Movie review - DC League of Superpets

I went with some nieces and a nephew to watch another comic book movie at the weekend. This time it was animated and focused on the DC Superpets, a spin-off in the DC comics franchise. Mild spoilers follow the picture of the film poster. 

The film centres on Krypto, Superman's super-powered dog, and various other animals from a local rescue shelter who receive superpowers from a fragment of orange kryptonite. They have to work together to thwart the evil scheme of a maniacal guinea pig who had been experimented on by Lex Luthor. It has a strong voice cast, including Dwayne Johnson as Krypto and Kevin Hart as Ace, a dog from the shelter who will end up being Batdog. 

Despite the promising premise, the film suffered from the same problems as pretty much all the other DC movies that have been released. The plotting was sedate. There were scenes and battles that did not add anything to the overall plot and just slowed things down. The final resolution was the same as every other DC film I've seen - a big punch up. (In fairness, this is a problem for almost every comic book movie.)

There were some funny jokes like the dogs playing with squeaky toys of superheroes. There were humorous references to other superhero franchises, like Superman ironing a shirt with his laser vision and toying with the idea of calling himself Iron Man.  I laughed at the recording of Krypto's father that always started the same way and Krypto saying he needed a skip intro button. And I was very amused by the character of a kitten given superpowers who became a living weapon as a result.

However, some scripting choices were a bit off. Merton the sweary tortoise got bleeped on a couple of occasions instead of cutting away or substituting other words as happens in most animated movies. Maybe the studio thought it was in keeping with DC's attempt to be the 'edgy' comic book franchise. I don't think any of the kids watching with us picked up on it, but it felt clunky. 

Another misstep was the production team's assumption that the audience would know who everyone was, especially when human superheroes turned up. I got some of the references and inside jokes, and I imagine DC super-nerds would get more. However, I don't think the jokes are so good it is worth investing the time and effort to become a DC super-nerd just to get the references. 

There were also scenes that play on Batman's origin story and take the mickey out of the darkness in the Dark Knight. But that road has already been well trodden in The Lego Movie and The Lego Batman Movie (reviewed here). The jokes at Batman's expense in Superpets felt hackneyed as a result, so even this self-deprecation by the franchise felt stale.

Overall, I enjoyed the film and don't regret going to see it. But my main impression is that even in an animated film which is supposed to be aimed at children and therefore a bit silly, the DC franchise can't escape from its own drawbacks. 

The Lego Batman Movie - a semi-critical review (with some spoilers) from someone who loves Lego

The term AFOL (Adult Fan of Lego) is becoming more prominent, and certainly there seem to be more of us around now. Gone are the days when I would wonder round the Lego Shop in town looking sheepishly at all the lovely Lego sets and hoping no one thought I was a weirdo for not having kids in tow. Lego is now a semi-respectable hobby for grown ups too.

A lot of this is down to The Lego Movie that came out a couple of years ago and catapulted Lego back into the wider public eye. I thought The Lego Movie was a great film, and it would probably make it into my top ten animated films that even people who don't like cartoons would like. But it did that off a funny script, an interesting storyline, and the right number of in-jokes - not too many to make non-Lego fans feel like outsiders, but enough to make me smile to myself. Benny's broken helmet strap, the blink and you'll miss it references to Fabuland, that sort of thing.

Batman was one of the surprise supporting characters from The Lego Movie. He was a funny version of the well-known comic book and movie character. His comment about only building using black or very dark grey and his love of his self-penned thrash metal squeezed the pips of humour out of the Batman mythos, but all in the service of The Lego Movie's story.

As a result, I was looking forward to The Lego Batman Movie. But this is a case of where a supporting character can't really carry a whole movie. Cathy has told me of a conversation she had with our friend Tom about this, where they talked about the lower quality of the film Minions in comparison to Despicable Me where they first appeared. The Minions are funny little sideshow characters in Despicable Me. They struggled when carrying a whole film. And in this case Batman suffers the same fate.

The film is funny. There are moments that really amused me. The way they trawled the DC Comics archive for all the stupidest villains for a villain ensemble was funny. Calendar Man, anyone? Kite Man? The Eraser, who looks like a pencil? These are all real and really hilarious. There was a flashback sequence with tableaux from almost all the Batman films in franchise history, which was very cool. Alfred dons an Adam West era outfit and says he misses the sixties. At one point Batman warns Robin they are going to hit the bad guys so hard that words will appear in the air, and sure enough TV Batman style 'KA-POW' explodes into life when he punches a baddie. There's a can of shark repellent. All good gags. All made me laugh.

But there was still a hollowness to it. At the end of the day this was just a mickey-take of Batman - something that has been done before many, many times. We know the story of Batman. Bruce Wayne. Dick Grayson. Barbara Gordon. These are all people we know. When Batman appeared in The Lego Movie, he was a new kind of Batman, He was Lego Batman. And we didn't know him. He was WildStyle's unreliable boyfriend and a bit of a douche. But he was a new character to learn about and relate to.

Batman in The Lego Batman Movie isn't new. He isn't even the Batman we knew from The Lego Movie. He's an amalgam of all the Batmen we have known before. Gotham City isn't new. It's just Gotham City made out of computer generated Lego. The Joker isn't new. We've seen him before and he was more interesting when he was played by Jack Nicholson, Heath Ledger or Jared Leto.

There is a break with tradition in that the Joker enlists some other villains trapped in the "Phantom Zone"; all of them villains with a Warner Bros licence. It is amusing watching Sauron as the lidless eye rampaging through Gotham, or the great white shark from Amity Beach recruited to the cause of evil.(But is 'Jaws' evil? That's a conundrum worth discussing. It's just a shark doing what sharks are reputed to do.) But we have seen unlikely team-ups before, in The Lego Movie, for example, with cameos from Chewbacca and Lando Calrissian, and Gandalf and Dumbledore sitting next to each other.

Overall, what made The Lego Movie work was it was about Lego, but also about a whole lot more. The Lego Batman Movie isn't really about Lego. It's just using Lego as a medium to poke affectionate fun at a franchise that has been pastiched to death in recent years, and whose own 'serious' films are bordering on self-parody now. No amount of clever in-jokes, smartly done animation or witty lines delivered in perfect comic timing by Will Arnett could raise this film to the level of The Lego Movie.

It certainly doesn't suck, but The Lego Batman Movie needed more Lego and less Batman.

Toy mash-ups - are companies 'jumping the shark'

Anyone who has been to my house, or followed this blog, will know that I like toys and buy far more than the average child-free almost-40 year old.

Toy mash-ups have become a thing in the past few years, mainly because big companies like Hasbro and Mattel own a number of lines and the easiest way of developing new products is to take two things that work and wang them together. I'm not talking about branded versions of popular toys like Minions Monopoly, or even the licensed Lego sets that are produced featuring Lego versions of film and comic heroes. I'm talking about taking two toys and merging them.

Sometimes these work. I own a Star Wars Transformer that transforms from Boba Fett to his spaceship, Slave 1, and back. I also own several Mr Potato Heads dressed up as well-known film characters, including Darth Tater, Optimash Prime and Spider-Spud. (I'm not really sure these actually match the definition I put in the previous paragraph, but it seems right to refer to Mr Potato Head toys as mash-ups!) Hot Wheels have recently produced car versions of Star Wars characters and Marvel characters. These work better than you think.

But then you get things which take two franchises and mash them together and it just seems redonkulous. Today, I have seen some toys that I think show toy manufacturers have 'jumped the shark'. I give you... DC Comics versions of Thomas the Tank Engine toys.

In a 4 pack

In a 9 pack

And something to stick them in

This is WEIRD. Firstly, are really little kids - the primary target for Thomas - going to want DC Comics branded characters? Will they know who Green Lantern or The Flash are? Fisher Price have had a series of small-person suitable figures for a while, but will little kids get the cross-over?

Secondly, will this upset the Thomas purists and put them off? I occasionally visit a model railways forum and the moaning on there about how Thomas has been developed since going into American ownership is only going to get worse. Adults buy toys, and grandparents are the ones I think would be most likely to buy Thomas toys. I'm not sure these will appeal to that demographic.

Thirdly, is this even a mash-up that makes sense? In the Thomas series we know the good engines are the steam engines and the diesels are the bad guys, kind of. But here we have a Green Lantern diesel versus a Sinestro steam engine. The Batman-themed four-pack are all steam engines, but two are done up as the Riddler and the Joker. This makes it very confusing by ignoring the natural fault-lines that currently exist in the Thomas universe.

I don't know, maybe this will be a massive hit and children will be pestering their parents for them. There possibly is a link between the kind of people who like railways and comic book nerds. This could be the toy line of the year. But I have serious doubts.

On the other hand, this car from Playmobil is golden.

Playmobil Porsche 911

I quite like Playmobil, but I don't recall them going into licensing much before. They certainly don't so it as much as Lego, who also have Porsches available. This costs £30 and I honestly think it's probably the best value of the new toys I have seen come onto shelves in 2016. The lights work. It will be a solid, play-resistant model and it looks very, very good.

It also comes with a Porsche garage interior and a mechanic. From the looks of the box you can swap bumpers, spoiler and wheel trims to customise it if you so want. The garage bit will also make a nice backdrop if you wanted to display it.

Reverse of the box

Playmobil doesn't have the following the Lego or Star Wars figures both have. But I imagine the fact this is a Porsche will make it a highly desirable toy well after it goes out of production. It could turn out to be highly collectible and I am seriously weighing up whether to buy one.