Movie Review: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

Details: Released in 2016. Runs for about two hours. Stars Eddie Redmayne.

I’ve never thought the Harry Potter movies were great. I never thought they were good. They were just satisfactory, tolerable even. Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find is, in my opinion, the same sort of movie. It’s not a bad movie. It’s not great. It’s just satisfactory.

The premise is this: Eddie Redmayne plays Newt Scamander, a member of the ministry of magic who specializes in magical animals. He comes to America to relocate a magical animal and send it home when he comes across a plot that puts all the wizards in 1920’s New York City in danger.

The first thing you should know is that this is not Harry Potter. Anyone coming to watch this film will obviously be a Harry Potter fan, and they will be undoubtedly disappointed by what they find. With that said, if you have no familiarity with the Harry Potter Universe, again, you will be disappointed if not completely lost. So we reach this conclusion: the only people who should watch this movie are Harry Potter fans and they will most likely be disappointed by the film.

It’s not all bad though. Eddie Redmayne delivers another believable performance, as do the rest of the cast. It’s unfortunate then that the plot of this film is so bare bones and establishes so little. If you’ve read other reviews, you’d be familiar with the opinion that this film merely sets up the inevitable sequels that will follow. Those opinions are right. Nothing happens here other than a shallow exploration of Newt Scamander and the American magical community. It’s all just set up for the next money grubbing sequels.

Score: 4.5/10 It’s sad to me that I know this film will make a ton of money simply by being tangentially related to Harry Potter. As a stand alone film, this movie is pretty shit. However, if you stamp something with the Harry Potter logo, the sheep-like masses will likely throw money at it. I do not recommend this movie for Harry Potter fans and especially for those who are not fans. Do yourself a favor and watch something else.

Movie Review: The Theory of Everything (2014)

Details: About two hours long. Romantic drama starring Eddie Redmayne, Felicity Jones, and Tom Prior.

The Theory of Everything is a love story, but more about the duration/endurance of love, rather than just its beginning or end.

You know the story. Stephen Hawking, one of the great physicists of our time develops motor neuron disease, a disease where people lose control of their bodies and has no effect on the mind. They are trapped in their bodies in a way. The life expectancy of those with this disease is also short, with Hawking’s life expectancy no longer than two years after diagnosis. Despite this diagnosis, Hawking marries, has three children, writes a best selling novel on his theories, and survives his life expectancy by a few decades. He continues to do so today.

It’s a sad yet encouraging tale. Although, a friend I watched the film with may be better at expressing why the film is so good. After the film ended, one of my male friends cried… loudly. He said that the passage of time and how all these events from Hawking’s life, from the development of his disease to the birth of his children, was incredibly moving.

Personally, I thought the film was good. The problems I had which prevent it from being extraordinary are the same problems I had with Ray (starring Jamie Foxx). I had already learned so much about the reality that the fiction was uninteresting. For me, the reality was always far more interesting than the fiction. Further, reality is far more messy and Hollywood’s attempt to clean it up into three acts is disturbing to me and somewhat of an insult to the plight of the real Stephen Hawking.

Additionally, Eddie Redmayne was fine as Stephen Hawking, although I wonder about how much acting talent is required to speak less lines and show less emotion as a film progresses. Not sure he should have won the Oscar, though my crying friend disagrees. Felicity Jones on the other hand was great, showing far more emotion. She portrayed perfectly a woman in love, in pain, and doing her best to persevere.

Score: 7/10 A good film that is over two hours long. The ideal length for me is an hour and a half, but this film deserves the extra run time.