Now, we've all seen this trailer. We all know this movie exists. But the question is- why?
Who told J.K. Rowling that Potter fans wanted more vaguely Potter related content? Who told her that she had the right to take something that she wrote as an add-on to the original Harry Potter series and turn it into another five movie cash cow? And if you don't believe me, check my sources:
FOUR MORE MOVIES?!
But that's not the point. I wouldn't care if J.K. Rowling made a million more movies if they were all as good as Harry Potter, but the thing is, this one wasn't. I think this one was a poorly calculated move on J.K. Rowling's part, in terms that I felt like she was pandering to American audiences a little too much.
Now I have to say that I did not like this movie, but when I was looking up reviews from critics and Rotten Tomatoes, the general public seemed to love this movie, or at least tolerate it. I'm not sure if that reinforces my argument of J.K. Rowling pandering to American audiences or not, but I'm sure that probably didn't hurt.
Now, I'm not going to spoil anything in this movie for those of you that haven't seen it. Everything that I am saying can be seen in the trailer- or if not, it is still not a spoiler because my review does not reveal any plot details.
I will be splitting this review into the 6 categories that need to be evaluated the most (reviewed on a typical grading scale), before giving you my overall review of the movie (which, you could probably guess is not going to be the most positive).
Category 1: Source Material- F
Now, I never read the original textbook version of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, but I do know that it's not in novel format like the original series and it does not follow any characters. So, to her credit, J.K. Rowling pulled plot out of a textbook and sold it as a movie concept for the next five years. This is a brilliant business move, but as far as the actual content was concerned, I was not impressed. The fact that she pulled the concept of the movie from a textbook is telling of the fact that this plot is not very compelling. I was watching this movie with my mom, and she asked me more than once what was happening and what was going on. To my disappointment, I couldn't exactly tell. The only thing I knew was that the main character- Newt Scamander- had lost some magical creatures in New York City. And this was bad, because it was a dangerous city, and they were dangerous animals. And... that was pretty much it. There were two much less developed sub-plots in the movie that were really more annoying than anything, and honestly, one of them- involving Jon Voight- seemed to be in the movie entirely just to set up a sequel.
Word to the wise: Don't set up a sequel that you haven't earned yet, and fully develop a more interesting plot, please.
Category 2: Visual Effects- B-
It goes without saying that I loved the original Harry Potter series, and the visual effects of those movies are truly stunning in my opinion. I loved the looks of the magic and the characters because the magic just seemed real, which made the movies that much more enjoyable. However, Fantastic Beasts left a lot to be desired. The creatures were... okay? I mean, some of them were cute, some of them weren't, which I guess is to be expected. In terms of CGI, some of them looked better than others, but most of them looked acceptable. Some of the creatures looked like they belonged in Avatar: The Last Airbender, because the animals in this movie reminded me of how Avatar used to have creatures that were combinations of multiple animals, like the badger mole or the armadillo lion. Of course, the creatures in Fantastic Beasts had magical names, but they looked like multiple crosses between non-magical animals.
Overall, I don't have too many complaints about the visual effects except for the fact that sometimes I was put off by how gaudy they were. For example, the Harry Potter movies were not exactly in your face with the magic that they presented to you, because it wanted you to experience it for yourself. This one recognized that the audience was already familiar with the magical world and so it just went crazy with the visual magic and flashy CGI. It was a little distracting.
Another thing that bugged me was how Newt and Jacob Kowalski (played by Dan Fogler) would interact with some of the creatures that they found. Most of the time it was fine, but sometimes throughout the movie, the characters would be forced to interact with the animals in weird ways that made it clear that the fantastic beasts weren't actually there. That was a little off-putting to watch, but I get it. It's hard to act when you're looking at a tennis ball on a stick instead of a real person.
Category 3: Characters- D
Newt Scamander seemed like he was the main character in the movie from the trailer, but there are actually many more characters in this movie, and I didn't give a shit about any of them (sorry, but it's true.). The only character who seemed to show a shred of personality was the one played by Dan Fogler. I actually genuinely liked his character and I wished that the movie had been about him more instead of all of these other bullshit characters. Eddie Redmayne, who played Newt, was alright in the movie, I guess, but he only really had one or two defining characteristics and then the rest of the movie he was just a random hero figure. J.K. Rowling literally could have said, "Insert random heroic figure here" in the script, and then left it to the director to fill in the rest. But I will say that Dan Fogler's character, Jacob, had a romance in the movie that was kinda sweet, and I wanted more of that and less of the actual movie. So essentially, the characters were meh, sparing like one or two people in the film.
Category 4: References to Harry Potter- F-
Some people may have thought that the Harry Potter references were enjoyable, but personally, I found them worthy of a few eye rolls. Listening to the characters mention Albus Dumbledore or Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry was super annoying. I don't want to hear the characters talk about that stuff, I would rather see a cameo of a young Dumbledore, or get a peek at the new American wizardry school, Ilvermorny or whatever the fuck. These references felt like a tease. In my mind, they served no purpose other than to remind me of why this movie was even remotely relevant. Also, the references made me really upset because they just reminded me of the eight movies that I would much rather be watching.
Category 5: Setting- Double F-
Now here's a question for everyone: Why the fuck did this movie need to be set in America in the 1920's? And I'm asking that as an American.
Did they think that people would feel left out and so they had to bring the concept of wizarding to the U.S.? Because honestly, I cannot understand how bringing the story to America makes it a better movie. I can understand how it makes it a more profitable movie- American audiences like to feel included, who doesn't?- but I fail to see the value in changing the setting.
The only excuse that I would allow for this to be set in America is that Britain was a mess in between World Wars, and so it would be depressing for it to be set there instead of America. I get that. But I don't think that's why they did it.
Also, J.K. Rowling did not do her research on American history before she wrote an American screenplay. For example, the black woman in the trailer- you know who I'm talking about, there's only one- is the leader of the American Ministry of Magic (or whatever it's called in America). And as a black woman who is aware of American history, I know that that is a load of pandering bull crap. During the 1920's, women had barely earned the right to vote, and black people were still incredibly discriminated against even in NYC. I find it laughably hard to believe that there would be a black female leader of anything in the 1920's, especially an organization that is incredibly prejudiced towards no-majs (stupid name, by the way).
And you might say, "Well wizards don't care about color, they only care about magical ability..."
And I would say in response: "Shut the fuck up. That's still fucked up. Skin color or blood line or magical ability, it doesn't fucking matter. Wizards or no, people were not that fucking progressive in 1920 something. So I call bullshit."
And again, that character felt like a pandering move to show that the movie could be more diverse by putting a minority in a position of power. And while I'm all for diversity, I really only appreciate it when it makes sense.
And now finally, the last category.
Category 6: Shameless money grabbing ploy- A
Now, I'm not going to accuse J.K. Rowling of simply making a movie to make more money, because she got bored of living off of her millions upon billions of dollars (or pounds, because she's from the U.K.), but I will heavily imply that that's exactly what happened.
Nobody asked for this movie. I mean, sure, everyone wanted more Harry Potter content, but more in a hypothetical kind of way, not in a real way. At least, not like this.
J.K. Rowling did not have to make another damn thing. She was making buku bucks from all of the franchise rights to the original Harry Potter movies, theme parks, games, merchandise, you name it- all because she wrote a book series that ended 10 years ago. She's not exactly hurting for money, yet here we are.
I think we are witnessing J.K. Rowling's attempt to stay relevant in the minds of young people who grew up reading Harry Potter. And while there's nothing wrong with that, I feel like it skews our perceptions of what is actually good, and what is not. Nostalgia can make us forgive a lot, and honestly, this movie's Harry Potter references can make some people feel like they just got their Hogwarts letter in the mail (or at least it makes them feel validated). So I kinda understand how some people can like this movie and give it positive reviews, but I don't understand how J.K. Rowling can continue writing Harry Potter themed stories knowing she's pumping out stuff that's not half as good.
Clearly this Fantastic Beasts movie did pretty well, and the studio plans on following through with the (4!) sequels because they know people will flock to see them- mostly out of nostalgia for the original series. So this new series of movies, whatever they may be called, is going to be another lucrative franchise for Ms. Rowling. And I wish her all the best with that. But personally, I will not be giving J.K. Rowling any more of my money until she proves that she deserves it.
So- we have come to the portion of the post where I give you my final say on the movie: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them.
Here it is:
I didn't hate it, and it didn't make me want to burn my house/TV down, and so I give it a D for effort. I still wouldn't recommend watching it, and not just for the reasons I listed above. The movie's pacing was all over the place and it was so dry in parts that my mom fell asleep watching it.
Overall, if I had to watch another movie that features a wizard in New York City: I would much rather watch The Sorcerer's Apprentice.
No comments:
Post a Comment