Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Marvelous Cash Cows and How to Milk Them.
As just about everyone in the whole muggle world (or nomaj world if you’re reading this in the States) knows, FBaWtFT is the first of a five film spin-off series from the Potter franchise, still under the careful stewardship of David Yates. (And if the other films in the series were ‘amber-lit’ rather than ‘green-lit’, their production now seems assured after the US opening weekend alone has brought in nearly half its $180 million budget).
Set in New York in the mid-1920’s Eddie Redmayne (“The Danish Girl”; “The Theory of Everything”) plays Newt Scamander, a Brit newly arrived with a case full of trouble. Newt is a bit like an amiable and ditsy David Attenborough, with a strong desire to protect and establish breeding colonies for endangered species. It’s fair to say though that these are creatures that even Sir David hasn’t yet filmed.
Within the battered old case (a forerunner of Hermione Grainger’s bag, which was probably borrowed from Mary Poppins), Newt stores a menagerie of strange and wonderful creatures which – after a bump and a mishap – get released by wannabe baker and muggle Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler, “Fanboys”). Newt has the job of rounding up the strays with the help of Tina (Katherine Waterston, “Steve Jobs”), an out of favour member of the Magical Congress of the USA (MACUSA). Unfortunately this couldn’t be happening at a worse time: something else – nothing to do with Newt – is wreaking havoc across New York and MACUSA is on red alert suspecting the involvement of a dark wizard, Gellert Grindelwald, following attacks in Europe. And keeping the secrets of wizardry from the NoMaj population is getting increasingly difficult, especially with the efforts of the “Second Salemers” movement run by Mary Lou (Samantha Morton, “Minority Report”) and her strange adopted family.
This film will obviously be an enormous success given the love of all things Potter, but is it any good? Well, its different for sure, being set many years before Potter and only having glancing references to Hogwarts and related matters. And that gives the opportunity to start afresh with new characters and new relationships which is refreshing. It’s all perfectly amiable, with Redmayne’s slightly embarrassed lack of eye-contact* in delivering his lines being charming. [* Is this perhaps the second leading character in a month that is high on the autistic spectrum?] . Redmayne does have a tendency to mutter though and (particularly with the sound system for the cinema I saw this in) this made a lot of his dialogue inaudible. Waterston makes for a charming if somewhat insipid heroine, not being given an awful lot to do in the action sequences.
Kowalski adds a humorous balance to the mixture, but the star comic turns are some of the creatures, especially the Niffler… a light fingered magpie-like creature with a voluminous pouch and expensive tastes!
In the ‘I-almost-know-who-that-is-behind-the-make-up-but-can’t-quite-place-him’ role is Ron “Hellboy” Perlman as the untrustworthy gangster Gnarlack. And in another cameo – and probably paid an enormous fee for his 30 seconds of screen time – is Johnny Depp, which was money well-wasted since, like most of his roles, he was completely unrecognisable (I only knew it was him from checking imdb afterwards).
At the pen is J.K.Rowling herself, and there are a few corking lines in the script. However, in common with many of her novels, there is also a tendency for extrapolation and padding. Some judicial editing could have knocked at least twenty minutes off its child-unfriendly 133 minute running time and made a better film. Undoubtedly the first half of the film is better than the second, with the finale slouching into – as my other half put it – “superhero” territory with much CGI destruction and smashing of glass. What is perhaps most surprising about the story is that there are few obvious set-ups for the next film.
Quirky and original, its a film that will no-doubt please Potter fans and it stands as a decent fantasy film in its own right. It’s difficult though to get the smell of big business and exploitation out of your nostrils: no doubt stockings throughout the world will be full of plush toy nifflers this Christmas.
Set in New York in the mid-1920’s Eddie Redmayne (“The Danish Girl”; “The Theory of Everything”) plays Newt Scamander, a Brit newly arrived with a case full of trouble. Newt is a bit like an amiable and ditsy David Attenborough, with a strong desire to protect and establish breeding colonies for endangered species. It’s fair to say though that these are creatures that even Sir David hasn’t yet filmed.
Within the battered old case (a forerunner of Hermione Grainger’s bag, which was probably borrowed from Mary Poppins), Newt stores a menagerie of strange and wonderful creatures which – after a bump and a mishap – get released by wannabe baker and muggle Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler, “Fanboys”). Newt has the job of rounding up the strays with the help of Tina (Katherine Waterston, “Steve Jobs”), an out of favour member of the Magical Congress of the USA (MACUSA). Unfortunately this couldn’t be happening at a worse time: something else – nothing to do with Newt – is wreaking havoc across New York and MACUSA is on red alert suspecting the involvement of a dark wizard, Gellert Grindelwald, following attacks in Europe. And keeping the secrets of wizardry from the NoMaj population is getting increasingly difficult, especially with the efforts of the “Second Salemers” movement run by Mary Lou (Samantha Morton, “Minority Report”) and her strange adopted family.
This film will obviously be an enormous success given the love of all things Potter, but is it any good? Well, its different for sure, being set many years before Potter and only having glancing references to Hogwarts and related matters. And that gives the opportunity to start afresh with new characters and new relationships which is refreshing. It’s all perfectly amiable, with Redmayne’s slightly embarrassed lack of eye-contact* in delivering his lines being charming. [* Is this perhaps the second leading character in a month that is high on the autistic spectrum?] . Redmayne does have a tendency to mutter though and (particularly with the sound system for the cinema I saw this in) this made a lot of his dialogue inaudible. Waterston makes for a charming if somewhat insipid heroine, not being given an awful lot to do in the action sequences.
Kowalski adds a humorous balance to the mixture, but the star comic turns are some of the creatures, especially the Niffler… a light fingered magpie-like creature with a voluminous pouch and expensive tastes!
In the ‘I-almost-know-who-that-is-behind-the-make-up-but-can’t-quite-place-him’ role is Ron “Hellboy” Perlman as the untrustworthy gangster Gnarlack. And in another cameo – and probably paid an enormous fee for his 30 seconds of screen time – is Johnny Depp, which was money well-wasted since, like most of his roles, he was completely unrecognisable (I only knew it was him from checking imdb afterwards).
At the pen is J.K.Rowling herself, and there are a few corking lines in the script. However, in common with many of her novels, there is also a tendency for extrapolation and padding. Some judicial editing could have knocked at least twenty minutes off its child-unfriendly 133 minute running time and made a better film. Undoubtedly the first half of the film is better than the second, with the finale slouching into – as my other half put it – “superhero” territory with much CGI destruction and smashing of glass. What is perhaps most surprising about the story is that there are few obvious set-ups for the next film.
Quirky and original, its a film that will no-doubt please Potter fans and it stands as a decent fantasy film in its own right. It’s difficult though to get the smell of big business and exploitation out of your nostrils: no doubt stockings throughout the world will be full of plush toy nifflers this Christmas.
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated If I Stay (2014) in Movies
Sep 21, 2020
Gross. My undying love for these disgustingly quirky YA slops renders me unable to rate this the easy one star it most definitely deserves - but make no mistake, this is the worst one since... maybe 𝘔𝘦 𝘉𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘠𝘰𝘶? The type of movie that does everything wrong: sterile visually, stagnant structurally, humdrum narratively, and it doesn't help that Stacy Keach (so wonderful here) is the only one in the entire movie giving a good performance - watching the normally capable Moretz attempt to emote in this is downright hysterical, that supposedly emotional hallway screaming scene had me *cackling*. Also I'd be willing to put serious money down against anyone who can find a film with worse dialogue. "Guys play music for two reasons: to get laid, and because they got rage" is an actual piece of speech uttered in this. Much of the hilarious cringe (see: the aforementioned awful dialogue) and endearing oversentimentality I find a warm familiarity with in this genre is intact, but the sickening fetishization of death and child abuse (cardboard cutout love interest: "My parents were never there... everyone leaves me...", what the movie wants us to be like: "W O W … he's so deep and profound 😍😍") in this make it feel closer to some sick exploitation piece that also isn't good. Even if that weren't the case, this relationship and its characters are lifeless even before the death plot hits and the guy is a faceless asshole that the Moretz character is just expected to bend to the whim of - and his band is fucking *horrible*. Speaking of which, funny how cultured this thinks it is because it never shuts up about punk and classical music even though it doesn't have a precious clue about either. Should have been a slam dunk, don't know why they decided to play it so indifferently. Written by that outcast from your high school who growled at people and drew Harry Potter porn at lunch.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Beasts of No Nation (2015) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020 (Updated Jul 9, 2020)
As I may have mentioned, a lot of my film viewing over the last wee while has been part of a project that hopes to be called 21st Century Cinema: 200 Essential films of the new millennium – which utilises the Decinemal system you will see at the bottom of each of my reviews. It aims to judge each film objectively with a score out of 10 over 10 categories, to give an overall rating out of 100.
Cary Joyi Fukunaga’s personal opus Beasts of no Nation, made for Netflix but good enough for a cinema release, falls into the category of films that have garnered enough critical acclaim to demand consideration for the top 200. It is the kind of film that you would always recommend, but may choose to overlook in search of a more basically entertaining watch.
Fukunaga has a fine pedigree already in his career, with credits on True Detective and the under-rated Sin Nombre from 2009. He has also been tasked with directing duties on the delayed Bond No Time To Die, which we hope to see before the new year now. He is a hands on, no messing about kind of guy, seemingly, taking on writing and cinematography duties also for this sad tale of child exploitation in an unnamed African war.
At times, it borders on documentary style, with an eye for strong visual images and extended silences, favoured over extraneous exposition and needless dialogue. A technique that makes the subject matter all the more uncomfortable to watch. Idris Elba adds big name weight in a fine supporting role, but the lion’s share of acting responsibility falls to young Abraham Attah, who is nothing short of astonishing in the most harrowing moments of this stark and sincere story.
I have to confess, this was another pre-lockdown watch for me, and as much as I can recall the feel and impact of it as a whole, I would struggle to talk about it in any detail after one viewing three months ago. And that is partly the reason it won’t quite make the lower benchmark of a strong 73 Decinemal score; for all its power it just isn’t quite memorable enough on every level, in the way something like City Of God, or even Beasts of the Southern Wild most definitely are.
Perhaps those are unfair comparisons, but it strives for the impact of the former without the flair, and has an independant feel without the charm of the latter. Not that flair or charm are priorities here. It simply wants to show you an issue you may not have been overly aware of, and demands that you empathise both with the complexity of the problem and with the tragic journey of Agu – a child robbed of all innocence by a terrible world.
The photography sits with the strong performances as a notable highlight; giving contrast to the devastation, depredation and desperation under the skin, and showing an angry beauty that dances beside it, showing brief moments of hope when we need them most, and therefore avoiding the trap of being too brutal to enjoy on any level. Which is a mistake similar films can fall prey too.
Violence and war are not light subjects. When the focus is also the lost soul of a child, the tightrope of melodrama and sentimentality is very fine. All involved here walk that line expertly, never once resorting to having to buy your care with familiar Hollywood tricks. In fact it couldn’t be further from Hollywood if it tried. And the drama is all the better for that.
A solid, fine movie, that is narrowly short of being truly great. But you should most definitely see it at some point if you haven’t already.
Cary Joyi Fukunaga’s personal opus Beasts of no Nation, made for Netflix but good enough for a cinema release, falls into the category of films that have garnered enough critical acclaim to demand consideration for the top 200. It is the kind of film that you would always recommend, but may choose to overlook in search of a more basically entertaining watch.
Fukunaga has a fine pedigree already in his career, with credits on True Detective and the under-rated Sin Nombre from 2009. He has also been tasked with directing duties on the delayed Bond No Time To Die, which we hope to see before the new year now. He is a hands on, no messing about kind of guy, seemingly, taking on writing and cinematography duties also for this sad tale of child exploitation in an unnamed African war.
At times, it borders on documentary style, with an eye for strong visual images and extended silences, favoured over extraneous exposition and needless dialogue. A technique that makes the subject matter all the more uncomfortable to watch. Idris Elba adds big name weight in a fine supporting role, but the lion’s share of acting responsibility falls to young Abraham Attah, who is nothing short of astonishing in the most harrowing moments of this stark and sincere story.
I have to confess, this was another pre-lockdown watch for me, and as much as I can recall the feel and impact of it as a whole, I would struggle to talk about it in any detail after one viewing three months ago. And that is partly the reason it won’t quite make the lower benchmark of a strong 73 Decinemal score; for all its power it just isn’t quite memorable enough on every level, in the way something like City Of God, or even Beasts of the Southern Wild most definitely are.
Perhaps those are unfair comparisons, but it strives for the impact of the former without the flair, and has an independant feel without the charm of the latter. Not that flair or charm are priorities here. It simply wants to show you an issue you may not have been overly aware of, and demands that you empathise both with the complexity of the problem and with the tragic journey of Agu – a child robbed of all innocence by a terrible world.
The photography sits with the strong performances as a notable highlight; giving contrast to the devastation, depredation and desperation under the skin, and showing an angry beauty that dances beside it, showing brief moments of hope when we need them most, and therefore avoiding the trap of being too brutal to enjoy on any level. Which is a mistake similar films can fall prey too.
Violence and war are not light subjects. When the focus is also the lost soul of a child, the tightrope of melodrama and sentimentality is very fine. All involved here walk that line expertly, never once resorting to having to buy your care with familiar Hollywood tricks. In fact it couldn’t be further from Hollywood if it tried. And the drama is all the better for that.
A solid, fine movie, that is narrowly short of being truly great. But you should most definitely see it at some point if you haven’t already.