Film Review: “The LEGO Movie 2: The Second Part”

Starring the Voices of: Chris Pratt, Elizabeth Banks and Will Arnett
Directed By: Mike Mitchell
Rated: PG
Running Time: 106 minutes
Warner Bros. Pictures

“The LEGO Movie 2: The Second Part” was never going to live up to the first. Well. I take that back. It could have. The first film’s core creators, Phil Lord and Chris Miller, are no longer at the directorial helm, but have their names plastered throughout the credits as producers and writers. Personally, I don’t think the oddball duo have yet to fail when they’re behind the camera. But as writers and producers, their names are surprisingly all over the place in Hollywood, from movies like “Smallfoot” to “Brigsby Bear.” They generally hop on board projects with promise, and while the follow-up to “The LEGO Movie” had promise, it partially delivers.

The sequel, just like in real life, takes place five years after the first film. The first one ended on the ominous announcement that real world child, Finn (Jadon Sand), has a baby sister. That baby sister has intruded on Finn’s imagination, therein intruding on the imaginary LEGO world on-screen. Emmett (Pratt) and Lucy’s (Bank) brick world has gone from a thriving metropolis to a “Mad Max” hellscape where other worldly LEGO creations stop off in their world to abduct and torment Emmett and Lucy’s pals. It’s only later that the duo find out that Queen Watevra Wa’Nabi (Tiffany Haddish), of the Systar System, is abducting their friends for a specific purpose and are now targeting them. Trying to explain this almost feels more confusing than it should be. So if you haven’t seen the first, just skip this one.

The manic whimsy of the first is still intact, as jokes sometimes come flying fast and furious with a kinetic energy that’s reminiscent of other Lord and Miller productions. Unfortunately the film takes a while to find out what new stories and themes it would like to tell the audience. The first handful of minutes are spent catching viewers up on events in the fictionalized worlds, as well as retelling jokes, beat by beat, down to the punchline. Older viewers might feel like they’re being duped, much like fans in the 80s felt when seeing “Airplane II: The Sequel.” Luckily that feeling dissipates after a while.

You may have forgotten, as you should, but there was a silly controversy back in 2014 when the first “LEGO Movie” came out. Some found that the movie was bad for kids because of its “anti-corporate” message. I can feel your eyes rolling as you read that. But for those who felt like that was a legitimate gripe, you’ll be pleased to know that this film feels a lot more like a cash grab and doesn’t have an anti-capitalist leaning. That being said, there are still a lot of moments of subversive brilliance possibly directed at the studio.

A good chunk of those clever jokes seem to be digs at Warner Bros., who may have demanded a sequel after money came rolling in. I won’t give the playful comedic jabs away since they’re in the film’s third act. In a handful of instances before that, the film appears to be taking part in other kid’s movie tropes, like musical numbers or sequel/world building, as a chance to not only make-fun of the constructs, but point out how they’re generously shoehorned in to most narratives in kid’s movies. If Lord and Miller merely served as producers, and not writers, I might actually feel like some of these creative choices were studio notes. It’s also possible I’m looking far too into it.

Even while scraping away some of the layered intellect this film has, this sequel is non-stop eye candy accompanied by rapid-fire jokes that’ll put smiles on the faces of kids and adults alike. While there’s no doubt that this’ll please the young ones, it might have some parents who watched the first one feeling fatigued. That’s because it doesn’t quite match the persistent irreverent wit of the first, or the revelations that reward viewers who watch the film a second time. Even though I’ve spent a lot of time comparing this one to the original, this sequel still manages to squeeze out some heart from its human and brick characters. “The LEGO Movie 2: The Second Part” is beautifully animated, uproariously funny and mischievously inventive, but not as much as as its predecessor.

Film Review: “Power Rangers”

Starring: Dacre Montgomery, Naomi Scott and RJ Cyler
Directed By: Dean Israelite
Rated: PG-13
Running Time: 124 minutes
Lionsgate

Our Score: 1.5 out of 5 Stars

As a Millennial, I watched the “Power Rangers,” but I was not old enough or smart enough yet to do it ironically. Every day after school I’d plop my butt in front of the TV and watch a mindless repackaged Japanese TV show and enjoyed it like it was high art. My mom even suffered through the “Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie” in theaters so I could get my fix. But here’s the thing, I couldn’t tell you a single Ranger’s name, villain or plot from the shows or movie. So it wasn’t memorable for me, but I’m sure the agony of having to endure it still lingers with my parents. Well, they’ll be happy to know what goes around has come around.

A prologue, millions of years in the past on Earth, sets the stage. We see that circular crystal discs are what give powers to the Rangers, an elite class of protectors. Cut to the future where we meet the next batch of Rangers, but they don’t know it yet. This is the movie’s first mistake as it spends an awful lot of time setting up Jason (Montgomery), a directionless high school football superstar who plans a juvenile prank that ruins his life. He ends him flipping his truck, damaging his knee and being relegated to detention, seemingly forever.

In detention he meets Kimberly (Scott), a former cheerleader who’s betrayed her friend’s trust, and Billy (Cyler), a brainy, yet slightly autistic student who we’ll eventually come to find out is the only originally pure of heart teenager in this movie. “Power Rangers” eventually introduces Trini (Becky G) and Zack (Ludi Lin), but never cares enough to give us any background information on them until right before the third act. But by that point it feels unnecessarily crammed in, like most of the film’s character development.

The movie sometimes chooses to be subtle with its character’s traits, yet at other times slaps audiences across the face with thick intelligence insulting exposition. But this is one of many problems plaguing “Power Rangers.” The movie never seems to settle on if it’s for a new generation of young “Power Ranger” fans or nauseous nostalgia for those who grew up in the 90’s. It’s a mix of both, but the direction choices clash so much, it makes for a jarring cinematic experience.

At times we get that TV safe Saturday morning feel from our future Rangers, like cutesy physical humor montages and a “Kingpin” joke about “milking” a cow, but other times we get blasts of teenage reality like the fallout of revenge porn and drowning your sorrows in beer. I’ll admit that the latter makes the characters a lot more human and relatable, but none of it feels natural. The happenstance of how they all meet and become friends is about as logical as a Bryan Cranston and Elizabeth Banks playing intergalactic warriors who’ve been comatose for millions of years, simply waiting for the right moment to awake.

Cranston, as Zordon, is mildly wasted here, as his only on-screen performance is on a green-screen set covered in thick make-up. He shows up throughout the rest of the movie as a disembodied voice attached to a CGI grid screen, dispensing plot points and ridiculing the teenagers for not being able to come together as a team. Cranston’s delivery is too serious, never taking on the role as mentor. However, he’s complimented by the jokey robot, Alpha 5 (Bill Hader), who seems to fluctuate between hammy and cynical.

Banks plays the movie’s main villain, Rita. She’s the only one in the movie who chews on the green screen scenery. There are moments where Rita is truly delightful to watch because of how cheeky Banks’ delivers her dialogue, but there are certain elements to Rita that are unnecessarily included like when she commits cold-blooded murder or when she crawls across the screen like Regan spider walking in “The Exorcist.”

“Power Rangers” is glum and tonally frustrating, relying on concepts found in the recent trend of gritty reboots while attempting to be a self-serious homage to the original TV show. There are obvious editing flaws that even the average moviegoer should notice. It’s either bad storytelling and pacing or a baby playing with the buttons in the editing studios. Compounding these frustrations is a blatant product placement that would make NASCAR cringe. Was a “Power Rangers” movie ever supposed to be good? No. But it’s not supposed to be this bad.