By Brett Blake FANTASTIC BEASTS AND WHERE TO FIND THEM returns audiences to the Wizarding World of Harry Potter, albeit 70 years earlier than when last we saw it. J.K. Rowling herself penned the script, and the result is an imperfect - but highly engaging - time at the movies, one which offers some moments of true wonder, staggering production design, and a quartet of excellent lead performances. Taking place in 1926, the film finds wizard Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) arriving in New York City on a mission to return some magical creatures to their native habitats. After a mixup with a non-magical baker named Jacob Kowalksi (Dan Fogler), some of Newt’s beasts escape into the wilds of the city, forcing the pair to team up with two sisters, Tina (Katherine Waterston) and Queenie (Alison Sudol) in hopes of corralling the creatures. In the background of this is a dark and sinister plot involving a magic-hating fanatic (Samantha Morton), her meek and troubled adopted son (Ezra Miller), a sinister magical law enforcement agent (Colin Farrell), and a New York newspaper magnate (Jon Voight). I envision this being a bit of a polarizing movie, with some focusing on (legitimate) flaws and ignoring the many positive qualities, or vice versa. I come down on the issue this way: what’s good in the movie is really good, and well worth seeing. Even if the total package isn’t quite as cohesive as one might have hoped (and it isn’t, at least in this writer’s opinion), the positive elements outweigh the negative ones. Where to start on those positives? We need look no further than any and everything concerning the titular fantastic beasts. They are beautifully, ingeniously designed fantasy animals; their physiologies make sense, and they each seem to have been given personalities which are allowed to come through their actions and behaviors. I imagine children in the audience falling in love with several of the beasts and immediately demanding plush versions for Christmas. The variety of creature design - from identifiable simian analogues, to formless voids of swirling mass - keeps each encounter feeling fresh, and the setpieces involving Newt and Jacob interacting with them are terrific fun. There’s a particular sequence involving Newt bringing Jacob into the magical enclosure housing the animals Newt cares for that is one of the best individual scenes of the year, while the finale offers up an impressive bit of mayhem which makes for a satisfying visceral (if not narrative) conclusion. The production design for the film (courtesy of Stuart Craig, who designed all of the HARRY POTTER movies) is absolutely superb, rendering 1920’s New York in an almost idealized way. Period details on spot-on. Also very strong is the movie’s score by James Newton Howard; Howard is one of the few composers working who still understands the need for big themes, and he delivers here. While’s it’s unlikely any of his motifs in this score will seep into the public consciousness like John Williams main theme for the POTTER series did, Howard’s compositions are memorable, grand, and evocative. It’s one of the best scores of 2016. Across the board, the acting in the lead roles is top flight. Eddie Redmayne is endearingly earnest as Newt, and he just exudes an enormous kindness which fits the character of this man who’s more comfortable among the beasts than among other humans. Dan Fogler is delightful throughout as the audience point-of-view character, the normal guy who gets wrapped up in the goings on; not only does Fogler feel amusingly of-the-era, he also gets the movie’s most emotionally affecting moments alongside the luminous and charming Alison Sudol. Sudol’s work here should put her instantly on everybody’s radar for her ability to handle both the comedic and the dramatic. Katherine Waterston, playing Sudol’s sister, is a welcome contrast and grounds the proceedings in identifiable emotional and intellectual territory; she’s by far the most practical character in the story, which is important when telling a tale of high fantasy. The likes of Colin Farrell, Samantha Morton (saddled with a caricatured role so obvious and one-note it’s hard to believe that J.K. Rowling - creator of Severus Snape, one of the most complex and nuanced characters in recent popular fiction - actually wrote this person), Ezra Miller, and Jon Voight are all convincing, but the script doesn’t give them much of substance to work with, unfortunately. Which leads us right into the movie’s objective weakness: the decision to consciously steer into already-established Harry Potter lore in an attempt to set-up future installments. When this project was announced, my first (incorrect) assumption was that this series would be only loosely connected to the primary franchise J.K. Rowling already created, and that we might get something lighter, something of a more overtly adventurous and globe-trotting quality. Indiana Jones in the Wizarding World and with magical creatures. FANTASTIC BEASTS is decidedly not that. It’s a densely-plotted narrative, laying down threads for the future in ways that don’t always allow this particular movie to feel independent. The big storylines Rowling seems to be playing with mostly feel disconnected from Newt’s story, which is not necessarily a good thing when he’s the main character. Along these same lines, the narrative spends a good deal of time on the fairly grim (sometimes unpleasant) subplots involving the Miller, Morton, and Voight characters which ultimately end up going nowhere... at least in this movie. Perhaps these subplots are more elaborate setups for sequels, but they’re clunky here. For some, FANTASTIC BEASTS will be too much of a mixed bag for the reasons outlined above, and that would be a fair reaction. I do, however, believe the spectacle is satisfying, the creatures are properly fantastic, and the four main characters are a fun group to spend a couple of hours with. With the reservations properly noted and documented, the movie’s positives are enough to drag the movie across the line into legitimately “good” territory.
0 Comments
By Brett Blake The newest hero to enter the Marvel cinematic pantheon has arrived in the form of DOCTOR STRANGE, and there’s no way around it: this is another terrific movie from the fine folks at Marvel Studios. A very strong visual approach, solid (if a bit well-worn) narrative plotting, inventive action setpieces, and a legitimately phenomenal cast combine to make this the best solo hero “introductory” film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe since the first IRON MAN back in 2008. After a horrific car accident, renowned surgeon Stephen Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) embarks on a journey around the world in hopes of regaining the use of his hands. His search brings him to the far east, where he meets and learns from the Ancient One (Tilda Swinton), the “Sorcerer Supreme” presiding over a cadre of sorcerers who protect the earth from dark forces hiding in alternate dimensions. With the help of Mordo (Chiwetel Ejiofor), Strange regains his sense of purpose and attempts to thwart Kaecilius (Mads Mikkelsen), a fallen sorcerer who seeks to unleash a nefarious evil onto our world. If that brief summation wasn’t enough to spell it out, this is unquestionably the weirdest entry so far in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Director Scott Derrickson and his co-writers Jon Spaihts and C. Robert Cargill have embraced all the odd and metaphysical aspects of Strange’s comic book heritage, and the result is a massively entertaining experience. In many ways, it’s the total package: thrilling, funny, and satisfying on emotional and thematic levels. It’s basically a home run, and coming on the heels of Marvel’s CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR from earlier this year, DOCTOR STRANGE’s unique qualities stand out in stark and refreshing relief. It essentially looks nothing like any other Marvel movie, and it doesn’t tap dance around or make apologies for its unabashedly goofy subject matter. Parallel dimensions, alternate universes, astral planes, time travel, teleportation, magical spells, sentient capes... they’re all in here, and brought to life in viscerally exhilarating ways. The action sequences, which often involve physical spaces folding in on themselves, are delirious in the very best way, and the movie’s presentations of some of the different dimensions Strange visits look to be ripped directly from some of the most acid-trippy pages of Steve Ditko’s classic artwork from the comics. The movie’s finale, which I dare not even hint at, combines the action and big, colorful iconography in ways that are an obscene amount of fun; there are things in this finale that I never imagined could be put on film, and yet here they are. A game that inevitably gets played whenever a new Marvel Studios movie comes out is the ranking exercise. Something compels people to place each new installment into an order relative to all the others. Personally, I try to avoid this. I’ve only seen DOCTOR STRANGE once at this point. I don’t know where I would put it in relation to the other movies in the MCU. Is it better or worse than CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER? What about IRON MAN 3? I don’t know yet! The movies are so different, how do you really judge? What I can say for certain is that DOCTOR STRANGE joins GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY as the two films which deviate most - in terms of look and feel - from the larger Marvel Cinematic Universe. This movie doesn’t fully adhere to the “house style” that has been established up to this point; it has a far quirkier and more esoteric vibe, befitting its focus on mysticism, magic, and ancient lore, and it feels grander in ambition than any of the other Marvel movies (save for the two AVENGERS outings). You can sense there was a real desire behind the scenes to use the Doctor Strange character to shake things up a bit. The film may owe a tip of the hat to the first IRON MAN in terms of its basic structure, but the execution of that structure feels far different. More than anything, the movie feels truly fresh. If all DOCTOR STRANGE had to offer were its inspired and cool visual elements, then it would still be a success. It has more to offer than that, however, in the form of its pretty incredible cast. As brought to life by Benedict Cumberbatch, Stephen Strange is a character instantly capable of shouldering his own story, and Cumberbatch gets a tremendous arc to chart; he sells the character’s initial arrogance and need for absolute control, his subsequent profound humbling and quest for new meaning, and - finally - a return of confidence, now backed up with powers he would have never dreamed of before the story begins. There’s no question that - as the MCU inevitably begins to phase out stalwarts like Robert Downey Jr. in a few years - Cumberbatch is more than ready to pick up the baton and become the MCU’s new lynchpin. Tilda Swinton delivers another of her signature performances as the Ancient One. In lesser hands (and with poorer writing, admittedly), the character could have been the embodiment of a cliche; in Swinton’s hands, we have a fascinating and rich portrait, one peppered with a playfulness that is unexpected, but very welcome. Chiwetel Ejiofor is on board for what is probably the most complex character of the tale, and he makes Mordo feel profoundly human, something that should pay off as the character is set to move down interesting directions moving forward. As the villain of the piece, Mads Mikkelsen doesn’t get quite as much to play with as one might like, but he makes a meal out of what he is given, including a fabulous sequence where he lays out his motives. The least well-served character, by design, is Rachel McAdams as Strange’s colleague/potential love interest, but that’s not necessarily a problem; McAdams has an effortlessly naturalistic vibe that plays really well off of Cumberbatch’s energy, and she’s a nice presence in a role that feels included (mostly) in order to set up developments to come in the future. One of the movie’s greatest attributes is its musical score, which comes courtesy of Michael Giacchino. Much has been written and said about the strengths, weaknesses, and consistency of the soundtracks of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and though I’ve more or less been a fan of most of the previous films’ scores, there’s no question that Giacchino’s work here is easily the best of the bunch. Not only does he bring several strong themes to the table, but he also incorporates interesting electronic textures and playful orchestrations and instrumentation, which is appropriate for the Ditko-inspired trippy visuals. It’s one of the year’s best scores. I have no major reservations to report with DOCTOR STRANGE. If you can get past the weirdness, you will find as ambitious and inventive a blockbuster as you’re likely to see this year. No film is perfect, but I loved every second of this one, and can’t wait to see where Doctor Strange goes from here. By Brett Blake The latest movie to adapt Dan Brown’s Robert Langdon series of novels is here, and the bottom line is that INFERNO is not very good. It tells a ridiculous story with a ponderous tone, and it criminally wastes the talents of multiple very fine actors. Director Ron Howard has more hits than misses in his filmography, but INFERNO is not bad so much as its terrifically unimpressive. Dropping us right into the story, INFERNO begins with Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) in an Italian hospital with no memory of how he got there. With the help of a nurse, Sienna (Felicity Jones), Langdon escapes from assassins and finds himself plunged into a mystery involving Bertrand Zobrist (Ben Foster), a recently-deceased billionaire who may (or may not!) have engineered a biological plague to stave off looming problem of the planet’s overpopulation. Strung through this plot are the works of the famous Italian poet Dante Alighieri, providing a backdrop for Langdon’s knowledge of history to come into play as he and Sienna try to stay one step ahead of multiple sinister parties, all with seemingly opposed agendas. The degree to which INFERNO goes to preposterous places cannot be overstated. The storyline is absolutely crazy, and it culminates in a finale sequence that will seem conventional to most (and which is a major departure from the novel’s conclusion). None of this is a problem per se, but the devil is in the details, as they say; it’s the execution of these ideas where things start to fall apart. There’s no sense of fun, no playfulness, no winking of the eye to let the audience know it’s okay to laugh along with the movie instead of at the movie. Everything is taken so seriously, so at-face-value, that the inherent absurdity really rises to the surface. What was likely an attempt to create an ominous tone and to set up real stakes has the unintended consequence of rendering many of the plot turns unintentionally silly. There’s an overblown, portentous quality that you might think would fit the subject matter of a plague poised to wipe out the world population, but that’s such a grandiose notion that it really requires a deft touch to pull off. Unfortunately, director Howard and screenwriter David Koepp, neither of whom are strangers to more playful approaches to material, have chosen to keep things sullen and moody when the angle really needed to be operatic and inventive. Only Irrfan Khan, in the one great performance of the movie, brings the sort of attitude and spark that the film really could have used more of. And look, I’m not somebody who’s averse to the “Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon” series; I more-or-less enjoyed the previous two movies. The problem here is that, in its attempt to reach for the sort of pseudo-gravitas the last two movies had (by virtue of being explicitly about Catholic Church intrigue, something that naturally has weight), INFERNO becomes a pretty dour, joyless affair. While it’s certainly possible some could be entertained - in an ironic way - by the misplaced faux-seriousness of its wacky mystery plot, that’s not my preferred method of getting pleasure out of a film. I would rather meet a movie on its own terms and have it work for me as the filmmakers intended. That is, unfortunately, not possible with INFERNO. One of the most disappointing elements of INFERNO is the score from Hans Zimmer. His scores for THE DA VINCI CODE and ANGELS & DEMONS are two of his very best, with frequently gorgeous and ethereal passages, as well as ultra-dark, atmospheric, and moody sections. One might hope INFERNO would be more of the same, but one would be wrong; Zimmer has transported us back to his electronics-heavy sound of the 1990s, and the result is easily one of his least impressive scores in recent memory. Pounding drum loops, grating synthetic flourishes, and minimal thematic content are the things Zimmer has brought to the tale this time, and I can’t imagine this would be a score one would want to listen to outside of the movie. There is some basic enjoyment to be derived from certain aspects, of course. The movie looks fantastic, and director Howard shoots the hell out of the Italian locations. Pacing is top-notch, and the movie rarely stops its propulsive drive forward... though that may be because the filmmakers didn’t want to give the audience any time to think through how nutty and outlandish the storyline actually is! Also, though the plot itself is overly complicated and labyrinthine, there is some merit in the idea of constructing a wannabe blockbuster in a way that hinges on history, art, and religion; those are subjects that are admirable for their inclusion, and I guess if INFERNO gets someone in the audience to actually go pick up the works of Dante, then that’s a positive. That’s not enough for me, though. In the end, INFERNO is an unfortunate misfire. |
Archives
January 2023
Categories
All
|