Score: ****1/2 out of ***** (A)
Long Story Short: The Lego Movie brings one of the most popular and ubiquitous children's toy companies to the big screen. Many have thrown big brand names and big acting names together and expected greatness; using the enthusiasm, creativity and talent of all involved, The Lego Movie actually makes good on this promise. The cast, led by Chris Pratt and Will Ferrell, is perfect, and everything else from the script to the visuals is exceptional. Whether you have kids or still are one somewhere in your heart, you should see this movie.
Four movies in the first two months of the year is rather unusual for me, given the kind of movies that typically come out. But it happened, and they all scored a "B-" or better. Despite my earlier optimism, I'm unsure of when my next trip to the theater will be. A few movies look potentially interesting but I'll probably wait to see their aggregate scores on Rotten Tomatoes before deciding. Looking to this week, I was not at all impressed when I heard a Lego movie was coming out; I loved playing with Legos as a kid, but it didn't seem like something that would make a good film. However, after seeing its fantastic score on RT (96% or better), I decided to give it a try. The Lego Movie was directed by Phil Lord and Chris Miller (21 Jump Street) and stars the voices of Chris Pratt, Will Ferrell, Elizabeth Banks, et. al.
The Lego Movie introduces a world made up entirely of - you guessed it - Legos. Long ago, an evil Lego named Lord Business (Ferrell) discovers a super weapon called the "Kragle"; years (?) later, all seems to be well in Lego Land, where we meet Emmet (Pratt), an ordinary yet very cheerful construction worker. Poor Emmet finds something strange at the construction site one day, and the next thing he knows he is being interrogated by Lord Business' lieutenant, Bad Cop (Liam Neeson). Swooping in to save the day is Wyldstyle (Banks), a Master Builder who rescues him and takes him out of the Lego city. Wyldstyle and Vitruvius (Morgan Freeman), a fellow Master Builder, tell Emmet about the evil Lord Business' plans.
Emmet, it turns out, is Lego Land's best hope to defeat Lord Business. Unfortunately, he seems to be the farthest thing from a "Master Builder". As Lord Business' forces chase them around Lego Land, Emmet and his friends must find a way to beat the odds and save all from certain doom.
The cast of voice actors for The Lego Movie is brilliant. And the best of them all is Chris Pratt as Emmet. Many may know Chris as I do as the lovable lunkhead on Parks and Recreation, and he uses his best naive yet cheerfully earnest voice to bring Emmet to life. Chris' comic timing and tone of voice is well-honed and he's hilarious here, not to mention a surprisingly compelling lead. Elizabeth Banks also turns out to be a great choice as Wyldstyle. The first thing that strikes you is her seductiveness, but in tandem with her character's actions, her voice also effectively conveys a no-nonsense leadership, exasperation with knuckleheads, yet also compassion at times. Finishing out the big three is Will Ferrell. You probably know by now how big a fan of his I am, and he already has experience as the bad guy in an animated film (the underrated gem Megamind). Ferrell is delightfully evil as Lord Business, and his humor is a great complement to Pratt's. Many villains, animated or otherwise, can be dragged down by stereotypical dialogue, but Ferrell keeps Lord Business fresh throughout the film.
And there are even more big names to go around! Morgan Freeman voices Emmet's old wise guide (as well as, often, "wise guy"), Vitruvius. Obviously, Freeman has one of the most distinct and impressive voices in Hollywood - but he really bites into his role and seems to enjoy it, trading in his usual gentle persona for a wisecracker. Liam Neeson voices Bad Cop, the evil henchman, and we get to hear his Irish accent much more than in most of his other films. It's probably not too hard to imagine why he's good for this role. Rounding out the rest are Will Arnett as Batman (cocky and sarcastic), Nick Offerman as a pirate (barely recognizable; a small but fun part), and Alison Brie as Princess Uni-Kitty (bubbly and cute... but with a dark side). There are also some cameos, which I won't spoil.
The Lego Movie is structurally a standard family film which finds its niche within a unique world while employing both great grown-up humor as well as a solid "life lesson". Anchoring all three parts is the main character, Emmet. The film does a brilliant job of introducing him, and the Lego world, in a fun, humorous, and interesting segment. Once the adventure begins - which the film doesn't delay - the formula of a chosen one journeying to defeat evil is somehow executed with "wink-winks" galore and compelling seriousness at the same time. Now, the two aren't equal throughout: the beginning is more laugh heavy before the seriousness becomes the focus toward the end. But the balance and flow throughout is remarkable. I credit this to the strength of the screenplay and enthusiasm of the voice cast. The lesson itself - the importance and value of individual creativity (though teamwork isn't ignored) - might sound obvious for a Lego film, but it's handled exceptionally well and finishes strong. Oh, and I suppose I should also mention (the other aspects are so good that I tend to forget this) that visually the film is creative and appropriate, using a set of physical "rules" which make sense for a Lego universe; even the water is made of Legos!
***
What can I say? I was thoroughly impressed with The Lego Movie, despite my earlier doubts, and if it holds up (or even improves) on multiple viewings I could see this getting an "A+". Fascinating how some of the films that seem to face the biggest challenges to even become watchable - Life of Pi, Gravity, and now The Lego Movie - turn out to be some of the very best films. This is where I normally give an overview of the good and the bad of a movie, but I honestly can't think of anything bad to say (maybe it's already time to bump this up to an "A+"). The voice cast is perfectly chosen and they all perform wonderfully. The script is great, balancing often self-aware humor with potentially cheesy (but not in execution) lessons, all on the platform of a pretty typical plot outline. The pacing is great, and it doesn't carry on too long. If you have kids, go see this movie now. If you played with Legos as a kid, go see this movie now. If neither of those apply to you but you like expertly crafted films with great humor and creativity, go see this movie now. What are you waiting for?
Score: ***1/2 out of ***** (B-)
Long Story Short: The Monuments Men offers a rare wide release, dramatic film packed with stars in the middle of winter. Clooney, serving as director, co-writer, and star, picked an interesting new angle on the thoroughly filmed WWII - the effort to save Europe's art. The cast is likable of course, and four of them in particular are great. But the film tries for so many angles on the story that little focus develops until well into the second half. Worth seeing, but also a missed opportunity in many ways.
The early winter months of 2014, while being utterly terrible in terms of weather, are producing more films that are intriguing than is usual for this time of year. I think there will be several more movie reviews on the way in the coming weeks. When I first saw the trailer for this film, back in the fall, it immediately caught my attention as having a star-studded, likable cast and an interesting WWII premise. A poor score on Rotten Tomatoes (low 30s) wasn't nearly enough to overcome the attractive elements of the film. The Monuments Men was directed by George Clooney, and stars Clooney, Matt Damon, Bill Murray, John Goodman, et. al.
Based on true events, The Monuments Men sets the scene in the early 1940s as the tide of WWII starts to turn. In the States, Frank Stokes (Clooney), a museum director and lieutenant in the Army, requests that a task force be formed to retrieve, secure and protect the vast trove of art and cultural artifacts in harm's way in Europe. He gets permission - but leads only a seven-man "unit" comprised of fellow art professionals. The seven are excited and determined to get to their task, but the going is slow and frustrating as their mission is constantly relegated to second, if not lower, priority.
With such an overwhelming mission going against formidable odds, the team breaks up and spreads across Europe. They join forces with French resistance, Belgian priests, and others to prevent disastrous cultural destruction by the Nazis. While they achieve some remarkable successes, there are disappointments too, as well as heartbreaking losses.
Clooney managed to wrangle together a dream team for his WWII film. Although I mention Clooney as an actor first, I should note that even if he does have the most screen time it isn't by much, and he gives attention to the others pretty equally. Clooney, as the Monuments Men's team leader, basically plays Clooney: the charming, slightly mischievous yet calmly in control and solid as a rock lead. It's always fun to watch that, but I'm not sure I buy it as a good fit for Lt. Museum Director. The others basically play themselves, too, though. Matt Damon, the youngster of the group, gets the film's lone, slight romantic bit. He's here for his gentle earnestness and object of some humor. Cate Blanchett plays the French contact, a small role that she does well but is poorly written.
Bill Murray and Bob Balaban (you'll probably recognize him) team up, and are the most fun part of the film. Murray is of course hilarious, but he maybe does the best job acting by putting on his serious face and letting the humor flow naturally from the confidence of his character. Balaban is also amusing as a prickly professorial type - a good contrast in style. Goodman and Jean Dujardin (from The Artist) also make a good team, and have some of the film's most poignant moments together. The last MM, played by Hugh Bonneville, is a bit of a stereotype as Clooney's old, washed-up old friend out for one last adventure. Beyond this considerable lead cast, there are no other notable roles.
It's funny that I was just talking about the delicate balance war films need to pull off, in my review of Lone Survivor. The Monuments Men goes for a lot: message film (importance of art); buddy film (humorous pairings); heist film (tracking certain pieces of art); as well as both generic perception of war (loss of comrades) and personal (effect on home front). That, as you can imagine, is a lot to cover in one film. Too much in fact; it does some parts better than others. It does the buddy parts well. Although it takes some time to develop, the Murray-Balaban and Goodman-Dujardin combos become the strongest parts of the film - they have the most powerful as well as the funniest scenes. The heist aspect is decent - again, takes some time to develop - thanks to the uniqueness of the circumstances; on the other hand, the sense of urgency could have been significantly stronger. Perception of war aspects are somewhat out of place, and should have been modified to instead emphasize the other parts. Finally, and strangely, the message of art's importance is not well developed. We are constantly being told how important it is, and what can be sacrificed to protect it, but when it comes down to it it doesn't feel like a huge difference between Clooney and co. racing to save art here, versus Clooney and co. racing to steal money in Ocean's Twelve.
***
There's no point in denying it: The Monuments Men is a disappointment, given the rich story potential and cast of stars. The film is a jumble at the start, bouncing from place to place and not providing a good introduction to any of the characters. As mentioned, it tries to juggle way too many different themes and styles resulting in some (the war-related) being there for the sake of posterity and others (the art theme) being left undeveloped and ineffective. And most of the stars essentially play themselves, with Clooney and to a lesser degree Damon not providing very natural fits for their characters. But, it's still a very likable, enjoyable cast all around - particularly the two aforementioned duos. The beginning might be a mess, but I was surprised how well the film started bringing the characters together in midstream. Even the story and script somehow become more focused and interesting from about the midpoint on, a tough task. What this all boils down to is that The Monuments Men is a significantly flawed but very watchable film. You can skip it in the theater, but give it a try on Netflix/rental.
2014 Super Bowl and Australian Open
The Grand Slams of tennis are located around key parts of the calendar for my other two favorite sports, football and basketball. The French Open and Wimbledon coincide with the NBA Playoffs and Finals, the U.S. Open happens right around the start of the NFL season, and the Australian Open takes place during the NFL Playoffs. Both of those latter events have now finished up, so let's see how they went! Stay tuned next week for a review of The Monuments Men.
Australian Open
It was a historic tournament in at least one way: the temperatures during the first week (and a little into the second) soared into the 100s just about every day. How (and why) someone could play tennis in those kind of conditions astounds me, but I guess that's why they're professionals. Beyond the weather, there were also surprising result on both sides of the draw. Here's a recap of the tourney.
Men: First of all, it was a shock to see Federer seeded outside the top 5, allowing Ferrer to sneak into the top 3. Now, the top 4+Federer all made the quarterfinals, but that's where the &*(^ hit the fan. Federer defeated Murray; not a huge surprise, given Fed's history and Murray coming off a back injury, but still unexpected. Ferrer lost to Berdych, and, in the biggest shock, #2 seed and two-time defending champion Djokovic lost in five sets to Wawrinka. In the semis, Nadal showed that he still owns Federer, and Wawrinka bested Berdych in a tough match. Then the finals: Wawrinka came out looking spectacular, taking the first set easily. Nadal injured his back in the second set, but kept playing. I recorded this match, and honestly started fast forwarding after the injury; somehow Nadal won a set, but the end result was inevitable. It was the first time since the 2009 U.S. Open that someone other than Nadal, Djokovic, Murray or Federer had won a Grand Slam tournament.
Women: There was very little shake up in the top ranks of the women's game in 2013, and so the top 10 looked pretty much the same for this tourney. A few top seeds were upset early, but things went pretty smoothly overall - until the 4th round. That was when former world #1 Ana Ivanovic shocked Serena Williams (I still can't believe it happened); Cibulkova knocked off Sharapova, and several other top 10 players lost as well. Azarenka, Li Na, and Radwanska remained as the favorites surviving in the quarterfinals. Azarenka, the most heavily favored, bowed out there in humiliating fashion to Radwanska, while some lower ranked players like Cibulkova and Canadian teen Bouchard managed to advance. It was Li Na and Cibulkova in the finals, and the Chinese veteran put on one of the most impressive performances on the women's side that I've seen in a long time. She went for her shots constantly and hit the mark; despite not having a trace of Serena's overwhelming firepower, she just blew Cibulkova off the court (who, I should add, competed hard the whole time).
A look at some of the top players after this tournament:
(1) Rafael Nadal: a nasty blister on his hand slowed Nadal a bit in Australia, and he struggled against some of the top players. Still, he dominated Federer again and made the finals. Considering his extraordinary return from injury last year, he will likely stay #1 most of the year and almost certainly win the French Open for the ninth time.
(2) Novak Djokovic: the Djoker came into Australia with a nice winning streak, and cruised through the opening rounds. Unfortunately, he ran into the red-hot Wawrinka in the semis, didn't have his best stuff, and went down in five sets. As long as he stays focused and hungry (retaking the #1 seed could be a nice goal), Djokovic's fitness and phenomenal return game will make him one of the favorites on every surface.
(3) Stan Wawrinka: coming out of nowhere is the guy who makes Federer the second best Swiss player in tennis right now. Wawrinka has been a good but not great player for years; somehow he's boosted himself into the elite ranks - at least for the moment - at the age of 28. Whether he can maintain this or not might be the most interesting story in tennis this year.
(6) Andy Murray: from the second half of 2012 through Wimbledon 2013, it seemed like Murray was going to be the new Djokovic - a player having such incredible improvement to lift them to the level of all-time legends Federer and Nadal. A back injury may or may not have cut that rise short. He's playing with the confidence he lacked in years prior - but how soon can he get back to the top 3?
(8) Roger Federer: 2013 was the first year that reports of Federer's decline could be backed up by his results. It was no longer just the other top players who could beat Fed - he was losing to inferior players somewhat consistently as well. With a new coach and new racket, he hopes to rebound in 2014, and the semifinal showing seemed to bode well. It may just delay the inevitable a bit longer, though.
(1) Serena Williams: even at age 32, Serena is dominating the women's game right now. Although her fourth round loss in Australia raises questions, an even bigger question is who is ready to replace her as the top player. I don't have the answer.
(2) Victoria Azarenka: Azarenka had a golden opportunity to win a third straight Australian Open when Serena went down early. But she choked badly against Radwanska (admittedly a very solid player). She has great talent and confidence, but are they both good enough to make her the next women's superstar?
(3) Li Na: although she's now won "just" two Grand Slam tournaments, Li Na is perhaps the most important player in tennis right now - man or woman - as she brings attention to the game to the largest audience in the world, China. From what I know of her, she's an exemplary representative; she may not win anymore Grand Slams (now 31 years old), but her influence could go on for many more years.
(5) Maria Sharapova: many believed that Maria would be the first "bombshell" women's player to rise to the top of the women's game. I give her a lot of credit for how hard she works and competes on the tennis court, but it looks like her ceiling might be "very good" rather than "great".
Super Bowl
It was another fun year for the NFL. Sadly, the Steelers did not make the playoffs but at least they improved through the season to give hope for 2014. But most importantly, TTSNBN was defeated before reaching the Super Bowl! Looking back at my playoff projections from before the season started, I had some very good and very bad guesses. My "bold" pick of the Broncos playing the Seahawks in the Super Bowl came true (although I picked Denver to win). On the other hand, I had Houston (2-14), Washington (3-13) and Atlanta (4-12) making the playoffs - ouch! But that's a big part of what makes the NFL so interesting to follow: you never know which expected favorites are going to fold, and which expected cellar dwellers will rise to the top.
The playoffs produced quite a few close, competitive games. By far the most entertaining was the Colt's crazy comeback win over the Chiefs in the wildcard round. But two other games that weekend were also quite close, decided by field goals at the end of the game (NO over Philly, SF over GB). I became rather worried after TTSNBN crushed the Colts in round 2, while the Broncos snuck past the Chargers. Fortunately, the Broncos ended up dominating TTSNBN in the conference championship - doubly good since I'm a fan of Peyton Manning. In the NFC, Seattle scored 23 points in each of two home games to defeat New Orleans - an explosive offense - and San Francisco - a smash-mouth team - to reach the Super Bowl.
The trend of wildcard teams getting on a hot streak and going to the Super Bowl hit a wall this year, as we got the strangely rare occurrence of the #1 seeds from both conferences. The game itself doesn't merit much discussion: the Seahawks destroyed the Broncos. I do object to, after the fact, to the many analysts claiming the result was inevitable (despite most saying the Broncos were the favorites beforehand). Seattle probably did have the better team, but I think the result had more to do with football's "any given Sunday" variability than a truly significant disparity between the teams.
Two great sports tournaments complete - now to turn attention to the NBA and winter Olympics!
Score: ***1/2 out of ***** (B)
Long Story Short: Her is the Oscar-nominated, sci-fi romance film of Jonze and Phoenix, acclaimed director and actor, respectively. While the acting is good (not just Phoenix but also Amy Adams in a small part), and the sci-fi and cultural commentary is intriguing, the central premise - human-computer romance - just doesn't work well. And its effect on me, personally, was bitterness. I can see it having a much different impact on other people, but I still don't view it as a must see, let alone an Oscar frontrunner.
Back to the normal reviews this week, and the first movies of 2014 (for a much different kind of film, read about Lone Survivor). I hope that you enjoyed my 2013 top 10 and awards posts from last week; many of my choices didn't align very closely with the major national critics, but hopefully they gave you some good ideas that you wouldn't hear elsewhere. Next week I'll have a sports post about the NFL playoffs, including Super Bowl, plus the Australian Open. I wasn't sure what to think about Her when I saw the first trailer; Joaquin Phoenix is a good actor but tends to be in very strange films (eg: The Master). Once I finally read about the premise, it sounded interesting, and as an Oscar contender, it seemed reasonable to expect high quality. Her was directed by Spike Jonze (Being John Malkovich) and stars Phoenix, Scarlett Johansson and Amy Adams.
I'll only give a brief plot summary for this film. It's set in a (seemingly) near future American city, where Theodore Twombly (Phoenix) lives and works as a romantic letter writer. Technology has advanced to the point that a new OS has been developed - it can accompany the owner everywhere via earpiece and matchbox-style hardware - that has consciousness. Theodore, lonely due to his introversion and life experiences, quickly grows close to his new OS, named Samantha (voiced by Johansson). The rest of the film is about this relationship which, as you can imagine, is a little different than that of a normal human-to-human one.
The cast of Her is relatively small but good. Joaquin Phoenix plays Theodore, the central role in the film. Phoenix is a very good actor, of course, and he plays the introverted yet romantic man believably (kind of reminded me of a serious version of Big Bang Theory's Leonard - even in appearance). Considering that for most of the time he has no other actors to work with, his performance is even more impressive. But - and this certainly isn't all his fault - Theodore simply isn't all that engaging a character. Calls for Johansson to get an Oscar nod for her voice part as the "conscious" OS Samantha are a little ridiculous, I think. She does a good job, but not so well to compensate for the obvious limitations. Amy Adams is great once again - in a smaller, much less striking role than in American Hustle - as Theodore's friend. She's the most likable character, and I only wish she had more screen time. Also involved are Rooney Mara, Twombly's ex who delivers one withering scene (more on this later), and Chris Pratt, hilarious as usual as Twombly's boss.
Her ends up as primarily a romantic film, with significant cultural commentary and sci-fi elements involved as well. It does an OK job at the first part, and excels at the other two. All those involved - writer, director, and actors - had quite a challenge to try to pull off a convincing romantic relationship between a human and a bodiless computer. Phoenix's acting, as noted, is very good, and Johansson "speaks" as you might think such an entity would. There are also a few scenes of striking (even disturbing) emotion, most notably when Samantha tries to make physical love to Twombly through a (willing, non-prostitute) surrogate. But I seldom felt a true romantic connection between the two, and the montages of "normal" romantic time together grew wearisome rather quickly. If anything, the one real-time meeting we see between Twombly and his ex is the most emotional scene in the entire film, one where she eviscerates Twombly so badly (I even felt hurt on his account) it could have - but doesn't - lead to a major change. On the other hand, the cultural and sci-fi aspects - which basically intertwine - are pretty fascinating. Twombly is often surrounded by other people, and yet there is a distinct feeling of isolation as everyone seems to be talking only to themselves (rather, to their own OS). The near-future world is very convincing and believable. A final note, there is a bit of humor in Her - I wouldn't call it "hilarious" as some critics have, but there are some chuckles, mostly produced by Chris Pratt and one of Twombly's video games.
***
Considering its 94% rating on RT and Oscar nomination for best picture, I had high expectations for Her, but I was not as impressed as other critics. It comes down to the central premise of the film - the romance between human and computer - being a failure, and simply the bitter taste it left me with. For everything in the film to truly click together, the audience has to believe in Theodore and Samantha as being in love, but it just never got there for me. It would be one thing if the script seemed to indicate that Theodore thought he loved Samantha but never did - but that's not the case. Also, while Her is not a downbeat film, I felt kind of cold and empty walking out of the theater. Many of the films I go to I would not mind seeing again, and some I immediately want to rewatch, but I have no such desire at all with this film. As usual, it's not all bad, though. The acting of Phoenix and Adams, and even the voice work of Johansson, keep you engaged (most of the time - it could have been 15 minutes or so shorter). And the biggest draw is the interesting concept of where human relationships are headed in a world of increasingly sophisticated technology. Her serves as a definitive warning (perhaps even more so than the director intended), and it's something worth thinking about. Still, don't bother rushing out to see this; a Netflix viewing is perfectly good, and afterwards you can watch a light-hearted sitcom or something to cheer yourself up again.
