Today's Review: Jurassic World

Told you another review was up soon. I assume you didn't need to guess for which movie?

Jurassic World - Recensie

A life changing experience after an anxious 14 year wait? That's saying a little too much. A worthy successor to the first trilogy? Sure was. Not on par with the original Jurassic Park film of course, but whoever expected that knew they were deceiving themself. It was obvious from the get-go they would never rival the magic of that game changing film that revolutionized digital effects. In fact, there's plenty of those throughout the movie, but they are never as awe inspiring or jaw dropping as they were 22 years ago. To be honest, I would actually have preferred a more extensive use of animatronics, since a lot of people tend to forget JP proved to master their use to great effect specifically in combination with the digital aspect, both of them completing the other in bringing that dinomite magic about rather than fixing it on their own accord. JW opted for a 95 percent digital FX rate and it was a little too clear at times, but not so much it took you out of the movie. It's still a major Hollywood blockbuster with a huge budget after all.

And it sure felt as one of those. In both a positive and a negative way. It didn't leave much room for narrative surprises, and the third act was largely an exercise in predictable storytelling, but it still handled it in such an epic way you could not help but roll with it despite your hesitations. There's a few instances in which the audience cheered and so did I, as if we were eight year old kids again (the increasingly strict Dutch rating system unfortunately won't allow kids of that age to experience the new Jurassic dawn, as JW has sadly been issued a '12' rating, despite not being more frightful than that first movie). Kids who had seen most of this stuff before in different guises though, but youthful exuberance abounded nonetheless. A contemporary blockbuster needs a star, and Chris Pratt is it for this film. Combining Alan Grant's common sense with Ian Malcolm's wit and wisecracking, the human hero of the piece certainly felt more heroic that any previous main human character in a JP movie. I don't mind for once, but I do hope the studio isn't gonna craft the next installments, unavoidable considering box office records are again being stamped on, around Pratt's persona and status, since few will deny the true stars are still the dinosaurs, as they should be.

Those stars sure got a chance to shine, as JW provided the most amount of dinosaur time of any of the movies yet. The number of species portrayed easily rivals that of its predecessors, even giving the occasional formerly neglected species (like Ankylosaurus) their due. The most attention as always is directed at the carnivores, with JW dividing most of their screen time between a trained foursome of vicious but communicable Velociraptors and a genetic hybrid named Indominus Rex. Both the notion of taming Raptors and of creating mix-up dinosaurs is handled by director Colin Trevorrow with enough narrative and real world sense not to distance the legions of JP fanatics, as it easily could have done. Ample time is cleared to discuss the ramifications of both with more depth than is usual for a blockbuster film, before diving deeply into the dino fighting. That said, there's two prehistoric characters that are not featured as strongly as we would have hoped for, one being the iconic T-Rex which is intentionally kept out of most of the loop before making a most welcome resurgence. The other is the heavily advertized aquatic Mosasaurus, which unfortunately is allotted only a few more seconds of screen time than already seen in the promotional material, and thus ending up an underwhelming animal we would liked to have seen a lot more of, but which we are sadly denied.

Executive producer Spielberg made the right choice hiring a fairly inexperienced director like Trevorrow for the Jurassic job. Trevorrow proves not only respective of the material and the franchise legacy, but he's clearly a JP fan himself. He shows it off in many scenes, both in composition of shots, score and sounds, but also in many references big and small to that most beloved movie from 22 years past. Potentially polarizing plot pitfalls are handled with the utmost care to make them plausible and relatable, thus adding his own signature to the thankfully enduring Jurassic Park legacy. Though there's still a few things to hold against the movie, both in terms of plot (one-dimensional human bad guy, vague corporate shenanigans) as in execution (too little animatronics, too much reliance on digital creations), Jurassic World succeeds in taking us back to when dinosaurs ruled the Earth, and sparing no expense in guaranteeing they will continue to do so for another generation at least.

Today's News: big bad breaking! And then some

It's been a good start of the week for movie news, mostly because of one single bomb Marvel dropped.

Marvel past releaseplanning aan voor Spider-Man

And here it is. Or rather, here's the follow-up, as the main news item that Marvel has gotten Spider-Man back in the fold was posted by a colleague of mine (bastard!). But here's the first few ramifications for Marvel's Phase 3, with many more likely to follow in the next few years. Good thing about such major nerdgasmic news is it gives one inspiration for a column (or two), which I hope to pen this weekend. So I'll reserve my actual opinion on whether Spider-Man at last joining the Marvel Cinematic Universe is a good idea or not - for it's definitely not all sunshine in Marvel land with the webhead swinging his way through his fellow superheroes - for that opinionated piece to follow. Unless one of my colleagues beats me on that front as well. Not an unlikely scenario, since anything Marvel has a tendency to get people talking or in this case typing. That said, I am looking very much forward to seeing what take on the new webslinger will be applied to the new movie(s). I wasn't a fan of the way Sony handled the Amazing Spider-Man movies, nor of how they ended Raimi's trilogy. My nerd sense is telling me there's plenty of room for improvement. From the details, it's likely Marvel will turn to their Ultimate Universe for inspiration, a move I don't lament at all. I'm currently re-reading Ultimate Spider-Man - coincidentally, as I started doing so two weeks before this news broke - and it once again proves an utterly delightful and catchy read, that also goes to illustrate many an excellent possibility of hooking up Spidey with other Marvel names, without hurting any of them. I can only hope the new movie, plus Spider-Man's appearance in those of others, will turn out half as well as those comics did.

Eerste trailer serie Bloodline

Looks decent, but I have a hard time envisioning this as a long running show. The concept seems too limited to continue for more than a season or two, and from what I gather, it's Netflix' intention to keep it going as long as desirable. Then again, I once had similar reservations about this series called Breaking Bad, and look how positively that turned out against everybody's expectations. Of course, every character has a background you can delve into, but it feels like there's only so many startling family secrets you can reveal until it eithers gets boring or ludicrous. But what do I know, I've only seen this trailer, which no doubt totally limits our imaginations for this show. There's undoubtedly more to it than what's pictured here. Still, I can't help but get a distinct Festen vibe from this. A family tearing itself apart when the black sheep of the bunch starts digging up shady past events certainly sounds very familiar to those who'll recall the classic Thomas Vinterberg film. However, even if the basic premise is remarkably similar, we can expect there to be a lot more going on in a 13-episode season than in a two-hour movie. There better be, if Netflix hopes to keep this show going.

Lawrence en Pratt beoogd voor Passengers

Here's a premise that probably is better suited for a two-hour movie than for an entire season of episodes. Man accidentally wakes up in cryosleep on a spaceship during a voyage that ought to take decades. Man knowingly wakes up woman for companionship on trip. Whatever happens, happens. As to what happens exactly, I dunno. I can think of a thing or two, either involving bloodshed or sex, or both. It's one of those intriguing notions that gets the mind working after only two sentences of conceptual layout. But as for me, a Sci-Fi geek, you had me at 'spaceship'. As for who can play these characters, Lawrence and Pratt are decent choices, at least one of them sizzling with talent. However, I would have gone for someone else than the current go-to, default hot actor and actress in Hollywood. Both of them seem kinda omnipresent today. For a movie that largely revolves around two people only, I'd say it's better not to cast movie stars, but "real actors" instead, to avoid getting that feeling of seeing Pratt and Lawrence talking to each other for hours (even though that is what is going on, but we need to be able to suspend our disbelief and pretend they're somebody else). A project like this seems better suited to lesser known (but not necessarily lesser talented) actors. Even though that would make it a tougher sell to most audiences, who just want to see Pawrence and Pratt talking to each other for a few hours. But that's what people invented talk shows for.

Lionsgate wil meer Hunger Games

Speaking of Jennifer Lawrence, Lionsgate wants to see more of her. Or at least, they want to see more of that precious dough she keeps making the studio doing her Hunger Games thing. Or they want more material that carries the Hunger Games signature, potentially without the principal talent, since I imagine Lawrence is kinda done with the series when it ends. But studios are never done making huge piles of cash. So when something sells, you keep it selling as long as you can. And so the studio is looking for new ways to "flesh out" (read: ruthlessly exploit) their top franchise after it has properly come to an end. They're looking at both prequel and sequel opportunites, it's stated. Meaning, they don't care about the actual contents, they're just considering any and all ways that keep the franchise running for longer than the source material allows for. It works for Harry Potter and Warner Bros, their argument reads. We don't know that it does actually, since Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them hasn't been released to popular or financial acclaim (yet). Plus, author J.K. Rowling is in full cahoots on that new series of films, while it remains to be seen whether writer Suzanne Collins is as enchanted by the notion of more Hunger Games. So for now, it's only a studio's dream of more money without any material to back up the reality behind that line of thinking. May the odds be ever in their favor.

Eerste trailer Hitman: Agent 47

Or they can just start their franchise over again entirely. Seems to be working for Hitman, since this trailer already looks better than all of the previous film. Of course, that film wasn't a hit in any way the first Hunger Games was, hence the option for rebooting. There's (fortunately!) a form of unwritten decency protecting the audience against rebooting a franchise the moment the first take on it has been completed. Otherwise we would have had three more Lord of the Rings trilogies by now. But when a film failed to connect to its audience strongly enough to warrant a sequel, yet still holds potential for making more money, a reboot is always just around the corner. Often for the better, since in many cases a reboot improved upon its predecessor and ushered in a new era for the franchise. Time will tell whether that holds true for Hitman: Agent 47 as well. It's still a videogame adaptation too, after all. They usually have more running against them than films based on other media properties.

Today's News: a lot of stuff to round up January

The second half of the week yielded quite a bit of little news items:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158768/eerste_trailer_child_44

Looks like a fairly solid thriller with a cast to match. Too bad it's already been done - Citizen X, remember? - and thus isn't a particularly original project, even though this time it's based on a book about the historical murders rather than the historical murders themselves. Those ridiculously heavy Russian accents also don't help. Do audiences really need such reminders in dialogue to remember the story is set in Russia? You'd think the set-up, names and uniforms alone would do the trick. Other than that, this film looks like a decent thriller flick. Considering the current strained relationship of most Western countries with Putin's Russia, you cannot help but wonder whether this is an appropriate time to release a film about a psychopath running rampant in the Rodina aided by a corrupt system of bureaucrats defending an ideology that doesn't always have the best interest of its subjects at heart. I can imagine there will be some complaints from Russian citizens about the contents of this film, whether the film proves to be of good quality or not (probably more so in the case of the former, since then it will receive more attention). Since The Interview didn't spark WW III, maybe this will, though that's undoubtedly giving it too much credit in advance.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158748/fox_maakt_x-men_serie

Once again Marvel leads and the rest follows. Now that the House of Ideas is firmly getting its grasp on the small screen, expanding its Cinematic Universe on telly too, other studios are eager to do the same. And so Fox plans an X-Men series accordingly. I don't mind, as the conventions of television offer a much broader narrative perspective on the vast X-realm with its many hundreds of characters, in a way the movies could only touch upon. Makes you wonder why they haven't tried this before (and I don't mean like the various animated series). Of course, a conservative studio like Fox likely needed someone more innovative to indicate it can be done successfully, which Marvel has now shown with Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Since public interest in anything Marvel is at an all-time high, it seems the right time to produce an X-show. In fact, they better hurry before the popularity of the franchise goes into decline, which is an option I don't exclude, now that Channing Tatum is set to take over the reigns from Hugh Jackman as the leading X-protagonist (shifting the focus more from Wolverine to Gambit), a prospect I'm not looking forward to. I do hope there'll be room for a new creative route, rather than copying the style of the movies. The X-universe is a deliciously diverse place (as befits its message of peace and tolerance to those who are different), so it would behoove the series to reflect that fact and explore any X-citing angle imaginable.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158769/disney_wil_pratt_als_indiana_jones

Is it me, or is Chris Pratt everywhere these days? There's not a movie project goes by that doesn't at least once features his name attached, or so it seems. Sure, Pratt looks like a really likeable guy and he made a fine Star-Lord. But does that warrant the thought of 'Oh hey, we need a leading man for this project, let's ask Pratt because he's so darn kewl' all the time? Apparently that's the default casting thought going around Hollywood these days. Sure, put Pratt in Jurassic World. Go ahead and stick him in Indiana Jones. Just make sure the rest of those films looks as dashing and charming. As for recasting Harrison Ford, it was only a matter of time. I always imagined Indiana Jones a lot like James Bond. You can have him be played by any number of actors, as long as the movies continue to incite that same level of adventure and excitement as they always do. In Indy's case, I'm not one of those unrealistic and conservative types that sticks to the original ad infinitum, even though he was the most iconic in that role. I'm willing to allow other actors in that persona. But not Shia LaBeouf, please. Better ask Chris Pratt whether he feels up to it. Oh I forgot, they're already doing that...

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158799/eerste_trailer_ted_2

Okay, so the jokes in this trailer mostly revolve around bodily excrements and random popcultural references, as is usual in Hollywood comedy nowadays. Bear with me (pun, yes). Do I detect a plot that may very well be too intelligent and too philosophical for a film like this? The question of sentience, what makes a human being a human being and the limitations human beings themselves arrogantly set as to what constitutes life that should be allowed to have the same rights as ourselves, that sort of thing. There's some definite 'Measure of a Man' level story opportunities involved here! And of course, none of it will matter much, as it will just prove interspersed between a flatulence joke here and a cameo by the guy who used to be Flash Gordon there. Still, I can't help but give Seth MacFarlane credit for at least trying. I bet 'The Measure of a Man' ranks among his favorite episodes of Trek. And I also bet this movie is gonna be your totally average run-of-the-mill raunchy comedy, the type you've forgotten the day after you watched it.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158809/eerste_trailer_madame_bovary

Unlike this film which, too, is mostly about sex but doesn't touch upon it in a comedic fashion. Madame Bovary is one of the most scandalous works of literature to come out of the 19th-Century. However, for a contemporary audience that watches too much HBO, it'll be hard to make it as impactful as once this story was. Sexual shenanigans outside of holy matrimony are an everyday occurrence in the dramatic arts now and are not likely to shock anyone. So what relevant meaning is there for today's audience? Probably not anything novel. Doesn't stop a decent collection of both seasoned and young actors from practizing their craft in a wonderful fashion, complete with rustic landscape shots and lavish period costumes. That sort of thing at least never gets old. And if the characters decide to ditch said costumes while fooling around in said rustic landscapes, if not shocked or flabbergasted at such audacity, we'll still be intrigued some.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158812/franco_verfilmt_steinbeck_

James Franco by comparison is one of those actors who effortlessly seems to switch between raunchy comedies and serious drama. Or between acting and directing, for that matter. Hot off starring in The Interview, he's ready to direct a John Steinbeck novel, dazzling us with his versatility, if we hadn't become used to it already by now. I applaud such diversity, as well as Franco's taste in casting. He seems to have caught quite a few talented names for this latest project of his (and Selena Gomez, too). Even though he's been directing all kinds of stuff for a while now, I haven't yet had the pleasure of checking any of it out. Whether this will just add to that pile of unseen (by me) titles, time will tell. It's not like I ever read a John Steinbeck novel. But you can wake me for a performance by Ed Harris or Bryan Cranston any time (though preferably not when I'm asleep).

Jurassic World: official trailer released!

And so it's here. The trailer arrived three days earlier than announced, but I can't say I mind.

I have reservations about this. I won't deny I'm quite excited, but there's also a bunch of story elements I knew would be involved that I'm worried about, since the trailer confirmed their presence.

Even though a lot of it is obviously digital (as is usual in trailers, since the movies they promote are still a work in progress, so I'm not gonna whine about that), I will say it looks pretty spectacular. There's a working park now, it has been in operation for a while, and everything seems to be running smoothly. The park looks state of the art and few people wouldn't want to visit something grandiose like this. There's monorails and gyrospheres and all types of futuristic gadgets, but at the same time iconic imagery like the Main Gate is present. That in itself recalls the folly of people making past mistakes all over again, considering the events of the previous JP films, which are not ignored since this is indeed a sequel of sorts, rather than a total reboot. Of course, cynics will say the set-ups offer little new narrative possibilities and they're not wrong, as in the end, it's still mostly about people running from hungry dinosaurs. Hollywood after all engages in the same type of recycling the JW scientists apparently do, but it's been that way for decades.

Of course, the primary new ingredient comes in the shape of a new dinosaur. An engineered dinosaur, that didn't ever exist before man went and created it. An actual theme park monster, called a Diabolus Rex (shitty name, I know). It's supposedly created to make for a more exciting attraction, as if ordinary dinosaurs aren't exciting enough. This troubles me somewhat, though it also sounds intriguing. On the one hand, the notion of the hubris of scientists to mess with nature's creations in order to spawn something that fits human desires is both straight out of the original book by Michael Crichton - where it goes even further in discussing the possibilities of cloning tiny and cute herbivores to make pets for people! - and right up Jurassic Park's alley of its main 'don't play God' philosophy. Hopefully the ethical debate involved in creating a tailor made dinosaur in a lab is seriously addressed, for it is indeed a fascinating and contemporary topic. However, it basically allows for dinosaurs to be turned into stereotypical 'movie monsters' even more than the Hollywood industry already emphasized them as. In comparison, both the first and second Jurassic Park movies had the decency to handle dinosaurs mostly as real animals. Dangerous and unpredictable animals of course, but still recognizable as not behaving all that differently from most present day animals.

On the other hand, the exact same notion is twisted the opposite way in this trailer's display of the Velociraptors, which are actually trained by the protagonist (Chris Pratt). These are not the highly intelligent vicious killers that assumed the spotlight in the previous movies as nearly psychopathic killers. Rather, they're simply predatory animals that can be tamed if raised by humans from birth, much as what happens to the likes of everyday dogs and cats, or even lions and tigers. Though on the one hand I applaud this concept of literally humanizing the otherwise lethal and too often demonized Raptors, I'm also quite hesitant about Pratt using them as his personal hit squad. Nevertheless, in this case a species of dinosaurs invariably portrayed as murderous monsters is shown as not being so black and white 'evil', but more relatable than we would have thought possible from the previous trilogy of films.

Then there's the Mosasaurus. It's staggeringly huge, probably for dramatic reasons, unless the final plot will reveal its size was genetically modified to make for a good sensational show, too. The gimmick of its eating Great White Sharks appears to be a typical 'because it looks cool' rationalization on the writers' part. I can live with that, even though I consider the idea of endangered species being served as food abhorrent and ridiculous. But who knows, maybe they have a lab on the island for the sole purpose of cloning Mosasaur snacks. Introducing a species of marine reptile largely feels like a gimmick. We've had the flying kind of prehistoric critter in the previous installment, now it's time for the aquatic type to make for diversity, is probably the studio's line of thinking. Fine, but please don't make it feel like a gimmick only. Add a bit of substance to it. And bother to explain where they found its DNA. Judging from its humongous size, I wouldn't be surprised if the plot makes good use of this beastie to defeat the rampaging D-Rex, as of course nothing else could kill this highly intelligent raving creation of science gone wrong. Doesn't matter, as long as it looks cool.

There's a lot of possibilities for the plot of Jurassic World to go south, from the looks of it. But if handled well, these same dubious plot elements could truly add to the franchise. On a more basic level, at least I like the look and feel, combining old and new, clearly revealing director Colin Trevorrow is a fan of the original. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, even though I'm not as wowed by this first trailer as I hoped I would be. Jurassic World is still a place I would visit instantly if given the chance, and of course the same goes for the movie. Nevertheless, I cannot help but remain skeptical. But I never for a second thought this film would ever come close to the original Jurassic Park anyway, and I'm not gonna hold that against it.

I mean, which dino fanatic could turn down a beautiful vista like this?:

It's finally happening!! Jurassic World is coming...

Breaking news, as far as I'm concerned. I only had to wait 13 years for new JP footage after all...

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158089/eerste_teaser_jurassic_world?cache=false

Normally I tend to look at teasers and trailers with a more dispassionate, objective viewpoint. In this case, I simply can't. I can only hope my faith in director Colin Trevorrow is not misplaced. He's still inexperienced, as this is his first Hollywood movie. But from the looks of things, he's a fan too. And this little teaser sure is for the fans. Thanks, Universal Pictures!

Now if only the toys look half as promising. The first Lego Jurassic World dinosaur sure looks sweet:

2015 is gonna be a year to remember...

Today's Trailer: Guardians of the Galaxy unleashed at last

Posted the teaser above on MovieScene yesterday, but everybody will agree the video below is much more interesting:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/153859/eerste_teaser_guardians_of_the_galaxy

This movie is looking better and better. There's a delightful 'space opera' vibe about the whole project, a seemingly highly entertaining blend between wild adventure, quirky humour and explosive action in a fabulously otherworldly Sci-Fi setting, suppported by an enthusiastic cast that seems to thoroughly enjoy their zany characters. I even look forward to seeing that talking raccoon in action now. Nevertheless, the last movie that gave me this feeling was John Carter, which I ended up loving while most others sadly did not, as it flopped mercilessly. Maybe this type of movie is just passé, over and done with, too retro for its own good? Maybe people these days are too cynical, so it's too difficult to visually entrance them as they're being transporting to extraterrestrial sights and sounds. Call it 'Star Wars prequel trilogy backlash' if you must, you wouldn't be wrong. I'm just hopeful the Marvel logo breeds certain expectations about what audiences can look forward to - i.e., superheroes - that may not fall in line with reality, as this is not really a superhero movie. In most other respects however, this movie appears to fit right in with Marvels canon of films in tone and atmosphere. However, if the Disney logo wasn't enough to draw audiences to go and see John Carter, would the Marvel logo be enough to ensure Guardians of the Galaxy fares better at the boxoffice? Especially with the knowledge (though probably not something general audiences will ever consider) that Disney and Marvel are now sleeping in the same bed. If these Guardians succeed in winning spectators over, as I sincerely hope they will, maybe space opera will be rewarded a new life as well.

Today's Review: The LEGO Movie

The LEGO Movie: ****/*****, or 7/10

Movies based on pre-existing toys are often the stuff of anxiety for those that grew up playing with them, especially when it concerns brands that have been around for decades and thus have proven to be multigenerational. Will the alliance between movie studios and toy manufacturers, always driven by mutual profit first and foremost, yield a final viewing experience that not only serves to push kids into nagging their parents to go get them some but also to remind the older spectators as to why they themselves enjoyed the toys so much they feel their kids should continue playing with them, too? So far, few toy based films have succeeded on both fronts, as most of them are pretty dreadful: compare films the likes of Transformers and Battleship for example. Fortunately, The LEGO Movie doesn't fall into that same category of failure at all, as it enhances the feeling of joy and excitement experienced by everyone that ever built something from scratch out of the colourful little bricks. That said, from an ideological perspective, the motives behind the film's plot cannot helped but be questioned by mature audiences when the film is over.

Of course, a movie about toys can't feature the toys themselves being played with for two hours, it needs a narrative structure to suck audiences in. The LEGO Movie introduces the character of Emmet (voiced by Chris Pratt), about as generic a LEGO minifigure as they come: typical old fashioned yellow head, not much physical accessories, wearing the same smile almost all day every day. He's got reasons to be smiling, as he believes himself to live in the perfect utopia, courtesy of President Business (Will Ferrell) who provides everyone with instructions to live their full life by, ranging from morning exercises, breakfast, buying overpriced coffee (37 dollars, awesome!) and carrying an eternal sunny disposition. The catchy national anthem 'Everything is awesome' not withstanding, it goes without saying this existence is one big lie and no good will come of its continuation.

Emmet is soon drawn into a wholly different life style altogether when he accidentally touches an unusual item that soon sticks to his back, meets a beautiful girl who looks nothing like all the other minifigures he has known and is promptly declared an enemy of the state, necessitating him and the girl named Wyldstyle (Elizabeth Banks) to go on the run. Basically a little plastic version of The Matrix, Emmet soon learns there's another realm beyond that which he always took for granted, as many dimensions, each with a theme of its own – including Western and 'Middle Zealand' – peacefully coexist alongside each other. Unless President Business destroys them all by gluing everything together permanently, according to his own rigid instructions. Fortunately, Emmet may be the 'Special', a minifigure with extraordinary master builder skills, who is the only one able to stop the shady schemes at hand. And so he teams up with the blind wizard Vitruvius (Morgan Freeman), a pirate composed of various random parts called Metal Beard (Nick Offerman) and of course, Batman (Will Arnett), who is kind of a dick, to save the LEGO worlds from blind, obedient universal conformity, to let creative freedom ring.

Directed by the duo of Phil Lord and Chris Miller, who have proven themselves to be experts in whimsical animation, The LEGO Movie proves a feast for the eyes as we behold just what you can do with the little bricks. Or at least, what you think you can do. Make no mistake, this film is not stop motion animated with little LEGO figures, it's all computer animation designed to look like the stiff toys are moving about. Deception is key here, but we are deceived pretty well by the fabulous look, as we witness smoke made of LEGO, explosions made of LEGO and even oceans made of LEGO. It's an awe-inspiring sight for everyone who has ever tried to make LEGO look the least bit realistic and ended up being several tens of thousands of bricks too short to get anywhere on that front. Any sense of jealousy on what the computer can create with LEGO is smothered in the film's great sense of humour, building jokes as easily as putting bricks on top of each other. Aside from the traditional number of safe but smart popcultural references, the best gags spring from our plastic heroes witty selfreflection as to being just that. Miller's and Lord's infective comedic talent, joined by the voice cast's audible delight, ensures everyone in the audience is quickly wearing a smile all too similar to those featured on the classic minifigures' faces.

That said, it isn't all fun and games, this is business too. The LEGO Movie takes its message of 'everyone should build whatever the heck they like' very seriously, clearly preferring random creativity over slavishly building stuff based on what the printed paper says it ought to look like. Which leads to a rather serious showdown as the actual status quo of the LEGO realms is revealed and a cheerful kid confronts his ruthless father, begging him to just let him run with his imagination. Being played by Ferrell too, clearly the unimaginative adult mind is in the same league as the childish destructive view of business as presented by the film's bad guy. Rather hypocritical, as the LEGO company is itself a major toy corporation that hasn't gotten to where it is now by giving kids their product to play with, but selling it to them instead for hard cash. Sure, kids can build whatever they want, but it's the business of the product and the parents that pay for it that provides that option for them. There's something eerily uneven between the movie's message and the actual state of affairs, as this movie certainly isn't about spreading the gospel of global creativity, but to make everyone involved in its production money (and then only those willing to cooperate: notice the lack of Marvel superhero figures opposed to those of DC, while both brands are available as buildable sets in every toy store). Of course, kids won't realize this and most parents will be too busy enjoying the movie to care, until their offspring start whining for more LEGO to play with and they have to pay the bills. And at that point it's hard to deny The LEGO Movie is something other than an insidiously effective 100 minute advertisement for the great LEGO product.

But while watching the movie, everything is indeed awesome, as our inspiration is fueled by the grandiosely detailed design of the various LEGO worlds and the sheer fun for young and old that inhabits them. And then the credits roll, and that itch to get some bricks to start building yourself is heartily felt...