Skip to main content

Was that everything that came out of the case?

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them
(2016)

(SPOILERS) It can definitely be a positive to approach a picture with lowered expectations. I could quite easily have skipped JK Rowling’s self-penned Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them on the big screen, as I did the latter five Harry Potters. While I’ve never been a devotee of the series, I’ve never had much against either, and a few of them (The Prisoner of Azkaban, The Half-Blood Prince) I was even rather impressed by. But there was a nagging feeling that, whenever I caught up with the latest instalment, they were foremost intended for devotees of the books, dutifully faithful and lacking the necessary flair and individuality to become truly cinematic affairs in their own right. At this point, the Fantastic Beasts franchise has no such encumbrances (even if it looks to be weighed down with Potter lore subsequently, much as Lucas’ prequel trilogy was), and it benefits enormously. It also benefits from an array of top-flight talent in pretty much every significant role, such that even the longueurs during this (inevitably) lengthy introductory chapter don’t feel like a hard slog.


So what’s with all the tepid reviews, then? Part of it may be that Fantastic Beasts is so visually undifferentiated from has gone went before. Remember the surge of enthusiasm when Guillermo Del Toro was announced as director of The Hobbit, and its gradual dissipation as Peter Jackson’s “same-old” took over (although, if we’d known it would be the director of Pacific Rim and Crimson Peak, rather than the one of Pan’s Labyrinth and The Devil’s Backbone, we might have stayed our anticipation)? The Potter-verse needed that kind of shot-in-the-arm. David Yates is a perfectly versatile journeyman, meaning that he puts all the pieces in the right places, and makes perfectly competent (above average, to be fair) fare, but lacks that spark of true inspiration. He’s inhabited this sphere for five movies on the trot now. The only other titan of a current franchise with that kind of record is Michael Bay, and you wouldn’t really want to be replicating Transformers, would you?


So Yates delivers the requisite washed-out hues and energetic action with due accomplishment, but he’s essentially in a holding pattern, which you can also feel in Warner Bros’ rigorous branding. Weening a spin-off is a delicate, very rarely achieved balance. It requires casting the atmospheric spell of the original much-loved movie(s), but sufficiently differently in approach not to lead to déjà vu or weariness.  Kicking off with notes of the Potter theme isn’t overly confident (hedging bets, although composer James Newton Howard is new to the series) and it seems, with the focus on Dumbledore and Grindelwald in future instalments (depending on how diminishing the returns are; this already looks like a Hobbit to Lord of the Rings, box office-wise), this is going to be very much striking the beats of a prequel trilogy rather than a different story in the same universe. Verdicts are necessarily reserved on Rogue One, but that looks from the trailers like a spin-off hitting all the wrong beats tonally, simply because it doesn’t have characters to invest in; Fantastic Beasts has that at least. Indeed, it’s easily its best and most agreeable quality.


Which is not to say the plot doesn’t have its virtues, but it is a grab-bag of familiar elements and themes. The premise of a collection of escaped rare and magical creatures is instantly arresting but also instantly leads to Jumanji-esque concerns over an effects-heavy barrage of chases and escapes and the like. Which is partly the case here, and probably why the refugees from Newt Scamander’s suitcase are stapled to the introduction of an over-arching prequel plotline.


Really, though, intolerance metaphors in blockbusters have already been done to broad strokes death in X-Men to little overall consequence, and there’s something of stir-and-repeat feeling here. When Fantastic Beasts talks of the persecution of witches and wizards (and invokes a new Salem), we’re not talking about the same thing as someone brewing a few herbs and casting the odd hex; we’re talking full blown fantasy land wandsmanship, transmogrifications and incredible feats (and maybe turning into a newt, if not a Scamander). As others have noted, there’s a similarly not-quite-fitting aspect to the lesson, since those on the receiving end in both this and the Fox/Marvel-verse frequently stand as gods in relation to the mere mortals who would notionally oppress them.


That said, while the tropes may have been over used, they at less have a degree of reinvigoration, similar to the one Michael Fassbender brought to Xavier in First Class. The likes of Samantha Morton, in an undifferentiated persecutor part (especially post-True Blood), are able to breathe life into standard types. In particular, Ezra Miller, an excellent actor (comparing him to Crispin Glover might be overdoing it, but he elevates any mainstream fare he’s a part of) who ends up as the nominal Big Bad (although, not really; his Obscurial status seems to echo interpretations of poltergeist activity as inspired by humans present, although the idea of the Obscurus as a parasite is slightly offbeat, since it’s a parasite spawned by its host), gives his role such conviction that the clichés roll away. 


And, while some critics have identified a tonal mismatch, I rather like the interplay of the larky hunt for creatures and the dread force wreaking havoc on New York. It may not quite dovetail successfully (Newt is never sufficiently on board with the latter threat to justify suddenly confronting it when his suitcase is full again), and there's an inelegance to the way Newt gets off the boat and is immediately introduced to the main plot elements by simply walking down the street, but in a two-and-quarter-hour picture the distinctive shifts are actually quite welcome.


What innovations there are do have the air of magpie meanderings. It’s well-known that Rowling has been asked to contribute to Doctor Who (wise of her not to, at least under current management), and here she has fashioned a Doctor in all but name, this being the eleventh, Matt Smith, complete with bowtie and geek-chic, albeit under the influence of Eddie Redmayne’s capable tics, Newt is closer to manifesting Asperger-chic, a bumbling but passionate protector of endangered species who finds it difficult to look anyone in the eye but just knows what is right.


Some have found his performance ingratiating, and it is one full of very actorly sleights and flourishes, with a dangerous dose of Norman Wisdom and Lee Evans, but I think it works here. Redmayne brings a natural warmth and sincerity, and more especially he’s blessed by a complete absence of Moffatisms that did in the actual Doctor he’s half-imitating (that is, self-satisfied self-referentiality up the wazoo).


But it further bear stressing that this pseudo-Doctor comes with a sonic screwdriver/wand and a pseudo-TARDIS/magical suitcase, complete with many rooms (preservation-conscious zoo cages, effectively). So yes, Fantastic Beasts wears this on its sleeve, but it doesn’t matter too much. It doesn’t feel like slavish lifting, and Redmayne has clearly thought about his performance such that, while Newt is heroic, he is never so in a grandstanding, self-glorifying or inane way. 


He’s also provided with sterling supported from his co-stars. Dan Fogler, an actor I haven’t noted before, shines as Kowalski, almost stealing the movie as the Muggle/No-Maj introduced to a magical kingdom and falling for Queenie (Alison Sudol, who has the ear-to-ear smile of her generation’s Cameron Diaz). The comic relief role can run the risk of being wearily over-played, but Fogler gets the level exactly right.


Indeed, this plotline, for all that the no No-Maj thing is, like the persecution of magicians, rather rote, far more affecting than the attempt to inject a spark into Newt’s relationship with Tina (Katherine Waterston). The problem there is that Tina’s a memorable character when she’s taking an authoritarian, adversarial stance towards Newt, but as soon as she’s on board with his mission she becomes next-to-immaterial.


Elsewhere, we are introduced to the controlling structures of this period universe. The magical authorities work reasonably well, forces that, through ignorance and inflexibility, cause more problems than they solve. The magical New York underworld falls flat, though; the goblin speakeasy is as replete with visually unconvincing character designs as it was fifteen years ago in the days of Dobby, and if some of Newt’s creatures (particularly the platypus-like Niffler, although the insecure green twig is a blatant Groot-steal) are appealing, there’s a general sense that Yates isn’t wringing anything new from his crew. The politicians, meanwhile, are entirely a bust, with Jon Voight wheeled on and wheeled off.


Which brings us to the "real" villain. It’s a bit of an ignominy for Colin Farrell that his solid performance as Graves should, in the final product, be revealed as the manifestation of Johnny Depp. They’ve interchanged before, of course, in The Imaginarium of Dr Parnassus, but I can’t help feel that Farrell, who hasn’t generally had the greatest success with his Hollywood roles, has finally been attached to a good one only for his work to be reduced to a footnote by the greater star who appears for all of two minutes –  and the latter with scant continuity of performance or style.


Which is to say, Farrell delivers, particularly in his manipulation of Miller. As for the widespread vocal disavowal of Depp as Grindelwald, as if his very presence is now a death sentence on quality, well I had no problem with him (albeit he’s looking a bit puffy of late). I’ve rarely found Depp less than at least entertaining in a role (hey, I’m the one who liked Mortdecai), with the proviso that I won’t be checking out his collaborations with Kevin Smith, and he’s fine in this. Comments have made it sound as if he’s awful, when he’s nothing of the sort. The sole problem is that, narratively, his presence detracts from Farrell.


Yates delivers numerous engaging set pieces, from death sentences to fantastic beasty hot pursuits (the teapot set piece is especially well-delivered; Redmayne’s mating dance fails to enchant or amuse, however) to de rigueur city-wide destruction-porn. Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them rattles along, and if Rowling the screenplay writer is trying to assemble too many elements (almost as if, halfway through the process, she decided to cross-pollinate a one-off tale with a new franchise), she nevertheless maintains interest and intrigue throughout. The prospect that Newt won’t be front-and-centre of future instalments is perhaps a disappointment, as Redmayne brings something agreeably off-kilter (if very “dram”) to the series that should be encouraged. The main fear is that the saga will reduce to a rigorously unremarkable course of good vs evil wand-waving that leads to viewer apathy. But that’s studios (and presiders over their own universes) for you.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.

Repo Man (1984)
In fairness, I should probably check out more Alex Cox’s later works. Before I consign him to the status of one who never made good on the potential of his early success. But the bits and pieces I’ve seen don’t hold much sway. I pretty much gave up on him after Walker. It seemed as if the accessibility of Repo Man was a happy accident, and he was subsequently content to drift further and further down his own post-modern punk rabbit hole, as if affronted by the “THE MOST ASTONISHING FEATURE FILM DEBUT SINCE STEVEN SPIELBERG’S DUEL” accolade splashed over the movie’s posters (I know, I have a copy; see below).

This popularity of yours. Is there a trick to it?

The Two Popes (2019)
(SPOILERS) Ricky Gervais’ Golden Globes joke, in which he dropped The Two Popes onto a list of the year’s films about paedophiles, rather preceded the picture’s Oscar prospects (three nominations), but also rather encapsulated the conversation currently synonymous with the forever tainted Roman Catholic church; it’s the first thing anyone thinks of. And let’s face it, Jonathan Pryce’s unamused response to the gag could have been similarly reserved for the fate of his respected but neglected film. More people will have heard Ricky’s joke than will surely ever see the movie. Which, aside from a couple of solid lead performances, probably isn’t such an omission.

Look, the last time I was told the Germans had gone, it didn't end well.

1917 (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I first heard the premise of Sam Mendes’ Oscar-bait World War I movie – co-produced by Amblin Partners, as Spielberg just loves his sentimental war carnage – my first response was that it sounded highly contrived, and that I’d like to know how, precisely, the story Mendes’ granddad told him would bear any relation to the events he’d be depicting. And just why he felt it would be appropriate to honour his relative’s memory via a one-shot gimmick. None of that has gone away on seeing the film. It’s a technical marvel, and Roger Deakins’ cinematography is, as you’d expect, superlative, but that mastery rather underlines that 1917 is all technique, that when it’s over and you get a chance to draw your breath, the experience feels a little hollow, a little cynical and highly calculated, and leaves you wondering what, if anything, Mendes was really trying to achieve, beyond an edge-of-the-seat (near enough) first-person actioner.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.