6/10 - Ron Howard is a good director. What separates him from being great is that he is entirely dependent on his script. He is a good director because when given any material, he plays to its strengths and lets the narrative and characters do the talking. He is not flashy and lets the film breathe, and is a confident, knowledgeable, and smart filmmaker able to make the most of any material he is given. Unfortunately, this also means that bad material he is given will be watchable, but still bad (The Da Vinci Code). Great material lives up to its potential and Howard's assured hand gives the film the extra push to become a top-notch film (Apollo 13). In the Heart of the Sea is in the middle of these two. A solid film that would have been awful under a lesser director, but could have been special with a great director, the film is a middle-of-the-road film with pros and cons.

In the pros column, we have the visuals. Painstakingly gorgeous, it is a shame that this film bombed because it deserved recognition for the cinematography. On land, it beautifully captures the whaling towns and the New England feeling of these small sea towns. In town, the browns and grays are gorgeous. Gratuitous shots of the ocean from Owen Chase's (Chris Hemsworth) home with the green town on the side. With Anthony Dod Mantle's camera gently floating up and catching this beauty of the small seaside town in 1820s Nantucket, it feels practically idyllic. On the open ocean, the sunset lends beautiful oranges and yellows to adorn the film that leads to lush greens and blues. With long shot after long shot of the sun's orange casting down on the green and blue of the open ocean, In the Heart of the Sea is a painfully beautiful film. The cinematography gives this film impeccable visuals that feel like a painting one could find of ships in the 1800s. A true visual accomplishment, In the Heart of the Sea is a film that demands to be seen in order for every living person to be awed by the sheer beauty of the proceedings.

Unfortunately, this perfect cinematography is not matched by the visual effects. Compared to another film based around oil and disasters, Deepwater Horizon, the visual effects in this film are pretty bad at times. The whale looks incredible and, again, shots on the open ocean look great. The fire looks terrific too. Unfortunately, shots during the storm and while whaling are really ruined by how fake it all looks. It is similar to car being driven in a film from the 1940s or 1950s. It looks like it was filmed on a set, which is a shame. Similarly, a few action set pieces also look entirely staged, similar to the effects in a 1970s disaster movie. These moments do no just disrupt the suspension of disbelief on the part of the audience, but just look awful compared to the gritty realism of the rest of the film.

Another major negative for this film is the acting. In the lead role, Chris Hemsworth plays Thor. Pretending to have a New England accent in one scene where he says apaht instead of apart, he is fine and entirely palatable. But, either have an accent throughout the whole thing or just forget about trying. Sean Connery made a whole career on his looks, being cool, and playing every character as a Scotsman. Hemsworth can do the same, but he has to stop pretending. Alongside him, Benjamin Walker is pretty bad Captain Pollard, but nobody is as egregiously bad as Tom Holland. Every line he speaks honestly hurts. From the very beginning, Holland never utters a line with any conviction. He knows he is acting and we know he is acting. Shame the production team made the actors suffer so much (500-600 calories a day) to capture authenticity for such bad performances. Cannot say it was worth it on their parts. The only actors trying are Ben Whishaw and Brendan Gleeson, but as Herman Melville and old Thomas Nickerson, all they do is talk about the story and are not given much to do throughout. Of those who suffer, Cillian Murphy is alright, but even he turns in a lackluster performance compared to his body of work.

With bad visual effects and bad acting, In the Heart of the Sea is a film that simply lacks the depth needed to be a good film. Its story and characters are fine, but never as rich as the cinematography and painting-esque shots adorning the film. That said, as with all Ron Howard films, it is entirely watchable, riveting, and a film that entertains throughout despite its seemingly crusty and aged story.



6/10 - One of Robert Altman's low-budget 1980s play-to-film adaptations, Secret Honor further demonstrates just how little Altman's style works in a play setting. His camera is too constrained, too unable to move, and the whole film feels stiff and claustrophobic as a result. Naturally, the claustrophobia is purposeful given this take on Richard Nixon (Philip Baker Hall) that is centerstage of the film. Unfortunately, it is yet another case of Altman simply being a poor match for the material as a director. The end result is a film that largely feels quite stiff, even if the writing and acting are truly tremendous and hypnotic.

The direction does not give the film that extra little push, however. The acting and writing can only go so far. Here, they are stranded to fend for themselves as Altman tries to feel his way through the material. Cited by some as a representation of how Altman felt at the time with his career at rock bottom and his glory days of the 1970s now behind him, this is likely an incredibly fair reading of the film. Thus, one could anticipate some passion and fire being instilled into the film. Unfortunately, the direction seems to be pretty simple and straight forward to the point that I wondered if the film was just shot in one day. That said, to edit the film to look like one continuous take is always incredible, unless it is just one take. Regardless, you cannot tell and either way is a pretty good accomplishment. That said, otherwise, the camera simply floats around the room following Philip Baker Hall as he freaks out and talks to himself. This is an unfortunately restrained effort from a man more at home with huge casts or large, expansive plot scenarios. Though he can do intimate character studies, he still need the expansive set pieces and production locations in order to explore them. Here, he is reliant upon the writing to explore the character on his behalf.

And boy does the writing ever explore Nixon. Drunk, rambling, and incoherent, Nixon wallows in self-pity for an hour and a half. Drinking himself into a deeper and deeper stupor as he speaks to paintings on the wall and rants at them. Crying out for his mother, blaming Eisenhower, blaming Kissinger, and regretting selling his soul for power, this is a mournful, regretful Nixon and the writing really drives home and figures out who this man was at his very core. He is psychotic in this film, but it is merely a result of being a shell of his former self. Hated by the world, it is clear Nixon himself felt excluded if everybody other than himself hated him, so he joined in on the party. In this way, the film is quite somber and depressing as you see what his past sins have done to him and the perception he has of himself.

In the lead role, Hall may not speak like Nixon, but he brilliantly captures the man. His performance is captivating, hypnotic and truly tremendous. As a one-man performance, Hall commands attention and rewards the audience with a stunning take on this broken man with a troubled past. Without Hall, this film would feel quite dry and entirely disposable. As it stands, he is the glue that holds the entire production together with a crazed, insane take on the man, capturing all of his emotional pains, both past and present. Hall is the reason to watch this film, he knows it, and he rewards the viewer with a career-best performance.

A showcase for Philip Baker Hall, Secret Honor is lesser Altman, but still entirely watchable. Though not playing to his strengths as a director, the acting and writing make Secret Honor a captivating take on Richard Nixon in the aftermath of Watergate a she is trapped in a basement, recording an imaginary trial, and trying himself in the court of his opinion. Calling in witnesses - his mother, Kissinger, and Eisenhower - to provide evidence, it is clear that Nixon is set to find himself guilty, no matter how much he wants to be pardoned and set free from his burden.



8/10 - An absolutely wild film directed by Tony Scott and written by Quentin Tarantino, True Romance is a real guy's movie to watch on Valentine's Day or the day before, as it was in my case. Starring an ensemble cast with a tremendous cast of characters in small cameo-esque roles throughout that really add thunder to this film. Over-the-top, stupid, and thoroughly Tarantino, True Romance is an odd little love story with an affinity for guns, unexpected drug dealing, and a whole cast of gangsters, cops, and movie producers, all vying for the coke from an unexpected source. With great acting and writing, the film may be a bit predictable and is thoroughly cliched, but is remains terrific entertainment throughout its runtime.

The best scene in the film is the infamous "Sicilian scene" with Christopher Walken and Dennis Hopper. It is all we see of Walken's mysterious Don Vincenzo, the consigliere for infamous gangster Blue Lou Boyle, who had his coke accidentally stolen by stupid Clarence (Christian Slater). With the coke worth than $500,000, it should be clear that he is unhappy. Going to Clarence's father Clifford (Hopper), Don Vincenzo gives the man a chance to talk. A raw, tough-nosed conversation, it is a brilliantly eloquent, concise, and written sequence by Tarantino. Naturally, Walken nails the role and is a real highlight of the film as a whole. The nervous energy given off by Hopper, but his solid defiance to this brutally violent man before him is equally terrific. This is a scene that gives Tarantino to spin this crime yarn into something of higher literary significance and he does it, with a gorgeously penned scene. Walken and Hopper do the writing justice, plus some.

In a typically chameleon-like performance, Gary Oldman also steals the show as pimp Drexl Spivey. Confronted by Clarence to free Alabama (Patricia Arquette) from his grasp and also the man with the coke from Blue Lou Boyle, Oldman's Drexl is a black man wannabe with a scarred face, one eye, and long brown dreadlocks. This man really is a chameleon. Psychotic, unhinged, and an undeniably wild pimp, Oldman's character may be my favorite from the film, even though Walken's terrific Sicilian gangster gets the best scene in the entire film.

Naturally, James Gandolfini is also tremendous in this film as Don Vincenzo's trigger man Virgil. Roughing up Alabama to find out where the coke is, Virgil takes a liking to her and let's her take one shot before he finishes her off. Menacing, tough, and yet warm and oddly approachable like only an oddly good guy Gandolfini can be, the film finds yet another great scene with Galdolfini's moment in the spotlight.

The film also finds a great source of energy from Brad Pitt's Floyd. He never really gets a scene to himself, rather he is always a supporting character. That said, he is hysterical as a druggy who is always high. Letting the gangsters know Clarence's every move while offering them drugs the whole time, Floyd is a real gem of a character. No surprise he inspired Pineapple Express given how well he would fit in that film. The best moment with Floyd comes as a gangster pulls a gun causing a delayed, high reaction from Pitt as he mutters, "Woah."

Yet, the stars here are Christian Slater and Patricia Arquette. Less compelling than the rest of the supporting cast, their twisted love story is one only Tarantino could concoct. In essence, it is a dry run for Natural Born Killers without the constantly bloodshed and via the direction of Tony Scott. Thus, it is less coked up and more restrained than Oliver Stone's film. Though less interesting than the other characters, their Bonnie & Clyde-esque matchup of a hooker with a heart of gold and a lonely man with limited romantic experience is somehow charming and sweat. True Romance is a film that violently argues that, to love somebody, you must kill for them. Clarence and Alabama pull the trigger for one another, in the most romantic acts ever and in an attempt to be Elvis (Val Kilmer) cool.

Kinetic, insane, and thoroughly Tarantino, the film is not really a Tony Scott film. Yet, his assured hand does help keep it a bit more restrained without descending into complete parody. With a tremendous cast that all nail their roles, True Romance is a very good film that is simply fun and somehow romantic.



8/10 - The Lady From Shanghai is my introduction to Orson Welles. As with every director I have just embarked on, I have no idea why it takes me so long to get to these classics. There is definitely some prejudice on my part, even if I know that I enjoy films from this era. Every time I watch one, I love it. Yet, it feels so demanding and different from modern film that I manage to talk myself out of watching one. When the DVD finally gets put into the player, however, it takes no time at all for me to realize just how stupid I had been. The Lady From Shanghai is yet another stellar example of this stupidity with a masterful film noir with a shocking ending, even if it does take a bit to get to the good, dirty scandalous bits. In hindsight, the beginning is equally terrific, but suffers in the moment.

Taking a long roundabout way to get to the murder, Orson Welles introduces us to Mike O'Hara (Welles). Quickly captivated by the beauty of Rosaline Bannister (Rita Hayworth), she manages to convince her attorney husband Arthur (Everett Sloane) to hire him as a servant. What ensues is a heavily implied love affair between the two. Sharing a natural chemistry due to the fact that Welles and Hayworth were married at the time, the two make for incredibly compatible lovers. However, the first half of the film is seemingly maligned by a roundabout method of speaking that is just entirely odd to listen to as a modern viewer. In particular, George Grisby (Glenn Anders) - Bannister's law partner - has a very odd way of talking. This odd method of speech mirrors Welles' lackadaisical interest in actually telling a conventional plot. This one is more about the characters, the aesthetic, and the set pieces. He will eventually get into the murder, but he needed to take the time to set the scene and really dump the viewer into the world to show that the ending, though seemingly unexpected, should not be unexpected at all.

SPOILERS

From the very beginning, Rosaline cannot be trusted. She claims to not smoke, yet accepts a cigarette from Mike all the same when they first meet. She puts it in her bag, but took it anyways. Soon after, she is a massive smoker and is alleged to have recently taken up the habit. On top of all this, she cheats on her husband and plays the role far too innocently to be anything but a sneaky temptress. She is a dastardly femme fatale and Hayworth plays her so well, we never see it coming. Her acting and Welles' writing bury the lede and sell us so hard on their love for one another that we could never conceive she would double cross him. George is weird, he did it! Arthur is jealous, he did it! But no, Hayworth sells her so well as an innocent woman seeking a love affair and Welles' roundabout writing in the beginning was a mere ruse to make us look away from the real source of the plotting. Even if she had no turned on poor Mike O'Hara, she was still planning on axing both lawyers to collect the insurance money for herself. A dangerous femme fatale, she is one we never see coming, even if a femme fatale is required for a film noir.

END SPOILERS

Alongside the more classic noir elements of the film is terrific comedy in the courtroom sequence, which was unexpected. Arthur Bannister's trickery as Mike's defense lawyer and even questioning himself as a witness is more screwball than noir. It is an odd touch that really adds character to this film and makes a truly entertaining affair. It may make the film a bit tonally odd, but Welles swings it quite well and sells it to no end as merely an odd reality. Once again, just as with the truly oddball beginning and weird delivery of Glenn Anders as George, The Lady From Shanghai is hardly a straight forward noir film. Instead, its elements of comedy and showing the absurdity of life and the weird things that occur everyday make it a film with a unique bite.

A classic film noir for good reason, The Lady From Shanghai features incredible set pieces - especially the amusement park with some iconic cinematography and set pieces in that sequence - and great acting (even Welles). The plot is equally brilliant. Though it takes a bit to get into it heavily, Welles ensures it all comes together at the end with a finale that is unexpected, even if it should be anticipated. That said, this is hardly a film about the story and is more-or-less an experience and an sort of satire on the typically serious nature of noir films with the addition of black comedy, unusual characters, and truly odd interactions. Hell, even Orson Welles' accent is comical and adds to the absurdity of the entire proceeding. I fear that this film may not get the credit it deserves for being a completely weird film that seems to be relatively straight laced on the surface, but is really from straight out of left field.



8/10 - I never saw this film coming. Wow. Ignoring the fact it is just a Hitchcock film that incidentally says "directed by Brian De Palma" at the beginning, this is one twisted flick. No wonder Columbia expressed hesitation with this project. It is pure insanity that drives the final plot twist that adds such a deliciously demented piece of this film that drives it home to being such a great film. Obsession, working with classic De Palma/Hitchcock themes of voyeurism, obsession (duh), and murder, is probably the most straight forward Hitchcock adaptation done by De Palma. His other works do introduce some unique elements or show influence from other directors. Obsession, however, is pure Hitchcock and feels as though it is straight out of the 1940s or 1950s.

Opening up with all of the credits in the beginning and wrapping up with nothing more than "the end" plastered on top of a freeze frame of the final shot, Obsession is structured like a film from the Hays code era. The heavily orchestral score adds to it, cuing you in emotion and thrills like an old black-and-white film. These detailed touches are met with old school pacing, a lack of classic De Palma bloody violence, implied dark themes with nothing explicitly stated, and melodramatic acting and plotting. Obsession is a film that slipped out of the days of Hitchcock's black-and-white thrillers like Suspicion, Shadow of a Doubt or his colored works like Dial M for Murder or Vertigo. Obsession is thoroughly Hitchcock and is a fun film to watch unfold for that very reason, though De Palma does infuse it with his own sense of flair and style throughout.

Taking the extravagant Southern locale of a film such as Gone with the Wind and turning it into a "modern" set thriller, Obsession is a deeply southern film. Set in New Orleans, the film aches with the old school southern way of doing things. As a result, it is incredibly stiff and this rigidity only adds to the risque nature of the plot. This creates an interesting juxtaposition between the old school ways of the town and the city with the events unraveling in the Courtland household.

SPOILER

However, the film really soars where it is compared to Hitchcock. Shadow of a Doubt comes into play with the incest potential between Michael Courtland (Cliff Robertson) and his new love. Turning out to be his daughter (Genevieve Bojuld), but as an adult, the film is incredibly twisted on this note. Falling in love (Sandra/Amy knows, but is complicit in the plot against her father) with Michael and then consummating the marriage, but all of this occurring through a water rippling dream effect to obscure the horrible truth, this film is sordid with its incest implications. This honestly it what defines it as so psychologically messed up as a film, but also what solidifies it as a spellbinding thriller. Hitchcock toyed with incest in Shadow of a Doubt, so it is clear where the influence came from, but its inclusion here just feels so wrong, but it just works so well.

Dial M for Murder is another huge influence here with the murder of Robert La Salle (John Lithgow) by Michael. After setting him up twice, stealing his daughter, and killing Michael's wife, Robert definitely had it coming. But, in a struggle on a desk, Michael is able to grab a pair of scissors and stab Robert with them. A copy of the murder from Hitchcock's classic murder mystery, this is a clear reference to the film, even if the plot itself does not really mirror it too much.

END SPOILERS

Rather, the clearest influence in the film is from Vertigo. Fashioned by De Palma and writer Paul Schrader as a film influenced by Vertigo, it is clear why this is the case. Using double identities to add a further wrinkle to the plot like in that Hitchcock classic, the film also lifts the obsession of Scottie (James Stewart) and gives it to Michael Courtland in this film. His infatuation with his late wife Elizabeth manifests itself into turning new love Sandra into an exact copy of her. Sandra matches this by becoming obsessed with Elizabeth herself and excessively asking questions about what she was like. Adding dashes of voyeurism as Michael stalks Sandra in Florence and at her job at a church, the film further bears resemblance. Yet, again, just as De Palma fashions the film as a 1940s thriller with the credits at the beginning, the devil is in the details. In Vertigo, Kim Novak is obsessed with a painting and is constantly seen putting flowers at a grave. Obsession lifts this repeatedly with Sandra helping to restore a painting of the Madonna in a church, putting flowers at her mother's grave, and the shrine Michael had built for his wife and daughter in New Orleans with a huge grave. Though not mirroring Vertigo and showing some innovation with these inclusions, they are clear homages to the work of Hitchcock yet again.

Obsession is a film that Hitchcock forgot to make, so De Palma made it for him. Twisted, filled with incest, voyeurism, obsession, and homages to the work of Hitchcock in Dial M for Murder and Vertigo, Obsession is the most clear cut remake of a Hitchcock film other than Gus Van Sant's Psycho. Though De Palma pulls influence from various Hitchcock films and changes sequences up a bit, it is always abundantly clear that this is a "remake that is not a remake" of a Hitchcock thriller. That said, it is still brilliant. Terrifically written, well acted, and entirely thrilling, Obsession is a film that is as good as it is twisted.



5/10 - Oh I didn't know they let bad girls in here.
-Harrison Ford as Jack Trainer

I have a head for business and a bod for sin. Is there anything wrong with that?
-Melanie Griffith as Tess McGill

No film with those lines of dialogue could actually be good. Working Girl does not buck the trends and is a cookie cutter romance with my least favorite narrative cliche in the history of humanity. Yet, far too many films seem to think it works. This film may be fun for many, but it just aggravated me to no end and made me desperate to shut it off. The film is incredibly well-written, even if it is cliche ridden and director Mike Nichols allows the film to successfully follow cliches, always remaining relatively palatable in the face of its annoying plot conventions. Oh and of course the bad dialogue that clearly served as inspiration for Melanie Griffith's daughter Dakota Johnson to say the bad dialogue in Fifty Shades of Grey with confidence because, hell, her mom got an Oscar nomination for the same lines.

Featuring a woman beat down by the system, Tess McGill (Griffith), her goofy friend Cynthia (Joan Cusack), and her bitch boss Katharine Parker (Sigourney Weaver), the film's plot is kicked off when Katharine breaks her leg. Having previously pitched an idea to Katharine regarding a possible merger path for a client of their investment firm, Tess - a lowly secretary - learns that Katharine planned to steal the idea and send it off to boyfriend Jack Trainer (Harrison Ford) to bring it home. Well, Tess decides to pose as a tried and true professional in the mergers and acquisitions game, falls in love with Jack, and hides her lies from everybody with the help of Cynthia. You will never guess what happens in the middle though. She almost tells Jack the truth! In the midst of telling him (leading off with, "I have to tell you something"), he gets a phone call to distract him, and then he turns to her and says, "What did you want to tell me?" Later, he learns when Katharine bursts into the big merger meeting where Tess' deal is set to go through and is initially hurt, but quickly gets over it and loves her anyways. Even better, the big client - after Katharine fires Tess - offers Tess a job and gets Katharine fired for stealing the idea from Tess. Is this not just the most upliftingly original plot you have ever heard? No spoiler tags either. I implore you read that past paragraph because it does not spoil anything. If you have seen any romantic comedy, you have seen this plot play out before. It is a shame to see Nichols stuck with such annoyingly derivative material.

That said, he does well with it. Thanks to Harrison Ford and Melanie Griffith, Working Girl nearly comes off. Joan Cusack is annoying here as a loud obnoxious cliche, but all the same, the film nearly gets home. It is quite cute and the ending underscores that when Jack and Tess finally get to be together with no lies between them. But, man did I wish I had read a plot summary beforehand. I will never like a film with this plot. Hell, I hated Some Like It Hot - a classic - for the very same reason. These films where a character misrepresents who they are just leave me agitated and waiting for the same cliched plot to play out where they get exposed, get some egg on their face, but then the people they hid it from do not really care in the end. It is a plot with no tension because it has been played out so much, so it befuddles me to no end to see it constantly played out.

That said, Nichols does write the film quite well. It is cliched throughout, but it does hit all the cliches. The fact it almost works shows that the cliches have some merit, even if it worn out. It is a perfect example of this kind of film, so it is no surprise to see it well received critically. It is a film that is cliche ridden, but has so much bubbly energy from its leads that it masks many of these cliches and, where it does not, the cliches hit sweet notes, though familiar.

Working Girl may be a good film. It did receive a Best Picture nomination. But, its cliched plot is one that simply is not up my alley. It just causes me unnecessary aggravation due to the tediously nature of this particular set of cliches and the prototypical story that ensues. That said, the film does embody the cliches perfectly and for those that enjoy this type of storyline, it will appeal greatly. The acting, particularly from Griffith, is quite good and rise above the derivative material and corny dialogue.



8/10 - Robin: My name is Richard Grayson. The other kids call me Dick.
Batman: Well, children can be cruel.

Fast paced, frenetic, and kinetic, The Lego Batman Movie is another piece of product placement for Lego, Bed, Bath & Beyond, and Pennysaver, that works incredibly well. Though fast paced, it never annoys, while providing bright colors and fun sequences for the target child audience. But, in this spate of incredible energy, The Lego Batman Movie touches on important themes of teamwork, togetherness, and family, that should have a profound impact on children. For adults, the dirtier jokes and the constant fan service with Batman, and the critique of DC films ("brooding" as a Batman trait, mocking the premise of Suicide Squad) will more than provide enough entertainment. Above all, however, the film truly strikes a sweet spot from being self-referential and corny without slipping into becoming annoying a la last year's Deadpool. This is a self-aware superhero satire done right with funny jokes, good action, and tremendous animation.

With Will Arnett anchoring the film with a hysterically selfish and narcissistic take on Batman, Arnett finds some great pieces to the character when he is not just spitting punch lines. Though the punch lines work, the film would tire quickly if it were just a barrage of jokes. Rather, via Batman, the film finds a heart akin to a Pixar film. Lonely and caught in a constant spiral of self-loathing that culminates with a new Batman film being released, the character lives a life of solitude. At times vulnerable, but always lashing out as a result of his inner anger, Arnett does well to play a man who is self-aware. He knows he is alone, but his vanity and pride do not allow him to admit it out loud. His obsession over his abs is vain, yes, but also heavily compensating for how inadequate of a person he feels like without a family to call his own. Though Alfred (Ralph Fiennes) is there for him, he is so blind for self-hatred, this point is lost on him. As a side bar, Fiennes is a brilliant selection for Alfred and does tremendously in the role.

Though the film explains its themes of loneliness, family, and teamwork with no subtlety, it never feels preachy because it is a kids movie. Though the parents get it, the kids do need Ellie Kemper's Phyllis, guardian of the Phantom Zone, the explain to us what makes people good or bad and how people can change. On-the-nose, the film never suffers or feels hokey, rather it is a good time for the adults to calm down and relax from the frenetic pace of the film.

The frenetic pace of the film is not a constant though. Some of the best scenes in the film are ones highlighting Batman's loneliness. An extended shot that has to be somewhere near a minute long or more (a lifetime in this film) of Batman just sitting in his indoor pool eating lobster is absolutely hysterical. Him warming up the lobster and getting his mail also hits comedy highs for its critique of the mundanity of life. It highlights just how plain his life is, but makes him so relatable to the audience and shows that, no matter who you are, the Pennysaver winds up in the mailbox and you always hit the wrong numbers on the microwave the first time. The simple comedy of this film is a pleasure to watch unfold and, though not revolutionary, it is incredible fun and really works in the film with great comedic delivery and director Chris McKay willing to take his time with jokes.

That said, the film's most fervent energy comes into the form of constant references. A who's who of properties that Warner Bros or Lego have their hands in with villains coming left, right, and center, from the 80s, 90s, and 00s, the film is a nerd's dream. Much of the hilarity comes the sheer number of villains introduced - both from Batman's world and others - as well as those that are not real, but included anyways as a punchline. Again, very simple humor, but it is great service to the adults in the crowd who will get the references and enjoy seeing them portrayed in this format.

Plot-wise, the film is in service of its themes. Naturally, one must fail on their own to realize they need help. Yet, the film's interesting action in Arkham Asylum and the city of Gotham, as well as an interesting take on the "end the world" desire of villains of all kinds, the film finds great entertainment from its storyline. It may not be revolutionary, but director Chris McKay does a great job capturing the action and finding innovative ways to utilize the use of legos in the battle and in the aftermath of action sequences (fire). Interestingly, the film also shows the need for evil as the presence of evil ensures the rise of good to overcome evil. In this way, the character of the Joker (Zach Galifianakis) is used incredibly well and his actions in regards to the plot work incredibly well with this recurring theme.

Featuring a stellar voice cast, The Lego Batman Movie is a terrifically animated affair that is pure energy. This will be off-putting to some, but for those willing to go where this wild ride takes them, the film is wholesome family fun that entertains throughout. For adults, the references, adult comedy, and crucial themes to teach their kids will make the film more than worth the ticket price. For kids, the references may go over their head for the most part, but the film's staging of action and animation result in a film that will leave them in awe and in love with a Batman character that may be self-absorbed, but is entirely lovable. If this is a child's first experience with Batman, it is not just a wholesome one, but one that could get them to fall in love with the character.