Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets Of Dumbledore (2022)

Okay, this is a bit better than the last movie in this dire series (yes, I'd love to just not watch them, but I feel compelled to remain a movie completist whenever possible), but that's a very low bar to surpass. Every attempt to wring more money from this world of magic just seems to dilute what made the original stories so great in the first place. The magic no longer feels impressive, it's tiresome. The same goes for the many characters and creatures onscreen. And the plot feels even more like tiresome padding than some very famous prequels I could mention. It doesn't help that Eddie Redmayne plays the main character, Newt Scamander, as if he is trying to hold in a bout of explosive diarrhea. He also has no warmth or charisma, I'm sorry to say, making him the least likeable person in a movie series that is supposed to have him at the front and centre.

The plot is more of the same. Gellert Grindelwald (this time played by Mads Mikkelsen) is making his move to reach a position of great power and start a war between the wizarding world and the muggles. Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law) has assembled a group of people to help throw a spanner in the works. He cannot act himself, mainly due to a blood pact (aka blood troth) the two men made, Dumbledore having acted a bit unwisely because he was in love with Grindelwald. And so it falls to Newt, his brother, Theseus (Callum Turner), 'Lally' Hicks (Jessica Williams), Bunty Broadacre (Newt's assistant, played by Victoria Yeates), Yusuf Kama (William Nadylam), and the brave and loyal, but dragged into the whole situation against his will, Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler) to hopefully put a stop to Grindelwald's scheme. Alongside him, Grindelwald is helped by Queenie Goldstein (Alison Sudol), Credence Barebone (Ezra Miller), and Vinda Rosier (Poppy Corby Tuech), as well as a number of others.

Director David Yates just cannot do enough to bring this series back on track, although he tries his best with the material he's given, written by J. K. Rowling, with Steve Kloves also helping to adapt the storyline into screenplay form. There are certainly some more highlights here than we got in the last film, including a suitcase-utilising, magical, equivalent of "the shell game", a foiled assassination attempt, and even the main plot strand showing Grindelwald putting things and people in place to apparently assure his rise to power. But the stuff that doesn't work feels so much worse because it all feels like padding, and because viewers are saddled with a blockbuster lead character who is possibly the very worst blockbuster lead character in modern cinema. It doesn't help that these films never feel as if they can ever end in a satisfying manner, always just being one chapter in a story that some would prefer was all over by now.

This isn't the "let's bash Eddie Redmayne again and again" hour so I am not going to say any more about him. I think I've made my feelings clear. The rest of the cast generally do good work, especially Mikkelsen, Tuech, and Miller, who are all impressive baddies. Fogler is once again a real highlight, especially when thrown into the middle of magical sequences that have him bravely looking to face off against people who could make him vanish with the flick of a wand, and having him paired up with Williams for what turns out to be the best scene in the film is a great move, especially with Williams also doing such great work. Everyone else is fine, although I do wonder how people were tracking Jude Law's accent, especially as he moves from sounding British to sounding American, and then to sounding like he's just departed from a job gigging with The Wurzels.

What else is there to say? Nothing, not really. The score is enjoyable enough, and full of familiar refrains, the action has plenty of fireworks in almost every scene, there's still not enough balance between the serious tone and the presentation of the material as family entertainment, but it's such a step up from the last instalment that I ended up pleasantly surprised. I won't revisit it, and am not keen to revisit any of these films, but I was actually entertained while it was on. Which is more than I can say about the previous film.

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes Of Grindelwald (2018)

LOOK AT HOW MUCH MONEY WE SPENT!

That's the main thing I took away from Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes Of Grindelwald, a film that proves, in no small measure, that the Wizarding World movie universe, once a consistent stream of brilliant blockbuster entertainment, has now turned into a turgid trickle of diminishing returns. Remember the uproar about the casting of Johnny Depp in this movie? He's the least of its problems.

LOOK AT EVERYTHING WE THREW INTO THIS SCENE!

Starting as it means to go on, there's an action sequence that shows Grindelwald escaping from his imprisonment. I think, given the title of the movie and the advertising, it's not a spoiler to reveal that. This could have been a good action sequence. It's lively, imaginative, and sets up the villain perfectly. It's also far too busy, messily edited, dark, and hard to find engaging. I must warn you now that every main action sequence in the rest of the film follows this pattern (well, okay, most of them are lighter so at least you can see more of what you can't really see, if you know what I mean). The plot sees Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) trying to get hold of a young man (Ezra Miller) who may hold the key to his plans regarding the uprising of the magical folk. Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law, ill-advisedly attempting some accent that I guess is meant to remind you that Richard Harris played the first elder incarnation) wants Newt Sacamander (Eddie Redmayne) to get to the young man first. Dumbledore cannot battle Grindelwald himself, for reasons that become apparent as the plot unfolds. Newt doesn't want to pick sides in whatever trouble is brewing, but it eventually becomes apparent that he won't have a choice.

LOOK AT THE BUDGET ALL OVER THIS SEQUENCE!

Sometimes I make myself sandwiches to eat for lunch at work. And sometimes I make them the night before, to save me being cold and bleary-eyed and miserable in the morning while I butter bread and throw stuff together. A tuna mayonnaise sandwich is a tasty treat. But if you make it the night before, and if you like as much mayo in there as I do, then it's a cold, soggy, squishy mess by the time you try to eat it for your lunch. Sadly, that sandwich still holds more warmth and appeal than most performances from Eddie Redmayne. It's not that he's a bad actor, and he seems like a lovely person when I have seen him interviewed, but he seems unable to exude any real charm or sweetness in his roles, including this one, where those traits are pretty vital. The problem may not lie with the cast, however, as very few people make a good impression here. Depp is excellent in his role, Law does a decent job, and Dan Fogler and Alison Sudol are once again very enjoyable in the roles of Jacob and Queenie, but Miller isn't allowed to feel like anything other than a plot device, Katherine Waterston maintains her record of putting in a performance that barely registers, Zoe Kravitz is stifled, Callum Turner is bad enough to make a suitable brother to Redmayne's character, and the less said about the casting of one or two other characters we have seen in the Harry Potter movies the better. Claudia Kim and Poppy Corby-Tuech both do better than most of the bigger names, a pleasant surprise considering their characters are really just cohorts of the main characters being pursued by our gang of "heroes". 

LOOK AT WHAT WE DID JUST BECAUSE WE COULD DO IT!

J. K. Rowling wrote the script for this and, while I wouldn't deign to pretend I know my way around a page of words better than one of the best-selling authors in the world, she seems to have lost her way. I'm not sure if it's down to this tale being stretced out beyond breaking point or if she just enjoyed losing herself in her own world so much that she forgot to edit, or think of how certain changes to her world for the sake of this series would change what fans already know (and if you ever think you have a good head for trivia then just try to outwit a Harry Potter fan and see how long you last). There are so many diversions here that are completely unnecessary, fan service that will only irritate who know what should and shouldn't be possible, and adding to a 2+ hour runtime in a film that should really be looking to pare down anything that doesn't keep the kids enthralled enough to forget about how they need the loo every 30 minutes.

LOOK AT ALL OF THE STUFF! WE DID THAT! WE PAID FOR THAT! LOVE US!

If Rowling is being rather self-indulgent and careless, director David Yates is enabling her every step of the way. There's not one scene here that doesn't feel ridiculously overstuffed with . . . things, be they CGI creatures, effects-filled environments, too many small characters who didn't need to be in shot, and sauce and garnish on things that would be arguably more effective served up without them. This is a hat that has a band placed around the brim. And that brim is given a pinned flower in the front. Then the rest of the hat has a full bouquet placed on the top. That bouquet has fake bees attached by wires, to look like they're buzzing around. And birds are placed higher up. There's still a hat in there somewhere, but nobody can tell whether or not it's a well-made model underneath all of the artistic additions.

IT'S ALL POINTLESS BUT LOOKS GREAT, RIGHT?

Ultimately, there's a basic level of competency here, and spectacle, that still merits giving the film some plus points. But it's very difficult to imagine anyone coming out of this with a sense of complete satisfaction. Younger viewers will get a bit bored, I suspect. Older viewers may also get a bit bored, and find some bits just too childish. Dedicated fans will find details that annoy them. Casual fans will wonder why the film is full of so many diversions that they may not appreciate. And film fans will be generally displeased that they sat through a magical fantasy film that a) didn't feel as magical as it should have, and b) ultimately ended up being fairly pointless filler, considering how things end compared to how they started.

You'll go and see it anyway, and it will make loads of money, but I don't recommend it. I still want a niffler though.

4/10

You will also be able to buy the movie here.
Americans will be able to get it here.

Prime Time: Early Man (2018)

It was only a matter of time until Aardman delivered a movie that left me even slightly disappointed. The fact that it took this long, and that Early Man is still an enjoyable enough bit of fun, if not one I will rush to rewatch, is testament to the quality of their work. From Chicken Run to the Wallace & Gromit movie, and then the wonderful The Pirates! In An Adventure With Scientists! I even really like Flushed Away, and enjoyed the slightly lower-tier movie outing for Shaun The Sheep. And I couldn't even begin to narrow the gags down to a Top 10 if we were to discuss the many wonderful short films they have made (although Gromit laying down enough track ahead of himself as he speeds along on a model train will always be my favourite of the lot).

Early Man is the story of a group of cave-dwelling people who end up being displaced from their valley by some giant machines, all controlled by men who are living it up in the Bronze Age. When one man (Dug, voiced by Eddie Redmayne) goes to find out more, he ends up challenging the more advanced people to a game of football. Winning will get them their valley back, but losing will see them used as miners.

Director Nick Park, who also developed the story idea with Mark Burton (and Burton wrote the screenplay with James Higginson), doesn't seem to be too sure of what he wants here. There are the usual wonderful visual gags, although not as many of them as we've had in his previous films, but the combination of the prehistoric setting and football match challenge makes for a strange combination that doesn't quite work. Some people will be wanting more dino-centric gags, others may want some more time with the football, and neither group will be wholly satisfied with the end result.

There's another problem though, and that is the voice cast. It's just not very . . . good. Eddie Redmayne is perfectly acceptable in the main role, but that's all he is. Never the most charismatic or warm performers, his voice work is at least better than most of the roles that utilise his entire physical presence. Tom Hiddleston and Maisie Williams both do okay, the former as an enemy and the latter as an ally, but they're hidden behind some pointless and silly accents (unless my old ears have started to deceive me). Timothy Spall is a welcome presence, Rob Brydon does well, Miriam Margolyes is an amusingly stern Queen, and there are a number of familiar British celebrities making up the rest of the main troupe.

Despite those story and cast issues, Early Man still does enough to make for a fun 90 minutes (well, closer to 80 minutes before the end credits roll), and I am sure that younger viewers will appreciate it more than I did. It does, after all, have dinosaurs, cute rabbits, a helpful boar named Hognob, and a cast of obvious heroes to root for and villains to boo and hiss at.

6/10

Early Man can be bought here.
Americans can buy it here.

The Theory Of Everything (2014)

It's a biopic. It's British. It features someone striving to battle a debilitating disease. And the lead performance is one that could be called transformative. Yes, The Theory Of Everything is one big chunk of tasty Oscar-bait. That doesn't mean that it's great.

Eddie Redmayne stars as Stephen Hawking, arguably the most famous scientist of the 21st century. When diagnosed with Motor Neuron Disease, at the age of 21, he was only given about two years to live. That was in 1963. This film shows his life, from horsing around with his university chums to meeting Jane (Felicity Jones), the woman who would become his wife, and developing his theories on black holes, time and our entire universe. It is a potted history of someone who has changed the way we view both outer and inner space.

Adapting the book written by Jane Hawking, Anthony McCarten takes all of the moments that you'd expect to find here and places them exactly where they should be. There's a distinct lack of imagination and flair on display here, with the exception of one or two pleasant surprises. Overall, the film has the air of a TV movie, albeit one with a sizable budget.

Director James Marsh seems content to let his cast take on the heavy lifting, as it were, and translates the screenplay by McCarten into equally lacklustre visuals. You get snapshots of the English countryside, there's a fitting score that's always ready to swell whenever an emotional moment needs highlighted, and any bad feelings are hastily covered over or thrown into the back of a pantry, where they are left to grow and fester until they can no longer be ignored.

There's no denying, however, that the cast DO elevate the material, with Redmayne giving quite a superb physical performance as Hawking. He's cheeky, charming, stubborn, pained, and much more besides, often all at once. Jones also does very well in her role, although she suffers from the fact that her character is landed with most of the heavy-handed, emotional fare. Sorry, that should say "most of the heavy-handed, EMOTIONAL fare". David Thewlis is a delight in his supporting role, playing a teacher who also becomes a friend to Hawking, Charlie Cox is nice enough, and Maxine Peake livens things up slightly in the last third of the film, playing the nurse who would make Hawking lovestruck again.

The Theory Of Everything is a pretty poor film. It's predictable, it's bland, and it doesn't even feel as if it goes deep enough into the minds of the main characters. Those central performances help to lift it just above the realm of average, with Redmayne doing such a great job that I wish he'd had a better movie to star in.

6/10

http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Everything-Blu-ray-DIGITAL-UltraViolet/dp/B00QFSIIFK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1419928566&sr=8-1&keywords=the+theory+of+everything