Hate movie spoilers? Good! You'll get straight to the point, quick, and spoiler-free movie reviews to help you spend your time and money wisely on movies. I'll give you the Good, the Bad, the Reason, and the Rating about each movie. ***Please disable any popup blockers***
The Good:
Within the first 15 minutes of the movie, and many times throughout, we get a ton of reminders that this Sony/Marvel partnership is the real deal. There are a lot of intentional and purposeful connections made to let us know that Spider-Man is definitely connected with the Avengers in more ways than one. There are a number of references to both the Avengers movies and to Civil War for you comic movie history buffs.
Since this was a Marvel production (as part of their deal with Sony) there's plenty of "Marvel fun" from beginning to end. There are a number of funny moments that certainly helps to keep the movie light-hearted and entertaining. A lot of the comedy comes from the supporting cast. Jacob Batalon (who plays Ned) has a lot a humorous scenes as he plays Peter Parker's best friend. Jon Favreau ("Happy") and also Zendaya ("Michelle") also have a few quick funny one off scenes as well. For the few scenes he was in, Hannibal Buress was comical too.
While the internet was making it a big deal, I actually liked what the film did with Marisa Tomei's version of "Aunt May". The movie didn't oversell her character to be the hot cougar everyone may have thought her to be. Once you see her caring and nurturing side with Peter, all those other ideas about her kind of go out the window.
Unlike some of the other past Spider-Man movies, I thought this one did a really good job in setting up potential side characters for future films. None of it felt rushed, and the characters (even if minor) feel like they have organic origins now. Speaking of which, there are many obvious Easter eggs throughout this movie. If you're a Spider-Man fan (of the comics or cartoon), you'll probably pick up at least 85% of the hints that are left. Certain characters are obvious clues to other characters' existence and so on.
As for Spider-Man himself, Tom Holland did a great job portraying the wall crawler. The concerns of Peter Parker being too young should be quelled. His youth actually serves a great purpose in showing his inexperience at being a superhero. That leaves a lot of room for us (the audience) to grow and relate to him. The film does an excellent job of putting Spidey in situations where he shows not only his inexperience, but his maturity as well over time. I was really happy to see him in situations where he couldn't rely on his web shooters, for example. I also really appreciated the fact that they showcased his intellect as a tech genius.
Contrary to the trailers, I'm also happy to let you know that Tony Stark/Iron Man does not over take this movie at all. He's probably in this movie for about 10-15%. This is totally a Spider-Man/Peter Parker story.
As for the villain, Michael Keaton was at his best in my opinion. I personally don't think that he suffered from the "MCU Villain problem" at all. While they didn't use the traditional Vulture from the comics, they gave him a much more grounded and realistic approach. I thought that he posed an excellent challenge to Spider-Man and that's really all you can ask for from any villain.
The Bad:
I'm going to start off with my biggest grievance just to get this off of my chest. I am really disappointed and almost frustrated with the way this film handled Spider-Man's powers. More specifically, they made his "Spidey Sense" practically non-existent. In my opinion, that's almost like de-powering Superman's strength or making him jump rather than fly. I just think that Spider-Man's Spidey sense is an attribute that makes him really special and unique. Unfortunately in this film, they've reduced him to simply having really quick reflexes.
While many of the supporting characters and scenes in this movie were indeed funny, I think we could've done without a lot of them. The movie's run time is about 2hrs 15mins, and it really felt like some of the funny scenes were just added fluff. For instance, if some of the scenes with Ned or "Happy" were removed, I don't think that the movie would've suffered at all. As a matter of fact, a lot of their scenes would've probably been better served as additional features on the Blu-Ray DVD instead.
Given the approach to making this a younger teen movie, I found it strange that this film included references to teen movies from the 80's. For example, there's a direct reference to Ferris Bueller's Day off which I'm not sure many people under the age of 21 have even seen. It's not that some of these reference are bad, I just don't think they'll really resonate because this movie comes off as though it's directed for people ages 13-25. (I'm not counting comic book movie fans only because we're already too heavily invested in these movies. They know we'll show up for this regardless.)
Last issue is that I really am not a fan of how careless this movie deals with Spider-Man's secret identity. While the writing does make sense in terms of how they handled it, I simply don't believe it was necessary to have certain individual(s) discover it. (You'll know what I mean when you see it.) The reveal does help add some level of intensity to the film, but I just think that they could've had the same effect without letting the cat out of the bag the way they did. The Reason:
Spider-Man Homecoming certainly has breathed new life into the Spider-Man movie franchise. Where does it compare you ask? Well I'd say that it's the 2nd best Spider-Man film to date. That's right. Spider-Man 2, still holds the lead in terms of being the best Spider-Man movie.
The film will probably be offered in some enhanced viewing formats like 3D and Dolby Atmos. I got to see it in Dolby Atmos, and while the sound technology is amazing, I just don't think that Spider-Man Homecoming is the right movie to see in that format. Nor is the movie necessary to see in 3D. I mean you can obviously choose to view it that way, but there just didn't seem to be anything memorable that the 3D or Dolby will leave you with. So you can save a little money there.
I left the theater liking Spider-Man Homecoming a lot, but not necessarily being Wow'd by it either. This felt more like the Disney XD version of Spider-Man. (Take that however you wish) The movie is really fun and entertaining, but it does have room for improvement. Either way, Spider-Man Homecoming is a definitely worth the watch in theaters. Be sure to stay until the very end. There are TWO end credit scenes.
The Rating: 8.5/10 My [Loosely based] Ratings scale 10-9 = A Must watch at any cost. 8.5- 7.5 = Theater worthy 7-6.5 = Matinee/rental worthy at best 6 = Watchable (If it's free) 5 - below = Avoid at all costs
Don't want to miss future reviews and contests?
Enjoyed this review? Share it and let me know what you thought.
Click Here to join our weekly email list. One email, every Friday, to get my latest reviews. Don't forget to follow me at @SpoilerDashFree
The Good:
As with any Michael Bay film we know that this movie would be nothing short of a lot of action and explosions. There were a number of chase scenes that included some great special effects, and to top it off the 3D visuals were really nice too. Throughout the film you'll notice some great scenes that literally pop out at you.
Probably the best part of this film will be the last 20 mins or so, when the Transformers are actually fighting one another. This time around we get to see some cool new weapons and some new transformers as well. My personal favorite was probably Anthony Hopkin's butler transformer. He had a number of humorous moments in the film.
Oh and while Megan Fox wasn't in this film, shout out to Director Michael Bay for having Laura Haddock look like her long lost twin. The Bad:
*Sigh*
I'm not really sure where to being. Oh I know. How about the fact that this Transformers movie, yet again, wasn't even about the Transformers. Instead this was a Mark Wahlberg movie. Optimus Prime shows up early in the beginning, and we don't see him again until maybe the last 35 mins of the film. I should also mention that this movie is about 2.5 hours long (and you will feel every pain staking minute of it.) The Transformers in this film were basically reduced to being supporting characters in their own movie. While they would have some lines here or there, they were pretty much background characters until the very end of the movie where the battle ensues.
Propelling Mark Walberg and the plight of the human race was probably one of the weakest story lines this movie could take on. Even some of the most fearsome Transformers were turned into mere pets. The story just comes off to be so unrealistic that it just stops being a "fun movie" anymore.
As a matter of fact, this movie was constantly trying to be funny. It was like watching a bad comedian on stage bomb joke, after joke, after 2.5 hour long bad joke. (This movie was so long.) -_-
Almost every character goes out of their way to say or do something ridiculously cheesy and corny that it's not even funny to laugh at how corny and cheesy they're being. The sadder part is that they actually got a comedian in Jerrod Carmichael to star in the movie, and even he wasn't remotely funny.
The story itself was a complete mess. While the premise of the movie was pretty simple (Bad Transformers want to destroy our world), the various subplots felt erratic and jumbled. The film keeps jumping from one scene to another, trying to tell one subplot only to jump to another. At some point you simply just stop caring.
At no point did I really care about the new villain. At no point was Optimus Prime's reprogramming even believable. And for those of you who hated that Martha moment in Batman v Superman, get ready for an equally bad moment like that in this film.
The saddest part about this movie is that we still really don't learn that much about the Transformers or their home world. This was a perfect opportunity for us to focus on more of the Transformers lore, but instead it was squandered for whatever the hell we saw in this film.
The Reason:
You know, I don't know why I do this sometimes. Maybe I'm a sucker for punishment. I thought I would've learned my lesson with the last Transformers movies. The writing was TERRIBLE. The Story was overly simplistic, uninteresting and all over the place. The characters SUCKED.
I can't recall ever seeing a movie that was so action packed that it also bored me at the same time. I want my money back. (I don't care if I saw it for free) The sad reality is that some people are still going to watch this and actually think this movie was good. In my opinion, the only way to really enjoy this film is to turn your brain completely off. Don't try to make sense of things. Just sit back and watch the shiny things explode and flick on the screen.
If you think you really have to watch this movie because you've been so invested in the previous four movies, don't feel pressured to see this. You can wait it out. Honestly, you'd probably be better off watching this when it comes on cable, or just reading the wiki for this movie instead. If you want to still go watch it that's fine. Everyone has a different tolerance level for certain films. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and mine is that they simply need to stop making these films.
The Rating: 5/10
My [Loosely based] Ratings scale 10-9 = A Must watch at any cost. 8.5- 7.5 = Theater worthy 7-6.5 = Matinee/rental worthy at best 6 = Watchable (If it's free) 5 - below = Avoid at all costs
Don't want to miss future reviews and contests?
Enjoyed this review? Share it and let me know what you thought.
Click Here to join our weekly email list. One email, every Friday, to get my latest reviews. Don't forget to follow me at @SpoilerDashFree
The Good:
From the very beginning of the film, it definitely isn't shy about setting the tone for the amount of action that will be on display. Most of the action scenes look very similar to some of Tom Cruise's Mission Impossible films. There were plenty of explosions, and chases, and of course Tom Cruise running. (Man, does he love to run.)
Besides the action, it was really interesting to see how this film was able to tap into its horror roots, so to speak. There were plenty of jump scares and "Zummies" (zombie mummies) to help create some really tense moments in the movie. I think they did a pretty decent job with the CGI effects for the most part. To top all of that off, there were some humorous moments of comic relief that may get a bit of a chuckle out of you here or there.
I think that without question one of the biggest highlights of this movie was Sofia Boutella who plays the Mummy. She was simply captivating every time she was on the screen. Dare I say, she was more intriguing to watch than Tom Cruise's character for the most part too. She was able to carry a sense of terror and beauty simultaneously.
The Bad:
*grabs some coffee & a Tylenol*
This movie tried to do way too much all at the same time. While it did have a mixture of action, horror and comedy it simply didn't blend well. (It reminds me of when you're trying to make a healthy shake without all the ingredients mixing well. Then when you drink it, there are lumps and chunks of random things you can no longer identify.) There were just one too many cheesy one-liners from Cruise in my opinion. Rather than allowing someone like Jake Johnson's character to shoulder the comedic relief, I think it was a misstep to have Cruise take that on as well.
Unfortunately, I can't go into detail, but I am not a fan of what they did with Tom Cruise's character. The way they end the movie, in my opinion, feels like the wrong direction if this will truly be a new "monster universe" film franchise for the studio. Cruise's character is left to make a decision by the end of the film, and I just don't think it made a lot of sense. Honestly, it was just really impractical and unbelievable. One of the reasons why is because of the forced and unrealistic relationship between Cruise and Annabelle Wallis' character ("Jenny Halsey"). Both of their characters have a rushed and unauthentic relationship that doesn't help make any sense of the actions taken later on in the movie.
I suppose it was also bit disappointing in regards to the lack of originality in this film. As I mentioned before, some of the action scenes looked really familiar to Tom Cruise's past films. In addition to that, there's a scene of the mummy that looked almost too familiar to the latest Power Rangers movie and Rita Repulsa's character coming to life. To make matters worse, the film's marketing probably didn't help with the spoilery trailers. They revealed, I think, too much with Russell Crowe's character. Even when we finally do see Crowe, his character is a bit underwhelming. They could've left his character as a shadowy figure that operated behind the scenes. Otherwise, some of his scenes could've been deleted and the movie wouldn't have skipped a beat. The Reason:
The movie studio is clearly trying to use The Mummy as a setup movie for their future "monster universe" films where they will be introducing more characters. (ie: Wolfman, Invisible Man, etc) It's really hard to see what direction this franchise is about to take. I can't tell if it wants to be something like Hellboy, Suicide Squad, or random monster movies in general. Given what we saw in The Mummy, I'm not all that excited to see what happens next. The story and the easter eggs just felt like they were all over the place and overexerting themselves to promote future films.
Unfortunately, I don't think that The Mummy will live up to the hype or expectation of a typical Tom Cruise movie, nor to the success of the the past Mummy films in the late 90's or early 2000s. While on paper this should be a solid home-run film, I think it's more a bunt play. (Whether they make it safe to 1st base will be your call.) If you're interested in the potential universe they are trying to create, then you obviously will have to watch this movie.
Oh and the 3D was simply not present enough to warrant seeing it that format. You get a few scenes here or there that pop out at you, but afterwards you forget you're watching a 3D movie. I think this movie is something you watch when your local theater is having a discount showing or matinee. At that point you can probably enjoy it a bit more. I think some people may still enjoy this film and ignore its many flaws, so I would just say go in with low expectations, avoid the trailers, and pass on the 3D. If you do that, you'll probably enjoy the film for what it's worth.
The Rating: 6.5/10
Don't want to miss future reviews and contests?
My [Loosely based] Ratings scale
10-9 = A Must watch at any cost. 8.5- 7.5 = Theater worthy 7-6.5 = Matinee/rental worthy at best 6 = Watchable (If it's free) 5 - below = Avoid at all costs
Enjoyed this review? Share it and let me know what you thought.
Click Here to join our weekly email list. One email, every Friday, to get my latest reviews. Don't forget to follow me at @SpoilerDashFree
The Good:
First and foremost, if there were any doubts about whether Gal Gadot could carry a movie, she certainly should put those concerns to rest. She did a wonderful 😉 job of portraying the iconic super heroine throughout the movie. You get to see Wonder Woman's emotional growth and maturity through Gal's performance. What I really enjoyed about this movie was the fact that we finally got a DCEU movie where the character is developed and relatable in a proper way. We get to see the certain events and situations that shape her mindset and her motivations that mold her into the hero that we've all known her to be.
I personally liked the mythological background of Wonder Woman's story. As with most superhero movies, it was fun to see the different Amazonian culture, her fight training, and Wonder Woman's discovery of her powers. It was interesting to see how her background influenced aspects of her character such as her sense of duty and morality.
The movie's got some solid action scenes that will probably remind you of the film "300" almost immediately. (It's really hard not to see Zack Snyder's influence all over this movie.) Unlike in Man of Steel with the blurry and hard to follow action scenes, Wonder Woman utilizes slow motion fight scenes that were much more pleasing to the eye.
As far as the story or plot, I appreciated the fact that it was rather straight forward in regards to the origin story. We do get a surprising twist, and there are nice humorous moments that keep this movie from going too dark. Wonder Woman's social interactions are probably one of the funnier moments, especially when she interacts with Steve Trevor (played by Chris Pine). Speaking of which, Pine also does a pretty good job with his character who was surprisingly better than I expected. The Bad:
Maybe it's because I've seen a ton of comic book movies before, but the origin story does seem a little redundant. You may see some very familiar situations through her discovery of powers similar to other superheroes we've seen in films. (i.e. Spider Man, Super Man, etc.) So unfortunately this kind of made a lot of the movie a tad bit predictable. The pacing in some parts also kind of drag a bit in my opinion. Personally I would've simply wanted more time spent showing her on the Amazonian island rather than the outside world. I just think that there was a bit more to explore and learn about their culture rather than speeding up to the events of the outside world.
Another issue is probably the main villain of the movie. I can't go into too much detail about the villain without ruining things so I'll just say that I would've really preferred a different actor for the role. While the build up to the final showdown certainly was executed effectively, the actual fight itself was a bit lackluster. At one point I felt like I was watching an X-Men movie from 2006 or something. The fighting itself was a bit disappointing when you compare it to the cooler fight scenes earlier in the film. Don't get me wrong, it gets the job done at the end of the day, but the way the battle ends didn't leave me wow'd. The Reason:
I think there are couple of things to consider with this film. The first thing is that this movie was a bit cookie cutter in terms of a superhero movie. I'd probably venture to say that this was not intended to impress comic book movie fans. Instead, I think this movie is geared towards people who probably are new to superhero movies and at least have heard of Wonder Woman in general.
The other consideration is that this movie is clearly appealing to a more female demographic of all ages. That doesn't mean men can't enjoy the film. I think it's just a matter of what this movie and the character of Wonder Woman represents. She was created to be a symbol of female empowerment and a feminist (in terms of gender equality.) One thing that I realized is that there are going to probably be certain scenes in this film that will intentionally resonate with women more than it may with some men on average. I noticed this in my own screening where some women applauded and cheered during those certain scenes.
At the end of the day, whether you like this movie or not, one thing that cannot be denied is that Wonder Woman will carry an intangible quality that will resonate with fans one way or another. This movie will be a dream come true for some. It may empower others. Either way, I think it's safe to say that this is the best DCEU movie to date. As a matter of fact, Wonder Woman is what "Man of Steel" (Review) should've been. Her character is much more relatable and developed than the current Superman we have now. If I had to compare, this movie is easily Captain America: First Avenger + Thor + Man of Steel. It's absolutely worth watching in theaters.
The Rating: 8.0/10 Don't want to miss future reviews and contests?
My [Loosely based] Ratings scale
10-9 = A Must watch at any cost. 8.5- 7.5 = Theater worthy 7-6.5 = Matinee/rental worthy at best 6 = Watchable (If it's free) 5 - below = Avoid at all costs
Enjoyed this review? Share it and let me know what you thought.
Click Here to join our weekly email list. One email, every Friday, to get my latest reviews. Don't forget to follow me at @SpoilerDashFree
The Good:
One thing that I found interesting about this film was how it wasn't entirely about King Arthur himself. While Arthur is obviously a main character in the film, he's almost like a co-star to the sword itself. It was nice to see more of the origin of the sword, and the literal power that it possessed. If you're a fan of anime cartoons, then you will easily see the similarities this movie adapts when it comes to the power the sword gives to the wielder.
Charlie Hunnam was clearly in a role that catered to a lot of his strengths. He could be witty, charming, inspirational and physical in the action scenes. Eric Bana was a personal favorite of mine. I can't exactly put my finger on it, but I just felt he played his part so well that he's probably one of the few characters you may actually connect with despite his smaller role.
Another aspect of the film that I enjoyed was the notion of sacrifice. It was a theme that gets played in a number of ways with various characters. In particular, I loved how it was used with Jude Law's character. It added a level of depth to his character that makes him a more complex villain in the movie.
The Bad:
The movie has a lot of long and slow pacing parts. The film is about 2hrs and 6mins but it really felt like 2.5 hrs. The dialogue and banter contributes to this greatly. Furthermore, the story in itself is rather predictable. While this is a fresher and probably more original take on the story of King Arthur, you can see the intentional twist and turns coming from a mile away.
I can't help but to think that maybe the combination of the thicker English accents and dialogue were a bit of an issue. There's a lot of dialogue used to tell the story (or hypothetical situations) and it can maybe get a little confusing mixed with the constant camera visuals switching back and forth.
When you think of King Arthur and the sword Excalibur the one other character that typically gets associated is Merlin the wizard. I was really disappointed in the fact that they only mentioned him by name and briefly showed him on screen. It would almost be as if one were to watch the Lord of the Rings and only hear mentions of a wizard named Gandalf. I think that was a missed opportunity to highlight one of the central characters to the legendary story.
When it came to Jude Law's character, he felt like one of the bigger disappointments. His character felt poorly developed despite the fact that his character had a lot of potential to be really deep. We don't get to necessarily see what motivates him to do the things that he does outside of just a generic reason like "I want power" or something to that degree. It's hard to really tell why he chooses to do the things that he does, and to some degree you just stop caring and go along with it.
Lastly the most notable issue with the film is the blurry CGI action scenes. Similar to my criticisms in Man of Steel, a lot of the fast paced action scenes were really blurry to make out. To the film's credit, they did provide some slow motion sequences to help you follow the action, but overall it was poorly depicted. In so many instances you'll feel like you've gone from watching a movie to a video game. (You may even notice the Mortal Kombat similarity with the final battle.)
The Reason:
This film had a lot of potential to be much better than it was. As an admirer of the King Arthur tale, I really wanted to like this movie. I don't terribly dislike it. It just feels like it'll be forgettable in about a week or so. I completely disagree with the reviews who claim that this movie is "trash" because we've seen far worse movies than this.
This is a Guy Ritchie film. He's the same guy that brought you the Sherlock Holmes films with Robert Downey Jr. (Which I loved) and Man from U.N.C.L.E. (which was okay). He's got a very distinct style to his movies. As with any distinctive art, you will either hate it or love it. For me, this movie wasn't one of his strongest films.
While King Arthur: Legend of the Sword may not be something you have to rush to the movie theaters to see, I can still see some appeal in it. If you're a Charlie Hunnam fan, then this will be watchable for you. Given the number of Game of Thrones characters in the film this movie felt like Game of Thrones + Assassin's Creed. You can most definitely wait on seeing this film.
The Rating: 6/10 Don't want to miss future reviews and contests?
My [Loosely based] Ratings scale 10-9 = A Must watch at any cost. 8.5- 7.5 = Theater worthy 7-6.5 = Matinee/rental worthy at best 6 = Watchable (If it's free) 5 - below = Avoid at all costs
Enjoyed this review? Share it and let me know what you thought.
Click Here to join our weekly email list. One email, every Friday, to get my latest reviews. Don't forget to follow me at @SpoilerDashFree
The Good:
Unlike the previous Godzilla 2014 film (Read my review here) we get a lot more of Kong throughout the film. Matter of fact, it doesn't take very long for him to appear on the screen either. This may be one of the best depictions of King Kong given the fact that this film doesn't really hold back with his level of destruction. The movie is only PG-13, but there are moments where the violence would make one think it was bordering the rated R level. I personally enjoyed the fact that they made Kong more expressive than just a big raging monster. You can read his emotions and can get behind him as a character.
Kong: Skull Island is truly a "monster film". The various creatures that populate the island almost give you the same feeling that you may have had when you watched Jurassic Park for the very first time. The movie includes some great camera angles and shots, but also some shocking death scenes as well. The havoc and chaos that the monsters evoke will keep your eyes glued to the screen.
As far as the characters go, I'd probably say that after seeing this film, I am now 110% convinced that Tom Hiddleston should be the new James Bond. Period. We don't need to debate this because it's already settled. He has a few moments in the film that show you the potential of being, not just suave and debonair, but fully capable of getting his hands dirty with some action scenes too. Samuel L. Jackson is exactly who we've come to expect and love with his character. John C. Reilly simply runs away with the comedic relief in the movie. His comedy was well timed and helped lighten the mood during some intense moments. The supporting cast including Jason Mitchell, John Goodman, and others were also really solid. I will also say that I was very happy to see some predictable Hollywood tropes not happen.
The Bad:
I suppose one issue is just the mere fact that there wasn't really anything ground breaking or new with this film. You've seen big monsters on the screen before. You've seen monsters fight on screen before too. It's entertaining, but like I said, nothing really all that original.
This may be a bit of nitpicking, but the film seemed to have some sort of difficulty with its character development. Throughout the film we are introduced to a variety of characters. However, it seemed difficult to really get attached to most of them. Besides that, I could've sworn they added a bunch of extra soldiers to the film to be used as collateral damage. At one point it felt like we were only dealing with about 7 characters but 20 get included in the battle scenes.
The Reason:
Kong: Skull Island was definitely an entertaining film. It's a nice stepping stone to continue building the mythos that the studios are creating with this "monster universe". For those wondering, yes, there is an end credit scene that teases a connection to future movies. It's well worth the watch in theaters, so feel free to plan your weekend to check it out. I saw the film in 2D and thought it was just fine in that format.
The Rating: 8/10
Don't want to miss future reviews and contests?
My [Loosely based] Ratings scale 10-9 = A Must watch at any cost. 8.5- 7.5 = Theater worthy 7-6.5 = Matinee/rental worthy at best 6 = Watchable (If it's free) 5 - below = Avoid at all costs
Enjoyed this review? Share it and let me know what you thought.
Click Here to join our weekly email list. One email, every Friday, to get my latest reviews. Don't forget to follow me at @SpoilerDashFree
GUEST WRITER: Don Shanahan is a fellow Chicago film critic of "Every Movie Has a Lesson." He is an elementary educator who writes his movie reviews with life lessons in mind, from the serious to the farcical. Don is one of the directors of the Chicago Independent Film Critics Association (CIFCC). Please welcome him as an occasional contributor to Eman's Movie Reviews.
The Trailer:
The Good:
When done with gusto, what makes Batman unique and special is that he works in any tone. With brooding attitude, he can be the Dark Knight. With zest and camp, he can be the Bright Knight like Adam West. Batman works in either setting because the human fortitude at the core of the character, his drive to right wrongs after personal tragedy, can be employed equally for heroic and virtuous causes and also for the vigilante and urban myth that takes matters into his own hands.
The roller coaster that can be praised without reservation or question is the technical and artistic achievement of the film’s sparklingly detailed animation. The CGI and 3D rendering is off the charts and better than “The LEGO Movie.” Every detail is so nimbly imagined, right down to the perceived-smooth LEGO surfaces with subtle chips and scratches of playtime weathering. This confection has unquestioned luster.
Another heap of praise goes to the ensemble voice cast of inspired choices, large and small. Galifianakis is a perfect frazzled Joker and Michael Cera steals scenes with his flamboyant Robin act. The real hidden gems are the clever casting matches for underlying characters, like Billy Dee Williams getting to play Two-Face nearly 30 years after playing Harvey Dent in 1989’s “Batman.” Test your ears to place the likes of Conan O’Brien, Eddie Izzard, Seth Green, Jemaine Clement, Hector Elizondo, Mariah Carey, Ellie Kemper, Riki Lindhome, Adam DeVine, Jason Mantzoukas, and plot the scavenger hunt of who they play. The Bad:
To say the narrative trajectory of “The LEGO Batman Movie” is all over the place is an understatement. This is cinematic carnival bumper cars with all of the wild tangents representing the carny food confection. Such is delicious, yet admittedly shallow and not all that healthy. Batman being a known commodity makes this tale less compelling than learning all about the new hero of Emmet Brickowski two years ago.
The film is a great deal of fun as big-screen entertainment, but is constantly frenetic with its breakneck pace. It stands as proof that you can’t make a movie entirely out of references, even if they are clever ones concocted by a five-man story team led by TV joke writer Chris McKenna (“Community”) and genre-bending author Seth Grahame-Smith (“Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter,” “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies”). The kids should come first and most of “The LEGO Batman movie” is going to zoom over their heads. The Reason:
Chock full of more jokes, puns, and references than there are virtual plastic bricks, “The LEGO Batman Movie” is a breezy blast of unabashed fun. Twirling with dazzling animation and saturated with endless character possibilities, these two hours of zippy entertainment offer exhilarating playful engagement for young audiences and many absolute belly laughs for the adults.
The Rating:8/10
Don't want to miss future reviews and contests?
My [Loosely based] Ratings scale 10-9 = A Must watch at any cost. 8.5- 7.5 = Theater worthy 7-6.5 = Matinee/rental worthy at best 6 = Watchable (If it's free) 5 - below = Avoid at all costs
Enjoyed this review? Share it and let me know what you thought.
Click Here to join our weekly email list. One email, every Friday, to get my latest reviews. Don't forget to follow me at @SpoilerDashFree
