Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

Dir: David Yates

2016

****

I’m not the biggest Harry Potter fan in the world, so my enthusiasm for spin-off stories is limited. Someone left comment on one of my earlier Harry Potter reviews and asked me if I had had any sort of childhood at all? My answer was yes, of course, it just happened long before the boy wizard was a twinkle in J. K. Rowling’s eye. When Harry Potter first came out I was chasing girls and drinking beer, I had no time for children’s fantasy novels, and I still don’t, even though I have far more time on my hands now that I no longer chase girls and drink far less beer than I used to. However, I didn’t mind the films, in fact I enjoyed the last few or so and David Yates was my favourite director of the franchise. My little sister was really into the books, she liked the films too but was often left disappointed that her favourite parts of the series were left out, although she appreciated why they would be. Like many book series, it is impossible to adapt every bit of content, so it was good to hear that it was J. K. Rowling herself who wrote the screenplay to the hotly anticipated Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is mentioned several times as a school textbook in the Harry Potter book series, so adapting it into its own story and giving the author something of a background is rather neat I think. Rowling wrote a physical version of the book in 2001 to raise money for the British charity Comic Relief. It was written as a textbook, listing eighty-five ‘beasts’ as well as where they come from. It is forwarded by the fictitious author Newt Scamander. Rowling’s screen play is based on how Scamander discovered the beasts and follows his various adventures in capturing and studying them across all four corners of the globe. I suppose it’s an obvious idea in keeping the franchise in the cinema but I think it’s pretty clever, as it still feels like a Harry Potter film but without featuring him or having to fit within the constraints of his story. It’s the perfect sequel/prequel/continuation of the world Rowling has created. The idea could have taken the story anywhere in the world but I love that it starts in 1920’s New York. It’s a great excuse to use a bit of art-nouveau, visually it’s a world away from the old English gothic architecture of Hogwarts but somehow it lends itself into the world of magic rather well. There is a bit of that style in certain Potter films, The Order of the Phoenix being the first that comes to mind and I think I liked that film more than the others because of it. There is a mobster vs wizards feel about it, wands and spats, it’s original and it works. Sure the cynic in me says Rowling is out of ideas but actually I think this is the right step in a different direction. She’s created a world, a successful world and one full of possibilities, why would she abandon it. I don’t think it’s all about the money either, sure there is a lot of tie-in stuff such as the publication of the screenplay but there is also a lot of magic stuff for the true fans. Rowling released four pieces of writing on her online page Pottermore as an introduction to the film, titled History of Magic in North America. It is included Information about scourers in North America, brutal and violent magical mercenaries who played a big role in the historic Salem witch trials of the 1600s, as well as info about various American wand makers, the role magic played in World War One, Native American magic, the foundation of MACUSA, the way No-Maj/Wizarding segregation was enforced brutally after a violent and terrifying breach of the international statute of secrecy and the institution of Rappaports Law, and life in 1920s Wizarding America, with info about Wand Permits and Prohibition. Later in the year, Rowling released a second part to her History of Magic in North America series, entitled "Ilvermorny School of Witchcraft and Wizardry", which details the founding of the pre-eminent American Wizarding academy and allows users to sort themselves into one of the four houses of the school. The school itself is also mentioned in the film. Now I’m not a Potter fan (are they called Pot-heads?) but I am a nerd, so I appreciate this kind of thing. I found the film to be rather universal too, so I may have missed a few references here and there during the film but I never felt ostracized or muggle-like. I thought Eddie Redmayne was good as author and wizard Newt Scamander, although I can think of other actors who I believe would have been more suited to the role if I’m being honest. Katherine Waterson and Alison Sudol play sisters, one a witch and the other accomplished in Legilimency (the art of mind-reading) and both play and look the parts perfectly. Colin Farrell is surprisingly good in his ‘is he a good guy/is he a bad guy role as a high-ranking auror and director of magical security for MACUSA. I don’t say ‘surprisingly because I don’t rate him as an actor, I do very much, but I just didn’t see him suiting the role at all. I was thrilled to see one of my all-time favourites Samantha Morton in a strong role and I thought Carmen Ejogo was great (although I would have liked to see more of her) and Ezra Miller was brilliant. My heart sank a little when Johnny Depp was revealed, I can’t think of many magic-themed films he’s been in but it still seems like the genre has had its full share of him. I loved Ron Pearlman’s Goblin gangster character but I’m sure Rowling regrets having Jon Voight in the film after all the horrible things he’s said since the film was made. The film’s big star and scene-stealer though is relative unknown actor (for now) Dan Fogler. A muggle who gets caught up in the world of magic by mistake but leaves a lasting impression on the magic folk he encounters. The special effects are good, although a bit questionable in places and I’m not sure all of the beasts looked quite as good as they could (except for Pickett the Bowtruckle, he is probably my favorite film character of 2016) but on the whole it was visually pleasing. I was pleasantly entertained throughout and I look forward to the next chapter and long may Rowling’s franchise continue.

The Legend of Tarzan

Dir: David Yates

2016

**

Edgar Rice Burroughs' Tarzan has graced the small screen successfully and has featured positively in radio, comics and graphic novels over the years but has only prevailed once on the big screen in my opinion in 1984's Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes. Disney made their version of Tarzan in 1999 which I wondered at the time would be the end of them and the less said about 1998's Casper Van Dien led Tarzan and the Lost City the better but an authentic and honest big budget, live action adaptation has been touted around Hollywood for over twenty years. Many ideas have been suggested and many writers have come and gone, a Pirate of the Caribbean style action film had been on the cards for quite some time and producers actually wanted to cast Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps in the lead role, just as competitive swimmer Johnny Weissmuller was cast in the 1930 and 1940s Tarzan films due to his unique physique. However, after watching Michael Phelps' appearance on Saturday Night Live the idea was scrapped rather swiftly. Casting suggestions after that featured all the usual suspects but I'm quite glad they went with Alexander Skarsgård in the end as although he certainly wasn't an obvious choice, he was right for the more serious version of the character that had been written which gave Tarzan a certain edge that I think worked well. The role of Jane Porter could have been played by several Actors I can think of but Margot Robbie was great and no doubt the best choice. Christoph Waltz on the other hand just phoned his performance in. The film makers relied a little too heavily on the villainous characters he'd played previously, his Captain Rom could have easily been Hans Landa or Ernst Stavro Blofeld, but just with a slightly different accent. I love Samuel L. Jackson and will watch anything he's in but his comedy companion character is utterly pointless and a little distracting, although I suppose I'm still glad he was there because I like him. I'm glad the film wasn't a full on origins story, although Tarzan and Jane's origins are explored via effective flashbacks, this is well done reworking of the fifth Tarzan book, Tarzan and the Jewels of Opar, which simplifies the story (removing the nonsense about the lost world of Atlantis) and includes an element of actual history. The film is full of wonderful detail though which I really appreciated. There is an early scene whereby Tarzan explains to a group of curious children that the bone structure in his hands is different from years of running on all fours and I liked his interaction with the animals in the jungle. There is also a brilliant scene where Samuel L. Jackson shoots the earlobe off a solder and delivers a wisecracking line so great I wondered why he hadn't been cast as the film's bad guy. It's a very simplistic adventure film but for once I think by keeping it simple they kept it digestible. However, the script is truly awful. A low point came when Tarzan and Samuel L. Jackson's character joke about licking the testicles of Gorilla. It doesn't work, the characters don't have the right kind of chemistry, it's not that kind of film  and it just isn't funny, although it did wake me up somewhat as it came at a rather slow and samey part of the movie. The CGI is some of the worst I've seen, from the ridiculous length and incorrect style of the CGI London streets seen at the beginning of the film to the beyond ridiculous vine-swinging scenes where one vine, presumably hanging hundreds of meters above the trees, can carry a man at least two miles. They couldn't even get the trees right, which is a big problem when making a film set largely in the jungle. The action sequences really let the film down, the effective serious side of the story was pretty much ruined as the special effects got more and more elaborate. It felt like three different films edited together but only one of them was half decent. The scenes without special effects were directed beautifully but rest of the film looked like a really cheap cartoon. It was staggering to see the level of quality drop so quickly as the film went on, I can't believe I kept with it right to the end. I really don't know what Warner Bros. were thinking but this is not how to adapt a classic and well-loved character to the big screen. 

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2
Dir: David Yates
2011
***
I thought the first half of part 2 of The Deathly Hallows was brilliant. The breaking into and then escape from the volt was fantastic, the dragon they rode on is exactly how CGI should be used, I was utterly thrilled and entertained. Then it got a little bit dull again. If I had been a big fan of the books and franchise in general I would have been bitterly disappointed, maybe it's a bad adaptation, I couldn't tell you but all the Major events that happened (the deaths) were skipped over quite unashamedly. They deserved better, especially as the book was made into two long films. I also thought the conclusion, the ending millions of fans have been anticipating for over a decade, was one of the biggest anti-climaxes of all time. The '19 years later' scene was also cringeworthingly bad but I guess that's more J.K. Rowling's fault rather than the film-makers. All in all not a bad film, The order of the Phoenix remains my favourite but the finale was fine and a good place to leave it.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1
Dir: David Yates
2010
***
The cynic in me can't help but think they cut the book into two films to make a bit more cash but my sister (a huge Harry Potter fan) informs me that it was necessary and to be fair, the book does book pretty thick. That said, a lot of the film is spent with the three key characters aimlessly walking through hills and countryside achieving very little. Still, for all the slow pacing and annoying teenage angst, it does get pretty dark. The opening scene was pretty shocking too, killing off one of the nicest characters of the franchise was disturbing but brilliant. It's just a shame that after such a great start it gets boring very quickly and never really recovers. It does look good though and it builds up to the last installment quite successfully. Maybe I'd like it better if, and I'm surprised no one seems to have said this before, Daniel Radcliffe could act. There, I've said it.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
Dir: David Yates 
2009
***
I really liked Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix and so for me Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince had a lot to live up too. Unfortunately I don't think it did. I enjoyed it but I didn't think it was as strong and again, the story takes a couple of steps back and the 'chosen one' story and the teenage angst and public school romance stuff takes over. I can't fault the vibrancy David Yates's direction brings to the table though and I absolutely loved Helena Bonham Carter as Bellatrix Lestrange. At this point of the franchise, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint have become impressive actors, showing skill and growing into professional contenders. Daniel Radcliffe however, in my most humblest of opinions, shows that he has learnt very little and can't act for toffee. Maybe the role isn't one you can really get your teeth into but as perfect as he may have looked for the first film, I do wonder if they got the right boy in the end. I'm sure millions would disagree.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
Dir: David Yates
2007
****
For me, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, the fifth Harry Potter film of the franchise, is the strongest and is easily my favorite. The last few films have claimed to be darker and edgier but this one really delivers on that. David Yates brought something quite special to this and the rest of the films he worked on. For all the special effects and magic, his films look the best and most beautiful. I remember being impressed with the first film's visuals but the colours and compositions in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix are sublime. The story really picks up pace here as well and it is the first time I've felt genuine suspense and intrigue while watching a Harry Potter film. I even went to see it in the cinema I was that impressed by the trailers. Of all the directors to work on the films, David Yates was the most successful in my opinion. He really understood that the audience was growing up with the films and made a film for older teens rather than young kids.