The Lego Movie

[Dacey]

Seems we didn't have a topic for this one....even though I know we've been discussing this somewhere.

Currently 99% "fresh" over at Rotten Tomatoes, with only one negative review out of 72 reviews collected. Seems this is going to be a good one!

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_lego_movie/

[Randall]

Even AintitCool raved about it. Seems it might actually be a great little film.

[Ben]

Big opening numbers, lots of positive reviews...yep, looks like this one is going to be a fun surprise!

[James]

AV review: http://animatedviews.com/2014/the-lego-movie-film/

[Riv]

Regarding your point about Lord Business, my reading of the character was that *big spoilers*

Lord Business is named so not for intentional political digs, but because that's how his son, Finn, saw him. The reveal that real life playtime directly influenced the Lego world recontexualizes a lot of elements that may seem silly (his name) or trivial (his outfit). Lord Business's giant cape and helmet resemble a giant red tie and knot because in Finn's mind they were representative of his dad enforcing conformity. The dad may or may not have worked in the business sector, but to Finn, a child, this image of his domineering father (see Lord Business's towering platform shoes) becomes recast into a simple "faceless corporation" baddie. It is only when Lord Business steps down from his larger than life perch and removes his helmet and cape that he and Emmet can communicate as equals, at the same moment when father and son reconcile

[Randall]

Both my kids are eager to see this, and given all the good buzz, I'm kinda eager myself. The trailer looked surprisingly good, and it looks like the movie came out well too.

[Dacey]

Without reading the spoiler (I'm actually retreating from this topic until I've seen the film), I'm gonna be honest about Lord Business: the name is clearly a joke! Like calling the villain in The Muppets Tex Richman. It's just meant to be funny, and really, it's nothing new.

[eddievalient]

As laughable as it is, Dacey, conservatives complained that The Muppets was "corrupting children" because of the villain's name and they're complaining about this film for the same reason. Are we really that surprised?

[droosan]

So .. Warner Bros spent ~$60 million making a movie based around a mega toy franchise (which itself is almost certain to generate massive sales of even more of those toys and playsets for years to come) -- packed the movie with synergistic references to multiple WB franchises (and at least one prominent 'non-WB' property) -- and spent upward of another $100 million marketing the film in every possible media venue .. but somehow, the villain's name implies that they're actually -- secretly -- 'anti-business'..?


Perhaps he simply has that name because 'Business' is the antonym for 'Play'.


I finally saw this tonight. It's a lot of fun..!

[James]

Like I explicitly said in the review, I didn't care about the injection of what seemed to be a political statement into the movie. I cared that it felt forced and didn't work in the film, no matter their original intention.

That said, denying Hollywood villains in a lot of kids movies aren't politically rightwing caricatures is silly. Yes, they're jokes, but they're almost always jokes at the expense of only one group. No one said Hollywood had to be unbiased and they're not. What's the big deal with saying it?

[droosan]

Perhaps I should have been more clear that my post was following-up on eddievalient's comment; it was meant to lampoon the general sentiment -- in some 'conservative' media -- that Lord Business was a secret message to indoctrinate children. No reference to your review was intended, James.

[droosan]

The Lego Movie is just entering its third weekend in theaters, but Warner Bros has already set a release date for its sequel: May 26, 2017

There's no script, yet .. nor any indication that Phil Lord & Christopher Miller would return as directors (or even, indeed, whether the follow-up will even feature any of the characters or storyline from the first film).

Oh, well .. details, details!

[Ben]

There's also the suggestion that a spin-off (WB) Lego movie may beat an official Lego Movie 2 to theaters. Apparently, WB now see this as a priority franchise that can support an ongoing story (over who knows how many sequels) as well as character/co-franchise stand-alones, much like Lego has been doing for a while now on home video.

[Buzz Bumble]

Wow! A forum topic about The Lego Movie and no mention of the naughtily incorrect "Legos" word anywhere (pity it is sprinkled through the review though) ... obviously a forum of highly intelligent people.

I haven't seen the movie yet because it doesn't open here in New Zealand until the school holidays (18 April - 4 May)

... as well as character/co-franchise stand-alones, much like Lego has been doing for a while now on home video

And the various video games. I've got most of the games and DVD movies, but my computer is too old to play the games on.

[Ben]

Well, I always make sure to just use the singular! I think "Legos" plural is more an American thing...?

Whatever it is, I can't wait not to see another Lego Movie...I thought this was awful. Okay, well, to clarify:

I thought the first act was excellent. I laughed and thought the song was well done. I was pleased it wasn't the Justice League Lego movie that the trailer suggested. The humor was sharp and some of it was even quite clever if a bit obvious. But I was being entertained and could see what everyone was talking about in how good it was.

The middle started to drag more, and more of the jokes and characters started to feel a bit more forced. The humor wasn't as sharp and I realised the first half hour was all the filmmakers had. The jokes were not actually very clever, or as clever as they thought they were. The film wasn't really a dud yet, but I was really hoping for a cracking last act.

However, rather than this be a movie set in a Lego universe, the last half hour suddenly pulls a Happy Feet on us and turns a full 180 to force in the whole "surprise" that this is all happening from the imagination of a child on some guy's huge Lego set-up in a basement.

WTF!?

Okay, I obviously get the messages about the power of imagination and all that, but despite all the other Lego worlds breaking in through the movie, Will Ferrell's basement only seemed to have the basic big city Lego stuff. So where did Batman, Superman, Han Solo and all the others come from?

Also, I hated the way the story flipped from the live-action to what was still supposedly happing in Lego World "for real"...the juxtaposition didn't work or make sense. When Emmett then "came to life" on Ferrell's desk, The Lego Movie turned to complete s*** for me! I just hated the betrayal of both that this wasn't all set in a Lego universe, and that the connection between the Lego characters and our world was so botched.

It really was so bad I couldn't believe the filmmakers thought it worked at all, and I'm more aghast that audiences have taken to the film as such. Hated. It.

Now, what I *did* like, and why I was sooooo peeved with that ending, was that I *LOVED* the Lego universe. I loved how water and smoke and explosions were all created with Lego blocks - this is *exactly* how I felt Disney could have been more innovative with Wreck-It Ralph and made the 8-bit world work in 3D CGI. The combination of CG and stop-motion and the technical production and process design for The Lego Movie was amazing.

The tone of the film, at first, was spot-on too, but it ultimately wasn't as clever as it wanted, thought it was, and needed to be, and that ending "twist" just droppd the ball so much so as to have been questionable. Seriously, I don't know how those decisions got through even the earliest meetings, let alone the executives watching the first editors' cuts. No wonder WB didn't really have much faith behind it until it bizarrely became an audience-propelled hit...