Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them.

Review #2157: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them.

Cast: 

Eddie Redmayne (Newt Scamander), Katherine Waterston (Tina Goldstein), Dan Fogler (Jacob Kowalski), Alison Sudol (Queenie Goldstein), Samantha Morton (Mary Lou Barebone), Ezra Miller (Credence Barebone), Jon Voight (Henry Shaw Sr), Carmen Ejogo (Seraphina Picquery), Colin Farrell (Percival Graves), Ron Perlman (the voice of Gnarlak), Faith Wood-Blagrove (Modesty Barebone), Ronan Raftery (Langdon Shaw), and Josh Cowdery (Henry Shaw Jr) Directed by David Yates (#121-#124: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix / the Half-Blood Prince / Deathly Hallows - Part 1 and Part 2)

Review: 

Sometimes one just gets tired. They miss a film they probably could have seen or put it on their to-do list to throw onto the waste basket for the next year. This is one of those times, which is particularly amusing because I can say without a doubt that once Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 (2011) came out, I seemed to just go in and out of making excuses to really go back and watch those films once it was all said and done. Hell, I read the books as a teen, and somehow the idea of a "spinoff" film that retained the same director from that film adaptation to go with a screenplay by J. K. Rowling slipped my attention (I went back to try and jog my 19-going-on-20 memory and found that I somehow had time for exactly one theater release in the month that this film was released: Doctor Strange). Anyway, why don't we start making up for lost time: this is a spinoff film conceived with David Heyman (who had produced the film series) serving as a producer alongside Rowling (who had produced the Deathly Hallows films) that shares the title of a guidebook that Rowling had written in 2001 (which, well, was about beasts one might find in the wizarding world). Development started in 2013 and went on from there. The success of the film, which was planned to be the first of five films, would inspire two sequels Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) and Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022).

You know, some things are just unbearably average. I was 15 when I last remember watching all eight of that aforementioned film series (which is now labeled as being part of a "Wizarding World" franchise that inspires a blank stare), and I think he and me can agree on one thing: even the most inferior of the films (Chamber of Secrets? Order of the Phoenix?) rank better than this one, a sponge of doing things fine with the bare inspiration to look ahead. It has some of the curiosity required when it comes to wondering aloud why one would want to spend a second watching magic-sound phrases come out of folks (either British or not), and it does hold 133 minutes of attention with a handful of wonder-inducement, one can be fair there. There is something useful to find in watching folks try to engage with the idea of silly beasts possibly causing havoc in a 1920s New York that Redmayne can handle with the sense of interest with Fogler and Waterston, where even a magical parasite could be something really curious. And yet...why is it the film finds itself trying to wedge some sort of bubbling idea of war in the middle of things? (complete with a middling amount of screentime for Jon Voight, "Man Who Can Be A Ham") You can fool me with names such as "Newt" or "Queenie", but New Wizarding Orders with guys named "Gellert Grindelwald" that like to play disguise? That takes a bit more time to really stomach. Silly little plant looking creatures are a bit cooler than newspaper exposition. The performances are serviceable to the material, mostly in the case of Fogler, who provides the "take it in stride" balance to go with Redmayne and his, uh, spirited attempts at wonder that come and go with effectiveness. At least Farrell gets to dilly dally in obviousness a bit, especially when compared with a stone faced Miller. In general, this is a film that makes idle movement towards having fun but pushes a big cloud (parasite) and trying to maintain that line between wizards and "No-Majs" (blank stare). It is mildly fun, because those little antics involving a bank and magic tricks (it works out better in some ways to have people come and go) do make things come off interesting, and I do think there is something worth looking into when it comes to magic run amok that isn't trying to play too hard into things you heard already (except one line that I hated guessing). It is the kind of film that is crafted from cloth that could have received a bit more weaving to really hit its mark, but it does the basic necessities that will make those who were really drawn into it want to wonder what could be next without being a churner for the rest.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Justice League.

Review #1011: Justice League.

Cast: 
Ben Affleck (Bruce Wayne / Batman), Henry Cavill (Kal-El / Clark Kent / Superman), Amy Adams (Lois Lane), Gal Gadot (Diana Prince / Wonder Woman), Ezra Miller (Barry Allen / Flash), Jason Momoa (Arthur Curry / Aquaman), Ray Fisher (Victor Stone / Cyborg), Jeremy Irons (Alfred Pennyworth), Diane Lane (Martha Kent), Connie Nielsen (Hippolyta), J. K. Simmons (James Gordon), and Ciarán Hinds (Steppenwolf) Directed by Zack Snyder (#788 - Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice)

Review: 
To fellow readers: I did not intend for this review to be over 700 words, but here we are. Hopefully this review is consistent enough and useful for you.

Admittedly, the DC comic book films over the past few years have a been a bit...diverse (#788 - Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, #828 - Suicide Squad, #942 - Wonder Woman), with their own particular brand of taste and style (and that is putting it lightly). This remains the case with this film, which is certainly a strange movie for one that is also wildly mediocre. Sure, I enjoyed the movie, but it is easily one that won't go down as anything great (in fairness, it's not like Thor: Ragnarok will go down as a hallmark of comic book films). It's clear that this movie wants to be lighter and fun, with varying results that come off as slightly inconsistent, particularly with characters like Batman, though that is not the biggest flaw. In any case, let me start with the main six, which is certainly an interesting bunch.

Affleck pulls off a pretty decent performance, being somewhat endearing even if seems like the character shifts tone from stoic to snarky, though it isn't too awfully distracting. Gadot is the best one of the group, being quite enjoyable and graceful as she was in her prior film. Miller is fairly entertaining in the film and is likely the most amusing part of the film. Momoa is fairly decent, though I'd say it takes time for him to really grow on you. Fisher is probably the weakest of the six, feeling a bit flat (though his character is at least useful to the plot). Cavill (with accompanying CGI-erased mustache) is decent enough for the time that he appears, but he doesn't really appear as much as he probably should've appeared. The supporting cast aren't really given much to do, and that can prove to be a bit disappointing (even in a movie all about the main six). It's not so much that Hinds does a terrible job as the villain as it is the fact that his character just isn't compelling to watch. with this being the worst part of the film. He is not a character that ever inspires fear or anything other than a mild expression, with his scenes with dialogue or fighting reminding me more of cut-scenes than actual scenes. Naturally, he is a villain that doesn't take too long to take down, with the victory feeling somewhat hollow that actually feels amusing to laugh at. The action sequences prove to be a mixed bag. On the one hand, they are sometimes pretty entertaining in their spectacle. On the other hand, the CGI just doesn't hold up that well, and for a movie that was reportedly made for over $300 million it certainly seems puzzling to see how it doesn't really work in the department. The film is at least sometimes amusing, and the cast does seem to have some good chemistry with each other, although at times it can come off a bit rushed, which can also apply in some way to the plot, which isn't too special, especially when it seems to go all over the place with its characters.

The film certainly feels a bit jumbled, no doubt due to post-production efforts in which Josh Whedon  (director of #312 - The Avengers and #706 - Avengers: Age of Ultron) was hired to rewrite additional scenes. In May of this year, Snyder stepped down during this process due to the death of his daughter, with Whedon taking over for rest of post-production, serving as director for scenes that he had written. In any case, Snyder is listed as the only director, though Whedon is given a credit for the screenplay (along with Chris Terrio, who had also co-written the story with Synder). The film certainly feels like a jumbling of numerous things, trying to give time for the three characters without their own film (Aquaman, The Flash, Cyborg). Subsequently, the film feels rushed when trying to deliver exposition for them.

Ultimately, this is a movie that achieves its most basic goals of being escapism and entertainment. It is ridiculous in how okay it is, but I found it to be fairly acceptable, warts and all. It isn't anything worthwhile, but it's a movie that will prove just enough for some audiences. Take this film for what it's worth.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.