Reviews

I don't get the reviews saying that this movie is a step back in the right direction. The last installment of the franchise wasn't great. But with the secrets of Dumbledore, the hole just got deeper.

Fantastic Beasts is a franchise that has no clue on what it wants to focus on. Is it the fantastic beasts, discovering new magical species, learning new things about the wizarding world and its relationship to nature? Is it the relationship and conflict between Dumbledore and Grindelwald? Is it the politics of the wizarding world, the relationship with the Muggles? Who is the main character? Newt Scamander? Albus Dumbledore? Jacob Kowalski? This franchise is completely unfocused and tries to tackle all the things mentionned before to make a giant mix of everything. As a consequence, a lot of things happen in the movie, but nothing has a proper development either.

Then come the characters. Fantastic Beasts has always had a huge problem with them since none of them got developed properly throughout the three movies. Sure, they encounter some difficulties and challenges, but do they evolve, change with the events that occur? NO! Because every time a character has some potential to evolve, they will somehow be brought back to square one. The characters of Queenie, Creedance and Grindelwald are aboslute mess at this point. In the second film, Grindelwald was an adversary with ruthless methods, but it was also made clear that he pointed some real problem about the wizard community and that his views were shared by a lot of people. Nevermind, in the third opus, Grindelwald will be a cartoon villain that delivers some cliche dialog, does something unnecessary evil everytime the plot needs him to to prove he is the bad guy, just because... There is no more ambivalence about the character that made him different from previous villains like Voldmort.

Queenie had chosen the side of Grindelwald at the end of the previous movie. In the third installment, the script writers try to paint her as someone conflicted, and by the end of the movie, as you probably guessed it, she changed sides again and is back with the "good guys". The problem: at no point in the movie have Queenie's values and convictions been tested in a manner that could justify her change of heart. It just happens because J. K. Rowling wants it to.

Finally, let's talk about Creedance. Already in the second movie, the presence of Creedance was hard to justify since he was supposed to be dead after the first movie. The reason of his survival never got explained in a satisfying manner and the way the character was handled was far form ideal. At his point in the franchise, it is simple: you just can't relate with what the character is going through. Ezra Miller put on a good performance. You understand that Creedance is frustrated, unsatisfied, but it is never explained why, what he wants out of life, how he sees himself on the grand picture of the conflict. He is at best a useful tool to justify the plot.

It is hard to relate to characters that don't know any real development, change from one movie to another without satisfying explanation and simply put, characters that the script writers don't know how to handle. There are just too many and they don't always fit well with the plot, like Newt Scamander for example. The characters are not part of the story because what they do is relevant. They are there to be used as plot devices mainly and that makes the whole thing kind of mechanical and heartless.

One other problem is that this franchise is mainly geared to people that like or love the universe of Harry Potter, know its story and understand its references. It doesn't try to make the plot and story appealing or interesting for people that are not familiar with the wizarding world. You are just supposed to care for what is proposed to you, even though there is an apparent lack of real tension and drama that could keep you guessing. Since the beginning of the franchise, no major character has died, no huge catastrophy or setback occured. At the end of every movie, the plans of the bad guy (Grindelwald) get defeated in some manner or delayed. And the films are extremely plot driven. Plot point after plot point after plot point. The overall story is much less important.

However, there are some good things too. The music of James Newton Howard is as always extremely enjoyable and adds a nice touch to the magical world. The CGI is not great in this movie, but not horrible either. For those with a keen eye, differenciating a green screen from a natural decor is fairly easy in this movie in comparison with the previous ones where the CGI was way above average compared to the quality of what you usually with these kind of productions. Acting is good, especially Dan Fogler who plays Jacob Kowalski. I overall enjoyed all the performances. But the problem is not there. The problem is that the flaws that the Fantastic Beasts franchise is known for have gotten bigger and bigger with each movie in such a way that it has become difficult for me to enjoy the movie. And I am a Harry Potter fan. I grew up with both the films and the books. But past glories doesn't justify a drop of quality for contents related to the wizarding worlds. It is time to solve the problems and not make them bigger!

If you want to see flaws and weaknesses in the film's executions, you will find them. There are plenty. But other things, the film makes right. It expands the scale of the plot'smovie from a whole city in Die Hard with a vengeance to the whole country this time. It introduces the virtual world and hacking to the franchise, which could have gone on so many levels completely wrong. It manages to make both worlds cohabitate without it being completely ridiculous and that's already a huge achievement in my opinion. Other movies like Blackhat were not so lucky. The movie is well structured, well paced and you can see that the script writers tried their best to write the most entertaining story possible, despite the flaws once again. The character of McClane is respected and his involvement in the events of the film are somewhat believable. The villain is really weak compared to the Gruber brothers, though. This is a guilty pleasure on my part.

There are many ways to interpret this movie. For some, it will be a good action film and appealing characters. But the context of the story, how you see it presented by the federation, the methods used and the psychology and decision making of the characters make the film interesting on a whole other level. Some might say the acting and the characters were sometimes cheesy and I will agree. But this "cheesiness" is what makes it relevant. Throughout the film, you see the troopers take heavy losses. A lot of them die, but at no point do the characters question their actions. They double down, behave exactly like their superiors that are now dead previously did, and use the same lines of dialog. At the end, they have won a battle, but they behave as if they won the war. It makes for an interesting analysis of this society that feels very actual in 2021. This film may be flawed, but the richess of the background is in my opinion misunderstood from a lot of viewers. When I see the sequels of Starship Troopers, I think that a lot of people only remember the action part and I find this film is so much more.

One thing I must say about Michael Bay movies, they are not perfect and they have flaws, but they always have this something special, this style that makes it memorable. He has a way of presenting characters that don't have a lot of depth, but you know for sure they are Michael Bay characters. The directors of this film never managed to catch the spirits of the first two films. Bad Boys has always been a buddy movie, not some stupid family drama. The directors of Bad Boys for life did not understand the source material at its core and that's why they failed. They try to "change" the characters, to make them "evolve", but this is not the point of the franchise. The concept of Bad Boys is that they are going to stay the same, no matter how old they get.

Added to that, there are some curious decisions. Why is the climax set in Mexico in a full CGI building? It looks atrocious. The transitions between the scenes in the film feel sometimes off. The rythm is off too, because the film tries to have some funny moments and other more serious ones, but it never works. I could go on and on about everything that's not right with this movie, but I guess that if you watch it for pure entertainment and make no comparison with the previous movies, you'll enjoy it... I guess...

There is both mystery about the new director and ghost rider. Daisy and Coulson are in a place where we are not used to see them. This first episode is well directed, well acted. The figt scenes are well choregraphed. This should be the benchmark for the whole show. Such a pity that this level of quality doesn't show on screen more consitantly. Hope it will keep up for the rest of the season.

AOS always had a problem with consistancy. However, I find it more prevalent with this season. New characters and team members were introduced : yes. There were good ideas (such as "the real SHIELD") : yes. But reducing Ward to a secundary character with a dumb love story with a blatant lack of alchemy was painful to see. The storyline of Daisy's parent is too stretched and by the end of the season, all loose ends are tied and everything can continue as if nothing of consequence hapenned this season. Seriously: what fundamental change or game changing stake did this season bring? I like agents of SHIELD as entertainement, but it has the potential to be more. Add some character development, real consequences and develop the MARVEL universe: that's all what's required. Hope to see something more consistent in the future.

This season explored some new topics, aspects of the Marvel universe and ideas. However, 22 episodes is simply too much for a season and the writer can't handle so much screentime with a consistant and satisfying plot. I found the first part of the season satisfying with the intrduction of hive, the other universe and the Inhuman mythology. They dropped Ward's character when he started to become too much unidimensional and they even killed Rosalind Pryce, a useless character. But the second half of the season was just too long with filler episodes and plot points that are dragged way too long. No character development for hive. The same goes for Fitz, Simmonns, Mack and Coulson. They just are part of events, but their character is not changed. After three seasons, we always have the same characters with the same personalities and the same habits. This show is just good to make us think that someday the characters are going to evolve somehow. With a real focus on character development and evolution, this show could just reach the level above. Unfortunately, I don't think we will see that happen one day. Finally, I hope I will see one day a season ending of AOS that is handled prperly. Yes, the ratings are very good, but for me the mistakes and lack of consistency don't make me share the enthusiasm of the fans. This show has some potential and doesn't use it at 100%. I find it frustrating more than anything else.

This episode tries to iintroduce us to the universe created by Philip Pullmann. It is a complicated task and it is not a complete achievement. But the ground is laid for the next episodes. A good casting overall. The episode sometimes is rushed and you can feel that with different plot points and dialogs that are not fully developed. However I am intrigued and wait to see what's next. And for people that do not know the univers, it must be horribly difficlt to understand that the daemons speak.It came up in my mind after watching this episode.

This film has flaws- The characters, except John Dillinger are vastly not developped and underexploited. There are minor problems with the plot, important elements that are not developed enough given their importance, as well as surprising things given the historical context - but perhaps am I just misinformed. However, the actors deliver great performances, especially Johnny Depp who gives one of his best performances of his carrer. Cinematography and visuals are great. Michael Mann directs the movie very well with some audacity in his choices. Decors are great. The film shows the story of a popular gangster that gets obsolete with modern times, new technology and the evolution of society. In a character-driven story, this film narrates his slow downfall in an unperfect, but very satisfying way. There is certainly room for refelexion after watching it.

This is a daring but flawed film of Aronofsky. Visually it is splendid. CGI is well handled except for the effects on Anthony Hopkins, they look ridiculous. There is a mix of good and bad acting. Some characters are not developed at all, others yes, but I must say I am truly admirative of Noah's character development. It is such an icon that I did not even think the writers would dare to write him a real ark (no pun intended), but they did. It is for me one of the strong aspects of the movie. Otherwise, a villain with great line, but not developped. Some problems in the narrations. The intro is too rushed and the "story scene" that comes later in the scene should have been used at the beginning. A lot of plot holes and things left unexplained. It is not because you make a movie about a godly intervention that it is tolerable to use this excuse as a deus ex machina everytime it helps the plot to go further. The story however is good and I liked the originality with the stone giants. By far not a good movie, but an interesting one without a doubt.

There are a lot of flaws. The animation is not good enough for the standards of 2002. There is very little depths on the differents shots and the drawing is very apprximative and messy. The plot is not great either. Too much plot holes and facilities to arrive to an obvious ending. The film starts off very quickly, but in a messy way and I had trouble to get directly invested, which was the case when the ship too off. The final scene is a bit too much, but whatever... Now that I talked about the negative, let's come to what was actually worth watching: The soundrack is good, although quite generic in Disney's long series of films. The characters all had a personality and it was very easy to follow each one of them. The story is basic, but easy to follow and it drives the point home. Bu where this movie nailed it in my opinion is in buiding the relationship between the hero and the villain. The villain itself is generic, but how both characters interact and get to know each other is quite unusual for a Disney movie and I was very pleasantly surprised with it. That is the aspect of the film that stood out and for which I will remember it. Risk taken, but it was worthile. Sometimes Disney should try things like these more often.

First of all, I hated to give such a low mark to this movie. It has many flaws. But among those I will certainly not include the music that is just amazing and uplifts the whole film's quality. The decors are beatuiful and well exploited. It is all shot in real decors and not exclusively in carrpy CGI, so it allows to make the adventures of the Pevensies more believable. The movie is also very well directed and edited. I do not mean by that that the director has a very personal style on the contrary, but he did his job well. I also found the fight choregraphies and battle scenes breathtaking and immersive.

All these elements are very well exploited in the film, but those I will mention now are not and make the final product a very uneven movie. The actors are not good for the most part, except maybe Peter Dinklage. But this is in my opinion the bad performances of the main cast in general that made the Narnia franchise so forgettable. It is a shame that the children are such a poor acting direction and it could have made a huge difference, had they been good. Some CGI are not very well handled, especially when it comes to close shots with details on Aslan or the mouses. If you can't have a correct quality in the CGI, why not distance the camera from these characters and make those flaws less obvious, even if a lot of money was spent on it. The goal is at the end to have a good movie and at the end, these are mistakes that could be easily avoided. Then the plot... By that I don't mean the story which is quite classic and agreable to follow. A classic fantasy adventure! However the plot points are not very well handled. There is a lot of time spent on the film's introduction and a lot on the final act, but what is there exactly as a development in the middle? It is shallow and makes us wonder what we saw at the end and how the characters evolve. I will admit there is a form of storyarc for Peter, but it is the only main character whose treatment satisfies me. Otherwise all the characters are empty and underused on screen. At least in the first movie they were properly introduced and characterized, even if it wasn't groundbreaking.

Overall, I had a very good time watching this movie because there is a lot of heart and passion put in it. But it doesn't stand an objective examination of its qualities. I really wish I could give a better mark, but there are just too many flaws.