Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald Review

What's amazing about the newest Harry Potter film, or well, "Wizarding World" film rather (as it doesn't actually feature the bespectacled "boy who lived"), is how utterly boring it is. Not only is it boring but it's stupid, tedious, and confusing, overstuffed with too many characters who say do too little and say way too much. It's one preposterous plot-twist after another that I spent the whole film yelling to myself "who the hell is this?" All the plot-twists just pile up to more pointless characters who are introduced, and reintroduced, at just the right time for more insipid exposition.

Without introducing every new character, which no doubt double the length of this review, let's go over the plot. Newt (Eddie Redmayne), is back, now without travel rights by the British Ministry of Magic due to some two-star incident that happened a few years back. They offer to allow him to travel but only if he works for them, as they're apparently shorthanded looking for Credence Barebone (Ezra Miller), explained to be the only man who can defeat the legendary Dumbledore (Jude Law). Why they care is beyond me, do they even know how important Dumbledore is yet? I'd wager they don't other he wouldn't be teaching a bunch of kids in a castle. So many people walked in and out of those halls for so many movies that they really don't have the best security.

Also looking for this Credence is Grindelwald (Johnny Depp), the dark wizard who wants wizards to rule over the world, both the magic and non-magic portions. Why he can't kill Dumbledore himself is sort of an important plot-point, so I won't spoil it here (but I can tell you that they used to be good pals).

That's the plot in a nutshell, but the inconsistencies are myriad. Here are a few off the top of my head: 1) If Grindelwald and Dumbledore were supposed to have been best friends (with benefits), then why does Grindelwald look so much older?! In real life the actors are 10 years apart, but here he could be mistaken as Dumbledore's grandfather! 2) Why Credence is the only one who can kill Dumbledore is never explained, or at least not properly explained in non-Harry Potter talk. 3) And now this is a long one, but bare with me. Leading to the climax, Grindelwald calls upon his supporters for "freedom," so they they no longer need to hide from the non-magic folks. Curiously, he shows a clip of WW2 to further his point that man is the enemy (or something, his cause is rather murky). A quick Google search shows that "Fantastic Beasts 2" takes place in 1927, a full twelve years before the second World War. Obviously this means Grindelwald can predict the future, but doesn't bother, you know, double-checking that he wins! Obviously he doesn't, or else Harry Potter would have battled him for eight pictures. This plot is a freaking disaster, in terms of execution and the very idea that any of this made sense.

I exited the theater exhausted, overwhelmed by the unspecial special effects, and the bulky plot that forced me to remember so many inconsequential faces and listen to so much plodding dialogue. It's 134 minutes of trying to recall which tertiary character made which insignificant declaration about which other tertiary character- it's all just so overblown and drawn out!

If there is one thing that truly irked me it would be Ezra Miller, who plays Credence; he speaks in the same monotone voice and does nothing but stand still, squint, and add nothing to the screen. He has zero screen presence, lost to all the CGI and other actors to the point I had no idea what his name was until I heard someone yell "Credence" and he turned his head. I was like, "oh, he's not just some random guy at the circus."

So we've reached this part of the review, when it comes down to whether I can recommend the new "Fantastic Beasts" film. But to answer that question I need to ask another question, is better than the first? Truth is, I can't remember either film, except for that dopey lead with the fuzzy hair has a suitcase full of CGI monsters. So by default it gets two stars. But, while proofreading my review, it all came back to me, all of the dumbness that had vacated by conscious once leaving the multiplex- this film is quite the dud. It's not just a bad movie, but one that insults anybody who doesn't have a lightning bolt tattooed on their forehead. In case you couldn't tell, my forehead is free such body modifications.

But what is missed most is something the original "Beasts" had a touch of, and the first two "Harry Potter" films were thick with is magic- there is nothing enchanting here, nothing whimsical. There isn't a single new character, a single shot or even a thread of dialogue that exists for any reason outside setting up a sequel. I read on my phone after the credits rolled that there are three additional films planned, and what shows on the screen is that this entry exists purely to set up the upcoming trilogy. Why else would so many characters be introduced? Why would with the film ask so many questions without answering pretty much any of them? Why do I care? I didn't, and spent a majority of the film pushing buttons on my new watch.

Halloween Review

Perhaps most surprisingly is that the new "Halloween" movie, third in the franchise to use that name, is pretty good. Actually, it's damn good, packed with atmosphere, full of fun little nods to the first picture, and plenty of gore. Now, don't go thinking that this is anywhere near the disgusting lust of blood that the thankless Rob Zombie duology exploited- the carnage here is shown quickly, almost obscured by smart camera angles, or just showing the aftermath, but boy, have times changed since the first film shocked audiences with just a few drops of blood.

That doesn't change just how entertaining the David Gordon Green-directed picture really is, how it tip-toes from horror to comedy, from slick to gritty, sometimes within in the same sequence, so frequently and so breezily. It never feels like multiple movies stitched together, everything flows from one style to the other seamlessly. It also doesn't feel like a cash-grab, a senseless remake or sequel just to make a few million its opening weekend; franchise star Jamie Lee Curtis returns as Laurie Strode, a broken character convinced that one day Michael Myers would return, she booby-traps her house like an R-rated "Home Alone" and spends here days either in her firing range, drinking, or ruining her daughter's and granddaughter's expectations. Of course, Michael does escape, just like in the original, during a prison transfer, and once again chases down Laurie (really giving her reason to drink).

The rest of the plot is generally a retread of several previous films woven into a tight little thriller, changing the names of baby sitters, and perhaps how they die, but you've seen it all before, except for Laurie. She is the star of this movie, despite having more of a supporting role, a powerful, convincing performance that rivals Donald Pleasence's as best in the eleven-film series. Her presence steals every scene, even when she's face-to-face to Michael, your eyes skip right over the bloodied, masked man and onto her, with her crazed eyes, cracked grey hair, and gun firmly in hand.

One other difference is the absence of Donald's Dr. Loomis, trademark of the series, who's role has been kind of split into two, Jamie taking over the steely professionalism he brought, and Dr. Ranbir Sartain (Haluk Bilginer), who is explained to have been looking after Michael after Loomis' death. He is a welcome addition, and is a far more interesting "Dr." character than the film initially leads on (thanks particularly to his performance).

Seen in a rather packed theater, "Halloween" worked on me well enough to get a solid three stars, but the audience was drawn as soon as they sat in their leather, reclinable seats. The lady next to me shielded her eyes with her hands when Michael stalked past a crying baby (he didn't, so you can lower your palm), and I heard another couple keep repeating "turn the lights on," and other lines that that; point is, the film worked on an audience-level, and that's really all that matters.

The Meg Review

"Fin"

That's how the new movie, and probably the last summer blockbuster, "The Meg" ends, and is about the only joke that lands throughout its 113 minute running time. That's sad, as there are a lot of jokes here, whether they try and tackle dating, death or race, they land with a thud louder than the feet of fleeing movie-goers; as the couple sitting next to me in the theater put it "that sucked." No one even waited around to see if there was a post-credit scene, which there isn't one; now that's a rotten flick! I didn't hear a single laugh or chuckle, and if I had night-vision, I bet there wasn't even a grin throughout the unreasonably packed auditorium.

The plot is a clothesline for unremarkable special effects, but I'll do my best digesting it into words. Jonas (Jason Statham) is persuaded out of retirement (of drinking Chang beer, it seems) to rescue his ex-wife (Jessica McNamee) and others from a marooned submarine deep below the Marianas Trench. You see, Dr. Minway Zhang (Winston Chao) discovered that what was believed to be the floor of the trench is actually super-cold layer of gas (or something or other). During Jonas Statham's rescue it seems a Megalodon escapes just behind the ship, as the temperature was raised just enough to allow for a giant, prehistoric fish to swim through (I can hear Peter Benchley rolling in his grave).

There are only two scenes that successfully scratch that "so bad it's good" itch, one being the climax, which I won't spoil. The other one occurs far too late into the picture, I'd say halfway through, but that's besides the point. Suyin (Li Bingbing) goes into a shark cage (yes, someone willingly entered the water with a megalodon in a plastic (yes plastic!) shark cage), and tries to poison it. She's successful, pumping the poison (I forget its name, let's just call it "shark killer") into the mouth of the beast, but not before she's knocked down and cracks her scuba gear. Jonas swims over to get her, does so, and by the time he brings her to the boat, the rest of the crew has raised the shark over the boat! It's dead alright, but that's a freaking 100~ ton shark, if the internet is to be believed, hanging by a crane over the back of the boat! And it's not some giant cargo ship or anything, it's some twenty five footer I'd wager. Why would they not just tow it to shore? But that's not all! The group prematurely celebrates, but not before another megalodon (yes they couldn't hold onto that idea for the sequel) leaps out of the water to eat the dead one! It's a gloriously stupid scene that shows at least one of the three credited writers knew what the audience wanted.

But why pay ten bucks to see this rubbish when you could just catch the last Sharknado film on Syfy Channel in a few days? That one promises dinosaurs, nazis, a bunch of other stuff, as well as sharks; "The Meg" has two good scenes, one good joke, and the ability to swim right out of your conscience by the time the credits roll. It fails on every level of movie making, except for, you know, getting made and making money.

There isn't a single scare, or even attempt at one, and the kills are disappointingly bloodless. Any good campy monster movie needs it! This leaves every action and plot point to be played purely for laughs, but nothing works. The cast is overall OK, lead by Jason Statham, a fine actor who does a good job keeping a straight face spewing inane lines like "... it's a megalodon," but the script fails him. If they were banking on a actor's charisma to save the film, have Ian Ziering headline. It would have pushed the successful joke count up to "two." The movie gets one "fin" out of four.

Mission: Impossible - Fallout Review

The way to determine a great action film is the quality of its bathroom fight scene. "Mission: Impossible - Fallout" has a pretty good one, which makes it a pretty good action movie. Sure, there are countless other action scenes in this latest in the long running franchise, but few on this intimate of scale (most involve breakneck car chases, or freaking helicopters crashing into snowy mountain tops). It's the perfect summarization of the aging hero's latest entry, "pretty good" (feel free to toss a "darn" in the middle there).

Viewed against July's other big movie "Skyscraper," which I gave two and a half stars to, "Mission Impossible 6" is significantly better entertainment; you get far more bang (and I mean "bang") for your buck here than the half star difference between the two implies.

"Mission: Impossible - Fallout" is a perfect "Tom Cruise movie," at least when he's focused on punching bad guys from one location to another. From a plot stand of view, a perfunctory one, involving Cruise having to chase down stolen plutonium from madman Solomon Lane (Sean Harris), who wants to blow stuff up. Sure, there's little details here and there, with old friends lending a helping hand, a forgotten love suddenly appearing just in time to be in danger (and even a traitor or two(?)), but don't go into the megaplex expecting Shakespeare. Or anything new. Or anything you haven't seen Tom Cruise do. The dialogue is all stuff that sounds good in trailers (which explains why the trailers have so few exchanges of words), but it sets up the action just fine.

Tom's character, Ethan Hunt, is seemingly indestructible despite almost wearingly scraping himself off the floor each time he's put back down. Whenever he sees an impossible jump he never hesitates, and we the audience know he's going to make that leap, but the film almost doesn't let him. Instead of clearing the jump flawlessly, he bounces off the wall yet just barely hangs on- it's a refreshing change from most action movies, it's almost like it's his first action movie, even though most people in the crowded theater probably came here because of fond memories of the first five flicks.

It all adds up to your usual action movie cocktail, only executed quite well, playing out like an old James Bond film trimmed of its plot (as well as careless sex and chain smoking). The supporting cast really help sell things here, an eclectic, almost baffingly mixture of character actors all playing characters in a movie by doing and saying things we've all seen and done in other movies, and never in real life. But they're all so good at playing that person that it works on a level beyond dialogue; ignoring what someone was saying and just listening to how they were talking, their tone, facial expressions, you'd get the picture.

Let's try. Imagine Alan Hunley (Alec Baldwin) walks in a damp basement to talk to Ethan. By observing the scene and not the discourse, I thought:

"Oh, he's got bad new- OK cool, new set pieces, what's gonna blow up now?"

Well, he brought bad news and things did explode, but not before a shootout! Now that's what I call an effective genre film!

Skyscraper Review

Last week's big action flick might as well been called "Rock Hard," as this is effectively a remake of the far superior 1988 film "Die Hard" with Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson (Though I think "Duct Tape: The Action Movie" is just as good, as Dwayne uses the sticky stuff to get out of more than one sticky situation.)

Mr. Johnson plays Will Sawyer, who's in the security business for skyscrapers (which much be a new field, as I've never heard of such an occupation), working out of his garage with his wife and two kids. An old friend Ben (Pablo Schreiber) offers him the chance of a lifetime, to inspect the world's tallest building, located in Hong Kong.

What could possibly go wrong?

Of course, if you have ever seen an action film, particularly any that isolates the hero outnumbered in a foreign, you know the drill; there's a double crossing, incompetent cops, and a seemingly unlimited number of bad guys with bad shots but tons of ammo. What matters here is the action itself, which is pretty good, even if it is just Dwayne Johnson doing his best John McClane (though without the chain-smoking or one-liners).

His only defining characteristic was his missing leg, which, though a marvel technical achievement in removing appendages for stars, did little to actually define his character. Sure, it raises the stakes a bit (not unlike Bruce Willis' bloodied feet in "Die Hard"), but am I really supposed to believe that, biceps and all, that The Rock is no match for dozens of nameless henchmen with guns? I think not.

There is an overarching theme of family, and how its power can overwhelm any odds, but that softness hurts the overall film's effectiveness; for every movie "Skyscraper" shamelessly riffs on, it lacks edge, the brutal, bloody shootouts and fight-outs that will get more teenagers in the cinema but less old-timers like me.

The setting of Hong Kong is nothing but background story to the building- there is no exotic atmosphere in any scene, especially inside the skyscraper, where it looks like a vertical "Mall of America" in its prime. Upon some internet searching, it doesn't surprise me that Chinese-owned Legendary Pictures financed this film.

Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again Review

I've been going to the movies since I was a wee lad, and "Mamma Mia 2" is only the second film to receive a standing ovation once the credits roll (the first was inexplicably Robin William's 2006 comedy "RV"). It's worth noting that, despite that three star score up top there, I was still sitting in my seat and my hands were not slapping each other.

That's not to say that this sequel to the 2008 original is bad, it's just not for me. Sure, I sing "Dancing Queen" when it comes on the radio, and much of the cast is superbly talented, I just wasn't feeling this movie. The jokes, though few and very far between, were fine, inoffensive chuck-inspired quips of dialogue, the performances were charming and choreography was well-staged, but what point is there here? It's about Amanda Seyfried's character "Sophia" opening a hotel in honor of her dead mom Donna (Meryl Streep)- that's it! That's the entire plot!!

The exposition leads to the your usual romantic-comedy antics that follow. A long-long love shows up. A family member appears after years of distance, with more than just a few scenes of flashbacks, though enough here to qualify this as both a sequel and a prequel.

These prequel scenes held the least amount of power, especially since I have never seen the first film, as they exist to bulk out the overall thin story with additional subplots; I also have a sneaky suspicion that these scenes, which lack the original ensemble cast, were to avoid paying the elder cast (I imagine Streep's and Cher's hourly rate is quite high). The cast during these "years ago" parts were also less than convincing- am I really supposed to believe that Jeremy Irvine is a young Pierce Brosnan?

But picture this, me in a movie theater roughly five hours ago. In a packed cineplex, a young girl the row in front of me edges to the front of her seat by the time the first song plays, and did so for every song. This movie is not for me! I feel I cannot offer this film any actual criticism because it was not made for me, and because the people it was made for so obviously enjoyed it.

In its opening weekend "Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again" has already grossed more than its $75 million dollar budget, and I imagine its soundtrack will go on to make a lot of dough as well, even if it is, in essence, just another ABBA compilation. If a film makes that much money so quickly, then the people this picture was produced for cannot be wrong. Three stars.

Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom Review

The first "Jurassic Park" film is a smarter than average monster-on-the-loose kinda picture that has since gone on to be a staple in pop-culture. "Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom," on the other hand, plays out like a b-movie that has too high a budget and too little gore and nudity- at least we still see dinosaurs ripping body parts off of tertiary characters.

Set years after the 4th entry "Jurassic World," we find the island of dinosaurs is the home to a newly active volcano(!) and is about to explode! Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard) persuades Owen (Chris Pratt) to venture to the abandoned park in search of "Blue," a velociraptor trained by Owen to follow orders, become obedient (i.e. become a dog who's bite is most certainly worse than her bark). They believe eccentric gazilliare Ben Lockwood (James Cromwell), a former colleague of franchise favorite John Hammond, wants to protect these creatures and has built a sanctuary for them. Now, sit back and think about that plot; it pretends that there's a message about endangered species, as if they couldn't just clone more.

Of course, as the trailers have given away, Lockwood's successor Eli Mills (Rafe Spall) has different plans, and plans to continue the prehistoric exploitation. I suppose Claire and Owen should have asked to see the animal sanctuary before heading to an island that's about to erupt (can't forget about that volcano). This is the second-longest in the film series after the wobbly second entry, but it never drags; it's constantly moving from character to character (and dino to dino) and from action scene to the next.

But what's different here is the atmosphere- this is a dark film, lacking the whimsy of the first or forth film, or the fun energy of the third (it is best to just skip the second flick all together, or at least until the T-Rex breaks loose). There is a brooding overall mood that not even Chris Pratt can lighten up- there is abandonment and the acceptance of death in the eyes of the captured creatures, save for the Indoraptor (a genetic hybrid ancient reptile) who is treated like a slasher villain, lunging out of the darkness to kill unsuspecting prey.

The acting is generally OK, particularly little Isabella Sermon, who plays the granddaughter of Lockwood; she isn't given much to do except for parents to think that movies with kids are for kids, but she's plucky, and that's pretty refreshing, considering the franchise's history of shoehorning children into the action. (Remember the gymnastic daughter in the second film who flies through the air from pipes to kick a raptor to its death!?) I think it is safe to say that I'm not a fan of "The Lost World: Jurassic Park."

If none of this sounds like a film worthy of a three and a half stars, that's because it's not. In a perfect world it gets three, for being a solid piece of summer entertainment. But nothing's perfect, including me, and I love the story here; it's ridiculous and absurd, but it's smart enough to know not to acknowledge how utterly dumb it is.

That's just the way I like my giant monster movies!

Not to spoil anything, but there's a post-credit scene, and sets up the next film to take the franchise somewhere both Warwick Davis' Leprechaun and Chevy Chase have brought mayhem to. And I don't know, but I'm excited.