kgprophet

We've all experienced the failed attempts at this franchise. This latest attempt certainly had to reinvent the wheel to find success in relaunching a Fantastic 4 franchise. With accolades coming critically and publicly, Marvel Studios seems to have got it right. So what was changed? The most prevalent change was muting the Johnny Storm cockiness. In general, the ensemble is grounded in basic drama of friends exploring their relationships with each other. The first act is about one of the superhero characters becoming pregnant, with her superhero husband adjusting to it.

It is only after the dynamics in the relationships of these superheros that we are introduced to the villain. The movie plays it smart. It foregoes the tropes about the origins of the superheros and villains. It gets on with the conflict. The benefit of cutting to the chase is that this movie makes you feel like you're in capable hands, where the filmmakers know what the audience wants, and has the budget to deliver. This means keeping the story lean, laying out the stakes in a clear fashion.

Another benefit is that you have a movie with a NORMAL running time. The audience gets to see the story unfold in a conventional structure, a welcome return to basics. The story definitely shows signs of being rewritten a few times, which is to be expected if previous attempts were flawed. Teams of writers can sometimes concoct a Frankenstein patchwork of multiple ideas that spoils the soup. Here, rethinking the approach, and NOT overwriting is part of the success formula. This includes a Cliff's Notes approach to introducing the F4 world. The movie commences to astonish us as several elaborate effects sequences gives us a highlight reel of battles against various foes is full blown money shots one after another. It impressed me, giving assurance that the producers were fully invested in this franchise kickoff.

Another rewrite has the story start in what feels like the early 1960s. It will remind you a lot of the first "Incredibles". A fun decision that helps place this in a more comic book world (the same for the latest "Superman" movie as well). But what is the best decision of all in this rewrite is stripping out a pile of supporting characters. Most of these blockbuster films overpack the number of supporting characters. The problem is, then you feel compelled to flesh out these characters and give them screen time. Mission Impossible 8 drags on to nearly 3 hours because it kept adding more and more side characters.

Going back to the basics works. So OK the side characters say two lines and disappear. We barely get to learn their names. We don't lose anything in the process. It kind of reminded of the original Star Wars movie. The large number of side characters serve the story, with no time or need to go beyond that. The audience is smart enough to accept who they are and why they are there. In F4, the general public stays as a basic singular person. They react en masse with communal emotions.

There are no side stories about how these superheros interact with the government. No politics. No controversies. The superheros live harmoniously with normal humans. They even embrace being TV stars. This purity of story elements is the answer to all the unnecessary overstuffing of stories in superhero movies of the last 20 years, and is the answer to getting the audience engaged.

The movie also de-emphasises the superpowers of our main characters. It is more about the strength of their morals in defeating the bad guys. So in general the special effects are not the main focus of the film. They are not lacking in the quantity, but not anything groundbreaking. I really enjoyed the Star Trek feel of this fictional world. Our heroes spend the second act in space, a place never visited by Earth-based superhero movies. A space adventure was also a refreshing answer to superhero burnout, as such the appeal of the "Guardians of the Galaxy" trilogy.

I give this a 6 out of 10. So why do I not give this film a higher rating? No fault of anybody, but I am still less invested in this superhero ensemble compared to others. Maybe my opinion will change as I see future films. Perhaps it's the actors cast in these distinct roles. I have no real complaints about the people who play them, but I can attest to other actors in other movies who I can be more attached to. Another point off is the continuing superhero fatigue.

The moment I knew they were milking the final chapter for more money by splitting in two was when there were extended scenes of the cat chasing a flashlight beam. Or that big buildup to the attack that never happened.

Having now seen the final final installment, I could have pretty much easily skipped Part 1, save for a little character exposition. I don't normally pay attention to this genre, but grudgingly accept that for the most part all parties involved in making this a gritty and gripping drama succeeded. Primarily, avoiding the easy pitfalls when trying keep a strong narrative going. I agree with most others that Jennifer Lawrence owned this movie more than anyone else. Certainly not phoning it in like a typical superhero role.

There are attempts at a couple twists here and there, but the inevitable showdown and follow-through was foreseen without much effort. I found the screenplay made good use of the supporting characters as reminders of the path that lead to this big finale. All the action promised in Part 1 finally happens here, again meaning there was too much foot-dragging in the story for Part 1. Cinematography always framed this fantasy as a gritty war film. It helped for me to think of this as a more pedestrian drama as the throngs of YA followers focused on the love triangle. There has always been a good balance in the drama so as to not get into soap opera territory.

Visual effects remain solid, giving it a more blockbuster feel. I give it a 7 out of 10, a bit better than the previous installments.

I never read the Harry Potter books but became appreciative of the great amount of talent that went behind the movie productions. What worked about the movies was the bit of charm injected into them. From magical playfulness, to like-able camaraderie of the student buddies, the movies didn't just add lots of fantasy elements, but a bit of whimsy in the tone. Throughout the entire series, except perhaps near the end, did I feel any real peril for our main characters.

Fantastic Beasts shows a lot of the 1920's New York setting, but is only the backdrop of the simple primary story, a man adjusting to his new surroundings. The whole scrutiny of whether a novelist can write their own screenplay is not evident. I expect there was the same type of collaboration with the director and actors to get the right sounding dialog (or lack thereof) that is appropriate for the characters. Which brings us to Newt. Very little is revealed at first about his history before arriving in New York. I enjoyed the smart writing that allowed his character to be revealed over time as we learn about what is in his magical suitcase. For the first half of the movie, there was a great deal of charm to go around, with the simple baker, the nerdy government official with her flirty sister. Newt himself mirrors Harry Potter in being too caught up in his own world to be heavily engaged in any relationship.

The gang is back again, in terms of director David Yates, and no doubt most of the talented production that brings what could be a lackluster spinoff to life. The only bad news is the stuffy political scenes, along with the well characterized but nonetheless poorly handled villains. It is not much of a spoiler with the heavy foreshadowing that something is up with a family that warns the public of the dangers of witchcraft. They appear every once in a while during the movie to remind everyone they are up to something that you assume will occur in the third act.

By the time this dark and dreary family is explored, we get a little worn out by the constant quivering of the son, or the freakish stare by the daughter. Without revealing much, I have never found Colin Farrell an actor with great range. However that fits his role as a narrow-minded head of an anti-magic government agency. Nevertheless, he is not charismatic and only is perfunctory in his role. For most of the rest of the cast, I enjoyed the subtlety of Newt's performance, allowing for his introverted character to work it's charm over time. Same for the most part of Tina, the government official who must fuss over the rule-breaking going on. She does not wear alluring clothing and complains quite a bit. But yet I found myself surprised how well the film rewards the audience at the end of the film with a warm moment between the two.

I give a 6 out of 10. I can't give it a higher simply because I only have a lackluster enthusiasm towards the genre, and the story not my favourite. So I'm not knocking the quality of the film as much as ranking it amongst the kind of films I prefer.