Baby Driver // Review #3

Before we get to the review, I have a little experiment that I want to collect data for:
Please leave a comment below if you've watched a YouTube video within the past two months and seen a trailer for the movie Baby Driver.

This trailer and different variations of it were spammed all over the internet. For the past two months every social media site on Earth has been advertising about Baby Driver, but YouTube ads were by far the most persistent. And because I'm someone who watches YouTube for about 80-90% of their daily content, the Baby Driver marketing campaign was working incredibly well on me. By the time I had seen the un-skippable trailer for this movie a thousand times, I wanted to go see it for myself. I had to make the madness stop.

For me though,what probably made matters worse was that the YouTube ad scenario was not the first time I had heard of Baby Driver or even seen the trailer. In fact, I had first heard of the movie about six months ago. (That's probably because I'm a nerd who scrolls through trailers on YouTube to get excited for movies that come out the following year.) And when I first saw the trailer for Baby Driver, I was initially struck by how stupid the title sounded. Like, sure, his name is "Baby, B-A-B-Y Baby," but I mean, come on, really? They couldn't have come up with a better title?

So the first time I saw the trailer, I was not impressed in the slightest. I thought the movie was going to be lame because the title was completely laughable. In fact, when I told a friend that I had went to see the movie, he didn't believe that the movie was real because the title sounded so ridiculous and made-up.

(Side note: I now know there is a song by Simon & Garfunkel called "Baby Driver," so because of that song the title makes sense, but at the time I wasn't aware that even existed, and so I thought the title was stupid, and I didn't get why anyone would call a movie "Baby Driver.")

However, stupid titles aside, recently I was getting pretty hyped to see Baby Driver thanks to the barrage of YouTube ads and positive reviews from everyone who saw the movie. They all seemed to agree that it was awesome and needed to be praised as one of the best movies of 2017, possibly of all time.

So I was hyped. I saw the movie.

And here's the thing:

...it was okay.

I mean, people who said that the movie was good were... kinda right?

But it's not like the movie was perfect, either.

Every movie has its problems, trust me. Even my favorite movies are not flawless (though I like to believe that they are), but this movie had an even balance of bad elements for every good element that I liked about it.

Let's go through the breakdown:

And yes, there will be spoilers, so read at your own will.

Category 1: Main Character- A

Let's talk about what worked in the movie. The characters were a mixed bag for me, and the one that I really connected with and truly felt for throughout the whole movie was Baby himself, played by Ansel Elgort.

Now, I've loved Ansel Elgort since he played Augustus Waters in the movie adaptation of John Green's The Fault in Our Stars. (Great book and great movie by the way. I highly recommend both.) I know that he was in the Divergent movies as well, playing Caleb alongside the girl who was also in The Fault in Our Stars, Shaylene Woodley. Aside from that, I had never heard of him before then.

So how did he do as Baby in Baby Driver?

He killed it.

I'm not even joking.

First of all, Elgort made me believe that he was someone who would be named Baby because of the way he presented himself in the film. In the first ten minutes of the movie, Baby is already characterized as a kid who enjoys music probably more than anything else in the world. He wears shades to put off an air of toughness that he doesn't have, but he's actually really kindhearted and smart. A point that they try to make clear in the film is that Baby doesn't enjoy watching his partners in crime kill people, and he's not a fan of death. Elgort does a really good job of making you feel sympathetic to Baby, and he makes the character feel like a real person who has real issues.

Another thing that I liked about the main character of the movie itself (and I suppose this has less to do with Elgort and more to do with how the movie was written) was that the main character had a hearing problem that came with its own little tragic backstory. I appreciated the cliche even though it was a little trite, because the movie added something to the cliche by making it less about his struggle with hearing, and more about his dependence on music. And so when the music wasn't in the scene there, you can feel it- and understand how hard it is for the character to be without it.

I did like Elgort's performance throughout the movie, though. Whether he was dancing to the music playing on his iPod, or driving in his bad-ass getaway car, he was giving it his all, and being completely charming and likable whille doing it.

I also appreciated his relationships with other people in the movie, especially his foster dad who was disabled and also deaf. From watching the movie I could feel a genuine connection between the two that was different and interesting, especially because Elgort's character was partially deaf. The parallels between the two of them were very well done, and I like that Elgort probably had to learn sign language in order to communicate with him, because that shows dedication to the role.

My only real complaint about the character is that at the end you discover that Baby was not his real name, and that it was a code name for when Baby would do jobs with the rest of his crew. Personally I found the whole name reveal to be very annoying and underwhelming, because not only did they not explain why he chose to be called "Baby," but explicitly they said, "Baby, B-A-B-Y, Baby," like at least four times throughout the film. To me, it would have been funnier to reveal that Baby was actually his real name and that it was on his birth certificate and everything.

Category 2: Supporting Characters- D+

The only two supporting characters that I liked in this movie was the waitress Debra, played by Lilly James, and Baby's deaf, elderly foster father played by CJ Jones (who is deaf in real life). Both of Baby's relationships with them seem genuine and are developed in a way to make you care about Debra and Thomas (the foster father).

Thomas, like I said before, serves as a nice parallel to Baby, because Baby was partially deaf and Thomas was completely deaf. This connection was incredibly touching to me because not only could Baby relate more to him because of this, but there is a scene at the end of the movie after it seems as though Baby has completely lost his hearing (SPOILER), and he has to "listen" to music the same way Thomas does, by feeling the vibrations.

Debra was a... fine (?) love interest. I had nothing against her. Honestly she seemed a little flat and one-dimensional at the beginning, because she didn't do anything other than like Baby, and really, who wouldn't?

But after the action part of the movie started, and she found out who Baby was and what he could really do, I started to like her more, simply for the fact that she made the choice to stick around. I liked that she was willing to suddenly be "ride-or-die" for this kid that she had only been dating for a while, and she was willing to actually kill, or be killed for him. I liked that their relationship was so typical of young love, and that the first thing that they talked about was running away together, and they almost did in the end.

Everyone else in the movie seemed to keep needlessly killing people or giving Baby shit for listening to music all the time even though he's proven countless times that he is perfectly capable of handling himself.

I suppose most of my complaints about the rest of the characters stem from the fact that I wanted to see this movie because of he trailers that I kept seeing online. The trailers depicted Kevin Spacey as the villain of the movie, who kept luring Baby into the crime game despite him wanting to get out. I thought that Jaime Foxx and the others would be sympathizers, who, like Baby, wanted to get out of the business. Or at the very least I hoped that they would be a little bit more complex, like Baby.

However, I was sorely disappointed. The characters played by Jaime Foxx, Jon Hamm and Eiza Gonzalez were all...one-dimensional.

None of the characters had any dimensions about them to make them sympathetic to the viewer. They were all terrible people who robbed banks and post offices just for the sake of being terrible, and they got cheap thrills from getting away with murder. Literally.

And while it could be argued that that was the entire point: to make the supporting cast as unappealing as possible- that didn't exactly translate well into the film. The film couldn't decide if it wanted me to care about them or not.

About an hour or so into the film, when Jaime Foxx's character (Bats), is sitting with Baby, Jon Ham's character (Buddy), and Eiza Gonzalez's character (Darling), in the diner, Bats comes up with a backstory for Buddy that is (shockingly) accurate. Turns out that Buddy was a Wall Street burnout that lost everything and then turned to a life of crime just because he could. Then he married his mistress, Darling.

But by that point in the movie, it felt like it was too late to try to muster up a backstory for a character that had already been depicted as a horrible person. Buddy and Darling were killers, and attempting to humanize them by revealing their real names (Jason and Monica, respectively) did nothing except confuse me into thinking that maybe I was supposed to care about them? 

And then after Darling dies within the last thirty minutes of the film, I'm not sure if we're supposed to care that she's dead. I know we were supposed to be concerned for Baby's safety, because he was established as a sympathetic character, but Darling? Not so much. Which is a shame because the drama of Buddy showing up to kill Debra could have been amped up more if we actually cared about Darling and Buddy's relationship, or even about them as people. 

Jaime Foxx played a dick in this movie, and honestly, I was glad when he was dead. None of his lines were funny, and he seemed to be threatening to kill someone, or actually killing someone every forty-five seconds he was on screen. Honestly he was annoying at best, and a serial killer at worst. When he died I was actually relieved.

One thing I did notice and even commented on after the movie ended was that nearly all of the minority characters died off in one way or another, sparing the deaf guy that Baby was caring after. That probably had more to do with the fact that a lot of people died in this film overall and less to do with race in general, but it was something I noticed like right away.

The Asian actor in the movie- the one that mixed up Michael Myers with Mike Myers in the trailer? Yeah, he died shortly after that scene.

Darling, the Latina wife? Dead.

Bats, Jaime Foxx's character? Dead.

There were a few black cops and other diverse characters with minor speaking roles that died as well, but they were mostly unimportant to the story.

And yes, there were a few black people and other minorities that didn't die in this movie, but it was kinda shocking to me just how many people actually died in this film.

But overall, I watched the movie and I honestly disliked nearly all of the supporting characters. And to be honest, I was happy when most of them were dead. To me, they deserved it.

Category 3: Cinematography- A

Edgar Wright, the writer and director of this movie, is probably better known for some of his earlier projects, such as Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, Hot Fuzz, and Shaun of the Dead. Now, the only movie I had ever seen of his was his 2010 movie, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, so walking into Baby Driver I had high hopes. I remember that I really enjoyed Scott Pilgrim, because the cinematography and special effects were fricking awesome, and the movie overall was very entertaining.

After seeing Baby Driver, I can say that Edgar Wright did not disappoint.

One of the best scenes in the film that wasn't featured in the insane promo for the movie was a shot that came about ten minutes into the movie where Baby was sent to get coffee for his gang of criminal friends after their first heist. This shot was beautiful and it set up the entire tone of the movie. In the scene, Wright makes you focus on the main character by using one continuous walking shot where Baby walks to the coffee shot and back. I can only imagine that this scene is what filmmakers wet dreams are made of. It was seamless, and it seemed to establish Baby as not only a likable character with a personality, but as someone worth focusing on early on in the movie.

Another thing that I thought was good was the fact that all of the fighting and car chase scenes were realistic. As you can see in the trailer for the movie and the constant promo, there is not a lot of over-editing done, and so most of what you're watching in the movie seems legitimate and realistic instead of blurry and confusing. The fight scenes and the car chases were definitely action packed and clear instead of over-polished in post to the point where they are unrecognizable.

Category 4: Music- B-

This might just be a pet peeve of mine, but I'm not a fan of movies that are advertised with a soundtrack. I didn't like it when The Guardians of the Galaxy did it, and I wasn't exactly a fan of when this movie did it. I feel like it's just an excuse for hipsters to go out and buy a vinyl of a movie soundtrack that features old Queen and Michael Jackson songs so they can feel more cultured.

HOWEVER- and this is a big disclaimer- I didn't hate the music in this movie.

I thought the music fit the movie very well, and matching the timing of the songs to all of the action in the movie was very clever. And as I mentioned before, I liked that the musical element of the story was usually always there, and so when it wasn't there- the story felt naked and raw, and it created a different tone, which was nice. I also liked that essentially the movie is being heard through Baby's ears, and he's constantly got music playing to drown out his tinnitus.

But still... I couldn't help but feel like the movie was being incredibly pretentious with its song choices, to be honest. Like, there were definitely some songs that I knew before going into the movie, like "Never Gonna Give You Up" by Barry White, and "Easy" by the Commodores (Not to go off on a tangent or anything, but if you haven't seen Ansel Elgort performing this song on the Late, Late Show with James Corden than you are truly missing out. Here's the link: Everyone Wants Baby to Have Their Babies) but for the most part, I was unaware of most of these songs, and I found them to be pretentious song choices for a movie centered around someone in his early 20's. I mean, sure, establishing that Baby likes older, more obscure music gives him street cred as a music nerd, but it also made me feel a little left out because I was unaware of most of the songs in this movie.

Now, I consider myself to be a basic bitch when it comes to things like music, but that doesn't mean I don't listen to all types of things. I just like what I like. If you open up my Spotify playlist, you'll see I've got everything from 2Pac to the Grease Soundtrack. I enjoy all different types of music, but for me, the music in this movie was just too... obscure, maybe? It definitely seemed weirdly out of date for a modern movie about a kid who drives getaway cars. But maybe that's just me. 

Category 5: Motives- D

Let's get back to Kevin Spacey for a second. I didn't mention him when I was talking about all of the other supporting characters, because I wanted to get to this point and talk about him specifically. 

Something about Baby Driver didn't exactly add up, and I think it had a lot to do with the motives of Baby and the movie's main antagonist, Kevin Spacey (For the record, I had to Google if his character had a name in the movie, and his character name was Doc. I don't remember anyone ever calling him that, so I will continue to refer to him as Kevin Spacey).

To start with, Kevin Spacey is depicted, in the trailer and in the movie, as the movie's main bad guy. He's the one lining up all of the bank robberies and organizing all of the teams so that everyone can make a lot of money. He uses Baby as his driver on every job because Baby is the best in the biz.

This is okay, and I was on board with this. The only thing I didn't get was, what was the dynamic between Baby and Kevin Spacey?

The movie said that (SPOILERS) Baby was caught stealing one of Kevin Spacey's cars when he was younger, and that car was worth a lot of money because it had some valuables in the trunk. One thing led to another, and all of a sudden that car is missing. Next thing you know, Baby is working for Kevin Spacey, trying to repay the debt for the car he lost... I guess.

But the movie presents their relationship in two ways: Spacey's the cold and unforgiving boss, and yet Spacey is also Baby's best friend. And while this seems like it could be done in a way that is both terrifying and amazing, the movie does not execute this very well. These differences seem out of character, and the motivation for this turn of events just isn't there.

Something that really bugged me was the ending of the movie, where Baby comes back to the garage for his mom's tape after saving Debra. (Honestly this scene kinda reminded me of The Guardians of the Galaxy, not gonna lie.) In this scene, Kevin Spacey is packing up all of his shit and closing shop because Baby decided not to complete the job as planned. He tells Baby that he can't help him, and no, he won't give him his mom's tape. That seems completely in character.

But then it gets weird.

Now to me, the dynamic between the two of them would have been more compelling and fitting if Kevin Spacey only liked Baby when he was useful to him. After Baby screwed up the last job on the post office, it would have made sense if Kevin Spacey threatened to kill him if he didn't leave the warehouse, or shouted some expletives about Baby being a lost cause because of his youth or hearing impairment. 

It even would have been more powerful, to me, if Baby had come not only for his mother's tape, but to criticize and verbally berate Spacey for being a criminal in the first place. If Baby had said something harsh or even remotely cold to Spacey, I would have understood his motivation a bit better because Baby was so against death and his life of crime in the first place. 

However, instead of doing any of that, Baby tries to tell Spacey that they're friends, and quotes Monsters Inc. unsuccessfully, only to be yet again turned down when asking for his mother's tape.

Kevin Spacey stands his ground, and everything is fine. That is, until Debra appears from the shadows and tells Baby it's time to leave.

Then all of a sudden, his motivation changes.

Spacey allows Baby to retrieve his mother's tape and then offers to help Baby and Debra escape the police because they're on the run. But it's not because Spacey had a soft spot for Baby, or because he needed to have a getaway driver to help him get away now, but it was because, "I was in love once."

And I was literally sitting there like, "Where the fuck did that come from?"

Spacey being in love before was never addressed in the film, and it seemed like a random, movie generated motivation so that the movie could end within the next twenty minutes.

Luckily, this motivation is never explored further, because Spacey died in the middle of his attempt to help Debra and Baby escape. Which, again, doesn't make sense.

It was never established in the movie that Spacey liked Baby enough to die for him, or to even risk his life for him. There was never a heart to heart moment between the two like there was with Thomas. Spacey was basically always threatening Baby or asking him loaded questions- so there was really no time for them to develop a deeper bond other than, "That's my getaway driver," and "That's my boss."

The motivations of Kevin Spacey didn't make any sense, and the fact that Baby didn't at least cuss him out for making him drive for him for years was a little disappointing, considering all the shit he'd been through. It would have been more consistent with their characters if Spacey hadn't helped him, and Baby would have screamed at him, because the motivations of those two just seemed really off-putting towards the end.

Edgar Wright did seem to get Baby's motivation right at the end though, after Baby turned himself in instead of going on the run with Debra. This was consistent with his character, because Baby was a nice person who got involved with the wrong crowd. I thought him going to jail, and the trial afterwards was a nice touch, because Baby was really a good kid, but he unfortunately had to learn to face the music.

Pun intended.

Category 6: Originality- A

I'll give Baby Driver one thing: it's not a sequel, or a remake, or a spinoff, or even a book to movie adaptation. It's original, and in Hollywood these days, that means something. It was nice to see a movie that wasn't based off of a comic book or a TV show or even an old historical event. This movie is 100% new material, and for that, I have to give it it's props. I mean, for me, it didn't always work; in some ways the movie worked well without a mold to fit into, and in other places, I feel like a mold would have helped to stabilize its direction. However, Edgar Wright deserves praise for coming up with an original idea when Hollywood seems too terrified to produce new and original content for moviegoers to enjoy.

Instead we're on our third Cars movie and our fifth Transformers...

But I digress.

Overall, Baby Driver was... fine? I didn't love it, and honestly, I don't even really have to see it again, but I felt like I had to write a review about it just because everyone else is currently raving about it. If I'm being honest, I enjoyed it to a point, but there were a lot of parts that I frankly didn't enjoy, so for me, Baby Driver gets a C. I would really only watch it again to watch Ansel Elgort be cute and charming, and maybe for the few scenes he had with Lily James and CJ Jones. But aside from that, I think the movie was acceptable, but not as great as everyone says it is. After all, things usually aren't worth all the hype that they incite on the internet.

That being said, here's hoping that Baby Driver doesn't sell-out to the movie studio for a sequel and develop sequelitis.

Frozen // Review #2

Let's talk about Frozen for a hot minute.

Get it? Hot? Frozen?

No? Nobody? Alright then.

First off, here are some stats:

Frozen has made over 1.27 billion dollars worldwide since its release in 2013 (not adjusting for inflation), making it the 9th highest grossing movie of all time. It is also the highest grossing computer animated film ever, ranked barely above Minions, the global pandemic that was as much of a meme in 2015 as that stupid dress that everyone thought was white and gold instead of black and blue. Not to mention, Frozen happens to have two academy awards: one for best original song, for (obviously), "Let it Go," and then the other for best animated feature for 2013.

As if that wasn't enough overwhelming evidence for everyone to admit that Frozen was a global phenomenon, it also happened to be the favorite movie of every female Disney fan for at least the entire year after it came out.

Now, I was in high school when Frozen came out, and as someone who considers herself to be a pretty avid Disney fan, I will admit that I have mixed feelings about Frozen. As someone who expects a lot out of her movies, I think Frozen was pretty fun and original, and yet...  I'm not sure it was worthy of all of the praise that it got.

Like, I'm sure if you frequent Tumblr or any other social media sites that has a large Disney fandom, then you've probably seen this:

And I have to say that I agree with this sentiment. I don't think that Frozen was as revolutionary as people made it out to be. Sure, it was important for girl power and feminism, and it made strides, but... also, it didn't try anything that we hadn't already seen before. Mulan was a kickass non-princess who taught girls that it was alright to be tough and stand up for your family. Brave taught girls that princesses didn't need to be married in order to rule, and they shouldn't have to settle for what they don't want. And Lilo & Stitch taught kids that "Ohana means family," and that the bond between sisters is the most important thing. All of these themes are present in all of the Disney movies featured above, but Frozen just packaged them differently and added more music (two of the three Disney movies featured above had no main musical numbers, and were mostly plot driven) and so the global community embraced it as something different and original, even though it really wasn't.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Frozen is a bad movie. I'm not saying that at all.

But am I saying it's a good movie? Well, let's look at the 6 primary movie categories for Frozen:

Category 1: Comedy- A-

I'm not gonna lie, I think Frozen was a very funny Disney film. Olaf's antics and the comedic timing of Kristen Bell as Ana made me smile throughout the movie. I liked how awkward Ana and Kristoff were when the first met, and I liked that their dialogue was realistic. People in films (not just Disney movies) have a tendency to behave exactly how they're supposed to and nothing at all like real people do, and Frozen does a good job of making it seem like Kristoff, Ana and Elsa are real humans, with real dialogue about smelling chocolate and marrying someone you just met. I liked the line especially when Kristoff is asking Ana if Hans picks his nose and she gasps and says, "Excuse me sir, he is a prince." Comedic gold, and I can appreciate it.

Category 2: Music- A+

Now, due to the mainstream success of this movie, everyone knows at least one song from Frozen, and if you're a person who lives on earth, it's most likely "Let it Go." Now, I could go on and on about how much that song was repeated and parodied everywhere from YouTube to Disneyland, but I will instead choose to focus on the positive. The music in this movie is amazing and catchy. In fact, the first time that I saw Frozen in theaters (because I went twice, don't judge me), I immediately left the theater and downloaded "Let it Go" because it was so inspiring and beautiful (Mind you, this was when the movie first came out, and it was before all the hype, so give me a little credit.). I was moved by how bold Elsa had become after she left her old life behind, and I was inspired by her song to "Let it Go." I loved it. I also found "Do You Wanna Build a Snowman?", "The First Time in Forever," and "Love is an Open Door" to be completely sing-a-long-able (which I know is not a word, but roll with it). The music is just charming, and it has a place in my heart for being moving and adorable at the same time. The only song that I'm not a big fan of is "Fixer Upper" because I can never really get all the words right to that song, but I still think it fits that tone and feeling of the movie pretty well. Overall, I enjoyed the music very, very much.

Category 3: Animation- A

Now, according to my sources on the internet, Frozen was a very demanding movie to create visually. In order to get all of the snow and ice crystals to look as realistic as possible, a team of Disney employees went to Wyoming to get a feel for the cold and the way people interacted with snow. Disney definitely put the time in, and it shows. Everyone involved in this movie had to know their stuff, and that included not only visual effects, but animation, and even some science. According to effects supervisor Dale Mayeda:

As far as effects animation, it’s definitely a combination of art and science...So much of what we do on a daily basis is not just doing simulations but also making sure the composition is great and the timing is beautiful, and a lot of design as well. (Frozen's Effects: Oh My Disney!)

Clearly everything in this movie, from the "fractals" that Elsa sings about, to the way Ana's dress freezes after she fell into the river, was well thought out and animated, and the kingdom of Arendelle is beautiful. So I give Disney a good grade for stunning visuals and realistic looking snow and winter effects.

Category 4: Characters- C-

I'm not saying that I don't love Ana, Elsa, and Olaf, because I do. I even love Hans, to a certain extent. That's not why I gave the characters a C-. I gave the character category a C- because I didn't appreciate how Frozen treated the character arcs of Ana and Elsa, and I felt like Hans was a little too convenient of a villain to matter to me.

One thing that I wasn't exactly a fan of was the fact that Elsa's powers were just briefly explained away within the first three or four minutes of the movie. Like, her powers were never explored further- and it was never mentioned again where her powers came from. A little backstory about how her grandmother or something had powers would have made a little bit more sense in the context of the movie- or even saying that she was cursed (like the troll asked) would have been acceptable. But no, we're not supposed to question her magic anymore like it's normal for a child to be born with magical ice powers.

To take it a step further, if Elsa was born with ice powers, why was Ana born normal? I feel like if we're just supposed to accept these things as fact, there needs to be some sort of pre-established rule that determines who gets ice powers or not. But no, Disney went all willy-nilly with that shit and was just like, "Elsa has ice powers because reasons, and Ana is a normie for...different reasons." I mean, I know that Elsa having magic and Ana not having magic are important to the plot of this movie, but if that's how Disney is gonna play this shit, there should at least be a little more justification than, "Uh, I dunno, I guess she was born with the powers. Yeah, that works, right?"

It is barely an explanation, and I'm calling you out for your poor writing, Disney.

Another thing that bugged me about the characters, (and this is kinda plot related, so SPOILER ALERT if you haven't seen the movie and have been living under a rock for the last five years. If you haven't seen the movie, stop reading right here and skip to the end.), was the fact that Elsa was depicted as someone who had major anxiety and repressed not only her anxiety and negative emotions, but also her powers. I was an angsty teenager when I first watched this, and so I could relate. Elsa was dealing with some stuff that no one around her could relate too, and the best her parents could do was tell her to suck it up and hold it in. I was intrigued because I thought that Disney was dealing with some intense issues like mental health and letting people know that you need to express your feelings and not be afraid of your own strength and emotions.

HOWEVER, Frozen took a complete left turn after Ana went to visit Elsa in her ice palace to get her to end the winter. Elsa had the equivalent of a nervous breakdown (which, again, I can relate to), and ended up hurting her sister once more. After that point, it was no longer about Elsa dealing with her control issues, it was about how Ana wanted her sister to know that she loved her.

And I was like, "Well no shit, Sherlock."

To me, this movie was never a question of how much these two sisters loved each other. In fact, the whole reason why Elsa was so freaked out in the first place was that she hurt her younger sister, who she loved. And while Elsa grew older and more distant because of that, it was never said that Ana didn't still love her sister. She knew that her sister and her used to be friends, she just didn't understand what she was going through. And so at the end when they're all happy and lovey-dovey, I was just like- "That's it? That's the character arc? That's as far as they're taking this? But it started off so good!"

I just felt like that was a cop-out ending. I mean, it kinda didn't add up. Elsa couldn't have possibly thought that Ana didn't forgive her for hurting her as a child- because she'd had her memory wiped of the magic. And so for Elsa to suddenly have her magic under control after realizing that "love" was what it took, I found that really stupid. It could have been that Elsa didn't think that Ana loved her because she had been avoiding her for over ten years, but even still, finding out your sister loves you shouldn't be the thing that helps you to overcome your personal anxiety. I found that to be incredibly weak and disappointing.

Anyway, let's move on:

Olaf shouldn't even be alive in this movie. But he's cute, and so everyone accepts that he just... is. I  honestly liked him as a comedic sidekick and even as a character, but the team for Frozen didn't even bother to write an explanation for how Elsa can create life out of snow. She just can. That's a thing she can do. The writers at Disney were just playing fast and loose with the limitations of Elsa's powers, and it's a little annoying, to be honest.

The Duke of Weseltown was funny, but unnecessary, and frankly the movie probably would have been mostly the same without him there.

More importantly, though: Elsa and Hans acted out of character a few times, which was a little concerning, to be honest. It was weird when Elsa went all murderous on those guards in her ice tower- like she literally almost murdered two people after disarming them!- and it was weird when Hans was acting all nice and quirky at the beginning when he first met Ana, when he was evil the entire time. Like, their characters didn't add up sometimes, which was strange. And I know you were supposed to like Hans at first, in order for the twist ending to hit you right in the feels, but if a real person acted like two completely different people like Hans did, you would think he was a sociopath.

Don't even get me started on how Hans is essentially the male human version of Ariel from The Little Mermaid- marrying upwards in society in order to maintain power. I mean, not exactly, but you can't prove that Ariel from The Little Mermaid didn't just love Eric for all of his belongings and dinglehoppers, and only wanted to marry him because she had six older sisters and wanted to be queen. And to top it off, they fell in love without communicating to each other for a majority of the movie- which is problematic. (As you can see, I'm not the biggest fan of The Little Mermaid...).

The only logical explanation for Hans to behave the way he does in the movie is explained in the Film Theory episode that MatPat did on Frozen: HANS IS NOT THE BAD GUY?!  (And by the way, if you haven't checked out Film Theory yet, please do- they are one of my favorite YouTube series' that talks about movies.)

Category 5: Plot- C

Warning: SPOILERS, STILL.
As seen through my character complaints, the main problem that I have with this movie is that Elsa is not the main character. Disney could have made a great movie about sisterly love and everything, without focusing so much on Ana and her adventures with Kristoff and the talking snowman. I was much more intrigued by the potential plot of Elsa overcoming her self-control issues and her anxiety. The problem with this movie is that it uses "love" as the heal-all-end-all solution to everything, and because it's Disney, nobody questions it. But honestly, when I saw this movie in theaters the first time, I thought this movie's ending was stupid and a little too cliché to make me feel anything other than disappointed. The ending kinda ruined it for me.

I would have liked it more if, like everyone intended when the movie was first pitched to Disney, Elsa was the villain. But not because she was evil or because she was mean-spirited, but because she was dealing with herself and learning to control her anxiety and fears of hurting someone again. It would have been a different movie, sure, but I also feel like it would have been more interesting.

Imagine this: Elsa is in her castle by herself, not having to worry about concealing her powers because she's alone. Then she meets Jack Frost, and they discuss her powers and how to train herself to overcome them and whatever. She grows to like him because he's dealt with a similar issue of learning to control your powers and accept yourself and get over your fear of hurting others. And then Ana shows up and she's like, "Sis, you froze the town." And Elsa freaks out and hurts Ana just like in the movie, and then she and Jack Frost have to take Ana to the trolls who say that true love's kiss will break the spell. And because they are sisters, Elsa can pull a Maleficent (SPOILER) and kiss her on the head, thus saving Ana. They can have a touching heart to heart about sisterly love and what it means to be there for someone even when they are going through something you don't understand. THEN- because the town is still frozen, mind you, Elsa can have a nervous breakdown because she's afraid of hurting her sister and ruining everything again, before she inevitably saves the town. (In this version, Olaf and Snowball can still exist, but just in a different context with more explanation of how they're alive.)

The main difference between this movie and the original Frozen is the theme. The theme of the original Frozen was "Love can conquer all," which is a very appropriate Disney theme. The theme of the movie that I just created was "Believe in yourself," which I think is also very fitting for Disney, however, I think my theme is more appropriate for this story, especially considering that Elsa was dealing with control issues. My re-write also features the themes of friendship and sisterly love, like the original, but in a more cohesive context, I think.

I feel like the story I just summarized would have been a much better movie in general. Would it have been nearly as popular with the kids as the actual Frozen was? I don't know, maybe if the movie included the Jack Frost character from Rise of the Guardians it would be...

I'm joking of course. That would be a legal nightmare for DreamWorks and Disney.

Plus, I mean, the whole Jack Frost thing was a tad ridiculous, so it doesn't have to be him in my version of the movie (although the internet would explode if it was), but I feel like the plot could use an entire overhaul in order for it to make cohesive sense.

I guess my problem with Frozen is that everything in it makes just enough sense for parents and children to get on board, but nothing fits together 100% perfectly well, which just sits with me the wrong way.

And Disney's determination to have an arbitrary bad guy for people to dislike was really one of those things that sat with me weird. I'm like, "Why couldn't this movie have been about Elsa, and her control issues? The troll at the beginning said that her powers would grow due to fear- and Elsa was afraid not only of herself, but of people finding out about her secret and thinking she was a freak."

I mean, that plot generalization kinda sounds like I'm encroaching on Shrek territory because the main characters is hated by the masses for being different, but you get the idea.

To sum up my complaint, I feel like this movie focused on the wrong sister to avoid talking about some intense issues and in order to lighten the mood. And I mean, I'm not saying that the plot of Frozen is bad, I'm just saying that the ending is tonally inconsistent with what I feel was the main struggle of the film. Ana was just a side character, who ended up being a hero because she was quirky and awkward.

Category 6: Kid Friendliness- A

Let's be honest here: Disney didn't make this movie for me. Disney really didn't even make this movie for anyone over the age of 10. And even though Frozen was a global phenomenon that appealed to both boys and girls around the world, everyone knows I was not in Disney's target demographic when they started story-boarding this movie. This movie is fun and enjoyable, and incredibly age appropriate for everyone. Plot holes and lack of character progression aside, I do think that children and adults of all ages can watch Frozen and sing along, and enjoy the fun characters and Olaf's funny comments. No, it is not the perfect movie. But is it acceptable?

I mean, yeah. I guess so.

So on a scale of "YAY!" to "BOO!" I would give it a "Meh"- which I suppose is the equivalent of a C. But that's just my personal opinion. If you have children that love Frozen or if you know people that love Disney movies with catchy songs, then this movie is probably more of an A movie for them. But for a then teenager (who saw it in 2013) and current adult, I have to say that I expected a little more out of the movie. But that's not to say that I didn't enjoy it, and that I wouldn't watch it again. But, I mean, only if there was nothing else on TV.

Now, with that said, everyone can finally:

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them // Review #1

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.