Author: Todd Gilchrist

  • ‘Alita: Battle Angel’ Director Robert Rodriguez on ‘Taking a Vacation from Myself’

    ‘Alita: Battle Angel’ Director Robert Rodriguez on ‘Taking a Vacation from Myself’

    Twentieth Century Fox

    By his own admission, Robert Rodriguez’ “Alita: Battle Angel” is not the kind of adaptation that automatically has moviegoers worldwide thrilling at the news that their favorite character or comic book universe is finally coming to theaters. But adapted by James Cameron, who co-wrote the script (with “Avatar” confederate Laeta Kalogridis) and produced for Rodriguez, this film version of the popular manga by Yukito Kishiro offers the kind of world-building that only Cameron can create, brought to life using technology that few others can use more effectively. Meanwhile, this long-gestating story has only grown in relevance — and resonance — with its portrait of the title character, a young woman with a mysterious background who awakens in a strange world to discover that she has much more power than she yet realizes to take control and create change.

    Moviefone recently caught up with Rodriguez, who was in Tokyo for a worldwide press tour, to discuss “Alita” and the challenge of shepherding another cinematic visionary’s ideas to the screen. In addition to talking about the artistic collaboration that came to fruition with Cameron after almost 25 years of friendship, Rodriguez reflected on the differences in working on a project where he could delegate some of the duties he often by necessity takes on himself, and revealed some of the lessons learned about his own process as a result of tackling a project whose ambitions and aims are radically different than his previous work. And finally, he offered some insights into what impact the Disney-Fox merger may have on additional installments in a larger narrative that this film’s vivid, detailed mythology sets up as a possibility.

    Moviefone: When you started this process, what was this story about for you? 

     Robert Rodriguez: When I wrote Jim back after I read it, I said really identify with her — this girl — and I feel like if I identify with this 13-year-old girl, then you know it’s a very universal story that anyone could relate to. She grows up in a trash heap and thinks she’s insignificant, and finds she has great power, but then that’s not enough. You can teach young people to find their inner power and they’ll find it pretty quickly, but it’s like, what do you use that power for? She now has the benefit of this family life, which I loved the father-daughter relationship because I have a daughter that age. And I loved all the relationships; I could just identify with so much. It just felt like it would be a story that people could, through her eyes, find a story that really was relevant to them. And so I thought that’s a great story. I’d love to get a story like that to tell the world. So it was definitely a response to the material. And the story seems very timely, but it was timely back in 1999 when he bought the rights. It was timely when he was going to make it in 2005. And in 2015 when we got it green lit, the studio said we need a movie like this! But you always need a movie like this. It’s a very timeless story, and that’s what I liked about it.

    You’ve talked in the past about how you decided to edit James’ script almost as an exercise. But when time came to make the film did that mean you took more cues from his script than, say, the source material? 

    No one gets scripts like this. Guys like Jim are like Quentin — they don’t write scripts for anyone but themselves to direct. They would almost rather them sit in a drawer and rot than have somebody go make it wrong. So I knew it was a real gift that I was a friend of his and showed that I understood the material when I thoughtfully edited the script down without destroying what he loved about it. But it just read so fantastic. It wasn’t like he had given me the books to adapt like I did on “Sin City.” He had already adapted it in such a brilliant way that it felt like a Jim Cameron movie — the lost film that I always wanted to see.

    So instinctually I knew I couldn’t just go do what I normally do, but I didn’t have the analytics back then to figure out why or what that was until he and I talked. And I asked him, how do you approach this type of material, because your movies have such a signature to them. I want to try and ape that as much as possible just to do better to the material than going and doing it the Robert Rodriguez treatment. I mean that’s what I didn’t do on “Sin City” and on the stuff I do with Quentin — I tried to do it in their style and keep it true to them. And he said, well, for me science fiction and fantasy has to be really grounded, truly believable, and utterly real. Otherwise you don’t buy the fantasy. So I thought, I don’t want to do green screen or have any layer of artifice over it — no manga come to life stylizations. I want to go more grounded than even he’s done recently, so I’ll try to build all sets, no green screen, locations that are real, real actors around her, just to really ground it and just have it be completely believable.

    So across the board I had to do things differently than I normally do, but with great joy! I mean, it’s always fun to take a vacation from yourself and try to learn how he crafts movies that appeal to a much bigger audience all around the world. I mean, that’s really what I wanted it to be. Cause you could tell that’s what it was when I read it.

    Fox

    James is tremendously detailed and dedicated about knowing how everything works technologically. Is that something you share? And how is that reflected in, say, something like the choice to make Alita’s eyes true to the manga?

    Well, since she was a cyborg, you could get away with that, and that was kind of table stakes. Because when I saw the artwork he did in 2005 — besides the script, he showed me the art reel that had tons of art production art that they do, pre-visualization and kind of photo real paintings that you could tell what it meant to convey. And the most arresting image that blew my mind was her looking at her porcelain-carved arms with these large manga eyes. And I thought, Oh crap, he was going for a full CG human back in 2005 but with the stylized eyes from the manga. He always does something new in his movies that you’ve just never seen before and I realized that that’s what this was going to have. Then that was table stakes for the 2019 version — it just had to have that. So that was just kind of a given, and if it made sense for him scientifically, then it made sense for me.

    So when we talked about it, it was always that it was still going to be grounded. It was just going to give us something we knew we hadn’t seen before. And then I like to go dive into the manga and pull extra things, because he’d really taken from Books One and Two mostly and Motorball from Book Three, and the rest of the books were pretty much untouched. I went and found some other things, but using that filter, the filter of Jim and does it feel real, does it not pull you out of the story, that just became my filter — to keep it grounded, keep it real. Saving things for other stories, not trying to cram everything in.

    When I did “Sin City,” I crammed all my favorite books into one movie because I didn’t know if there’d be a sequel. I think if I adapted this myself, it would have been like trying to get the cake and eat it too. He had a much more disciplined approach to just building her as a character, giving her a great 180-degree arc so that by the end of the movie she knows exactly who she is and what she has to do. So I wanted to preserve all of that and not mess that up.

    A lot of your effort seemed to be done in the editing phase to condense what I believe was a 300- or 400-page script. What was made easier for you when the filmmaking process actually began as a result of doing that and then what was maybe more difficult?

    In hindsight it was so good to cut the script down so much ahead of time, because what I found, and this happened on “Avatar,” because there’s an effect in every shot, you really can’t judge the movie until it’s almost complete. You can’t tell if scenes are even working if you’re constantly looking at her with a helmet on because you’re not buying the character until it’s really done. And that’s very expensive to do. If you’re going to shoot scenes that ultimately you look at once they’re done and go, yeah, that doesn’t work, we should cut this down for time, that’s why the pre-editing saved us a lot of money and time. Otherwise we would have been cutting sequences not in the edit room at their beginning because you couldn’t judge it like that. You would have to wait until there was more done and that would be wasteful.

    So I’m glad I cut it way down because ultimately, it’s not Jim Cameron directing the movie, so Fox isn’t going to give it that kind of a budget. I had to deliver a two-hour movie by contract, and I think it makes the movie much more of a rip-roaring tale because it has to run at that pace. I think the pace ends up being a lot tighter because of it. But that was really the reason – it was the first movie in a potential series but it’s not a known character. So for all the economic reasons, I had to keep it tight and I think the story can always benefit from something like that.

    How did delegating some of the responsibilities you typically take on yourself, doing cinematography, editing or score, make this a easier or more difficult process? 

    It was always out of necessity that I had to do all of those jobs. But as those movies went on, I had [directors of photography] like Guillermo Navarro, but then when I switched to digital, no d.p. wanted to touch that. So I went back to d.p.-ing. And I’ve used composers before but when I’d run out of money, I’d have to write the music myself, or I’d have to just edit because I knew the material better. But I’ve always enjoyed working with much better people, especially when I could afford them.

    On this one, it was great; I mean, Jim knows how to do every job as well, but he chooses not to do that on his movie because there’s bigger fish to fry, and bigger movies. You still hire them, cast them — like I don’t play every role in the movie, I cast the right actors so that role can be complete. So I cast the crew so that it could be something that I wouldn’t be able to do myself. So [cinematographer] Bill Pope is amazing, [composer] Junkie XL, I loved his music for “Mad Max Fury Road,” and I can learn from these masters.

    But also because I’ve done those jobs, communication with them is just so simple; they’re not used to having a director know their language and know their jobs so well so that we can just take it to a much bigger level faster. So I love doing that. If I have to save money on a movie, I probably would still do those jobs, but again, if I could afford a great master like that where that’s all they’re concentrated on, and it really does free you up to concentrate on what’s most important — the story and the characters. On this, people were shooting in 3D and you have to be watching that all the time, so you can only be so many places at once. I couldn’t operate the camera as usual because it was a big 3D system on a crane that took three operators. It would be like, which guy am I going to be? I might as well not operate. So it would just distract me from what really was important.


    James’ films reflect his style and his ideas as a storyteller. What are the things in “Alita” that reflect the story you know you’d tell if maybe you were doing it on your own, and what things because of Jim’s influence or his script would you naturally maybe not do as a storyteller or a director?

    I was really glad he had taken a crack at the script first, because if I had just been handed all 30 of those books, I don’t think I would have been as excited. Because that’s a shitload of work — I would have to read them all and try to figure out the story. But I liked how he saw the first two books as the key to the story, but also how he added more emotionality to it — a lot more heart than was there. I tend to be a little more detached if I’m adapting something, kind of like, well, it is what it is – why not just make that? Because I like that. But I wouldn’t take it as far as he did and to turn it into the kind of movie that he knew it needed to be in order to appeal to such a big audience.

    He said to me early on, “I have to go for more emotion and more heart and a more of a cinematic story that can play around the world, because let’s face it, this is a manga story. If we appeal just to manga fans for ‘Alita,’ we’re going to have a very small crowd. And we want to break new ground and have a lot more technology in this to do something people have never seen before. That’s why I have to craft my stories.” I never had that approach to making movies.

    When I made “Sin City,” I thought, I don’t think anyone’s even going to go to the theater. It’s black and white. It’s an anthology with voiceover and you’re not supposed to do any of those things. I just want to do it so badly that it’s okay for me. I’ll keep the budget low, and they will find it eventually on DVD, and I’m happy with that. And I was totally surprised they even went to the theater because I thought it’s not going to look like anything else, and it didn’t have “hit” written all over it at all. So I don’t make those.

    But that’s not Jim. Jim goes and makes big hits because he wants to be able to pay for the technology that he’s going to do to push it forward. So when I saw the script, that’s all stuff that I would love to have gotten in a script. If somebody gave me a script to make that I didn’t write myself, I would have done that movie. It’s just that somebody’s got to come up with it. So I was glad that he had come up with it, because I loved how universal it was. I loved that it still had his quirky action, which was also Kishiro’s action. I mean that big bar fight, people say that’s the part that we can tell is really you! And I say, that was actually in the comic and it was actually in Jim’s script. And then when I looked up the Top Ten Bar Fights just to see what people have done so I don’t repeat it, I called Jim all excited and said, hey, four of the top bar fights are ours — “Terminator,” “Terminator 2,” “Desperado” and “Dusk Till Dawn.” I guess this is just what we do — we’ve got to top ourselves! So we like similar things, but I think his really go for the gold because his movies are just much, much bigger movies and that’s just how he’s been. I mean when he and I first met, he had made “Terminator 2,” the biggest movie of all time, and I had just done “El Mariachi.” That was the difference starting out the gate between me and him.

    You talked about the expectation of success . But Disney taking over Fox seems to at least put a question mark on where a series like this could go in terms of who will pay for it and who is interested in it. How comfortable are you with this being a complete story, whether or not you directed what would be perhaps sequels to this, and how much expectation is there on moving forward with a bigger narrative?

    We never thought, okay, we’re going to do Part One and we’re going to do three total. That’s never how Jim even thinks. That said, whenever he crafts the story he always thinks in terms of multiple movies just so he can write the main story. So in his outline, he’d go we don’t really need to go to Zalem, you could save that for a second film — and the third film would go to this level. It helps him craft a story, make it a complete story, so he knows when not to go trying to cram too much in there. That said, you can always go do sequels with all of the material between the books and stuff that he outlined. But it’s really about, we’ve got to make the first movie work; we can’t have it not be a complete story. And I like those kinds of stories that leave you with a sense of what I call story value – like even if there was never a sequel, you can imagine more movies. Like she doesn’t really know who she is until the last scene of the movie. But in “El Mariachi,” he didn’t get the guitar case full of guns, his signature weapon, until the last scene of the movie. In “Spy Kids,” they didn’t actually become spies until the last scene in the movie. So even if you didn’t make a sequel, you can imagine more because it’s an origin story. So if Disney wants to do more, and this movie does well enough to warrant a sequel, we have places to go and we would all love to work on it. If it doesn’t, it’s a great one-off story that I think leaves you imagining more movies, which I still think are great stories to tell.

  • ‘What Men Want’ Review: Taraji Deserves Better

    ‘What Men Want’ Review: Taraji Deserves Better

    Paramount

    In 2000’s “What Women Want” it might have been snarkily revolutionary, if way late even then, to suggest that members of the so-called “fairer sex” are complex, fierce and formidable. But 20 years and a gender-swapped premise later, “What Men Want” advances a depressing argument that guys are with few exceptions as competitive, sexist and simple-minded as they always were — but now, women are evidently changing to become more like them. Taraji P. Henson’s fearlessly committed performance almost rescues this story of a desperately ambitious woman gifted with the ability to hear men’s innermost impulses, but director Adam Shankman’s predilection for the broadest and dumbest possible execution of any given idea undercuts any comedic bite, genuine insight or emotional resonance the film potentially had.

    Henson (“Hidden Figures”) plays Alison “Ali” Davis, an Atlanta sports agent growing increasingly tired of white, male colleagues getting praised and promoted while her own accomplishments are repeatedly undermined and disregarded. But while cutting loose at her friend’s bachelorette party, Ali drinks some funky tea given to her by a fortune teller named Sister (Erykah Badu) and ends up hitting her head, gaining the ability to hear her male colleagues’ thoughts. But after being promised the opportunity to make partner if she signs Jamal Barry (Shane Paul McGhie), the next basketball superstar, Ali discloses these newfound abilities to her long-suffering assistant Brandon (Josh Brener) and hatches a plan to outwit her competitors.

    Unfortunately, Jamal’s future is being carefully controlled by his unpredictable father Joe “Dolla” (Tracy Morgan), whose thoughts reveal an unchecked id but little for Ali in the way of insights on how to win his confidence. But when Joe admits that he’s put off by Ali’s workaholic independence, she unwittingly enlists a recent one-night stand, Will (Aldis Hodge), and his six-year-old son Ben (Auston Jon Moore) to pretend to be her family in the hopes of scoring Jamal’s highly-coveted contract.

    Paramount

    Even before the first male thought is revealed on screen by writers Tina Gordon (“ATL,” “Drumline”) and Peter Huyck and Alex Gregory (shared alumni of “Veep,” “Frasier” and “The Larry Sanders Show”), the prospect of what little there is to be learned from that inner monologue feels like a joke whose punchline we already know. Consequently, the only revelations that Ali discovers are that (a) her colleagues are keeping her out of the loop, and (b) when she muscles her way back in, they know better how to strategize, coddle and outmaneuver fragile egos, both male and female, than she does. Though the panorama of perspectives that she soon becomes aware of occasionally includes an amusing non sequitur or unexpected earwig, most of those voices are effectively confirming not just what she already knows about her bullying, sexist colleagues, but what we (the audience) do as well.

    What eventually becomes more of a priority to those screenwriters and Shankman as director is both empowering Ali and reminding her that in the boy’s club she desperately wants to be a part of, it’s  better to be a woman who is not beholden to their expectations. But this unfortunately requires the character to shuffle through some painful rom-com cliches where Henson has to battle her way through some embarrassing, not especially funny scenarios, and eventually Ali learns life lessons at the expense of people she cares about the most. Thankfully, and in spite of the schizophrenic pendulum-swing of the main character’s behavior, the supporting cast strikes a comfortable equilibrium between the story’s sillier and more serious elements: Wendi McLendon-Covey (“The Goldbergs”), Phoebe Robinson (“I Love Dick”) and Tamala Jones (“Castle”) play Ali’s chorus of hilarious, exasperated BFFs, while Max Greenfield (“New Girl”), and Richard Roundtree (“Shaft”), as a work colleague and Ali’s father, respectively, supply some real talk about men (or at least themselves) that doesn’t require mind-reading.

    Though Hodge plays a charming, convincingly saintly alternative to most of the rest of the men in Ali’s life, and Brener’s Brandon provides her with a suitably anxious sounding board-slash-Jiminy Cricket to fret over each new morally dubious gambit, the movie’s secret weapon is Badu, who defies its worn-out conventions and embraces the ethereal (and ridiculous) extremes of its premise. But even built on the sad continuing reality of disproportionate opportunities and pay between men and women (much less women of color), Henson’s flailing, frustrated character exposes few new truths about her male counterparts, and the movie as a whole says a lot less about gender disparities or the business world than it thinks. Ultimately, “What Men Want” showcases the kind of mainstream, multiracial comedies that audiences seem to want, but as a vehicle for a talented, hard-working performer like Henson to lead, it’s less than she deserves.

    pEaknfiGq8K1BA1x4k0Q71
  • ‘Alita: Battle Angel’ is an Unexpected Blast

    ‘Alita: Battle Angel’ is an Unexpected Blast

    Twentieth Century Fox

    Alita: Battle Angel” first went into development by James Cameron in 2000, and Robert Rodriguez signed on to direct his script in 2016, but the themes of their adaptation of Yukito Kishiro’s 1990 manga of the same name could not feel timelier. A story of the redeeming power of compassion and positivity, Rodriguez’ film follows a young woman with more power than she realizes entering a complicated world unafraid and undeterred to fight for what she believes in. But it’s also a smart, rousing adventure that resonates unlike almost anything else being made right now, utilizing incredible technology to enhance amazing performances, and most of all, eclectic, compelling and sympathetic characters who embody imagination and inspire hope.

    Rosa Salazar (“Bird Box”) plays Alita, a cyborg “core” recovered by Dr. Dyson Ido (Christoph Waltz) from a great scrapyard where the floating city of Zalem disposes its trash. Rebuilt using a robot body intended for Ido’s late daughter, Alita awakens with no memory of her previous life, but an indefatigable appetite to explore Iron City, the cobbled-together community of poor and disenfranchised individuals upon whose backs Zalem thrives in the sky above them. Meeting Hugo (Keean Johnson, TV’s “Nashville”), a scrounger and street hustler, Alita quickly discovers Iron City’s hidden charms, but despite Dyson’s warnings, she soon also learns about its many dangers — including cyborgs like Grewishka (Jackie Earle Haley) who slaughter humans and robots alike for body parts, and mechanic masterminds like Vector (Mahershala Ali) who buy their spoils.

    Twentieth Century Fox.

    Inspired to become a protector of the innocent, Alita signs up to be a Hunter Warrior — a bounty hunter fighting against deadly predators and thieves. Facing a series of increasingly dangerous opponents, Alita soon begins to realize that she was quite literally built for conflict, and is more than capable of defending herself – first in the streets, and soon enough, on the Motorball track (imagine a hyper-violent, “Rollerball”-seque blood sport). But as Vector’s minions attempt to apprehend her by any means necessary, Alita’s memories (and sense of true purpose) come flooding back, trapping her between a past she cannot remember, a present where her very existence risks the lives of friends and family, and a future that she realizes must be liberated from Zalem and the mysterious puppetmasters who keep Iron City’s people dependent on its impossible dream.

    Amidst the film’s tremendous wealth of sci-fi mythology (which among other details involves cybernetic beings, floating cities and a centuries-old Martian war), “Alita” features a perhaps unplanned but strongly relevant political allegory about young people and the power they wield. The title character arrives in Iron City (a dystopic world full of people who have succumbed to cynicism, selfishness and desperation) unacquainted with those qualities in others, an interested only in life’s endless possibilities. But when she is challenged, Alita demonstrates that she quite literally possesses the ability to defeat almost any opponent, partially by virtue of internalized training, but most importantly by knowing the difference between right and wrong, committing herself to a cause that’s just, and retaining a sense of optimism that others will join the fight alongside her.

    On screen, that’s inspiring to the characters in her orbit — first Dr. Ido, who lets go of his own grief and fear when he sees Alita’s strength and independence, and later, to Hugo, who repents his life as a scavenger in a caste system that she eventually shows him is destructive and all-consuming. But what becomes most affecting, first on a visceral level and then later, an intellectual one, is the way in which the character is undiminished in her curiosity and her belief in basic goodness, even after she learns that evil is an inevitability. It feels like the last decade of filmmaking has been detailed and dedicated in its depiction and recreation of real-life evil but there is something undeniably powerful about a movie that dares to suggest the antidote is hope.

    Twentieth Century Fox.

    What’s more remarkable about that feat, however, is how streamlined and economical Cameron and Laeta Kalogridis’ script is in communicating that theme while accomplishing some of the most sophisticated and yet digestible world building I’ve seen since “Avatar.” Cameron’s particular gift is for conceptualization — creating a universe you’ll believe on a molecular level. The story that accompanies it reflects and reduces Kishiro’s source material to its most important elements, and he finds characterizations and motivations that keep the wheels in motion even when they seem like they’re grinding to a halt for some absolutely dazzling set pieces. Every fight scene, and every opponent serves a greater thematic idea, and drives the story forward, while also managing to be staged and choreographed beautifully.

    Like with “Sin City,” Rodriguez’ many talents seem to find a healthier impact when they’re balanced by the efforts of collaborators. (If some films seem to be driven by too many cooks, his often suffer from too few.) Cameron’s work on this project, which started almost two decades ago, is baked into every frame, but working with the likes of cinematographer Bill Pope (the “Matrix” trilogy), editor Stephen Rivkin (“Avatar”) and composer Tom Holkenborg (“Mad Max Fury Road”) seems to free Rodriguez from his normal multitasking in all of those roles and allow him to best serve each moment and the story as a whole. He’s always been a scrappy, imaginative director, but the combination of this film’s obviously-amplified budget in comparison to his homegrown projects and the constraints imposed by Fox to bring it all together showcases really how capable he is at creating something truly compelling and immersive.

    Although the film reaches a satisfying conclusion, it’s clearly set up for at least one sequel, and given its cost (and Fox’s impending sale to Disney) that open ending is punctuated by a much bigger question mark than when Cameron and Rodriguez embarked on this journey three years ago. But even if Cameron’s instincts for anticipating what audiences want are no longer quite as sharp as they once were, his ability to find the right people to tell his story the best way possible remain fully undiminished. Ambitious and earnest and unafraid to fail, “Alita: Battle Angel” is the kind of swing for the fences you wish happened more often, because it reminds us of the value of taking chances; it’s entertainment that not only has the ability to truly empower audiences, but give them something to believe in.

    4HgzZJRqLRKivV8blLO5Z4
  • ‘The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part’ Is a Joyful Jumble

    ‘The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part’ Is a Joyful Jumble

    Warner Bros.

    Five years ago, the notion of a movie about Legos seemed ridiculous, but after $500 million in box office receipts and two successful spin-offs, “The Lego Movie 2” is a highly- and understandably-anticipated event sequel. Phil Lord and Chris Miller, returning as co-screenwriters and producers, hand the reigns of this unlikely but irresistible franchise off to “Trolls” director Mike Mitchell for a story that builds (no pun intended) on the foundation of the first in terms of its thematic complexity, while expanding its eclectic landscape with the energy and abandon of an eight-year-old building a playset out of random bricks recovered from the forgotten corners of her toy box. Though not quite as effective as the first film (due in small part to a less clear idea, but also to the growing abundance of Lego-themed movies) “Lego Movie 2” exudes a certain sort of overpowering, sensory-overload charm to muscle its way into audiences’ hearts even if afterward their minds may remain a bit discombobulated by the experience.

    Picking up right where the previous movie ended, Bricksburg has been overrun by destructive, childlike Duplo blocks, turning the city into a post-apocalyptic wasteland. Despite this, Emmet (Chris Pratt) retains his unrelentingly optimistic outlook on life, to the growing consternation of his jaded “special best friend” Lucy (Elizabeth Banks). But when General Mayhem (Stephanie Beatriz) attacks the newly branded “Apocalypseburg” and captures Lucy, Batman (Will Arnett) and all of Emmet’s closest friends, he embarks on a dangerous journey to the Systar System to rescue them from a matrimonial ceremony for Queen Watevra Wa-Nabi (Tiffany Haddish).

    Warner Bros.

    En route to Systar, Emmet encounters Rex Dangervest (also Pratt), a roguish, multitalented adventurer who agrees to help the wholesome hero save his friends. After hearing Rex’s sad story of abandonment and loneliness, Emmet soon finds himself conflicted about what to do — especially after discovering that his friends have been seemingly brainwashed by Watevra. But as Rex teaches him some new skills — not just to build Legos, but how to break them — Emmet must decide whether to embrace his new mentor’s tough, unforgiving outlook on life as his likeliest means for survival agains an impending “Amompocalypse,” or if he wants to stay the same the sweet, lovable construction worker who once believed that being special means staying true to yourself.

    If the first “Lego Movie” was a thinly-veiled tribute to, and treatise on, creativity, “Lego Movie 2” feels in many ways like a manifestation of its inspirational message: screenwriters Phil Lord, Christopher Miller, Matthew Fogel and Raphael Bob-Waksberg tell a story that is literally born from the clashing imaginations of the two “real” children (played by Jason Sand and Brooklynn Prince) who have inherited their Dad’s (Will Ferrell) expansive toy collection. Unfortunately, that also means that its twists and turns, like those invented by kids with more enthusiasm than story sense, are often busy and sometimes overly convoluted, even if there are lots of fun diversions and digressions. At the same time, the film’s pop culture references — from “Mad Max Fury Road” to “Aquaman” — feel suitably organic for a pair of kids who undoubtedly have spent the intervening years between the first and second films consuming Hollywood’s biggest movies.

    Warner Bros.

    Some of the movie’s in-jokes work beautifully — especially those involving Rex Dangervest, a possible alternate-dimension version of Emmet who is a composite of Pratt’s characters from “Guardians of the Galaxy,” “Jurassic World,” “The Magnificent Seven,” and the persistent rumors that he was slated to play Indiana Jones at one point. But in expanding the universe and yet holding onto the idea that what Emmett and his friends are doing springs from the minds of the human characters, “Lego 2” eventually makes some leaps into “Toy Story” realms of fanciful impossibility that kind of derail the overall premise of the franchise (or at least invite more scrutiny than it needs).

    And yet, like Lord and Miller did with its predecessor, director Mitchell harnesses the limitless possibilities of a landscape that can be built, razed and rebuilt in the image of its creators for a dazzling visual and conceptual odyssey, though in this case to make an argument for cooperation, collaboration and mutual respect between disparate perspectives, both in the Lego and human worlds. Where the Lego characters continue to wrestle with their own identities, and with each other’s, the human kids do the same, trying to find an accord between an older brother’s evolving maturity, and a younger sister’s budding creativity. On screen, the end result is something discordant but joyful, unwieldy and frequently exhilarating, offering beautiful messages for kids about getting along with one another, and learning to respect different points of view. But ultimately, “The Lego Movie 2” feels like those lessons were imparted without quite being heeded by the filmmakers themselves, which may explain why the movie feels more like an exciting jumble of really intriguing parts than a unified, impactful whole.

    ohMvnQwMmCFrRriH751lB2
  • ‘Serenity’ and 10 More Crazy Movie Plot Twists That Totally Blew Your Mind

    ‘Serenity’ and 10 More Crazy Movie Plot Twists That Totally Blew Your Mind

     

  • 12 Movies That Deserved Oscar Nominations

    12 Movies That Deserved Oscar Nominations

  • How ‘Glass’ Connects to ‘Unbreakable’ and ‘Split’

    How ‘Glass’ Connects to ‘Unbreakable’ and ‘Split’

    Glass” marks the culmination of a story that began 19 years ago with the release of “Unbreakable,” M. Night Shyamalan’s tribute to superheroes and more broadly, the visual and narrative language of comic books. Though the prospect of completing its mythology once seemed unlikely, the success of 2016’s “Split,” a psychological thriller that featured a few important overlapping details (including a cameo from Bruce Willis as David Dunn) catapulted it back into the public consciousness. After finally arriving in theaters this weekend, Shyamalan’s long-awaited follow-up answers some lingering questions, clarifies important details about these characters, their lives and their connections to one another, and paints a fuller backdrop for this burgeoning world of super-powered individuals. Beware of spoilers if you have NOT seen “Glass” yet, but here are just a few of the motifs, themes and threads that tie these films together:

    Elijah Price

    Before he played “Avengers” assemblyman Nick Fury, Samuel L. Jackson helped find Shyamalan’s motley crew of super-powered individuals as Elijah Price. Elijah’s own origin story is built on twin interlocked pillars of unhappiness and pain — he was born with a disease that makes his bones susceptible to breaks, ostracizing him from other children. But it’s his resulting escape into comic books that drives the discovery, at a terrible cost, of his eventual adversary, and later, the proof that what he has read on the page of thousands of comics is a thinly-veiled version of reality. After the events of “Unbreakable ,” Elijah’s triumphant epiphany is undercut by almost two decades of institutionalization, but an introduction to Kevin Wendell Crumb (James McAvoy) rekindles his determination to show the world that heroes — and villains — do actually exist.

    David Dunn

    Bruce Willis had long since become one of Hollywood’s toughest guys by the time he took the role of David Dunn, a melancholy security guard who learns he has extraordinary abilities. If “Unbreakable” unveils not just his powers but his purpose, “Glass” gives his efforts meaning: after taking on the responsibility of combating evildoers, he faces his greatest opponent in Crumb, whose strength and endurance rival his own, but whose ferocity as The Beast counterbalances his resolve and moral clarity. Price eventually pits David and Kevin against each other in order to push them to show the true extent of their powers — both to themselves, and to the world at large.

    Kevin Wendell Crumb

    Like Jackson, James McAvoy was no stranger to superheroes before taking the role of Kevin Wendell Crumb, a young man who suffers from Dissociative Identity Disorder whose multiple personalities are in a constant battle for control of his body, which they call “the Light.” Shyamalan actually conceived the character at the time that he was writing “Unbreakable” but eventually cut that story down to focus on the balance of good and evil between that film’s two main characters, David and Elijah. In “Split,” many of Crumb’s personalities were showcased, as well as just a hint of his powers as The Beast, a creature with heightened strength, speed and abilities who’s believed to be the next step in man’s evolution. Because those abilities are largely demonstrated in the service of kidnapping young women whose bodies are later eaten, he soon finds himself in conflict with David; at the same time, Elijah provides his dueling personalities with a clear-eyed authoritative presence to drive them forward, leading to the showdown that occurs during the climax of “Glass.”

    Supporting Cast

    Though David and Elijah anchor the superhero dialectic in “Unbreakable,” a handful of supporting characters throughout that and “Split” play important roles in nudging them towards not just self-discovery but their destinies. Mrs. Price (Charlayne Woodard), Elijah’s mother, introduces him to comic books as a child as a way to get him to venture outside into a very frightening and dangerous world, paving the way for his expertise and even obsession with their conventions as an adult. Joseph Dunn (Spencer Treat Clark), David’s son, becomes his closest confidante as he begins to realize what he has been hiding (even from himself), and Joseph both idolizes him and encourages him to share those gifts with the world.

    And then from “Split,” Casey Cooke (Anya Taylor-Joy) is the only young woman to survive kidnapping by Crumb, and later, to be freed by The Beast. She becomes an unlikely ally after the three are detained, providing Crumb — or at least his buried “real” personality — with much of the unconditional love that he was refused that subsequently unleashed his violent alternates. Meanwhile, there’s also Jai (Shyamalan), a young drug dealer David briefly detains in “Unbreakable” who by the time of “Split” and “Glass” has turned his life around, and now himself works in security. Bonus trivia: the same character appeared in the non-“Unbreakable”-connected “The Village!” How’s that for a twist?

    Colors, Images and Sounds

    Shyamalan’s creation of the world of these characters was very detailed and deliberate, and as far back as “Unbreakable” he associated specific colors with each of the characters — in David’s case, the green of his poncho that conceals his identity, and in Elijah’s, various shades of purple (a color that just viscerally stands out on screen but is used particularly often with villains in comic books). He later adds another color to this landscape with Kevin, whose multiple personalities all in different ways seem to gravitate to some shade of yellow.

    Though he uses a different composer for “Unbreakable” than for “Split” and “Glass” (West Dylan Thorsdon), in the final film Shyamalan skillfully integrates cues from the first two to reinforce the continuity of the characters and to underscore thematic ideas like David’s understated pursuit of criminals. Finally, Shyamalan uses two scenes originally deleted from “Unbreakable” as a look inside the minds of David and Elijah at two particularly fraught moments in their journey in “Glass” that amplify the emotional intensity of their continued, individual and collective search for meaning.

    Eastrail 177

    Unofficially, “Unbreakable,” “Split” and “Glass” form what is known as the “Eastrail 177” trilogy, because it’s the train crash from “Unbreakable” that sets these characters on their path: Elijah, hoping to uncover news of a Super, sabotaged the train, causing all of its passengers except for David to die. Though he is ultimately — and horrifyingly — elated to discover what he’s been searching for, Elijah unexpectedly created two super-powered beings that day, because Kevin’s father died in the crash, leaving the then-child to deal with his mother’s own mental illnesses, which eventually caused his own. The Beast’s eventual discovery of this fact in the final scenes of “Glass” brings not just his own or David’s stories full circle, but Elijah’s, as the unhinged mastermind fulfills his destiny and finally exposes the world to superheroes — even as it comes at the ultimate cost.

  • Every Movie You Need To See Before Oscar Night

    Every Movie You Need To See Before Oscar Night

  • 20 Twin Films: Same Story, Different Stars

    20 Twin Films: Same Story, Different Stars

  • 21 Underrated Movies From the ’90s That You Should Give a Second Chance

    21 Underrated Movies From the ’90s That You Should Give a Second Chance