Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

When I wrote my review of "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2" five years ago. I  reported on the sadness that came with knowing the story was over and our time in the Wizarding World was at an end. I must have forgotten the times we live in because of course when there is money to be made and a hunger for stories, the film industry will try to find a way to produce more. Earlier this year, a widely acclaimed stage play of a Harry Potter story from post Deathly Hallows made it's debut in London, and the script for that play became a bestselling book. Also in the woks was this piece of entertainment, a spin off story of the Potter books, featuring only a vague couple of references to characters we would recognize. The opening of the Universal Studios Hollywood version of The Wizarding World of Harry Potter earlier this year, making this a banner year for fans of the franchise. I've not seen the play, so I can't comment on it (although I did read the script and had some reservations). I've not yet visited Potter World at Universal, although my daughter has an annual pass and seems to have gone a half dozen times or so, (she is very enthusiastic). I have however seen the new movie and that I can speak about.

"Fantastic Beasts" is mostly a delightful fantasy adventure that captures much of the essence of the magical world. It is also clear that there are many other stories to exploit in this thread and many others from the Magic worlds. The story is a bit convoluted but works out correctly in the long run. The biggest strengths of the film are some new characters, the production design and the title beasts themselves. The additional films that are planned may run a bit thin at times because there is not the rich backdrop of a single location or the evolution of characters over seven years,but as fantasy films they should be a treat. There are seeds of the Dumbeldore-Grindelwald story are here, as is a plot line that will lead to more exploration of the social taboos of "No-Maj" (Muggle) relations.

The lead character in the film is Newt Scamander, played by Eddie Redmayne. His look is perfect and the actions he plays out seem to fit the story nicely, but I do have to say he was the weak link for me of the main characters. Jeff Bridges is regularly criticized these days for the tendency he has to mumble his lines in that Texas grumble. Well Redmayne does a whole lot of mumbling as well, but he is supposed to be so reserved and shy that when he mumbles, not only can you not make out the words, you may not be able to tell he is speaking. There may be confusion over some key elements of the story because he has a lot of exposition in his character's dialogue. Fortunately, the character is accompanied by a great trio of supporting characters that have the light touch and personality that his aw shucks boyishness sometimes misses. Dan Fogler, an actor I know from "Fanboys" and "Balls of Fury", is impressively effective as the "No-maj" Jacob Kowalski, a bystander who gets sucked into Scamander's adventure. He is a great audience surrogate and has a charm that belies his somewhat schlub like appearance. Unconventional casting results in a humorous side kick and a surprisingly believable romantic figure.  The magical sisters Tina and Queenie Goldstein are also great additions to the story. Katherine Waterson as Tina and Alison Sudol as Queenie are lovely women cast as ethereal beauties with much more than their looks to get them through this adventure.

I think everyone will enjoy the creatures that Newt carries around in his briefcase. An item that has magical dimensions to it much like the tents used by the Weasleys in their trip to the Quidditch World Championships. Some of the beasts are charming and will amuse the audience immensely, others are more difficult and present a threat at times but also a promise. All of the story takes place in a vividly realized 1920s New York setting. The decor and clothing styles are all right up my alley. It is a world vividly realized by the talented craftsmen behind the scenes and in the computers used to make this film. Colin Farrell's suits are enough to make you want to be living in that period and wealthy enough to dress as the magic folk do. There are the usual magical battles and dramatic chaos that accompanies it. There are however several quieter scenes that make the story richer. I especially appreciated the apartment scenes where Newt and Jacob are taken in by the Goldsteins. The mixture of the mundane and the magical is great in that sequence. The more extended trip into Newt's collection of animals is another standout moment from the film.

The idea of exploring the Magic world in another location on the planet is a solid start in making this series of films feel fresh. The Magical Congress of the U.S, as counter-part to the British Ministry of Magic is clever with some very American style twists.  I do think there is a great opportunity for these films to grow in stature and depth as we get deeper into the mythology and history of the characters and places in the stories. "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" should be a successful start to a new line of stories, only distantly connected to Harry Potter, but hopefully as rewarding when we get to the conclusion.

Arrival

Well, the title of this film could easily be announcing the start of the awards season as well as first contact with aliens. Amy Adams is a front-runner for acting honors and the film has an outside chance at being included on a honer list of nominees if the voting works out right. The last film I saw was the Mel Gibson directed "Hacksaw Ridge and along with this movie, we are now getting to the meat of the quality film season. "Arrival" is a cerebral science fiction film that manages to build tension with almost no violence at all, and it ponders some interesting questions about the nature of the planet and our future. "The Day the Earth Stood Still" from 1951 raised many of the same questions and used a similar style of tension to hold us in it's thrall. "Arrival" has a story that is much different but themes that are similar and a tone that mirrors that sixty-five year old film precisely. We probably need that sort of message every half century or so.

Louise Banks is a linguist, who is recruited by the government to lead a team trying to communicate with the occupants of an alien craft that is located in one of twelve spots around the globe. The American team is working in Montana, a location that is remote enough to keep millions of people away, by also central enough that the whole country might feel threatened by the ship's presence. If you remember the cover story used in "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", you know that there might very well need to be secrecy when a first contact event takes place. The "X-Files" made the notion of secrecy a paranoid environment for intrigue, but this movie confronts the reality of what such an event would do to the planet. Panic, fear, riots and economic disruption of our way of life would be inevitable. The film shows these things only as news background though. The focus is not on how the social fabric of civilization might be torn by such an occurrence, but rather how it might be responded to by the leadership and scientific personnel that we trust.

I have a casual interest in linguistics as it relates to human communication. My problem is that I have no facility with language or patience with mathematics. So I am an outsider looking in on the process that was being explored here. I understood parts of it but frequently felt as if I should be getting more because after all, I am a communications person. Jeremy Renner is Adam's counterpart from the math end of the team. As Ian Donnelly, he works with Louise to solve the puzzles of an alien language so that we as a planet can figure out whether to embrace the contact or fear it. The two of them have some great scenes where they in essence are acting against a screen, much like a giant aquarium, hoping to find a path and pattern to the linguistic puzzle. Adams must emote to light and early on through a hazmat suit. Inevitably, in order to make breakthroughs, the contact will have to be closer. In "Darmok"an episode of "Star Trek: The Next Generation", the Captain must manage to communicate with a species that uses only metaphor. As complicated as that might be, this film quadruples the challenge because the communication issues involve four dimensions, and we ultimately discover that the key to understanding is in the dimension we have the least ability at the moment to function in.

There is a prologue sequence that at first seems to be setting up our main character. That five minute section establishes Adams as a person, but there is far more going on here than we first suspect. I always avoid spoilers but I feel safe in saying that the devastating sequence, nearly as effective as the opening of the film "Up" will be understood in greater depth as the movie goes on. Amy Adams is wonderful as she goes through a nightmare scenario, but also as she relives it in several spots in the film. In addition to the moments of wonder that she impresses us with, there are expressions of pain and memory that are just as significant. This film is very nicely put together by director Denis Villenevue, to give us a non-linear story that we don't even realize is happening in front of us. There are however a few clues as we go through the film. The picture window that looks out on the property that Adams experiences the prologue events through, is nearly identical in shape and background as the window in the alien vessel. The disconcerting gravity and physics of entering the alien ship are similar to the distortion that comes in a dream or memory.

The music of the film is oppressive without being dour, and that gives the story a feeling of expectation that the visuals also live up to. It is a science fiction film, but not one based on spectacle. The ships are simple, the vision of technology is interesting and the alien design is not anthropomorphic but it is not frightening in the way we see in most films about invaders from another world. The thing that works the best in the story from my point of view is the depiction of human uncertainty. The various countries that have contact with the pods communicate through a network, but they also disengage and keep secrets. There are no "bad" guys per se, rather there are people making the best decision they can with the information available to them. The Chinese General who appears to be turning the contact into a conflict, is simply acting in the best interests of humanity as he sees it. The problem is that communication with the aliens is not the only communication problem that the governments and scientists face. Humans are limited in their ability to frame information by their experience. It takes a whole new kind of experience to change any perceptions.

There is not much humor in the film but there is a great deal of humanity. Not everything will be explained by the resolution of the story. There are blind spots and questions about how any of this could work. Having seen "Interstellar" for a second time just a few weeks ago, reminds me that there are tough questions that are hard to answer when you get to theoretical physics. I will say that I hope the answer to one of those questions is in fact a piece of humor found in the movie. I now want to check out the places in the world that Sheena Easton had a big hit on the radio in 1980.

Hacksaw Ridge

Mel Gibson and his cast and crew, deliver what I want in a movie in this amazing true story of a conscientious objector who shows more courage than seems humanly possible. That World War Two is still ripe with stories to tell, more than seventy years after it ended should not be a surprise. Sixteen million Americans had a part to play in the conflict at one point or another, so there have got to be many stories still to tell. Medal of Honor winner Desmond Doss certainly deserves to have his story told and boy what a story it is. War is the ultimate location for violent conflict to be depicted, and there is certainly no shortage of violence here. Before the crux of the story appears however, we have the background to get through and a love story to tell.

Andrew Garfield has been a successful young actor in prestige pictures like "The Social Network" and in popcorn films like the rebooted "Spiderman" series. Based on the results so far, he should stick to the dramas and skip comic book films for a while. His earnest face and sweet voice seem made for a film like this. He portrays a kid who comes from a hardscrabble family background but one who is steeped in religious beliefs. After some strong experiences with violence himself, he moves to a true pacifist belief system, rooted in his Seventh Day Adventist dogma. Desmond Doss comes across as a naive but incredibly sincere waif who is confronting the greatest upheaval in violence in human history, with little more than a smile and an aw shucks attitude.  That this film and the story it depicts don't get laughed at is a credit to the script and the actor who plays the part. Gibson does not over do the religious themes but he does give Doss the chance to express how deeply his faith motivates him, well before he becomes battle tested. That is why his accomplishment is all the more credible to us (in spite of the fact that is is based in reality). There is only one moment of histrionics when Doss punches a wall in frustration. The rest of his determined approach is shown through his willingness to fight on without using violence. to be able to make what he sees as a moral contribution to the war on his side.

Earlier this year, Teresa Palmer was not that memorable in "Lights Out" , she is much more believable as a 1940s nurse who catches the eye of our hero than she was as the tattooed rebel in the ghost story. She and Garfield form a strong emotional backbone that helps justify our interest in his character and how he manages to cope in the face of overwhelming violence. I imagine there were a great many men who fought in the war who manged to get through the traumas they saw by keeping the hope of love alive in their hearts. Although Doss had a contentious relationship with his father, there is also a family at home that wants him to be safe as well. The personal sacrifice that his mentally scarred father makes to allow Desmond to serve was one of the noble elements of the film. I don't know how accurate it was but I can say how effective it was in the movie. Hugo Weaving gets a chance to play a flawed man who  is driven by his tragic experiences in the Great War.  It is not a large character part in the film but it may be the most real person Weaving has ever played in a movie and he was wonderful. There is a line of dialogue that he speaks which will cause a shudder of fear and pride at the same moment.

Flavor of the month eight years ago, Sam Worthington, finally shows that he is an actor as well as a face. Every moment he was on screen reminded me of character actor Ed Lauter, and that is a good thing my friends. Vince Vaughn is maybe a little harder to accept because of roles he has played in the past, but I was able to see past the face and recognize a solid performance in a part that is still a great deal of cliche. All of the other actors seem credible and the usual diversity of characters shows up on the screen, but it never feels like it is a stereotypical WWII film. Gibson has directed bloody action/battle sequences before. There are many shots here that will match "Saving Private Ryan" for brutal honesty and cinematic shock. Anyone tempted to think that they go on for too long should remember that the real events went days and offered no opportunity for a soft drink or a bathroom break. The battle of Okinawa as shown here was hard fought and vicious. That the result helped end the war and Americans managed to return home and lead decent lives is also miraculous. 

Frankly, I have said it before on numerous occasions in these posts, I am a sentimentalist who wants to be moved by the stories I see in the theater. This story and the film makers moved me in the way I think a film should. They tell an ennobling story with craftsmanship and passion. The actors convince me that I am glimpsing something proximate to the events being depicted. I leave the theater buoyed by the fact that in the world, there are people who have stories like this and there are film makers who can tell these kind of stories. When this film is the subject of awards speculation in a future post, maybe I will spend more time talking about technique. Right now I am simply grateful once again to the greatest generation and satisfied that the talent behind this film have done them credit.

Deepwater Horizon

Here is a video review of Deepwater Horizon, the film from Peter Berg starring Mark Wallberg and Kurt Russell.

Jack Reacher: Never Go Back

This movie is about an inch deep. The conspiracy at the heart of the story is never explored in any depth, the bad guys just kill people to keep things quiet. The shadowy figure giving orders turns out to be the least interesting villain you can imagine, The whole film is one long set up for a final confrontation with the chief thug carrying out the orders to kill. He never has a name, we just know that he is someone equivalent to the hero in training but clearly not in values. 

One of my students asked mockingly the other day why Tom Cruise is playing Jack Reacher. He did not think Cruise was intimidating at all. I'm going to disagree. Tom may not be six foot five and built like the Hulk, but as an actor, his has a perfect bad ass expression on his face at the right time, and he can wield his tone of voice around like a six shooter. The answer to my students question was simple, Tom Cruise is Jack Reacher because Tom Cruise is a movie star who can still carry a film on his shoulders single handed.

Maybe you are a fan of the Reacher books and that's what would bring you to this movie. The problem is if only fans of the book turn out, the film won't make any money. Enter Mr. Cruise. This 54 year old can still play well below his actual age and sell it. He is in great shape with an expressive face and the cocky tone of violent superiority in his voice that fits the character to a tea. There are some good moments of improvisational escape, detective work and combat. A few scenes demonstrate his intelligence but people are going to see this because Jack Reacher is going to kill a lot of bad guys and let us enjoy as we watch.

Cobie Smulders is not a damsel in distress like Rosamund Pike in the first film. She is a army Major who can take care of herself, but Jack Reacher doesn't really understand working with others. He is a loner as established by his lack of connection to any location, much less any person. It's tough enough trying to work that kink out but there is another woman in the story as well. Jack feels a sense of Protectiveness towards Sam since she gets involved in the conspiracy as a result of him.  There are a couple of foot chases and car chases in the movie, bit it really feels like a road picture more often than an action film. The action scenes mostly consist of fistfights and gun battles. Director Edward Zwick, has made some good films and this is his second film with Cruise. The film feels like an 80s action film. There are a lot of fights and shootouts but you don't have a huge special effects budget.

The payoff is the brutal smackdown at the end. The bad guy makes every cliched mistake to piss the lead character off and earn some justice. There is a little blood but most of the conflict plays out like two guys pounding on one another and finally one gets the upper hand. This movie is not going to be remembered as well as the first Jack Reacher film, but I think it will do some business because it is a serious action film with a big star. That is as opposed to an action comedy with lesser stars. Pass the Hot Tamales and buttered popcorn, The more anticipated films of the year are yet to come, but you might as well enjoy this as you are waiting.

Interstellar

 

This was an interesting weekend for films at our house this weekend. My daughter is in the middle of her first watch Halloween Horror  month, and I have a few blind spots there to fill in. This weekend however provided multiple opportunities at the movie theater for catching up on some quality films that have been out of theaters for years. "Taxi Driver" is having a 40th anniversary screening at AMC,  and the whole Harry Potter Series was screening this weekend as well. There was however one film that I have visited only once before and it was showing as part of an IMAX Space film salute also at the AMC Theaters. My daughter had never seen it before, and since Interstellar was number two on my list of films from 2014, it seemed the right choice to make.

The opening act is long and it often feels oppressive. It takes a long time for this voyage to start but the premise is set up very well and the relationship between Father and Daughter is the key to the emotional payoffs we get at the end of the film, so it is important to get it right. I wanted to scream again at the approach the education system was taking to the Earth bound crisis. The Moon Landing is substituted for SDI in the theory about how we crushed the Soviets and then a big helping of conspiracy paranoia lifted from "Capricorn One" is laid on top. Fortunately, the terrestrial politics is larger in the background and instead we get a thoughtful speculative story about travel that is not yet technically possible. 

I have already linked my earlier review for you above, so I'm not going to recap all of the things I thought were worthwhile in this film, you can read them there. I do want to add that the sound design is very impressive and I really enjoyed listening to the movie and the score in the dynamic stereo system that the IMAX [Fauxmax} theaters provide. I also wanted to express my admiration for the creative and simple design of the two robot travelers that accompany our hero astronauts. TARS and CASE look futuristic without resorting to art deco elaborations. Their role in the film is not as significant as that of HAL in "2001" but they provide humor and companionship along the way. 

There are still some things about the interactive gravitational model in the climatic scene that confuse and bother me. The interjection of future human travelers into the process requires an understanding of physics and relativirty that will give even the very smart people out there a headache. I'm willing to grant all sorts of time travel conundrums so I can focus on the story in a number of films, it just feels like a bit of a cheat in a movie that has taken these concepts so seriously up to that point. The payoff however with the Father Daughter dynamic was worth it all. It provides a great emotional high point and does Cooper's final mission and the imagined future for him. 

I saw that this same film was playing on my satellite programming this morning, and after watching for a few minutes, I once more can tell you that if you love movies. The best place to see them is in a theater with other film fans who share the experience with you.  I may have paid more for the two tickets than I would have for a Blu-ray copy, but the value of the experience to me was worth it.

The Girl on the Train

Certain types of films seem to grow in different eras. The fact that many of those films originated as books, written in those time frames will explain some of that congregation. I believe the culture influences much of those trends. In the 1980s, with the U.S. resurgent in world affairs under a new Presidential administration, action heroes flourished and Stallone and Schwarzenegger were the big stars. In the 1990s, as HIV and AIDS were frightening Americans, we got sexual thrillers starring the likes of Michael Douglas and Ashley Judd. Murder mysteries have always been a staple of theaters so it is no surprise that they continue to draw in audiences, but the tone has changed. No longer are women stalked by strangers and voyeurs,  they are active participants in the crimes. Not simply as victims or femme fatales but as curious witnesses or antagonists with non-sexual agendas. The complexity of modern thrillers is in the psychology of the women involved in the crimes. Forget "Silence of the Lambs" gothic horror trappings, the modern American nightmare is suburbia. The big cities prowled by Sharon Stone have become bedroom communities haunted by wounded women.

"The Girl on the Train" deserves some obvious comparisons to "Gone Girl" from two years ago. Both films are set primarily in quiet neighborhoods where soccer moms are raising their children in lavish surroundings. There is comfort, space, and a family unit that is supposed to provide support. Yet when those spaces are violated and the support disappears, there are some ugly truths under the surface.  Three women are tied together in a mystery. All of them are victims of some sort, the question is whether they can find the strength to discover the truth. Emily Blunt is Rachel, a psychologically unbalanced woman who has sought solace in her inability to conceive by drowning herself in alcohol. The inebriation allows her to indulge in elaborate fantasies concern a couple she sees every day from the train that she takes to the city. The couple live in the neighborhood she used to be a part of. Just a few doors down from where her ex-husband and his new wife and baby now live. While her intoxication may fuel her imagination, it also blanks out her memory and the complex relationship between her imagination and reality is tangled.

Very much like Rosamund Pike dominated "Gone Girl", Blunt is the main force in the film. The big difference is that in "Gone Girl" we are waiting to see what will happen, in this film, we are trying to discover what did happen. Our sympathies for Rachel will rise and fall as memories flood back into her head. Memory is a tricky master however and the damaged Rachel is challenged to interpret the events of her own life from a alcoholic haze. Anna, the woman who has replaced her in real life, is an indifferent and needy woman, who loves being a mother but is not really strong enough to be one on her own. Megan is the young married neighbor who serves as Nanny in Anna's house. While there are three male characters that serve as suspects, red herrings and psychological motivation, the story is really about the lives of the three women. Rebecca Ferguson, so great in Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, does not get as much to do as she should, playing the former mistress and new wife to Rachel's ex.

Blunt however, has a meaty role that she pulls off without the ferocity of Rosamund Pike but with equal skill. She is a lost soul finding meaning in empty bottles, but she forces her way back into a real life in a particularly twisted narrative. Haley Bennett is the Jennifer Lawrence look alike that nearly steals the movie. She is an unsatisfied women that we at first might dislike because of what seems to be her selfish nature. As the story unfold in flashbacks arranged in chronological order, we will change our perceptions of her as much as we do those of Rachel. Bennett was just in the Magnificent Seven Remake, and except for the last line of that movie she was quite credible there. In this film she is completely convincing as the sexual plaything of oppressive men. She has a juicy scene with the therapist she comes to for comfort by bearing to him an unbearable secret. Both Blunt and Bennett could be contenders for awards consideration if the movie is accepted for it's emotional script rather than the lurid nature of the plot.

You have to pay close attention to the time sequence and a large number of characters. It would be easy to get lost in the events if you stepped out to go to the bathroom for a couple of minutes. Allison Janey plays a no nonsense police detective investigating the disappearance of one of the characters. She is usually used to lighten the tone of a film but not in this case. She is brutal in the honesty with which she confronts Rachel with the truths that she sees. Despite being insightful, her character is not going to be the one who solves the mystery. There is a lot of intrigue but not much action in the film. Those places where violence occurs are infrequent but startling. The downward spiral that Rachel falls into is depressing as heck and when all is said and done, although things look up, they don't look up much. Don't expect a vicarious sense of relief at the outcome, but consider how much your sense of self can hurt not just you but everyone you love.