Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them Review (Spoiler Free)

November 17, 2016April 4, 2019 | Rachel's Reviews

2016 will forever go down as the year of the disappointing blockbuster. Out of the dozens of blockbusters I’ve seen only 5 I would classify as great films. The discouraging thing is so many films have had such potential. Indeed, they have such potential that I buy into the hype and go into the film expecting something great only to be disappointed when leaving.

Well, my friends, you can add another film to this list. The newest spin-off in the Harry Potter world, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, isn’t awful by any means but it is very disappointing.

I should state outright I am not a die-hard Harry Potter fan. I am more of a casual fan but I have recently done my rewatch of the Harry Potter movies over on my channel and I was reminded that they are a bit of a mixed bag. None of them are awful either but I’d say 4 are successful and 4 really are not. You can listen to our podcasts here.

Fantastic Beasts is particularly disappointing because this was the chance to see JK Rowling write a screenplay without any fear of loyalty to a book or other source material. She could just unleash her creativity on the screen, but it ends up being a mostly frustrating experience.

But there are some good things about the film that give it a mild recommendation.

Good Things-

There are two plotlines in Fantastic Beasts. The first involves Newt Schamander (Eddie Redmayne) getting his suitcase switched with a non-magician (muggle in Britain no-maj in US) man named Jacob. Unfortunately Jacob unleashes some of Newt’s magical creatures onto the city of New York and they have to hunt them down.

This search is a lot of fun and it was surprisingly slapsticky. There has always been some humor in the Harry Potter movies but this was long segments of people falling into mud or getting into other shenanigans with the magical creatures. My friend laughed a lot more than I did but it was pleasant entertainment.

I also really liked Jacob and a woman named Queenie played by Alison Sudol. I almost wish the movie had been about the two of them instead of Newt. She lit up the screen whenever she was on it and her ability to read minds was charming and funny.

The music by James Newton Howard was fantastic, capturing the 1920’s speak-easy feel as well as the exquisite costumes by always reliable Colleen Atwood. The beasts were also adorable especially a creature called a niffler. They will probably sell a lot of toys of him at Universal Studios.

I was also never really bored so it’s a harmless film about magic that I suppose hard core fans will love. I wasn’t offended or bored out of mind by exposition like in Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children.

Bad Things-

When I first got out of the theater and did an initial thoughts youtube review where I gave it a B- but now that I’ve thought it over I am going lower because there really are a lot of problems.

The first big issue is with the tone. Like I said, they try way too hard to be funny and then combine that humor with some really dark story-lines I won’t spoil. The sort of B story-line involving Ezra Miller as an orphan named Credence Barebone and his head ‘mother’ played by Samantha Morton is unsettling to say the least. It didn’t gel together very well.

There also wasn’t a clear focus like you had in the Harry Potter movies, which even when unsuccessful were still about Harry and Voldemort growing in strength and their eventual meeting. Evidently there are going to be 4 more movies and I really have no idea where the story is going or what the focus on the series is going to be. This film was half spent playing hide and seek with magical creatures for laughs and the other half fighting a dark demon in New York. Where do you go from here? I really don’t like the Hobbit movies but at least the first Hobbit film was a clear start to a journey and series.

Also, the other big problem I had is in the acting choices made throughout the film. Eddie Redmayne in particular mumbled most of his dialogue to the point where I was constantly leaning over to my friend asking her “what did he just say?” Some other actors were laying on the New York accent very thickly and it made them difficult to understand.

A lot of the actors like Colin Farrell are underused. Academy award winner Jon Voight is in like 2 scenes and Ron Perlman is briefly seen. I guess they could appear more in future installments but it’s odd when you have such well known actors in small roles. I guess they will clear things up in future installments but I found myself confused particularly on the B more scary story-line

In the end, it’s not a horrible movie but I did walk away feeling disappointed. There is fun to be had with the magical beasts and characters like Queenie but it’s hard to endorse a movie when I can’t understand the lead character most of the time.

The tonal problems and lack of overall compelling story are also hard to ignore. Like I said, in my youtube review I gave it a B- but today I am going with a lower grade.

Overall Grade- C

Also, I don’t think this movie is going to appeal to kids much. I think they will find it kind of boring. Both my friend and I agreed on that leaving the theater. But see it for yourself and decide.

How Did I Miss That?…

November 11, 2016November 11, 2016 | Rachel's Reviews

Lately I’ve been wondering about something in regards to my reviews. Now I do two types of reviews. I review previously released films that usually I have time to stew on and ponder. Many times it is a rewatch and there is no sense that I have to rush to get the review out. We saw this with my Disney Canon Series, Pixar reviews or Scrooge Month.

However, there are the reviews to new releases. These I try to get to you as soon as I can so you have some guidance on what to see and not see. The problem with this is I’m not able to ponder about the films as much as I do on the films that aren’t new releases. It’s more of a gut reaction, which is a valid response but not always the most comprehensive of what becomes my true feelings on a film. Some films I give a mildly bad review to like Minions or Independence Day Resurgence but then the more I think about it the more annoyed I get or the more forgettable it feels. I knew they were bad but they become more bad the more I have time to stew on it.

The same goes for certain good films. I respond positively to them but the more I rewatch and see them the more I love them. This year Only Yesterday was that way. I gave it a B+ I believe but the more I have seen it the more charmed I am by it and the flaws become easy to forgive. My initial review is still valid and it’s not inaccurate of my feelings, it’s just I’ve noticed more good things and been able to ignore the problems. Mad Max Fury Road is another one the more I watched and thought about the more I loved it.

What really got me thinking about this is Trolls. I gave Trolls a C in my review. I felt it was very hit and miss and I think that is a correct diagnosis. However, the more I’ve thought about it the more I’m bothered by certain aspects of the film. Particularly the messaging and what it says about happiness.

I admit part of these new ideas have come from conversations with others who’ve seen the film and some of my fellow youtubers/bloggers reviews. For example, Jim Gisriel makes some great points about how some of the ideas are actually dangerous.

A friend brought up to me that Inside Out is about accepting all emotions and that all feelings are vital to finding joy. Whereas, Trolls is about how happiness exists and is the only correct response to life. There is no sense of the trolls learning from the Bergens about how to be angry, upset, sad etc. It is a My Fair Lady type experiment to teach the bergens how to be happy.

That is alarming.

Angry Birds is even worse where anger is actually the solution to the birds problems and the happy birds are stupid and naive. They literally have to take lessons from Red on how to be more angry….

Zootopia, on the other hand, still holds up as a powerful fable with amazing animation, humor and characters. It’s a richer experience each time I watch it.

This is a problem.

The more I think about these messages the more bothered I am. I don’t know. Is it overthinking the films too much? Should I just go with my initial gut reaction? Should I write up a new review when I have these new revelations or be happy with the initial thoughts?

What do you think? Have you ever experienced this change in your views of a movie or are you pretty consistent?

Blind Spot 11: Looper

November 11, 2016November 11, 2016 | Rachel's Reviews

This month for my blind spot pick I took a look at the 2012 sci-fi film Looper. To see the rest of my blind spot picks go here. I wanted to pick this movie because I’ve heard good things and director Rian Johnson is doing Star Wars: Episode VIII. I was curious to see if I’d get anything for his style of what was coming to Star Wars and I don’t know that I actually got that but it’s still a decent sci-fi film. It’s really more like Terminator than Star Wars.

Looper is a time travel story about a futuristic society where time travel hasn’t been invented yet but it will be invented in the future. The creative twist is the future uses time travel to send criminals to the past and loopers kill said criminals. They do this until they are forced to kill their future selves and their careers are over.

Joseph Gorden Levitt plays Joe a looper who has stashed his silver so he can live a good life when his days as a looper are over. Then one day he meets his future self (Bruce Willis) but is beaten up and old Joe flees. He then begins a cat and mouse chase with the crime syndicate that runs the loopers and his future self.

I don’t want to give any more away but trust me there is a lot more going on. It is a very original story that flows nicely without any obnoxious twists or trickery. On the whole I enjoyed it very much.

However, at first I had a few issues. It was leaving me kind of cold and I think the best sci-fi should stir emotion. It shouldn’t feel rote and mechanical. The violence felt impersonal and strong and I wasn’t bonding emotionally with young Joe. There is a moment where we bond with old Joe but I was still feeling kind of cold and distant.

And then we meet Emily Blunt’s character Sara and I think that really turned it around for me. She is carrying for a little boy and she really brought the emotion I had been looking for. She was so good in the role and I finally felt like young Joe wasn’t a robot any more, but a real person with feelings.

It’s also a really grounded, normal looking scifi movie. There are hovering bikes but that’s about it as far as world-building. I know this only had a $30 million budget but I kind of wish they had done a few more creative touches to change the world- make it a little more inventive and different from our own.

Also Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s nose prosthesis to make him look more like Bruce Willis didn’t really work for me. It always looked like make-up and I didn’t think he looked anything like Bruce Willis.

But aside from those flaws you have a very original sci-film with a creative premise and story. Particularly in the last act it has something to say about the paths we can go on in life. How one action can take us on a completely different trajectory than another. The acting is good throughout and the brutal violence is well staged if you like that kind of thing.

So, yes I had a few little issues but I’d definitely recommend Looper if it sounds like your kind of film and you can handle the R rated material.

What do you think of Looper? Is it a favorite of yours?

Overall Grade- B+

Animation Pitch Session!

November 8, 2016November 8, 2016 | Rachel's Reviews

So I just participated in a really fun podcast over on my youtube channel. My friend’s Josh and Mark joined me to do a pitch session for ideas for animated films and series. I got the idea after I was so depressed with the upcoming 2017 slate. So I decided the studios need better ideas and my friends and I could give them some!

The way the pitch session worked is there are 4 sessions. Each of us pitched an idea of why it would be good. Then we could ask questions to flesh out the ideas. Then at the end of the round we each must vote for an idea that is not our own. The idea with the most votes wins the round. Then we do the same thing for the final 4 ideas and a winning idea is selected!

I liked all of our ideas and would love to hear your feedback. Here are polls so you can vote on what you like

We really had a blast doing this so hopefully we will do it again soon. The beginning of the video google hangouts wasn’t switching off the way it should but hopefully you can listen to it just fine.

Anyway, let me know what you think!

Doctor Strange Review

November 6, 2016November 6, 2016 | Rachel's Reviews

In some ways the latest Marvel movie, Doctor Strange, has been quite revelatory for me. You see, over on my youtube channel I had a special podcast with a comics expert friend of mine named Trevor at HowtoLoveComics.com.

This forced me to dive into the comic books of Doctor Strange before seeing the film, something I have never done with a comic book movie. I was impressed with how understanding the lore and comics helped add to the moviegoing experience. It’s something I hope to continue to do for future films.

I don’t think reading the comic books make you excuse flaws in the movie but it helps you understand the characters on a bit of a deeper level than may be explored in one particular movie.

Anyway, it was an interesting experience that I would recommend to all of you.

As far as the movie, Doctor Strange, I enjoyed it very much. There are 2 reasons to enjoy Doctor Strange:

First, Benedict Cumberbatch as Doctor Stephen Strange. I am a huge Benedict Cumberbatch fan and feel this is the best use we have seen for him in the movies yet. He manages to capture the brilliance of Doctor Strange while also getting a desperate humble side of him. I’ve heard many people compare his character to Tony Stark in Iron Man but I think he spends more of this movie humbled and weak than we get from Tony for many movies. He’s also much more awkward than Tony ever is.

Iron Man also has more substantial supporting characters than Doctor Strange gets. Pepper is a more active character in the first Iron Man than Rachel McAdam’s Christine and Rhodey is certainly more important to Tony than Wong is to Doctor Strange.

So, it is up to Benedict Cumberbatch and his character to carry the movie, and I think he does so very well. He’s charismatic and likable despite being arrogant and over-confident at times.

The second standout is the amazing visuals. I saw this film on IMAX 3D and it was pretty awe inspiring. Doctor Strange learns from the Ancient One (Tilda Swinton) that there are multiple dimensions. The mystical realms are accessed when we learn to manipulate and control these dimensions.

The movie does a great job showing these dimensions and not explaining them to us or the magic that goes along with them. We see it and that’s good enough without understanding the background or mechanics.

A lot of people have compared the visuals to Inception and I can see their point. However, I think they are more dreamlike than Inception. There is something a bit more grounded in Inception’s graphics and something more ephemeral about them here in my opinion.

The one caution I will give about the graphics is as spectacular as they are, they did make me a little motion sick. Some of the sequences towards the end I feel went on a little bit too long, and I started to feel a little nauseated. I have a very sensitive stomach when it comes to such things, so it is probably just me. You will have to make your own determination. That was just my experience.

A lot of people have complained about the casting of Tilda Swinton as the Ancient One. It is a tricky thing because casting an Asian man like in the comic book could come across as reinforcing stereotypes, so which is the greater sin? Regardless, I think Tilda Swinton does a great job in the role as there is something other-worldly about her. Also her character has a bit more of an arc than I was expecting or was in the comic books I read.

All the rest of the performances are good but they are pretty brief. This is Doctor Strange’s movie and it is his origin story. Some will roll their eyes at another origin story but I didn’t mind it. The movie is well paced, clipping along quite nicely and the tone is carefully controlled. I enjoyed the more thoughtful moments along with the humor.

I don’t know if I liked Doctor Strange as much as Captain America: Civil War, but it is a very enjoyable origin story. I liked the character of Doctor Strange, and I liked the world we were given. That’s about all I needed to be happy. The story was good enough to engage me

I look forward to seeing how Doctor Strange works within the MCU going forward and how the new dimensions of mystical magic help add a new layer to the storytelling at Marvel.

Overall Grade- A-

Here is my youtube review

Christine Review

November 6, 2016 | Rachel's Reviews

Today I had a little gap of time and decided to see the indie film Christine, and I’m glad I did. This is a film by Antonio Campos about the real life story of Christine Chubbuck who committed suicide on live news television.

As you might guess this is a pretty grim, tragic film and I appreciate that writer Craig Shilowich did not add an ounce of sentimentality to the events of Christine. There is no soaring music as we get to the inevitable event and we are not emotionally manipulated in any way.

The most interesting thing about Christine, played by Rebecca Hall, is she’s at once sympathetic and unlikable at the same time. There is nothing cloying or patronizing about the way her mental illness is depicted here. Often she wants to do do good things but she struggles to convey those desires in ways that others can accept. She’s not surrounded by jerk-offs like you might expect. Quite the contrary. Pretty much everyone is trying to love Christine in the ways they know how. It’s difficult because she is very tough to love.

As a reporter Christine struggles with the idea of writing ‘juicier stories’. She wants to interview strawberry pickers and happy couples but they aren’t the stories that sell. Oddly enough she fantasizes about interviewing Richard Nixon but then most of her pieces are kind of fluffy feeling. She buys a police scanner and follows a fire but then does a fairly conventional story on the man who lights the fire. I completely saw where her boss was coming from on that one.

Many try to reach out to Christine but it all feeds her mania more than stopping it. One example is her office crush George, played by Michael C Hall, who she thinks is taking her on a date but it actually a Scientology like therapy session. He’s not trying to be mean. He’s genuinely trying to be helpful but it is one more shame she has to deal with in her life.

Christine’s mother played by J Smith-Cameron was very good because Christine wants to be mothered as a little girl but also wants them to be equals as adults. She’s also very critical of all of her Mother’s choices including who she dates and how she lives her life. On the other hand, her Mother knows Christine’s mental health history and can tell something bad is coming.

All of those character aspects really work in Christine. Also you get a great sense of the 1970s in both the music and production design. Especially in the last hour tension is built like a ticking time bomb inside Christine’s head ready to explode. I’ve dealt with anxiety and I really thought they captured that feeling without being patronizing or annoying.

The one flaw with the movie is it could try to teach a small lesson. It does leave the viewer kind of empty. I don’t need much preaching but just a moment maybe at a funeral or something to think about her life and how we can do better might have been nice.

Also, the first hour could have been a little bit tighter. There were a few sequences when she is working at the newsroom where I grew bored and started to yawn. However, once the second hour starts it really becomes compelling stuff leading up to the suicide.

This is an extremely mild R rating with just a handful of F words said by Christine’s boss. I definitely think it is worth seeing as a cautionary tale for those of us deal with and live with friends with mental illness. We all need to be aware of these diseases and reach out to folks in the right kind of ways.

Overall Grade- B

Trolls Review

November 4, 2016 | Rachel's Reviews

Today I got the chance to see the latest film from Dreamworks, Trolls. This is a film I wasn’t looking forward to as the trailers had been frankly terrible (need I remind you of the twerking troll that we can never forget…). But, I always try to go into films with an open mind, and this was no exception. So what did I think of Trolls?

Well, it’s not awful but it is very uneven.

Based on the old toys from the 90s, Trolls is a simple story geared towards little children. It is about Poppy (Anna Kendrick) the happy troll and Branch (Justin Timberlake) the grumpy troll who must work together to save the rest of the trolls from the evil bergens.

Along the way they sing pop songs…this is where some of that unevenness comes in. A few of the songs work like the catchy Can’t Stop the Feeling but most are complete throw-aways and most aren’t very long. For example, they sing Sound of Silence or September for under a minute, which feels weird to have all these abbreviated numbers. Trolls isn’t a very long movie and it felt like the songs were often there to puff up a weak script.

Once Branch and Poppy get to the bergen village the movie changes from a road trip to a Cyrano de Bergerac story where Poppy and the trolls work to help a scullery maid named Bridget get the self confidence to court the Bergen prince. This part I didn’t really enjoy very much and I particularly found Bridget to be an annoying character very badly voiced by Zooey Deschanel.

That said, there was a cheerfulness to Trolls that was infectious and made me smile. There were some nice moments of heart between Branch and Poppy and overall I think little kids will be entertained.

It’s very similar to Angry Birds Movie, so if you liked that than you will love Trolls. The message is a little better but the plots are very similar.

The voice casting was uneven. Like I said, I hated Zooey Deschanel but Anna Kendrick and Justin Timberlake were fine, and they certainly have the singing chops for the roles.

Unfortunately the biggest surprise for me was the uneven animation. I love the felt feel to the character design on the trolls but did not like the design of the bergens. I know they are supposed to be the bad guys but I had a hard time watching them.

Most of the animation had a Lisa Frank 90s bright colors feel but then there were sections where the rendering felt cheap and surprisingly weak. Parts reminded me of low-budget fair like the Tinkerbell movies.

So, Trolls is passable entertainment. If you have small kids they will probably like it. It has some nice animation. It has a few fun songs but it also has some poor animation and annoying songs. It has characters I liked and didn’t like. It’s just a mixed bag movie if I ever saw one.

It’s certainly a million times better than last year’s Home so there is that to be grateful for.

Overall Grade- C

Check out my youtube review

Your Name (Kimi no Na wa) Review

November 1, 2016November 1, 2016 | Rachel's Reviews

So today I couldn’t sleep so I decided to see the recent Japanese hit Kimi no Na Wa or Your Name for English viewers. This film has made $158 million US dollars in Japan and after watching it I can see why. It is a total and complete delight and one of the best romances I have seen in years.

Your name is by director Makoto Shinkai and it is about a girl named Mitsuha who lives in a country town. One day she laments on her boring life and how she wishes she could be a handsome boy in Tokyo. Well, wouldn’t you know the next day she ends up in the body of a boy she’s never met in Tokyo named Taki.

This starts a first act that we’ve seen before in movies like Freaky Friday but it really works. Both Taki and Mitsuha have very different lives aside from being different genders (which they mine for great comedy). They are from different classes, have different types of friends and even eat different foods. They don’t just settle for easy antics but think of small details like Mitsuha’s awkwardness paying for Taki’s expensive meals.

What also makes it very clever is they switch back and forth each day so that keeps it fresh. They start to leave notes for each other on their hands, in notebooks and on their cell phones. And through living each other’s lives they become good friends. It’s all very clever.

Then we get to the final acts and the film takes a bit more of a serious tone but I won’t give any more of that away. Needless to say both parts completely worked for me. Both Taki and Mitsuha were so likable and the tension and stress built naturally. It reminded me a lot of Mamoru Hosoda’s Summer Wars which I also LOVE.

The animation is completely stunning with lots of emphasis on light giving a hopeful tone even when things looked grim. They also managed to make both the countryside and city look like a fantasy world because that’s kind of what it is to the characters living in different bodies.

I know some people just don’t like anime as a rule and if that is you it’s a real shame. Because I honestly believe a movie like Your Name has something for everyone. It is funny, sweet, romantic and tense at times. It has great characters and a creative story. It’s beautifully animated and has wonderful music from a band called Radwimps.

It’s a real achievement for Makoto Shinkai who did everything from the writing, directing, editing and everything else. Wonderful!

Overall Grade A+

Denial Review

October 31, 2016October 31, 2016 | Rachel's Reviews

Denial is the kind of film, which I feel guilty for not liking. I would never want my disregard for the film to be construed as an opposition for the great things that the heroine Deborah Lipstadt did. In fact, if anything I think her story deserved a better screenplay then we were presented with in Denial.

To begin the film Deborah Lipstadt is confronted during a lecture about her latest book on the Holocaust. Her accuser is none other than David Irving a scholar who argues against the Holocaust and thinks it is all a hoax. Lipstadt is critical of him in her book and so he brings a libel suit against her in Great Britain.

The actual trial was evidently a huge media circus. It basically put the validity of the Holocaust on trail for about 3 months in a British court. This all seems like it should be extremely compelling but there are problems…

Unfortunately, Denial doesn’t do a good job in making Lipstadt likable. Unlike say the reporters in Spotlight, she doesn’t have to sacrifice much for her day in court. Most of the work is done by her lawyers so there isn’t much emotional growth from her as a character. I feel like she is basically the same person at the beginning and end of the movie. She also could be more grateful of the free labor she is getting from her lawyers but instead she is kind of judgemental of them and their motives.

Rachel Weisz is a good actress but I always felt Lipstadt was kept at a distance from us. Maybe it would have helped to have a diary or a friend she was emailing or something to make it feel more real and challenging.

The lawyers are played by Tom Wilkinson and Andrew Scott. They do a good job but unfortunately the screenplay also does a poor job showing their journey. We don’t see them building the case or the ‘ah ha’ moments we need to get invested in the trial. Their greatest challenge seems to be getting Lipstadt to shut up and let them do their job. Not exactly compelling.

Timothy Spall is also very one note as David Irving. I was reminded of the movie Breach where Chris Cooper plays a double agent brilliantly. He is presented as a loving father and friend, so his ultimate betrayal is devastating. There is little to no attempt to create this kind of character journey for Irving. If we saw him as a good man in other settings that would have made his rationalizations of Nazism all the more shocking and his take-down more thrilling.

As it is, the courtroom scenes are extremely predictable and more than a little dry. I nodded off more than once.

I have a friend who felt Sully was tedious but at least I felt that movie had something to say about our need for heroes and the media in a post-9/11 world. Plus, Tom Hanks had a character arc through the course of the movie. I at least found Sully much more compelling than Denial.

Some reviews I’ve read have compared the trial in Denial to Donald Trump and his half-truths and lies, but I think this is a stretch at best.

Mostly Denial is just kind of boring and forgettable despite the best efforts of its cast.

In the end, a worthy true story with a weak screenplay.

Overall Grade- C-