Movies – Page 39 – Colin McMahon

Marketing Method: The Lego Movie

Posted on February 8, 2014 by Colin McMahon

Believe it or not, Legos have actually existed since 1949. As early as the 1960s, there were Lego sets: knights, pirates, vikings, dinosaurs – that sort of thing. In the 1990s: Lego opened up the licensing game and since then we’ve had Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Harry Potter and even Avatar: the Last Airbender in Lego form. There have been fifty Lego video games, again from originals like Lego Island (which every 90’s kid owned) to licensed products like Lego Pirates of the Caribbean. Fifty games… and that’s not counting the Lego board games that also exist. There have also been Lego TV movies, Lego books, Lego clothing… Legoland. In short: since 1949 Lego has done everything possible with their product except a theatrical motion picture… until now.

2014 sees the release of the LEGO Movie. As stated before: this is the company’s first foray into theatrical pictures. Very likely it will not be the last. Before I go any further I want to stress that I still have not seen the LEGO Movie. I will in fact be seeing it later today but that is besides the point. This is not a review of the film but rather a critique in how they advertised it. For starters, the teaser trailer below:

Notice anything right away? Lego is pretty proud of the licensed characters they have. That and the movie looks… okay? It’s hard to tell, only a teaser after all. Let’s look at the trailer:

Wow they really want the audience to know that Batman is in this. He is the first character we are introduced to in the trailer. This raises warning signs. Primarily: licensing is more important than plot. In all honesty, this trailer did little to entice me into viewing the LEGO Movie as anything more than a quick cash-in aimed at the kids. Sure I (like most people alive) grew up with Lego, but I don’t see any of the Legos I grew up with in the trailer.

Instead I was easily able to guess which DC superhero had been the most profitable in the last ten years. Every scene in the trailer that focused on the “movie” part of the LEGO Movie also came off as either a quick joke (in most cases not a very funny one) or a very generic piece of the family movie experience pie: i.e. the love interest, the “believe-in-yourself” inspiration. The trailer ended with the expected voice cast celebrity highlights as well.

Remember when this guy played God and people thought it was funny? The LEGO Movie remembers... — Remember when this guy played God and people thought it was funny? *The LEGO Movie* remembers…

Needless to say: I personally was not expecting much from the LEGO Movie. Consider this a pleasant surprise. Not only is the LEGO Movie supposed to be good: it’s supposed to be very good. Ty Burr, of the Boston Globe, echoed my surprise: “My fingers rebel, but type it I must: “The LEGO Movie” is the first great cinematic experience of 2014“. That’s pretty high praise and again: he’s not the only one saying it. This appears to be a rare occurrence where the previews do not do the final product justice.

Lego should be mighty pleased with the film they put out… but they may want to have a word with their advertising team. Kids: yes, the trailers appealed to kids – but they were going to see it anyway. It should not be a surprise (albeit a welcome one) that this film can appeal to Lego fans of any age. After all: who at this point, did not grow up with Lego?

On a side note: who was the Lego Super Star Destroyer made for? No one who could actually assemble it could likely be publicly proud that they did so.

Blurring the Line Between Dumb and Fun: Star Trek Into Darkness

Posted on January 31, 2014 by Colin McMahon

In the summer of this past year, audiences were treated to the second film in J.J. Abrams Star Trek reboot series, Star Trek Into Darkness. The film posted overall positive reviews, earning a 72 on Metacritic and an 87 on Rotten Tomatoes. The critics and general public liked the movie, but not everyone was a fan. Shortly after its release, many diehard fans started creating videos and blogs, voicing their opinion that not only was Star Trek Into Darkness not good, it was the worst film to happen to the franchise ever. Guys: slow down. Let’s not say things we can’t take back. I’m not a Star Trek fan, I’ll say that right now. I haven’t seen every episode of every series; I haven’t even seen every movie – but I’ve seen most of them and off the top of my head, I can think of a couple worse than Star Trek Into Darkness.

So what’s up with Star Trek Into Darkness?

Why do people hate it so much?

Or especially this one. Seriously if you ever need to fall asleep: put this film on.

Yes, there are plot issues with Star Trek Into Darkness, which I will delve into, but ultimately I think a lot of the hatred has to do with this movie:

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is widely viewed as the best Star Trek film of all time. It has everything from the great Ricardo Montalban as Khan to a fun score by James Horner to the most quoted William Shatner line of all time. Wrath of Khan is definitely a fun, great movie… but I don’t think its as great as some fans make it out to be. For my money, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country has a much more interesting story. So while I don’t hate the Wrath of Khan, I don’t hold the film with reverence. Yet for many, it does. This is it: the best of the best in terms of Star Trek movies. So what’s it have to do with Star Trek Into Darkness?

Let’s just say there are similarities. While not enough to be called a remake, Star Trek Into Darkness is best likened to a re-imagining of Wrath of Khan. For starters, both movies feature Khan as the main antagonist. Both movies stress the brilliance of said antagonist and both movies’ climaxes involve the “death” (in both cases neither stay dead) of a major character.

Both deaths even occur in similar fashion with similar camera work.

The problem with “re-imaging” Wrath of Khan is that is what many diehard Trek fans didn’t want. Also, everyone was told multiple times that we weren’t going to be seeing Khan in the film. This was a marketing move made by director, J.J. Abrams, and one that he now regrets as it created a bizarre set of standards for a movie that wasn’t supposed to have anything to do with Wrath of Khan and then suddenly became closely tied to it.

The fun fact is that Benedict Cumberbatch is already rumored for a role in Episode VII. Of course, nothing is confirmed. — The fun fact is that Benedict Cumberbatch is already rumored for a role in *Episode VII*. Of course, nothing is confirmed.

So that was weird: it was a bizarre lie that did nothing but anger the public. No one was even fooled really, it was just a strange farce. Those who are familiar with Abrams’ work saw this coming. It is a mistake that the director has already made clear he does not want to happen again with Star Wars Episode VII.

Let’s talk about the film itself though: I remember seeing an advance screening of Star Trek Into Darkness and being very entertained by the first two-thirds of the movie before kind of losing it in the final act. I walked out of the theater with positive thoughts on the film, which I’ve already put down in writing.

Since then, however: the film has been analyzed. Let’s just say that if the plot was a ship, it would have sank faster than the Titanic from all the holes in it. Does Khan’s ability to warp across the galaxy undermine all space travel: yes. Does Dr. McCoy’s resurrection of Kirk prove that death is no longer permanent: yep. Is Leonard Nimoy entirely unneeded in the film: absolutely. However, only one of those (the last one) jumped out at me as I watched the film.

"I cannot alter your destiny. That being said, if William Shatner ever offers to direct, just say no." — “I cannot alter your destiny. That being said, if William Shatner ever offers to direct, just say no.”

Overall, while I agree with all the flaws found in Star Trek Into Darkness, I can’t say that I didn’t (or still don’t) enjoy the film. Yes it is stupid and yes, it is more of an action film than it should be (even the characters in the movie notice this). Star Trek Into Darkness is exactly what it set out to be: an entertaining action blockbuster. Really that should have surprised no one who saw the first Abrams’ Star Trek (which by the way is also really stupid when you think about it).

Like it or hate it, Star Trek Into Darkness is here to stay. It didn’t kill the franchise as another film has already been announced. Those out there who feel that J.J. Abrams is one of history’s greatest monsters will be happy to know that he won’t be directing this time around: he’s gone to a galaxy far, far away instead. Is Into Darkness a great film: nope, but I feel that it is an entertaining one and that is the first job of a movie like that: to be fun to watch.

Where are Catching Fire's Academy Nominations?

Posted on January 23, 2014 by Colin McMahon

Adaptations are now the norm of major Hollywood production. Very few truly original films are released to the public and that is true of this year. From Iron Man 3 to 12 Years a Slave to (of course) the Hobbit: the Desolation of Smaug: adaptations dominate the box office. Many of them, including the three I just mentioned, were positively received and earned Academy recognition for their efforts. Yet there is one missing from the list that many, including myself, feel has been overlooked. The Hunger Games: Catching Fire took in major dollars this year and earned its share of nominations, yet received no Oscar notice.

At first glance this appears improbable. One needs look no further than the casting to find an area worthy of Academy recognition. Jennifer Lawrence has already won an Oscar and received a nomination, this year, for her work in American Hustle. Granted, her performance in that movie is powerful, but in Catching Fire she is the soul of the movie. Suzanne Collins wrote her Hunger Games trilogy from the perspective of Katniss Everdeen. In the book, the reader was treated to a multitude of nuances and perceptions from Everdeen’s thoughts: everyone knew what she was thinking. Lawrence didn’t have that in the film. She made up for it in raw acting talent. The audience is able to feel all of Katniss’ emotional (as well as physical) struggles, thanks to the talents of Jennifer Lawrence.

There is no scene in this movie where Lawrence does not cement her talent as a lead actress.

Her work isn’t the only in the film to stand out. Unlike its predecessor, The Hunger Games, Catching Fire makes excellent use of its supporting cast. Woody Harrelson, Donald Sutherland, Stanley Tucci and Philip Seymour Hoffman all shine in their respective parts and easily could have merited Academy consideration. Best Supporting Actor is a tough category this year, filled with many (including Michael Fassbender and Bradley Cooper) strong performances competing. Catching Fire‘s omission from this category is understandable but still regrettable.

The real snub is the script. Audiences have already seen what a mediocre treatment of Collins’ writing looks like. They were treated to it in 2012 with the release of the Hunger Games. The result was a semi-entertaining film (thanks only to Jennifer Lawrence) that failed to deliver on any of the emotions or characters from the book. The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is flawless by contrast. As someone who read the book, there was little I noticed that was missing from the adaptation. Whenever a book is adapted into the movie, scenes must be smartly written to avoid losing their substance and Catching Fire is a prime example of adaptation done right. There is no wasted scene in the movie: there isn’t time for one. The film’s only weakness, its cliffhanger ending, is still reflective of its source material.

This film does not rely on acting alone to generate emotions. There are many powerful moments thanks to the script.

A last category to look at for nomination would have been the visual department, specifically “Costume Design” and “Makeup and Hairstyling”. Catching Fire does not have any enormous computer-generated creations to gawk at yet the movie still delivers many images that are visually striking. Again, it is startling because the audience has seen it done wrong in the previous film. Katniss Everdeen really does look like the “girl on fire” this time around and all the districts are given more personality through their wardrobe choice. With some suspect films taking nominations in these categories this year, it is sad to see Catching Fire left out in the cold.

At the end of the day, the Academy Awards are just that: awards. They are only more glorified by the amount of press coverage they receive. In the past, the Academy has omitted many great films from its “prestigious” recognition, including recent works like Wall-E and the Dark Knight. Films do not need Oscar wins to be memorable and there is little doubt that Catching Fire will be remembered as anything less than what it is: a fantastic adaptation of a thrilling novel. It is just a shame that the film Academy forget to notice it.

But seriously, how did this movie earn an Oscar nod before Catching Fire? — But seriously, how did this movie earn an Oscar nod before *Catching Fire*?

Find this and more great articles at Culective.