a lot of time in Japan myself).

      The most surprising thing about Your Name, however, is that it runs the gamut of genres, effortlessly flitting between kooky body-swap comedy to sappy romance to sci-fi thriller in a wholly unanticipated yet natural way. That's the reason why I think this film works so well. As soon as you think you know where it’s all going the film switches direction on you again.

      It looks absolutely stunning, especially up on the big screen and the heart is definately there, but for me it was a little lacking overall – a bit too wallowing in its romantic aspects at times. You feel like just shouting at the screen: ‘Get on with it already! You are clearly crazy for each other…!’, but that’s Japanese reservedness for you.

     I have not seen any of director Makoto Shinkai’s previous films so I can't make a comparison, but if you are an anime fan this could be right up your street.

The Big Question: So do the more convoluted sci-fi elements of the story hold up?

      Buggered if I know. Just thinking about it all makes my head hurt.

Split

      Dubbed ‘the return to form for M. Night Shyamalan’, many have been loving Split – but after watching I felt just a bit… meh. The premise is fine and interesting enough – but the whole thing kind of drags. Without spoiling too much, the majority of this film is spent in a dingy basement with some kidnapped teens (two out of the three being very annoying). It feels like an extremely low budget made for TV thriller, and without James McAvoy’s input, sadly that’s all it really is.

      So we have to talk about McAvoy’s performance. In terms of showcasing his talents at playing multiple characters, it is an undeniably impressive feat (although he really only plays about 6 or 7 members of his split personality rather than the 24 that the taglines promise). But that's all it just feels like – someone trying his best to come up with as many different voices and mannerisms as possible, with plenty of scenery being chewed along the way.

      The fault here, likely lies with the direction. A lot of the time, the quirks and mannerisms are exaggerated to an almost cartoony degree – Shyamalan even makes the decision to put him in radically different clothes for the majority of them. Peoples – this is not needed! Have some faith in the actor (and the audience). Subtleties can go a long way – no need to bash them over the heads with these sort of overt markings. Coupled with scenes of lengthy exposition by Betty Buckley (one scene has her literally lecturing the audience about what is happening in the plot!), and the whole thing seems severely dumbed down and loses much of its tension and potential for creepiness.

      Just think of how much more impressive and unpredictable it would be if we saw McAvoy flit between characters on the fly or have moments where we weren’t sure exactly who he was at a given time (some personalities being considered ‘good’ whilst others were most certainly not). Moments like these are flirted with in the film, but are barely taken advantage of. Instead we get: silly voice + obvious outfit = safe, because audience won't be confused.

      Other than that, Anya Taylor-Joy is great as usual, though her thematically parallel flashback story isn’t given much of a great closure. Overall, Split is a pretty average thriller, one that feels a little gimmicky, especially given THAT final scene.

The Big Question: So what did you think about the ending twist?

      First off, it’s not technically a ‘twist’. A twist is something that completely changes a belief we have held about a major story element or character aspect up until that point. This is more of a tacked on reveal at the end that limply excuses some of the more barmy goings on in the film (on a very superficial level), – but moreover is put there to (out of nowhere) serve as sequel-teaser bait for a completely different film. It’s so blatantly exploitative, has no real precedence during the film and as a therefore feels utterly unearned – resulting in the ‘reveal’ feeling like just a cheap ploy. I was certainly not as wowed as some others seemed to be.

      I can’t discuss this much further without giving away spoilers but needless to say – I watched that otherfilm in question recently just to remind myself what it was like. Yeah... it’s better than Split in almost every way.

Hacksaw Ridge

      Now it’s time for Mel Gibson’s return to form! Or rather just his return from Hollywood exile? Anyway, much like Your Name, a few US critics listed this in their top 10 of last year so naturally it peaked my interest and I had to check it out. Is it a good film?

     Well, half a good film. The first half is unbelievable schmaltzy. It’s strangely presented as a slow moving melodrama, almost like a cheese-laden TV movie – and it’s not until the second half when the company of barely memorable soldiers (only a handful are given any kind of characterisation that helps to differentiate them from one another) eventually reach the titular 'Hacksaw Ridge' - a death-trap of a battlefield atop a sheer cliff face somewhere in Okinawa.

      To be honest, it’s a bit of a mixed bag. Some parts are visceral, exciting and horrifying in their depiction of war – heavily referencing the panic and desperation at the sheer fragility of life that we remember so vividly from the opening of Saving Private Ryan. But then there are other parts that are almost chest-thumpingly jingoistic and all too deliberately trying to yank at your heart-strings. A lot of the time is spent thinking: ‘this guy is just too crazy, going in there again and again – with no weapon in a territory infested by a ruthless enemy! How can I possibly understand his motivation? I don't buy it”.

 

     …Then you find out he’s a real guy and all this actually happened (signified by an extended - perhaps overlong -  talking-heads sequence at the end that, whilst interesting, seemed more fitting for a DVD special featurette).

 

     Andrew Garfield continues to push his boundaries with the characters he plays – this one actually having some similarities with the one he played in Silence, namely: stopping to ask God for advice with a silly accent whilst being hounded by the merciless Japanese.

     He is great at conveying pain and anguish when he needs to, particularly in the more emotional scenes. It’s also nice to see Vince Vaughan in a proper role again and not just slumming it in shitty comedies – although he does get most of the funny lines as the 'drill sergeant with all the harsh put-downs but is really a good guy'.

      Worth a watch for the battle scenes but I’m miffed at how this was regarded so highly last year. Gibbo mostly delivers the goods, but it nowhere near scales the heights of Braveheart or Apocalypto.

The Big Question: Are you going to keep doing these throughout the year? And what's with the weird format? Are these reviews/commentaries or what?

      Okay, okay. So I couldn't think of anything else worth saying about Hacksaw Ridge this late at night. In answer to the above question though, yes – I will try and talk a little about every film that I go and see at the cinema in 2017.

     2016 was a pretty poor year for content on the blog, so I’m seeking to rectify that. Whether this will take the form of straight reviews (kind of dry and ubiquitous on the net truth be told) or commentary pieces (more interesting but depends how passionate I feel about said topic), remains to be seen.

     Hey, this is my house, right? I can do what the hell I want!

Anyway, until next time folks!

8th Feb 2017

Read More

January Film Roundup - Part 1

 

     Having left it a bit too late for reviews or discussions of each individual film, instead I thought I would collect all of my January big screen visits into one article.

 

     So behold! The January Film Roundup!

(Upon writing this however, things got quite long so I ended up splitting it into two parts.)

Silence

      Martin Scorsese returns to our screens with his reputedly ‘decades in the making’ passion project, an adaptation of Endo Shusaku’s novel of the same name - largely concerning the persecution of Christians in 17^th century ‘Sakoku’ (isolated) Japan.

      Or to put it in simpler terms: Spider-man and Kylo Ren are dispatched on a mission to find the whereabouts of missing Qui-Gon Jinn after rumours that he had abandoned the way of the Force.

      In all seriousness though, not only is the material handled well, the film is also beautiful to look at. The rural vistas of Japan especially look gorgeous - from the wild sea to the foggy mountains and muddy villages. Visually it’s a feast. Good performances all round too, despite the weird ‘Portuguese’ accented English that is occasionally a bit off-putting (after a while it feels like they just give up trying), but that's only a minor gripe.

      The numerous torture scenes, long running time and occasionally overly ponderous tone may be a turn-off for some – but it’s an interesting and thought provoking watch. Not a Scorsese ‘masterpiece’ in my book, but a passion project that features some great performances – especially from the Japanese actors, in particular Tadanobu Asano (The Interpreter) and Issei Ogata (The Inquisitor).

The Big Question: Is this a pro-Catholic faith message movie?

 

     Not nesse-celery. Although the film starts out with the ‘Kirishtans’ being portrayed as an unjustly persecuted minority, there is plenty of ambiguity throughout on the subject of faith and interesting questions are continually brought up as the story goes on.

      For example: is the deafening silence of God in the face of all this suffering, proof that he is not a merciful and loving God? Is it right that these priests refuse to renounce their faith, despite their actions directly leading to the continued suffering of many others? Have these missionaries misled these poor villagers and given them a skewed message of hope in a context of salvation that they don't really understand? Is the culture ‘swamp’ of Japan such that a monotheistic religion with all its included beliefs are fundamentally incompatible and simply cannot take root - and to relentlessly pursue these missions would be a futile affair? Are these missionaries in fact more like invaders to a foreign land, blinded by their pride and self righteousness?

      It’s not all as cut and dry as it first seems – which makes it all the more fascinating to watch.

A Monster Calls

      A faithful adaptation of the Patrick Ness novel of the same name, A Monster Calls is about a young boy who is experiencing loss and is struggling to process all these overwhelming feelings – all the while being visited by a giant tree beast whose intentions are initially unclear.

     The film features great performances from the human cast (the young lead Lewis MacDougal is terrific), as well as Liam Neeson lending his booming timbre for the voice of the monster. Sigourney Weaver’s British accent is decent (though distractingly clipped at times), but her performance is good enough that you forget about it as the film goes on.

     I can’t say too much without spoilers - but this film belies its superficial fantasy elements to be about something much more human and real, and as a result it is heart-breaking and uplifting in equal measure. 

The Big Question: Why did hardly anyone see this?

      Well I think, in part, it’s because it was a hard film to market properly. Is it a fantasy adventure? A horror targeted at a younger audience? A teen angst drama? A British coming of age heartwarmer that just so happens to feature Groot’s bigger badder brother? It’s kind of all these things – and whilst that’s not such a big problem for a YA book, films often need to be summed up in a single tagline or image to be sold to an audience - and this is such a wonderful amalgam of different elements it’s hard to do this effectively.

      I know that this is in absolutely no way an answer to this particular problem, but mytag line would have been: ‘It will destroy you.’ (with an image of the monster standing over the boy). Get it? Because the monster is initially regarded as something ominous, but then the film actually turns out to be really sad… No? Okay never mind then…

     Seriously, if the ending of this film doesn't bring a tear to your eye then I put it to you Sir/Madam that you have a heart of stone.

Passengers

      Actually a December 2016 release – but I thought I would catch it before it went. It’s a great story premise: a guy wakes up from hypersleep in the middle of an interstellar journey (meaning he’ll be spending the rest of his life alone and be dead by the time they get to the intended destination).

      Performances are good on the whole – Chris Pratt is great at playing the everyman and is always relatable, although Jennifer Lawrence seems less and less interesting in her performances the more films she seems to be in. Michael Sheen is great as always as a robot barkeep (though I would argue his design here is a bit too human – something that kind of undermines the effectiveness of one of the themes of the film: the crushing loneliness that comes with being the only person on board the vast spaceship).

      It's a shame the end result of the film is a bit predictable and pedestrian. It had great potential, but it just feels too bogged down in the rather forced romance aspects and the all too obvious ‘running about to save the ship’ in the final act, when really it would have been better as a more quiet and thoughtful meditation on the themes of loneliness, desperation, deceit and guilt. Instead it feels like the film was dumbed-down and actioned-up to appeal to a wider audience. ‘Cos guess which one is easier to sell, right?

The Big Question: Okay then mister smarty-pants – how would you have done it better? (WARNING: STORY SPOILERS!)

      Well, like I said, the set-up of Passengers is great. However I feel that the order the story plays out is where they missed out on some great dramatic opportunities. In very simple terms, the plot plays out like this: Chris wakes up, realises he is the only one (and therefore going to die alone), eventually succumbs to his loneliness and so decides to wakes up Jennifer. At first he pretends that it was also a malfunction that woke her up (and not by his hand) and after she is consigned to her fate and they spend time together they fall in love.
     Eventually (of course) she finds out, falls out with him, but then as other things start to go wrong on the ship they must work together to fix things in order to stop the ship from exploding. And yes – it’s all played out in chronological order.

      Now I would have presented the story in a different order. Have the film start with Jennifer waking up, have Chris there to explain the situation to her, then we can go ahead and do all the romance stuff. Then when his secret is exposed – boom! - it will be just as shocking to us as it is to her. Get it? Because we (as the audience) are experiencing the same revelations through Jennifer’s character – she is our cipher. Then we can go back (through an extended flashback sequence) to see what really went down from Chris’ point of view, so that what was initially considered an outright monstrous action is now an arguably more sympathetic one as we now get to witness all the despair and crushing loneliness he had to go through before finally succumbing to the temptation of deciding to wake Jennifer up.

     This simple change in the order in which we learn of these events, helps us to inhabit the emotional headspace of the characters more (for both characters), and lends more drama to the story (allowing for more tension, surprises, second guessing, foreshadowing etc…). Instead, because the story is played out chronologically and we know the situation between the two characters so explicitly, much of the film seems to feel plodding, like we are just biding our time, waiting for the inevitable plot beats to come around.

      Oh, and we can get the rid of the running around to save the ship malarkey too – we can still have the same resolution to the film without having to go through all that stuff.

La La Land

      Although the hype is about 90% real – I wish I had just been able to go into this cold – after Chazelle’s incredible Whiplash, I was bound to watch it anyway. Put simply, La La Land is a really joyous experience. From the opening dance number on the LA freeway, right up to the choke-you-up finale, this is the real deal. Not necessarily in that it's a perfect movie – there are still flaws – but I haven’t seen a film in a long time that has just resonated with me so much and kept me grinning like an idiot throughout.

      Anyway, I’m not going to go on about it much further before asking…

The Big Question: Is it really worthy of all the awards attention it is getting?

 

     So as you probably know, this film has been doing very well in terms of awards. At the time of writing, it swept up at the Golden Globes (winning in every single category it was nominated in) and has the most Oscar nominations ever in history (an honour shared only with Titanic and All About Eve), plus a whole slew of other accolades from basically everywhere else. So is all the hype actually real?

      Well, in a word: Yes. But probably not for the reasons you think. You see, the thing about La La Land is that it isn’t your typical ‘Oscar-bait’ film. It never feels like any part of it was made to win awards. It’s just something unique and fresh – a fun film that Chazelle wanted to make that just so happens to have great heart – and subsequently captivated audiences everywhere.

      Let’s talk expectations versus reality. It’s a love story with comedic elements (but doesn't feel like your typical by-the-numbers crowd-pleasing rom-com). It’s a musical with some fantastic numbers that emulates aspects of old MGM musicals (a much touted feature) but arguably never pretends to actually be one. Things are scaled way back in this regard. There are only really two big song and dance numbers (and both happen within the first 15 minutes of the movie). The rest tend to be intimate and emotional: either with just Gosling and Stone together or sometimes even just one of them alone. Not really into musicals? That’s not such a barrier either – it seems as the film goes on, more time is spent with the drama between the characters (to the point where we almost forget it’s a musical that we are watching for the latter half of the film). It’s a fresh combination of things that feels familiar yet new – accessible to everyone, yet unlike any film you've seen before.

      On a technical level too, this film is astounding: shooting during magic hour, often on location, the long single takes, inventive cinematography – the imagination and confidence it displays is incredible – especially considering that the budget wasn't that huge either (estimated 30mil).

      But perhaps the most telling is the sheer amount of heart the film has. Gosling and Stone are both incredible in this –elevating their roles to incredible likeability through use of sheer charm, comedic timing and bravely giving it their all with single take sequences of singing and dancing. So what if they aren’t the best singers/dancers? Doesn't matter – you can see they are enjoying it and completely selling the shit out of it. Their chemistry together is astounding (it doesn't hurt that they have been paired in a few films together before), and you root for them both to achieve their dreams despite their flaws and foibles.

      At the end of it all, it feels like this is the exact kind of movie that Chazelle wanted to make – pandering to neither convention or with awards season in mind. It just so happens that it has captured the heart of so many with its inventiveness, whimsy and joyous celebration of those fools who chase their dreams, despite the inevitable sacrifices that may come with that.

     Not a flawless film by any means, but a very special one that absolutely deserves all the love that it’s getting.

Join me soon for a few more films in Part 2 of the January Round-up!

7th Feb 2017

Read More