"Escape Room" and "Isn't It Romantic"

At the time of writing, at the end of May, the three highest grossing films of 2019 at the domestic box office, that are not based on any pre-existing media, are the horror movies "Us" and "Escape Room" and the romantic-comedy spoof "Isn't it Romantic."  And I figured that the latter two deserved some recognition for that. Jordan Peele's "Us, " of course, has gotten plenty of attention and I'll write it a separate post for it later.

Now, both "Escape Room" and "Isn't it Romantic?" are deeply derivative.  "Escape Room" follows the pattern of "Saw," with a group of characters working their way through a series of deathtraps to escape a fiendish mastermind.  However, it's much tamer than "Saw," with a PG-13 rating, and more emphasis on puzzles and mind games rather than grisly kills and jump scares. The characters are stock types, but decently fleshed out.  There's the shy brainy girl, Zoe (Taylor Russell), high powered executive, Jason (Jay Ellis), directionless grocery store stocker, Ben (Logan Miller), scarred war vet, Amanda (Deborah Ann Woll), jovial middle aged white guy, Mike (Taylor Labine), and an escape room enthusiast nerd, Danny (Nik Dodani).  All are lured to participate in the escape room under false pretenses.

What I like about "Escape Room" is that it really embraces its gimmick.  I had a brief fascination with real escape rooms around the time I was trying out online puzzle box games last year.  I know enough about them that the film's depicted gameplay felt mostly right. There's a certain pattern to how the puzzles and cyphers work that is translated pretty well to the screen.  Of course, this being a movie, the escape rooms are far more elaborate than anything seen in real life, to the point where most are wildly improbable. Also, there's a little too much hand-holding and way too many convenient coincidences to fill in backstory and set up the big reveals.  There's no reason for the escape rooms to be personalized, for instance, except that it gives the characters an excuse to talk about themselves.

Still, for what it is, the movie mostly works.  There are some good thrills and some cerebral satisfaction in seeing how the puzzles are solved or defeated.  The different rooms are well constructed and each one has some wow factor to them. The characters are thin, but still likeable enough that it's sad to see some of them get killed off.  A lot of the execution is very sloppy, especially the ending, but the premise is sound. I expect that it will be able to sustain the several sequels that are no doubt on their way, along with all kinds of convoluted melodrama about the sinister nogoodniks behind the game.  And I don't think that's such a bad thing, since I'd happily watch another installment or two with smarter writing.

On to "Isn't it Romantic," where Rebel Wilson's Natalie is a single New Yorker who hates romantic-comedies and all their unrealistic tropes.  So, naturally, she suffers a head injury and wakes up in a picture perfect rom-com universe where she's the improbable star. The movie takes aim at common tropes like the gay best friend, embodied by Natalie's neighbor Donny (Brandon Scott Jones), the evil co-worker/rival, Whitney (Betty Gilpin), the lifestyle upgrades, and the random musical numbers, before inevitably getting down to the business of actually being a romantic-comedy and having Natalie choose between the hunky Blake (Liam Hemsworth), and her sweet bestie Josh (Adam DeVine), who is about to get married to a stunning yoga ambassador, Isabella (Priyanka Chopra).   

The trailer for "Isn't it Romantic" is better than the film itself, because the gimmick of Rebel Wilson being exasperated with being stuck in an airbrushed PG-13 universe wears out its welcome, and the movie isn't nearly as thorough with its skewering of the rom-com genre as I wanted it to be.  Still, the movie does a very good job of selling the joke. A lot of time is spent establishing Natalie's baseline reality in a recognizably grungy New York, before she's whisked away to the fantasy version of it. And Rebel Wilson is a great fit for the material, because you understand immediately why she has such a grudge against this kind of fantasy.  The ensemble is also very strong, with Hemsworth and Chopra being very good sports playing superficial caricatures, and DeVine keeping Josh down to earth.

The humor is clever, but it's just not as clever as I wanted it to be.  There are some strong individual gags like Natalie never being able to properly consummate her relationship because the movie keeps cutting away to the next day, and the art direction is full of funny visual touches.  However, the plot pivots too quickly to following the beats of a typical rom-com once Natalie decides to play along. "Isn't it Romantic" only bothers mocking most of its targets on a surface level, because it relies heavily on plenty of rom-com tropes itself to get to a happy ending.  To be fair, this is what most genre satires like "Shaun of the Dead" do - they follow the usual formula while pointing out the sillier parts of it. "Isn't it Romantic" just doesn't offer as much insight or subversion as some of the better ones. It's still fun, and plenty romantic, but I wouldn't go on a second date.         

---

The 2018 Movies I Didn't See

I write these posts every year to sort out my feelings toward some of the more prominent movies I've made a conscious decision to skip watching.  I'm working through the last handful of 2018 films on my "To Watch" list, mostly foreign films with later domestic releases. However, as my Top Ten list has mostly solidified, and the queue of 2019 films is only getting longer, it's time to make some decisions.    

Below are eight movies that didn't make the cut this year.  I reserve the right to revisit and reverse my viewing choices in the future.   However, I still haven't watched anything from last year's list.

Love, Simon -  It's the first mainstream young adult romance featuring an LGBT lead character!  That's great! This is the kind of movie that needs support! Except that I'm not a fan of studio produced romance films in general, especially not the young adult stuff.  And the reviews, while kind, have pointed to this being perfectly average as a film. In short, it's potential airplane viewing. Not something I'm going to make time for.

On the Basis of Sex - I'm not averse to a good biopic about a legal giant now and again.  But it's directed by Mimi Leder? Felicity Jones is played Ruth Bader Ginsburg? I don't know what it is about Felicity Jones, but her screen presence immediately puts me on guard.  I wrestled with this for a while before ultimately deciding that I could skip it. There's been little awards attention, reviews are middling, and I've already seen the "RBG" documentary.

The Front Runner - Oh, boy.  This is another prestige pic that never generated much interest despite its timely subject matter and cast of familiar names.  Still, it had decent critical notices and Jason Reitman did a good job with "Tully" earlier in the year. I could go in fresh, not really knowing much about the Gary Hart scandal.  On the other hand, the awards heaped on the awful "Vice"this season have soured me on political films for a while.

Mowgli - A darker "Jungle Book" feature might be more true to the original book, but I was never honestly much of a fan of any version of the story to begin with.  From the beginning I've thought of this movie as an odd passion project of Andy Serkis's, and found the behind the scenes drama of its production and distribution woes far more interesting than anything to do with the actual film.  Like the "Grinch" remake, I can't give this a fair shake.

The Happytime Murders - Well, Brian Henson finally got his R-rated puppet noir.  As much as I love the Muppets and many of the creatives involved in the project, I have no interest in actually sitting through this thing.  The trailer satisfied any kind of curiosity I had about how the film ultimately came out. I fully support the Jim Henson folks in their quest to appeal to modern theatergoing audiences, but this was clearly a bg swing and a miss.

Let the Sunshine In - I am putting my foot down.  I have watched too many European female midlife crisis movies recently and I haven't enjoyed any of them.  I'm sorry Claire Denis, and I'm sorry Juliette Binoche, but I do not have the patience to go through another round of this aggravation.  You're just going to have to wait another decade or two until I'm old enough to relate to your angst better. This clearly isn't the right time to get acquainted.

Don't Worry, He Won't Get Far on Foot - I still don't trust Gus van Sant.  It's been a few years since the low that was "We Bought a Zoo," but I can't help having lingering doubts about where his head is.  The plot is also one of those oddities that I'm not really sold on - Joaquin Phoenix plays a paralyzed man who copes with depression by drawing off-color cartoons.  The fact that I haven't heard a word about this at awards time doesn't help either.

Assassination Nation - I was intrigued by the promises of violence and social justice satire, but responses to the movie have been mixed, and it bombed at the box office in September.   It's not a good sign when a film selling itself as being provocative doesn't manage to elicit any sort of response from the wider media. I'm also very wary of writer/director Sam Levinson, whose debut feature was my pick for the worst film of 2011.

---

"Avengers: Endgame" (With Spoilers)

All the spoilers ahead.  ALL OF THEM.

This is not the movie that I was expecting, but that is a good thing in just about every respect.  Going into "Endgame," I expected the film would be all about reversing the clock and undoing the events of "Infinity War."  I'm so glad that the filmmakers elected not to do this, instead allowing everyone to move on, or try to, thereby putting them in different positions with different motivations when the time comes to regroup.  I love how they really hammer home the theme of failure (pun intended), and show how it affects everyone in different ways. I don't think characters like Black Widow and Hulk have ever gotten so much character development.  Thor's transformation is hilarious, but also poignant.

Some of my favorite moments in the entire run of the MCU involve the Avengers having some downtime here.  Sure, all the fights and the big "Time Heist" are fun, but seeing all these different personalities interacting and having the time to really enjoy their camaraderie is what I love.  So Thor's rambling retelling of the events of "Thor: The Dark World," and Hulk replacing Ant-man's taco, and Tony Stark embracing being a dad, mean just as much to me as Thanos finally getting his much deserved smackdown.  As sad as it would have been, I'm disappointed that we didn't get to see Tony and Pepper's wedding. And the film is so much better for allowing the characters their space to fumble and grieve and say goodbye.

Yes, Iron Man and Black Widow died, and Captain America retired.  The important part, though, is that the movie did its best to make those meaningful ends.  I don't think they quite succeeded with Black Widow, but they did a great job of wrapping up Tony Stark as a character, letting him grow and better himself.  And Steve Rogers got his happy ending in a way that conveniently also took him off the board. And unexpectedly, there was so much time spent giving Nebula an arc - I don't know that it was necessary, and it may have meant less time for more important characters, but they did it right.  Nebula is a fascinating figure, and it was great to see her get her due. And this was the best appearance by Ant-man, who I enjoy so much better as a second banana. And Professor Hulk is bizarre, and I don't know about this choice in the long term, but it works for "Endgame."

The plotting is entirely too convenient.  None of the time travel makes sense to me, but it was such fun and absolutely shameless fanservice to send everybody "Back to the Future II" style, back to the older movies to muck around with our expectations.  The meta humor and all the little callbacks and cameos are great. "Thor: The Dark World" may not have been anyone's favorite, but it did have Renee Russo's Frigga in it, which was exactly what the "Endgame" version of Thor needed.  Fat Thor felt awfully gratuitous for the first half of the movie, but I like that everyone committed to the bit and he didn't magically slim down again in the end. I hope we get to see more of him with the Guardians in a few years.

Good grief, I haven't even talked about the performances yet.  Robert Downey Jr. has always been the MCU's MVP, and he went out on such a great note.  Scarlett Johansson and Chris Evans are at their series bests. Chris Hemsworth is clearly having a blast.  Paul Rudd is still a great fanboy stand-in. Karen Gillan is still hard to take your eyes off of. And Josh Brolin ensures that Thanos will hold the title of best Marvel supervillain for a long time to come.  And while I generally find too many cameos off-putting, all thee ones here felt earned. It was great to see so many old faces again - even if quite a few of them have been digitally manipulated to de-age them.  

Well, this post has devolved into a lot of fangirling, and I don't think I've written anything remotely critical, but so what?  "Endgame" is so unabashedly for the fans, and I'm one of them. I can't help responding to it by geeking out, as that's exactly the response it's designed to elicit.  Every time I try to talk about bits I didn't like, or that didn't work, like Hawkeye going vigilante, I end up remembering two or three other things that I loved. There's just so much crammed into the movie that I enjoyed.  It's astonishing that the Russos and the writers, Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, made it all feel as coherent and beautifully paced as it did.

This is one satisfied Marvel fangirl signing off.  Happy watching!

----

"Avengers: Endgame" (Without Spoilers)

Since it's difficult to actually talk about the particulars of the latest "Avengers" without getting into the details of what it does well and not so well, I'll be spending a good chunk of this post talking about meta - what the movie means for the Marvel franchise and a bit about the wider cultural impact too.  The spoiler post will go up in a day or two with more in-depth musings about all the plotty stuff.

However, first things first.  I liked "Endgame" just fine. I liked that it served as a solid endpoint to several of the ongoing stories in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and that it gave several of the actors a chance to do things they haven't really had a chance to do in these movies.  There are too many characters, and some inevitably got the short end of the stick, but the ones the movie chose to focus on got their due. "Endgame" rewards the most ardent franchise fans, full of callbacks and in-jokes to nearly every other film in the MCU.  It's a lot funnier than the advertising makes it look. On the other hand, it's also the most effective at melodrama, since this is one of the few times in the franchise where there are actual, meaningful stakes and consequences for the characters.

I'm not surprised that the response to "Endgame" has been so much more positive than "Infinity War," since "Endgame" has all the resolution and the payoff that "Infinity War" set up.  As more than one critic has noted, the MCU movies really function as more of a serial these days than standalone films. "Endgame" can't be watched without the context provided by the other installments - it leans very heavily on previous character introductions, explanations of comic-book lore, and years of prior history.  If you don't know how Thor's hammer operates, or who Hank Pym is, you should still be able to follow along, but not very well. The humor and the cameos in particular need some familiarity with the universe.

And if we do treat "Endgame" like only the latest episode in a serial, should we overlook how badly the MCU functions as a serial?  So many of the most consequential relationships and events unfold offscreen entirely, the storytelling is often clunky and repetitive, and some of the best characters are never developed properly.  I've sat through all the other MCU movies, and occasionally I still feel like I've missed important backstory somewhere. The sheer scale of the spectacle is very impressive, and the larger-than-life nature of the comic book narrative helps to smooth over some of the rough edges, but those rough edges are very apparent.  Especially when you put all the installments up next to one another, there are so many opportunities that weren't taken, so many places where the creators played it too safe.

On the other hand, this style of serialized moviemaking is a new beast, or at least one we haven't seen in the popular consciousness in a couple of decades.  Some of the bumpiness is only natural. The only comparable hybrid I can think of is the most recent series of "Game of Thrones," which began as a typical television series and has slowly been morphing into a grouping of connected event movies, which happened to premiere during "Endgame's" first weeks of theatrical release.  With both of these franchises, you can see how the nature of their storytelling changed as their end goals did. "Game of Thrones" has given up more and more intimacy and verisimilitude as it has embraced bigger and bigger feats of spectacle.

As for "Endgame," it took the opposite approach, and reaped the benefits. This feels like the installment where the MCU finally decided to take full advantage of its long history, and use it for dramatic potential.  Sure, there's plenty of mindless brawling if that's to your taste, but what distinguishes "Endgame" is that many of the characters feel more human here than they have in any other outing. They grapple with loss, with failure, with frustration, and all the other fallout of "Infinity War."  They change in ways that are more fundamental than a costume upgrade or a new haircut. And for a few of them, their stories end, capping off not just one movie, but appearances stretching back all the way to the beginning. And room is provided, at last, for the emotional moments to match the spectacle.   

Wherever the MCU goes from here, it'll be hard to top "Endgame."  The amount of narrative momentum generated by over twenty sequential films, plus the novelty of the format, plus the cultural positioning of the superhero genre have all contributed to an instance of true event cinema.  Whatever else can be said about it, there's no denying that it's one of a kind.

           

---

On "Love, Death, & Robots," Part II - The Rankings

Following up on the previous post, this is where I'm going to individually discuss the eighteen shorts that make up "Love, Death, & Robots."  It didn't feel right leaving any of these out, but I didn't have a lot to say about some installments, so some of the write-ups will be noticeably shorter than others.  Here we go, from best to worst:

"Zima Blue" - This is probably the headiest story of the set, exploring artificial intelligence, atavism, and art.  Directed by Robert Valley, it also has the best marriage of striking visuals with science-fiction concepts. I love the abstracted forms and the thoughtful use of color throughout.  This is my favorite kind of science-fiction, the kind that uses genre elements as a way to explore very human impulses and questions. The journey and final fate of Zima may feature little explicit content, but they are adult in the best way.  

"Good Hunting" - A good short all around, with a moving story, truly sympathetic characters, and lots of unpredictable twists and turns. The pacing and the unhurried development of the characters is done so well that it feels like we've spent more time in this world than we have.  I think that this one also makes the best case for its use of adult elements, since the violation and reclamation of the heroine's body parallels the anti-colonialist themes of the story. And those steampunk visuals are to die for.

"Three Robots" - My favorite of the funny installments, for its pitch black humor and its absurdity.  The three robots are so smartly individualized, and their commentary on human folly is so much fun. Somehow, it's very comforting to think that human snarkiness (and cats) will end up outliving the human race.  And if the rumors are true that Netflix is considering turning some of these shorts into series, "Three Robots" is the one that has the most potential to spin off on its own. I'd love to see the trio continue sightseeing in other corners of the apocalypse.    

"Lucky 13" - The only reason I can imagine why this short isn't getting more praise for its motion-capture animation is that it's so good, it doesn't look like animation.  Created by Sony Pictures Imageworks, the action sequences look like something straight out of a recent live-action blockbuster. Meanwhile, Samira Wiley's performance completely sells the conceit of a pilot developing a bond with a ship with a bad history.   

"Beyond the Aquila Rift" - Lovecraftian horror has always been a favorite of mine, and while "Aquila Rift" technically isn't in this category, it's close enough.  I do wish the animators would have used more restraint depicting the female lead Greta, who is overtly sexualized to such a degree that it's hard to take anything coming out of her mouth seriously.  Still, the horror was so beautifully deployed, I didn't mind too much that we had to detour through a little photorealistic digital cheesecake to get there.

"Suits" and "Blindspot" - These are both appealing little one-shot adventure stories with great worldbuilding.  They do a good job of being very distinctive visually, with bright colors, strong character designs, and their own spins on some familiar iconography.  As an anime fan, I prefer "Blindspot" with its Megaman-esque main character and ensemble of common shonen series types. "Suits" is in potentially more problematic territory, being based on a pile of farming and redneck cliches, but the execution is great.  I'd like to see the further adventures of both sets of characters, which isn't something I can say about most of these shorts.

"Sonnie's Edge" and " Sucker of Souls" - These might seem strange to be discussing together, but they both have the same major problem.  The dialogue is terrible. I mean, it's terrible to the degree that it's kind of funny. Every character in "Sonnie's Edge" sounds like a grimdark teenager trying to sound edgier than thou, which undercuts a  lot of the pulpy pleasures of watching monster v. monster deathmatches and the terrible humans who exploit them. "Soul Sucker," meanwhile, decides that its very old school European 2D animation is best paired with obnoxious dirty jokes and pop culture references.  The underlying horror story about unearthing Dracula is actually pretty fun, but the tin-ear quipping really puts a damper on things. Fortunately, both shorts do enough things right that they're pretty watchable.

"Helping Hand" - Passable is the descriptor I keep coming back to here.  The animation isn't great but it's good enough. The writing is so-so and the premise is based on bad science, but it's also engaging and generates a lot of nice tension in the moment.  So it feels appropriate to stick it right in the middle of the rankings.

"The Witness" - I wrestled over the placement of this one, but ultimately I can't bring myself to put it higher than this.  "The Witness" is easily one of the most gorgeous shorts, with eye-catching animation from Alberto Mieglo that's similar to what we saw in "Spider-man: Into the Spider-verse."  The trouble is the story, which is extremely thin, and has the most egregious examples of gratuitous nudity in the entire series. The protagonist has an entire chase scene topless.  And turns out to be an exotic dancer at a BDSM club. And her co-workers are literally walking fetish objects. I spent the entire short alternating between impressed by the visuals and rolling my eyes at the ham handed shoehorning of adult elements into the mix.  

"When The Yogurt Took Over" and "Alternate Histories" - These are both very brief, humorous pieces based on John Scalzi stories.  And they both work way better on the page than as animated shorts. The upside is some good, irreverent gags and some cool, exaggerated animation styles.  The downside is that both run out of material very quickly and feel a few jokes too short.

"Fish Night" and "Ice Age" - a lot of fun visually, but there's not just much there in the end.  The concepts aren't really developed and both shorts just sort of stop once they reach a certain point.  Better writing would have helped both. "Fish Night" gets a few extra points for the hallucinatory neon sea life that made me go, "Ooooh, pretty!"

"Shape Shifters" and "The Secret War" - Pretty generic premises, which are not helped out at all by the animation choices.  Both shorts look like they were composed of video game cutscene footage, and feature really dull, uninteresting photorealistic designs and imagery.  I get that there are certain limitations that come with this aesthetic, but that doesn't excuse how bland these both look.

"The Dump" - Well, I like the idea of a sentient trash heap being friends with a greasy old codger, but nothing about the execution here really sells it.  Like many of these other shorts low on the list, you get a couple of good visuals that show off the animation studio's capabilities, but it's not satisfying as a narrative work.

---

On "Love, Death, & Robots," Part I

I love animated anthologies, and I've watched quite a few, from the "Fantasia" movies to "The Prophet."  Cult classic "Heavy Metal," alas, was never one of my favorites, so I was nervous when I kept hearing the new Netflix anthology, "Love, Death, & Robots," being compared to it.  Created by "Deadpool" director Tim Miller, the major selling point of "Love, Death, & Robots" is that it's unapologetically adult-oriented, and features lots of sex, nudity, violence, and other adult content.  I've learned from experience that the more that projects like this lean on those adult elements, thinking that they'll make up for any deficits in creativity and innovation, the worse they tend to come out.

And boy are there some prime examples of that fallacy here.  "Love, Death, & Robots" is comprised of eighteen animated shorts, all under twenty minutes.  They're a nice mix of different tones, genres, and animation styles, most of them based on previously published science-fiction short stories.  Not all of them involve robots. In the mix are a trio of humorous tales based on John Scalzi's work, two contemplative ones based on Alastair Reynolds' pieces, and a great steampunk short based on a Ken Liu story.  As you might expect, the installments vary wildly in quality. Unfortunately, there's a major exploitative streak apparent throughout that I didn't care for. Naked and topless women keep appearing, for no apparent reason other than titillation, and there's some distasteful reliance on rape and revenge tropes, casual vulgarities, and gore aplenty.

These are common criticisms of adult-oriented science-fiction and fantasy fiction in general, of course.  "Love, Death, & Robots" also feels weirdly retrograde at at times because so much of the content is directly aimed at a young male audience.  There's some welcome diversification of the protagonists, including a fun military adventure story starring Samira Wiley, but it's very apparent that with the over-the-top fighting, gratuitous sex, and proliferation of edgy badass characters, there's a lot of pandering here to the fantasies of thirteen year-old boys.  There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but the approach is a little stifling. I found the series less interesting on the whole than similar anthologies like "The Animatrix" and "Robot Carnival." There's not much depth to most of the scripting, and only a handful are truly worth watching for their stories, which is a shame.

However, as an animation fan, there's a lot here to love.   "Love, Death, & Robots" features the work of more than a dozen different smaller studios, with Tim Miller's Blur Studio as the primary one with credits on five of the shorts.  It was especially fascinating to see how far photorealistic CGI has come in the last few years, to the point where it's almost indistinguishable from live-action in some cases.  However, I didn't find these nearly as much fun as the super-stylized CGI shorts, or the ones featuring traditional 2D animation. Designer Robert Valley directs one of the most striking ones, "Zima Blue," and Tim Miller directs the live-action/animation hybrid "Ice Age," but most of the other shorts are helmed by relative unknowns.  I don't know what the budget for this series was, but all the visuals are top-notch and boast feature-quality work.

It's rare to see adult oriented animation of any stripe, especially done at this level.  While I may have my gripes, it is so good to see Netflix giving these shorts such a big platform and widening the scope of what commercial Western animation can look like.  They're not really doing anything new - twenty years ago, we had the even trippier "Aeon Flux" and "Liquid Television" - but they are continuing a noble tradition of subversive experimental and indie animation that has always needed all the help it can get.

I've decided that since the shorts are so different from each other, it would be more fair to discuss them individually.  However, eighteen shorts is a tall order and there's not much to discuss with some of them. Shorts like "Fish Night," "Ice Age," and "The Dump," for instance, feel like little more than proof-of-concept demonstrations of the animation software being used.  The next post will take the form of a "Rank 'Em" list, and but some shorts will be getting more attention than others.

---

"The Kid Who Would Be King" and "The Lego Movie 2"

Still easing into the 2019 releases.  Let's look at some recent kids' films today.

Joe Cornish hasn't properly directed a movie since his debut, "Attack the Block," back in 2011.  So it's very satisfying to see that his sophomore effort is just as good as his first, and does some wonderful things with bits of genre cinema I thought were getting a little stale.  For one thing, this is a King Arthur movie, and nobody's figured out how to do one of those well in a while. And for another thing, this is one of those live-action kids' adventure movies that were so common in the '80s and '90s but have been pretty scarce since the tentpole blockbusters took over.

The plot is your standard "chosen one" story with Arthurian trappings.  British schoolboy Alex (Louis Serkis) stumbles upon Excalibur one day, draws the sword from the stone, and is charged by Merlin (Angus Imrie as a tenager, Patrick Stewart as an adult), with using it to fight the sorceress Morgana (Rebecca Ferguson), and save the world.  This involves rallying his allies, including timid best friend Bedders (Dean Chaumoo), and the school bullies Lance (Tom Taylor) and Kaye (Rhianna Dorris). The four of them go on a quest, learn to fight and follow the rules of chivalry, and raise an army against the forces of evil.

It's familiar stuff, but the execution is great, and the cast is a lot of fun.  Angus Imrie steals every scene he's in by playing young Merlin as a genial weirdo who casts spells via intense hand-jiving.  There's not nearly enough of Ferguson or Stewart, but the few appearances they do have are stellar. The movie belongs to the kids, however, who banter and bicker and generally behave like kids.  They sell the big fight scenes, the big emotional moments, and all the excitement of going on a big adventure together. There's the usual effects scenes and cheesy monsters, but also plenty of genuine whiz-bang ingenuity on display too.

What I most appreciate the movie for, however, is that Cornish's script makes the Arthurian legends both accessible for kids and also relevant for them.  A tweaked version of the chivalric code plays a big part in the story, and Alex actively models his behavior on King Arthur's example. While never being too specific about real world circumstances, Alex's lives in troubled times, and the movie is all about acknowledging this and pushing the notion that the kids have the power to overcome these challenges.  And that's a much needed message for 2019.

Now on to the "LEGO Movie" sequel, which has done poorly enough in theaters that it looks like it may be the last "LEGO Movie" sequel for a while.  Emmet (Chris Pratt), Lucy (Elizabeth Banks), LEGO Batman (Will Arnett), and the rest of their friends are back in a new adventure. Picking up right where the previous movie left off, the heroes weather an invasion from the rival DUPLO of the Systar System, and their world slowly devolves into a post-apocalyptic wasteland.  As you might have guessed, where the first movie was about a father and son learning to get along, this one is all about sibling rivalry.

Phil Lord and Chris Miller are back as writers and producers, though directing duties have been passed to "Trolls" director Mike Mitchell.  There's every indication that they poured all the same thoughtfulness and energy that was on display in the first movie into this installment, but unfortunately it never manages to achieve anywhere near the same level of off-the-wall creativity and fun.  We get new settings and new characters, like the DUPLO leader, Queen Whatevra (Tiffany Haddish), and Emmet's new friend Rex Dangervest (also Pratt), but few real surprises.

Instead there's a lot of retreading of familiar ground.  There's a catchy new song to replace "Everything is Awesome."  There's more journeying into different LEGO and DUPLO based fantasy worlds.  There's more shameless celebrity cameos, including Jason Momoa as LEGO Aquaman, and Richard Ayoade as an ice cream cone.  There's more pop-culture references, though noticeably fewer than last time. And there's more emphasis on everyone of different playing styles getting along - only it's much more obvious this time around with edgy versus cutesy aesthetics vying for our attention.

"The LEGO Movie 2" commits no obvious sins, and it's hard to imagine anyone having a real beef with it.  However, it offers much less of everything that made the first film great. The messages are blunter and less nuanced, the scale of the production is noticeably smaller, and that great rush of discovery from the first adventure couldn't be duplicated.  It's also hard to escape the feeling that the movie only exists because the studio staked out a release date for it some time ago. I still think this franchise has plenty of potential, but I wouldn't mind them taking a break from the big screen for a while.

---