FANTASTIC BEASTS: THE CRIMES OF GRINDELWALD

For a very long film, CRIMES OF GRINDELWALD has a lot of characters with very few lines, and even less to do.  There's the troubling casting of a pretty Asian woman as a mysterious but almost mute Nagini.  There's Ezra Miller (WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT KEVIN) as the troubled, mysterious but almost mute Credence.  Even the lead character, Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) says little except in a cryptically shy mumble, his eyes shyly averted from his interlocutor's face and yet somehow aimed at their boobs. 

For a very long film, CRIMES OF GRINDEWALD also seems rather rushed and haphazard.  Scenes end in a jarring manner, mashed up against the next one. There's a feeling that things are happening in between that have been left on the editors floor.  Things that would help us understand what the frack is going on.  It's been quite some time since I've had to google the ending of a film to figure out what just happened, but I had to with this film on two counts!

So what's actually going on? There's a powerfully magically destructive kid called Credence. He may be able to take out Dumbledore (Jude Law).  Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) is a kind of fascist anti-muggle bastard who's escaped prison and now wants to manipulate Credence into helping him take out Dumbledore.  It's not clear why Grindelwald can't go after Dumbledore directly. But maybe it's for the same reason that Dumbledore has to use his proxy - Scamander - to go after Grindelwald - because the two have a blood oath not to attack each other. Apparently this is because they used to be gay lovers. I know this because of the interwebs, rather than from anything the film might helpfully tell me.

What the movie actually consists of is a bunch of different characters wandering around Paris trying to find each other.  This is all very dull. What makes the movie worth watching are two things - first the absolutely ravishing costume and production design evoking an inter-war Paris - and the occasional moments of emotional impact - mostly revolving around the character of Leta Lestrange (Zoe Kravitz.)  Leta is, like Credence, filled with self-hate and conflict. She's an old school friend of Newt, engaged to his elder brother, anxious about some childhood guilt, and flirting with joining Grindelwald.  By contrast, the less I had to watch Redmayne's Scamander - a bag of cliched tics and mumbles - the better. And his purported love interest - played by Katherine Waterston - is a charisma vacuum.  Dan Fogler is far more engaging as the muggle comedy sidekick but is criminally underused. And as for his lover, Tina Goldstein (Alison Sudol channelling Marilyn's breathy high-pitched voice), it's not clear why she would react to not being allowed to marry a muggle by following a fascist who wants to enslave muggles.

Not much of this movie makes sense.

FANTASTIC BEASTS: THE CRIMES OF GRINDELWALD is rated PG-13 and has a running time of 134 minutes. It is available to rent and own. 

HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS: PART 2

After the turgid teen-moping of DEATHLY HALLOWS PART 1, it comes as quite a relief to see the HARRY POTTER franchise close with what is essentially a two-hour epic battle between good and evil. Director David Yates' DEATHLY HALLOWS PART 2 is visually stunning, beautifully constructed, and never falters in pace or tone. Indeed, in its tight pacing, Steve Klove's adaptation beats J.K.Rowling's baggy source-novel hands down.

It feels somewhat superfluous to provide a plot summary for one of the most popular children's books of all time, but for those of us who read the book on release and have since forgotten the mechanics of the ending, here it is. The movie takes place in contemporary England, where ordinary people live unknowingly alongside a world of magic. Young wizards are trained at a boarding school called Hogwarts, and older wizards are governed by the Ministry of Magic. But over the past seven films, we have seen the world of good magic over-turned by the reappearance of the evil Voldemort - a former Hogwarts pupil - with a particular vendetta against our improbable hero, Harry Potter. We pick up the story with Harry Potter and his side-kicks, brainy Hermione and loyal Ron, on the hunt Horcruxes - the magical objects into which Voldemort poured his soul. If the kids can kill the Horcruxes they can save the world from a reign of Black Magic; their school from a fierce magical battle; and Harry from a fateful confrontation with his nemesis.

The resulting film opens as a kind of heist movie, with Harry and co. breaking into Gringotts bank on the hunt for a horcrux, but pretty soon we are back at Hogwarts and into the final battle which absorbs the vast majority of the run-time. The visuals are simply stunning. I have always been impressed by the make-up and CGI effects that transform Ralph Fiennes into the snake-like Voldemort, but the image of his foetus-like horcrux was incredible and unforgettable. And Hogwarts is evocatively photographed in murky gloom (yes, even without those awful and unnecessary 3D glasses), and is hauntingly battered and bruised by the final act. We are basically in the realms of a war movie - and the producers do not shy from showing us death and destruction. The post-battle scene, with nurses dressed in WW1 style costumes, was both deeply affecting - as well as deeply British - as they all sit around and have a nice cup of tea! 

Perhaps the biggest surprise of the film is that the main characters are rather over-shadowed by Professor McGonagall's "Once more unto the breach dear friends, once more"-style battle-cry and Matthew Lewis' scene-stealing turn as Neville Longbottom. Indeed, on the back of his appearance in this film, 6 foot tall and looking for all the world like a young Clive Owen, one can't help but suspect that he might have a brighter post-Potter future than Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint!

If I had any difficulty with the film, it was the use of 3D. I didn't feel that it added anything, and enveloped an already hauntingly dark film in yet another dark veneer. My other two problems rest with the book rather than the film, which after all, has to be faithful or risk disappointing the fans. I continue to believe that J.K.Rowling lost her gumption when it came to Harry's final choice - that there was a darker but more satisfying ending that she could've written. And I rather felt that Neville Longbottom was short-changed in the epilogue.

HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS: PART 2 is released globally on July 15th.

Early review from Al - HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX

This review is brought to you by guest reviewer, Al, who can usually be found here. For BINA's review flip to the end of this review.....

Like many of you, I've followed the Potter franchise through every book and film it has spit out - and with every new installment comes a wave of anticipation and excitement, particularly bigger this time around since the last film set the bar pretty high.

I'll start off with the good stuff, then work my way down. Imelda Staunton as plays the part of Dolores Umbridge perfectly and hits all the right notes. Aside from Potter himself, the other main characters weren't given much attention and as a result constantly appeared dull and uninteresting. Umbridge, however, was simply a joy to watch, and they certainly managed her character nicely. The special effects were not too shabby, all the wand-waving and so on isn't something we haven't seen in the previous Potter films. The high point when Dumbledore battles Voldermort is executed magnificently (and I found it the most memorable part of the film), and they certainly took the SE opportunities the part of the story handed them.

The biggest problem with the film was its jarring inconsistency: for a large portion of the film the mood continually alternates from good to bad. The lighter, less serious scenes would constantly interrupt whatever sense of suspense or tension that was being developed. Consequently the heavier scenes were undermined and the build-up to the climax was significantly stunted.

The script felt like it was guided by a checklist at times, responsibly including parts of the book that mattered most (without overstuffing), and while this effort is commendable, they could've given more time for certain important parts to completely develop and be part of the story, instead of simply adding to it. Terms like 'Order of The Phoenix' and 'The Prophecy' are introduced impatiently then given skimpy explanations, after which they're repeatedly mentioned and used as a character's motivation.

Compared to previous installments, there's little room given for subplots and the film is largely dedicated to Potter. As a result there are only a handful of scenes without him, and sadly Daniel Radcliffe is incapable of carrying such weight on his shoulders. His acting chops haven't improved much - he seems awkward in the role and has a lot of trouble emoting -e ven a simple smile looks unconvincing - a lot of overacting when he's supposed to look frightened/threatened. Personally I found that Radcliffe's poor acting did a lot of damage to this film.Even with music and special effects attempting to convey a certain scene's darkness, Radcliffe's acting still comes off as distracting and makes the whole thing look plain fatuous.

The characters we've grown to know and love - Potter's two main compatriots, Dumbledore, Trelawney are provided little screen time and simply blend in with the rest of the supporting cast. Even Hagrid appears less than thrice - a shame considering how far previous films had gone to make his character (and few others) likable and essential to Potter's life.

HP&TOOTP is an enjoyable but forgettable follow-up to the last installment, though the ending effectively sets up a solid platform for the next film - establishing a sense of continuity and hopefulness that tells us it's not the end,and however unsatisfying this Potter film may be,the journey's still incomplete and there's more to go on for.

HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX is on release in Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, France, Hong Kong, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Italy, the Netherlands, Russia, Spain, Taiwan, the USA, Venezuala and Argentina. It opens on the 12th in Germany, Hungary, Malaysia, New Zealand, Portugal, Serbia, Sngapore,Slovakia, South Korea, Thailand and the UK. It opens on the 13th i Colombia, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Latvia, Mexico, Norway, the Philippines, South Africa, Sweden and Turkey. It opens later in July in Egypt, Croatia, Czech Republic, Israel, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania. It opens in China and Greece in August.

The late review from Bina007, back from Barbados: There are some things that are always faultless about HARRY POTTER movies. They are based on richly imagined source material and the studio spares no expense in bringing all the wonderful details of J K Rowling's world to the screen. I love the beautiful Hogwarts sets, the eccentric characters with their vivid costumes and the seamless CGI characters such as the House Elfs. The films are also leant a level of authenticity by the rich cast of British character actors.

Having said all this, the films remain a mixed bag. The first two installments, THE PHILOSOPHER'S STONE & THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS were directed by hack Christopher Columbus and had zero visual flair. Still, they got the job done. And in those days, the job was easier. The material was mostly light, fun and magical. It was all about buying your first wand and winning the House Cup. The gripping finales were all about solving neat puzzles.

Then came THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN, directed by Alfonso Cuaron of Y TU MAMA TAMBIEN fame. He produced a film of rare visual style that followed the book in becoming far darker. The evil manifests itself as dementors - an analogy for depression and a brave theme for Rowling to introduce in what remains a children's book. We also first feel the power of the "real" wizarding world and the Ministry of Magic. Cuaron also made the movie more adult in that it focused more on Harry's emotional life rather than joining the dots of Rowling's increasingly elongated plot-lines. However, this also led to the movie feeling a little disjointed and less emotionally engaging.

The fourth film reverted to director-for-hire Mike Newell and I condemned it as uneven in tone and lacking in visual flair here. Still, this wasn't so much Newell's fault as a reflection of the fact that books were literally as well as substantively in puberty. The film therefore stumbled from teen rom-com dating angst to seriously scary death scenes as Rowling struggled to balance the maturing and darkening of what began as a children's book.

Which is all a long-winded way of getting to where I wanted to be, at THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX. It is, to my mind, THE MOST SATISFYING FILM IN THE FRANCHISE. It has less visual flair than AZKABAN certainly. The dark tone mostly rips off Cuaron and there is some really clumsy colour-correct in the opening play-ground scene. I also think the lead actors are serviceable rather than amazing. Daniel Radcliffe plays it mostly in a stunned stupour - just look at his lack of reaction when he's told about his expulsion. Emily Watson and Rupert Grint also tend to speak so fast that they gobble up their lines.

But the movie has by far the most even emotional tone of the series in that it is unrelentingly dark. No more Quidditch. No more House Cup. Even the first kiss is basically a sombre affair - as Harry says, it was "wet" because the girl was crying. And Imelda Staunton is simply petrifying as Dolores Umbridge. Freed from the boarding school pranks, this movie has the space to simply be an affecting and well-produced tale of friendship under peril. IT IS THE ONLY FILM IN THE FRANCHISE THAT I WOULD HAPPILY WATCH AGAIN.

HARRY POTTER & THE GOBLET OF FIRE - a lesser movie than the sum of its parts

The new HARRY POTTER movie is a decent enough 2 and a half hour version of the novel and if you like the novel no doubt there is some charm in seeing it up on screen. It is fun to see Harry nervously asking out Cho Chang and to finally catch a glipse of evil Lord Voldemort. But if you are not a fan of the books you will probably be bored by the unrelenting gloom of the surroundings and the uncomfortable mix of a corny high school romance and a far darker gothic thriller. This strange mix of the cute and innocent and the far grittier core story is, of course, evident in the book itself. But over a sprawling mass of 600 odd pages each strand has a bit more room to breathe and the contradictions are not so evident. In the movie, the mood swings jar. Most notably, in the penultimate scene we have the long-awaited clash between Voldemort and Harry. Nasty things happen and they are shot with authenticity and acted with conviction. When Harry emerges from this harrowing encounter we feel that he has been through something that is literally terrible. But he emerges into the cute Olde Worlde Hogwarts, with cute friends, kindly wizards and floppy scarves. This return to Enid-Blyton-land subverts the preceeding emotional intensity.

Overall, this is a good movie in its parts. It is well acted, well shot and while I found it over-long it is hard to see where the editor and screen-writer could have cut it down without losing key plot points. But put together I find the tension between the two story strands untenable. Presumably this tension will only get worse in the next two movies as the body count increases. This raises the key question of how suitable and indeed enoyable a movie this will be for kids. The classic horror movie tropes are all in evidence, and as the kids get stuck in a vicious maze at the end, I half expected Jack Nicholson to come bounding out with an axe. More practically, 2 and a half hours is a long time for kids to sit still. The movie has been given a 12A certificate which puts the responsibility with parents to decide if their under-12s are up to it. I would advise extreme caution.

HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE went on global release yesterday.