Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them Review

Returning to the Harry Potter world is almost always a treat for me. I love watching the movies with my family, I love reading the books, and I even enjoy the occasional trip into Pottermore, the mythology website set up by creator J.K. Rowling. Naturally, I was ecstatic to revisit the Harry Potter world, and to America no less! As a prequel, as a CGI-filled monster adventure, as a brand new foray into the Wizarding World, I was stoked.

It's too bad this film falls short from those that came before it.

Let's start by discussing the characters. Starting off with Newt Scamander, who unfortunately doesn't work as well as a lead character should be. He's definitely confident, but only in certain scenarios, particularly with the creatures of the film. Not that a character should have to be incredibly confident in each and every scene, but in scenes when he's interacting with others and proving to be incredibly awkward, and even sometimes cold, it just rubs me the wrong way. Don't get me wrong, I like Newt and the job that actor Eddie Redmayne did, I just don't like him all the time.

Katherine Waterson's Tina Goldstein is a little bit more closer to the adventurous type of wizard that we love to see in these movies. She's tough, she's smart, but she's reckless, and it gets her in trouble, particularly when she meets Newt. The film definitely picks up when folks like Tina, her sister Queenie, and their new muggle (or no-maj, 'cause what we definitely need is another dumb name) friend Jacob, join Newt in the rush to re-capture all of the beasts. Jacob, in particular, acts as the 'Harry Potter' of this series, where there is a new character rushed into this fantastical world, and acts as a lens for the audience, someone we can relate to the most. I certainly did, and I thought the job that Dan Fogleman did with the character was awesome. He was certainly the most engaging character.

Now, while these characters weren't as enjoyable or engaging overall as the original trio from the past Harry Potter films, I still liked it. The same can be said for the action, story, and music. There's less action that's truly coherent in this movie, less wand-play, so to speak. Spells don't fly as freely or as excitingly as they have in the past. And the special effects, generally relating to the fantastic beasts (y'know, the title characters), don't look all that great. They don't have the power, the impact, or the gravitas of other CGI character's that I've seen in the past, like the Incredible Hulk, the Transformers, or even the dragons from the original Harry Potter series. It probably has something to do with the cinematography of the film which, granted, reflects the 1920's in a believable way to me, the coloring and camera angles never really express the power or swiftness the creatures should be having.

The narrative itself was weak overall as well, which was so disappointing out of J.K. Rowling. Understanding that a novel is an incredibly different work of writing than a screenplay is, I would have assumed her transition, while rocky, would have overall been done well. And while the story isn't a disaster, it's bland and has too much going on to be able to focus the really interesting stuff. The conflicts that Newt runs into get resolved quite quickly. Characters are introduced and killed rather quickly. The one interesting story line that developed rather interestingly was the one of Credence, who bears with him several analogies about modern social issues.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is a fun adventure back into the world of Harry Potter, but it's an overall frivolous one. Characters aren't very well-developed, the special effects of the creatures are sub-par, the exploration of Magical America is little, and offers a weak narrative of a journey. Make no mistake, the magical world of Harry Potter holds that same nostalgic place in my heart, this venture was just a little less magical.

Rating: 7/10

Pokemon Sun/Moon Review

*Note: I played the Pokemon Moon version, but like past Pokemon games, the experience varies only in the species of Pokemon available to capture without trading.

Yeesh, this review is well past its worthiness date. Nevertheless, I've completed most of the major events within the seventh-generation installment to the world famous Pokemon franchise. And while this game does have significant improvements throughout, I'm not completely sold on everything yet. But overall, Pokemon Sun and Pokemon Moon are a welcome addition to the franchise for fans both old and new.

Presentation

Man, does this game utilize all that the 3DS hardware is capable of. Now, granted, there have been much more structurally-complex games that have appeared in the 3DS library (Metal Gear Solid 3D comes to mind), but I don't think I've ever seen a 3DS game that has looked as dynamic as this. The islands which you, the player, call home, are colorful and vibrant, teeming with life from both NPCs and brand-new Pokemon to meet and capture. Each island, while relatively small when examined on their own, has somewhat of a unique style to them. One of them might be more tropical, while another is inherently more barren. This diversity in ecosystem makes exploring the islands somewhat of a more engaging adventure than exploring any past Pokemon region, since almost every ecosystem under the sun was explorable in all past games.

And as for the island theme, that's something that Pokemon Sun/Moon really digs deep into. Local lingo is inspired from the Oceanic islands that populate our own world, and the islands remain almost untouched from the societies we as players have been exposed to in past games; the characters of this new region hope to keep the islands pristine and free, and the towns and areas you travel reflect that. Granted, this can make the islands a bit of a bore to walk through as you pass the third grassy hill rather than through a bustling metropolis as in past games, but the art direction is so solid that one hardly gets bogged down by this loss.

Gameplay

Pokemon has always been described as 'baby's RPG,' and this series continues to hold that title firmly in its grasp. However, this iteration of the franchise does some different things with the exploration portion of the genre. No, the battle system hasn't changed since the original games debuted in Japan in 1996 (save for the creation of some new types to spruce up the rock-paper-scissors formula), but how and when the player navigates the world takes on some deviations from franchise standards. For example, the player is no longer hampered down with moves that are required to progress through certain areas. Instead, pre-determined Pokemon that can be called on at any time throughout the game help players navigate through certain areas. Using these Pokemon are cool, but I still would have liked to call on more at any opportunity. There are only about 12 the player can utilize, and the new fly ability isn't even manually-controlled to allow players to soar over the islands as they were in the previous games, Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire. These are all nitpicky, but they raise some questions and answers about what the focus of the game development was - expansion and alteration of the core mechanics of exploration and battle.

As for battle, much remains the same: unlike Pokemon X/Y, there's no new types added to spice up the battle strategies. And there's only one new battle mechanic in place of the Mega Evolution to add some variety, which are the Z-moves. They are superpowered moves that deal massive damage, and only one can be used per battle. There is a set amount, barely any unique moves special to specific Pokemon (aside from about 6 or 7), and they can still miss when they are used! As a mechanic of battle and gaming, this is probably the most frustratingly annoying addition to Pokemon yet.

Final Thoughts

Pokemon Sun/Moon is a fantastic foray back into the Pokemon world, and an excellent showcase of creativity from GameFreak and Nintendo. The island location is a breath of fresh air, and the new Pokemon are just as fun to get to know as the Pokemon from Red and Blue were. Some additions and replacements detract exploration and battle slightly, but they don't ruin the experience overall. They're just as annoying, though.

Rating: 8.75/10 

My thoughts on the new 'Star Wars: The Last Jedi' Teaser

Now, I'm gonna complain and whine here a little bit, but before I do, everybody better shut down their hate for me. Look, there is nobody who is a bigger Star Wars fan than I am, okay? I've seen each movie that I possibly can in the theaters at least twice, I collected Star Wars LEGO since I was five years old, and half of my wardrobe is just Star Wars apparel.

Now, with that cleared up, I didn't love the trailer.

Don't get me wrong, there's a lot to love here. The first thing I want to touch on is how gorgeous everything looks: shots are composed beautifully, lighting and atmosphere of the shots feel powerful, and the locations feel like, for the first time, genuinely new Star Wars locations. A salt desert-like vista, ridges of rock within the water, and a burning desert are all strikingly unique-looking. The set pieces are surely to be nothing short of magnificent, and could possibly surpass those of Rogue One.

And you can't go wrong with seeing fan favorite characters, both old and new. One of the things that did frustrate me about The Force Awakens, despite how much I loved it, was that Rey's rapid growth from survivor to force-wielder seemed unnatural. I understand that the adrenaline could jump-start her systems, so to speak, but the way it was done (however cool) felt slightly disingenuous to the mythos of Star Wars; hell, even Anakin couldn't use the force so directly until he had some training. But it looks like I'm going to get what I want out of Rey in The Last Jedi, which is her being put through the ropes by Luke Skywalker.

Speaking of Luke, he's obviously the one I'm most interested to see in the new movie. The fact that he's not only adopted the hermit persona, but has gone so far to believe that the Jedi should die off, is a complete left turn from what I thought the direction would be for his character. It's understandable, considering the shit he's seen; it's easy to lose faith when you're on your own, putting your heart and soul into an organization, and that same energy turns against you. And while I don't believe that he'll stay that way for the entirety of the film (or even it's sequel), this arc is something I'm looking forward to.

Another arc I'm looking forward to seeing is that of Kylo Ren. Killing your dad (spoiler alert!) isn't something you walk away from so easily. So, what does he do now? Does he complete his dark side training with his master, Supreme Leader Snoke? Is he still conflicted by his connection to the light? We didn't get too many hints of what he's up to, but I'm excited nonetheless.


And y'know what, this is where I'm going to take time and complain again. We barely got anything new out of this trailer. I wasn't expecting a synopsis, necessarily, but I am starting to get frustrated with the secrecy that Lucasfilm likes to use when approaching this new trilogy of films. I had assumed it was just a one-time thing with The Force Awakens, but now it's clear that this will be the norm for their advertising. I don't have a huge, huge problem with it - knowing barely anything when walking into The Force Awakens made it all the more fun - but as a greedy fan, I feel like there was at least one or two better 'buzz' moments to keep me talking about the trailer than there were.

Because not only were there barely any narrative details to learn, we didn't see anything outside of the 'force characters.' Barely any Finn, Poe, BB-8, and Leia; not a single shot of Chewie or R2 or C-3P0. And I can tell that this film's focus is an exact mirror of what The Force Awakens was: more force stuff, less Resistance stuff (not dissimilar to The Empire Strikes Back, the second part of the previous trilogy). I'm down for more Jedi-Sith action, it's what I watch Star Wars for anyways, but I do enjoy seeing those characters in action.

Again, I recognize that this is a teaser, and that I'm being kind of selfish for complaining about a luxury film I will see during the holiday season that I observe, but I'm nonetheless excited to see what comes from this film.

Oh yeah, and I guess Captain Phasma is back, too.

Hell or High Water Movie Review

The summer of 2016 was a bummer when it came to the blockbusters. Don't get me wrong, I had fun with films like Captain America: Civil War, Suicide Squad, Warcraft; but for one reason or another I was still feeling bummed by the stories that were told. The stories were weak, antagonists were lame, characters were one-note...the list goes on. This summer burned me on brand names quite a bit. So, to be entering the fall season with some Oscar-caliber films making their debut was exactly the right kind of fresh air I needed. And boy, did the season start off right with Hell or High Water.

Featuring two poor-as-dirt brothers portrayed by Chris Pine and Ben Foster, Hell or High Water tells the story of these two brothers and their attempts to rob small-time banks in order to save their recently deceased mothers' ranch. Out to stop them is Jeff Bridges' aging Texas ranger, a man determined to go out on a high note before he's forced out of the service. In just over 90 minutes, the exploits of these three men are a compilation of compelling character story, intense robbery sequences, and a subtle-yet-not-so commentary on the banking system of the United States amidst gorgeous yet depressing mid-Texan scenery.

The contrast of color within the film feels very western-esque: bright, warm colors wash over the flatlands farms, and low-income areas in which Pine and Foster travel across. As the gorgeous cinematography pans over the land, the highways, and the very real dystopia of these characters, there's a certain beauty to the simplicity of the setting, which is honestly all resting on the shoulders of the coloring of the shot. It's hauntingly gorgeous, not only because of the color, but because of where it is.

Thematically, the film is actually no more relevant than today. The narrative centers around the two characters of Pine and Foster trying to save their farm after the 2008 housing crisis, and after being abandoned by several employment opportunities, the government included. But the beautiful thing about the narrative is that it never extends beyond that simple fact. There's really no other political agenda than to present the situation as it is. It's blunt, it's honest, it's unapologetic. And I love this movie for it.

As for the acting, our four main players absolutely nail it. Chris Pine brings a really true, reserved character to life amidst the waste that is his life. Jeff Bridges does the typical southern accent he's becoming known for, and plays the 'aging guardian' role with real levity, a role that's much needed in this film. Finally, Ben Foster as the older of the two thieving brothers steals the show with his showmanship and deliverance of lines. This trio was immaculate in their performances.

I can't recommend Hell or High Water enough. It was my wish to see this film win Best Picture at the Academy Awards this past year, but now my only wish is that people consider giving it a chance. It's really a can't-miss film.

Rating: 10/10

*Note that a 10/10 rating from me does not mean a film is flawless; rather, it means that it's a masterpiece and should not be missed.

Iron Fist Season 1 REVIEW

Okay, folks, let's talk about Iron Fist.

Now, I first feel bad, because as of writing this, I have yet to officially review the exceptional Daredevil Season 2 or the fun and engaging Luke Cage, but I just finished Iron Fist and I feel like I had to get my thoughts on the screen before I moved on back to the other shows.

For the record, I did enjoy Iron Fist at certain points of the show. I say this now because I'm completely aware that the following statements to the detriment of the show are going to be seen as a totally negative review. I can't help how I feel about the final product, this is just the way it is.

As a quick review, the plot of the series is that after surviving a plane crash in the Himilayas and living within a mythical society of warrior monks, Danny Rand returns to his home in New York City to rekindle relationships with his childhood friends and take up ownership of his company, Rand Enterprises. But evil forces scheming against both Danny and the Iron Fist are putting up a fight before Danny gets his way.

Talking about the lead role of Danny Rand (played  by Finn Jones), I flip-flop on how I feel his performance was. He wasn't necessarily bad, he simply never became dynamic enough or engaging enough to care about him more than the fact that he was the 'main character.' He was a fine martial artist (I'll talk on the choreography and cinematography later), and his delivery was okay, but more often than not, the character of Danny Rand was bland if he wasn't using the Iron Fist or if he wasn't having his PTSD flashbacks. Jones wasn't asked to do a lot as the Iron Fist, and he clearly didn't go above and beyond with the material. Compared to the other Defenders (being Daredevil, Jessica Jones, and Luke Cage), Iron Fist clearly is the weakest of the bunch in terms of character.

A saving grace for the series is Jessica Henwick's Colleen Wing, who is not only graceful in her combat sequences, but in many ways, is both a superior actor and character than her series counterpart Finn Jones. She's got gravitas, she's got more personality, despite the brooding that comes along with it, and she's overall more enjoyable to watch on-screen. Plus, viewers have to experience Colleen's experience and strength, despite not having super powers. It's a character type we haven't seen since Daredevil Season 2, and it highlights the best aspects of these street-level heroes: gritty action combined with powerful character moments. That's what Colleen has to offer, and it's why she's the best thing this show has to offer.

When it comes to antagonists, this show is all over the place, and not in the coherent, engaging manner compared to something like Game of Thrones. There are at least three antagonists, one of which has appeared in past Netflix series, and she's the only one who seems to make any meaningful impact by the end of the series. Yes, the other two leave their mark on the series, but because of how the series plays out, The antagonists were ultimately weak, and not a satisfying enough challenge for Danny Rand to go up against.

Now, the cinematography and choreography of fight sequences are what I feel like Iron Fist suffered from the worst. Camera shots were always oddly-placed, and made the show look even lower-budget than I would have suspected it was. Not only that, but the camera work highlighted just how blatantly choreographed each and every fight sequence was. Most of them (unless the Iron Fist was in use) didn't feel real, didn't feel tough, didn't feel authentic. When people highlight how choreographed the lightsaber fights from Star Wars: Episodes 1, 2, and 3 were, at least there were lightsabers to help distract and amaze from the fact. But here, Danny rarely goes up against anything other than a 3 v 1 fight, and each one is just as underwhelming as the last. It's such a disappointment, especially after being told that this show would allude to the classic kung-fu movie era, and deliver such a disappointing package, makes me feel like I just wasted the 9 minutes from that past fight sequence and could have just skipped along to the next part of the plot.

Ultimately, Marvel's Iron Fist is a disappointing fourth edition to the Marvel/Netflix lineup, and not at all the high leading into Marvel's The Defenders that it should have been. Danny Rand was fine, but forgettable, he didn't have a great arc or villains to face, and the show would've faltered due to bad camera work and choreography if it wasn't for the impeccable Colleen Wing. If The Defenders wasn't next, I wouldn't have stopped by. I'm fine with seeing more Iron Fist, but when it's ready to be re-worked and approached with greater care.

Rating: 5/10

Early Thoughts on Thor: Ragnarok

Yesterday morning, a new trailer was revealed for the upcoming Marvel Cinematic Universe film, Thor: Ragnarok. After two 'meh' films in this character's particular trilogy, it's clear that the studios' intention was to change the game with their famous Norse god character. From the news that came out during early production of the film, the series is seemingly abandoning our planet of Earth, a staple location that the character tended to visit often. Not only that, but all Earthly characters (besides one very green surprise) are ostensibly absent from the film. New characters, both mythical and galactic, are being introduced to the series, seemingly for both the instance of diversifying the Thor pallet, and for setting up the galactic conflict that is Avengers: Infinity War. But now, I've seen the first officially released footage of the film, and I've got some thoughts.

Firstly, it is good to see Thor back. It's been a while since we as Marvel fans have gone this long since seeing the god of thunder, and it seems he's got a new sense of humor, whimsy, and wit. Despite the fact that it's Ragnarok, or the end of Asgard, Thor still has that newfound charm and smolder that he picked up in Avengers: Age of Ultron. Not a fan of that haircut, though. But the helmet is awesome, and reminiscent of that winged headwear in the more classic Thor comics.

And I'd be remiss if I didn't mention new baddie, Hela. She's essentially a Norse goddess of death, and she looks dope being played by Cate Blanchett. I swear to god, that woman looks better in every movie she's in. Seeing that she has the power to destroy Mjolnir, the indestructable hammer of Thor, is intimidating enough, but add on the fact that she has a form where she has crazy-scary death antlers and is able to raze Asgard is just a beautifully horrific sight to behold.

Seeing fan favorites like Loki and the Hulk back is just as delightful, and the fact that they reconvene with Thor on this arena world is just as interesting. Last time we saw Loki, he had usurped the throne of Asgard and was impersonating Odin. As for Hulk, we last saw him abandoning his love interest(?) Black Widow and the rest of the Avengers after the destruction of Sokovia in Avengers: Age of Ultron; how he gets to the far side of the galaxy is beyond me. And how Loki blows his cover should be an interesting development. Even more interesting is the fact that Odin is precisely what Thor would need to help bring Hela down. Where is he?

The two newcomers in the Grandmaster (played by Jeff Goldblum) and Valkyrie (played by Tessa Thompson) had little to offer in this trailer. Valkyrie was seen riding a pegasus and taking on Hela in some flashback, I'm assuming, but then she's in the service of the Grandmaster by some odd chain of events. The Grandmaster himself doesn't look too significantly different from that of the Collector, last seen in Guardians of the Galaxy (which is fine, considering that the two characters are brothers), but his lack of weight in a scene is really what I think will be the true detriment to his character. These two have a long way to go to beat the lasting impression that our four mainstays will have.

With all of that said, the style of the movie is what has me on edge the most. It seems as though all 3 Marvel movies this year are homages to 80's movie and culture tropes: from Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol. 2 and their music and style inspirations, to Spider-Man: Homecoming and the tribute to old-school coming-of-age movies, to Thor: Ragnarok and it's irreverent action and comedy, alluding to the era of Marvel comics from which it comes from, Marvel is all on that 80's homage bandwagon. It's fine, and it can even be fun at times, but the appeal for the Thor movies for me was that they had this fantasy angle to them, more of a tribute to Lord of the Rings than to Mad Max. Because, here's the thing: almost every Marvel movie pays tribute to the 80's, that's their largest demographic audience. But I liked how they differ their films to pay tribute to genres, rather than time periods: The Winter Soldier was the political thriller, Ant-Man was the heist film, Guardians  was the space opera. I still hold the belief that Thor should be the fantasy/adventure movie. But Ragnarok looks more like a Thor movie with a Guardians of the Galaxy skin. Granted, I understand that Guardians is what the people love, and it makes sense, but I'm just a bit miffed that they're changing up the game in this particular manner.

That being said, I'll still go see it and I'm sure it's going to be awesome.