(If you’re curious, my review process. It’s also pasted at the end of this post. I don’t believe in Rotten Tomatoes. I just believe in me.)
(***all-purpose SPOILER ALERT*** there may be some in this review)
SW SCORE: 32
3 out of 5 🐙
I loved the first Lego movie. I know that’s a wild and original opinion? It was great fun, had a big heart, and the animation was fun and fantastic. I was excited about the sequel. But then I saw it.
The animation was still very good. It was probably great, but it didn’t make the same impression on me as the original. That’s natural because it’s not new anymore, but something about it felt obligatory. Something about it felt by the numbers. The cast, as is de rigueur, was full of stars. They all did just fine. That’s just it. It was fine. There were some funny jokes, like Lego Batman’s fear of commitment and the villainous Rex being afraid of his “undark” past being revealed. I even laughed at the pun “vest friends”. But I got lost in the story. Employing time travel is something that can get messy very quickly. And it did for me. At one point I fell asleep for 30 minutes and had to watch that section again. I don’t know if I was sick or tired or it was really not interesting for me, but it was probably a combination of all three.
The thing is, this movie engendered little if any emotions from me. It wasn’t terrible. It wasn’t great. It just was…there. It was like a well-designed chain restaurant. Sure, the food is decent. Sure, the quality is consistent. But is it ever something you are interested in talking about or making a point to see again? I know I’m not.
(1) Shark Wrighter (SW) Score: Based on a sum of 5 sub-scores (acting, directing, writing/story, effects: cinematography &/or animation &/or effects, editing) with 1 being terrible and 10 being terrific.
(2) Octopuses (0-5 🐙, with 5 being fantastic and 0 being feces)
(3) Octopuses are my unquantifiable feeling…not that SW score is scientific…but this one is even less so
(4) ++ This optional section includes any incredibly *brilliant observations that don’t fit into simple quantitative slices like the scores and octopuses *(they are likely NOT brilliant)