User ReviewsReview this title
So a little background on my experience with the first one. Most people seem to have deemed it as "one of the best animated movies of the decade" back in 2014. I'm not messing around though when I say that I wholeheartedly think that The LEGO Movie IS the best animated movie of the decade! To this day, I view it as the most unexpectedly "awesome" movie I've ever witnessed in my entire life. So as prophesied, I was pleading for this sequel to live up to its predecessor-despite disliking the watery trailers/teaser trailers/teaser teaser trailers/whatever configuration of a trailer I left out-and not bail-out like Hollywood's most popular, trivial, hop-scotch prequel/sequel/spinoff cash grabs.
For the first half of this movie, I can't lie, I was getting a tad concerned that this movie was going to suffer from major sequelitis due to its awfully turbo, too-meta-for-it's-own-good formula-that might I add, has become quite established already since we've seen this recipe fabricated more productively in three other LEGO movies. This mundane scheme appeared to be leading this movie off into oblivion. But, once the film gets kicking, it GETS kicking. The nucleus of this film starts to reveal itself as an emulate of the original LEGO Movie, thanks to its deftly kiddie-like version of a Christopher Nolan screenplay.
The Second Part decides to traverse off into another domain of family morals that sharply resonates as another clever parallel between the real world and the LEGO world that had me, by fair means, moved. Additionally, there are boatloads of themes that are acutely wholesome-although, slightly trite-that kids can blissfully digest. Also, there are some good, good twists in here which ultimately, sustains the LCU's (LEGO Cinematic Universe's) streak of surprises.
Yes, it's not quite as authoritative or proficient as the original but, gosh-darn it, I can't deny that I was meticulously spellbinded by this rib-tickling sequel. Everything is totally not not awesome this time around. (Verdict: B-)
I see lots of "critics" mark this as a toy commercial. It sure may be a commercial but makes you think how such a refreshing story (in a commercial) puts all other animated movies to shame.
Almost all of the magic from the first movie has dissipated, and we are left with the wrinkled prune that is Fox's shameless attempt at cashing in. Incredibles 2 this is not.
The magic present in The LEGO Movie resides in the playful allegory of capitalism mixed with the earned nostalgia of the animation's medium. Not to mention the brilliant reveal of a child's imagination directing the entire story. These are all elements revisited the second time around, but the trick has already been explained by the magician. The world of Brickville goes through sufficient changes almost immediately once toddler-sized LEGO creations attack with unrivaled fury. The brick civilization reverts to a Mad Max world after the invincible fat-bricked organisms regularly search and destroy anything colorful or shiny.
Through some less-than-subtle live action mirage shots early in the film, its apparent that Finn (Jadon Sand) the boy mastermind in the first film is being plagued by his younger sister Bianca (Brooklynn Prince). Her entry-level LEGO creations clash with his more involved and complex structures, and the result is a sibling pair never learning to play in symbiosis. Of course this conflict is merely implied before the lazy live action finale that resolves the paper thin dispute, and wholly lacks the gusto of the first movie's twist. The jig is already up from scene one of the sequel, because we are aware of the children's narrative dictatorship, so none of the LEGO characters' sentience ever feels authentic.
Chris Pratt returns to voice Emmet a happy-go-lucky construction worker who retains a life of cheer in the apocalyptic wasteland. Elizabeth Banks also reprises her role as Lucy, the brawn and brains to Emmet's fumbling optimism. Lucy desperately attempts to calibrate Emmet's persona to something more appropriate to the ruined world they now live in, but he maintains the "everything is awesome" outlook that figures problematic in a much more adult environment. In a hardly tongue-in-cheek fashion, a character outright states the thesis of the movie to be "a statement on the waning affects of adolescence on imagination." This stands as the most egregious example of "meta exploitation," but several runner ups tail close behind.
Falling victim to exhausting cleverness, LEGO Movie 2 doesn't know when to edit its goofs. When you merely reformat the first film's plot to fit another child builder, new additions need to elevate the otherwise regurgitated formula. These additions include ramping up the meta meter to 11 and including two more banger tracks to hopefully burrow into the viewers' minds. The main attraction song here has a hook the repeats endlessly, "This song's gonna get stuck inside your head." Oh and I mustn't forget the cameos, which come with This is the End regularity, and if you can imagine, with far less originality.
I didn't waste your time by running you down a plot synopsis for good reason. The film plays with your expectations in a cheap and unearned fashion without offering any reasonable explanation upon the conclusion other than, "We just wanted to plant red herrings, because...reasons." Screenwriters will go to great (and absurd) lengths to make an unoriginal script appear more interesting. This parasitic sequel will deliver many chuckles and feels to audiences that have already surrendered to the committee-made trajectory of the LEGO universe, but I feel somber for those choosing to double feature this lackadaisical copy with its bold predecessor.
Tellingly, the cartoon turned out to be very musical and cheerful. There is no such thing as in Lego-Ninjago. Everything is simple as 2x2, and this is interesting.
New heroes get acquainted with old ones, the "fathers and children" problem has disappeared, a new one has appeared - the oldest and youngest child in the family.
Our hero is still cheerful and cheerful, always young, always with coffee. His girlfriend asks him to grow up, but her request will turn her sideways. It is impossible to change a person for the sake of his, for it is not given to anyone except the one responsible for the change of personality. The new characters, which appeared in the second part, are as charming and attractive as the characters in the past film. They will be liked even by Batman Vasilyevich, the eternal loner.
In the cartoon can be found in the full composition of the Justice League. In general, there will be many references to other studio projects. This will appeal to adults, children are unlikely to appreciate it.
Total. An interesting project for both children and adults: mothers, fathers, grandmothers, grandfathers, great-grandmothers, great-grandfathers, aunts, uncles, and so on.
Have you bought a ticket yet?
7 out of 10
🎵 This song is gonna get stuck inside your head 🎵
"Hah! A funny reference from the 1980s!" "Hah! A cameo from a movie kids can't watch!" "Hah! A Duplo character, designed poorly for even toddlers, just turned it into a musical!" "Oh, look! Thanks to the lesson from the last movie, all the kids Lego sets are now just piles of crap!" "Oh, good lesson! Boys, or any older sibling, shouldn't be upset when their little sister steals their lego sets and redesigns them."
Let's start with the pros. The animation is still as excellent and smooth as it was in the last film, and I continue to marvel at how the animation team is able to replicate the stop-motion look. The voice-acting is still top-notch and I enjoyed the performances from the few new characters. As well, many of the jokes were very funny and, although Phil Lord and Chris Miller did not write this film alone, it is apparent that this is still their specific style of humour. The concept of the film is very interesting and provided some smart scenes that drew parallels to the real-world aspects of the film. Finally, the film was very fast-paced and moved along quickly, therefore I was never bored or felt as though a scene went on too long.
Now, time for the cons (and unfortunately, there's plenty). What made the first film so unique in my opinion was its heartfelt ending and message about creativity and being yourself. This film tries to replicate that with its own emotional message, but fails mainly due to the storyline feeling very messy and unfocused. It doesn't feel as cohesive as the original did because, unlike the first film, this one has its characters split up for the most part, encountering different obstacles and trying to reach different goals. The writing didn't feel lazy by any means, but didn't feel as creative or special as the first. Also, many of the jokes were bad. REALLY bad. Luckily, the movie moves so quickly that it never lingers on any one joke for too long, but I was left thinking about some of the worst ones even after they ended. There are a few new characters in this film and, while I said that the performances were good, I didn't love these new characters. Rex Dangervest is the most interesting out of the bunch and his interactions with Emmet are a highlight, however Queen Whatevra Wanabi was SO annoying. It was hard to get through scenes with her. What made it even worse was that they had a pretty cool new character that could've taken the Queen's place in the story: General Meyhem. Unfortunately, she doesn't do anything in the film and is around for little to no reason, yet she has an interesting design and the helmet on her head adds a mystery that could've been interesting had it been explored more. Another thing that left me scratching my head was the inclusion of a few musical numbers. They were catchy songs, I'll give them that, but they had no place in this film and made it feel like a completely different world than the first one. As well, there is a twist that is very obvious to anyone paying attention, though after it's explained a little more it becomes more interesting.
Overall, the film is still funny, charming, and better than a lot of crappy animated films you'll find out there, it just suffers from an unfocused story and a director that cannot live up to the standards set so high by Lord and Miller. Not bad, but not so awesome either.
I saw this movie for free as a part of an appreciation celebration at work. The whole theater room was rented out for our employees. After the screening, I didn't talk to a single person afterwards that thought it was good. I don't even recall a single scene that led to any laughter in the room. Probably one of the first times in our company's history there was a unanimous opinion about something so I guess it was a good team building event after all.
For whatever reason, the writers decided to push the sexism in this one - and like all other recent sexist children's movies from Hollywood, it's all one-sided sexism. It shouldn't be a surprise to most people as there were a lot of comments made to this effect (outside of the main stream media).
We use to have Peanuts (50s-70s), Scooby Doo (60s-70s), Heman and She-Ra (80s-90s) and NONE of these children's cartoons indoctrinated small children with sexism. Yet, in the last 5 years, we've "advanced as a society" and worked out that one-sided sexism is a good thing?
Save your money. See Storm Boy instead. It doesn't have sexism in it. It's just a story about a boy wanting to save pelicans. If you love sexism, you'll have Storm Boy. If you aren't into sexism, you'll get far more satisfaction out of Storm Boy.