The Running Man (2025).

Review #2471: The Running Man (2025).

Cast: 

Glen Powell (Ben Richards), Josh Brolin (Dan Killian), Colman Domingo (Bobby "Bobby T" Thompson), Lee Pace (Evan McCone), Michael Cera (Elton Parrakis), Emilia Jones (Amelia Williams), William H. Macy (Molie Jernigan), Daniel Ezra (Bradley Throckmorton), Jayme Lawson (Sheila Richards), Alyssa and Sienna Benn (Cathy Richards), Katy O'Brian (Jenni Laughlin), Karl Glusman (Frank), Martin Herlihy (Tim Jansky), Sean Hayes (Gary Greenbacks), David Zayas (Richard Manuel), and Sandra Dickinson (Victoria Parrakis) Directed by Edgar Wright (#971 - Baby Driver, #1537 - Shaun of the Dead, #2408 - Scott Pilgrim vs. the World)

Review: 

“It’s clear, having done test screenings, that there are people who have neither read the book nor seen the 1987 film. But when it first came to me, I wasn’t interested in doing a remake of the film because there wasn’t any sort of reason to do that. I think the reason to remake a film is if there’s something else in the material. So it was never going to be a scene-for-scene literal remake. It was always, in our heads, a new adaptation of the source material.”

You might remember that The Running Man was originally a novel before being churned into the moviemaking circuit. Stephen King, under the pseudonym Richard Bachman, originally wrote the novel in 1982 as a paperback original. It was set in the year 2025 in which a dystopian America has a government-operated TV station that has shows fit for public consumption in violence that included "The Running Man", where one has to survive 30 days from any opportunistic person and a group of killers to go along with having to send in messages every day. Apparently, the book featured the contestants getting $100 an hour to stay alive and $100 for every cop or hunter they kill. King apparently wrote the work in the span of a week (as opposed to his process of writing pages-to-pages in a few months). The 1987 movie came about as the result of people who saw the idea of George P. Cosmatos or Andrew Davis to direct Christopher Reeve and said, nope, you're getting Paul Michael Glaser (past star of Starsky & Hutch and future director of Kazaam) directing Arnold Schwarzenegger, as written by Steven E. de Souza. There are a few beats in the movie that was pretty fun beneath the slashing to the literary material...because all one had to do was go through four game quads in three hours. Yep, just three hours while dealing with dudes that had the following: a hockey-themed killer, a dude on a chainsaw, an opera singing electric shooter and a flamethrower to go along with Richard Dawson having probably the time of his life as Killian (in the book, Killian is merely just the producer, not the actual host). Funny enough, a lawsuit came out not too long after the release of the film that accused the film of plagiarizing a 1982 French film Le prix du danger, which had been an adaptation of Robert Sheckley's 1958 short story “The Prize of Peril" (that story had a normal man faced with escaping murderers with the help of alleged good Samaritans, incidentally). Incidentally, the 2025 movie, in following certain beats of the book while having its own type of ending, was endorsed by King. Oh, and it is a movie where you can see Arnold Schwarzenegger on the $100 bill.

There will be people who just compare it to the 1987 movie (one that could alternatively be cited as being a fun action movie but also one you really can't take seriously) and basically not give this movie the fair shake it deserves. And damn it, this feels like one of those movies that deserves to have a following because it just wants to aim for slick entertainment in seeing both a dystopia built on illusions that probably aren't too different from our world (a nation built on suffering, maybe?). This would probably make a good double feature with the other King adaptation of this year in The Long Walk, with both movies having an ordinary guy choosing to participate in a deadly game where one just has to keep moving to survive because of their desperate situation. I found it interesting to present the game as being played not by ordinary Joes but instead "lazy" people that is in turn built up by the production team in its own form of staged high-scale drama while also having some time spent with a few oddballs to meet up with our Everyman. Powell does pretty well with the desperation required in making a hero that you could believe would jump into the pool of sharks in charm, although I suppose others will take their time to buy him as one who stumbles into being a folk hero of some sort. I enjoyed the push-and-pull of despair and hope you can get as the movie goes further on in one man's quest to simply help the people around him in a mostly familiar place of dystopia (read: not too far from now, because where does the bar go in reality TV crap after having people play games for money?) and a few enjoyable action beats.

Admittedly, the film doesn't have as much of a ham in an adversary as, well Richard Dawson, since Domingo is merely a figurehead of bombast while Brolin shows up from time to time in smarmy conviction to go along with a mostly faceless Pace (faceless boots of authority? Wonder where that came from). But it is nice to see them there to represent the spectacle (i.e., the boot on the neck of the public). You see a few guests along the way to roll along with Powell that make for a few interesting moments, mostly from Cera because of the amount of time you see with him in barely-contained paranoia. Admittedly, the film does nearly stumble at the climax, as if somehow the runtime (133 minutes) actually needed a bit more time to really breathe to make everything sink in. But I think it is the kind of ending I can forgive in the spirit of "I've liked what I have seen, so let it pass." As a whole, The Running Man is a ball of a time for those who just want to see a King work get its due with a few visceral moments of charm and bite to make for a solid popcorn movie at least one time.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World.

Review #2408: Scott Pilgrim vs. the World.

Cast: 

Michael Cera (Scott Pilgrim and Nega Scott), Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Ramona Flowers), Kieran Culkin (Wallace Wells), Anna Kendrick (Stacey Pilgrim), Brie Larson (Natalie V. "Envy" Adams), Alison Pill (Kim Pine), Aubrey Plaza (Julie Powers), Johnny Simmons ("Young" Neil Nordegraf), Mark Webber (Stephen Stills), Ellen Wong (Knives Chau), with Satya Bhabha (Matthew Patel), Chris Evans (Lucas Lee), Brandon Routh (Todd Ingram), Mae Whitman (Roxanne "Roxy" Richter), Keita Saito (Ken Katayanagi), Shota Saito (Kyle Katayanagi), and Jason Schwartzman (Gideon "G-Man" Graves) Directed by Edgar Wright (#971 - Baby Driver, #1537 - Shaun of the Dead)

Review: 

"We thought it should play out like a musical in a way in terms of the fights are not dissimilar to the songs. I always thought there were a lot of martial arts films that were like musicals, so we wanted to take that further. Ya know, in a Gene Kelly film when he performs an amazing routine, at the end of the scene no one goes, 'Oh my god, that was fucking amazing!' The song is about something, and then there might be some dialogue at the end that is also about that theme. And that's kind of how this works where people have these huge fights – and it's kind of like how it is in the books – where everything goes back to normal, and there's a little reaction to what just happened, but there's no sort of mourn the dead."

Yes, it is weird to see how time flies by to say a movie from the 2010s is now 15 years old. It serves as an adaptation of the series of graphic novels of the same name that had been published in six volumes from 2004 to 2010, as written and drawn by Bryan Lee O'Malley, who had been inspired by various works ranging from Ranma 1/2, Koudelka (layouts) and other manga. Around the time after the publication of the first volume came the inklings of maybe adapting it to film, and Edgar Wright (of the then-released Shaun of the Dead, which naturally was followed up with Hot Fuzz [2007]) was approached and he liked the idea because he liked the books, with one factor being that he noted that with a few exceptions*, there hadn't been a "bigger film that dealt in sort of like a comedy comic book film...combining the mundane with the fantastical.". Wright and Michael Bacall wrote the screenplay for the film while O'Malley was involved with "bits and pieces" of the process (in particular, the ending had influence by O'Malley over the original planned ending, since the movie was coming out in the wake of the release of the last volume in July of 2010). The movie was inspired by a litany of movies ranging from Danger: Diabolik [1968] to Phantom of the Paradise [1974] (particularly with its villain, consider that). Apparently, Universal Pictures didn't know how to market the movie to audiences; the movie was first screened in July of 2010 before being released in theaters starting with America on August 13, 2010 and it was not a major success at the time. However, as one probably guessed, it has developed a following. The entire cast reprised their roles for an animated TV show (Scott Pilgrim Takes Off) that had a handful of episodes in 2023.

It probably is a movie that gets better and better for those who really like what the movie is selling in terms of light fun in an era where people still wondered what the hell was the difference between "geek" and "nerd" anymore. It probably helps that there was a pretty talented cast involved* who happens to be pretty enjoyable to view on screen. For me...it was fine. It rides a good deal of highs and a few lows for 112 minutes that generally has the enthusiasm to make one at least see themselves somewhere in the entertaining ensemble and visual sequences. You might as well call it a distinct comic or also video game movie with the fact that it actually takes the time to look like a comic (i.e. sound effect onomatopoeia) to go along with its video game logic with, well, handling action sequences. You either roll with its punches (some visual and some in jokes such as tricking a vegan into drinking half-and-half) or, well, you don't. Call it silly, but it does take a bit of time to really, truly, root for that title character. At least his hang-ups are more interesting to think about in everyman weirdness than say, Woody Allen*. Actually, I take that back, it does take a bit of time to also appreciate Ramona beyond calling her a flake (and in turn, calling Scott a little worm)*. But I like Cera and Winstead just fine, so there's that. It's an interesting push-and-pull thing where one is juggling seeing the life of our guy and the folks around him, and I think it works out pretty well in the fact that there isn't a weak spot amongst the folks. In particular, it is fun to see Culkin and Plaza every now and then because of their natural timing that just is really funny in snappy charm (look, how many folks have lines where they are censored with a black box on purpose). Chau actually is a bit funny in her own path of realization beyond just hanging around in the ides of youth and so on. Of the group of "Evil Exes", Evans and Schwartzman do stick out the best, namely because there are a handful of laughs in bravado from the former and the Phil Spector imitation in the latter that keep the movie rolling along just right. It is a movie that has a boundless charm that with the right mindset in mind for the viewer would be enough to deflect any lingering quibbles with the movie. Lack of stakes? Eh, its a movie about a guy getting a hold of himself beyond just having the same expectations of oneself that happens to need to turn opponents into pixels, stakes are for "suspense" movies. It just happens to be a movie fit for casual enjoyment, and it likely developed a cult following because people really did come around to viewing the movie for all of its little quirks that is admirable to see in commitment. Fifteen years later, we may very well see further people get latched onto the movie and its grabbing of the times it was made in a further interesting light fifteen further years down the line.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*Specifically, Ghost World and American Splendor, as noted here.

**Imagine saying a film had two future Academy Award winners in its cast and it is located in the supporting cast with Culkin and Larson.

***I will state that I did know exactly one person who liked changing their hair color to blue. She liked women and even shacked up with a married person. It's too bad she was a flake, she seemed like a friend at one point in time.

****Speaking of people with an "interesting" attraction to young women. Okay, I stretched that joke, but I don't like that little cretin.

Barbie.

Review #2049: Barbie.

Cast: 

Margot Robbie (Barbie), Ryan Gosling (Ken), America Ferrera (Gloria), Kate McKinnon (Weird Barbie), Issa Rae (President Barbie), Rhea Perlman (Ruth), Will Ferrell (CEO of Mattel), Michael Cera (Allan), Ariana Greenblatt (Sasha), Helen Mirren (Narrator) Directed by Greta Gerwig (#1983 - Lady Bird)

Review: 

“My mom would check out books [Reviving Ophelia: Saving the Selves of Adolescent Girls] from the library about parenting, and then I would read them. They’re funny and brash and confident, and then they just—stop. How is this journey the same thing that a teenage girl feels? All of a sudden, she thinks, Oh, I’m not good enough.”

I'm sure at least one of you had a childhood experience with the Barbie doll. Ruth Handler popularized the doll that was named after her daughter after seeing her play with paper dolls. Noting the limitations that come with such "one-dimensional" function, Handler obviously saw an opening for an adult-bodied doll and so she suggested it to her fellow co-founder of Mattel in Elliot Handler that led to the start of the Barbie in 1959. Actually, Handler couldn't get her idea accepted for mass production and she had let go of the idea for a time. But a family trip in Europe led to her seeing a doll called Bild Lilli that got the creative process rolling again. The doll was actually merchandise for the Lilli comic strip (as created by Reinhard Beuthien) that was being published in the German tabloid Bild. The adult-sized doll, complete with a look described by Handler as "naive and clever" when it comes to red lips and winged eyeliner, was clearly something to "take inspiration" for well, Barbie. I mention this if only because the film has a character named "Ruth". Anyway, there have been a handful of films and television based on Mattel products, such as Masters of the Universe or Max Steel, or, well, the dozens and dozens of direct-to-video Barbie films. But the road to making a live action Barbie film took over a dozen years of development that had various people attached to star or direct, so here we are with a film loaded with various Barbies and Kens that I'm sure some of you already know about (sorry folks, this childhood was dedicated to any odd little toy that came along, whether that was Lego, or heaven forbid, the Slinky). The film was written by Greta Gerwig and Noah Baumbach, which occurred after Margot Robbie (star and co-producer) asked the former about serving as writer/director.

Oh hell, I picked the movie because I wanted to know what exactly one was going to see in a film that has Mattel near the front of the line in production companies listed (right next to Warner Bros.). What type of possible Faustian bargain with corporate overlords could possibly happen here? Given the amount of folks I saw in line for the film (with quite a few in pink), I'm sure that at least one of them will be surprised with what they see on screen, parent or not. Well, whatever you expect, you could probably throw that out the window. If the script is described as one done in "literally imaginative play", the film seems to have plenty of varying inspirations, whether that involves old Technicolor musicals such as The Red Shoes, but I'm sure folks familiar with Pinocchio will make an interesting observation. But hey, that film did not have a "Techni-Barbie" template or present two distinct moments within its first thirty minutes that detail someone asking if they think of death or stating if they have genitals. It is the kind of movie where the lead performance is basically equivalent to a person that doesn't have a voice in their head that likes to make note of just where self-discovery goes when it comes to, well, when one is Barbie and the other is "& Ken". The deal of expectations versus reality in a world that is most certainly not the same as the one that saw Barbie come onto the eyes of children everywhere is at least a useful quandary to present in a film that never really stops reminding you of, well, its title subject. This is an interesting tightrope that reminded me of another product-named film with The Lego Movie (2014), so go with me on this for a moment: a movie based a product built on imagination for children (not like all boys played with just Legos) with an ordinary (or stereotypical in this case) lead character going on an adventure built on entering the real world to deal with something that could seep into their world. Of course, that film was about creativity while this deals with finding one's identity and surely an interesting discussion about feminism that more knowledgeable people can talk about than me (coincidentally, both of those movies happen to feature Will Ferrell as a businessman). For me, the Lego movie handled its goals better, but obviously it's up to you to interpret which is which.

With all of that in mind, Robbie pulls in the best performance of the film, one that has honesty in the route of discovery that comes from going from an earnest figure of self to one wrapped in crisis that she handles gamely. It is an adventure with a handful of useful gags involving the very nature of "Barbieland", and she manages to make it work in timing without selling herself short. Of course, who better to serve the other part of the double-act than Gosling, who sells the other side of self-realized identity that starts with the most basic point of "the beach" and goes on from there with pathos and sincerity. In a world that doesn't think about "just Ken", he is more than (k)enough in presenting the conflict necessary from what might as well really be a Barbie-version of the Garden of Eden (no guesses for which sounds easier to talk about between theology and patriarchy). The rest of the cast (which includes a handful of other versions of Barbie and Ken in small bits (such as Kingsley Ben-Adir and Simu Liu as Ken #1 and #2, respectively) do fine, setting up the contrast between the two worlds and societies with useful warmth, mostly with Ferrera or the active McKinnon. Folks who are invested more into what the movie aims for (analysis or in the crosshairs of wondering what the fuss is about with Barbie being a movie brand) will find plenty to surely come back to in another viewing while others might just let it go by the wayside. For me, it is a reliably average time, and that is better than being a hollow thud or being a shocking mess, as it is instead about as goofy as it might sound under the surface. I think the 114-minute runtime is just about what I expected for a film that ultimately achieves some of its goals when it comes to entertainment for an entertaining execution in style and certain lines (who among us can resist a long-worded good-girl master plan for the climax), so there may be hope yet for one not seeing their favorite star or director not be thought of as sold their soul to the plastic machine. Would I want to see Mattel become the type of thing that inspires a hodgepodge of films based on their products like a certain cinematic universe? Absolutely not, unless they are actually worth seeing in a theater, one that can maintain some sort of imagination beyond the usual attempts shelled out already. So yes, the movie is just fine for those who are curious or already set on seeing it on the biggest screen possible. 

Of course. there exists another film that is opening the same day as this one...

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Lego Batman Movie.

Review #1864: The Lego Batman Movie.

Cast: 

Will Arnett (Batman / Bruce Wayne), Michael Cera (Robin / Dick Grayson), Rosario Dawson (Batgirl / Barbara Gordon), Ralph Fiennes (Alfred Pennyworth), Zach Galifianakis (Joker), Jenny Slate (Harley Quinn), Jason Mantzoukas (Scarecrow), Conan O'Brien (The Riddler), Doug Benson (Bane), Billy Dee Williams (Two-Face), Zoë Kravitz (Catwoman), Kate Micucci (Clayface), Riki Lindhome (Poison Ivy), Eddie Izzard (Voldemort), Seth Green (King Kong), Jemaine Clement (Sauron), Ellie Kemper (Phyllis), Channing Tatum (Superman), Hector Elizondo (Jim Gordon), and Mariah Carey (Mayor McCaskill) Directed by Chris McKay.

Review: 

I'm sure you remember the Lego movies, if only because of how bright and colorful they were. This was the second Lego-themed movie released by Warner Bros through their animation department, with the first being The Lego Movie (2014). That movie featured Will Arnett in a supporting role as a Lego version of Batman. A sequel was evidently planned for this movie, but the acquisition of the film rights by Universal Pictures in 2020 scuttled those plans. Admittedly, the Arnett Batman was meant to be as amusing as possible with a gravelly voice and macho characterization, so a movie wasn't particularly out of the element, self-promotion for Lego or not. This was the feature debut of Chris McKay, who had had studied at Southern Illinois University and Columbia College Chicago for film. He worked a number of years for video and equipment rental companies before starting his own venture into making videos and small movies; he also worked on television programs such as Robot Chicken in animation and direction. McKay served as animation supervisor on the aforementioned 2014 Lego movie, and he also served as a co-editor. The movie was written by Seth Grahame-Smith, Chris McKenna, Erik Sommers, Jared Stern, and John Whittington.

Honestly, I kind of just forgot to consider the movie when it came out five years ago, a casualty of just being the odd man out when it comes to spending time and money at a movie theater. I'm not sure I missed too much when it comes to looking upon the saturation of Batman movies in the last ten, twenty, thirty, forty years (or so). It may be the lightest toned of the movies since the 1960s Batman, all things considered (complete with a handful of references, such as having the "POW!" graphic show up near the end). It's a Batman movie that you can show the kids with no doubts (at least ones who get antsy about PG-13 ratings), which means you have a 104-minute movie with a few silly jokes that plays its family angle (or more specifically, family message) to moderate effect. Arnett plays the gravelly loner to basically what you would expect in heightened ego-pull that inevitably gets to learn a lesson and yadda yadda he has the timing required to carry it through. He won't exactly be included in the discussion for the ideal Batman (no animated version gets their due, no matter how much I can argue for Kevin Conroy), but he sticks out in showing the ideal version of what a Batman can be: confident and vulnerable. Cera proves quite eager to serve as partner to Arnett in a few chuckles that would probably make Burt Ward smile, which actually works in the favor of the movie when it comes to the lack of Robins in film to begin with. Dawson does fine here, a calm presence among the oddballs that does what is needed without delay, which can apply to Fiennes and his precise pinpoints of a role played again and again (one that is hard to mess up anyway). Galifianakis makes a quality foe in the vein of campy folks from long ago, hamming it up in ways expected when chewing scenery and counteracting Arnett in an attempt at hero-villain chemistry that lends some deranged charm (maybe not quite Cesar Romero charm but close enough). The other villains aren't exactly given more than a line or two but seeing the handful of references to the colorful assortment of villains through the Batman years is worth a chuckle or a view (along with non-Batman properties, which is kinda funny to see in Lego spoof). It's a Batman movie that happens to feature Legos, as long as one doesn't see the seams of a joke wearing thin (i.e. making too many of those jokes or movies) or sticking in bland mud, you have a good case to entertain your audience, and I think the movie works well in that regard. With a not-too cloying message about togetherness that makes a bright and cheery success, The Lego Batman Movie does pretty well for itself as a real one-of-a-kind look into Batman that does exactly what it aspires to do.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Superbad.

Review #1032: Superbad.

Cast: 
Jonah Hill (Seth), Michael Cera (Evan), Christopher Mintz-Plasse (Fogell/"McLovin"), Bill Hader (Officer Slater), Seth Rogen (Officer Michaels), Emma Stone (Jules), Martha MacIsaac (Becca), Aviva Baumann (Nicola), Joe Lo Truglio (Francis), Kevin Corrigan (Mark), Dave Franco (Greg), and Laura Seay (Shirley) Directed by Greg Mottola.

Review: 
I will admit that this film had slipped under my radar for probably longer than it should have, probably because this didn't seem like something that had much priority to do. In retrospect, Superbad is a movie that is worth seeing, in part because of how amusing it proves itself to be. Loosely based on the high school experiences of writers Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg, this is a film that is pretty raunchy through and through, but it is also a film that is cleverly built to be an entertaining piece that utilizes its actors and situations to make an excellent experience. It's the performances by the cast (or more specifically the main duo) that carry the movie consistently. Hill and Cera do a good job together, having numerous exchanges and moments that are pretty amusing along with compelling. They feel like real people because they don't feel like a cliche blank slate for raunchy things to happen to them just for raunchy's sake, having a degree of practicality that seems welcome. Mintz-Plasse does a pretty good job as well, having some good scene-stealing moments along with being fairly interesting to watch. Hader and Rogen prove to be an entertaingly fine supporting duo that make for some good laughs, particularly with Mintz-Plasse in the second half. The rest of the cast isn't as prominent, but it is interesting to see Stone in her film debut, and she definitely has a fine screen presence. The movie goes fairly consistently, not feeling like a drag even at 113 minutes for a comedy. It never becomes a movie with too much posturing for improvisation nor just a movie that is disgusting just for the sake of disgusting. The heart of the movie is Hill and Cera and their friendship, and it's an interesting one to watch because of the two; a weaker film would've just focused on merely getting alcohol (or getting rid of teenage angst, one might say) for the party without any focus on character, and it wouldn't have as much entertainment value. From beginning to end, this is a film that goes for laughs and succeeds wholeheartedly. It's a movie that is confident in what it wants to be and what it wants to say with its words (many of them being the kind one can't use in print) without sacrificing a good solid core of depth and care.

On this note, I would like to say that this is the last review for 2017 for Movie Night. Obviously I'll be back in 2018 to do more reviews, but it is nice to say that there was some fine consistency with the reviewing slate. This is the 140th review for 2017, or "Season 7", which by my count is a significant improvement from the 116 reviews from the year before and the 90 from 2015. It has been a fun ride doing these reviews and having some fun highlights, such as reaching landmark numbers such as 900 and the big 1000th review. It has also been fun to have watch numerous films at the movie theater (18) for this year, because that usually proves to be an interesting experience. In any case, thank you for reading these reviews, and I hope to see you in the next year.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Sausage Party.

Review #830: Sausage Party.

Cast
Seth Rogen (Frank), Kristen Wiig (Brenda Bunson), Jonah Hill (Carl), Bill Hader (Firewater), Michael Cera (Barry), James Franco (the Druggie), Danny McBride (Honey Mustard), Craig Robinson (Mr. Grits), Paul Rudd (Darren), Nick Kroll (Douche), David Krumholtz (Kareem Abdul Lavash), Edward Norton (Sammy Bagel Jr), and Salma Hayek (Teresa del Taco) Directed by Greg Tiernan and Conrad Vernon (#162 - Shrek 2 and #651 - Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted)

Review
Not to understate this too much, but this isn't a movie for everyone (hence the R rating, a first for a CGI animated film - by the MPAA, anyway), especially not for kids, obviously. It's definitely a different kind of animated movie, and I'm sure there's even plans (or new inspiration) to do more of these kind of films. As ridiculous as this movie was, it at least was an adequate in terms of quality and length (88 minutes). There is a semblance of plot in this movie, with regards to the food and a "Great Beyond" outside the store, amidst a bunch of easy jokes that are either funny for some, or just stupid. For me, it was a bit of both, but it works on such an absurd level of ridiculousness that fit fine enough. The opening minutes feature a song, no less, with about as much absurdities as one would expect (let's not forget about the song by a meat loaf). Here's how I would put this movie: I laughed numerous times, with barely an ounce of shame to that laugh.

The ending to the movie is certainly a strange one, and to explain it would sound downright weird. But it works on an absurd level of lunacy for me, even if it's not really exceptional at animation, but it certainly works better that if it had been in live action. Rogen is a well enough lead, and anybody who's seen him in a film before will know what they think about the movie. Wiig is also decent, and the supporting cast is pretty quirky enough, with Krumholtz and Norton having some interesting chemistry with each other, and Kroll being a fair enough villain. Hader is also a fine highlight. Animated movies are somewhat thought of as a kid's market, so the idea of one for adults isn't too terrible, considering the amount of ones made for the lowest common denominator. They both pander, but this one has some sort of goal in its potty mouth. It has its moments of entertainment, It's exactly what you expect, so take it for what it's worth. It also might be better with a friend or two, so you can comprehend the weird crudeness for yourself. I can't recommend it for everyone, but anybody looking for a quick time of something a bit different might like it. They might also look at their food a bit differently afterwards, however.
Okay, if you scroll over this text, here's the climax: The food murder people in the store and have sex.
Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.