Who is worse? Humans or Monsters?

A question has recently caught my attention which has many different sides to it and is quite a debatable one. 

In giant monster movies, who is truly the “monster”? Is it humans or the giant creatures?

One the one hand, you have the behemoths that destroy everything in their path, are unstoppable, unsympathetic and impossible to plan around. 

On the other hand, you have people who created these monsters. Who, through their own ignorance, greed or pride, brought life into the world. Now that life will end all other life. 

If that is the case, then who is truly to blame?

The answer to me is definitely kaiju. There's a reason they are called "monsters."

Now, you could certainly say that, in some way, humans are responsible for the creation of many monsters. This would include Godzilla through constant use of atomic bombs, Hedorah (from “Godzilla vs. Hedorah”) from the large amount of pollution and smog in the world, and Frankenstein (from “Frankenstein Conquers The World”) combining the immortal heart of the beast with the atomic fallout of Hiroshima. 

That if we didn't overstep our boundaries or didn't pursue power so much, then these monsters wouldn't exist. It is because of man's arrogance that these monsters were made, and now we must pay the price.

Here's the thing: Any time that we create one of these monstrosities and it begins to destroy innocent lives, there are humans always there to help out in dangerous situations. People risking their lives to help those in need, whether through rescuing those who need it, finding a way to stop the monster conclusively or just the military trying to bring the monster down. 

These attempts may not always be the best solution to the situation, but the important thing is that these people are being selfless and brave to go into the heart of a war zone to save those who deserve to live.

To me, the daikaiju films have always painted a very interesting yet honest picture of humanity: That we will pursue fits of power, greed, ignorance and whatnot, which always have the possibility of backfiring in our faces and hurting us more than they would help. At the same time they show we're willing to give up our own lives so that others may live. 

I find that it's impossible for someone to go through life without being greedy, selfish or power-hungry at least once. Even if we idolize the lifestyles of religious figures like Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, Allah, etc., we will never reach their standards. Everyone one of us has flaws, yet we also have our strengths. These flaws and strengths will vary from person to person of course, but it is all there. 

We are a flawed species, but that doesn't make us bad. For all the bad and terrible things that humanity has done, there have been just as many amazing and terrific things done as well, if not more. That's what I feel daikaiju films as a whole are trying to say about humanity.

Paul's Rating System: How-To Understand

When it comes to film criticism, it is standard to have a rating system of some kind. Critics do this, not just to tell an audience how good or bad something is, but to compare these works with others. To let the readers know how much a critic liked “Ed Wood” compared to “Persona.”

The rating system I have chosen is by grades, much like the system of grades most people know from elementary school. With an A+ being the highest and an F- being the lowest, though skipping E for some odd reason.

I went with grades because I felt it was a system that wasn’t used nearly as much as numbers or stars. I see way too much 4.5/5, or 3 stars out of 5, but hardly ever any letter grades. It is a system most people are familiar with, and if they aren’t it is easy to catch on. 

I also like to think that, as a critic, I’m a teacher grading papers, at the films I review are said papers. 

Egotistical? Maybe, but I have a vivid imagination and it’s fun. 

However, one thing that I do differently from most other critics is my depth of the system. 

On average, it seems like most critics will give an “okay” movie a 7 out of 10, or 3.5 out of 5 or 3 stars. Which in my system would be roughly a B- or C+. I’ve always found this head-tilting. 

An “okay” movie, which is on par with an average movie, should get an average grade. As in, right down the middle. 5 out of 10, or 2.5 out 5. In my system, that would be a C. 

To give you a better idea of what each grade means, here is a description of each ranking. 

F- Terrible movie. Little to no redeemable qualities and thoroughly unenjoyable. Avoid at all costs unless you want to use this for torture. Example: “Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen.”

D- Bad movie. Very little going for it and was more bad than good. Did not enjoy it, but there might be enough for some to enjoy. Don’t waste your time with this unless you are really bored. Example: “Men In Black 2.”

C- Okay movie. Middle of the road, neither good nor bad. Usually gets some things right, but also gets others things wrong or is just thoroughly unimpressive. Some people might find enjoyment out of it, so it might be worth checking out but that depends on the person. Example: “50/50.”

B- Good/Great movie. Much more to enjoy than there is to hate about it. Has a few flaws that bring it down but the good outweighs the bad and is a deserving of a watch for one reason or another. Example: “Prisoners.”

Note: B- and some B’s are good, but other B’s and B+’s are great movies. Depends on the movie. 

A- Fantastic movie. Little to no flaws and was an unforgettable experience. A true masterpiece that will not be forgotten any time soon. Make time in your life to see this movie. Example: “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?”

Within each letter grade, there are three separate divisions, of minus, middle and plus. The ones with a plus are the most desirable of the letter grade, and the minus ones being the worst, but still good enough not to fall into the lower letter grade. The middles are, as expected, right down the center of that particular letter grade. 

I will freely admit that it is incredibly difficult for me to hand out an A to a movie. As the description stated, it is reserved for truly wonderful movies that transcend being just another movie. 

To give you an idea of how finicky I am with handing out A’s, I have currently rated 1,140 movies or shows on Netflix, where I have rated everything that I can possibly remember seeing at some point in my life. Of all those movies, I have only rated 56 of them at five stars. Most of them are four or three stars, but that should tell you that I look at many variables when it comes to the highest possible rating. 

Granted, when I watch at movie, I immediately go into it with a positive mindset, wanting the film to succeed and impress me. From that point on, it is entirely up to the movie on what grade it will get. If it fails to do so, the grade will drop drastically. If it exceeds my expectations and has me constantly enthralled, the grade will skyrocket. 

Just an example of one of the 56 movies I've rated five starts on Netflix.

There are many variables that go into what grade a film will get, including set design, atmosphere, score, acting, tone, consistency, themes keeping my attention and curiosity and so on. The most important aspects I look at are story, characters and the overall impression the film left me with. A movie could have wonderful atmosphere and tone with topnotch acting, but if the story left me unimpressed and the film left a bad taste in my mouth, then odds are it is going to get a low grade, probably a D+.

Such is the way that my rating system works. Is it a perfect system? No, but I don’t expect it to be perfect. Part of the reason I use grades instead of numbers or stars is because I’m much more comfortable with it. This system works for me and I feel it is easy for others to comprehend. 

To me, that is all that matters.

"Network": Film or Radio-Drama?

“I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!”

If you’ve heard this at some point in the last thirty years, odds are it was inspired by the 1976 film “Network” a satire on the media and journalism at the time. It is often regarded as one of the sharpest film commentaries of the mass new media, and rightfully so. Though the film came out in the late 70s, and accurately forecasts how some media outlets operate these days. 

Yet, the question that I’m left saying by the end of the film is: Did this really need to be a film?

The film begins on news anchor Howard Beale (Peter Finch) announcing that he will be leaving Union Broadcasting System’s Evening News in two weeks, due to low ratings. After discussing the issue with UBS news division president Max Schumacher (William Holden), Beale announces the very next night on live television that he will commit suicide on the next broadcast. 

This leads to Beale nearly getting fired, until Schumacher steps in and keeps in him on for at least one more night to apologize, only for Beale to launch into a long angry rant about how “life is bullshit.” 

Ratings are now higher than they have ever been, and UBS decides to keep Beale on the air, so long as he continues to give these rants about how terrible the country is. Each night, increasing amounts of people watch Beale as he goes off in a rambling terror of how bad the world truly is. 

Eventually, UBS’s lead programmers (Faye Dunaway and Robert Duvall) decide to slot Beale’s evening news show under the entertainment division, where the show is then renamed “The Howard Beale Show” and Beale is billed as “the mad prophet of the airwaves.” 

As you can probably imagine, the show is a big hit.

When all this fame and power comes rushing to Beale, he begins to make demands of his audience and of the White House to stop a large Saudi Arabian company from buying out UBS. This causes the heads of UBS to fear what they’ve created, and to find a solution to this problem before it gets too big. 

I think of two things when it comes to “Network.” 

The first is how the film handles its satire of mass news media, particularly in how it shows that, when ratings are low, networks will forget about their basic functions of reporting the news, and try anything to get those ratings back. 

While this is certainly something that happens even today, I can’t help but feel that the presentation of this satire leaves a bad taste in my mouth. 

When I think of a great filmic satire, I think of “Dr. Strangelove,” “Duck Soup” and “Being There,” but not “Network.” The reason for this is that those three films are able to be satires, without ever trying to be satires. 

In “Dr. Strangelove,” I felt like I was watching the president and his men try to prevent a nuclear holocaust. That the events were really happening, and that it wasn’t making the president look like a moron just to get some laughs. The president is played competently, has logical reasons for what he does and will do what it takes to prevent this disaster. It’s just that stupid things keep happening that make his plans go wrong.

To me, that’s good satire. The actions of characters flow naturally and lead to an ultimate message and commentary on what is wrong in our society. In the case of “Dr. Strangelove,” it is about how badly the Cold War was handled on both sides. With “Network,” while the commentary is there, it feels forced. 

There are long stretched of dialogue talking about how terrible the world is, then immediately cutting to how popular this kind of stuff is, leading to more of it, and then even more of the same. 

The message of the film is clear after the first few scenes, yet the film keeps going on with more of it, and that gets old fast. 

Though I give credit to “Network” for accurately predicting the future of some media outlets, I can’t say that it’s a good satire, because of how forced and repetitive the satire can be. 

The other thing that comes to mind on “Network” is the filming process. Specifically, the lack of any truly great filming techniques. 

While the film has plenty of stars behind it, such as William Holden, Robert Duvall and Ned Beatty, they are never really given a chance to act.

The true star of the film is the script. Nearly every second of this film is backed with dialogue. There is never a quiet moment in the film, never a chance to sit back and take in what is being shown. Every new scene has more talking heads saying words that are meant to sound informative and well-thought out.

The problem with this is that there is so much more to filmmaking than just dialogue and commentary. For example, William Holden usually delivers his lines with the same straight look on his face, even when he’s scolding Faye Dunaway’s character. He doesn’t emote or even seem to feel. He just says the lines that were given to him.

This makes me think that “Network” would have worked much better as a radio-drama. I could see myself closing my eyes, just hearing the film, and still getting roughly the same affect as I would from watching it. 

The phrase “show, don’t tell” immediately comes to mind. A film should, foremost, show the audience what is going on, rather than telling them. “Network” is almost all about telling the audience about the events that happen. While that might work for some mediums, like radio, it doesn’t work as well for film. Film is foremost a visual medium, and should try to tell as much of a story as possible through images alone.

In the end, I can appreciate elements of “Network,” like being able to look into the future, but the film leaves me with a feeling of lackluster filmmaking, and that the story of Howard Beale is probably more suited for radio than it is for the big screen.

Final Grade: C

Comedy And You - What does it all mean?

A while back, I was watching one of my favorite internet reviewers, SFDebris, who is known for having a good combination of serious analysis and silly behavior. He was reviewing “Blade Runner” at the time, when he got to a scene where Decker gets drunk playing a piano and has a dream about a unicorn running through a field. 

SFDebris decides this is a good place for a joke. In a drunk voice he provides narration for Decker (played by Harrison Ford), talking about how while playing piano he can't quite remember the tune to the Indiana Jones theme. 

Then he gets to the unicorn dream, still with the drunk narration, and says, "Ah screw it, I'm going to go fantasize about my favorite girl. *cuts to unicorn* Oh yeah, Rarity! You are one naughty little pony, aren't you?"

Rarity is not amused. 

I was lost in laughter when I saw this. To me, that was hysterical. One of the funniest things I had seen in a long time.

Later that same day, I read Richard Roeper's review of “Movie 43,” in which he didn't necessarily review the film as much as describe what some of the events were in the film. 

As I was reading them, I couldn't help but scream, "Oh my god! How could anyone find this funny?"

At the end of the day, I realized that I experienced two instances that were both intended for comedic purposes. One made my laugh incredibly hard, and the other one made me cringe at how disgusting and disturbing it sounded. 

This got me thinking, how does my sense of humor work anyway? Why does something make me laugh, when something else doesn't? Why do I find certain things funny, but not other things?

Ever since then, I've been jotting down examples of the funniest things I could think of. Some of those examples included Charlie Chaplin, “Mystery Science Theater 3000” and broadcasting news fail bloopers. As well as several different kinds of Let's Players on Youtube, people who will play through a video game and provide funny commentary during the process, like Game Grumps, Two Best Friends Play, Rooster Teeth and Josh Jepson. Movies, such as “Hot Fuzz” and “The Hangover.” And of course, “My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic.”

So if I had to describe what makes something funny for me, I think there are few different things to doing it well.

1. Being creative and/or imaginative in a comedic fashion - The best example of this would be MLP. Each episode has found some new way of adding to its already creative and imaginative world that it puts me in a state where I'm willing to accept that I'm apart of this world. From the funny puns given to the names of their pony cities to the many different side characters with their own unique talent and personality, MLP is never short on creativity. In that state, the creative moments become all the more hilarious. 

2. Being unexpected, yet still witty or bizarre - The SFDebris joke I mentioned earlier is a good example of that. He found a way to make something that one would normally not associate with comedy (yet still strange) and add his own comedic touch to it, which I would have never seen coming. 

Another would be news fails. Fails on their own are sometimes funny but I always crack up at news fails, because you really don't expect them in that line of business. They are professionals and must exude an air of competence. Yet they always find ways to screw up and take you by surprise. They come out of no where, yet they make me laugh.  

3. Being clever - This one is kind of a combination of the last two, but I still feel that it should be its own category. Charlie Chaplin in the best example of this, as well as Lets Players. They take what is given to them, but find a way to make it their own thing. The Tramp boxes, but boxes in his own unique way where he could minimize getting hurt. It's a coward's strategy, but an effective one nonetheless. 

Let’s Players find jokes out of video games and, in the case of Rooster Teeth, they’ll find a way to create their own little games within the game itself. Then its all a matter of the personalities sinking in and watching the madness unfold.

4. The Logic Loop - This is one that I've recently discovered, but can really be applied to anything. There isn't any great example that comes to mind, so I'll just describe my own scenario. Let's say your father is in the kitchen, making a sandwich. You ask him what he's up to, and he responds, "I'm making a sandwich, because I'm hungry." Not particularly funny, right? Well, let's do the same thing, but what if your father responded with, "I'm making a sandwich, because I need ants for my date with your mom tonight. The bread is there because it's called ‘presentation.'" Now, some might brush off what he said as insane, but I feel that there's a certain note of logic in what he said. He's making a sandwich. Why? He wants ants. Why a sandwich then? Because he wants to make it look presentable to the ants. Insane, yet it makes sense in a very strange way. That's why I think it's funny. It's both logical and illogical at the same time.

5. When it comes to insult comedy, respect - This is a big one. This is what sets great insult comedy, like “Mystery Science Theater 3000” from bad insult comedy, like “TOSH.0”. When it comes to insult comedy, where you are cracking jokes at actual people rather than scenarios of life that anyone can experience, it is all about respecting the people who you are insulting. That, even if you're bashing someone over the stupidest and pointless stuff, whether they deserve being bashed or not, respect is key. Otherwise, you just come off like some assholes who feel like picking on someone just because they're different from others. 

I'm sorry...but that's not funny to me. Nor is it entertaining. Every time I watch an episode of MST3K, I notice that Mike, Joel, Kevin, Trace and Bill all have the utmost respect for those they're riffing. That they're riffs are directed at the movies, not the people making the movies. They understand the hardships and process one must go through when making a movie. They respected the filmmakers and for that I respect them. If you're going to use insult comedy as a way to prove how someone or something is flawed or messed up, show some respect for those you're about to rip apart. Treat them like you would want to be treated, not as some moron or non-human, even if they do stupid things from time to time. Show the positives as much as the negatives.

Shows like “South Park” and “Family Guy” often come across like they see others on a pedestal that is higher than their own and either want to knock those people off their pedestal or put themselves on a higher pedestal. To me, that’s not respectful, so I have no respect for them. 

Another possibility I've heard is there really is no explanation for why I (or anyone else) think something is funny. Either something is or isn't funny, no real explanation necessary. There is a valid point to that comment, since comedy is entirely subjective. It will vary from person to person. For example, I know most people laughed out loud at “This Is The End,” but I hardly laughed during the film. That style of rude and crude humor just doesn't appeal to me. While I’m sure there are some people who will watch the clips I’ve provided and not laugh at all. Such is the dilemma of comedy. 

However, I'm the kind of guy who likes to have reasons for liking something, even if it is entirely subjective like comedy. The simple answer would just be, "I think this is funny." I always feel there is more to it than that. That I'm just not thinking hard enough about my own feelings. 

Which is why I compiled this list of why certain things are funny to me. To better understand my own feelings and why some comedy appeals to me and why others do not.

Even though the topic might be subjective, there can be a great deal of enlightenment from understanding your own feelings and opinions. It could reveal some hidden meaning to your tastes and appreciation for comedy that you were unaware of. 

What kind of comedy appeals to you? What's your favorite kind of laughs? Why do you think that kind of comedy is funny? Are there any styles of comedy you don't like? If so, what? Tell me about how you feel about comedy. I’m curious to hear your responses.

Cynicism Is Overrated

If you watch television these days or pay attention to many of the most well received movies of this past year, odds are you will notice a reoccurring trend amongst them. Shows like “Breaking Bad” and “Game Of Thrones” alongside movies like “The Wolf Of Wall Street” offer a much darker, disturbing and cynical point of view. 

These shows and movies are not afraid of taking a touchy subject like creating meth or presenting characters who are outright douche bags, like Jordan Belfort, and showing the brutal depictions of their lifestyle. They are unrelenting, unforgiving and at times do not care about how they’re seen by others.

And this gets old very fast. 

The main problem with cynical television shows and movies is the kind of mindset that it brings forth and how it is, believe it or not, cynical. When I watch “Homelands,” even though I’m enthralled in the story and the nervous-wreck characters, it does turn me off that these people are doing so many terrible things. They will torture and kill to get their way, even if they believe their way is best for everyone. After a while, that gets depressing and often leaves a bad taste in my mouth. 

This wouldn’t be such a big problem if there wasn’t so much of it in entertainment these days. It seems like every time a new show has caught the public eye, it’s one that isn’t afraid of death, violence and darker side of our humanity. 

For example, a recent one is Fox’s “Sleepy Hollow” which features the Headless Horseman and Ichabad Crane being transported to modern times and the Horseman now having access to our weapons, including machine guns and bazookas. 

Since when did the Headless Horseman become the Terminator?

Yet this show has become popular enough to warrant at least another season, so there has to be a fair amount of people watching it. Now, I’ve only watched a couple episodes, but I can already tell that it is not my cup to tea. It seems like they wanted to update “Sleepy Hollow” in a similar way to what the BBC is doing with “Sherlock” but they’re really overdoing it and making it far more complicated than it needs to be. It takes most of the fun and enjoyment out of watching the show when it comes off like they’re trying too hard.

Which is another problem with all the cynicism. It really comes like these shows are removing the fun out of watching a really good movie or television show. Sure, they can still captivate you with their stories and put you on the edge of your seat, but they will never quite leave you with the same affect. 

When you watch Walter White have to murder someone just so that he can continue to cook meth, ruin the life of Jesse and all in the name of his family, try to ask yourself some questions. 

What am I feeling? How do I feel about what I just watched? Am I comfortable with it? How am I going to look back on what I just watched?

Many of these shows and movies are going to leave you with the same answers. Occasionally, that kind of show can be refreshing and off up a change of pace. But when everything is like that? It gets depressing, stale and disturbing in no time at all. 

Don’t misinterpret what I am saying here. I am not saying that shows like “Breaking Bad” or “The Walking Dead” are bad. They are quite excellent programs. It’s just that you won’t find me watching these kinds of shows more than once and certainly not together. 

There is a time and place for “Inside Llewyn Davis” or “Prisoners” but that is not the kind of place you should always be in. Cynicism leaves the mind unimpressed and dulled by everything, so it makes nothing look good by comparison. Optimism and a good attitude create an inviting and explorative environment, where anything seems possible. When something is truly good and impressive, it can bring a smile to your face and make anything bad melt away.

Look at some of the timeless programs and movies that have been around for decades and are still enjoyed today as much as they were upon their release. “The Wizard Of Oz,” “Rocky,” “City Lights,” “Toy Story,” “Star Trek: The Next Generation,” the Indiana Jones trilogy, the Star Wars trilogy, the works of Hayao Miyazaki (“Princess Mononoke,” “Spirited Away” and “My Neighbor Totoro”), “Modern Family” and “Mystery Science Theater 3000.”

These are just some of many that not only tell intriguing stories with equally fascinating characters, but also make me feel good to be alive. These help me to appreciate everything I have in life and want me to hug and thank everyone I know. 

The best example of this comes from the final scene in “It’s A Wonderful Life,” where the town of Bedford Falls has found out that George Bailey, a selfless man who has always chosen to help others before himself and he gets stuck with nothing, is in trouble. Without hesitation or even thinking, the towns people repay George for years of kindness and love with everything they had. They’re more than happy to do it and they did so without even asking George. They did it because it was the right thing to do. 

"To my big brother, George. The richest man in town."

This ending never fails to make me cry. I could watch just the last ten minutes of the film on its own and bawl my eyes out. Not because its sad or depressing, but because it is so heartwarmingly happy. Those types of scenes leave a much bigger emotional affect than any other type of scene I can think of. 

While you may watch something like “The Sopranos” and think about how good your life is, you’re really only thinking about it in comparison to the lives of these terrible people. You may be saying you’re lucky to be alive, but you are only doing it because some guy who didn’t hurt anyone just got sent upstate. 

So ask yourself, what are you more inclined to watch? Bedford Falls repay George for years of sacrifice and selflessness? Or someone being tortured for information on “24”?

Yet, I also feel there is an interesting middle ground between cynicism and optimism. Stories that have darker and grittier elements to them and often use it to heighten the drama and danger, but ultimately come out of it with a positive attitude and thus makes the whole journey with it. 

Movies that stand out with this approach include most of the works of Alfred Hitchcock and the Coen Brothers, especially “Fargo” and “No Country For Old Men.” The tales of those who live in a corrupt and unforgiving world, yet still have enough moral strength to fight for what they believe in, even if the world has given up on them. 

Someone like Marge Gunderson from “Fargo” doesn’t let the worries and pities of others stop her from enjoying her happiness. She may not be perfect or live a glamorous lifestyle, but she is perfectly content with who she is and where she. Which is why throughout the movie, she fights to defend that way of life and give others the same opportunity. 

"Heck Norm, you know we're doing pretty good."

In “Rear Window,” the two main characters (played by James Stewart and Grace Kelly) have many insecurities and don’t seem to fully trust one another. They want to be in love, but they just can’t be happy with one another. But, as they put the pieces together that eventually spell out “murder” the two realize the other is much stronger and wiser than they gave the other credit for. 

In a weird way, films like these are able to be both pessimistic and optimistic at the same time and become fascinating examples that show the strengths of both sides. They have no problem bouncing back and forth because both are equally apart of life and offer up a balanced slice of life. 

Part of the fun of cinema and television is that it is not just a source of entertainment, but can also be a direct reflection of our own lives. Showing either a darker or lighter side than what we are normally use to and offer up viewpoints and perspectives that we may have never seen otherwise. 

Much like in these shows and movies, life isn’t all black and white. Everyone in their life time will experience happy events, depressing moments, awesome events, excitement, heartbreak and many other things in between. That is part of the reason we get such a variety of shows, ranging from “Breaking Bad” to “Modern Family” to somewhere in between like “The Twilight Zone.”

The way I see it, there are three types of shows and films: The optimistic ones, the cynical ones and the ones which walk the line between those two. Each of these categories has their strengths and weaknesses. They are all viable forms of storytelling, can all be as much thought-provoking as they are emotional and can offer a perspective that you may have never considered before. 

It is when there is too much of one side that the flaws and cliches become intolerable. So perhaps that is why I prefer optimistic and kindhearted stories over the pessimistic ones. To see those shows and films dominate the publics attention is not disheartening in its own right. Just that there are so many of them and a real lack of anything in between. 

Oh well, at least it is not entirely Michael Bay-plosions or lame and unfunny “parody” films all the time. 

"The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees opportunity in every difficulty." ~ Winston Churchill

Movie Review: "The Lego Movie" (2014)

Part of the reason I feel so strongly about animation is because there is so much diversity and depth within the genre. These films can be enjoyed on multiple levels, from just a simple entertainment standpoint to a deep and enriching perspective. This means that they can be enjoyed by a wide range of audiences. Not just children, but also adults who have a vivid imagination. 

For example, one of the first animated movies I remember falling in love with was “Toy Story.” As a kid, I loved it because I always imagined my own toys coming to life and the adventures they would get into. As an adult, the film works on a much more subconscious level where you appreciate the deeper themes of growing up and realizing your place in the world. You pick up on plot points you missed or overlooked as a kid, which adds something new that makes you appreciate it even more. 

Animation does this incredibly well: Being simple enough for anyone to understand, yet complex enough to be enjoyable and thought-provoking for years to come. 

A new film to add to this category is “The Lego Movie.” While not traditional animation, the film takes every opportunity to have fun with its ridiculous premise. The film knows that it is crazy, but it never winks directly at the audience or goes so over the top that it becomes stupid. 

The world is made up entirely of Legos and everything is awesome. The city is bustling, the people are happy and pleasant and some new Lego structure is built every day. One of these construction workers is Emmet (voiced by Chris Pratt), a guy who doesn’t stick out and plays everything safe (always asking for the instructions when building something). 

One day though, Emmet happens upon a mystical Lego block that attaches itself to him. Now the forces of President Business (voiced by Will Ferrell) are out to kill him for being “The Special.” His forces are stopped by Wyldstyle (voiced by Elizabeth Banks) and intends to take Emmet to the Master Builders to formulate a plan to stop President Business from destroying the entire Lego world. 

You may think the plot I just described sounds childish and laughable, but that’s honestly the point. Part of the charm of “The Lego Movie” lies in that it reenacts all of those times we as children played with Legos. We would use our imagination and create our own wonderful and fantastic stories with our toys, and the film takes full advantage of that. 

There’s a scene early on in the film where Wyldstyle and Emmet meet and have to outrun the police force and Wyldstyle has to use the surrounding Lego pieces of trash and an alleyway to build this gigantic motorcycle and is later converted into a jet. 

In a later scene, set in an old west town, the two are being chased down by the Bad Cop (voiced by Liam Neeson) and it is extremely reminiscent of the opening scene in “Toy Story 3” with a train eventually falling off the track of a destroyed bride. Though this one gets bonus points for Bad Cop’s laser blasting jet and the introduction of Batman (voiced by Will Arnett)

Seriously, all films can never have too much Batman. 

Much of the strengths of “The Lego Movie” lie in the little details and the careful care that the filmmakers put into them. From the explosions and smoke also being made from Legos, to the insane yet mystical sounding names that President Business gives to the real life household items he comes across, including nail polish, a golf ball and a container of Krazy Glue with certain letters scratched off to make it look like “Kragle.”

Everything in this film is composed of Lego pieces, but the film uses this more as a set piece. While Legos are essential to the story, it never over glorifies them. The movie shows the strengths and vast variety of Legos, but it takes everything so seriously that you can’t help but appreciate the love, thought and imagination that was put into the film. 

If you’ve had a toy, odds are there was a point where you created a story something like this. “The Lego Movie” takes you back to that point in your life and makes you appreciate those childhood moments. 

Even more so, the film offers up a vision of taking those childhood moments too far and letting to live in the moment rather than the past. I won’t spoil it for those who haven’t seen it, but the ending adds a whole new level of charm to the film. 

Overall, “The Lego Movie” was fun and entertaining from start to finish. It would have been simple enough to just make a movie made out of Legos, but to add an element of childlike wonder to everything adds so much to the film. The animation is flawless, the voice acting is hilarious (especially Morgan Freeman as the blind sage, Vitruvius) and the film never stops being clever and witty. 

Final Grade: A-