The Lego Movie (2014)

3/5

The Lego Movie is a two-hour long advertisement that you have to pay to see. Yes, it has a story and characters, but so do thirty-second TV bits. And that doesn't change the fact that it is an advertisement for a brand, even if it is a brand that many people have fond childhood memories of. I typically don't mind product placement (e.g., I, Robot) or obvious sponsorship (e.g., The Hire: Powder Keg) as long as the movie can stand on its own merits. This movie cannot. If our analytic functions weren't so warped by our communal nostalgia of the lovable building bricks, it would be obvious to everybody just how middle-of-the-road this movie is.

The movie is frustrating because its creators seem confused as to what they are trying to say. Every theme seems half-baked, every new message inconsistent with the last one. The Lego Movie is a conceptual mess. The only thing I am certain of is that this movie thinks Legos are awesome and that you should go buy some right now!

The movie starts by satirizing the idea that following rules is good, by mocking the idea that teamwork is beneficial. (Side note: is it even really that bad to abide by laws? to work as a team?) It uses the incredibly catchy song Everything Is AWESOME!!! as a representation of the fascist, domineering society where we lose our individuality, but then uses that very same song to cheer up one of the characters later on. So are we supposed to like it or are we supposed to reject it? Because it's currently one of the most popular songs on iTunes.

And I'm a little confused by the ending. I don't want to spoil things for those who haven't seen it, so I urge people who don't want this mediocre movie spoiled to stop reading now. After this sentence there be spoilers. So is Emmett real or is he in the boy's imagination? If it's all made up, then how did Emmett move around on the table and attract the boy's attention? If it's all real, then it seems as if the boy just took credit for building literally hundreds of new designs that the Lego people actually built! Seems a little fishy to me. See what I mean when I say that the movie feels underdeveloped and poorly-thought out?

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1490017/

Drinking Buddies (2013)

3/5

Drinking Buddies is a fairly standard indie romantic dramedy with quirky characters and a mildly unique perspective. The plot follows two brewery co-workers, Luke (Johnson) and Kate (Wilde), who start to develop feelings for the other person, despite both being in relationships. On a camping trip with the two couples, Luke's partner (Kendrick) and Kate's partner (Livingston) share a kiss. How Luke and Kate react, how they involve themselves in the other person's life, and how alcohol affects their decisions is what the movie focuses on.

Whereas most Hollywood romances tend to be intentionally escapist, this movie grounds itself firmly in reality. All four leads deliver well-crafted, nuanced performances. It is who they are, not the situations they find themselves in, that gives the movie its voice. The characters are not perfect, and their decisions often frustrate us, but their charm and humor win us over. The character development is so warmly authentic that it is hard to stay mad at them.

But the movie as a whole, whether it's because of the worn-out, too-familiar storyline or the plodding progression, was not particularly compelling. The ending is not what I was expecting or hoping for, but perhaps that is the point of the movie and the reason for its title. Like its characters, the movie has its ups and downs, but ends up squarely in the middle of the pack.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2265398/

Safety Not Guaranteed (2012)

4/5

Safety Not Guaranteed begins with a glorious failure of an interview. Darius (Plaza) reveals way too much personal information to a manager at a fast food chain that is probably 5 years younger than her. Soon after she starts interning at Seattle Magazine and quickly gets acquisitioned by Jeff (Johnson) to investigate a classifieds ad. The curious ad asks for a partner with whom to go back in time. Darius does some sleuthing and discovers that the ad's author is Kenneth (Duplass), a grocery store clerk with wild theories and a wilder personality. Oh, and flippin' pinpoint calibrations.

The movie is an original but predictable quirky indie romantic comedy. It's original in the story it tells and the events that happen, but predictable in its characterization and overarching progression. Nothing about it is really all that novel or breakthrough, but the plot has an unexpected twist at the end that kind of takes you by surprise and leaves you in shock. The acting is spot-on, although I'm not sure how much of it is acting and how much of it is writing dialogue for people who already act that way in real life. The cinematography, editing, and others parts of the movie that most people don't care about are all unremarkable and far from technical achievements.

But the movie gets its power from the story it tells, and the way it tells it. The movie's thematics are textually rich and ripe for discussion. It examines the way love gets magnified, problems get forgotten, and history gets twisted by nostalgia. It takes a tender look at humanity's need for companionship, about what people are willing to do in order to have someone to be there with, someone to share an adventure with. It does this all without being overly obvious about it, just by telling a sweet story filled to the brim with true-to-life characters. They're all searching for the same thing and don't even know it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1862079/

No Strings Attached (2011)

2/5

No Strings Attached is a "romantic comedy" about two friends attempting to be friends with benefits (or actually friends with only one benefit, namely sexual intercourse). I put romantic comedy in quotes because you would be hard-pressed to find any romance in this film and the comedic elements fall flat about as frequently as they succeed. Natalie Portman plays a weird girl who is uncomfortable with intimacy; throughout the entire film we never get a sense of why she is the way she is. Ashton Kutcher plays the same character he has played for the past 10 years in romantic comedies, and there was nothing new or unique about it the first time we saw it. As for the plot, it progresses predictably into disaster when one party wants more than just sex. Whatever will they do.

Movies like No Strings Attached really frustrate me. It's not the quality of the movie that I find irritating, but the fact that it has so much potential that it chooses to throw away on cheap jokes and superficial meaning. Natalie Portman is incredible in this movie; she gives her character as much depth and warmth as possible, but the character is just written so shallowly that her talent is wasted. Half of the jokes are hilarious, but the other half you could practically hear crickets chirp in the theater. It was painful how bad they were and I actually felt embarrassed for the movie. The relationship between the two main characters is absent until the ending (maybe I'm just being naive, but I thought you had to be friends before you could be friends with benefits). The movie itself is okay, and there are plenty of laughs (more than any Will Ferrell or Ben Stiller comedy that I've seen), but it just feels like a half a movie. I can't recommend it in good conscience.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1411238/