Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret - Review: Mom of the Year

 

There have been many book-to-film adaptations over the years, all running the gamut of various levels of quality. But there are a handful of books that seem perfect for film adaptations yet just aren’t for various reasons. “Are You There, God? It’s Me, Margaret” is one such book, given how protective author Judy Blume has been over her crowning achievement for decades. However, producer James L. Brooks (“Broadcast News,” “As Good as It Gets”) and writer/director Kelly Fremon Craig (“The Edge of Seventeen,” “Post Grad”) proved to be the perfect match for her on paper, and, thankfully, in practice as well.

Sixth grader Margaret, played by Abby Ryder Fortson (“Ant-Man and the Wasp,” “Togetherness”), is dealing with her family’s sudden move from downtown New York City to the suburbs of New Jersey. Not only that, she’s having to deal with her parents’ mixed religions, her changing body, and a new school environment. Her mother Barbara, played by Rachel McAdams (“The Notebook,” “Spotlight”), and father Herb, played by Benny Safdie (“Uncut Gems,” “Good Time”), are dealing with their own struggles, as is her grandmother Sylvia, played by Kathy Bates (“Misery,” “American Horror Story”).

It would be easy to describe this as a kind of “plotless” movie, but doing so would discredit the emotional journey that Craig and Fortson take the audience on. It’s extremely easy to fall in love with Margaret, as her journey to find herself in multiple different avenues of life is easily relatable to anyone who’s been 12 years old and a bit awkward (which is probably everyone). Fortson is an absolute powerhouse, making Margaret come alive with genuine humor and love and emotion throughout the film. It’s one of those performances that just feels so honest and real, it doesn’t feel like acting. She just is Margaret, plain and simple.

Likewise, McAdams is as charming and delightful as she’s always been. She has this effect of feeling like the “every-mom” that works wonders here and helps blossom Fortson’s emotional journey by extension, and vice versa. It’s an example of a pair of performances that are already great on their own, and are only made better by strengthening each other. Safdie is also great, managing to be better than the typical “goofy lovable dad” stereotype, and really bringing the emotion when he needs to. Bates is also great, with her character mostly occupying the comedic relief part, but coming in with fierce support and emotion when it counts.

The overall production design and music feel perfect here, nothing too over the top so as to draw attention away from the actors but not too discounted as to feel like an afterthought. Hans Zimmer’s (“The Lion King (1994),” “Dune (2021)”) score helps to accentuate Margaret’s journey across this 70s tale of womanhood and childhood. But it never overplays the moments, and that speaks to possibly the best aspect of the entire picture. Craig’s film is always respectful of Margaret, her mother, and everyone else’s journeys, but it never lets that respect get in the way of honesty. Things are messy and complicated and not always nice, and by showing those moments honestly, it helps to embolden the film’s portrayal of growing up and woman hood in the most respectful way possible.

It seems silly to say, given the supposed plainness of this film. There’s no big dramatic climax, no globe-spanning journey, no arch-nemesis or societal injustice to fight off. The central internal conflict Margaret deals with doesn’t even necessarily have a point-blank conclusion. But Craig, Blume, and Fortson don’t need any of that to deliver what is one of the best films of 2023. This incredibly respectful and honest emotional journey is one that is simply a delight, equal parts tear-jerking and hilarious. But never without a twinge of honesty and genuine heart that captures the genuine feeling of relating; we’ve all been here, even if we haven’t. 5/5

Evil Dead Rise - Review: Squeamish Need Not Apply

 

For many, Freddy is dead, Jason ain’t it, son, Michael is merely meh, Jigsaw should see himself out, and The Purge should be purged. For many horror fans, there is only one true form of evil: the dead kind. The “Evil Dead” series has had quite the tumultuous existence ever sense it first shambled onto screens way back in 1981. After sequels, a reboot, a television series, and even a few video games, the series is back and has risen to heights not seen in a very long time.

“Evil Dead Rise” follows Beth, played by Lily Sullivan (“Jungle,” “Picnic at Hanging Rock”), who travels to Los Angeles to visit her estranged sister Ellie, played by Alyssa Sutherland (“Vikings,” “Blood Vessel”), and her three kids, Danny, played by Morgan Davies (“Storm Boy,” “The End”), Bridget, played by Gabrielle Echols (“Remembrance”), and Kassie, played by Nell Fisher in her film debut. Shortly after the reunion though, the Book of the Dead comes into play, cutting their apartment building off from the outside world and unleashing hell onto this family.

What is there to even say about an “Evil Dead” film besides is it bloody and is it absurd? Well, “Rise” is gleefully both. Writer/Director Lee Cronin (“The Hole in the Ground”) douses his set and actors with copious amounts of blood and twisted machinations of terror at virtually every turn. But there’s also a great deal of restraint on display as well. The film’s first act might be a slow burn, but its not without purpose. Cronin is setting up emotional and physical dominos so that when hell is unleashed, it hits that much harder and is that much more satisfying. It’s a lot more fun to see someone use a pair of scissors on a deadite when you saw that pair of scissors left in just the right place before everything went crazy.

But the familial dynamic also results in a more emotionally rich film. Is that necessarily what an “Evil Dead” movie needs? Not really, but Cronin milks this dynamic wonderfully. By the very nature of it being a mother versus her children and sister, things are tinged with sadness in a way, and it lends itself to a meatier, more emotional hellscape as a result. We aren’t talking rich family drama the likes of “Marriage Story”, but even just a dash of it here makes things a hell of a lot more gruesome.

Those who disliked the self-serious tone of the 2013 reboot will be glad to hear that, while this is by no means “Army of Darkness” levels of jokey, the sly absurdity that helped to define the series is back in spades. “Rise” conjures up two kinds of chuckles: there’s the chuckling at an actually humorous moment or joke, and then there’s the chuckling through the absurdity. The smiling in the face of the “oh-my-god-what-the-hell-are-they-doing-this-is-messed-up” feeling that is regularly felt through the 107 minutes of this absolutely relentless blood fest.

Sullivan is an absolute powerhouse, easily earning her spot alongside Ash Williams himself and the myriad of other final girls from the history of horror. She’s incredibly charming and easy to root for, but also not a genius. She stumbles along the adventure, but not without merit, grit, or determination. Davies, Echols, and Fisher are all fantastic and have great sibling chemistry, a bright spot in an otherwise grim as hell experience which ends up inadvertently making the experience grimmer by the end. Meanwhile, Sutherland is an absolute force. She’s beaten up, doused in fire and blood, and turned into an absolute monster and is clearly having a blast throughout the entire thing. It’s hard to find an actor committing so much to a character, physically and emotionally, and having so much fun doing it.

So, let’s go over the checklist. Absurdist tone? Check. Horror laced with black comedy humor? Check. Buckets of blood? Check. A cast committed to the horrors on display? Check. A chainsaw? Absolutely check. “Evil Dead Rise” is absolutely everything an “Evil Dead” fan could ever want, returning to the roots of the series in the best ways possible and having an absolute blast doing it. For those who aren’t indoctrinated into the cult of the Deadite, this is also a great place to start. Oh, and for those who don’t like even the tamer horror movies out there, stay far far away. This is a nasty movie, gleefully so, and fans wouldn’t want it any other way. 4.5/5

Renfield - Review: Does this Dracula Suck?

 

There have been plenty of partnerships over the course of the cinematic landscape. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Thelma and Louise, Bill and Ted, Bonnie and Clyde. But Renfield is likely an unknown name to a large number of moviegoers despite being the sidekick to one of the most famous horror creations of all time. If Count Dracula is spending all of his time sitting in his castle, someone has to go fetch the hapless humans to have their blood sucked, right?

That’s the premise of “Renfield”, the new horror-comedy from director Chris McKay (“The LEGO Batman Movie,” “The Tomorrow War”) and writers Robert Kirkman (“The Walking Dead,” “Invincible”) and Ryan Ridley (“Community,” “Rick & Morty”). Renfield, played by Nicholas Hoult (“Mad Max: Fury Road,” “The Favourite”), wants to break free of the controlling grasp of his boss and master Dracula, played here with pure glee by Nicolas Cage (“The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent,” “Face/Off”). He befriends police officer Rebecca, played by Awkwafina (“The Farewell,” “Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings”), who’s trying to chase down mob boss Ella, played by Shohreh Aghdashloo (“The Expanse,” “House of Sand and Fog”), and her annoying mobster son Teddy Lobo, played by Ben Schwartz (“Sonic the Hedgehog (2020),” “The Afterparty”).

If you read a premise like that and are a bit confused as to why a film named after Dracula’s assistant also features a subplot involving the mob, you’re not wrong to feel that way. As fun as the film can be when it's all working, there are also plenty of times where the subplots feel disconnected from the tone of the rest of the project. It does all fit together in the end, but multiple times it can feel similar to the human-based subplots in a Godzilla film: they’re there for a reason and they don’t not work, but they’re definitely not the reason everyone is at the theater.

Hoult is absolutely fantastic. Given the basic premise, it's easy to root for Renfield, but he really goes the extra mile to make him as lovable and borderline adorable as possible. Cage is also fantastic but headed in the opposite direction. He plays Dracula with a kind of glee and energy that simply cannot be described. It’s as if his entire career has led to this one role, and he’s diving head first into playing the blood sucking prince of darkness. 

The rest of the cast, meanwhile, are merely fine. No one is doing a poor job, but they simply don’t have the energy of Hoult or Cage. Awkwafina is perfectly serviceable, and in the scenes featuring just her and Hoult or Cage, their energy seems to infect her and bring out the best in her performance. Schwartz is definitely doing a lot, and how much of that annoys you or delights you will vary. Aghdashloo is also fine, delivering a routine mob boss performance as best as the script will allow her to.

McKay definitely makes great use of New Orleans as a location. The self-described “most haunted city in America” is a great modern backdrop for a vampire story like this, and the decrepit parts of the city make for a great playground for the film’s action sequences. At the same time, its brighter spots and locations help to emphasize Renfield’s journey of self-discovery and self-esteem.

That journey is definitely where the film’s heart lies. Hoult brings a lot to the character, but the absurdity of showcasing a story of abuse and self-respect against a horror-comedy tale like this helps it all come across a lot better. There’s a big gooey heart at the center of the film and a surprising amount of respect shown to the subject. There aren’t any cheap jokes or shots at others going through the same things at Renfield’s support group. It’s a comedy about abuse that doesn’t find the subject funny in the slightest and it's refreshing.

Such a tale does take a back seat during the moments when Renfield needs to kick ass, and kick ass he does. The film’s action sequences definitely are stylish, if a bit out of place. John Wick style slow motion fights with bug-sourced superpowers are likely not what first come to mind with a premise like this. But when the literal fire hoses of blood are spurting and the comedy-laced action is happening, it's hard to complain. It isn’t the most graceful or inventive action in the world, but there’s still fun to be had watching someone rip a goon's arms off and then impale another goon to a wall with said ripped-off arms.

“Renfield” is an odd duck of a movie, much like its protagonist. There are plenty of various elements all colliding together here (the horror-comedy, the themes of abuse, the gleeful violence, the mobster subplots) and they don’t all connect gracefully. Also, despite being a little over 90-minutes, there are times where it can feel both rushed and slowly paced, so this is clearly a movie where your mileage may vary. But at its core, this is a sweet and silly movie that takes itself just seriously enough to make you fall in love with Renfield and enjoy his journey of self-discovery and silliness. 3/5

Beau is Afraid - Review: And So Should Audience Members

 

Every director, at some point in their career, will direct a movie completely free of any sort of outside input, whether that be the studio, an additional editor, writer, or anyone else. It’s happened to plenty of filmmakers over the years, and the opportunity can arise for any number of reasons: their previous films have made a lot of money, their vision already fits with what the studio wants to do, they can do it for a low budget, etc. But no matter what, while a filmmaker getting to make their uncompromised vision in this age of cinema is certainly a reason to celebrate, the end product might not be one.

Starring Joaquin Phoenix (“Joker,” “Walk the Line”) as the titular Beau Wasserman, Ari Aster’s (“Hereditary,” “Midsommar”) “Beau is Afraid” follows this anxious and neurotic man on a journey to try and visit his mother, Mona Wasserman, played by Patti LuPone (“Company,” “Life Goes On”), with an ensemble rounded out by Nathan Lane (“The Birdcage,” “The Lion King (1994)”), Amy Ryan (“Only Murders in the Building,” “Gone Baby Gone”), Kylie Rogers (“The Whispers,” “Miracles from Heaven”), Parker Posey (“Lost in Space (2018),” “Dazed and Confused”), Stephen McKinley Henderson (“Lady Bird,” “Dune (2021)”), and Richard Kind (“Inside Out,” “A Serious Man”). How one would even begin to describe this movie beyond that is a different story, because this is one of those films where both very little and a lot happens all at once.

Aster is no stranger to metaphors, and there’s something to be said for a film that traffics almost exclusively in them. There is, after all, no better way to find your way inside a character’s head than to see the world how they do, rather than how it may actually be. But at a minute under three hours, “Beau” takes some willpower to get through as each of its three acts feel as though they could be entire films. That’s both due to the incredibly dense layers of metaphor but also because the film’s pacing is horrible. It crawls along, and while there are times where it absolutely works, it quite simply becomes virtually unbearable by the film’s end.

It's use of metaphor also proves to be a double-edged sword. For every insightful use of symbolism or fantasy, there’s another that seems as though a fourth grader could have come up with it. It’s both some of the best and some of the dumbest allegorical storytelling in a long time, and that’s driven home by the ending. The film’s last ten minutes are easily its most frustrating, as it seems as though Aster is trying to have his cake and eat it too, while also baking a whole new cake.

At the risk of lightly spoiling some of the film’s events, the film’s biggest issue simply comes down to its delivery of the fantastical versus the real. There is no established baseline for the film’s reality, which makes some of its more fantastical elements harder to comprehend. The city Beau lives in during the film’s first third is a post-apocalyptic hellscape, but its hard to tell if he’s simply imagining this, if this is a product of his neurosis and anxiety, or if this is actually the world as it exists. Because that baseline is never established, later sequences that seem to delve into more explicit fantasy become more difficult to parse as its not clear what is Beau’s mind and what is actually the world as it exists. And maybe that’s the point, that the world is so overwhelming that it becomes impossible for Beau, and by extension the audience, to distinguish between reality and fantasy. But if that’s the case, then it also draws into question his reactions to this world?

It's a muddled mess of metaphors that becomes more difficult to deal with because of how excellent the cast is. Phoenix is superb, really drawing us into the neurosis of this troubled mama’s boy in a way that becomes extremely easy to pity and sympathize with. The rest of the cast, while they are great, feel more as though they’re playing overblown caricatures. Maybe that’s the point, that everyone is meant to feel larger than life and heightened due to Beau. But again, because there’s never a baseline, we don’t know if this is actually him or just the world at large.

It’s disappointing because, for thirty minutes, there’s a stretch of film in the middle that showcases some truly wonderful use of animation, production design, and fantasy. This is the best part of the film by far, as it manages to juxtapose Beau’s real life with his fantasies simply and effectively and gets far more across than the rest of the film has in the hour and a half that preceded it.

Regardless of what’s real and what’s not, the thing that makes “Beau is Afraid” so frustrating is the fact that, even if you understand what’s going on, by the time credits roll, it feels like you’ve just been dragged through the mud with Beau with no point in sight. Yes, there is certainly a reason these events happened, that’s not up for debate, but to sit in this stew of neurosis for three hours and simply be handed a basic example of “mommy issues, amiright?” feels borderline disrespectful.

To explain why almost turns the discussion into an ouroboros: the metaphors don’t have a point to them, which makes the experience feel worthless. But the experience doesn’t inherently have to have “worth” to be good, it can just be a movie. But the film builds these metaphors up to such a degree that it feels like there must be a meaning, otherwise why would they build it all up to such a degree? And if they don’t have a meaning or a point, then the whole experience feels worthless, and the circle begins again.

What is undeniable though is the technical merits of the film. The production design is simply astonishing in each various chunk, and its clear that no cent was spared in this, A24’s most expensive production yet. It’s a feat of creativity and technical wonder. It’s also an incredibly funny film too, with some of the bleakest bits of deadpan laughter and comedy delivery in quite a while. Phoenix really can do deadpan better than most give him credit for, and the entire film is a fantastic showcase for that.

“Beau is Afraid” is a confounding film, mostly because the issues with its fantastical nature and metaphors don’t really come into effect until the last forty-five minutes or so. Prior to that, it has a thrilling feeling of mystery to it all, that we the audience are going on this technically impressive and well-acted journey will Beau and we’ll get to piece it all together together! Its only once things start getting pieced together that you realize how shallow it all is, poisoning the preceding events by association. It’s not hard to admire a film of such clear singular vision that’s so impressive on a technical level. Just don’t expect much more below the surface. 3/5

Air (2023) - Review: A Shoe-In True Story Tale

 

There’s an eye-rolling quality to the premise of “Air.” A movie about the guys who made the Air Jordan? Really? What could that possibly even be? Well, there’s a gung-ho spirit to the film, thanks to Affleck’s direction and the strengths of his cast, that make this feel like some good old-fashioned cinema.

The film follows Sonny Vaccaro, played by Matt Damon (“Good Will Hunting,” “The Bourne Identity”), a talent scout working for Nike’s ailing sports division in 1984. One day, he gets an idea: to build a shoe line entirely around one athlete, instead of inviting multiple athletes to be the face of the division. He and his team, consisting of Nike CEO Phil Knight, played by Ben Affleck (“Good Will Hunting,” “Argo”), Marketing VP Rob Strasser, played by Jason Bateman (“Arrested Development,” “Ozark”), and shoe designer Peter Moore, played by Matthew Maher (“Our Flag Means Death,” “Hello Tomorrow!”), then build a pitch to Michael Jordan, his mother Deloris, played by Viola Davis (“The Woman King,” “Widows”), and father James, played by Julius Tennon (“The Woman King”).

Yeah, its honestly not much of a premise, and on paper its easy to see it not lasting more than an hour on some CNN “History of the Decade” style documentary. But Affleck and writer Alex Convery make it work because of the heavy emphasis on Sonny and his team. By building it as a story not just about a legendary partnership, but also the underdogs who put it together and why they believed in it, it makes the film far more emotionally satisfying than it otherwise could have been.

Damon is great, channeling his talent for playing gung-ho underdogs well, delivering crackling dialogue against his supporting cast. Affleck is fairly low-key, channeling a borderline bohemian attitude to play Phil. Davis brings the same kind of gravitas that she always does, turning the dialogue into gold, and the scenes between her and Damon are the best parts of the film. The rest of the cast are all great, building up this slick 80s underdog tale well without ever overplaying the schmaltz.

Affleck’s direction is incredibly solid and harkens back to a lot of the old-school office/board room movies of the 80s and 90s. There’s not a lot of technical wizardry on display when watching two characters sit in a dimly-lit office at night, talking about a deal or life story. But, its not a lack of flair, rather a showcase of restraint. Affleck knows this story doesn’t need to be showy, and his decision to let the script and performances carry the film forward is incredibly smart.

It doesn’t mean there isn’t any flair, as his penchant for needle drops is as evident as ever, but those moments are well used, spicing up the film when necessary instead of overwhelming it. Sure, there are still moments that tumble into silliness or melodrama (“What if we call it… Air Jordan?”) but these moments are honestly rare and given the grounded nature of the overall product, its easy to roll your eyes and smile, then go right back to enjoying the tale.

“Air” is an example of some good old-fashioned movie making, low stakes and grounded, letting the performances carry the film. It’s a fantastic addition to the “dad cinema” subgenre occupied by other films like “Jerry Maguire,” “Moneyball,” and “Argo.” It’s just a really solid, entertaining, charming underdog story that’s fine being nothing more than just a really good adult-aimed drama. 4.5/5

The Super Mario Bros. Movie - Review: A Saturday Morning Cartoon... for Better and Worse

 

Besides Mickey Mouse, Nintendo’s Mario is likely the most well-known fictional person in the world. Even people who don’t know what a Nintendo Switch is or who Yoshi is likely have at least seen a picture of Mario at some point in their lives. He’s everywhere, officially or otherwise. Which is why the 90s live-action Mario film starring Bob Hoskins was such a massive failure: it was so disliked, it made Nintendo avoid another Mario movie for almost three decades.

That’s why, in 2023, after over thirty-five years of the Super Mario brothers, we have our first animated film courtesy of a partnership between Illumination and Nintendo. And partnership is absolutely the right word, as Nintendo has clearly been as heavily involved with the making of this film as Illumination, leading any film-savvy audience member to believe that this is Nintendo’s true vision of how they want to see their plumbing icon brought to the big screen.

The result of that true vision and partnership? Well, it’s certainly not a super star, that’s for certain. The film follows Mario and Luigi, voiced by Chris Pratt (“Guardians of the Galaxy,” “Parks and Recreation”) and Charlie Day (“It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia,” “The LEGO Movie”), as they’re sucked into the Mushroom Kingdom and separated. Mario teams up with Princess Peach, voiced by Anya Taylor-Joy (“The Queen’s Gambit,” “The Menu”), and the adventurous Toad, voiced by Kegan Michael-Key (“Keanu,” “Schmigadoon!”), to find Luigi and rescue him from the evil Bowser, voiced by Jack Black (“School of Rock,” “Kung Fu Panda”), with their quest also involving Donkey Kong, voiced by Seth Rogen (“Pineapple Express,” “Kung Fu Panda”).

From the first moments of the film, it’s clear that a lot of love and attention went into representing the Mushroom Kingdom and the Mario world on the big screen. Illumination, a studio known for cranking out lower budget and quickly made animated films, have pulled out all the stops on this, their highest budgeted film. Each different land crackles with personality and bright colors. Flowers give off a neon glow, and each power-up is a delightful display of animated frenzy. It’s possibly the most gorgeous animated movie made in years, and absolutely deserves to be a crown visual jewel in Illumination’s crown.

On the flipside though, it also contains what might be one of the most generic plots in any animated film in recent years, even for Illumination. Writer Matthew Fogel (“The LEGO Movie: The Second Part,” “Minions: The Rise of Gru”) surely had a lot of notes and restrictions from Nintendo, but at the same time, what’s here is a plot that feels like nothing really happens. There’s no momentum, just a bunch of scenes put next to each other. At no point does it feel like Mario and his friends are going on an actual journey, just that they’re going from point a to b because the plot dictates it so. Bowser certainly gets the most to work with, but that’s more so because his goals and characterization are the least generic in the film.

That’s not to say the film isn’t enjoyable. It manages to hit the right amount of nostalgia and easter eggs to avoid feeling completely overblown. Most of the best gags are smartly hidden in the background, as opposed to jumping out with big neon arrows pointing at them. It means that they’re there for people who know to look, and if you don’t know, you won’t be left behind for not recognizing them. Musically, the film also achieves the same balance, as Brian Tyler’s () score is predictably chocked full of classic Mario tunes from Koji Kondo (), blending them all together in a delightful musical smoothie. It helps that Kondo’s music is already legendarily good, but the film’s bizarre and overutilized licensed tracks help the Mario music seem that much better as they stick out like multiple, head-scratching sore thumbs.

The film’s humor, meanwhile, runs the gamut from crowd-pleasing to bizarrely cynical. It’s certainly an odd mix, but it’s got enough that works to chuckle at for ninety minutes without complaint. Oddly enough, that runtime is one of the film’s weakest aspects, mostly because it means things rocket along at a blistering pace. Virtually none of the scenes are allowed to linger or breathe, simply moving from one moment to the next. It’s not hard to imagine a world where this movie is maybe ten minutes longer and is all the better for it.

Despite much hoopla surrounding the casting, the voice acting is across the board pretty fine. Pratt isn’t exactly the most natural voice for Mario, but he’s fine and gets the job done. Taylor-Joy doesn’t sound anything like Peach in the games but keeps her energy up and it helps her deliver a fun performance. Day is underutilized but fits Luigi as a character perfectly, and anytime he’s onscreen the film is made better. Michael-Key is also fine, but the film is predictably carried by Black’s Bowser. As someone with years of voice-acting experience, he brings the energy and skills required to make his portrayal of the Koopa King really shine, and he’s the highlight of the entire film. Rogen, while not as good as Black, also takes advantage of his years of voice-acting, giving his DK a lot of energy to help bolster his performance.

It's easy to see someone writing an 800-plus-word review for “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” and roll your eyes. “Really?” you ask me. “It’s a Mario movie. What did you expect?” Well, to compare it to another light-hearted, overly silly movie, a few years back the directors of the movie, Aaron Horvath (“Teen Titans GO! To the Movies,” “Elf: Buddy's Musical Christmas”) and Michael Jelenic (“Teen Titans GO! To the Movies,” “Elf: Buddy's Musical Christmas”) made a movie called “Teen Titans GO! To the Movies” that managed to be extremely silly, lighthearted, and also legitimately good.

For a more outrageous example that also uses a decades old classic merchandising icon, a few years back an animated movie was released that seemed like it would be hot garbage that someone managed to not only be visually gorgeous, but emotionally engaging and extremely funny. But even beyond that, it got to the core of what the property it was based on means, not just to the fans, but at the very core of its being. That movie was “The LEGO Movie” and while it might be unfair to compare the two, its hard to argue that their origins were far more similar than one might want to initially admit. So why couldn’t this have been the case for this?

So, were expectations too high for the first animated version of the world’s favorite plumber? Who’s to say? As it stands, for all of its faults, the film excels in one specific aspect: it rekindles the age of the Saturday morning cartoon. It captures that spirit of sitting and staring up at a screen, with colors flashing across laughing to yourself at the silly jokes and turning your brain off for ninety-minutes. It’s certainly not great, but it’s a fun distraction that should entertain and put a smile on many, many viewers faces. And maybe that’s all it needed to do. 3.5/5