Beauty And The Beast: Tale As Old As Stockholm Syndrome

Back in the day... whether it be when Disney first started making cartoons... or the 90s when they had a run of "princess" films that were a hit... Disney was really into either adapting old princess stories, or making them up. Either way, this was Disney's M.O. at the time. Thank goodness they've got their own line of original cartoons now, along with their partnership with Pixar. Because if it wasn't for that... Disney would look like some seriously idea-less people. Get this-- they've started taking their cartoons and making them kinda live action. I say kinda because there's always some large scale CGI happening in there that makes you wonder-- what the hell is the point? Cinderella, The Jungle Book, and Pete's Dragon have all been decent in their own right... but there's no goddamn point for it. You made a "live action" Jungle Book where the only thing "live action" about it is the kid. Now, you've made a "live action" Beauty and the Beast where 75% of the movie is still animated! I guess the point is money and Beauty and the Beast will make a ton of it. It's not undeserving. It's a decent adaptation. But, just not one that was necessary at all.

Beauty and the Beast actually means something special to me. It was the first movie I ever remember watching in theaters. The wolves, or 'woofs', as I called them stood out to me as being terrifying. But, it's my favorite Disney cartoon. It's a staple movie of my entire childhood. And I was in the play in high school (let's not talk about that one, though). So, I'm probably a little bit more critical of the newest version that most. The plot is still very much the same. A douchebag prince who judges an old lady based on her outer appearance is cursed by a witch to be a hideous beast unless he finds true love. (Somehow along the way an entire castle of servants is condemned along with him... oops). Flash forward a few years, and we meet Belle (Emma Watson) a brainy, bookworm, beauty sought after by the vain and vapid Gaston (Luke Evans). Out on a journey, Belle's father (Kevin Kline) accidentally stumbles upon the Beast's castle and claimed as a prisoner. Belle goes to rescue him and winds up taking his place. Along the way, she winds up falling for her captor... and happily ever after... whatever. Thinking too hard about the plot really does lessen the message that beauty is on the inside.

There is a lot of good in this film. It's gorgeously shot and most of the actors do a fantastic job representing their cartoon counter-parts. Ian McClellan, especially as Cogsworth and Emma Thompson as Mrs. Potts shine. The songs are, once again, wonderful and the voices of the cast are (mostly) worthy. Emma Watson is probably the weakest of the bunch, but her singing voice is still above average. (What's weird too is Luke Evans probably has the strongest voice... who knew?) There's all the old, classic songs and even a few new ones that actually aren't that bad. I think after another listen, I might not be as harsh and judgemental as I was when they first appear (another new song... what are they thinking!?!?!... okay this isn't terrible...). And it is really cool to see an updated version of a movie I loved as a child. It's nice to see a few of the characters expanded and some extra humor injected into a movie I already adore. But there were some moments that really got under my skin...

First, the Beast. I keep reading conflicting reports that it was a human body with a CGI face. Then I read that it's all CGI based on motion-capture. Either way, there were a lot of moments that the Beast looked fake as hell. It really took me out of the moment. There were moments where the Beast looked real and everything was impressive and kosher. But, those moments where he looked like a villain from a 1997 Spawn movie really detracts from everything else happening on screen. Then, there's the added plot elements that don't work at all. For some reason, Maurice is no longer an inventor, but an artist, totally taking away the "crazy old Maurice" aspect from the original. Then, there's a big sub-plot about Belle's mother that gets really, really dark. I believe making this movie was completely unnecessary, but adding that story-line was TRULY unnecessary. It doesn't provide any extra character depth to the story, it just expands an already bloated run time.

Finally, what really got to me was the fact that they tried to desperately recreate the entirety of the original movie. There are shot-for-shot remade sequences, and lines, and moments, and all of that is great, but there was hardly any added creativity. Then, when you finally get conditioned that it's going to be exactly the same, you start to expect it and that ends up making you compare it to the original. It starts to weaken Emma Watson's singing voice. It starts to take away laughs when jokes (like moths flying out of the wardrobe) don't fly as well as the original. Some scenes feel rushed and highly edited... but it's only because it tries... for about 80% of the time... to be an exact remake. And it's a bit jarring. Also, Gaston's death in this one tries to be cool, but it's such a bitch death.  Look at the Disney cartoon, man... dude fucking STABS the Beast. With a knife! You can't get soft 16 years later.

Overall, I really enjoyed the movie. The actors, the songs, the performances, the set pieces, the costumes, the humor, the general atmosphere, and the fact that I'm watching "live action" Beauty and the Beast in a theater. The grievances I have with the film are just annoyances. They're probably a bit more evident to me because I grew up loving the movie more than a movie. It actually means a lot more to me than just entertainment. So, anyone who even just enjoys the original, will probably be blown away with this rendition. I'm sure after watching it again, I won't be as picky. Either way, can we stop remaking cartoons and get back to making original content that unoriginal Hollywood writers and execs can turn into live action movies twenty years from now??

P.S.-- I know everyone has already commented about the "gay thing" involved with Beauty and the Beast. I love that it's already blown up into a huge controversy. If nothing had been mentioned the entire TWO SECONDS of "gay stuff" wouldn't have even mattered and it's sooooo not that big a deal. I'd be more concerned about the innocent white girl falling in love with an actual water buffalo she only finds out is human AFTER she confesses her love to him.

B-

Kong: Skull Island: More Fun Than A Barrel Of Monkeys

Remember that feeling you had as a kid (or an adult?) when you first watched Jurassic Park? How much fun it was... how cool the effects were... how badass raptors and the t-rex was... how funny Jeff Goldblum was... how it meshed the terrifying with the hilarious and was almost the perfect 'monster' movie? You didn't sit around discussing the lack of character development with Dr. Alan Grant or that we didn't get a character arc from Timmy. You had a blast watching it because it was one of those near-perfect movies that entertains the living hell out of you and makes you forget about your terrible life for two solid hours. This is what Kong: Skull Island accomplishes almost as well. No, I'm not going to blaspheme and say that it is as good as Jurassic Park, but it's damn close... and definitely just as fun. In a time when unnecessary sequels run the theater I can say with certainty that this movie never had to be made. However, it has been made... it is a a shit-load of fun... and it's unbelievably entertaining.

Kong: Skull Island takes place in the 70s, just at the end of the Vietnam War. A scientist (John Goodman) has discovered satellite photos for an uncharted island. He wants to go on a fact-finding mission. So, he enlists the help of an expert tracker (Tom Hiddleston), a war photographer (Brie Larson), and a military escort led by a maniacal general (Samuel L. Jackson). Upon entering the island, bombs are dropped and used as seismometers to be able to "see" underground. This pisses off Kong... king of the island. He shows up and smashes each helicopter to bits. This sets in motion two separate groups' motives-- group one needs to get to the north side of the island in three days to wait for rescue. Group two-- the group led by Sam J'-- wants to kill Kong for killing all the soldiers. Group one meets a man (John C. Reilly), who's been stranded on the island for nearly three decades. He informs them that Kong is not the evil on the island, but these malicious lizard-looking creatures called "Skullcrawlers". And, thus, a race for survival begins.

Everything about this movie is fun. The characters aren't all walking around super-serious-face all the time. They actually have personalities, and whatdayaknow, chemistry. The island is full of mysterious and visually stimulating creatures. There's giant spiders, log monsters, huge carnivorous birds, giant octopi, and a big goddamn monkey. There's thrills and laughter (John C. Reilly's character is about as funny as I've ever seen him in a film... yes, even those with Will Ferrell). The best types of monster movies are the ones that can scare the crap out of you, while also making you laugh so hard you pee just a little bit. I recently watched Tremors again, and thought about how that movie did everything right. Kong: Skull Island is very reminiscent of the feel of Tremors. There's action and intrigue and a very, very well-placed F-bomb that had me rolling even minutes after it was dropped. (Normally, if a film is PG-13 with Sam Jackson, I hope they let him drop it... but this is one situation where he didn't and it one-upped anything he could've done.)

Peter Jackson's King Kong did have a lot of good moments to it. I guess it's aged pretty badly because you rarely hear it talked about positively anymore, but I actually remember really liking it. Yes, it was bloated, and an hour too long, and a bit full of itself... but the stuff on the island really was the most intriguing part. So, to focus the film on the island was actually a very genius move. The other bit of smarts this film has going for it, is that it isn't trying to tell you the same story again. We have seen many iterations of King Kong and we all understand the story. It's like when every Batman movie shows you Bruce Wayne's parents getting shot... WE GET IT. So, not giving us this story again was a great choice by the filmmakers. That way we don't have to wait a while to see Kong. He just shows up and starts smashing shit. It's great. Then, we get all the monsters on the island that both attack Kong (and we get to watch him rip them limb from limb) and humans (so we get to watch them either creatively killed... or work together to figure out a way to kill these big bastards). Literally everything about this movie is entertaining.

Finally, the movie is about as diverse as it can get. There's a female lead. An African-American lead. A couple of white guys. A bunch of Asians getting to play scientists and island people. There's a female Asian scientist (whoa!). This movie is populated with many different characters from many different cultural and ethnic backgrounds all working together. Every seems like they're having a good time too. Hiddleston works great as the Alan Grant-type, tough but tender, leader of the group. Brie Larson is perfectly cast as the photographer who avoids damsel-in-distress tropes and actually uses her brains AND brawn throughout the film. John Goodman is fantastic in everything, so I don't even have to mention him. John C. Reilly steals every single scene he's in... and even a few that he's not. And it's been awhile since we've seen villain Samuel L. Jackson... crazy Sam J... and it's a welcome return to the screen.

The reason you're probably very hesitant to see this movie is because you've seen King Kong several times before. You know the story and you have a pretty accurate idea of what you're going to be watching. What makes this film rise above the suckery is that it isn't trying to be your classic Kong movie... it's trying to be a B-movie with monsters and mayhem and action and humor. It's not trying to be philosophically challenging... it's trying to entertain the shit out of you for two hours so you feel like it's worthy of your money. It's not trying to bog you down by insignificant details like character background (of which there is a limited amount, but in a movie like this, who cares?) or superfluous love stories (there are none, thank God). It's cheesy, it's loud, it's slimy, and it's so much fun I want to go watch it again. I knew it was going to be decent based on the final trailer released, but I still walked away very much surprised at how much I enjoyed sitting in the theater and watching this movie.

A-

To The Man Who Taught Me To Love Movies

I don't ever do this because I hate it. I understand that people grieve differently and some people need to put everything out in the open and some people are just looking for attention. I don't like to put any of my personal business on blast for you Facebook-ers to give me a "I'm so sorry" comment for my own validation. That's why over the years, I haven't done a "This is the X anniversary of the death of Y". I don't need to. I don't need to showcase it on the Internet. But, for some reason, I am today.

Today is March 9th, 2017.  On this day, twelve years ago, my father passed away at the age of 42 from cancer. Most of you know this... the ones who don't... I appreciate your private/silent condolences, but there is no reason to say anything further on the matter.

Obviously, this was a significant moment in my life. This is a moment when everything I ever knew for my 17 years of life changed.  And it wasn't just my life.  It was my sister's 15 years of life.  It was my mother's near 20 years of marriage and everyone my father ever knew who was touched by his kindness. There are seriously an infinite amount of things I do and will forever remember about my father. But, other than baseball, the biggest thing that keeps us connected are the movies.

As a kid, I was always into movies. I'd act them out in my backyard with plastic guns or in my pool imagining I'm in a mountain climbing movie and the harness I'm attached to are really six or seven old little league stretchy belts I'd connected together. I grew up loving movies so much that I still am on a mission to make writing them my career (that's a different post). But, I don't think I'd have such a fondness for films if it wasn't for my father.

My dad wasn't a third of the movie buff that I am, but the movies that he truly loved... he TRULY loved them. Much like music, or a song, when randomly heard, can send you back to a truly memorable time... there are movies that I instantly relate only to my father. Most of these are movies I would constantly watch with him, but some are just movies he loved to watch... that the rest of us didn't so much care for (Seriously, dad... Seabiscuit???)

I polled my mother and my sister, without telling them about this post asking them to give me movies that they relate ONLY to my father. There are movies (like The Mummy or The Long Kiss Goodnight) that I relate to my dad, but I also relate to my mom and sister.  I'm talking movies that even a single mention of it makes us think of my father. So, for this day, here is a list of some movies that my dad loved, that even after twelve years, one (or all) of us still attribute to my dad.

Mom:
Lethal Weapon
Die Hard (I can always hear him quoting it)
Christmas Vacation (How hard he laughed at the sledding scene)
Ruthless People (How hard he laughed at the whole movie)
Beauty and the Beast (He took me to see it at the Pantages)
Speed (The first time he saw it was on a plane w/out sound, and he still loved it)
Bull Durham
Dirty Dancing (He watched it with me all the time when I was pregnant with you... he liked it... not that much)
Eight Men Out
Stripes
The Sixth Sense
Crimson Tide
The Fugitive
Men in Black

Katie:
Catch Me if you Can
The Shawshank Redemption
Drop Dead Gorgeous
Liar Liar (Quoted ALL
The Mask  the TIME)
The Prince of Egypt (Organized a church "field trip" to see it)
Lethal Weapon (Never even watched with him, but remembers how much he loved it)
The Rookie
Most Harrison Ford movies

Me:
Major Payne (The movie him and I would watch all the time, just the two of us, when I was young).
Lethal Weapon (Our favorite Christmas movie to watch together... well maybe 2nd favorite)
The Shawshank Redemption (He showed this to me first, now it is my favorite movie as well)
Happy Gilmore (Like Major Payne, this was our guy's movie together)
For Love of the Game
Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery (Showed it to me when I was young, even when mom said no)
O Brother, Where Art Thou?
Pirates of the Caribbean
61*
Groundhog Day (His love for Bill Murray became my love for Bill Murray)
A Christmas Story (Our actual first favorite Christmas movie to watch together)
Liar Liar (Took me to see it in theaters, we couldn't breathe we laughed so hard)
October Sky
Ocean's Eleven
The Emporer's Club
Raiders of the Lost Ark (He knew how to educate me on the classics)
Most Kevin Costner movies (He even admitted Costner was a terrible actor, but loved the movies)
And, ugh, Seabiscuit



However, my father was not without his flaws. He gave me my love for movies and he was my movie buddy when everyone else was sick of hearing me ask, "you guys wanna watch a movie tonight?" But, there was one movie that he absolutely HATED. He repeatedly told me I was nuts for liking this movie. Years and years later, I actually made him sit down and watch it with me again because the movie is such a classic that I convinced him he missed the joke the first time.  He watched it again and he still hated it.

The movie... Dumb & Dumber

I guess there's no accounting for taste. Miss ya, pop. I'm gonna watch Major Payne right now.
 

Logan: A Fitting Finale For A Flawed Hero

I don't actually have a lot to say about Logan. I can sit here and discuss how OVER "superhero" movies I am and how damaging they've been to original scripts that are being written all over. But, I've said all that already and if we continue to get movies like Logan, then can we really bitch and argue we're not seeing anything "new" because we're now getting a fresh spin on the old and it's working? I'm not going to really discuss anything about the movie because I don't want to give anything away. The trailers themselves give away too damn much and the movie is too beautiful to have spoiled for you.  I'm not going to give a history on the X-Men movies and how inconsistent they've been, especially when it comes to the Wolverine spinoffs. Because that's nothing more than a gigantic preface for me to say... but it's all led to one powerful, glorious, darkly wonderful film. Logan is the perfect ending for Hugh Jackman's character (who he has now officially retired), and one of the best Marvel films ever made.

I'm so happy that Fox listened to Jackman and Director James Mangold's idea of turning the final Wolverine movie into an R-rated, bloody, profane, DARK film that strays away from the bright colors and CGI of the other X-Men films. Wolverine has always been a pretty consistent character throughout.  He's a curmudgeon, consistently struggling with the internal conflict he's had going on for centuries and can't get past. He's a bastard for nearly 3/4ths of all of his movies until he has the moment of vulnerability and we see that he's actually a hero.  There is no difference here. Logan, the man, is still a bastard... and now a full-fledged drunk. It's 20+ years into the future, mutants are gone, and Logan is drinking himself to death while caring for an ailing Professor X (Patrick Stewart). Their paths cross with Laura, a nearly mute mutant with abilities not too different from Logan's. She's being chased by a militant corporation and Wolvering and Prof X decide to fight to keep her safe. That's all you get from me.

I'm also very thankful that they went with the hard R rating because Wolverine doesn't deserve to be watered down. He's an angry, brute force of a character with a potty mouth and razor-sharp knives that shoot out of his hands.  The fact that for seven previous movies, he's fought bloodless fights makes no sense. And let me tell you... they make up for all of it with Logan. It's very violent and bloody, but not gratuitously (most of the time). It's not a happy movie in the slightest, and hardly any side character is spared. A lot of death and destruction has befallen Logan's long life, and there's no difference here. The only change here is that he's older, weaker, and ready for it all to be over. It's little Laura who is the catalyst to bring a little bit of humanity back to Logan's life. (Sorry for the abundance of unintentional alliteration.)

I can't talk much about Logan because everything I feel about the movie has, in some way, to do with the spoilers of the movie. I think the movie was fantastic, I think the ending was great, and I think Fox deserves a lot of credit for showing a significant amount of balls with this movie. It's already looking like their "gamble" is going to pay off and this is the movie that Wolvering deserves. It's not a superhero movie in the slightest... it's an updated bloody, spaghetti western with very flawed, human characters. It's not bogged down by CGI effects and nothing even flies through the air in this film. It's a very realistic, hands-on, personal film that will shake you to your core. You're not watching The Avengers here.  Hell, you're not watching any "superhero" movie I've ever seen here. You're watching a very smart director paired with a very smart actor take one last look at an iconic character, spin something completely new (and, again, very very dark) to give him one last ride before the character is inevitably cast by someone else and given another eight movies.

Logan is badass. It won't short you on thrills, kills, and buckets of blood. It's a fitting finale for a flawed hero.

B+

Get Out: As In... GET OUT And Go See This Movie NOW!

Get Out manages to tackle issues of systemic racism, white privilege, interracial couplings, and societal taboos while still being a tense and taut horror/thriller, as well as [at times] a laugh out loud hilarious (on purpose) satire. It's genre-bending, convention-bending, mind-bending brilliance wrapped up in a tight hour and forty minute movie. It's almost surprising that one of the best (horror) movies of the past decade comes from someone solely known for comedy. Yet, if you think about it-- it's not really that surprising at all.  The best comedy, for most comedians, stems from some deep-rooted emotional pain. Most comics have this... are aware of this... and channel it into moments of humor to soften the inner turmoil. So, they're already familiar with what fucks you up.  Also, in order to stay relevant, they need to keep up with the cultural climate at all time. So, they're very in tune with the state of the ever-changing American culture. And finally, non-white comics tend to be more in tune with their racial and ethnic history. So, now, in fact, it appears that Jordan Peele should actually be the perfect person to tackle a movie such as this.

Get Out explores an avenue of racism that has hardly been seen, if ever, on film-- liberal racism. We've seen countless movies where blatant racism is the target theme, but this isn't that type of exploration of race. The white characters in this movie aren't the backwater, confederate-flag toting, DJDrumpf supporting, moonshine guzzling hillbillies slinging 'N-words' left and right. These are upper class doctors and psychiatrists and social elites that "would've voted for Obama for a third term". It's amazing how uncomfortable it is to watch these people try and acclimate their privilaged white lives with the one dark-skinned man who just so happens to be around. These are the type of people who bring up golf... and HAVE to bring up Tiger Woods with it. It's beyond uncomfortable because it's a very subtle, yet powerful racism being explored. Jordan Peele is breaking new ground here... and did I mention that it's still a horror movie??

Alright, so I'm not telling you shit about the plot. Like, at all. You've seen the trailers. You know that the one hot chick from Girls is dating a black man and wants to take him to meet her parents (Bradley Whitford & Catherine Keener) at their rich, secluded estate. Soon... weird stuff starts to happen. That's all you get. That's all you should want.  In fact, I think I've said too much. I know it's already been out for a good five days, but do your absolute best to avoid any and all information on this film. You shouldn't even be reading this right now unless you've already seen the movie-- which, if you have... please contact me as soon as possible so that we may discuss.

Elements I can discuss-- the genre-bending. Peele does a fantastic job of weaving in the terror and the comedy. It's like he studied very early Sam Raimi horror and was able to emulate that (without the campiness) and avoids making his film feel jarring when moving back and forth between emotions. It's not a horror movie in the sense of jump scares and gore... but it is wildly suspenseful and tense. It's the type of horror movie when you look down and realize you've been gripping your armrest so tightly that your hands hurt. The comedy only serves as brief levity (and it's very funny) until the suspense kicks right back in. I normally advise my readers to try and figure out a way to see horror movies in a theater that is near empty. There's nothing that ruins a good scare like assholes laughing and talking and ruining the movie. Other movies it doesn't bother me as much, but horror deserves to be seen in absolute darkness with absolute silence. However, a friend of mine saw it alone, whereas I'd been convinced by another review to see it in a crowded theater. After conferring with one another, I think the crowded theater is the way to go for this one. First of all, the movie is too damn good for nearly anyone to act like a dumbass, but second, it's amazing how often the film will elicit entire audience reaction-- which only adds to the fun.

For nearly two weeks Get Out was sitting at 100% on rottentomatoes (with over 140 reviews). I've never seen that. I know there are a few films out there that have received the 100%, but I haven't seen a film released in the last twenty years to do it with that many reviews. Then, yesterday, one asshole gave it a semi-negative review and knocked it back a percent. And while it is definitely surprising that this was the movie to hold the 100% honor for longer than I've seen in years, it's definitely worthy. There have been multiple Oscar winning films that haven't claimed that honor and a little horror/comedy released in February got it? There must be something special about this film? And yes... there is. Unless you are that aforementioned racist hillbilly... you're going to absolutely love this film. You're going to laugh, you're going to scream, you're going to reach for your heart medicine because it's going to be beating out of your fucking chest. It's a fantastic film that's already been cemented as one of the best movies of the year (I'm not talking so far... I mean we'll be saying this even at the end of the year).

A

Lion: Would Be A Cheesy, Formulaic Hollywood Tear-Jerker... If It Wasn't All Entirely True

Lion is the final movie I had yet to see that was nominated for Best Picture. It's probably my privilaged whiteness, but I tend to subconsciously avoid movies that take place in the middle east. I don't know why. There are several areas that are ripe with culture, and lush with color, but it just doesn't interest me.  I'm talking anything from Slumdog Millionaire, to The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel to even War Dogs (okay, that one might have more to do with my utter disdain for Miles Teller). Yet, even with this aversion to movies that take place away from my comfort zone in utopian whiteland... Lion still interested me. Dev Patel is a fantastic actor and Nicole Kidman is still rocking it. And thanks to my rule of watching every movie nominated for Best Picture, I was able to watch a film that not only deserves its nomination, but should absolutely be watched by everyone.

The crazy thing about Lion is that it plays out like a very formulaic "journey home" film. There are instances of far-fetchedness that would generally make anyone roll their eyes and detach themselves from the rest of the narrative because they aren't able to suspend that much disbelief. These moments would surely send Lion into the 44% range on rottentomatoes and hardly anyone would care. The reason Lion is able to transcend this is because it's all 100% true. (Okay, maybe not 100%, but pretty damn close.) Lion is the [unbelievably heart-breaking] story of Saroo, a 5-year-old Indian boy who follows his older brother to a train station, falls asleep on a bench, loses his brother and travels thousands of kilometers in the wrong directions attempting to get home. For months, on his own, he has to survive several life-threatening challenges, until he is rescued and adopted by a (*cough*) white Australian couple (Nicole Kidman & David Wenham).

Saroo is raised by this couple and given a life of luxury and privilege, a life he would not have received living in poverty with his mother, a laborer who moves rocks each and every day.  And even though for the past twenty-five years, Saroo has been given everything he could ever ask for... he's still drawn to his home. He still (rightfully) obsesses about his mother and brother and yearns to get back to them. His Australian parents are his family, are his mother and father, are his home... but they're not his family... they're not his home.

Lion does a fantastic job of presenting the theme of identity and home. Everyone is able to relate to Saroo and his struggles because we all have some sort of connection (whether present or lost) to our home. So, when it looks like adult Saroo (Dev Patel) is starting to obsess to the point of insanity over finding his home... we understand. Hell, even his Aussie parents understand... even though Saroo keeps his search a secret until the last possible second. The final act of the film is Saroo traveling back to India to find his mother and brother. And my God, readers, consider yourself a bonafide robot if the ending doesn't move you to tears... several times. Dev Patel carries the weight of the film visually on his shoulders in a role that certainly earned him an Academy Award nomination (though it shouldn't have been in the Supporting category). Sunny Pawar, the 5-year-old who portrays little Saroo is just as magnificent and without his strong performance, Patel would genuinely not have a movie to carry.

The other aspect of this film that feels like I should just be angry at Hollywood is the whole "white people save a person of color and turn is his life around... thank you white people." First... and again... this is a TRUE story of what actually happened.  Second, this isn't what the film is about and it isn't the message being conveyed. Yes, a white Austrailian couple (who admittedly CAN have children but choose to adopt from third world countries) saves an Indian boy, adopts him, and gives him a life he could never dream of having.  However, they can only save him to a point. They can't make him forget about home. They can't make him forget about family. Because no matter where we go in this life, we can never forget about home and family (as much as a lot of us try to).

Finally, what Lion also does is gives us a deeply depressing and dark look at the children of India. More than 80,000 children in India are abandoned on the street. They're killed, kindapped, trafficked, harvested for organs, collected for labor and generally experience the worst of life. Nicole Kidman's character, in a very moving and emotional scene, admits to Saroo that the reason they adopted him wasn't because she was physically incapable of having children, but because there's enough people and pain in this world... there's no promises of protecting a newborn child. But, there is the promise of helping a child (even a child from India) who was already in pain and giving that child something most Indian children don't ever get out of life. It's a very difficult reality to face, but Lion has not only created awareness, they've also started a charity, the #LionHeart campaign. If this is something that truly speaks to you on a deep, emotional level... I encourage you to see the movie and then check out the campaign.

A-

The Lego Batman Movie: [Almost] Everything Is Awesome

There is an emoji movie coming out. To theaters. A movie... starring... emojis... from you phones. And you know what? I'm not surprised. This is where we've come, ladies and gentlemen, and it's everyone's fault. Maybe get up and go see a movie that isn't based off of anything that doesn't star someone A+ famous. Because every time you don't... we're getting shit like The Emoji Movie. Every time you don't, we get a movie based off a STUPID game you play on your phone-- we get The Angry Birds Movie.  Every time you don't we get another movie based off of a RIDE a Disneyland. Every time you don't-- we get a movie based off of little tiny building blocks for children.  Okay, actually let's scratch that one because we all know that The Lego Movie was an anomaly. Somehow when the studio decided to make a movie based off of Legos... the right writers and directors were in the right place at the "write" time (heh heh heh... I've lost all my followers). The Lego Batman Movie doesn't hit all the chords that its predecessor was able to, but it still captures the same humor and energy and is still a pretty fun ride.

The one thing The Lego Movie had going for it, other than the fact that it was damn funny, was that it was very clever. And it had a great message about honing your creativity and being yourself. That being said, everyone knows that Batman (Will Arnett) stole every scene he was in. It's actually probably my favorite portrayal of the character of Batman (that or George Clooney's bat nipples... it's a toss up). With the success of The Lego Movie, there are bound to be NUMEROUS sequels each getting shittier and shittier as they go along. The Lego Batman Movie takes just a step down from the original and the second spinoff... already coming out later this year... The Lego Ninjago Movie... looks to be a step or two below that. This is what happens in Hollywood, people. Then again, the most expensive original movie last year was Passengers and that wasn't very good... so it's really a give and take.

Batman is in a constant battle with all of his enemies, but the one he has to tussle with the most is the Joker (Zach Galifinakis). The Joker views the two of them as perfect opposites who complete one another. Batman views him as a nuisance. This, of course, annoys the Joker, as he takes it personally, and releases every single Batman villain ever to go after Gotham. Along with the hoard of villains, Batman also battles with inner demons of loneliness. He's constantly lonely in his giant batcave, eating lobster alone, and watching Jerry Maguire by himself in his massive bat-theater. However, along the way, Batman inadvertently adopts Dick Grayson, who becomes Robin (Michael Cera). He also befriends the new Commissioner Barbara Gordon (Rosario Dawson), who eventually becomes Batgirl. And the trio, who eventually show Batman the value of friends and family, go off on an adventure to save Gotham city.

It's a pretty action-packed film that got just a little bit tiring in my opinion. Nearly every scene is an action scene, either fighting off the Joker or trying to save Gotham or the people in it. There's hardly every a dragged on conversation or moment of levity, which I think may have exhausted viewers a few times. The good news is, however, that even though there is a high energy pretty constantly througout the film, it's also very funny.  So, you may be searching for that quiet moment or two of levity in between all of the adventure, but it's relieving to know that even during all the 'action' there is still quite a bit of humor. And while only about 80% of the jokes land... that's much higher than most movies nowadays.

Once again, there's a good message to kids and a movie for adults to enjoy. There's several callbacks to previous Batman/Dark Knight films and Batman is just as humorous as he was in The Lego Movie. I do feel, however, that the film is essentially one giant joke. They still re-use some of the humor from the first film (like characters making the "pew pew" noises when shooting a gun), and Batman is still the same droll character, but it's all one joke. The joke is funny most of the time, but by the end you're hoping this was the last of the Lego Batman "franchise" because I don't know if I could take another one of these. I realize this makes it sound as if I didn't enjoy the film, because I did. And while it didn't make me laugh as hard or as often as The Lego Movie, the humor is there. It's still very impressive how detailed the animation is and how gorgeous the movie is to look at.

As far as animated family movies these days, it's still nice to see one company that isn't Disney respecting kids and not churning out movies that treat children like they're stupid. So far, these Lego movies have been very smart and don't pander to the lowest humor common denominator. As long as they can keep up, at the very least, this level of humor and cleverness, I'll be glad to keep seeing them. But, that doesn't seem to be how Hollywood works. Hopefully, they can transcend Hollywood tradition.

B-