Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

It feels as though the Potterheads have been waiting years for this movie (myself included) so its safe to say the anticipation for us has been incredibly high. That being said, lets not delay this review any longer.

In 1926, Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne), a young Magizoologist, arrives in New York City for the first time, carrying with him a briefcase containing a menagerie of magical creatures that he cares for. Unfortunately, Mr Scamander could not have chosen a worse time to arrive in New York: the city is being plagued by an undetermined creature whose powers are beyond any the magical community have seen. Fearing a widespread panic leading to war between Wizards and No-Mages (the American term for ‘Muggles’), the MACUSA (The Magical Congress of the United States of America) begin a hunt for the creature, lead by Percival Graves (Colin Farrell). When some of Scamander’s creatures accidentally escape during an altercation with ‘No-Maj’ Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler), Porpentina ‘Tina’ Goldstein (an ex-auror played by Catherine Waterston) believes that Scamander might be behind it all, and becomes determined to bring him in and prove her worth to her superiors. Joined by her sister Queenie (Alison Sudol) the group must band together and take back the city before its too late. 

The positives: The acting in this film has to be one of the main standouts. Eddie Redmaynes’ Scamander manages to be both awkward and sufficiently charming enough to immediately begin liking him, and its clear that Redmayne had fun playing this character because it translates to the screen. But the best moments have to be those between Scamander and Jacob. Their chemistry and personalities balance each other out well, and becomes the tale of unlikely friendship by happenstance. This is especially entertaining as it’s the first time we’ve seen proper wizard/muggle interaction that wasn’t negative (after all that time we spent with the Dursleys), but rather get a glimpse at how muggle/wizard communities interact, which for diehard fans will be something to look forward to. Also, Farrell’s Percival Graves was another standout whose character really shone in the (relatively few) scenes he was in. The visuals in this film were also stunning, bringing to life creatures that could only exist in imagination in all shapes and sizes. In short, its one of those epic films that continuously catches your eye and also makes you hope that the merch for this film includes plushies because damn, some of those creatures are really cute!

The negatives: As much as I enjoyed this film, it’s a classic case of a film that cannot make up its mind. As always tends to be the case in Hollywood, the pacing in this film tends to be a let down, as well as the ways that different sections of the story connect to each other. In some points the film seems to be leading one way, only to suddenly take a turn into something completely different. While there are moments where you are able to catch up, I felt that the film seemed somewhat haphazardly pieced together, meaning that too much time was spent in some parts and not enough in others and that ultimately it threw off the flow of the film. Because of this, some of the characters were not given enough time to be properly introduced, the most noteworthy being Tina. Her motivations seem sketchy and don’t really become clear until much later, which leaves the audience questioning her actions rather than jumping on board with her character which is a bit of a let down. In most films these would be only minor flaws, but because this film is such a money-maker, its disappointing to see that more care and effort wasn’t taken in teasing out these aspects. It’s understandable that this is just a setup film for what looks to be a very long running franchise, but that doesn’t excuse the need for coherence just because there is an assumption of a guaranteed audience. 

All in all, this film is definitely going to be a good time for families and fans of the Harry Potter universe. Its got great characters, entertaining creatures and above all, a new setting and new rules for the audience to discover. Although it was enjoyable, it was definitely in need of readjustments, either in the scriptwriting or editing stage, which would’ve dealt with many of the issues described above. On the whole the film was entertaining and certainly going to get audiences excited for the rest of the franchise, which will hopefully only keep getting better from here!

The Lobster

Colin Farrell's moustache. Blind Rachel Weisz. A bactrian camel. If this combination of things seems like a no-brainer to you, then you will love The Lobster. This film has the tagline of "an unconventional love story" and I think this is a bit of an understatement. All I can really say in this opening paragraph is that The Lobster is more of an experience than a film.

In a dystopian future where forced encouplement is mandatory, David (Colin Farrell) is sent for a forty-five day stay at a hotel where he must find love within this time period. If he does not, he will be turned into an animal of his choosing. He is able to get more time to complete this by hunting down "loners" (single people who live in the woods) and will get an extra day for every loner captured. He becomes friends with the Lisping Man (John C. Reilly) and the Limping Man (Ben Whishaw). After a violent encounter, David flees the hotel and joins the loners, whose leader (Léa Seydoux) is suspicious of him. He soon falls in love with the Short Sighted Woman (Rachel Weisz).

This is Greek director Yargos Lanthimos' first English language film and it shows. Throughout the film I was wondering whether or not the writer had a grasp of English and apparently not. This, however, does not work against the film at all. Indeed it is quite the opposite. The simple sentences that are present actually makes the dystopian future more disturbing. At the same time it also makes it very funny, especially with the demonstrations on why being single is dangerous. While we're on the subject of dystopias, this one is done really well. We are not told how this future is functioning, we only get revealed to it piece by piece for us to figure out on our own.

The film takes quite a satirical approach to current societal norms, especially that of being in a relationship. Except this takes that expectation to the extreme. A single woman is stopped and searched extensively in a shopping mall. The single people who fail to find a match get released into the wild once they are turned into animals and once in this state they are vulnerable to whatever happens to them.

I'd walk a little faster, but these pants are really tight.

Colin Farrell's straight performance makes this black comedy even funnier than it is. It already has an uneasy comedic quality to it, but once you watch David's acceptance that he must spend the first 24 hours with one hand tied behind his back, you'll be laughing. Even more when the Lisping Man's punishment for masturbating is having his hand burnt in a toaster. These oddball laughs can come out of nowhere, like when the Limping Man decides to suddenly bash his face against the wall to impress the Nosebleed Woman (Jessica Barden).

Colin Farrell is remarkable as David. His somber mood reflects the entire feel of the movie and his acceptance of the world makes you feel comfortable with the entire setting. John C. Reilly is uniquely offbeat with his Lisping Man, but not too far away from his famous character Dr. Steve Brule. Ben Whishaw's desperate performance is great. Rachel Weisz has excellent chemistry with Farrell.

The Lobster will leave you speechless once you've finished watching it. You'll be confused, you'll be amazed. One thing's for sure, you won't forget it.

True Detective Season 2 has cast its leads

Okay so I know I'm breaking the rules with bringing you all TV news, but such is the quality of HBO's anthology series True Detective that I feel I have to report on this. An official casting announcement has been made by HBO as to the leads of the new season.

Harrelson and McConaughey

Colin Farrell and Vince Vaughn have been cast both as 'a compromised detective whose allegiances are torn' and 'a career criminal who is in danger of losing his empire', respectively. From the sound of these characters I'm a bit worried that this feels like a departure from what made the first season so good. But then again, I will probably be completely wrong.

I'm not going to say that Vaughn and Farrell are replacing Matthew McConaughey and Woody Harrelson as most news sites will tell you, but rather that this series focuses on a particular story each season. I think that is what was so appealing about the first season, because people liked the self-contained story.

No word yet on when it will air.

Saving Mr. Banks

A Disney movie about Walt Disney? Now that's meta. I was thinking it would be funny if they put the Paramount logo at the front of the film. I probably would have found it funnier than half the jokes in the film. Not that it wasn't entertaining, it just tried too hard.

The film is split into two stories. One is P.L. Travers (Emma Thompson) travelling to Los Angeles to decide whether to sell the rights of her character Mary Poppins to beloved businessman and entertainer Walt Disney (Tom Hanks). Disney has told her that she can work with the writer Don DaGradi (Bradley Whitford) and composers Dick and Bob Sherman (Jason Schwartzman and B.J. Novak) to decide if she will sell the rights.

The other story revolves around a young Travers (Annie Rose Buckley) as she grows up in Australia. She is very close with her alcoholic father (Colin Farrell) who only wants the best for his young family.

Overall, this film tries too hard to be both emotionally engaging (as with Travers recollections of her father) and hilariously funny (as with Hanks' portrayal of Disney). Also the flashback scenes to Australia, while an interesting insight into this woman's early life, feel disjointed and at times made me confused.

Tom Hanks, who is an actor whom I usually enjoy, didn't really work in the role of Walt Disney. He was very charming, to say the least, as I am sure the real man was, but I felt as though he was playing Tom Hanks as Walt Disney. The film also brushes over some of the more nefarious aspects of the real Walt Disney, but being a family film, I can understand why.

Thompson did an okay job at portraying Travers, but she played the character a tad too cold for my liking. The film ends with a recording of the real Pamela Travers, who although bitchy, you can definitely sense a playfulness in her attitude, whereas Thompson just played the character as mean throughout.

Colin Farrell was excellent as Travers' father. He did a wonderful Australian accent, although sometimes he would slip into his own Irish one. I can overlook this however, as he was playing an Irish Australian. 

My favourite performances came from relatively minor characters. Bradley Whitford (Billy Madison) played the exasperated screenwriter excellently and both Jason Schwartzman (Rushmore) and B.J. Novak (Inglourious Basterds) did a fantastic job. I only felt as though Novak's character could have been fleshed out a little more. Paul Giamatti (Sideways, Barney's Version) was also good as Travers' chauffeur.

Verdict: An enjoyable film that I felt tried a little too hard to both funny and emotional.