rating: ***
the story: Ben-Hur witnesses the rebellion against an empire begin.
what it's all about: After watching the 2016 version recently, I felt compelled to watch Charlton Heston's 1959 Ben-Hur, which I suppose I must have seen when I was a kid, since watching the famed chariot race sent vague memories firing through my head, memories that had rattled there since I first saw it, actually. I just didn't remember watching the movie itself Like a lot of people, I grew up watching Heston in the later Ten Commandments, thanks to an annual Easter broadcast. Ten Commandments, although clearly filmed thanks to the success of Ben-Hur, ended up supplanting it in the popular culture. Today, both Ben-Hur and the 19th century book upon which it was based have been somewhat lost to history. Again, the massive failure of the 2016 version is evidence enough of that. Critics will claim it's because the new one simply can't match up with the old one. Having seen it (again), I will venture to say the new one doesn't have that much competition.
The 1959 version is long, like Ten Commandments. It actually skips out on the kind of context storytelling the 2016 version explores, the full history of the foster brothers who end up competing in the chariot race. Heston skips right to his Roman rival returning home and slowly realizing the old adage, you can't go home again. It's almost funny to watch Heston in it, because he carries none of the gravity he brought to Ten Commandments, which I suppose is testament enough to his acting and his ability to bring different approaches to different characters (and also his increased profile). Still, he and the movie equate well of themselves.
The gravity, actually, comes from a Star Wars connection, much as I'd read into the 2016 version, where I thought I saw a new version of source material George Lucas seemed to draw on for the prequels. Yet the 1959 version reads a lot like a rebellion against an empire (as I noted above), full of Romans who sound English saying "rebellion" and "emperor" exactly as Star Wars characters would in the later original Star Wars trilogy. It can't be coincidence, right? Lucas was born in 1944,and so that would've made him fifteen in 1959, plenty impressionable enough for a big hit movie coming into his imagination. Everyone knows Hidden Fortress helped form the basis of Star Wars in the 1977 first film of the saga, but it seems to me that Lucas borrowed heavily from Ben-Hur as he conceived the rest of it.
This is a movie that is what it is, and watching it again, I'm still inclined to consider the 2016 version better worth a rewatch, but that doesn't make the Heston film less memorable. Watching it I can even see little musical cues John Williams likely borrowed for Star Wars, too. For these associations alone, it will remain fascinating, worth revisiting in the future. The chariot race, which critics insisted looked far more realistic than its 2016 counterpart, doesn't hugely hold up, by the way. You can tell where parts were filmed separately and then spliced together. It kind of takes you out of the moment. But that's okay. There are other things to love about it.
Friday, April 21, 2017
Thursday, April 6, 2017
5 Word Movie Reviews
Posting here what I compiled for a comment on Stacy's blog.
50 First Dates (2004) Adam Sandler is somehow charming.
(500) Days of Summer (2009) This whole movie is charming.
A Home at the End of the World (2009) Colin Farrell earns indy cred.
A Million Ways to Die in the West (2014) A truly hilarious Western satire.
Touch of Evil (1958) Heston competes admirably with Welles.
American Hustle (2012) Bad '80s hair steals movie.
Argo (2013) Alan Arkin steals the show.
Avatar (2008) Sam Worthington proves he's worthy.
The Dark Knight Rises (2012) Tom Hardy outsmarts a gag.
Black Swan (2010) Natalie Portman drives herself crazy.
Blades of Glory (2007) Makes figure skating less glorious.
Bridesmaids (2011) Depressing but incredibly funny, too.
Clash of the Titans (2010) I discovered Gemma Arterton here.
Couples Retreat (2009) Will make you retreat, too.
Cowboys and Aliens (2011) Daniel Craig and Harrison Ford.
Dead Poets Society (1989) O captain, my captain. Indeed.
Edge of Tomorrow (2014) Watch it again. And again.
Epic (2013) Poor crazy dad finds redemption.
Everybody's Fine (2009) Even grumpy dads need love.
Flight (2012) Watch for James Badge Dale.
Freedom Writers (2007) Patrick Dempsey will depress you.
Frozen (2013) Let it go; just enjoy.
Grand Budapest Hotel (2014) Hugely enjoyable romp; that's all.
Gravity (2013) Sandra Bullock's day really sucked.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1 (2010) Emma Watson, audio book reader.
Horrible Bosses (2011) But really fun to watch.
I Love You, Man (2009) Had poster on my wall.
Ice Age (2002) Caution: will spawn endless sequels.
Inception (2010) Welcome to the show, Tom.
Interstellar (2014) It's all related, you'll find.
Iron Man 2 (2010) Sam Rockwell really rocks, baby.
Iron Man 3 (2013) The Mandarin is a rip-off.
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005) Rollicking nonsense, but please enjoy.
Knight & Day (2010) Cruise and Diaz: poor showing.
Larry Crowne (2011) Everyone's charming, but also low-key.
Law Abiding Citizen (2009) But you'll wish he weren't.
Les Miserables (2012) Damn, Anne Hathaway can sing!
Looper (2012) Look for the other gimmick.
Man of Steel (2013) Superman's dads are Robin Hood.
Manhunter (1986) Unsatisfying once you see Hopkins.
Midnight in Paris (2011) The best of times, too.
Primary Colors (1998) Wait, Clinton is the hero?
Puss in Boots (2011) Antonio Banderas as Zorro, III.
Ratatouille (2007) A truly exquisite dish, darling.
Red (2010) Better off retired after all.
Red Eye (2005) A thrilling flying experience, unfortunately.
Salt (2010) Angelina is an action hero.
Serenity (2005) Makes you suffer their pain.
Sherlock Holmes (2009) I liked Watson better, alas.
Shrek 2 (2004) Fiona is an ogre, okay?
Shutter Island (2010) Leo is crazy, right? Right???
Silver Linings Playbook (2012) Jennifer Lawrence is crazy, right?
Skyfall (2011) This one was too slick.
Star Trek (2009) Old Spock was the cherry.
Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) His name is Khan, okay?
State of Play (2009) Politics as usual, poor guy.
Step Brothers (2008) Ridiculous and yet still affecting.
The A-Team (2010) Over the top, wobbly landing.
The Avengers (2012) Good for quips, at least.
The Big Lebowski (1998) The Dude abides, still loses.
The Blindside (2009) Don't mess with Sandra Bullock.
The Book of Eli (2010) He's blind; it still works.
The Bounty Hunter (2010) His charm is his weapon.
The Expendables (2010) They all are, turns out.
The Fighter (2010) Christian Bale falls in trash.
The Hangover (2009) Good friends form memories together.
The Hangover 2 (2011) They do it again, somehow.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) Singing dwarves save the day.
The Hunger Games (2012) Jennifer Lawrence is really grim.
The Island (2005) Pleasurable but you'll forget why.
The King's Speech (2010) It's not really worth it.
The Hurt Locker (2008) Elegiac and heartbreaking, a must-watch.
The Men Who Stare at Goats (2009) Did this really happen, dude?
The Number 23 (2007) Jim Carrey: his own warm-up act.
The Right Stuff (1983) You'll believe astronauts can fly.
The Shining (1980) All work and no play.
The Soloist (2009) Actually there's two of them.
The Town (2010) Ben Affleck regains his credibility.
This Means War (2012) Pine and Hardy are excellent.
A Thousand Words (2011) Eddie Murphy: words can't describe.
Trouble with the Curve (2012) A heart-warmer with Clint Eastwood.
Twilight (2008) Making sparkly vampires cool, obviously.
Two Lovers (2008) Joaquin Phoenix was really depressed.
Unknown (2011) Liam Neeson is a problem.
Up in the Air (2009) George Clooney unloads his backpack.
Valkyrie (2010) Tom Cruise seeks new credibility.
Wall-E (2008) A pantomime with a message.
Winter's Bone (2010) It ain't easy being poor.
Winter's Tale (2014) Colin Farrell: kind of magical.
Zero Dark Thirty (2012) Note to Jessica Chastain: dark.
50 First Dates (2004) Adam Sandler is somehow charming.
(500) Days of Summer (2009) This whole movie is charming.
A Home at the End of the World (2009) Colin Farrell earns indy cred.
A Million Ways to Die in the West (2014) A truly hilarious Western satire.
Touch of Evil (1958) Heston competes admirably with Welles.
American Hustle (2012) Bad '80s hair steals movie.
Argo (2013) Alan Arkin steals the show.
Avatar (2008) Sam Worthington proves he's worthy.
The Dark Knight Rises (2012) Tom Hardy outsmarts a gag.
Black Swan (2010) Natalie Portman drives herself crazy.
Blades of Glory (2007) Makes figure skating less glorious.
Bridesmaids (2011) Depressing but incredibly funny, too.
Clash of the Titans (2010) I discovered Gemma Arterton here.
Couples Retreat (2009) Will make you retreat, too.
Cowboys and Aliens (2011) Daniel Craig and Harrison Ford.
Dead Poets Society (1989) O captain, my captain. Indeed.
Edge of Tomorrow (2014) Watch it again. And again.
Epic (2013) Poor crazy dad finds redemption.
Everybody's Fine (2009) Even grumpy dads need love.
Flight (2012) Watch for James Badge Dale.
Freedom Writers (2007) Patrick Dempsey will depress you.
Frozen (2013) Let it go; just enjoy.
Grand Budapest Hotel (2014) Hugely enjoyable romp; that's all.
Gravity (2013) Sandra Bullock's day really sucked.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1 (2010) Emma Watson, audio book reader.
Horrible Bosses (2011) But really fun to watch.
I Love You, Man (2009) Had poster on my wall.
Ice Age (2002) Caution: will spawn endless sequels.
Inception (2010) Welcome to the show, Tom.
Interstellar (2014) It's all related, you'll find.
Iron Man 2 (2010) Sam Rockwell really rocks, baby.
Iron Man 3 (2013) The Mandarin is a rip-off.
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005) Rollicking nonsense, but please enjoy.
Knight & Day (2010) Cruise and Diaz: poor showing.
Larry Crowne (2011) Everyone's charming, but also low-key.
Law Abiding Citizen (2009) But you'll wish he weren't.
Les Miserables (2012) Damn, Anne Hathaway can sing!
Looper (2012) Look for the other gimmick.
Man of Steel (2013) Superman's dads are Robin Hood.
Manhunter (1986) Unsatisfying once you see Hopkins.
Midnight in Paris (2011) The best of times, too.
Primary Colors (1998) Wait, Clinton is the hero?
Puss in Boots (2011) Antonio Banderas as Zorro, III.
Ratatouille (2007) A truly exquisite dish, darling.
Red (2010) Better off retired after all.
Red Eye (2005) A thrilling flying experience, unfortunately.
Salt (2010) Angelina is an action hero.
Serenity (2005) Makes you suffer their pain.
Sherlock Holmes (2009) I liked Watson better, alas.
Shrek 2 (2004) Fiona is an ogre, okay?
Shutter Island (2010) Leo is crazy, right? Right???
Silver Linings Playbook (2012) Jennifer Lawrence is crazy, right?
Skyfall (2011) This one was too slick.
Star Trek (2009) Old Spock was the cherry.
Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) His name is Khan, okay?
State of Play (2009) Politics as usual, poor guy.
Step Brothers (2008) Ridiculous and yet still affecting.
The A-Team (2010) Over the top, wobbly landing.
The Avengers (2012) Good for quips, at least.
The Big Lebowski (1998) The Dude abides, still loses.
The Blindside (2009) Don't mess with Sandra Bullock.
The Book of Eli (2010) He's blind; it still works.
The Bounty Hunter (2010) His charm is his weapon.
The Expendables (2010) They all are, turns out.
The Fighter (2010) Christian Bale falls in trash.
The Hangover (2009) Good friends form memories together.
The Hangover 2 (2011) They do it again, somehow.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) Singing dwarves save the day.
The Hunger Games (2012) Jennifer Lawrence is really grim.
The Island (2005) Pleasurable but you'll forget why.
The King's Speech (2010) It's not really worth it.
The Hurt Locker (2008) Elegiac and heartbreaking, a must-watch.
The Men Who Stare at Goats (2009) Did this really happen, dude?
The Number 23 (2007) Jim Carrey: his own warm-up act.
The Right Stuff (1983) You'll believe astronauts can fly.
The Shining (1980) All work and no play.
The Soloist (2009) Actually there's two of them.
The Town (2010) Ben Affleck regains his credibility.
This Means War (2012) Pine and Hardy are excellent.
A Thousand Words (2011) Eddie Murphy: words can't describe.
Trouble with the Curve (2012) A heart-warmer with Clint Eastwood.
Twilight (2008) Making sparkly vampires cool, obviously.
Two Lovers (2008) Joaquin Phoenix was really depressed.
Unknown (2011) Liam Neeson is a problem.
Up in the Air (2009) George Clooney unloads his backpack.
Valkyrie (2010) Tom Cruise seeks new credibility.
Wall-E (2008) A pantomime with a message.
Winter's Bone (2010) It ain't easy being poor.
Winter's Tale (2014) Colin Farrell: kind of magical.
Zero Dark Thirty (2012) Note to Jessica Chastain: dark.
Thursday, March 30, 2017
Ben-Hur (2016)
rating: ***
the story: A contemporary of Jesus has a major problem with his adopted brother.
what it's all about: Hard to believe that Ben-Hur, in general, has traditionally been one of America's favorite stories. A Civil War general wrote the original book, which was one of the most successful books in American history, and Charlton Heston starred in the famous 1959 movie adaptation, which was one of the most successful movies in American history. Then someone decided to make another movie of it, and that was released in 2016, and...it was not one of the most successful movies in American history. It was kind of a massive flop. In hindsight it's really easy to tell why: you may have noticed the massive cultural gap that's developed in the last few decades, that's only gotten wider in recent years. No doubt Hollywood saw the modest success of religious films like God's Not Dead, and thought they could get another Passion of the Christ blockbuster hit with another Ben-Hur, because after all, the massive success of two previous iterations...But that just wasn't the case. The God crowd is leery of blockbusters, and the art crowd is leery of God. So: a massive flop.
Does the movie really deserve it? Hardly. I mean, the biggest star in the movie is Morgan Freeman, who puts in a supporting role, which means the lead goes to relative unknown Jack Huston, the latest spinoff of the Huston family that's been featured in Hollywood throughout its history. This is his big break; he has nothing much to compare his work in Ben-Hur against. The guy playing his brother has no shot at all of being or becoming a name from a movie like this, and so it's really completely on the movie itself to sell its merits, and you don't realize how often you judge movies on the talent involved rather than on the movie itself until you contend with a movie like this, which seems like it should be a big deal but already doesn't have much to go by. So there's that.
But again, the story itself, which demonstrably has considerable pedigree. The most famous element of the story is the showdown between Ben-Hur and his adopted brother in a chariot race. Critics who bashed the movie claimed the 2016 version doesn't measure up in this regard, that the race looks fake and therefore makes the whole endeavor pointless. But the thing is, it really is pretty cool. I have yet to see the 1959 version. I somehow doubt it really measures up to 2017 standards, much less 2016 (standards always advance in an evolving craft like filmmaking). The thing is, the chariot race is clearly what inspired the podrace in Star Wars - Episode I: The Phantom Menace. And the thing is, George Lucas seems to have been inspired by Ben-Hur with the whole Star Wars prequel trilogy.
Think about it. At one point, Ben-Hur tracks down his mother, whom he was forced to leave behind years ago. This same element can be found in Star Wars - Episode II: Attack of the Clones, when Anakin Skywalker memorably seeks his mother, whom he finds tortured near to death by the Sand People. The trilogy rounds out with Star Wars - Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, as Anakin clashes with his metaphorical brother, Obi-Wan Kenobi, just as Ben-Hur must clash with his metaphorical brother. This is no coincidence. Hollywood picked up on Lucas's allusion right away; the year after The Phantom Menace was released, the so-called "sword and sandal" genre was memorably resurrected with Gladiator, another ode to the days of the Roman Empire.
So in a lot of ways, Ben-Hur in 2016 was bringing things full circle, finally giving modern audiences another look at rich source material. Actually, the God elements are the least convincing of the movie, and seem to have been written with one particular audience in mind anyway. Depending on your ability to look past them, you don't even have to worry about them. The rest of the material stands up on its own, even if today it feels more like a curiosity than a vital piece of the culture.
But the thing is, you don't even have to look at it as a Star Wars thing or a God thing, but as a Civil War general's attempt to reconcile, well, the Civil War, and the America that existed at that time, a period of social strife, when slaves were being freed and struggling to find their place in society again. Slavery is key to the imagery of Ben-Hur in any context; the galley sequences are clearly evocative of slave ships, since they're an image the author conjured out of thin air, as he presented them. The 2016 movie is actually less about the God elements and more about attempting to unite diverging segments of the population, which makes it all the more ironic that the filmmakers decided to include divisive God elements and not particularly artfully, because they were only going to make the intended results impossible.
But all this still means this movie is fascinating, something worth thinking about, watching to see how well it really succeeds, how well it speaks to the past, present, and future. It's ambitious, and usually ambitious these days means superheroes or aliens, not a chariot race. It's certainly a movie I'll be returning to in the years ahead. I'm still not sure what to think about it myself, whether it succeeds on its own merits or merely the rich thoughts it provokes, and everything it evokes. I think it's pretty good. But, I'll have plenty of opportunities to find out for sure. I think it deserves that much.
the story: A contemporary of Jesus has a major problem with his adopted brother.
what it's all about: Hard to believe that Ben-Hur, in general, has traditionally been one of America's favorite stories. A Civil War general wrote the original book, which was one of the most successful books in American history, and Charlton Heston starred in the famous 1959 movie adaptation, which was one of the most successful movies in American history. Then someone decided to make another movie of it, and that was released in 2016, and...it was not one of the most successful movies in American history. It was kind of a massive flop. In hindsight it's really easy to tell why: you may have noticed the massive cultural gap that's developed in the last few decades, that's only gotten wider in recent years. No doubt Hollywood saw the modest success of religious films like God's Not Dead, and thought they could get another Passion of the Christ blockbuster hit with another Ben-Hur, because after all, the massive success of two previous iterations...But that just wasn't the case. The God crowd is leery of blockbusters, and the art crowd is leery of God. So: a massive flop.
Does the movie really deserve it? Hardly. I mean, the biggest star in the movie is Morgan Freeman, who puts in a supporting role, which means the lead goes to relative unknown Jack Huston, the latest spinoff of the Huston family that's been featured in Hollywood throughout its history. This is his big break; he has nothing much to compare his work in Ben-Hur against. The guy playing his brother has no shot at all of being or becoming a name from a movie like this, and so it's really completely on the movie itself to sell its merits, and you don't realize how often you judge movies on the talent involved rather than on the movie itself until you contend with a movie like this, which seems like it should be a big deal but already doesn't have much to go by. So there's that.
But again, the story itself, which demonstrably has considerable pedigree. The most famous element of the story is the showdown between Ben-Hur and his adopted brother in a chariot race. Critics who bashed the movie claimed the 2016 version doesn't measure up in this regard, that the race looks fake and therefore makes the whole endeavor pointless. But the thing is, it really is pretty cool. I have yet to see the 1959 version. I somehow doubt it really measures up to 2017 standards, much less 2016 (standards always advance in an evolving craft like filmmaking). The thing is, the chariot race is clearly what inspired the podrace in Star Wars - Episode I: The Phantom Menace. And the thing is, George Lucas seems to have been inspired by Ben-Hur with the whole Star Wars prequel trilogy.
Think about it. At one point, Ben-Hur tracks down his mother, whom he was forced to leave behind years ago. This same element can be found in Star Wars - Episode II: Attack of the Clones, when Anakin Skywalker memorably seeks his mother, whom he finds tortured near to death by the Sand People. The trilogy rounds out with Star Wars - Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, as Anakin clashes with his metaphorical brother, Obi-Wan Kenobi, just as Ben-Hur must clash with his metaphorical brother. This is no coincidence. Hollywood picked up on Lucas's allusion right away; the year after The Phantom Menace was released, the so-called "sword and sandal" genre was memorably resurrected with Gladiator, another ode to the days of the Roman Empire.
So in a lot of ways, Ben-Hur in 2016 was bringing things full circle, finally giving modern audiences another look at rich source material. Actually, the God elements are the least convincing of the movie, and seem to have been written with one particular audience in mind anyway. Depending on your ability to look past them, you don't even have to worry about them. The rest of the material stands up on its own, even if today it feels more like a curiosity than a vital piece of the culture.
But the thing is, you don't even have to look at it as a Star Wars thing or a God thing, but as a Civil War general's attempt to reconcile, well, the Civil War, and the America that existed at that time, a period of social strife, when slaves were being freed and struggling to find their place in society again. Slavery is key to the imagery of Ben-Hur in any context; the galley sequences are clearly evocative of slave ships, since they're an image the author conjured out of thin air, as he presented them. The 2016 movie is actually less about the God elements and more about attempting to unite diverging segments of the population, which makes it all the more ironic that the filmmakers decided to include divisive God elements and not particularly artfully, because they were only going to make the intended results impossible.
But all this still means this movie is fascinating, something worth thinking about, watching to see how well it really succeeds, how well it speaks to the past, present, and future. It's ambitious, and usually ambitious these days means superheroes or aliens, not a chariot race. It's certainly a movie I'll be returning to in the years ahead. I'm still not sure what to think about it myself, whether it succeeds on its own merits or merely the rich thoughts it provokes, and everything it evokes. I think it's pretty good. But, I'll have plenty of opportunities to find out for sure. I think it deserves that much.
Saturday, January 14, 2017
Top Picks from 2017 Sundance film festival
One of my dream jobs would absolutely be to watch movies all day (and, I guess, write about them), so I'd love to attend something like Sundance (1/19-1/29). Here're some films from this year's festival I'd love to catch, ideally at Sundance. Any omissions are strictly an indication of the extent to what I miss by not being able to live that particular dream...
Mostly because Melanie Lynskey is a screamingly underrated talent and this is one of several films she appears in at Sundance this year.
This pick is mostly for how ridiculously natural Alison Brie and Aubrey Plaza look as nuns. Plus I'd love to see them act as nuns...
A Ghost Story
Casey Affleck and Rooney Mara always intrigue me, and the premise of this particular movie is beyond intriguing.
The Discovery
Rooney Mara, plus Jason Segel in a dramatic performance? Heck ya!
The Hero
Sam Elliott's Crazy Heart might finally be his worthy spotlight.
I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore
The Little Hours
This pick is mostly for how ridiculously natural Alison Brie and Aubrey Plaza look as nuns. Plus I'd love to see them act as nuns...
Manifesto
Are you kidding me? This is another Cate Blanchett tour-de-force. Only cinephobes would hate seeing this.
Wind River
The latest from Taylor Sheridan (Hell or High Water).
The Yellow Birds
The forthcoming Young Han Solo stars in this, plus Jason Patric, who's the longest-working brilliant actor who critics have yet to really discover, or possibly has yet to appear in a film to truly spotlight him (besides Narc).
Friday, December 30, 2016
1998 Capsule Reviews
The Truman Show
rating: *****
review: My pick for Jim Carrey's best movie, his first big stab at being dramatic while retaining his crucial whimsical appeal in a story that takes an immersive look at the human condition.
American History X
rating: *****
review: Edward Norton's best movie is a deep look at race relations, at their worst, and how to make things better. Continually relevant, alas.
The Mask of Zorro
rating: *****
review: A perfect escapist adventure with a perfect cast.
What Dreams May Come
rating: *****
review: A truly awe-inspiring journey into the afterlife with Robin Williams.
Out of Sight
rating: *****
review: George Clooney's effortless cool in its best spotlight.
Shakespeare in Love
rating: ****
review: Very nearly worthy of the Bard himself.
Star Trek: Insurrection
rating: ****
review: A movie that rises above its shortcomings with some fascinating insights into franchise lore.
There's Something About Mary
rating: ****
review: This would be perfect, except for the fact that it kind of ages.
The Avengers
rating: ****
review: An excellent sendup of stuffy British spy stories.
The Negotiator
rating: ****
review: A great cast makes up for the fact that the reason Samuel L. Jackson is besieged takes a backseat to thrill of watching him get out of it.
Patch Adams
rating: ****
review: Robin Williams almost seems lost trying to inhabit a real person, but it's still an inspiring story.
Lethal Weapon 4
rating: ****
review: From my experience with this franchise, it's my favorite entry, with Mel Gibson obviously having the time of his life.
Rush Hour
rating: ****
review: Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker are a classic combination.
Saving Private Ryan
rating: ****
review: Sprawling but mesmerizing look at American soldiers in WWII Europe.
Meet Joe Black
rating: ****
review: Hugely underrated Brad Pitt drama that explores the ramifications of death.
Snake Eyes
rating: ****
review: My personal favorite Crazy Nicholas Cage Movie.
Mulan
rating: ****
review: Thanks to my sister, this sort of became my favorite '90s Disney animated flick.
Elizabeth
rating: ****
review: A first taste of Cate Blanchett at epic scale.
Celebrity
rating: ****
review: Kenneth Branagh as Woody Allen is a natural fit.
The Thin Red Line
rating: ****
review: Terrence Malick's poetic meditation of WWII is a brooding revelation.
Lost in Space
rating: ***
review: Fun family stab at sci-fi storytelling.
The Odd Couple II
rating: ***
review: The last Lemmon/Matthieu goes for broke with extremely broad strokes but is still well worth watching.
The Big Lebowski
rating: ***
review: The Dude abides, but he also kind of meanders through a madcap landscape.
Primary Colors
rating: ***
review: It was probably a mistake to recalibrate this Clinton satire into Clinton hero worship.
Wide Awake
rating: ***
review: M. Night Shyamalan's first movie plays with kid gloves pretty literally.
Pleasantville
rating: ***
review: The contrast between the past and present is pretty on-the-nose but looks really pretty.
Blues Brothers 2000
rating: ***
review: Hey, if it's just an excuse to pump out some extra great blues tunes, I think it was worth it.
Rounders
rating: ***
review: Maybe doesn't break any new ground in the gambling genre, but the cast makes up for it.
Earth
rating: ***
review: An excellent look at the birth of Pakistan, but otherwise doesn't really distinguish itself.
Apt Pupil
rating: **
review: A serviceable Stephen King adaptation, but kind of doesn't live up to the standards of his dramas.
Species II
rating: **
review: enjoyable for what it is, but it's still what it is.
Return to Paradise
rating: **
review: A somewhat overwrought attempt to introduce a new generation of serious actors.
Ronin
rating: **
review: In hindsight this looks like it wanted to recapture the magic of the Mission: Impossible reboot from two years earlier, but couldn't.
A Night at the Roxbury
rating: **
review: Idiot fun, but not nearly to the standards of Will Ferrell's later film career.
Simon Birch
rating: **
review: If Jim Carrey had served as anything but narrator, this could have been something other than melodrama.
The Big Hit
rating: **
review: Harmless action fun.
A Bug's Life
rating: *
review: To my mind, instantly revealed the extent to the Pixar formula.
The Waterboy
rating: *
review: To my mind, instantly revealed the extent of Adam Sandler's ability to create distinctive character personas.
rating: *****
review: My pick for Jim Carrey's best movie, his first big stab at being dramatic while retaining his crucial whimsical appeal in a story that takes an immersive look at the human condition.
American History X
rating: *****
review: Edward Norton's best movie is a deep look at race relations, at their worst, and how to make things better. Continually relevant, alas.
The Mask of Zorro
rating: *****
review: A perfect escapist adventure with a perfect cast.
What Dreams May Come
rating: *****
review: A truly awe-inspiring journey into the afterlife with Robin Williams.
Out of Sight
rating: *****
review: George Clooney's effortless cool in its best spotlight.
Shakespeare in Love
rating: ****
review: Very nearly worthy of the Bard himself.
Star Trek: Insurrection
rating: ****
review: A movie that rises above its shortcomings with some fascinating insights into franchise lore.
There's Something About Mary
rating: ****
review: This would be perfect, except for the fact that it kind of ages.
The Avengers
rating: ****
review: An excellent sendup of stuffy British spy stories.
The Negotiator
rating: ****
review: A great cast makes up for the fact that the reason Samuel L. Jackson is besieged takes a backseat to thrill of watching him get out of it.
Patch Adams
rating: ****
review: Robin Williams almost seems lost trying to inhabit a real person, but it's still an inspiring story.
Lethal Weapon 4
rating: ****
review: From my experience with this franchise, it's my favorite entry, with Mel Gibson obviously having the time of his life.
Rush Hour
rating: ****
review: Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker are a classic combination.
Saving Private Ryan
rating: ****
review: Sprawling but mesmerizing look at American soldiers in WWII Europe.
Meet Joe Black
rating: ****
review: Hugely underrated Brad Pitt drama that explores the ramifications of death.
Snake Eyes
rating: ****
review: My personal favorite Crazy Nicholas Cage Movie.
Mulan
rating: ****
review: Thanks to my sister, this sort of became my favorite '90s Disney animated flick.
Elizabeth
rating: ****
review: A first taste of Cate Blanchett at epic scale.
Celebrity
rating: ****
review: Kenneth Branagh as Woody Allen is a natural fit.
The Thin Red Line
rating: ****
review: Terrence Malick's poetic meditation of WWII is a brooding revelation.
Lost in Space
rating: ***
review: Fun family stab at sci-fi storytelling.
The Odd Couple II
rating: ***
review: The last Lemmon/Matthieu goes for broke with extremely broad strokes but is still well worth watching.
The Big Lebowski
rating: ***
review: The Dude abides, but he also kind of meanders through a madcap landscape.
Primary Colors
rating: ***
review: It was probably a mistake to recalibrate this Clinton satire into Clinton hero worship.
Wide Awake
rating: ***
review: M. Night Shyamalan's first movie plays with kid gloves pretty literally.
Pleasantville
rating: ***
review: The contrast between the past and present is pretty on-the-nose but looks really pretty.
Blues Brothers 2000
rating: ***
review: Hey, if it's just an excuse to pump out some extra great blues tunes, I think it was worth it.
Rounders
rating: ***
review: Maybe doesn't break any new ground in the gambling genre, but the cast makes up for it.
Earth
rating: ***
review: An excellent look at the birth of Pakistan, but otherwise doesn't really distinguish itself.
Apt Pupil
rating: **
review: A serviceable Stephen King adaptation, but kind of doesn't live up to the standards of his dramas.
Species II
rating: **
review: enjoyable for what it is, but it's still what it is.
Return to Paradise
rating: **
review: A somewhat overwrought attempt to introduce a new generation of serious actors.
Ronin
rating: **
review: In hindsight this looks like it wanted to recapture the magic of the Mission: Impossible reboot from two years earlier, but couldn't.
A Night at the Roxbury
rating: **
review: Idiot fun, but not nearly to the standards of Will Ferrell's later film career.
Simon Birch
rating: **
review: If Jim Carrey had served as anything but narrator, this could have been something other than melodrama.
The Big Hit
rating: **
review: Harmless action fun.
A Bug's Life
rating: *
review: To my mind, instantly revealed the extent to the Pixar formula.
The Waterboy
rating: *
review: To my mind, instantly revealed the extent of Adam Sandler's ability to create distinctive character personas.
Thursday, December 29, 2016
2016 Movies I've Seen to Date
RISEN (***)
This look at the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the perspective of a Roman Tribune (Joseph Fiennes) was a pretty fascinating experience up until, actually, we spend half the movie revisiting biblical material. Tom Felton was pretty good in this.
DEADPOOL (***)
Neatly irreverent take on superheroes (if you know the character, this is exactly what you should've expected) but wobbles into irrelevance by following the typical Marvel model of building its story around a weak villain.
BATMAN V SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE (*****)
I think critics, and Marvel fans, had such a huge problem with this because it dared take superhero moviemaking seriously, and completely nailed it. Pretty certain this will be a touchstone of the genre in years to come.
CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR (****)
Ironically, the best parts of this movie really have nothing to do with Steve Rogers but rather the growing cast of Avengers from throughout the franchise, the second time that's happened in this sub-series.
X-MEN: APOCALYPSE (****)
The villain of the piece is almost beside the point, but everything that happens around him is pretty brilliant, a nice bowtie to a six-film saga.
THE LOBSTER (*****)
Brilliant satire of romance and alienation, instantly becomes one of my favorite Colin Farrell movies.
WARCRAFT (****)
Duncan Jones succeeds in breathing life into this fantasy landscape and its intricate views of good and evil; the only thing it lacks is a compelling lead actor.
INDEPENDENCE DAY: RESURGENCE (****)
Plenty worth the wait and nicely builds on the mythology, but lacks the charisma of Will Smith that helped make the first one so memorable.
FREE STATE OF JONES (*****)
Fascinating little-known element of the American Civil War brought back to life.
STAR TREK BEYOND (*****)
The most ambitious of the reboot films to date with an ending that underscores the whole thing nicely.
SUICIDE SQUAD (****)
This sendup of the Marvel moviemaking method blows it out of the water with pizzazz to spare as well as a more genuine feeling for what being an outcast means.
SNOWDEN (****)
Oliver Stone's latest is a wakeup call for a wakeup call.
MAGNIFICENT SEVEN (**)
Surprisingly by-the-numbers movie with too many good actors used inadequately.
FANTASTIC BEASTS AND WHERE TO FIND THEM (****)
A pretty fantastic return to the world of Harry Potter.
ARRIVAL (*****)
My vote for the best movie of the year, with an astonishing vision and a grounding lead performance from the always-reliable Amy Adams.
ROGUE ONE: A STAR WARS STORY (*)
The way most fans view the prequels is how I viewed this, as quite simply atrocious.
JANE GOT A GUN (****)
This mini-reunion of Star Wars prequels actors was a fine addition to the Western genre.
MIDNIGHT SPECIAL (****)
Compelling vision from the always interesting Jeff Nichols.
GHOSTBUSTERS (***)
Oddly feels like most of the actors thought they were going to be animated.
HELL OR HIGH WATER (****)
Gritty meditation on outlaws of the 21st century.
Saturday, November 19, 2016
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016)
rating: ****
the story: New Scamander travels to New York with a briefcase full of magical creatures, and things kind of spiral out of control from there.
what it's all about: In a lot of ways, judging the Harry Potter movies (all eight of them) was always going to be a tough proposition. There's a diehard subculture that believes movie adaptations by definition are inferior to their book counterparts. Actually, let me reword that: the prevailing opinion is that the book is always better than the movie. It's a persistent prejudice, one that never really takes into account the unique benefits of both mediums. To anyone who goes along with this line of reasoning, try to watch a movie based on a play. If it's not a musical, and particularly if it was done years ago, you'll find "staginess" in the movie that would otherwise not be there. That's the result of being excessively faithful to one version of a story at the expense of a different and wholly unique experience. What works on the stage works that way because of the particular confines of the stage, which do not exist in movies.
My point being, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them may in fact be the first real chance we get at how well the world of Harry Potter works in movies. It's only too appropriate that the movie is set in America, which is where the majority of moviegoers around the world expect blockbuster movies to be set. That's just one of the things it kind of automatically have going for it. But there's also the threat of franchise fatigue. Fans don't like to admit such a thing exists. But you only have to look at the muted reception of Peter Jackson's Hobbit trilogy to see it in action. If these movies had been released right after his highly acclaimed and enthusiastically received Lord of the Rings trilogy, fans would have reacted to them very differently. Franchise fatigue is a thing that happens mostly when fans have...moved on to something else. It's no surprise that the Star Wars prequels were relative failures when Star Wars-scale blockbusters suddenly happened all the time (including Jackson's Lord of the Rings, and yes, the Harry Potter series). But fans will attribute it to declining quality.
And actually, no matter how much lenience fans gave J.K. Rowling when she started to vastly increase the page-count of her books (the strain most showed in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, the second giant-size entry, and also the first one in the series directed by David Yates in the film adaptations, which will be important later in this review), this blind love has declined in recent years, as she's begun a career writing books specifically for adults, none of which (there have been four, including three detective stories, which will also be important later in this review). This is relevant, because of course Rowling wrote the screenplay for Fantastic Beasts, the first full-length story she's written in this series since 2007's Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (the book).
So there's no telling how enthusiastic fans, or critics, will be with this movie. But they should be pretty ecstatic, because it's a brilliant success, like the stage play, Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, which debuted this past summer, an unexpected continuation as well as restatement of everything that worked so well about Harry Potter the first time.
The story revolves on a vaguely familiar character, the author of a textbook Rowling released in the real world, for charity, but more importantly, the lone Brit in the story, who's an instant connection to Hogwarts lore even though he's technically off entirely on his own. In a lot of ways, though, Rowling takes great pains to paint a portrait of the intrepid Newt Scamander very much in the mold of the beloved Rubeus Hagrid, the beloved groundskeeper portrayed by Robbie Coltrane in the movies, an outsider befriended by Dumbledore with a great love for magical creatures. But make no mistake: Newt is no Hagrid. In a lot of ways, he's what Harry Potter would have become if he hadn't found such stolid friends in Hermione and Ron, a sensitive soul with a fierce devotion to what he believes in, and an unwillingness to open up easily to others, fearing they just won't understand.
But the movie quickly pushes Newt in the direction of two helpful people, one being an American witch and the other a No-Maj, which is the American term for muggles. (Some critics have suggested that "No-Maj" is a clumsy term, but anyone who grew up with the Magi of the Bible, or heard a similar term in the Mummy movies featuring Brendan Fraser shouldn't have any problem accepting it.) Both of these characters add a wealth of inspiration to the movie, and help represent the uniquely American aspects of the movie. In their own ways, they represent Newt's Hermione (someone who knows what's the what) and Ron (a charming bumbler) without consciously evoking them. If I hadn't just pointed it out, I doubt you'd make the connections (not to insult you or anything).
And actually, Katherine Waterston's Tina Goldstein is more like Rowling's Robin from her Cormoran Strike mysteries, a woman who enjoys the thrill of the chase, even if it sometimes gets her into trouble. Dan Fogler's Jacob Kowalski is so protoptypically American he's also fat, which is what most people around the world (and quite a few Americans) have assumed is the standard model for years, even though American movies rarely reflect that (Paul Blart, Mall Cop not withstanding). His most interesting arc in the movie actually has nothing to do with Newt or Tina, but rather Tina's sister Queenie, played by Fine Frenzy, who would be a dead ringer for Idina Menzel. Queenie is mesmerized by Jacob, the first No-Maj she's ever known. The movie is actually about breaking through old modes of thought, and this is the easiest way it's demonstrated, and ends up finishing out the movie, too, so that you could very easily watch Fantastic Beasts as a completely standalone experience, whether or not subsequent sequels (there are four projected) picks up their story.
But these are all supporting players; Eddie Redmayne is, well, the main event. He's developed a reputation lately of being a mercurial performer, able to slip into the unlikeliest roles, whether Stephen Hawking in 2014's Theory of Everything or a transgendered woman in 2015's The Danish Girl. In Fantastic Beasts he brings almost lyrical physicality to the role of Newt Scamander, especially in a sequence where he coaxes a particularly troublesome creature back under control. He brings effortless charm to Newt, which is the crux of the movie's appeal, and how it sells further exploits into the world of Harry Potter as something that doesn't actually need Harry. In other words, he achieves the unthinkable.
There are other notable performances: Ezra Miller as the conflicted Credence (more on this later), Jon Voight as Henry Shaw Sr., Ron Perlman as Gnarlak, and Samantha Morton as Mary Lou, each of whom make indelible marks on fleshing out the American nature of the story. (The whole concept of the Second-Salemers is brilliant, addressing something that was missing in Harry Potter previously, a tangible connection to the past.) They have limited parts to play, so I won't spend too much time talking about them.
More notable is Colin Farrell as Percival Graves. I would've watched this movie even if I wasn't already a fan of Harry Potter (and Rowling), because I've been a fan of Farrell's for nearly a decade now. The Irish actor ironically plays an American in this one, as he has for the vast majority of his roles. Critics have been silent about his appearance, if not dismissive, but he brings to Fantastic Beasts what he brings to all his movies: a distinct, brooding presence. It's not just the eyebrows. Farrell tends to inhabit all his characters will three dimensions. This is not the first time he's spent the majority of his screen-time more or less silent (Dead Man Down, or even Miami Vice, or the most artistic example, The New World). His role as Graves is the most direct reflection of the deeper ramifications running through Fantastic Beasts, and by the time the movie ends it's easy enough to understand why (I'm not going to spoil that, but I would give those who know reason enough to keep an open mind; this is hardly the first time we've been asked to ignore the personal life of someone making movies, and not even the hardest one to stomach, which I would say is the career of Roman Polanski). Graves is almost Snape done all in one movie, but in the way fans expected rather than what Rowling eventually gave them. His relationship with Credence is a dark reflection of Newt's with Jacob, and the film greatly benefits from the contrast. I think Farrell is a powerful asset to the movie, and one of the few actors who could've pulled off such a tricky role.
Yates proves a deft hand as director once again. By the time he started directing Harry Potter movies, the material had existed so long it almost didn't matter who was at the helm anymore, but this is an assumption he calmly busts with Fantastic Beasts. Like the new look at Harry Potter in general, he proves that he really is as competent, and imaginative, as the movies might have only had fans think. Matching him is Rowling, who proves she wasn't just doing this to further cash-in on her biggest success to date (now that there's been a lot of other stuff, too). Some critics have said Fantastic Beasts reveals the debt she owes Roald Dahl, which is true, but there's also L. Frank Baum, too, anyone who's done truly imaginative work in the grand tradition Rowling continues, really. There's even some Jumanji in there!
Where Yates proves that he was capable adapting even questionable material (his streamlined and incredibly effective improvement on Order of the Phoenix), Rowling demonstrates what she's learned since leaving behind the comforts of telling epic adventures one school year at a time. If there are those who begin to suspect a lot of Harry Potter storytelling was somewhat convenient, fans can watch Fantastic Beasts and finally see for themselves that Rowling needs no such crutches. This is a lot like the free-form nature of Deathly Hallows (both the book and movies) taken to its next logical extension.
In short (!), Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is pretty fantastic.
the story: New Scamander travels to New York with a briefcase full of magical creatures, and things kind of spiral out of control from there.
what it's all about: In a lot of ways, judging the Harry Potter movies (all eight of them) was always going to be a tough proposition. There's a diehard subculture that believes movie adaptations by definition are inferior to their book counterparts. Actually, let me reword that: the prevailing opinion is that the book is always better than the movie. It's a persistent prejudice, one that never really takes into account the unique benefits of both mediums. To anyone who goes along with this line of reasoning, try to watch a movie based on a play. If it's not a musical, and particularly if it was done years ago, you'll find "staginess" in the movie that would otherwise not be there. That's the result of being excessively faithful to one version of a story at the expense of a different and wholly unique experience. What works on the stage works that way because of the particular confines of the stage, which do not exist in movies.
My point being, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them may in fact be the first real chance we get at how well the world of Harry Potter works in movies. It's only too appropriate that the movie is set in America, which is where the majority of moviegoers around the world expect blockbuster movies to be set. That's just one of the things it kind of automatically have going for it. But there's also the threat of franchise fatigue. Fans don't like to admit such a thing exists. But you only have to look at the muted reception of Peter Jackson's Hobbit trilogy to see it in action. If these movies had been released right after his highly acclaimed and enthusiastically received Lord of the Rings trilogy, fans would have reacted to them very differently. Franchise fatigue is a thing that happens mostly when fans have...moved on to something else. It's no surprise that the Star Wars prequels were relative failures when Star Wars-scale blockbusters suddenly happened all the time (including Jackson's Lord of the Rings, and yes, the Harry Potter series). But fans will attribute it to declining quality.
And actually, no matter how much lenience fans gave J.K. Rowling when she started to vastly increase the page-count of her books (the strain most showed in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, the second giant-size entry, and also the first one in the series directed by David Yates in the film adaptations, which will be important later in this review), this blind love has declined in recent years, as she's begun a career writing books specifically for adults, none of which (there have been four, including three detective stories, which will also be important later in this review). This is relevant, because of course Rowling wrote the screenplay for Fantastic Beasts, the first full-length story she's written in this series since 2007's Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (the book).
So there's no telling how enthusiastic fans, or critics, will be with this movie. But they should be pretty ecstatic, because it's a brilliant success, like the stage play, Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, which debuted this past summer, an unexpected continuation as well as restatement of everything that worked so well about Harry Potter the first time.
The story revolves on a vaguely familiar character, the author of a textbook Rowling released in the real world, for charity, but more importantly, the lone Brit in the story, who's an instant connection to Hogwarts lore even though he's technically off entirely on his own. In a lot of ways, though, Rowling takes great pains to paint a portrait of the intrepid Newt Scamander very much in the mold of the beloved Rubeus Hagrid, the beloved groundskeeper portrayed by Robbie Coltrane in the movies, an outsider befriended by Dumbledore with a great love for magical creatures. But make no mistake: Newt is no Hagrid. In a lot of ways, he's what Harry Potter would have become if he hadn't found such stolid friends in Hermione and Ron, a sensitive soul with a fierce devotion to what he believes in, and an unwillingness to open up easily to others, fearing they just won't understand.
But the movie quickly pushes Newt in the direction of two helpful people, one being an American witch and the other a No-Maj, which is the American term for muggles. (Some critics have suggested that "No-Maj" is a clumsy term, but anyone who grew up with the Magi of the Bible, or heard a similar term in the Mummy movies featuring Brendan Fraser shouldn't have any problem accepting it.) Both of these characters add a wealth of inspiration to the movie, and help represent the uniquely American aspects of the movie. In their own ways, they represent Newt's Hermione (someone who knows what's the what) and Ron (a charming bumbler) without consciously evoking them. If I hadn't just pointed it out, I doubt you'd make the connections (not to insult you or anything).
And actually, Katherine Waterston's Tina Goldstein is more like Rowling's Robin from her Cormoran Strike mysteries, a woman who enjoys the thrill of the chase, even if it sometimes gets her into trouble. Dan Fogler's Jacob Kowalski is so protoptypically American he's also fat, which is what most people around the world (and quite a few Americans) have assumed is the standard model for years, even though American movies rarely reflect that (Paul Blart, Mall Cop not withstanding). His most interesting arc in the movie actually has nothing to do with Newt or Tina, but rather Tina's sister Queenie, played by Fine Frenzy, who would be a dead ringer for Idina Menzel. Queenie is mesmerized by Jacob, the first No-Maj she's ever known. The movie is actually about breaking through old modes of thought, and this is the easiest way it's demonstrated, and ends up finishing out the movie, too, so that you could very easily watch Fantastic Beasts as a completely standalone experience, whether or not subsequent sequels (there are four projected) picks up their story.
But these are all supporting players; Eddie Redmayne is, well, the main event. He's developed a reputation lately of being a mercurial performer, able to slip into the unlikeliest roles, whether Stephen Hawking in 2014's Theory of Everything or a transgendered woman in 2015's The Danish Girl. In Fantastic Beasts he brings almost lyrical physicality to the role of Newt Scamander, especially in a sequence where he coaxes a particularly troublesome creature back under control. He brings effortless charm to Newt, which is the crux of the movie's appeal, and how it sells further exploits into the world of Harry Potter as something that doesn't actually need Harry. In other words, he achieves the unthinkable.
There are other notable performances: Ezra Miller as the conflicted Credence (more on this later), Jon Voight as Henry Shaw Sr., Ron Perlman as Gnarlak, and Samantha Morton as Mary Lou, each of whom make indelible marks on fleshing out the American nature of the story. (The whole concept of the Second-Salemers is brilliant, addressing something that was missing in Harry Potter previously, a tangible connection to the past.) They have limited parts to play, so I won't spend too much time talking about them.
More notable is Colin Farrell as Percival Graves. I would've watched this movie even if I wasn't already a fan of Harry Potter (and Rowling), because I've been a fan of Farrell's for nearly a decade now. The Irish actor ironically plays an American in this one, as he has for the vast majority of his roles. Critics have been silent about his appearance, if not dismissive, but he brings to Fantastic Beasts what he brings to all his movies: a distinct, brooding presence. It's not just the eyebrows. Farrell tends to inhabit all his characters will three dimensions. This is not the first time he's spent the majority of his screen-time more or less silent (Dead Man Down, or even Miami Vice, or the most artistic example, The New World). His role as Graves is the most direct reflection of the deeper ramifications running through Fantastic Beasts, and by the time the movie ends it's easy enough to understand why (I'm not going to spoil that, but I would give those who know reason enough to keep an open mind; this is hardly the first time we've been asked to ignore the personal life of someone making movies, and not even the hardest one to stomach, which I would say is the career of Roman Polanski). Graves is almost Snape done all in one movie, but in the way fans expected rather than what Rowling eventually gave them. His relationship with Credence is a dark reflection of Newt's with Jacob, and the film greatly benefits from the contrast. I think Farrell is a powerful asset to the movie, and one of the few actors who could've pulled off such a tricky role.
Yates proves a deft hand as director once again. By the time he started directing Harry Potter movies, the material had existed so long it almost didn't matter who was at the helm anymore, but this is an assumption he calmly busts with Fantastic Beasts. Like the new look at Harry Potter in general, he proves that he really is as competent, and imaginative, as the movies might have only had fans think. Matching him is Rowling, who proves she wasn't just doing this to further cash-in on her biggest success to date (now that there's been a lot of other stuff, too). Some critics have said Fantastic Beasts reveals the debt she owes Roald Dahl, which is true, but there's also L. Frank Baum, too, anyone who's done truly imaginative work in the grand tradition Rowling continues, really. There's even some Jumanji in there!
Where Yates proves that he was capable adapting even questionable material (his streamlined and incredibly effective improvement on Order of the Phoenix), Rowling demonstrates what she's learned since leaving behind the comforts of telling epic adventures one school year at a time. If there are those who begin to suspect a lot of Harry Potter storytelling was somewhat convenient, fans can watch Fantastic Beasts and finally see for themselves that Rowling needs no such crutches. This is a lot like the free-form nature of Deathly Hallows (both the book and movies) taken to its next logical extension.
In short (!), Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is pretty fantastic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)