Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (3-D)

First Hit:  Engaging at times, wonderful visualizations, and slightly misguided.

Although I left the theater thinking that this film was very entertaining, upon reflection it seemed like the film was too convoluted and didn’t know what it wanted to be in the end. Granted it was fun to watch, the beasts were extraordinary, and Newt (Eddie Redmayne) was very good as the kind hearted magician coming to New York with a goal of freeing his Thunderbird in Arizona, but the sweetness got lost in the hoopla.

There is a lot else going on in this film, however it is really enough to say that the beasts are extremely well done? Probably not.

Although wizardry and the like is viewed as naturally dark, Redmayne did a great job of bringing some light heartedness to the story as did Dan Fogler as Kowalski. What also added to the darkness of this film was watching a 3-D version which reduces the light on the screen.

The basic story is that New York is being attacked by an Obscurus (a dark entity) and MACUSA (Magical Congress of the United States of America) is trying to find a way to capture and stop the Obscurus from destroying New York as this sort of entity also puts magical wizards and witches in the public eye which isn’t good and Newt, just arriving from England and Hogwarts, gets caught up in this battle.

Arriving via ship, he’s carrying a suitcase filled with an odd assortment of creatures, including the Thunderbird, some of whom are mischievous and occasionally escape the case. Although this part of the storyline is entertaining it really didn’t work for me in that I kept wondering why he didn’t get a case with more secure locks.

During his first few hours in New York, he ends up entangling with Kowalski (Dan Fogler) who is going to a bank to ask for a loan to open a bakery. The reason for the engagement of these two is that they both have the same type suitcase. Kowalski’s is filled with pastries he wants the bank loan officer to taste.

However, with the cases switched, three of the beasts get out including a platypus looking animal called a Niffler, that steals anything shiny like coins and jewelry, adding additional complications to a troubled city. While the Niffler is ravaging jewelry stores filled with shiny bangles, Newt is desperately trying to find his suitcase of creatures, and capture the escapees. When he finds Kowalski, and hopefully his suitcase, he realizes that this person could help him despite him being a “muggle” or “no-maj.”

This is part of the overall story as muggles and no-majs cannot know about wizards, magic and witches therefore Kowalski, knowing about this magic, puts himself in danger for getting part of his mind erased. But being open and kind towards Newt, accepting of the wizard’s way, and being liked by a beautiful witch named Queenie Goldstein (Alison Sudol), he gets a temporary pass. Queenie’s sister Porpentina “Tina” (Katherine Waterston), who is a previously demoted inspector for MACUSA, captures and arrests Newt for using magic publicly. When she takes him to a MACUSA hearing, they ignore her and see Newt as an odd misplaced individual. However, as Tina learns more about Newt, she befriends him and hides Newt and Kowalski in her and her sister’s home.

When MACUSA learns that Newt has real experience capturing Obscurus types of entities they support him, with the assistance of Tina, Queenie, and Kowalski, in helping MACUSA rid New York of this entity.

Redmayne is very good as an introverted wizard that relates more with his fantastic beasts than people. He’s good at acting clumsy around people and great when in his own world. Fogler is really good as the budding baker and muggle who helps the wizard Newt. Sudol is wonderful and the engaging witch sister of Tina. Her brightness was welcomed in the film. Waterston was strong as the demoted investigator of MACUSA. Carmen Ejogo is good as President Seraphina Picquery of MACUSA. Colin Farrell is OK as Percival Graves a high ranking and powerful wizard in MACUSA. J. K. Rowling wrote this somewhat predictable script that seemed more complex than needed. There is limited character development which makes the story somewhat shallow. David Yates who directed three of the Harry Potter films, knew what Rowling wanted and outside of doing a great job of making the beasts fantastic, he did his best with Rowling’s limited vision.

Overall:  Although I was, at times, enchanted during the film, my interest and fascination faded away too quickly.

The Legend of Tarzan

First Hit:  Although entertaining, action packed, and occasionally thoughtful, the mostly poor CGI, scattered continuity, and unrealistic abilities, made watching this version of the mythical hero mediocre.

As John Clayton/Tarzan, Alexander Skarsgard has the perfectly chiseled body. The lack of spoken dialogue added to his being convincing that he was raised by apes, but when he spoke, I questioned this belief.

The CGI apes were well created, but many of the CGI background scenes were obviously manufactured, poorly done. I was impressed at how well Margot Robbie portrayed a very strong Jane Clayton (Tarzan’s wife). Her story was interesting and engaging.

Overall: King Leopold II of Belgium controlled the heart of the Congo, unless he can harvest the resources, he cannot continue to rule the area because it is costing his government money. He wants to harvest a particular area that has diamonds but it is controlled by a native group who will only give up the diamonds by getting a chance to kill Tarzan.

Tarzan is convinced to go back to Africa because whites are enslaving the natives. Convincing him to go to Africa is a US Government agent George Washington Williams (Samuel L. Jackson). The slave issue is real, but being used by Leopold’s agent in Africa Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz) to get Tarzan to Africa to be set up to be killed. The scenes in the African village where Jane grew up were emblematic of the best parts of this film.

Skarsgard did a good job of being Tarzan. His perfect body and athleticism was engaging. Robbie was one of the best parts of the film. Her clear firmness of belief, especially in scenes with Waltz was strongly appealing. Jackson’s character provided humor and reason for the story line. Waltz is a great villain and shows why in this role as well.  His intensity through his face and eyes transcend most peoples'. Adam Cozad and Craig Brewer wrote this overly complex screenplay that dragged at times. David Yates directed this and although entertaining will soon be forgotten.

Overall:  Not a film that will go down as very good.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2

First Hit: Somewhat better than Part 1 but frankly, I’m glad this long winded tale is over.

Thrusting children who are the bringers of light and lightheartedness to our planet into an ever increasing darker set of circumstances as they get older is part of our life on this planet; or so it seems.

The Harry Potter series of films reflects this transition in a different way and I’m not sure if it is (or was) to our benefit or entertainment. The tales took the mystery of magic and attempted to make it a real life thing and being embodied in a select few children. 

The series of films only focused on the selected few therefore we rarely were able to see or sense the difference between this magical world and non-magically gifted children or adults. This was one of the problems I had with this series of films. Where as the Hobbit tales were all fantasy.

These films originally started in a world where regular people were part of the story but they ended up being only fantasy until the very last scene when the main character's children are in a real life railway station heading off to Hogwarts School.

This film took started where Part 1 left off. Whereas Part 1 of the final chapter was long winded, boring and attempted to set-up our characters for the final resolution; Part 2 was filled with CGI action. Harry (like Luke Skywalker) was connected to the dark force of Lord Voldemort and had to be willing to kill himself to save Hogwarts and all the special magical kids who attend. One has to be willing to lose oneself to find oneself and this is true in the Harry Potter world as well as our own.

Anyway this film was dark (both in concept and visually), long, and, in some ways, filled with senseless action.

Daniel Radcliffe (as Potter) was good to watch in the first couple of films, but became limited and shallow as the series went on. He lacked depth of character in Part 2. My guess is (and I could very well be wrong) he’s glad to be through with this film series because it showed. Rupert Grint (as Weasley) probably won’t have much of an acting career after this last installment, there is nothing engaging about him or the character he played. Emma Watson (as Granger) was and is the strongest actor of the main three characters and will continue to have success as an actor. Alan Rickman (as Snape) is always enjoyable to watch and here he makes his character intriguing. Ralph Fiennes (as Voldemort) is good as the story’s evil dark character and it wasn’t because of the lines but because of his skill at creating presence. Steve Kloves wrote the screenplay from J.K. Rowling’s novel and some of the dialogue felt stiff. David Yates directed this and there seemed to be the belief that the more crap you throw up on the screen the more of it will stick. One scene particularly felt out of place, was when Harry was coming down some stairs after an intense encounter with the vision pool and Ron and Hermione are sitting there. Why were they there, how did they get there, why would they be sitting there as if they were having a private “together” moment in the middle of the battle for their school? Then they get up and after a couple of stilted lines, the three of them get more engaged with the war against evil again.

Overall:  I waded through all of the films and only one or two were noteworthy and engaging. This one excelled only in the amount of CGI stuff thrown up on the screen.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1

First Hit: All I can say is Part 2 will hopefully be really good because Part 1 is one long boring piece of nothing.

I really wonder what the mindset is of a director who can create a long piece of preamble in hopes that he hits a home run with the epilogue.

Jesus, sitting there during hour after hour of darkly filmed set-up for Part 2 was an immense time waster. Here is what I learned: Ron (played by Rupert Grint) can dislike Harry (played by Daniel Radcliffe) if even for only 20 minutes of the film's time.

Ron and Hermione (played by Emma Watson) have a thing for each other. Muggles are dying and why should I care. Hogwarts as a school is history. The Ministry of Magic dies. A sword is important. People can switch wands.

And finally Yoda, from Star Wars fame, arises again in a slightly different body but speaks sentences in the same oddly phrased way. It was obvious that the producers skimped on lighting, therefore everything is dark.

And lastly I’ve got to find it within me to care about these people even though Harry is the chosen one, he isn't very smart and people follow him blindly to their death. I was astonished by the milking of the public in this way for a 2.5 hour preamble which does very little.

My question is: Will Part 2 begin with a synopsis of Part 1 (should take about 5 minutes)? If it does, don't waste your time watching this film and if it doesn’t; I'm not sure you need to this film to move the story along. I just didn’t learn enough in Part 1 (save the aforementioned above) to make it worth my while to see Part 2.

Radcliffe is about the same as he’s been in all the other Potter films except the first one where his innocence was a welcomed joy. There is nothing extraordinary about him as an actor and he doesn’t really give much to the audience and it is difficult to care about him in this part. Grint has changed a bit and has grown slightly. He also has to share a different set of feelings for Harry in about 3 minutes of screen time when he gets mad at Harry. But overall, nothing much new here either. Watson appears to have some acting chops as there were multiple scenes in which she says nothing but the audience is given a sense of feelings and shifts in her character. The snub nose on Ralph Fiennes as Lord Voldemort is a good look for evil and that was entertaining. The best acting in this film is by Helena Bonham Carter as Bellatrix Lestrange. She is great, brings great energy to the screen and was the only acting highlight. Steve Kloves wrote a boring screenplay from J. K. Rowling’s novel. Direction by David Yates is heavy handed, emotionlessness and overly dark.

Overall: If you must see this, rent it and eat dinner while watching so you get something done during the time. You won't miss much while you are chewing your food.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

First Hit: Long, dark, and boring with virtually nothing in it to make it interesting.

A series of films on a particular subject or character have a general rule over time, they get worse unless someone really creates a new story line with a unique view or character.

The Batman series was failing until Batman Begins came along which put a new fresh light on the character.

By the 3rd film in the Star Wars series the franchise was headed downhill despite being produced by one of the best producers ever.

Star Trek became a joke after hitting its zenith with The Wrath of Khan and then came the 2009 film Star Trek which was spot on perfect and will do wonders to revitalize the series. Harry Potter is suffering greatly from this malaise and with this latest offering hasn’t found any new life yet.

Half-Blood Prince is a title looking for a story; a film looking for something to shoot. 

The film begins with Rampaging Death Eaters? Who are these things and why do they exist? Nothing in the film gives us any background about what and why they are; although I did enjoy Helena Bonham Carter because she brought some fun, charisma and focus to these death eaters. 

Lastly, why did Dumbledore have to keep asking Harry to trust him? Jeez they’ve been together for years now and if that trust wasn’t already established then what the hell are these characters about?

Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint reprise their roles of Harry, Hermione and Ron respectively. All of these actors appeared to be unpracticed and unrehearsed in roles which they should be familiar with because this is there 6th film together in the same roles. The actors which stand out in this film are Helena Bonham Carter as Bellatrix Lestrange and Alan Rickman as Professor Snape. Rickman commands you watch him in his scenes and makes good on his practice to deliver. Director David Yates got little or nothing out of the rest of his actors but maybe it simply because it was a bad script looking for an interesting story.

Overall: Every film needs to stand on its own and shouldn't require seeing previous films or, in this case, the reading J.K. Rowling's books on which they are based. I’ve not read the books but I’ve seen all the films and this one is the worst one yet.