The LEGO Batman Movie (2017)

[Ezen Baklattan]

Review, Discuss, Debate, Celebrate.

 

Gob and George Michael are back again.

 

[WrathOfHan]

This is a solid B+. The majority of jokes don't land, but some of them had me rolling (the executives, Michael Jackson, etc). The movie moves at a rapid pace, though maybe that's just because last year's animated joints were longer than usual. B+ | 8.5/10

 

PS: AGENT SMITH NEEDED A BIGGER ROLE

PSS: You have Ralph Fiennes in your movie, yet he doesn't voice Voldemort?

[SteveJaros]

I'm giving it a "B", which is less than what I thought I'd be giving it given that (a) I am a pretty big fan of the Lego Movie, and (b) the 91% RT score, which usually tracks my opinion pretty well.

 

On the positive side, it does capture much of the same verve, spirit, and humor that made the Lego Movie a winner. The wisecracks and asides hit 2/3 times, the lego characters are cute and appealing, and the animation-SFX are crackerjack. From a meta-perspective, IMO the mindless fun silliness of the Lego approach suits the Batman character - yes, I like the dark brooding Batmans that the comic book purists prefer, but I also was always a fan of the 1960s Adam West show as well, and LB captures some of that beloved craziness. 

 

But ... even though the film is just 90 minutes long, it felt like a Looooooong 90 minutes to me. The pacing was poor, too frenetic for my liking. Whole plot twists and turns and action sequences would unfold and end, and ... just 10 minutes would have gone by. IMO, the makers just cram too much everything into the film, it's a case where less action, less plot movement, less everything, would have added up to 'more'. Then again, I'm in my 50s so maybe your sugar-rush 9 year old won't agree, LOL. 

 

FWIW, a "B" is a decent grade to me, if I were on Siskel and Ebert it would translate into a "Thumbs Up". Just not as "up" as I thought it would be. 

 

One final thing: Of course this movie is going to be massive at the box office, but I got what amounted to a private showing. I saw an 11 AM matinee (2D) and was the only patron in the theater. 

Edited February 10, 2017 by SteveJaros

[Morieris]

47 minutes ago, WrathOfHan said:

PSS: You have Ralph Fiennes in your movie, yet he doesn't voice Voldemort?

 

I said that when I saw the credits pop up. Seriously?

 

Anyway, it's not as emotional as TLM in it's climax, but I did like Lesson B (Consider how you speak to people who idolize you) more than the original (Everyone is special). Thee animation has improved. It is rapidly paced but I appreciate it. The humor wasn't as smart at the first one but when I laughed I legit laughed hard.

 

The heroes were not really boring but they didn't have the spark of the first movie's characters. They had personalities of "Well, we don't really like Emmet but whatever we'll deal with him." The characters were fleshed out but outside of Barbara, they weren't really creative. 

 

The rogues galley? Killed it. Did NOT expect WB to grab from their other properties. There was something completely surreal at watching a lego King Kong a month before the live action counterpart returns to our screens. Apparently that whole gimmick is from Dimensions but I wouldn't know. I hope the next Annie's comes around and gives them an award for character animation on The Joker because that was spectacular. He was probably my favorite character just looking at him in the background at points.

 

Everyone's voice work was good (Slate has a super distinctive voice so Harley sounded exactly like Gidget/Bellwether/Pony Head but it kind of worked). The end credits absolutely delighted me. I'm not sure why minifigs clapping and jumping in beat cracked me up but it did.

 

This is inferior in nearly every way to The Lego Movie, but I'm fine with that. They didn't come here to reinvent the wheel, and it's a pretty good wheel I'll be happy to watch over and over. Solid B

 

 

[MrPink]

I would go with B+, not quite as inventive as the Lego Movie but a very enjoyable film especially for Batman fans.

 

When the studio logos have you rolling, that means it's probably a winner. Not to mention I could listen to Will Arnett Batman voice for days. I didn't mind the 2nd half switch, but I do feel that the manic energy of the film works against it in some respects and I wish they pared down some of the characters so villains like Catwoman or Two Face got more time.

[filmlover]

This is definitely somewhat of a sharp decline from The LEGO Movie (which is one of my favorites of the past decade), but this is a beautifully animated and often hilarious riff on the Batman movie that feels like a breath of fresh air from the recent string of crummy live-action DC movies. I feel like anyone who isn't well-versed in the character's history (or at least his cinematic one) won't find much value in this, and it can't help but embrace what it's spoofing towards the end, but the frenetic energy, amazing voice cast (Michael Cera's Robin lolololol), and a gag ratio that leans more heavily towards hits than misses keep things very entertaining. B+

[lolifofo]

It was pretty underwhelming. None of the jokes had me laughing out loud, and the story was kind of cheesy and too simple. It is still by no means a bad movie. But like others said, it cannot compare to The Lego Movie and how good it was.

 

Also, I don't get the complaints about Batgirl. She was a much-needed "serious-relief" in a massive mess of jokes.

 

B-

[MrPink]

FWIW, I found this movie funnier than the Lego Movie. I just found the Lego Movie to be a bigger breath of fresh air. It helps that I'm a big Batman fan however.

[filmlover]

I don't think I've laughed as hard in a long time as I did when Alfred stated that Batman was going through another one of his phases and it cut away to Lego reenactments of every Batman movie ever.

[Blankments]

The LEGO Batman Movie is a return to a wacky world established three years ago in one of the best animated films ever made. It makes sense that there's no way it could live up to that film's quality, but it's still pretty good on its own terms. The comedy in this film works incredibly well, and the story is fun pulp. The voice cast is uniformly good, with no stand-outs, except for possibly Galifianakis. Unfortunately, he stands out in a negative sense, not really ever feeling like the actual Joker. The film's emotional core works well too, although sometimes it comes off as a bit forced.

 

The biggest issue of the film is impossible to go into without spoiling, but it has to do with it taking more from the second word of its title than necessarily needed or wanted. Also, it naturally has more action than its predecessor, but since it's still impossible to really decipher LEGO fight scenes, it comes off as a bore if there's no jokes during the fights. The script also shares its story structure with the original Lord/Miller film a bit too much, and feels somewhat derivative thanks to that.

 

The LEGO Batman Movie cannot really be broken down that much. It's a very solid comedy with stunning animation (although the lack of the water LEGO effects is extremely missed) and a story that functions. However, the flaws are also impossible to ignore. Still, Gotham City with this Batfamily is a joy to experience, and thus, The LEGO Batman Movie still deserves a huge commendation, and allows hope to still thrive in this LEGO-cinematic-universe-thing. A very good time. B

[Avatree]

Why is King Kong a villain? Has there ever been a King Kong movie where he's the bad guy? 

[Mulder]

6 minutes ago, Manchester by the Tree said:

Why is King Kong a villain? Has there ever been a King Kong movie where he's the bad guy? 

Kind of in King Kong 1933 where he's less sympathetic then he's been in subsequent versions.

[CoolioD1]

2 minutes ago, Mulder said:

Kind of in King Kong 1933 where he's less sympathetic then he's been in subsequent versions.

Eh, not really. I might even argue the opposite is true.

[Mulder]

9 minutes ago, CoolioD1 said:

Eh, not really. I might even argue the opposite is true.

I feel like 70s Kong ((For all it's problems)) and 05 Kong showed more of a soft side to kong imo anyways.

[CoolioD1]

I think they personify him more. The original is just like "here's a dumb animal who doesn't know what he's doing". I mean he's got such a goofball expression half the time in that one it's like how can you not feel bad for the guy.

[Avatree]

13 minutes ago, Mulder said:

I feel like 70s Kong ((For all it's problems)) and 05 Kong showed more of a soft side to kong imo anyways.

I've seen all 3 of the main films and as far as I can recall, plot-wise they are all extremely similar, with none of them featuring him as a villain. He's never portrayed as evil, he's an animal who falls in love. You'd only think he was a villain if you stopped watching half way through.

 

 

 

Edited February 12, 2017 by Manchester by the Tree

[MrPink]

2 hours ago, Manchester by the Tree said:

Why is King Kong a villain? Has there ever been a King Kong movie where he's the bad guy? 

 

Logistically speaking I imagine the villains were simply what a kid would imagine to be a villain and owned in his toy chest

[Jonwo]

12 hours ago, filmlover said:

I don't think I've laughed as hard in a long time as I did when Alfred stated that Batman was going through another one of his phases and it cut away to Lego reenactments of every Batman movie ever.

 

I lost it at Batnipples and Batman '66.

[filmlover]

2 minutes ago, Jonwo said:

 

I lost it at Batnipples and Batman '66.

Another great gag: at the beginning when The Joker was hijacking the plane and said that his plans never fail, to which pilot asked "what about the time with the two boats?"

[Jonwo]

9 minutes ago, filmlover said:

Another great gag: at the beginning when The Joker was hijacking the plane and said that his plans never fail, to which pilot asked "what about the time with the two boats?"

 

There's really too many great gags to list.