MOVIE REVIEW: Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them
(Listening to Top Gear in the background...)
Charles Dodgson was a huge fan of creating silly words and binding them together in poetry and prose, and one of this most famous works was simply an exercise in this. When he wasn't exploring the limits of his self-imagined vocabulary, however, he was also capable of writing thought-provoking material that has continued to stand the test of time.
I wonder, would he have been a fan of J.K. Rowling's wizarding world, and her ability to stretch something akin to 'Jabberwocky' out into seven books and eight movies? How would he look upon this most recently entry? Is 'Fantastic Beasts' yet more silly words, or is it something deeper, more contemplative?
We'll never know. What I do know is that, from where I stand, Rowling is once again attempting to side-step paying the check that she wrote with her mouth in 2010. She just cannot step away from the world that she created. This, in spite of what many fans are decrying as a serious misstep with her most recent effort, 'The Cursed Child'.
So which is it? Is 'Fantastic Beasts' another shameless money-grab? With the recent announcement that she's going to turn one movie into a trilogy --how original... -- it would seem so. Does Rowling actually have a worthwhile agenda this time?
THE SHORT VERSION:
Amazingly, yes.
THE LONG VERSION:
I am not a huge Harry Potter fan. I read books one through four, but then got so sick of Harry's whinging in book five that I never finished it, and never went back. Yes, about a million people have told me that the books only got better after book five, and in spite of all that, I just cannot be bothered to care. I've had discourse with people who have read them over and over again, and I know how they end, and how they differ from the movies. I still don't care. The first movie was alright, movies two and three were awful, the fourth movie wasn't bad at all, the fifth movie was barely passable, the sixth movie was...I honestly can't remember. The seventh movie was worse than movies two and three, and the eighth movie was...
...actually, the eighth movie was rather entertaining as movies go. It was a good movie because of its elements and set pieces, not necessarily because of the specific content.
I'm also not a huge fan of how Rowling has been backpedaling away from one of the dumbest statements that anyone in her position could EVER make, rather than simply admit that it was a dumb thing to say and moving on with her craft.
Bearing all this in mind, please understand how absolutely floored I am when I say this next bit:
I am glad she stuck around long enough to give us this movie.
Full disclosure, I'll be the first to admit that I'm not sure how much of this movie Rowling is responsible for. I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that she's one of the main contributors to it.
Anyway, on with the show!
STORY
The story in 'Fantastic Beasts' has several layers to it, but they're all woven together so well that you don't get lost with what's going on. It follows Newt Scamander and his case of magical critters as they bounce around New York after several of the little beasties that have escaped. He runs afoul of the local authorities while he's at it, and mayhem ensues. I really don't want to say much more about it in this section of the review, except to say that it's actually a relatively serviceable story that's far more organized than the tragic birds nest of Rowling's earlier work. There's a clear beginning, a clear end, and while they've absolutely set the movie up for a sequel -- which is good, since they're planning two more... -- the movie stands excellently on its own. It needs no sequel at all, which is a testament to the story's solidity. That said, I will also mention that there are certain sentiments expressed during the first 30 minutes of the movie that I felt were punching a little below the waistline. I'll touch on that in the Spoiler section.
That said, the story is a dark one, and unfortunately, it has far less to do with the universally excellent Fantastic Beasts that it's named after. It is, by far, the darkest movie set in the Potterverse, and I wouldn't hesitate at all to state that it's not a children's movie. It's one for teens and adults. Most of all, however, and I cannot impress this enough...
This is NOT just another Harry Potter movie. It's SO MUCH better.
AUDIO/VIDEO
I went to go see this in a theater equipped with Dolby Atmos, and I strongly recommend the experience. This movie benefits from Atmos greatly. The sound effects and music were all spot-on and excellently done, and James Newton Howard does an excellent job with John Williams' memorable thematic elements from the original HP films without leaning on them utterly. Visually, the movie is very CG-Heavy, and the CG itself is a mixed bag. Some of it is absolutely outstanding, and some of it is very...bland.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I suspect that this is one of those movies that you're going to want to watch in 3D if you can do so without giving yourself a headache or vomiting all over the poor bastard in front of you. This is not because I've suddenly become a fan of 3D, or even because I feel that the movie as a whole would benefit from it. It's simply for the movie's beasts. In 2D, they were absolutely magnificent. I can only think that 3D would make them even more so. The critters in Newt's suitcase are a visual highlight of the film, and anything you can do to experience them more fully is recommended.
CHARACTERS:
For the most part, all of the principals in this movie are excellent. Of particular note is Eddie Redmayne's absolutely incredible work as Newt Scamander. Whatever he's being paid, they need to double it. While the rest of the movie's cast is certainly on par, every last second that Redmayne's wizard is on screen is an absolute delight. His presence and absolutely consistent character portrayal draw you into the film with every word he speaks and every move he makes. He is utterly, utterly PERFECT.
I would be remiss if I didn't also mention Dan Fogler's excellent role as James Kowalski, the muggle -- excuse me, NoMag -- that runs around with Newt for most of the movie. Casting Fogler, along with the man's talents, results in the perfect opposite for Newt to work with in the movie, and their bond is genuine by the end of the film, to say nothing of his bond with a certain other character.
In summary then, this movie is excellent and frustrating at the same time. The characters, the story, the visuals, they're all seriously above par. It's only frustrating because it took Rowling eight movies to figure out how to get here. That said, and I mean this...
I'm so very, very glad she did.
HERE THERE BE SPOILERS!
There are several things about this movie that I wanted to talk more about, but didn't want to spoil it for anyone in the earlier body of the review.
Seriously though, this was a good flick.
UPDATE: 2016-11-20 - Yes, I saw the little wisp of black smoke that slithered up from the remains. I'm not taking that as a guarantee that Credence survived just yet. Even if he did, that the move was willing to attempt to kill him is still impressive to me.
UPDATE THE SECOND: 2016-11-20: So, this happened: http://io9.gizmodo.com/there-was-a-scene-cut-from-fantastic-beasts-and-where-t-1789136541
Charles Dodgson was a huge fan of creating silly words and binding them together in poetry and prose, and one of this most famous works was simply an exercise in this. When he wasn't exploring the limits of his self-imagined vocabulary, however, he was also capable of writing thought-provoking material that has continued to stand the test of time.
I wonder, would he have been a fan of J.K. Rowling's wizarding world, and her ability to stretch something akin to 'Jabberwocky' out into seven books and eight movies? How would he look upon this most recently entry? Is 'Fantastic Beasts' yet more silly words, or is it something deeper, more contemplative?
We'll never know. What I do know is that, from where I stand, Rowling is once again attempting to side-step paying the check that she wrote with her mouth in 2010. She just cannot step away from the world that she created. This, in spite of what many fans are decrying as a serious misstep with her most recent effort, 'The Cursed Child'.
So which is it? Is 'Fantastic Beasts' another shameless money-grab? With the recent announcement that she's going to turn one movie into a trilogy --how original... -- it would seem so. Does Rowling actually have a worthwhile agenda this time?
THE SHORT VERSION:
Amazingly, yes.
THE LONG VERSION:
I am not a huge Harry Potter fan. I read books one through four, but then got so sick of Harry's whinging in book five that I never finished it, and never went back. Yes, about a million people have told me that the books only got better after book five, and in spite of all that, I just cannot be bothered to care. I've had discourse with people who have read them over and over again, and I know how they end, and how they differ from the movies. I still don't care. The first movie was alright, movies two and three were awful, the fourth movie wasn't bad at all, the fifth movie was barely passable, the sixth movie was...I honestly can't remember. The seventh movie was worse than movies two and three, and the eighth movie was...
...actually, the eighth movie was rather entertaining as movies go. It was a good movie because of its elements and set pieces, not necessarily because of the specific content.
I'm also not a huge fan of how Rowling has been backpedaling away from one of the dumbest statements that anyone in her position could EVER make, rather than simply admit that it was a dumb thing to say and moving on with her craft.
Bearing all this in mind, please understand how absolutely floored I am when I say this next bit:
I am glad she stuck around long enough to give us this movie.
Full disclosure, I'll be the first to admit that I'm not sure how much of this movie Rowling is responsible for. I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that she's one of the main contributors to it.
Anyway, on with the show!
STORY
The story in 'Fantastic Beasts' has several layers to it, but they're all woven together so well that you don't get lost with what's going on. It follows Newt Scamander and his case of magical critters as they bounce around New York after several of the little beasties that have escaped. He runs afoul of the local authorities while he's at it, and mayhem ensues. I really don't want to say much more about it in this section of the review, except to say that it's actually a relatively serviceable story that's far more organized than the tragic birds nest of Rowling's earlier work. There's a clear beginning, a clear end, and while they've absolutely set the movie up for a sequel -- which is good, since they're planning two more... -- the movie stands excellently on its own. It needs no sequel at all, which is a testament to the story's solidity. That said, I will also mention that there are certain sentiments expressed during the first 30 minutes of the movie that I felt were punching a little below the waistline. I'll touch on that in the Spoiler section.
That said, the story is a dark one, and unfortunately, it has far less to do with the universally excellent Fantastic Beasts that it's named after. It is, by far, the darkest movie set in the Potterverse, and I wouldn't hesitate at all to state that it's not a children's movie. It's one for teens and adults. Most of all, however, and I cannot impress this enough...
This is NOT just another Harry Potter movie. It's SO MUCH better.
AUDIO/VIDEO
I went to go see this in a theater equipped with Dolby Atmos, and I strongly recommend the experience. This movie benefits from Atmos greatly. The sound effects and music were all spot-on and excellently done, and James Newton Howard does an excellent job with John Williams' memorable thematic elements from the original HP films without leaning on them utterly. Visually, the movie is very CG-Heavy, and the CG itself is a mixed bag. Some of it is absolutely outstanding, and some of it is very...bland.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I suspect that this is one of those movies that you're going to want to watch in 3D if you can do so without giving yourself a headache or vomiting all over the poor bastard in front of you. This is not because I've suddenly become a fan of 3D, or even because I feel that the movie as a whole would benefit from it. It's simply for the movie's beasts. In 2D, they were absolutely magnificent. I can only think that 3D would make them even more so. The critters in Newt's suitcase are a visual highlight of the film, and anything you can do to experience them more fully is recommended.
CHARACTERS:
For the most part, all of the principals in this movie are excellent. Of particular note is Eddie Redmayne's absolutely incredible work as Newt Scamander. Whatever he's being paid, they need to double it. While the rest of the movie's cast is certainly on par, every last second that Redmayne's wizard is on screen is an absolute delight. His presence and absolutely consistent character portrayal draw you into the film with every word he speaks and every move he makes. He is utterly, utterly PERFECT.
I would be remiss if I didn't also mention Dan Fogler's excellent role as James Kowalski, the muggle -- excuse me, NoMag -- that runs around with Newt for most of the movie. Casting Fogler, along with the man's talents, results in the perfect opposite for Newt to work with in the movie, and their bond is genuine by the end of the film, to say nothing of his bond with a certain other character.
In summary then, this movie is excellent and frustrating at the same time. The characters, the story, the visuals, they're all seriously above par. It's only frustrating because it took Rowling eight movies to figure out how to get here. That said, and I mean this...
I'm so very, very glad she did.
HERE THERE BE SPOILERS!
There are several things about this movie that I wanted to talk more about, but didn't want to spoil it for anyone in the earlier body of the review.
- The accent that Redmayne slaps on Newt Scamander is reminiscent of Roger Waters, the bassist from Pink Floyd. Part of that is down to the shape of his jaw.
- I really wish this movie didn't go so out of its way to remind you that it's a Harry Potter movie. It could easily stand on its own without almost every single one of references to the older HP material. As a matter of fact, I firmly believe that this would have been a better movie without any of it.
- The movie is titled 'Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them', but said beasts are supporting characters and excuses for set-pieces at best, and the story requires almost no real involvement from them to move it along. They could easily be removed and the main points of the story would be almost completely preserved. This is tragic, because they are HUGELY entertaining. You just wish that the movie could have actually been about them.
- The Obscuris that Kowalski runs into inside of Newt's suitcase is rather curious. It's not a beast, per-se, and it's certainly not harmless. As a matter of fact, it's the only identified object inside of the critter sanctuary that's outright evil, based on the movie's description of what an Obscuris is. Why would Newt be carting it around? That said, even if Graves hadn't used its presence as an excuse to execute them both, any other Auror could have run across it and gotten HUGELY pissed off about the fact that Newt was effectively carrying around a Micro Nuke on him without telling anyone. I'll touch more on this in a moment...
- The bit with Newt getting his bag mixed up with Kowalski's bag is utterly, utterly stupid. It's stupid, ham-fisted, horribly telegraphed, frightfully overdone plot device with forshadowing that even a grade school student could pick up on. The movie deserves better than this tripe.
- Newt is either a laughable moron or the most irresponsible wizard ever. He is walking around with what might be the most devastating biological weapon ON THE PLANET and there aren't more robust safeguards against shit escaping? SO MANY QUESTIONS HERE! That business where he replaces the opening with a perfectly benign stack of clothes and a watch? Why isn't that shit on there all the time? Why isn't there some kind of lock or trick to get into the bag? Why doesn't the bag have some kind of deterrent that keeps it from being mixed up or stolen? Scamander is wandering around with the Nuclear Football like it's a goddamned lunchbox! The wizarding community should lock his ass up and throw away the key!
- I'm not looking to start a fight here, but the first 15 minutes of the movie were rather heavy-handed in terms of sentiment towards America. Between the newspaper clippings, some of the comments that Newt makes, and the general behavior of portrayed Americans...I dunno. Maybe I'm just cranky. I'm really not a flag-waiving patriot most of the time, but something about the movie kind of ticked me off in that regard.
- Rowling is still woefully incapable of writing a bad guy. Graves is pathetically transparent, and Colin Farrell has once again accepted the role of a character with a heinously questionable hairstyle. The man might as well have a sign on him that says, "Bad Guy."
- I was impressed that they actually killed Credence Barebone. That's not something that folks are willing to write into movies these days. But while we're talking about that...
- So, the Aurors decide that because Credence has killed a few people, he absolutely has to die. They kill him without batting an eye. But not Graves, when he turns out to be the Big Bad Guy mentioned in the newspaper articles. What the hell?
- The Barebones family was expertly creepy. SO WELL DONE. They were all so very well done. It's been awhile since something like that made me uncomfortable, which tells me it was done properly.
- Tina is clearly a buffoon. The American wizards, however, are also clearly buffoons, because who the hell lets an AUROR continue to perform that job when they're clearly as much of a putz as she is? It takes her attacking -- admittedly for all the right freakin' reasons! -- a NoMag before they ... wait, before they stop her from being an Auror, but let her keep her wand and continue...working...WHAT?!
- Queenie is... so excellent. They could have done so many other things with her, and the direction they took her, and her relationship with Kowalski, is masterful. That scene at the end between them in the rain is heart-wrenching and absolutely, full-stop, tear-jerkingly beautiful.
- This movie had so many goddamned endings... It could have ended properly so many times, it was like the Return Of The King. Insane.
- 20 points for not having Newt and Tina kiss at the end.
- I was impressed that they allowed Kowalski's mind to get wiped too. Regardless of the final shot of Queenie in the bakery, that was a tough call, and so much more potent for it.
Seriously though, this was a good flick.
UPDATE: 2016-11-20 - Yes, I saw the little wisp of black smoke that slithered up from the remains. I'm not taking that as a guarantee that Credence survived just yet. Even if he did, that the move was willing to attempt to kill him is still impressive to me.
UPDATE THE SECOND: 2016-11-20: So, this happened: http://io9.gizmodo.com/there-was-a-scene-cut-from-fantastic-beasts-and-where-t-1789136541
Comments
Post a Comment