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 Danish Girl

Tom Hooper has had a great run in recent years with The Kings Speech and Les Misérables. Ridley Scott jokingly described his films as ‘high brow’ in a recent director’s roundtable, and Hooper’s latest film The Danish Girl certainly touches on subject-matter that requires finesse. 

Set in 1920’s Copenhagen, an artistic couple Gerda Wegener (Alicia Vikander) and Einar Wegener (Eddie Redmayne) are achieving different levels of success. Einar’s landscapes are well-appreciated but the same can’t be said for Gerda’s portraits. Gerda tries to change that with a portrait of a ballet dancer (one of their friends), but when the model is late to show, Gerda asks Einar to stand in. Posing in tights and ballet shoes, the couple uncover Einar’s female alter-ego, Lili but the situation becomes challenging when Einar finds that Lili is closer to his real self than he first imagined. 

The Danish Girl definitely has its issues. For one, if you know the basic story of Lili Elbe then you basically know the movie, although reading up on her afterwards, it’s clear there are some details that have been changed. It would also be unfair of me to pick on its lack of dramatic intrigue, as that’s more of an issue that keeps cropping up in the format of these straightforward biopics, nonetheless even for somebody going in blind, it’s very clear where the story is taking you. Although it strides its two hour run-time with ease, The Danish Girl also has some jarring pacing problems, particularly when Lili undergoes her various sex-reassignment surgeries and time skips around with a lack of clarity. It’s unlikely that you’ll get bored at any point but the timing issues do stand out like a sore-thumb. 

Where The Danish Girl does succeed is in building its characters. Hooper manages to pack in a lot whilst also covering a huge array of content, thanks to actors that make the most of their performances. Alicia Vikander is mostly great as Gerda, although doesn’t trump her performance in Ex Machina - not that that’s a fair comparison of characters - and at points she seems to only be drawing on binary emotional states of jealous anger and guilt-ridden sadness. Eddie Redmayne once again provides a chameleonic performance - perhaps even equal to his bout as Hawking - and through his transformation, justifies the use of a non-trans actor. Although I guess we’ll never really know how well a transgender actor could have handled the character. 

The construction of the film, from score, to cinematography, to editing is very similar to a lot of the ‘straightforward biopics’ we’ve seen in recent years such as The Theory of Everything and Imitation Game, which makes it difficult to set each one’s aesthetics apart from others. However The Danish Girl does construct interesting and varied examples of mise en-scène, particularly the Copenhagen exteriors. Like Carol, The Danish Girl forms its 1920s era with subtlety - not shoving objects, people and events into the story as a glorified timestamp - however certain elements like the at times drab colour palette and their empty apartments creates a gloomy atmosphere which doesn’t necessarily match the overall tone of the film.

The Danish Girl is well acted - especially by Redmayne once again - and packs a lot of story-telling into two hours, albeit with a sometimes staggered pace. The narrative is always interesting, but it’s never unanticipated, and you can’t shake the feeling that the film is big-noting itself as much more influential than it ultimately is.

First look at Harry Potter spinoff

Entertainment Weekly has released a series of promotional and set photos of the upcoming Harry Potter spinoff Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them. Starring Eddie Redmayne, it follows the story of wizard author Newt Scamander who wrote the book of which the film takes its title. The film is directed by Potter veteran David Yates and also stars Katherine Waterston, Alison Sudol and Dan Fogler.

Jupiter Ascending

Imagine if you will a crossover between Star Wars and Game of Thrones. Congratulations, you have just thought of a much more intriguing and exciting movie than Jupiter Ascending. The Wachowskis have attempted to craft an engaging sci-fi story and, while I must admit the world the movie inhabits is interesting, they lack the writing ability to make a story that is engaging or one that makes any sense.

Jupiter Jones (Mila Kunis) is an illegal Russian immigrant who lives in Chicago working for her uncle in his cleaning business. In an attempt to make some money by selling her eggs, she is almost killed by aliens (the most stereotypic aliens you can think of), but is saved by Caine Wise (Channing Tatum), a human-dog hybrid, who reveals to Jupiter that Earth was genetically seeded by a family run corporation billions of years ago. Jupiter finds out that she is actually space royalty (the highest royalty one can hope for) and is thrust into the politics of the Abrasax family, which includes Balem (Eddie Redmayne), Kalique (Tuppence Middleton) and Titus (Douglas Booth), all of whom are fighting over the ownership of Earth.

This movie's plot is all over the place and that has to do with the amount of detail which is just brushed over. We have no idea about where the space people came from (they do identify as human) or how their civilisation works. It is mentioned that the Abrasax family is one of many that inhabit the universe, but we never get a glimpse at any of these. On the upside we do get an extended montage of "space bureaucracy" that is trying so hard to remind us of Terry Gilliam's Brazil. In the hands of a much better writer, this world would be an amazing setting for a series of sci-fi novels that would be able to go into the deep detail needed for all this plot.

There is also a glaring problem with Jupiter's backstory. In the prologue, we are told that Jupiter's father was the son of the British Ambassador to Russia and her mother and father live in quite a nice apartment. But in the scene that comes after her father's death, her mother is on a container ship, being smuggled into America. So many things wrong here. Why wouldn't the father-in-law take them in? Being an ambassador is quite a revered diplomatic position and he couldn't have ensured their safe passage anywhere in the world. Even if he disowned them, Jupiter's mother had enough money to be able to get to America. Sure the prologue takes place in Soviet Russia, but the way they were living exceeded the middle class of Russia at the time.

As for the acting of this film, I don't really know what to say. All the actors do an adequate job of portraying their one-dimensional characters. Jupiter had the potential to be a strong female protagonist, but just ends up being another damsel to be saved by Channing Tatum. Now his character is just as boring. We know nothing of the science behind the character, although they mention gene-splicing more times that I care to count. And Sean Bean. Don't even get me started on him. We all know he is good for one thing and one thing only; dying. And yet they don't let him live up to his potential. What a waste.

There is hope, however. Very recent Academy Award Winner Eddie Redmayne has made some incredible, if not strange, acting choices in his career. But none have been as genius as the choices made in this film. He looked at the poorly written Balem Abrasax and his minimal screen time and wondered how could he work his magic. Well, magic is the right word for it. In each scene, he mumbles through his lines, making you lean in to grasp the nuances of his delivery of each line, before shouting at all of us the crux of each scene, which nine out of ten times is "Bring her to me!" or a variant thereof.

I really wish this was a series of books because I would enjoyed it. Too late now. The only thing saving this from a zero score is Redmayne's strange, weird performance. The only character I want to see ever again is the elephant man Nesh. If you've seen it, you'll agree with me.

The Theory of Everything

With the Oscars fast approaching, we've seen plenty of biopics attempt to grasp the attention of the Academy. The latest to be released, James Marsh's The Theory of Everything, is up for Best Picture and depicts the life of Professor Stephen Hawking from his time in college, his struggles with his debilitating disease, and his relationship with his supportive first wife Jane.

At a Cambridge party in 1963, astrophysics student Stephen Hawking (Eddie Redmayne) meets Jane Wilde (Felicity Jones), an Arts student studying the Romance languages, with the two hitting it off straight away. Hawking is shy yet highly intelligent and witty, Jane is also somewhat introverted but sensitive to Stephen's intricacies. Hawking is still unsure what to complete his thesis on, which is worrying his Professor, Dennis Sciama (David Thewlis). After showing an interest in black holes and the creation of the universe, Stephen decides on his topic: time. 

Hawking is making great strides with his academia and his relationship with Jane, but soon he realises that he is having difficulty walking. After visiting a doctor, it's discovered that Stephen is suffering from motor neurone disease, which will slowly paralyse him. He's given approximately two years to live. Stephen tries to hide from Jane but she won't give up on him, resulting in one of the most emotional games of croquet ever played on screen. Jane wants to have as much time as they can together, no matter how difficult that may be.

One worry I had about The Theory of Everything was that it would focus entirely on the relationship between Jane and Stephen, and turn the film into too much of a Hollywood romance. However, this is not at all the case. Marsh has managed to strike a perfect balance between their relationship, Hawking's work and how his disease would affect both. Based on Jane Wilde Hawking's book Travelling to Infinity – My Life with Stephen, the film provides what seems to be an honest depiction of the support that Jane gave him and how it broke her down in many ways. Time is used thematically throughout as reference to Hawking's field and research, however its woven through very subtly and is much more effective that way. My only criticism of the script is that it drags in a few places and at points it creates too many divisions between different eras to flow well. However those concerns seem minute amongst the many captivating moments that The Theory of Everything has to offer.

Eddie Redmayne's performance absolutely dominates the screen, and is testament to his incredible abilities as an actor. Early on, he forms the image of a shy yet passionate student whose intelligence towers over all his colleagues. Then as the motor neurone disease starts to take its toll, Redmayne transforms his body to match Hawking's. The devil is in the details here, with his loss of dexterity, slurring of voice, curling of lips and eventual paralysis all handled sensitively. Felicity Jones embodies a sensitive, yet at times frustrated Jane and a refreshingly strong female character. Whilst some of the supporting actors are underused, such as Emily Watson, others provide magnificent performances, with David Thewlis a standout as always.

After the recent rush of biopics, I thought that I wouldn't be able to stand another, but The Theory of Everything proved me wrong. Marsh has formed a well-constructed appreciation of both Hawking and the woman who supported him, with an astounding performance from Redmayne.