I'm just a guy who loves stories, whether they be past, present, future, movies, TV Shows, video games, whatever. If you came to get an average guys thoughts on film, you've come to the right place.
I saw a stage version of Into the Woods a long while back. As I happen to have a minor knowledge of musicals, and a little bit of a knowledge of Stephen Sondheim, I thought Into the Woods the movie, was definitely a film worth seeing, especially done by Disney. Into the Woods has a reputation of taking childhood fairy tales and putting a weird Sondheim theme to them. Think Sweeney Todd + Fairy Tales, then you get Into the Woods.
Since I had not seen the show for many years, I knew the general plot and sort of an outline for what happens, but I figured there would be some scenes and songs cut so I went in with an open mind. I had a couple of songs that I really wanted to see in the show, but for the most part I was just there to see a movie musical.
The result... not bad. Not bad at all.
The movie begins by following the stories of five individuals. A Baker (played by James Corden), his wife (played by Emily Blunt), Cinderella (played by Anna Kendrick), Jack from Jack and the Bean Stock (played by Daniel Huttlestone), and Little Red Riding Hood (played by Lilla Crawford).
In the first ten minutes of the show, namely the prologue, all of the characters are sent into the woods for certain goals. Jack is sent into the woods to go to the next town over in order to sell his cow because it hasn't been producing milk. Little Red Riding Hood is going into the woods to go to her grandmother's house. Cinderella is going into the woods to visit the grave of her mother so that she can get a dress to go to the festival/ball from the traditional story.
Where things differ, is the story of the Baker and his wife. They are visited by the witch that lives next door (played by Meryl Streep). The Baker and his Wife have not been able to have children and the witch reveals its because she put a curse on the Baker's family when his father stole her magic beans. But if the Baker and his wife can gather four items, the cow as white as milk, the hair as yellow as corn, the cape as red as blood, and the slipper that is gold (I forgot the mysterious title) then the witch will be able to reverse the curse and the Baker and his Wife should be able to have a child.
So the Baker and his wife go into the woods to find those items and there you have the set up.
So you've got all these fairy tales colliding. The problem with this is that this is not the first time we've seen this happen. Sure Into the Woods was a novel idea when Sondheim first produced it in 86 but since we've seen the Fairy Tales colliding story line, that's not a novel thing.
With shows like Once Upon A Time (obligatory link to review of Season 1) and a lot of other mediusm telling the story of fairy tales and how many times its very possible for Rapunzel and Cinderella to be in the same world, this is not anything new.
I don't think Disney, of all people (people?), was trying to make it new though, which was a good thing.
Instead I think Disney focused on the music of Sondheim, the brilliant casting, and the visual effects that the show lends itself to, to create something that I could argue is one of the best movie musicals ever done.
Honestly, after watching Les Miserables last years, which don't get me wrong, wasn't bad but it had its problems, I don't think there was a weak link with this film. I think the casting was done really well and the singing was great. I'm not one to jump on the bandwagon of saying that Russell Crowe was the worst thing about the Les Miserables movie. I actually don't think his singing is... well that bad. But there's really nobody in this film that I wanted to stop singing. I think the only case of that was maybe Johnny Depp or Chris Pine. Both of which had one song. Again, I don't think these two were bad, quite the contrary, especially in Pine's case which was a fun surprise. But I think if there was a weak link, it would be one of those two. And again, they only have one song and these songs are pulled off really well by them that even if the singing isn't that great, they're still entertaining.
By the way, let's talk about Johnny Depp for a second.
I truly forgot how small of a part the Wolf is in this story. Which wouldn't be strange, if it wasn't Johnny Depp playing the wolf. I kept on thinking that he was going to show up again but no, he's on screen for maybe five minutes. Then he's gone. Its more of a cameo of Depp than an actual credit. In fact by the end of the movie you kind of forget that Depp was even in it. Again, he did a decent enough job, its just strange how short his part is for how high caliber of an actor he is.
Another fun surprise of this movie was the featuring of James Corden.
I'm sure Corden is a more well known actor than I give him credit for, especially in Europe. I mean the guy is taking over for Craig Ferguson's late night show.
But honestly, the only thing I've seen Corden in is Doctor Who as Craig Owen.
I don't think its unfair to say that a lot of audiences, especially American audiences don't know who James Corden is, and suddenly he's the star of a Disney film along side Meryl Streep, and Emily Blunt. And I love it.
I loved him in Doctor Who, and his character is very much the same in this film. However, its fun to see him get these big roles and show off exactly what he can do. Now I'm not sure if he'll do another film like this for a while, especially being taking over for Craig Ferguson, but hopefully we see him around again.
Emily Blunt, fantastic. Anna Kendrick, fantastic. Meryl Streep, fantastic.
Again, there weren't any blatant Russell Crowes in the film. Everyone in the film acted well and it was just a fun time with everyone. The visual effects were another thing that was incredibly fun.
I went with my sister and she was surprised that this hadn't been made into a film before because its such a visual show. Even the high school production I went to 9 years ago had incredible sets and visuals. And that's what you have to do with Into the Woods. However, I never felt like the visuals were over the top or taking away from the acting or action. I felt they were sprinkled in perfectly and done very, very well.
So that covers the acting, the visual effects. But what about the story. Did the story deliver...
For the most part yes.
The first two thirds of this movie are done very well. I say two thirds because the majority of the movie is set in the first half of the show. In my opinion, that's the good part of the show. The first time I saw the show, again it was a high school show, but the intermission came and I thought the show was over. I nodded, saying I enjoyed the singing, thought it was a little short, but I thoroughly enjoyed what I got... and then the second half started. I was very, very confused.
This time around I knew what would happen... but that doesn't make it any less confusing. Its like Sondheim or whoever wrote the book wrote a combination of all the fairy tales he knew of. Everything was wrapped up, everything was ready to go, then he did a read through... and said, This isn't Sondheim enough. This isn't dark and fucked up enough, let's throw everything we had out the window and throw these well established characters and story arches just out the window. And you know what else we need to do? Make the second half incredibly long and drawn out.
Now to be fair to this film. I think Disney toned down the dark a lot. Which is to be expected, Disney can really only go so dark. But I think they also shortened the last half of the musical by a lot. So much that I feel like the first half is actually the first two thirds.
But even though its shortened, I still just have the feeling that the second half of this musical is just not as good as the first half.
I think its the part when the Witch starts singing "The Last Midnight" where I started squirming in my seat thinking this musical was going on too long.
And unfortunately, its the same trap that a lot of musicals fall into. That moment where its half way through the second act and the songs start to drag the musical down.
Maybe its a song that really wasn't needed, or a song that really wasn't as good as the song in the first act that makes you kind of cringe a little bit. I think the movie did a lot of good edits, cut a lot of songs in order to lessen that feeling, but in the end, I did have the musical fatigue waying in on me. Its a combination of that fatigue, and characters dying, that suddenly makes the final third of this movie just not as good as the first stretch of it. I feel like this musical could have been made into two if both acts were flushed out a little bit more. But with what we have, the end really isn't that great. The good part is, that despite some of the songs feeling a bit long and creating that fatigue I was talking about, I did have to take a moment and despite feeling like the movie needed to end, I had to applaud the great singing and harmonies done, especially by the main cast.
However, I think the edits and changes made by Disney make the ending at least tolerable and I still maintain that this is probably the best movie musical I've seen in a long time.
So that's what I thought of Into the Woods. Have you seen the film? What did you think? Where does it rank in movie musicals for you? Comment and Discuss below!
I'll leave you with this. This is probably my favorite song in the show. I also thought it was very well done in the movie by Daniel Huttlestone, here's the Broadway version of "There are Giants in the Sky". Enjoy!
This is going to be a short review for a couple reasons. The first being, there's only so much I can say about this film before I start repeating myself, also if I want to tie it into Christmas, sure I can pull something from this film that we should all learn... but I'm a blogger not a philosopher. I can only pull so much out of this before I just say its a great movie, that's it.
And that's the other reason I can't say much about this movie, because it is my Christmas movie.
There are a lot of things I watch that are Christmas themed, I watch a lot of Christmas Specials at Christmas, especially in the last few years. My family didn't really put a priority on the Christmas specials unless we happened to be watching TV, which we usually we're doing on Christmas.
The Muppet Christmas Carol has been the movie I have always watched on Christmas, if I haven't watched it I've listened to the soundtrack.
This is my favorite Christmas Movie of all time.
Let's talk about The Christmas Carol. Charles Dickens wrote the story in 1843. The story follows the Christmas Grump, Ebenezer Scrooge, a man who hates Christmas. On the eve of Christmas, Scrooge is visited by the spirit of his late business partner Jacob Marley who comes back from the grave to save Scrooge's soul and make him accept Christmas into his heart. He says Scrooge will be visited by three spirits, the Ghost of Christmas Past, Christmas Present, and Christmas Yet to Come.
I personally think it is the best non-religious Christmas story written and its been adapted countless times over. By the Muppets, by Bill Murray, by Jim Carey. Its been spoofed in everything from SNL to Family Guy, Doctor Who and the Hallmark Channel.
Of all of them, again, I think The Muppets is the best adaptation.
Now, because I watched this as a kid and this is my go to Christmas film, obviously I have not seen all the other adaptations. The ones I have seen are good, but they always fail in comparison with this one. I would say the closest I have see is The Doctor Who one and that's a TV adaptation, not a full movie.
The movie follows the typical story line of Ebenezer Scrooge being haunted by three spirits, all of them showing him the importance of Christmas. This time around its just done a lot by Muppets and the brilliant acting of Michael Caine.
Honestly, I don't know where to start with this film. Do I talk about (in my opinion) the greatest adaptation of Ebenezer Scrooge in Michael Caine? Do I talk about how this guy can act like a hard ass but be broken down so hard that I'm crying like a little girl by the end?
Do I talk about the Muppets, how this is one of the only Muppet films where the Muppets are secondary characters and the story mainly focuses on a human character in Ebenezer Scrooge? Do I talk about the perfect casting of the Muppets into characters of The Christmas Carol, whether it be Kermit the Frog as Bob Crachet, Gonzo as Charles Dickens narrating the story? The Mupe
Do I talk about the music? The brilliant score composed by Miles Goodman? The catchy tunes that introduce Scrooge? The greatest song from the movie that just reminds us that there's "One More Sleep Till Christmas"? Or do I talk about the singing of Michael Caine in the final song, which isn't that great but still has a sense of fun and Christmas Spirit to it in "A Thankful Heart"?
There are just so many good things to say about this movie.
I think something that can be also said about this film is the story behind it that makes the movie only a little bit tragic, but more heartfelt.
This was the first Muppets film that was released since the death of Jim Henson, the creator of the Muppets. It was the first time these lovable characters were performing with their father. Furthermore, the Muppets had also lost another member of the family with the death of Richard Hunt, a Muppet performer.
And you can tell from the film. The film is quite a bit darker than most of the Muppet films we had seen before. Yes it was set in Victorian England which was always dark, but the themes seem personal the more you think about it.
The Muppets have suffered a huge loss, the Christmas season, a season that is suppose to be joyous just isn't the same without those they loved. Its very easy to be closed off like Ebenezer Scrooge.
But Christmas has a power to bring people together as a family, you don't have to be christian, you don't have to celebrate Christmas, but the song, "It feels like Christmas" says all the ways that people come together and are united by love and Christmas.
And in the end we can have a Thankful Heart and be grateful for those we do have.
I don't know. Chances are the themes and thought that went into this movie probably isn't as meaningful as I'm thinking it is, but there had to be something precious about this movie, especially as the first movie without Jim Henson.
If you've read any of my Doctor Who reviews, you'll notice that I love when the work of Doctor Who is not just an interesting story, but something personal. Its connected with the production of the TV show or movie. While it may be my nostalgia, or me just making up things as I go along, I'd like to think there was something personal about this movie and if its personal for them, it makes it even more personal for me, especially since this movie is so close to my heart.
That's really why I can't give this movie a fair review. I'm sure there are things that don't work for the movie in other people's minds, but to me, this movie is absolutely flawless. I don't say that often but this movie is at the top of the list for my all time favorite Christmas movies, and near the top of my favorite movies of all time. Now a big part of it is the fact that I grew up with the Muppets. If you didn't, or you don't feel that connection to the Muppets that I do, there might be a little bit more flaws in this movie than I have mentioned. However, I feel that if you can enjoy the Muppets, give this movie a chance. I think its charming enough to become at the very least a fun watch, even if that nostalgia isn't there.
But those are my thoughts on The Muppet Christmas Carol. What did you think? I actually want to hear an argument saying this movie isn't good. I won't agree with you, but I'm interested in hearing a devil's advocate to this, since I can't make one. Comment and Discuss Below!
Now a couple weeks back, Sony was hacked, I guess by North Korea?
This hack has created a lot of chaos and in a way its really started a conversation about internet warfare, cyberterrorism, and how does the United States respond to an attack like this?
I could talk about a lot of things, things like The Interview being cancelled, the response from the general public about Sony pulling this movie from the theaters, a lot of things but I think I'll hold off on that until I can find myself a copy of The Interview and have a full idea of exactly Sony was pulling.
Of course what I want to talk about is the new from the hacks that pointed towards, probably the best indication that Spider-man could be joining the Avengers... maybe... probably not, but at least it was close at one point.
Originally I wanted to wait until I watched The Amazing Spider-man 1 again to give the upside of this Spider-man Universe to counter the downside that was The Amazing Spider-man 2... which I don't even consider that huge of a downside. Yeah it had its problems, but I hear people saying that movie was complete garbage. It wasn't. Yeah it wasn't great, but it wasn't bad. I think that we've been spoiled by all the great superhero films these days that when a movie like the Amazing Spider-man 2 comes out and its not quite up to snuff with movies like The Winter Soldier or X-men Days of Future Past, suddenly we call the movie a bad movie. I really don't think The Amazing Spider-man 2 was that bad. Was it phenomenal? No. But let's not jump to conclusions and say that the Spider-man universe is absolutely going to Marvel because that movie wasn't quite as good as we expected.
The main reason we think Spider-man is going back to Marvel is due to the financial trouble Sony is in and the recent hacks it was stated that the higher ups at Sony were not happy with the direction of Spider-man and a deal with Marvel was being worked out to split the rights for Spider-man 40/60 with Marvel. Giving marvel creative rights but keeping liscensing and distribution rights at Sony. I don't know the specifics but I personally really like this deals. It puts Spider-Man in the hands of the people who can do the character the most justice while not totally sending Sony out to pasture.
The deals didn't go through obviously for a couple reasons one of them I guess being the condition that Marvel required that Andrew Garfield be dropped as Spider-man... I know this wasn't probably the one reason but... Is that it?
Don't get me wrong. I've actually come like Garfield's Spider-Man and if Garfield could be brought over in the deal, I'd be so happy. However if it's just a matter of dropping Garfield in order to get Spider-Man in the Avengers, I'm willing to let this one go, especially since Garfield is a good actor and would land on his feet.
But why does this matter? I think we've had multiple occasions when there's been rumors of Spider-man to come over to Marvel. Why does this matter, especially if the deal has been shelved. Well what's different this time around is that Marvel has a lineup of great movies coming up in phase three. Civil War, Infinity Wars, a lot of stuff that are already awesome but would be just phenomenal with Spider-Man. Mainly Civil War.
I don't know the Civil War outside of stuff I've talked about before but I know Spider-Man is a huge part of that story line. Civil war just seems like the most perfect time to introduce Spider-Man into the Marvel cinematic universe. I'm sure he could be introduced in any movie, but Civil War just seems perfect to me. Start off phase three with a bang! Unfortunately, there's now a time crunch here. Marvel needs to move forward to make the release date they promised with their lineup. If Spider-Man is going to be in the cinematic universe, in order to get the best pay out, it has to be in Civil war. If Spider-Man is going to Marvel they're not going to redo the origin. They're gonna throw him into Civil War or Infinity Wars. I would prefer Civil War because I know Spider-Man will get the most screen time and have the most impactful presence in Civil War. If they go infinity wars to introduce him, it'll be an after thought, like Quicksilver in Days of Future Past. He'll still be cool, but he won't get the part in the universe Spider-Man deserves.
Regardless of whether They reach a deal now or not, I foresee Spider-Man coming to the Marevl cinematic universe. And here's why.
The Spider-Man cinematic universe in the hands of Sony is a sinking ship. The biggest thing Sony has planned that might be interesting is a Sinister 6 film. I remember a while back when that film was the next big thing and everyone was excited for it... Then The amazing Spider-Man 2 happened. Suddenly everyone including Sony started having doubts. Then they started talking about making an aunt may movie. It just didn't seem like Sony had any impressive plans that gave the public confidence about the future of Spider-Man in their hands. I think the fact that the recent hacks didn't show anything in result exciting except the impending deal with Marvel, make me convinced is going to happen sooner or later.
So what're the options for Spider-Man in the cinematic universe of marvel? Well there are a couple options.
1. Spider-Man in Civil War.
It's not going to be the storyline from the comic book but that' doesn't really matter to me honestly. I want to see Black Panther in Civil war. From what I understand, there are two scripts over at Marvel. One with Black Panther, the one it's looking like it's going to be . But here's also another script with both Black Panther AND Spider-man. I don't know what that script looks like, but it's Marvel I have enough confidence in them to be sure that it'll work out fine.
This is the way I can see it going down.
Spider-man is doing his thing in New York. But Spider-man is doing his local stuff in New York, he's small time compared to the Avengers. You could even say that that Peter Parker was inspired by the events of Avengers 1 to do his vigilante stuff in New York. At the end of Age of Ultron, the inklings of the Civil War are already starting. The post credit scene could Tony stark be looking over the new government legislation that is the subject of conflict in Civil War. He then starts talking about the PR campaign and he pulls out a folder. Says, I think I know the perfect poster boy for this new legislation. At the end of the scene, the camera pans over to the file Stark is looking at and you see a picture of a nerdy young adult in New York and at the bottom of the page the file says, Peter Parker.
Would that not be amazing?!?!?!
Again, I'm pretty sure Marvel can do a script with both Spider-man and Black Panther, I just think that since Black Panther is getting his own movie, the focus could be shifted to Spider-man instead of Black Panther. Black Panther can still be awesome in the film but he won't be as much of the focus as Spider-man should be.
Unfortunately, while this is the most desirable option, I don't think that it will happen. Marvel already has a plan set for Black Panther to be the secondary focus in Civil War instead of Spider-man so, I don't see it as very likely. So that leaves us to the next option. I don't know if its the second most desirable option but here's the next option.
2. Spider-Man in Infinity Wars
This is the more likely option in my mind, however it is not my preferred option. Like I mentioned before, there is so many things that will be going on in Avengers: Infinity Wars. They'll have Thanos to deal with, which they'll have to develop more to make him an awesome villain. We'll also have a lot, if not all of the new characters that are introduced between now and Infinity Wars. This will definitely include, Black Panther, Captain Marvel, Scarlett Witch, Quick Silver (unless one of them or both die in Age of Ultron), possibly Doctor Strange, possibly the Guardians of the Galaxy.
This is not the time to start introducing characters.
The reason The Avengers worked so well was because we had already introduced all of the Avengers so when the movie came, all we needed was them to kick some ass. Infinity Wars is not the time to introduce Spider-man.
Unfortunately, I see this happening more likely than any of the other options in this post. Again, I think Sony is going to lose Spider-man sooner or later to Marvel.
Unfortunately, its more likely that it will be later rather than sooner because unfortunately, all of this is based off of conjecture and all of this is rumor. There were talks that failed. Personally, I don't think they've totally been shelved. Again, I'm calling Spider-man in the Avengers by 2020 at the very latest.
Marvel is going to fight hard to get him in as soon as possible. I would prefer, if they can't get him in Civil War, unless they can squeeze in a Marvel standalone film, or integrate him into another standalone film in a tasteful way, I want them to wait to put Spider-man in the Marvel Universe until Infinity Wars is over.
I think the reason for that is that I don't see a graceful way of bringing Spider-man into Infinity Wars. While Spider-man is a great superhero and could be brought up to speed, I just think it would be more graceful if it was done in Civil War. I mean what has Spider-man been doing since? Infinity Wars? Just web slinging in New York? And then he's suppose to go to the level of fighting bank robbers to fighting Thanos? I don't see that as a graceful transition into the universe.
Which brings me to the final option, which I really hope they end up doing.
3. Spider-man Post Infinity Wars.
This is my second preferable option only because I want to see Spider-man with the Avengers as soon as possible.
However, I see a great opportunity in waiting to bring Spider-man into the Avengers after Thanos is defeated and the Avengers need to move into a new phase.
I wanted to do a post on the plans Marvel has for the Avengers after Phase three is over. I still want to do that post, but the part that connects to Spider-man is that if Spider-man joins the Avengers, he can bring in a new phase with new players that can be just as interesting as the original Avengers with big name actors like RDJ, Chris Evans, and Chris Hemsworth.
This allows for new Spider-man standalone films, making Spider-man fully Marvel's again, and making him the new face of The Avengers, especially if RDJ wants out or if Disney doesn't want to pay his huge paycheck anymore. Spider-man can be the new face of the Avengers.
I think regardless of where he comes in, Marvel is going to do Spider-man standalone films after Infinity Wars and do Spider-man the Marvel way, but I think if you can't get him in Civil War, just wait and make him the face of the Avengers post-Infinity Wars. This is the patient and long term game. I'll talk more about this in my Thanos post coming up, but that's what I think are the three ways they could go with Spider-man in the Marvel Universe.
I think in my Amazing Spider-man 1 review, I'll talk about who I would want to see as Spider-man in the Marvel Universe. But personally I think Andrew Garfield, as much as I'd like to see him in the Marvel Universe, needs to go if thats what's needed.
But what do you think? Do you think Spider-man should stay with Sony? If you think he should come to Marvel, when do you want to see him, ASAP? Infinity Wars? Post Phase 3? Comment and Discuss below!
So I've gone about the entire year, asking the question, is Arrow a good show? No, literally, I started Arrow back in December of last year and I just finished it like 2 days ago. So I must ask myself, is Arrow Season 1 good?
In case you don't know, Arrow is a television series focusing on the character of the DC universe of The Green Arrow, or Oliver Queen.
The show starts off with Oliver Queen, a rich playboy, on a deserted island, being rescued. He's been on this island for 5 years and when he returns to his life of wealth and luxury, in secret, he dawns the green hood and becomes a vigilant with the mission of bringing a list of names to justice as per the dying wish of his father, who left a dark secret in their home city of Starling City.
There's a cast of characters that interact with Oliver, some help him, others don't know his secret,
others are unknowingly working against him.
You've got Oliver Queen (played by Stephen Amell) who was once a spoiled brat, to this tactical, mature, vigilante.
You've got his family, his disturbed sister Thea (played by Willa Holland) his mother with a secret (played by Susanna Thompson) his step father who was his father's best friend (played by Colin Salmon)
Then you've got his friends, his former girlfriend, Laurel, who he cheated on with her sister (played by Katie Cassidy) She is now a lawyer helping the unfortunate in Starling City. His best friend Tommy,(played by Colin Donnel) who can't quite reach his friend who he lost for five years. And his body guard, John Diggle, (played by David Ramsey) who soon figures out Oliver's dark secret and helps him.
Then you've got the police, mainly Paul Blackthorne who plays the father of Laurel, Oliver's ex girlfriend. He soon becomes obsessed with figuring out the identity of The Hood and taking him down.
That's a real quick run down of the characters, and there are more, more that I will talk about of course. But you can get a lot of the premise information and my initial thoughts in my pilot review.
Now I won't harp on this too much because I've done this rant too many times, but I must mention that this show airs on The CW.
I don't take The CW seriously.
I've talked about it multiple times, in my pilot of Arrow review, in my DC TV review. I don't want to beat a dead horse with this.
The short rant is, hot people does not equal quality acting. Just because someone looks like they could be a model, does not mean that they can act. But that seems to be the formula for this show.
Now I must call myself out because you could say, "Connor, if you don't like the CW why do you watch Arrow or other shows on it?" And you are right. In fact one of my next reviews is going to be on the pilot of Vampire Diaries, a CW show. Am I a hypocrite for criticizing shows on a channel and then continuing to watch more shows on that channel? Maybe. I'll talk about why I'm doing Vampire Diaries, but I just want to point this out because it is a huge problem with the show.
I will concede that Arrow is not your typical CW show. It does things sort of differently and probably is the best show on the network... but it still has that CW stink to it.
And that CW stink combined with all the tropes and overused cliches of every superhero and comic book film ever made, make for something that I have a hard time putting my seal of approval on.
But let's talk about the good things. On face value, the people in this show are beautiful. The women are gorgeous, the men have those spray on abs that look phenomenal, the people look good.
Can they act? Well I'm talking good things right now.
But seriously, one of the top things of this show is the action.
Honestly, this show has some of the best action sequences and choreography that I've ever seen. Its even better than some of the feature length movies that have come out recently. I'm not just talking comic book movies, I'm talking action movies in general. The action is fast paced and actually really well done... so... good job Arrow.
I do have to say that that is one of the main things that made me come back to this show. Not only was it well done, the action was fun. Those were the parts where the show was entertaining and didn't drag. Unfortunately, the action is so concise and so well done that its done very quickly and often goes right back to the stuff I have the problem with.
Now story.
There's an overarching conflict in the show, that Oliver Queen is working to right the wrongs of his father and his family and clean up Starling City of all the corruption in it. The show is pretty episodic, he goes after a bad guy, but it takes an hour to do so, in the middle there's a personal problem, like his friends or family are angry at him or something like that and that's where the show slows down and gets into its CW funk.
I get that you have to include that slow stuff and every television show has slow moments to develop characters. But Arrow does it in that CW fashion that drives me nuts. Its the petty teen romance bullshit that everyone claims is gone from Arrow and that's why its different, but no its there, its just overshadowed by the great action and a plot they took from Batman Begins. Its still there, its still very prevalent, and I think it contributed to the fact it took me a full year to watch this show.
The reason I say this is because despite the fact that it took me a year to watch this show, there's not really episodes that really stand out to me in the first season. Its really just a blur of action sequences, stuff on the island (I'll get to that in a little bit) and bullshit romances that don't end up going anywhere because you know, from the beginning, that Oliver is going to end up with Laurel because she's the only other main cast female and its the biggest cliche in comic book history. The only episodes I really remember from the show is the episodes with The Huntress.
Why? She was super hot. But also there were interesting parts to that storyline. I can't comment enough on what was good about it but there was something about that storyline that was interesting to me and made a mark. Everything else was either too episodic or not memorable enough because I can't remember it.
Now as far as characters go, they are CW characters. Pretty and a little hollow. Stephen Amell is in no way a horrible horrible actor, but I don't see him doing anything outside of the CW. Neither do I see that with any of the characters that are important. The only characters I really enjoyed and the only actors I really enjoyed seeing, are actors that I've seen in other things. Colin Salmons, Paul Blackthorne, John Barrowman.
BY THE WAY.
John Barrowman is by far the best part of this show.
I watched John Barrowman in Doctor Who and Torchwood and his character is just vastly different in this and yet he's just a pleasure to watch. He's entertaining, he's cunning, and he makes for a great character. It just shows that Arrow has the ability to pick good people and yet somewhat falls short for me.
And then you get to the island bits.
Arrow does this thing where they have flashbacks to Oliver's time on the island. Usually it ties into what is going on in Starling City, but it mainly shows Oliver's development on the island and how he becomes what he is today.
I know some people might disagree, but I did not care for the flashbacks to the island.
I get it, Oliver went through a transformation, he's not the immature playboy who was cheating on his girlfriend with her sister he was before. I don't need multiple episodes showing a kind of boring plot with a character I don't like. I don't like old Oliver. Old Oliver I wish would get shot in the face.
And I get it, you gotta introduce Slade Wilson and there's more to what happened on the island than you think, but to me, the island bits were boring. Were they better than teeny bopper romance bullshit, yes, but in the end, they had the same CW stink to them. I don't care if Oliver had a slight thing for that Asian guys daughter, its boring, she's boring and I don't care about immature Oliver.
Now I think its necessary and interesting to show that transformation, but does it need to be in multiple flashbacks over the course of an entire season? No. I think what they should have done is have one episode dedicated to showing Oliver on the island. Or two episodes, I don't know. But have a full episode or two showing the transformation, having a little bit of a plot going on there, but focusing on character development in the here and now, not then when we know the end result.
Also, the island just seemed really plot convenient. Oliver, Slade and whatsherface were safe from the bad guys and couldn't be found until, oh wait they can be found now. It got a little boring for me and I wasn't a big fan.
The last bad thing I'll say about the show is this...
JUST BECAUSE YOU PUT GLASSES ON A HOT CHICK DOES NOT MAKE HER A NERD!
That's all. Felicity annoyed me. The show was insulting my intelligence by trying to make this obviously very attractive woman "tech savy" by just putting a pair of glasses on her. Nothing else. She's a little quirky sure, but she's still just a hot chick.
And that really sums up the main problem I have with this show. The main reason I can't easily say, you should watch Arrow, its really good. Because if this problem was gone, I would be telling you that. I would be saying you should watch Arrow cause its a new take on the superhero role in TV. The main reason I can't say that is, its on the CW.
I can't speak for shows like Gotham or Constantine or any other superhero show because there aren't that many. (I swear I'm going to start Agents of Shield soon, its on Netflix, I promise). When I was writing this I was about to say, maybe I'm just not a fan of Superhero shows, and then I watched the pilot of Vampire Diaries, and I realized its the CW, not the show. Maybe when I finally watch another superhero show, I'll say something different. Maybe I still won't like Superhero TV shows, but Arrow suffers from the problem that it is a CW television show.
Superficial characters, superficial story, covered up with the fad of the time. It was vampires in 2009, now its superheroes. Those clever but horrible horrible people.
I've heard great things about the second season... I'm not incredibly sure on whether or not I'm going to watch it.
I know I need a break from feeling obligated to watch Arrow because I want to know what everyone is raving about... then again everyone is raving about the second season.
We'll see. The show is passable enough to sucker me into giving the second season a chance, but for now, I'll say that Arrow is probably better than most shows on the CW, but that doesn't mean much... its still on the CW. It has the making of a really good show but its got that stink that just keeps me at arms length. I hate to be someone who looks down on shows like Arrow just because they're on the CW, but there's a big stigma with that channel and I can't stand it.
But those are my thoughts on the first season of Arrow. What do you think? Am I totally off? Am I too biased by the network its on. Let me know. Comment and Discuss Below!
I'll leave you with this. Honestly, I couldn't find anything to put up here, so I thought Arrow, Arrow the knee? Enjoy!
The post I saw last night and on the picture above said this movie was the defining chapter. Unfortunately as I left the theater last night after the midnight showing of The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies, I just kind of sighed.
Its probably not that well known on this site, but The Hobbit is the reason I love fantasy and fairy tales today. Its such a rich, and well done book that I was probably more excited for these movies than I was the original Lord of the Rings, not by much, but just enough to make me excited when Peter Jackson said he was making a movie adaptation of the film.
And then he was making a two parter. Which makes sense. Its a three hundred page book, give it the time and day and... oh wait... you're turning it into a three parter?
Oh... you!
I was not totally opposed to the idea of The Hobbit being put into a three part movie... but its a three hundred page book! And I know what you're saying, why not divide them into one hundred pages a movie? I don't know how that would work because I don't know what happened on each hundred pages but that's not what this special little bearded man did did he?
Now this man the first half of the book in his first movie, 9/10 of the other half in the second film, and left The Battle of the Five Armies with a measly 50 pages...
Oh... you... little... son of a... wonderful... GAH!
Also, since I have a lot to say about this film, this is going to be a spoiler review.
Like I said, the The Battle of the Five Armies picks up where the Desolation of Smaug left off, where Smaug was headed to Lake Town to destroy the city, Gandalf was imprisoned in the hold of the Necromancer, and Kili was at death's door with morgul poison running through his veins...
And in fifteen minutes all of that was totally resolved... its almost like you didn't need to leave the last movie on such a cliff hanger Mr. Jackson...
And I think the main problem this movie has is what it was given and what was done in the Desolation of Smaug.
If you've read the book, you know that Jackson kind of shot himself in the foot when he didn't kill off Smaug in the last film. Because Smaug, this horrible and scary dragon, with the beautiful, terrifying voice of Benedict Cumberbatch, doesn't last more than a half hour in this film (I don't know how much time it actually is but a half hour is generous)
And I get it, I get why Jackson thought it was a good idea to split it up this way. Do I think it worked? No, do I get it? Yes.
But Smaug was killed very quickly in this film and while that's what happened in the book, it really gives an anticlimactic ending to a villain that should have been amazing in this film. Instead he's killed very quickly, lots of build up, little reward.
Then you have Legolas, Kate from Lost, and Kili and their weird love triangle thing... well Kili is actually 100% fine when this movie starts, screw that whole morgul wound thing, he had elf magic! They have a quick moment where they stare into each others eyes and he confesses his love... even though they had one conversation in the last film, and but then she goes with Legolas and... lots of build up, little reward.
But then you have Gandalf imprisoned by the Necromancer. Obviously this will build up to something great.
And it does... sorta?
When it finally gets to Gandalf, suddenly we hear Galadriel and she's coming to get Gandalf, and she's actually there. Like no illusions, no dreams, Galadriel is actually there. And then the ring wraiths show up. And then Elrond and Saruman show up.
Now this part... was pretty cool.
These three almost deities are fighting off these spirits, its epic, its extreme. Galadriel goes all ring faced on everyone. It really shows off the power of these three in a way we never saw in the previous movies.
Now... did I need to see this? No I didn't.
Honestly, I didn't need to see Galadriel used force push on ring wraiths and banish Sauron back to Mordor. I didn't need to see that Saruman stunt double kick some major ass. Was it cool? Yeah but I didn't really need to see it.
The best way I can describe my feelings when I saw that was the way you feel when Yoda suddenly pulls out a lightsaber and does his flips and spins routine in Attack of the Clones. I didn't need to see Yoda do all that shit because I already saw him as an incredibly powerful being. I saw him lift an X-Wing out of a swamp, I already saw him be a sage and wise mentor to a lot of jedi, there was no reason for him to pull out a lightsaber and just show us even more that he was a badass.
The same goes for Elrond, Saruman and Galadriel. I've already seen Galadriel go crazy in The Fellowship, I've seen Saruman does his force push movies, I've seen Elrond fight with a sword. I don't need to see them fight ring wraiths.
Was it a cool sequence? Yeah. I really delved into the Tolkien mythos and showed exactly how powerful these beings are...
However, I would think Tolkien would be rolling in his grave if he knew that Galadriel and Elrond and Saruman were Yodafied, especially in a film adaptation of The Hobbit. So while I can't give Jackson too much shit for showing us the power that these characters actually possess, it was really unneeded and really sums up the rest of this movie. Unnecessary.
But lets talk about the good things first. So with Smaug dead, Thorin and his company have occupied the halls of Erebor. Thorin, almost immediately is struck with an obsession with the search for the Arkenstone, the stone Bilbo picked up when he was talking with Smaug in the last film. And suddenly Thorin becomes very paranoid and just a corrupt guy with his greed and what is called, "Dragon Sickness"
While I thought it was a tad rushed, I actually really liked this development. It is kind of the same thing that happened with the Ring in the other films but I'll give the movie a little slack... this review is already going to be tearing it apart.
But with Lake Town destroyed. Bard takes command of the city and takes them to the ruined city of Dale so he can get aid and the treasure promised to the people of Lake Town by Thorin so they can rebuild. But the elves of the Woodland Realm come to the doorstep of Erebor as well to lay claim to jewels in the keep.
Thus comes this standoff between the armies of the elves and men versus the dwarves. I actually really liked this standoff. It was a a great interpretation of the book, it showed how far Thorin had fallen, it showed the tension of Bard and how he doesn't want to attack Thorin and his company but he needs the gold to help his city. Basically you've got the Elf king, and Thorin, two guys who are clearly unbalanced, Bard the sensible one but who is caught in the middle, and then you have Bilbo who eventually becomes the mediator of sorts for the three of them. This was done really well, because it was true to the story.
Now I say the thing with Gandalf kind of payed off because it gave the reason for the Orc Army to be mobilizing to Erebor. In the book it was mainly hawked up to be the Orcs wanted the treasure. But I like what Jackson does and ties it into Sauron trying to have a strategic advantage in Erebor. This was a good tie in and that's why I'm a little more lenient on liberties Jackson takes when it comes to Sauron than other things... like a certain Kate from Lost... but I'll get to that in a second.
The Pale Orc, Azgog is leading an Army to Erebor and with that you have the set up for the culminating Battle of the Five Armies. A battle with the combined armies of Men, Elves, and Dwarves against two armies of Orcs. I'm pretty sure that's the five armies. See in the book its Elves, dwarves, men, orcs and wargs, but the wargs aren't considered an army here. And then there's other elements of the battle like when the Eagles show up and the orcs use like crazy earth worms (which really don't amount to much now that I think about). So the definitions of the armies a little wacked but I can overlook that too.
The rest of the film is the actual battle. Literally, this battle goes on for a full hour... at least.
And that's another good thing about the movie. As much as I thought and still think its silly to have an entire movie based on a battle, not even a war, a single battle, they do the action really, really well. I enjoyed the battle.
The problem I had with it was how different is was from the Original trilogy.
Go back to Return of the King at the Battle of Pelennor Fields.
The original trilogy had some very good CGI and utilized it well when needed. It was the first time huge multitudes of people could be seen on this big of a scale battle. But there was something about the CGI and use of practical effects, not just in the ways armies and such were put on screen but just in general that gave the original trilogy the feeling of being a fantasy epic.
Now again, I don't think the Hobbit is suppose to be a fantasy epic, its not the Lord of the Rings. I would be fine with campy cartoonish CGI that helps a fairy tale fantasy story, if that matched the feeling of the rest of the film as a whole. Instead we have this weird hybrid where Jackson is trying to recreate the films that made him so popular, instead of doing something new with new films!
But overall, the battle was good. You may feel it drags on, but I thought it was done correctly and well done.
I liked the transformation and development of Thorin, even though it was just a walk in a golden river, but I thought it was a good way to show the Dragon Sickness, but also give the character the development he needs in the time we need for him to come back and be the hero again. Perhaps it was a little bit rushed, but that's not the big problem I have with the movie.
The biggest problem I have with the movie is the ending. So... again... spoilers...
And the way the end starts out isn't even bad, its done really well at first. Thorin defeats Azgog but is mortally wounded. Bilbo is there in his final moments and the two reconcile. The movie did a good job at finalizing a friendship that I've thought has been amazing since the first film. How Bilbo goes from this joke to Thorin to a confidant and almost advisor in the last film is awesome and heartbreaking when he despises Bilbo for hiding the Arkenstone, and even more heartbreaking when they reconcile and Thorin dies.
Its a really great scene. Thorin is a great character in the Hobbit Trilogy, one of the great redeeming parts of the movies, a part that I'll always look back on and say, yes that was a good thing about these films.
So again, Bilbo and Thorin reconcile, Thorin dies and it is very sad. I heard people crying in the theater, tragic...
And then they move to this bullshit!
In case you missed it in my Desolation of Smaug review. I have no idea what Jackson was thinking when he was trying to make this weird romance between Kili and Kate from Lost. Its not that its weird for me for a dwarf and an elf to be together, it's just out of place. They're trying to recreate what they did with Aragorn and Arwen... why? And why with Kili and Kate from Lost?
Its just Jackson trying to cash in on the same things he cashed in on 10 years ago. Its lazy, its underdeveloped and it pisses me off.
So Kili dies. Which I suppose would have been sad because he was one of the "more developed" dwarves in Thorin's company. But to follow up the death of Thorin with Kate from Lost bitching about how her heart hurts and she hates these feelings she has for this dwarf who she literally maybe had three (at max) conversations with? He gave you a rock... who cares?!?! I verbally sighed when I saw this scene, RIGHT AFTER the great scene with Bilbo and Thorin. I hated it with a passion. It really gave me a sour taste of the movie, a movie I was thoroughly enjoying. I think I would have enjoyed this movie a lot more if this scene and the entire end were just reworked.
And then they shoot to Legolas.
Now, I'm not opposed to having Legolas in the Hobbit films. He's not in the book but neither was Sauron and I didn't hate that storyline. I think if Peter Jackson was trying to fill up some time between what is laid down in the books and the end of the film, Legolas isn't a horrible choice to add as a character. And hell, let's give Orlando Bloom some work, lord knows he's not doing anything.
Legolas is all hurt by not being the one Kate from Lost chose, but he's got other things he needs to do. He tells his father he won't be returning to the Woodland Realm... for some reason... And then his father gives him some advice...
To go look for a Ranger by the name of Strider, his real name, you'll have to figure out yourself...
...what?
Really Jackson? You had to throw in reference to Aragorn? Why?
I mean I get that this entire trilogy and had a couple of winks and nods to the original trilogy, why I'm not totally sure, but they've been mostly harmless. They've mostly been to make funny moments like when Gloin mentions Gimli. Was it totally necessary? No, but some people maybe didn't know Gloin was Gimli's father. Its a fun nod, gives the audience a moment of familiarity and again is mostly harmless. But this one just seems very strange and unnecessary and really took away from an ending that was already plummeting in my mind.
I didn't need to know how Legolas came to meet Aragorn, there's just no point to having this mindless and obvious nudge to the audience. Its like Jackson was trying to set up for films that he's already made.
And that's probably the biggest problem that I had had with all the Hobbit films.
I don't think Jackson fully realized that The Hobbit could stand on its own. And if he didn't think it could, why did he make it? I like the way he ties it in at the end, making Bilbo think back on his adventures right before the party they have in the beginning of The Fellowship of the Ring. That's fine, tie it into the first movie in harmless ways that tie in.
But treat the movie like its own film. The Hobbit doesn't have to be the next chapter in the Lord of the Rings. Its its own book, an origin story of Bilbo, a fairytale about a bunch of dwarves going to reclaim their home. Its a story apart from the original trilogy and that's fine! We don't need to have everything connect, we don't need everything to wrap up and set up perfectly for a movie you've already made Peter Jackson!
And this would be something that wouldn't bother me that much, if it didn't take away from important parts of the original source material. Yes, I don't care if Legolas is in the film. Frankly, I don't care if Kate from Lost is in the film, but when it takes away from the parts of the story that are important, then I care.
Here's an example.
Without looking, how many of those dwarves can you name? Thorin of course. Kili, sure. Maybe Fili. Balin and Bombur only because he's the fat one. Honestly most people would probably say the fat one and not Bombur. Could you tell me who Bifur was, even if I let you look and say which one is Bifur, who is Bifur? Can you tell me, cause I don't know.
Well guess what, at the end of this film, Thorin, Kili, and Fili die.
So at the end, Bilbo is leaving the company of Dwarves and you see a line up of all the remaining dwarves... and you don't recognize any of them, with the exception of Balin. You killed off the most developed dwarves Jackson! And yes that was apart of the original book, those characters do die. But what does that leave me with? It leaves me with a bunch of dwarves that are really interchangeable, instead of a bunch of characters with personalities, that I'm sad their story is ending. I'm sad that Bilbo is leaving them. Because I felt the connection Bilbo had with them. But with that ending, I just felt like Bilbo was saying good bye to the extras in the film.
And I get it, that's a lot of characters, especially since they didn't have much of a part in the book.
BUT THEY HAD A BIGGER PART THAN LEGOLAS! AT LEAST THEY EXISTED, UNLIKE KATE FROM LOST!
Do you understand my frustration with this film? Not just this film but the Desolation of Smaug and just the way the Hobbit films were executed.
The closest thing to the movie we deserved was in An Unexpected Journey, which I want to do a single review on that movie just talking about what was done correctly in this Hobbit film and what was done wrong in the next ones.
But in short, An Unexpected Journey didn't seem like it was trying to be The Lord of the Rings. Maybe some might call that boring, but The Hobbit isn't a war story, its not Game of Thrones, its not even a really huge set up for The Lord of the Rings.
Really the only characters that are suppose to be in The Hobbit from the Lord of the Rings are Bilbo, Gandalf, and Elrond. There might be another one or two that I forgot, but that's it! There's no mention of Aragorn, there's no Kili and Kate from Lost love triangle with Legolas.
Its just a simple story of a Hobbit going on an adventure. And that's all it needed to be.
Now let me clarify real quick. I did enjoy this movie. I liked the Battle, I liked the characters, Martin Freeman, Ian Mckellen, Richard Armitage, they all did a great job in this film. There's a lot of good things about this film.
But there's a lot of things about this film that are unnecessary, unneeded, or in some cases, kind of dumb.
Ugh...
Like I said, I'll be doing a review of An Unexpected Journey and pointing out how close Peter Jackson was to a really great Hobbit film... and where he just lost it in Desolation of Smaug.
Overall, I think The Battle of the Five Armies was a good wrap up of what we got of a Hobbit trilogy. I did enjoy the film, I also just had a lot of problems with it. But that's what we're left with. All I can do is enjoy what I got and hope to god Peter Jackson is done with the Lord of the Rings forever... I really doubt it though.
But what did you think of The Battle of the Five Armies. I want to know if I'm alone in my thoughts or if I'm onto something here. Comment and Discuss Below.
I'll leave you with this. Obviously its an Honest Trailer. Enjoy!
You know, I'm one of the naysayers. I'm one of those guys who looks at the Lego franchise and says... I don't know if I can do this. Don't get me wrong. I love Legos, I love Legos with a passion. They were my childhood. I knew I was going to see this movie eventually for the very fact that its Legos. I wouldn't feel right with myself if I did not see this movie, I would feel like I'm shitting on my childhood if I don't. That and the reviews for this movie have been great. But honestly, I didn't think I was going to like this movie as much as other people do. I've seen the Lego video games and as much as people tell me they're great, they're something I should get, I can't bring myself to spend money on a game with Legos... and its not that I don't think it could be a good game, its just I feel Legos should be enjoyed in person. I don't want to build things in a video game, I don't wanna see people building things with Legos, I want to build things with Legos! I wanna get my Legos right now and build something because Legos are brilliant and awesome!
But then I saw the movie... and I have to say, the same nostalgia and creativeness that I now feel when I watch the Toy Story movies has hit me hard when I think of the Lego Movie.
Before I get too ahead of myself, I'll explain the premise.
The Lego Movie takes place in the world of Legos... duh!
The story follows a run of the mill pretty average looking Lego man named Emmett (played by Chris Pratt). Emmett lives in a normal world where everyone follows the rules, everyone does the same thing and Everything is Awesome!
Seriously, that god damn song!
But Emmett is soon thrown into danger when he obtains "The Piece of Resistance" and becomes "The Special". He soon realizes that the world is controlled by the evil Lord Business (voiced by Will Ferrell). Lord Business has locked up all the "master builders" and wishes to keep things in an orderly manner where everything follows the rules, everything is kept prestine and "perfect".
Emmett is joined by an awesome cast of "Master Builders" people who can just build creative things out of nothing. This cast includes a woman named Wild Side (voiced by Elizabeth Banks) A wizard named Virtuvius (voiced by Morgan Freeman). But it also includes a cast of recognizable Legos who are the Masterbuilders, like Batman (voiced by Will Arnett) a 1980s spaceman lego (voiced by Charlie Day) Superman (voiced by Channing Tatum), etc. Alison Brie also voices a unikitty... Its Alison Brie... I'm happy. Nick Offerman voices Metal Beard, a pirate robot... thing.
Seriously the cast in this movie is just superb. Liam Neeson plays a minion of Lord Business called Good Cop Bad Cop, he literally has two faces and switches between the two. Its stuff like that that makes the humor of the Lego movie really, really funny.
Its hard to explain this movie without giving too much away so eventually I will go into spoiler territory.
I really recommend this movie. The plot basically is that Emmett is the Special, he needs to stop Lord Business... Yes I know the plot sounds like something a 6 year old could make but believe me, the humor is great. The story is better and if anything else, the casting is phenomenal. I was in the same boat and a part of me still is, but the more I think about this movie, the more I love it. Put aside all skepticism, put aside all notions that Legos are for kids, and if you haven't seen The Lego Movie, go see it now!
I am now moving into spoiler territory so be warned!
Like I said, I wasn't wild about the idea of this movie. Again, I feel like I'd be shitting on my childhood if I didn't go see it, but it wasn't high on my list of priorities.
Even while I was watching the movie, I felt like I was watching something a 6 year old could have written.
I mean, Emmett must use the "Piece of Resistance" with the help of the Master Builders, all of which are characters from other franchises, to stop the evil plot of Lord Business.
I mean I could see the messages to kids, be original, don't be afraid to go outside the box, but also don't be afraid to follow the rules. That's the great thing about Legos is you can do both! Its celebrating the toy while giving a fun movie to watch with kids. But I'm a 22 year old man, as much as my childhood wants me to love this film and as much as I see myself as a child at heart, I can't really relate to this movie because the plot makes it a movie for kids...
And then Emmett falls through a portal and comes out on the other side different. Suddenly the movie isn't stop motion animated, suddenly he's an actual Lego in the real world. There's talk of "The man upstairs" earlier in the film but suddenly we realize that Emmett and his friend are toys. This isn't a movie only set in the Lego universe alone, this is pulling an actual Toy Story moment. And I know what you're thinking, isn't that just the same as Toy Story? No person who obviously didn't see the Spoiler Warning and hasn't seen the movie.
It turns out this story that I've been saying could have been written by a 6 year old, was actually the imaginings of a 6 year old kid. It's one of the most adorable and really nostalgic moments I've seen in film in a long time. Cause I've been that kid! I've done these silly stories with Legos, taking Legos from the Cowboy world, putting them in a spaceship, the world of Legos is really unlimited. But at the same time, again, that doesn't apply to me as much anymore. As much as I would love to sit around playing Legos I don't do it any...
And then Will Ferrel comes in.
It turns out Lord Business has been this kids Father this entire time. There's a great dialogue between this kid and his dad where he says, why can't I play with these Legos, the age thing says 8-13, and Will Ferrel says, that's a recommendation.
That's the beauty of Legos. While they're kids toys, they've really grown with us and a lot of people, including a lot of older people I know have massive collections of Lego sets they put up like trophies. Legos, while a toy, are similar to model airplanes of an earlier day.
Will Ferrel sees them as things to build and keep in preteen condition and they're perfect just the way they are.
While you know he's stiffling creativity probably putting a little more emphasis on his own selfish desires than those of his kid, you understand where he's coming from. I grew up with Legos. A lot of times I feel they're a toy of my generation and they're something the new generation won't understand the way I did.
But then he sees how creative his son has been, he sees how the Legos can be used to have fun, play outside the box and it gives way to a reconciliation scene that would melt a heart of stone.
The humor can be good in the film, the cast is good, and while a little childish, the story is pretty fun for people of my age and older. But its that last scene that makes this movie bigger than just a kids movie adults can enjoy. It gives the movie heart.
It is just a precious ending scene and that's saying something because the movie made me use the word precious.
And it opens up for a lot of creative ideas and stories that could happen all with that same feeling of nostalgia we get from movies like Toy Story.
I want to watch the movie again, because while I feel like the movie has a lot of potential to be the Toy Story of the modern day, I feel like the story leading up to that ending scene is a little childish. But I'm buying this movie regardless because its just a fun movie all around.
There's probably more that I didn't like about this movie, but there's obviously so much that I did like that whatever is there that I didn't, its not important.
I need to re-watch it, but The Lego movie has the potential to go down as a legend of a movie. Its fun, its nostalgic, its light hearted, and its fun for both kids and adults. And I love those kinds of movies.
Maybe I'm overplaying this movie, so I want to hear from you all. What did you think of The Lego Movie. Is it the new Toy Story? Or is it just an alright animated film? Comment and Discuss Below.
I'll leave you with this. So because all that is left are people who have seen the movie. I'll leave you with the way The Lego Movie should have ended. Everything is Batman!
