Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) review

In 2001, the first installment of the Harry Potter film series, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (Philosopher’s Stone overseas), officially kickstarted a great new franchise adapted from the beloved, best-selling book series by author J.K. Rowling. One full decade later, the series officially concluded with the second part of the adaptation of the final book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, and for fans of the franchise, it seemed as if this was the end of the adventures within the Wizarding World… or so we thought. Just a few years later, it was announced that Rowling would be writing a new series of films inspired by the in-universe textbook Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, a guide to the various creatures of the Wizarding World that was published for real in 2001. And while it’s safe to say that some may have initially questioned the idea of a film series based around a textbook, Rowling would soon go on to reveal more details about the new franchise. Specifically, it would be a prequel that took place 70 years prior to the events of Harry Potter and would focus on the adventures of the textbook’s author, Newt Scamander. The first installment of this series, which shared the name of its source material, hit theaters in November 2016. It served as Rowling’s first screenplay and saw director David Yates return to the franchise after previously helming the final four installments of Harry Potter. Upon its release, the film proved to be yet another success for the franchise, garnering solid reviews from both critics and audiences and grossing over $800 million worldwide, thus paving the way for this year’s sequel, Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, which delves further into the Wizarding World of the 1920’s. And while it does end up suffering a bit from a case of ‘middle chapter syndrome’, there’s still just enough of the things that have made this franchise a staple of pop culture to satisfy its devoted fandom. 

Three months after aiding the Magical Congress of the United States of America (MACUSA) in capturing the notorious dark wizard Gellert Grindelwald (Johnny Depp), zoologist Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) returns home to England to continue what he does best by looking after all the unique magical creatures that he comes across. However, Newt is soon placed on watch by the Ministry of Magic for his ‘unauthorized’ field trip to America and is pressured into assisting their Aurors (one of them being his older brother Theseus (Callum Turner)) in their efforts to hunt Grindelwald again when he ends up escaping from custody. Newt also learns that Grindelwald is specifically looking for Credence Barebone (Ezra Miller), the disturbed young man who, in the previous film, was revealed to be possessed by a parasite known as an Obscurus. And although he was supposedly killed by MACUSA, it is revealed that he survived and has traveled to Paris in the hopes of discovering his heritage. While he initially refuses to help the Aurors, Newt is ultimately convinced to go on his own accord by his old professor from Hogwarts, Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law), whose unique relationship with Grindelwald prevents him from joining in on the action. Thus, Newt, with the aid of sisters Tina (Katherine Waterston) and Queenie (Alison Sudol) Goldstein and Muggle Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler), who’s revealed to have kept most of the memories that he had prior to his alleged memory wipe, embark on a journey to ensure that Credence isn’t swayed by Grindelwald’s dark cause. For as they find out, Credence’s supposedly pure-blood heritage potentially makes him the only one who can possibly equal Grindelwald and his greatest adversary, Albus Dumbledore.

Now admittedly, Crimes of Grindelwald doesn’t always maintain the exact same quality of writing when compared to previous entries in the franchise. While some have criticized it for having a ‘minimal’ plot, I’d say that this film’s biggest issue lies more with its ending. For the most part, this film is clearly meant to be the entry in the series that is primarily intended to set up plotlines that will play a far bigger role in future films, and while I don’t mind the ways in which it sets up those films, it ends up resulting in its own finale being a bit too anti-climactic. Simply put, the big confrontation with Grindelwald that the marketing campaign has been alluding to doesn’t really happen, and what is ultimately there is taken care of rather quickly, which also means that not every plotline and bit of character development is given as much attention as it should be. But even with that in mind, that doesn’t completely take anything away from all the other great things that are in this film. While it does stumble a bit by the end, the rest of the film is very well-paced even if the plot is admittedly a lot simpler compared to some of the other films. And yet, even with that said, this film still manages to maintain what is easily J.K. Rowling’s greatest strength as a writer, her knack for world-building. Once again, this film does a phenomenal job when it comes to creating all the new locations and magical creatures that it brings to the Wizarding World thanks in large part to the always terrific production design and stunning visual effects that only manage to get better with each new film.

But as I’ve noted in the past, easily my favorite aspect of this new franchise is its main protagonists AKA the main quartet of Newt, Jacob, Tina, and Queenie. Even with the expectations spurred from the iconic trio of Harry, Ron, and Hermione, these four proved to be just as endearing as the series’ original leads. Plus, despite where some of the plotlines in this film end up taking them, their chemistry is still just as strong as it was in the first film. Most notably, Newt and Jacob continue to be a wonderful lead duo, with Eddie Redmayne continuing to maintain Newt’s incredibly sympathetic nature and Dan Fogler once again providing the film with many of its best humorous moments. Redmayne and Fogler also continue to have wonderful chemistry with Katherine Waterston and Alison Sudol as sisters Tina and Queenie, respectively, resulting in some of the film’s best emotional moments. As for the new additions to the franchise’s ensemble, easily the most prominent is Jude Law taking on the role of a young Albus Dumbledore. And while it should be noted that Dumbledore doesn’t factor into the plot as much as one would expect, Law still very much shines in the role, nobly following in the footsteps of Richard Harris and Michael Gambon. Other new additions like Callum Turner as Newt’s brother Theseus, Zoe Kravitz as Newt’s former classmate (and Theseus’ fiancé) Leta Lestrange, and Claudia Kim as the transforming Maledictus known as Nagini (who, of course, ends up becoming Voldemort’s snake companion in the Potter books/films) are solid as well.

And then there’s easily the film’s biggest question mark, Johnny Depp as Grindelwald. Ever since he was cast in the role, there has been a ton of controversy because of it. For starters, some fans weren’t too thrilled with the first film’s reveal that Grindelwald had been impersonating Colin Farrell’s Percival Graves, with many arguing that Farrell would’ve been a much better fit in the role. And while Depp’s role in the first film was ultimately quite minor, some predicted that this would eventually lead to yet another instance of his increasingly controversial over-the-top style of acting. But, of course, the biggest controversy to come from Depp’s casting was due to his infamous domestic abuse case in 2016, with many condemning the decision for him to be cast in a franchise that was developed by a woman who’s clearly been known to disapprove of this kind of behavior. And yet, at the risk of attracting some negative attention from those who were against his casting… Depp surprisingly manages to impress in the role of Grindelwald. Contrary to what some may have feared, he never really delves into the same over-the-top acting that he’s been known for these past few years. Instead, he establishes a suitably reserved but incredibly intimidating antagonist who can recruit others to his cause without much issue, and while he does suffer from the story seemingly saving his biggest moments for future films, Depp does make the most out of the material that he’s given. In short, while I want to make it perfectly clear that I’m not ‘defending’ any of Depp’s recent actions, it should be noted that, despite what some may ultimately claim, none of this film’s shortcomings are primarily because of him.

At the time that I’m writing this, Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald is the only entry in the Wizarding World saga to attract a mixed-to-negative reception from critics… and yet, it’s seriously not as bad as some of those critics have been claiming. To be clear, though, I’m not saying that it’s perfect because, in the opposite scenario of what happened with Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, this film does fall victim to the dreaded ‘middle chapter syndrome’. While I don’t dislike any of the ways in which the film sets up future installments of the franchise, along with how it often ties itself back to Harry Potter, there are a few plot threads and bits of character development that would’ve benefitted from having more attention given to them. But despite all this, everything else that’s great about the Wizarding World franchise is still on display here. J.K. Rowling’s world-building is still second-to-none and the main characters are just as endearing as ever while being joined by some solid newcomers. And yes, as controversial of a claim as it’ll undoubtedly be, Johnny Depp doesn’t phone it in whilst portraying the title role of Grindelwald. I understand why some have been hesitant about this film because of his involvement, but I hope that it doesn’t completely turn people away from seeing it given those who were involved that obviously weren’t tied to Depp’s incidents. In other words, Depp’s involvement has clearly cast an incredibly dark shadow over this new series that, unfortunately, it might not be able to overcome. But as for me, I’m still very much a staunch defender of the Fantastic Beasts franchise and I look forward to seeing it continue.  

Rating: 4.5/5

The Grinch (2018) review

When it comes to children’s literature, easily one of the most famous authors of all-time was Theodor Geisel, better known through his pen name, Dr. Seuss. From 1937 up until his passing in 1991, he wrote and illustrated more than 60 books that were hailed for their imaginative imagery and wonderful rhyme-based writing, thus paving the way for classics like The Cat in the Hat, Green Eggs and Ham, and Oh the Places You’ll Go. And easily one of his most famous creations was the Grinch, a furry, green creature who despised the holiday season. This character first made his debut in Seuss’ 1957 effort, How the Grinch Stole Christmas. Less than a decade later, Geisel teamed up with legendary animator Chuck Jones for a 26-minute television special that has continued to be one of the most beloved Christmas specials of all-time. The Grinch would then see new life on the big screen in 2000 thanks to a live-action adaptation that was directed by Ron Howard and starred Jim Carrey in the title role. This one, however, was a bit more controversial amongst critics and audiences. While it does still have its fans (namely those who were kids when it first came out… including me), it wasn’t as well-received as its animated counterpart. But now the ‘mean one’ known as ‘Mr. Grinch’ is back in a second feature film adaptation, this time as an animated feature courtesy of Illumination Entertainment, who had previously adapted Seuss’ 1971 story The Lorax in 2012. And although their last foray into the world of Dr. Seuss didn’t turn out so well, this new one works a lot better as a charming little family flick even if it’s still just the same story that we know and love at the end of the day.  

In the peaceful town of Whoville, one holiday is revered more than anything else, and that is Christmas. Every year, the Whos of Whoville go all out with their holiday celebrations, which become even more extravagant this year when the Mayor (voiced by Angela Lansbury) declares that they will have a Christmas that’s three times bigger than anything they’ve ever had before. But while everyone in Whoville likes Christmas a lot, the same cannot be said for the Grinch (voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch), a miserable loner who spends most of his time in his mountain lair looking down in disgust upon the town. For the past 53 years, the Grinch has hated the holiday season with a burning passion; a hatred that primarily spawned from all the time that he spent alone at the local orphanage when he was a kid. And when he learns about the Whos’ plan to make their Christmas celebration even bigger, he decides that the time has finally come to do something about it. His ‘wonderful, awful’ idea? Dress up as Santa Claus, find reindeer to lead the sleigh, sneak down into Whoville, and steal all their presents and decorations. Thus, with the aid of his loyal canine companion Max, the Grinch begins working on his plan to give the Whos the worst Christmas that they’ve ever had. Meanwhile, down in Whoville, a young, innocent Who named Cindy Lou (voiced by Cameron Seely) initiates a plan of her own to aid her overworked mother Donna (voiced by Rashida Jones) by finding the one and only St. Nick.

If there’s one thing that you can never fault Illumination films for, it’s for having bad animation. While I do love the live-action Grinch film with Jim Carrey, I will also admit that Dr. Seuss’ creations work a lot better in animation than they do in live-action, and the animation team at Illumination did a wonderful job in replicating Seuss’ style through the locales and character designs. As for the story, though, don’t expect anything new from this classic story. While it does do a different spin on the Grinch’s backstory and Cindy Lou Who’s role in the plot, it’s still the same premise and overall outcome through and through. But for what it’s worth, the film manages to work around this thanks to its laid-back tone and some decent bits of humor here and there. Ultimately, though, the best aspect of the film is Benedict Cumberbatch in the title role. Admittedly, when the first clips of him voicing the character were released, I was surprised to see that his Grinch wasn’t adopting the English accent that was originated by Boris Karloff in the 60’s special and then used, in part, by Jim Carrey in the live-action film. Instead, he goes for a more Americanized accent, but it’s still a solid take on the character and Cumberbatch works well with the film’s humor. Aside from him, there’s a notable supporting turn from SNL vet Kenan Thompson as the overly jolly Who Bricklebaum that the Grinch continually crosses paths with. And as for Cindy Lou Who, I appreciate that this film did the same thing that the live-action film did by giving her a more prominent role in the story. Instead of her struggling to understand the meaning of Christmas in an increasingly commercialized time, her arc in this film is a sweet one as it sees her just trying to find Santa so that he can do something nice for her overworked mother Donna (sadly, Rashida Jones doesn’t get much to work with here).  

Now I went into this film with far different expectations than most people. I think it’s safe to say that a lot of people went into this hoping that it’d be a better feature film adaptation of The Grinch compared to the previous one. But as I’ve noted before, I’m part of the crowd that grew up with the Ron Howard/Jim Carrey version, and I’m not afraid to admit that I still love it. Thus, when it comes to this new version, I was just curious to see what it’d be like compared to its predecessors. And while I do have my doubts about this film going on to maintain as much of a legacy as either of its two predecessors (yes, folks, the live-action Grinch does have somewhat of a positive legacy… even if it depends heavily on who you ask…), this version of The Grinch is still a cute little animated flick. This is, of course, primarily due to Benedict Cumberbatch clearly having a lot of fun in the title role and some gorgeous animation that does a nice job paying tribute to Seuss’ iconic visual style. At the same time, though, there isn’t that much different about this film in terms of its story compared to previous adaptations. And yet, even with that said, I was surprised by how this was a far more restrained affair compared to other Illumination projects. At the time that I’m writing this, I’ve only seen three Illumination films (this, Sing, and The Lorax) and have usually had the impression that they can often be a bit too wacky for their own good. But as for this film, aside from maybe one or two dips into modern-day references, it surprisingly may just be the most respectful adaptation of a Dr. Seuss story to date. And yes, considering some of the previous film adaptations of Seuss’ work (e.g. the infamous live-action adaptation of The Cat in the Hat starring Mike Myers), I know that this isn’t really saying a lot, but I will give this film credit for, at the very least, keeping it simple.

Rating: 3.5/5

Overlord (2018) review

For the past few years, J.J. Abrams has become one of the most prominent filmmakers in the industry. As a director, he played a major role in reviving not one, not two, but three incredibly prominent franchises through his work on 2006’s Mission Impossible III, 2009’s Star Trek, and 2015’s Star Wars: The Force Awakens. And after that, he then proceeded to get further involved with each franchise as a producer, paving the way for incredibly strong outings like Mission Impossible – Fallout, Star Trek Beyond, and Star Wars: The Last Jedi. But, of course, this isn’t all that J.J.’s known for as a producer, as easily the most notable franchise to come from his own production company, Bad Robot, has been the Cloverfield series. What started as the titular 2008 found footage monster film directed by Matt Reeves ended up spawning a new anthology series where the films were connected more by their narratives than their genre. Things got off to a great start with 2016’s 10 Cloverfield Lane, but then the franchise admittedly stumbled a bit this year with the Netflix-released The Cloverfield Paradox. And if you’re wondering, the only reason why I’m bringing up Cloverfield right now is because today’s film, Overlord, was initially reported as being the fourth installment of this steadily growing franchise. However, J.J. Abrams would later state that the film ultimately wasn’t going to be tied to Cloverfield. Instead, Overlord, directed by Australian filmmaker Julius Avery, is its own thing; a stylish, well-made World War II-era horror film featuring zombies… and not just any zombies, Nazi zombies!

It is December 5^th, 1944, just a few hours before the Allies are set to land on the beaches of Normandy and begin their liberation of German-occupied France in what would become known as D-Day. In the skies above, a squad of paratroopers is tasked with destroying a radio tower in a nearby village to aid the incoming troops. However, their plane ends up getting shot down and only a few of the troopers end up surviving the crash; seasoned veteran Corporal Ford (Wyatt Russell), Private Ed Boyce (Jovan Adepo), sniper Tibbet (John Magaro), and photographer Chase (Iain De Caestecker). Now stuck behind enemy lines, the quartet find themselves under immense time pressure to destroy the radio tower before their fellow troops land on the beach, a task that quickly becomes even more daunting given that they’re just four men against a sizable Nazi army. However, as they soon find out, that’s not the only issue that they have to deal with. When Boyce ends up getting stuck inside the Nazi base where the tower is located, he is shocked to find a series of experiments utilizing dead bodies. These experiments come to fruition with a special serum that, although managing to revive the dead, ends up turning them into terrifying creatures with inhuman strength. Now facing a threat that’s unlike anything they’ve ever seen before, the paratroopers, with the help of a local woman named Chloe (Mathilde Ollivier), must now ensure that these horrifying trials never see the light of day.

Now to answer your first question… no, this is NOT a Cloverfield film. Obviously, one of the most prominent aspects of films (and TV shows, for that matter) that are produced by J.J. Abrams is that their marketing campaigns make a considerable effort to be light on spoilers. Granted, this hasn’t always worked for them (e.g. the fiasco of the Khan twist in Star Trek Into Darkness), but I’d say that this ‘mystery box’ tactic does do its job at keeping audiences guessing. But in the case of Overlord, J.J.’s claim that the film wouldn’t be tied to the Cloverfield franchise is 100% accurate, thus allowing it to be its own entity. Plus, it also manages to be two films in one given its premise. As it starts, it fully succeeds at sucking you into its war-time setting, partially because the opening sequence where the paratroopers’ plane gets shot down is a figurative and literal explosion of audio and visuals, easily making it one of the most intense openings to any film in recent years. After that, the film works quite well as a small-scaled war film, hitting just the right notes in terms of setting up the main conflict and the primary characters who get involved in it. The same can be said for how it gradually builds up its plot to get to the big reveal of the Nazi experiments that turn its unwilling subjects into zombie-like creatures. However, the zombie element of this story isn’t as prominent as the marketing implies. Sure, it’s there, thus paving the way for plenty of gory moments to satisfy fans of the genre, but on a whole, it plays more of a secondary role in the plot. In other words, this is still primarily a war film at the end of the day, but one with the added element of the undead.  

Unlike some war films, Overlord only focuses on a small cast of characters instead of a wider ensemble. But while this does prevent a situation where you end up forgetting who’s who, the film is still quite light on character development. Every main character in this film is a typical archetypal protagonist that one would usually see in a war film. There’s the ‘audience avatar’ who’s set up as being so innocent that he wouldn’t hurt a mouse (literally), the hardened veteran who stresses that things be done by the book, the inexperienced soldier who’s clearly out of his depth, the wise-ass who’s there for comic relief, etc. Despite this, though, this film’s cast of generally rising stars do a solid job with the limited material that they’re given. Most of the film sees us following Pvt. Boyce and Cpl. Ford, and Jovan Adepo and Wyatt Russell do a nice job when it comes to conveying how these two serve as foils for each other given their vastly different ideologies. To back them up, there are also solid performances from John Magaro and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.’s Iain de Caestecker as Tibbet and Chase, respectively, and newcomer Mathilde Ollivier as the film’s main female lead Chloe. As for the villains, they too are simply characterized, but there is one major standout in Pilou Asbæk as Captain Wafner, a truly sinister Nazi commander who frequently crosses paths with the paratroopers. Asbæk very much channels Christoph Waltz’s iconic performance as Colonel Hans Landa (AKA ‘the Jew Hunter’) in Quentin Tarantino’s Inglorious Basterds here, resulting in a highly intimidating antagonist.

Over the past few months, I’ve covered quite a few horror films and have repeatedly mentioned what I feel is one of the most important elements to a great horror film, creating characters that we truly care about as they deal with all sorts of horrific obstacles. That doesn’t really apply to Overlord, though, because while this film does sport a good cast, the character development beats that they’re given are as basic as you can get for a film like this. But to be fair, you don’t always need to have fully sympathetic characters to be a great horror film, and Overlord ultimately manages to succeed despite this shortcoming because of how well-made it is. For what is only his second directorial feature ever, director Julius Avery crafts a highly engaging thriller with a solid visual style that works as both a war film (thanks in large part to its incredible opening sequence) and a zombie film. Granted, the zombie element of this film isn’t as prominent as one might think given the marketing, but there are just enough practical zombie effects in this to satisfy fans who’ve witnessed the likes of George A. Romero’s Dead films. And while I’ll openly admit that part of me would’ve been genuinely interested in seeing what this film would’ve been like had it been tied to the Cloverfield franchise, it’s nice that it ultimately wasn’t. Because of this, Overlord is a very entertaining war film with horror elements that serves as another shining example of the high quality of films produced by Bad Robot Productions.

Rating: 4/5

The Nutcracker and the Four Realms (2018) review

In 1816, German author E.T.A. Hoffman published The Nutcracker and the Mouse King, which told the story of a young girl named Marie who ends up on a fantastical adventure with the sentient Nutcracker toy that was given to her at Christmas. But when it comes to the most famous interpretation of this story, that distinction goes to the 1892 ballet The Nutcracker, which was based off a revised version of Hoffman’s story written by Alexandre Dumas and featured music from composer Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. While its initial production did not fare well with critics, it has since gone on to be performed by numerous ballet groups worldwide, with Tchaikovsky’s music now regarded as some of the best and most recognizable melodies of all-time. The Nutcracker has also played a prominent role in the world of film thanks to its prominent use in Disney’s musical anthology film Fantasia and various film adaptations of the ballet that have been made over the years. And now Disney takes another crack at this story with The Nutcracker and the Four Realms, a film that experienced an interesting bit of development during its production. From the get-go, the film was directed by veteran filmmaker Lasse Hallstrom, whose work includes critically-acclaimed projects like 1993’s What’s Eating Gilbert Grape and 1999’s The Cider House Rules. But when it was announced that the film would be undergoing a series of reshoots, it was revealed that Hallstrom was unable to return due to scheduling conflicts. Fellow veteran filmmaker Joe Johnston (The Rocketeer, Captain America: The First Avenger) was brought in to direct the reshoots, and unlike the other major release this week that experienced a directorial switch-up during its production, Bohemian Rhapsody, Hallstrom and Johnston ended up sharing the film’s final directorial credit. What follows is a film that is truly something to behold when it comes to both its highlights and its shortcomings.

In the bustling city of Victorian-era London, young Clara Stahlbaum (Mackenzie Foy) regularly exhibits her passion for science and inventing, a trait that she’s inherited from her mother Marie. However, since her mother’s passing, Clara has grown emotionally distant from her family, especially her father (Matthew Macfadyen) who has pressured the family to maintain a respectable image amongst their peers in the wake of their recent tragedy. On Christmas Eve, Clara is given one last present from her mother in the form of a porcelain egg-shaped box that she cannot open as she doesn’t have the key for it. In her efforts to try and open it, Clara meets with her godfather Drosselmeyer (Morgan Freeman), a noted inventor, during his annual Christmas party. And while he doesn’t have the key either, Clara is eventually led on an adventure to find it when she partakes in his annual gift-giving process by following a string through his mansion. This string ends up leading her into a fantastical world that is divided up into Four Realms, including the Land of Sweets, ruled by the Sugar Plum Fairy (Keira Knightley), the Land of Flowers, ruled by Hawthorne (Eugenio Derbez), and the Land of Snowflakes, ruled by Shiver (Richard E. Grant). There, she learns that her mother was the queen of this world and helped bring all its inhabitants to life. However, the three main realms have also been in conflict recently with Mother Ginger (Helen Mirren), the ruler of the Fourth Realm, the Land of Amusements, who had previously attempted to take over the whole kingdom. Learning that the key to her porcelain egg also operates a special device that can help them deal with Mother Ginger and her army of mice, Clara finds herself on a quest to retrieve the key so that she can save the Four Realms and gain a greater understanding of her mother’s past.  

Like many other recent live-action Disney films, The Nutcracker and the Four Realms does sport some amazing visuals that help bring the fantastical world of the Nutcracker to life. And sure, just like Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland films, sometimes this film goes a bit overboard with its CGI but said CG is generally well-handled and is then bolstered by solid cinematography from Damien Chazelle’s go-to cinematographer Linus Sandgren. Things get a little more complicated, however, when it comes to its story. With no clear indication yet as to what parts of the film were done by Johnston rather than Hallstrom, there’s never really a point in the film where it feels like a direct competition between the visions of its two directors. And yet, there is a noticeable inconsistency when it comes to the film’s overall tone. While some parts of it are more serious in tone to emphasize the dramatic parts of the story (e.g. Clara learning more about her mother’s past), other parts of the film, namely anything that takes place within the Four Realms, are far more over-the-top in nature. These two extremes frequently collide over the course of the film and, simply put, they do not gel well together in the slightest. It also doesn’t help that the film has a very short 100-minute runtime. Once Clara enters the Four Realms, the film then speeds through its story at a break-neck pace. This results in a vastly underdeveloped plot that gives you no time to comprehend its biggest twist halfway through. And because of this, this reveal ends up feeling like it came completely out of nowhere and is easily one of the most substantial deviations from its source material outside of the infamous use of Nazi imagery in the 2010 film adaptation of the ballet (no joke, look it up…).   

This sense of unevenness also applies to the film’s cast, with half of them giving reserved, serious performances and the other half giving unabashedly over-the-top performances, and because of the film’s breezy pace, many of their characters don’t get much to do story-wise. But for the most part, several of them manage to do a good job with their limited material. Of them all, the most prominent standout of the cast is Mackenzie Foy in the lead role of Clara. In a cast that includes multiple Oscar winners and/or nominees, Foy impressively manages to carry the whole film as its sympathetic and smart female lead. She also works quite well with newcomer Jayden Fowora-Knight, who plays the title role of Philip the Nutcracker Soldier, who sticks with her through thick and thin while also being one of the saner characters in this crazy world. Another major standout is Helen Mirren as Mother Ginger who, despite being built up as the film’s main antagonist, ends up benefitting from the previously mentioned plot twist that reveals a bit more to her character than originally anticipated. But the one who is the most affected by this plot twist (and not exactly in as good of a way as Mirren) is Keira Knightley as the Sugar Plum Fairy… though, to her credit, she does commit to this character and all the craziness that comes with it in a performance that can only be seen to be believed. And as for Morgan Freeman as Drosselmeyer? Well, despite what the marketing for this film suggests, he’s literally in it for about three to five minutes in the beginning and then he doesn’t show up again until the end.

The Nutcracker and the Four Realms… is certainly a ‘unique’ film, I’ll give it that. I wouldn’t necessarily say that it’s as ‘bad’ as some critics are saying it is, but at the same time, it’s not that great, either. In fact, to be perfectly blunt, it’s quite a bit of a mess, though this isn’t entirely because the film ended up crediting two different directors. Ultimately its biggest issue is that it’s incredibly inconsistent with its tone, often going between serious drama and over-the-top kookiness in the blink of an eye. And despite the best efforts of some of its cast members, they’re all waylaid by an undercooked plot that bases itself around a mediocre plot twist in a film that goes by so fast that there’s no time to comprehend what just happened. Now to the film’s credit, it’s well-intentioned, at the very least, given that it’s a big-budget fantasy film that focuses on a young female protagonist who’s easily one of the most proactive iterations of her classic character. And just like other recent live-action Disney films like Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland and Sam Raimi’s Oz the Great and Powerful, this film does boast some gorgeous CGI visuals. But as innocuous as it is, The Nutcracker and the Four Realms is just… bland, which is a shame given all the work that clearly went into it from a visual standpoint. Had it been given a bit more time to flesh out its story and characters, this could’ve turned out to be a decent new take on the classic story of the Nutcracker that wasn’t primarily based around its music.

Rating: 2/5

Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) review

In the pantheon of legendary rock groups, easily one of the most prominent is the quartet of vocalist Freddie Mercury, lead guitarist Brian May, drummer Roger Taylor, and bass guitarist John Deacon, AKA Queen. In the 70’s and 80’s, Queen produced some of the most iconic songs of all-time and partook in some of the most legendary performances in rock and roll history, with perhaps the most notable being their appearance at the Live Aid benefit concert in 1985. With all this in mind, you may be surprised to find that plans for a Queen biopic spent several years in development hell. For quite some time, comedian Sacha Baron Cohen was tapped to play Freddie Mercury. However, he ultimately backed out in 2013 due to creative differences, presumably due to a rewritten script that would’ve focused more on Queen following Mercury’s tragic death due to AIDS in 1991 along with fears from May and Taylor that his comedic background would cause too many distractions. Eventually, Rami Malek took over the part and Bryan Singer was set to direct in what would be his first big directorial effort after his long-time stint on the X-Men franchise. And yet, even the production of the film itself was plagued by some major issues, which ultimately escalated to the point where Singer was fired halfway through filming for various reasons that ranged from continual on-set tardiness to reportedly tense feuds with Malek. Director Dexter Fletcher (who ironically has his own musical biopic, the Elton John vehicle Rocketman, hitting theaters next May) was then brought on to finish the film, but Singer was ultimately given its sole directorial credit as it was already 2/3rds of the way done by the time that this scandalous switcheroo occurred. Thus, for all intent and purposes, Bohemian Rhapsody (named after arguably the band’s most iconic song) is still a Bryan Singer film, and while it may not do complete justice to Queen and its legendary front-man, it still manages to be a highly entertaining musical biopic with a phenomenal lead performance from Rami Malek.

Tired of his job as a baggage handler at Heathrow Airport in 1970, Farrokh Bulsara (Rami Malek) ends up finding a new job as the lead singer of an up-and-coming band named Smile alongside guitarist Brian May (Gwilym Lee) and drummer Roger Taylor (Ben Hardy) after the band’s original singer leaves to join another group. Together, along with fellow recruit/bass guitarist John Deacon (Joseph Mazzello), the band changes their name to Queen and Farrokh changes his legal name to ‘Freddie Mercury’ while also beginning a romance with Mary Austin (Lucy Boynton). And after they produce their titular debut album in 1973, the band manages to land a major contract deal with lauded manager John Reid (Aiden Gillen) at EMI Records. Unfortunately, the band begins to face some pushback when they attempt to be more experimental with their 1975 album A Night at the Opera. Despite managing to craft the six-minute operatic suite known as ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’, EMI executive Ray Foster (Mike Myers) refuses to have it serve as the album’s first single due to its length. Undeterred, the band leaves EMI on their path to becoming one of the most popular music groups of the era. However, the band’s bond eventually begins to be put to the test, especially after Freddie shocks his bandmates with the announcement that he’s been signed for a solo career. And as for his personal life, that too begins to get quite rocky when he finds himself starting to question his sexuality.

Perhaps the biggest question surrounding this film is whether it manages to truly do justice to the story of Queen and, more importantly, Freddie Mercury. And overall, this has been a major source of contention amongst critics, many of whom have noted that there are several instances where the film isn’t exactly ‘historically accurate’ (e.g. how Freddie first met May and Taylor, the band’s status after Freddie went solo, etc.). With that in mind, it’s understandable if some feel that this isn’t as proper of a representation of this story as it could’ve been, as there are admittedly a few moments in the film where it doesn’t quite capture the emotional resonance that it’s trying to achieve. But despite its narrative shortcomings, the film manages to work a lot better in all its other areas. While there are a few instances where the film tends to drag a bit, it also boasts a pleasantly light-hearted nature throughout thanks to some solid comedic banter amongst Freddie and his bandmates. Now granted, I’m fully aware that this won’t fly well with everyone as many had hoped that the film would be a more risqué glimpse into the band’s history instead of what we ultimately get in this ‘watered down’ PG-13 rated film that’s more intent on being an all-around crowd-pleaser. But in that regard, it does succeed in what it’s trying to be thanks in large part to its rousing musical numbers that utilize the band’s classic tunes like ‘Another One Bites the Dust’, ‘We Will Rock You’, and of course, ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’ to great effect. And as many other critics have stated, the recreation of Queen’s iconic performance at Live Aid during the film’s finale is an undisputed highlight. To reiterate a point that I made a few weeks ago about Damien Chazelle’s First Man and its recreation of the iconic Apollo 11 mission, this film perfectly captures what it must’ve been like to witness a truly legendary musical performance for those like me who weren’t there to experience it firsthand. 

The challenge of playing someone as legendary as Freddie Mercury is undoubtedly a daunting task for anyone to attempt, but Rami Malek truly shines in the role, as he does a fantastic job when it comes to replicating Freddie’s eccentric mannerisms and his all-around charismatic persona. And while some were fearful that the film would underplay Freddie’s sexuality based on the first trailer, it ends up handling it in a manner that isn’t quite as problematic as they suspected but is still far from perfect nevertheless. While the first half of the film primarily focuses on Freddie’s relationship with Mary Austin up until their eventual breakup, the rest of the film does an okay enough job of showing Freddie’s bisexual side even though his other prominent lover, Jim Hutton (Aaron McCusker), is basically limited to a cameo role. But as for Mary, Lucy Boynton does a very nice job in the role; her chemistry with Malek is excellent and the film does a nice job of showcasing how, even after their breakup, the two continued to remain on good terms with each other. And while Freddie is obviously still the main protagonist throughout, Gwilym Lee, Ben Hardy, and Joseph Mazzello are all excellent as Brian May, Roger Taylor, and John Deacon, respectively. Each of them gets to have their own standout moment here and there, from Roger’s frustration at having to do numerous takes of the ‘Galileo’ part of ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’ (“How many more Galileos do you want?”) to John coming up with the iconic riff for ‘Another One Bites the Dust’ during one of the band’s heated arguments. More importantly, these four very much succeed at conveying their group’s strong camaraderie.

Now despite all the positive things that I’ve just said, it really should be noted that if you’re a big fan of Queen, it’s quite possible that you might be a bit disappointed with this film as it’s far from being a pitch-perfect take on their history as seen through the eyes of their iconic ringleader. For starters, it’s not exactly the most historically accurate musical biopic ever made as it does take some major creative liberties with certain moments in Queen’s prestigious history. And while the film doesn’t completely ignore the fact that Freddie Mercury ended up becoming one of the most prominent icons of the LGBT community, it still could’ve handled this side of the story a lot better (e.g. giving Jim Hutton a more prominent role in its proceedings). Simply put, this is not the dark and edgy Queen biopic that a lot of their fans were hoping for. Instead, it’s more of a light-hearted crowd pleaser… but that’s not entirely a bad thing, for the record. The musical sequences in this film are phenomenal, highlighted by the epic finale that is Queen’s performance at Live Aid which is practically worth the price of admission alone. Rami Malek is purely electric in the role of Freddie and is backed by an equally excellent supporting cast. And despite the whole debacle that led to Dexter Fletcher being brought in to take over for Bryan Singer, the film thankfully never feels like the mismatched product of two different directors. In short, Bohemian Rhapsody is far from perfect, but it’s still a fun time to be had when viewed on the big screen with a crowd who’s ready and willing to tap their feet in time with the music.

Rating: 4/5