Now You See Me 2

Dir: Jon M. Chu

2016

**

I’m not sure Now You See Me needed a sequel, Isla Fisher clearly thought the same, but it made money the first time round and that’s how Hollywood works. To be fair, Isla Fisher was pregnant at the time of filming so couldn’t commit but she hasn’t been asked back for Now You See Me 3, which just shows you that the film isn’t made out of love. The film isn’t an improvement on the first for various reasons, the main one being that we now know who the Four Horseman’s benefactor is – the big mystery of the original. The plot is almost exactly the same as the first except for who is pulling the strings but the big reveal won’t be a surprise to anyone, at least not those who are paying attention, something hard to do when the story is so horribly dull. I like magic but I don’t much like magicians. Now You See Me takes away all the skill of illusion and covers only that unique smugness that magic performers have. All of the magic in the film is CGI, which makes a huge chunk of the story almost redundant, indeed, the plot itself is an illusion. I like the cast but I hate the characters they portray. The smug arrogance actually suits Jesse Eisenberg, these films must be a walk in the park for him but I found Mark Ruffalo and certainly Woody Harrelson stooping to levels that are way beneath them. Dave Franco is okay and Lizzy Caplan was a nice addition to the cast but I thought it was rather lazy to have Michael Caine return as the main villain. However, the film’s biggest mistake was probably the inclusion of Daniel Radcliffe as the most unassuming bad guy ever in the history of bad guys. Sure, maybe the real villains of this day and age are people like the character Radcliffe portrays, that’s why James Bond is so rubbish these days, but seriously, he can’t act for toffee. Just because he starred in the lead role of one of the biggest (if not the biggest) franchises in the history of cinema, doesn’t mean he can act. In fact the opposite is true. I’m sure he’s a nice chap but seriously, he needs to step up, but then again he’s bankable, so he’s still working. I would hazard a guess that everyone who was in the first film was paid handsomely to return for the second, so many of them said they weren’t going to be in it, to later announce that they would. It’s not as if who would return was the talk of Hollywood, the first film received a luke-warm reception, frankly if you really liked it then you are easily pleased. Was money an issue this time round? Why else make Woody Harrelson play two characters (his original character and his twin brother)? I like Woody Harrelson a lot but the twin brother thing has been done to death – it’s not clever and it didn’t work here like it hasn’t worked in other films for a very long time. It felt like the likable actor was tasked with carrying the film somewhat and I wonder whether they knew Radcliffe as a bad guy was quite enough to seem quirky and fresh. If you’re serious about making a credible film, you don’t hire Jon M. Chu either. I’m not sure if I’ve made it clear but I thought very little of this sequel, if ever a film didn’t deserve a series then it is this one.

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.

Dr. Strange

Dir: Philip DeGuere

1978

***

In the late 1970s, the CBS channel and Universal pictures made a deal with Marvel comics and set about developing some of their most popular Superhero characters into TV show hits. The produced a hit with The Incredible Hulk, which you'd think would be the hardest to adapt but not with the other three projects; The Adventures of Spider-man, CaptainAmerica and 1978's Dr. Strange. Spider-man and Captain America were fairly awful and a far cry from their comic book roots but Philip DeGuere's adaptation of the character was pretty faithful. Stan Lee has said that out of all of the TV shows, Dr. Strange was the one that he had been most hand-on with, the one he liked the most and the one that hurt the most when it failed. The ratings weren't good and CBS never picked it up for series, although many people blame the time it aired as the real problem as it went up against Roots which was the number 1 show of the time. The origin story was also criticized as being a little dull and a bit slow, which was an annoying comment, considering the criticism for the other failed Marvel adaptations were that they lacked an origins story and the character development was rushed. A lot of money was poured into the project and the special effects were cutting edge for the time, especially for a television program. The script was rather well written and the plot was intelligent. It was like a comic book movie but intelligent, grown up and a decent thriller in its own right. It had the all the right levels of sci-fi, suspense, intrigue and mystery about it and the casting was fantastic. I thought Peter Hooten made a great Stephen Strange and Jessica Walter was brilliant as Morgan Le Fay, an evil sorceress from the fourth dimension, who plans to invade planet earth through mind control, possession and walking around half-naked. It features The Nameless One, who is a little bit like Dormammu in the 2016 adaption, in a scene that is incredibly similar when compared. Clyde Kusatsu played Wong, Strange's companion, and I can totally see him as being a classic and much loved TV character. It even stars John Mills! Watching it is like watching a TV show that should have happened, most pilot films aren't that great, it really is a mystery why it was never picked up and I wonder whether it would have been, had it of come to the screen before Spider-Man and Captain America. It is amazing that it took almost forty years for Dr. Strange to have been adapted once more and it doesn't surprise me that it was a success. You have Marvel fans who love Marvel character and then you have Marvel fans who actually read the comics. You then have producers with nothing but money in mind who have no idea what the fans want, what is popular and what to do with all these things they don't understand. Luckily it is now working, now that actual fans of the comics are making the films. I'm not sure if Philip DeGuere was always a comic fan or not but he understood the character, knew what it was that made it popular with its fans and made the most authentic version he could with limitations and the best he had available. Okay, so it isn't perfect, but I think this good pilot could have become a truly great TV series.

The House of Magic (AKA Thunder and The House of Magic)

Dir: Ben Stassen, Jeremy Degruson

2013

*

I was never going to be in the target demographic for Ben Stassen and Jeremy Degruson's Thunder and The House of Magic but I can't help but think that even if I was a child of ten or under I would still be fairly uninterested. It's unremarkable. The story starts off a little bit 'Disney' where we find a young (and cute) cat abandoned and alone and then it gets a little bit 'Pixar' (Toy Story being the main film of theirs that comes to mind) when said cat meets little inventions (toys basically) in a big house and they all have something of an adventure together that involves going outside etc etc. Thunder, the little cat in question, stops being as cute when he starts speaking. I suppose there is nothing wrong with the plot in the sense that it is made for kids and it is fairly simple for them to follow but the glaringly bad computer-aided animation will still surely give toddlers a glimpse of their very first head-ache? A good 50% of the movie looks like you're watching someone else playing a video game (badly for that matter) but not to the point where you'd want to stop watching and play a video game, but to the point whereby you want to go outside, for a long walk, read a book, do something different entirely. The whole thing is a mish-mash of other films, other people's ideas and other film's characters. There is nothing of originality or interest that makes this film its own. It's a cheap straight-to-DVD film that had no business having a cinematic release. Written in a rush, made on the cheap and above all boring. There is no charm here, the animals/toys aren't even that cute and the voice actors bring nothing to the characters. Not sure how the film did as well as it did, considering the lack of effort in trying to compete with the far better animated films out there.

Doctor Strange

Dir: Scott Derrickson

2016

****

Doctor Strange was never a comic I had much time for. I liked the character but I was more into the sci-fi elements and science of the superheroes/Avengers rather than the mystical. Apart from the ill-fated 1978 TV movie, Doctor Strange has troubled Marvel somewhat, with few people wanting to touch it and fewer people knowing quite how to adapt the idea to film. He has appeared in several episodes of the animated Spider-Man, Hulk and his own one-off feature length cartoon (Doctor Strange: The Sorcerer Supreme) but never with any gusto. The character has always been full of potential and finally in 2016 it has been realized. The changes to Doctor Strange's origins are slight and the character tweaks work so much better than in the comics. Conceived back in 1963 by Steve Ditko, the original story saw a brilliant and wealthy surgeon loose the use of his hands following a car accident. Dr Steven Strange then exhausted his life savings and all that he had on experimental procedures and medicines to no avail until he hears of an alternative. He hears of an ancient one who lives in Tibet that can cure anyone and anything and spends his last penny on flying there to find him. He is eventually taught the universes mystical ways and discovers far more than he had anticipated about the world and what threatens it. Instead of returning to medicine he becomes a Sorcerer Supreme and help defend the earth against magical bad guys. Scott Derrickson's version is much the same except for a few changes. Firstly, the ancient one is a white women instead of an elderly Tibetan man. Marvel were accused to a 'whitewash' with this casting decision but as co-writer C. Robert Cargill pointed out in interviews, they were damned if they did and damned if they didn't with this particular character as keeping him as he was could have seen people accuse them of racial stereotyping, and to be fair, a racial stereotype is exactly what he was. Doctor Strange is one of the many silver age comic characters that are particularly out of date. Cargill stated that they cast Tilda Swinton as the ancient one as the character didn't need to have a sex, it was unimportant, the actress would give the character an androgynous feel. I'm not sure how Swinton feels about that but I understand and agree with where he is coming from. She is described as having Celtic origins, fine by me, she's a great actress and is fantastic in the role. Strange's old nemesis Baron Mardo is given a maker over too, he is now much younger, black, has been stripped of his Baronhood (just call him Karl) and looks a lot like the brilliant Chiwetel Ejiofor. If you are so small minded you think that Marvel are somehow racist, or indeed too politically correct, his casting should balance things out and address your concerns, you also may like to know that Mr Ejiofor does a pretty good job in the role. The look of the original comic has been refined and the good Doctor has quite a panache about him. I've not always been a fan of Benedict Cumberbatch but I have to agree that he is perfectly cast in the role, I honestly can't picture anyone else doing as good a job as him, apart from maybe Robert Downey Jr. There are two baddies (three technically) in the film, one real and one not so real. The real one is Kaecilius, played by the great Mads Mikkelsen (my goodness he's come a long way since Pusher). Originally a student of Baron Mardo, Kaecilius is now an ex-student of the ancient one who wants to join with Dormammu, ruler of the dark dimension and the films not so real villain. The existential ideas and the mirror dimensions explored in the film are in tune with Ditko's interest in the philosophy of Objectivism. The changes, in many respects, keep the essence of his original idea alive. No cameo for Ditko though, he's above all that but I'm glad there is plenty of his in the film to enjoy and enjoy it I did. It's got to be said (and has been), Doctor Strange was a big risk for Marvel. He's not a big character unless you're a fan, most viewers and fans of the film are not comic readers and he will be fairly new to most of them. This is perhaps why Marvel made sure that the film would be particularly unlike the other films in the Marvel/Avengers universe. The Special effects are so good they make Inception look like a Mr. Men book but they're not overdone and they serve a very important purpose. Science takes a bit of a hit but then this isn't all about spirituality and magic either, it's got far more in common with philosophy than it has with and kind of mumbo-jumbo. It really is the thinking person's superhero film, with elements of horror/thriller thrown in for good (and mature) measure. The only thing that doesn't work as well is the humour but I can see huge potential once the Doctor meets up with certain people in the Avengers. The conclusion/finale is unexpected and quite thrilling in that it is unlike any superhero/comic adaption ending that has come before. There is no big fight as such, at least not a physical one, and things are actually fixed rather than destroyed. It's quite an inspiring bit of writing from the guy who wrote the overrated Sinister and the man who directed the worst of the Hellraiser/Urban Legend sequels and the horrible 2008 remake of The Day The Earth Stood Still and wrote the most pointless film ever made (Devils Knot, seriously, why watch it and not watch Paradise Lost instead?). Marvel have made the right decision once again, to be fair though Derrickson's visuals are amazing and C. Robert Cargill started out as a film reviewer, so I have a lot of time for both of them, they have made one of the year’s best blockbuster, so much so that the term blockbuster is probably a bit insulting. I agree with others who say that Marvel go from strength to strength but here, with their least known and most risky character, they've more than delivered, they have excelled.

Now You See Me

Dir: Louis Leterrier

2013

**

Well, they got the smugness of the modern magician right. They got the all promise and no payoff in modern magic right as well but I'm sure that's not what they were going for. Now you see me is so badly written it's more Ocean's 12 than Ocean's 11. The premise would have been clever if they had convinced that any of it was possible but a nasty bit of CGI is always in place rather than a clever bit of magic or good writing. I found none of the characters to be likable or believable and I found none of the film magical in the slightest. You can't polish a turd but you can sprinkle glitter on it is a phrase that springs to mind.