Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald [IMAX/3D]

At over 130 minutes, this film was unnecessarily long. Someone should keep JK Rowling away from writing screenplays. Sure she has great ideas and stories to tell, but like her later books, she tend to sprawl and needlessly confound and confuse just to add padding. Other than some really good set pieces, a few exciting action sequences (and also a few messy ones), imaginative use of CGI/3D-technology (breaking out of the screen format was cool) and a great score by James Newton Howard, the film lacked the originality, spark and cast chemistry that led the first instalment to be such a delight. The cast expanded and we spent more time on Johnny Depp and Ezra Miller's characters - which were interesting unto themselves but they lacked depth and worthy companions to interact with - than the original foursome whose excellent chemistry fueled the narrative of the first. This film felt like a placeholder film, setting the pieces in motion, to the franchise and finale (maybe 5 films is too much...).

Eddie Redmayne remained the star of the show. Well, he and the Fantastic Beasts...the Nifflers are back too!...but a pity that Rowling and director David Yates, have pivoted the intention of the story from Newt Scamander to the deep mythos of Grindelwald and Dumbledore, and so Scamander's adventures took a backseat. Although, Redmayne remained the lead, but his scenes seemed perfunctory to the greater narrative, and only driven by his romance with the criminally underused Katherine Waterston.

The focus on Depp's Grindelwald and Miller's Credence could have been better if Rowling and company had spent their time developing them as characters. Voldemort had the benefit of five books (and films) before we spent an entire installment on him, The Half-Blood Prince. And so, it resulted in two main characters who were driven and defined by exposition rather than complexity.

Similarly, because the story line was spread out amongst so many characters, almost all the newer characters also seemed to be just as similar thinly scratched.

Zoe Kravitz's Leta Lestrange is a Lestrange (!! of Bellatrix and Delphine!!) but she nary got a purpose other than to drive a strand of narrative. Her supposed relationship with the Scamander brothers were just as vague as her supposed standing in the wizarding community.

Speaking of Newt's brother, Callum Turner turned in a fine performance as Theseus, and he was one of the few new characters who seemed more thought out, but still rather pedestrian.

Depp was good in his role as Grindelwald. Better than he has in years with a reined-in performance that sold the menace but mercifully left out the camp. A pity they played down his character's history with Dumbledore, although it was not like Depp and Jude Law had scenes together.

Law's Dumbledore - like in the Harry Potter books - is again a central figure in the story and a master manipulator of young, impressionable men. Maybe we should start spending more time with him as a real character rather than as a deux ex machina device.

Fan favourites Jacob and Queenie (Dan Folger and Alison Sudol) got decidedly less to do this time round, although Sudol seemed to be getting a rather juicy arc which will be interesting to watch. Although it was the strength and chemistry between Folger and her that gave teh first instalment so much heart (and levity...which was so lacking here).

And lastly, about Miller. Fashion's It-Boy of the moment can act (see: We Need to Talk About Kevin), but here he just appears lost, stoned and adrift. Those characteristics described his character but it did not make him an appealing, or even an interesting, character to focus on. Hopefully things improve with the big cliffhanger, reveal.

Back to the plot, like aforementioned, Rowling can plot a good yarn and she obviously cares about her characters and have a deep knowledge about them. But sometimes, the plots just get away from her and she relies too much on twists to hook the audience in, hoping that she could blindside them into forgetting about the other trivialities of logic and narrative holes.

Yates' direction was efficient and he has a good handle on the use of 3D, although his directing of complicated action sequences still need work. The opening sequence especially, albeit exciting was still a tad messy and complicated. I guess, in that respect, it did kind of set the tone for the rest of the film.

This film, for all its flaw, was a delight to watch in 3D and in IMAX. It really used the technology to its advantage. Only thing was if it was really worth the price. And if only solely for the 3D and Howard's excellent score blasting out from an IMAX theatre, it would definitely have got an A, but as a whole, it was an expensive and tiresome way to spend 134 minutes.

Beautiful Boy

This was a problematic film. Ironically, it was simultaneously under-cooked with thin characterisation and a superficial emotional narrative, and over-baked with its heavy handedness and pedantic handling of an over-long and repetitive story. Someone ought to tell director Felix Von Groeningen that "show-not-tell" also extends to the music in the film, and not every song choice has to pointedly telegraph the expected emotional reaction he wants to illicit. Luckily the film was saved by a good - not great - performance by Timothée Chalamet (for great: see Benedict Cumberbatch in Patrick Melrose) and also the under-rated Maura Tierney who stole her scenes with Steve Carrell with her quiet, restrained performance.

This film would have benefited from being adapted into a prestige, limited series. Over four to six episodes, it would have given time and space for the characters to be developed into rounded (and complicated) individuals rather than just paper-cut cliches (again, see Patrick Melrose). The emotional bonds between them could also have been better explored especially the central father-son relationship. But instead, we were left with a heavy-handed and in-your-face depiction of their conflict.

There was definitely a worthy story to tell here, but with biographies like these, whereby the ending is already known, Von Groeningren did not manage to find a satisfying way to retell it. There was essentially a lack of urgency and narrative drive to engage the audience.

Cliches can work if there was emotional investment, but unfortunately not here, and we, the audiecne, were left with a repetitive cycle of tropes and cliches that felt empty and hollow. Perhaps, that was the point - to highlight the repetitive nature of drug addicts and recovery - but there sure could have been better ways to underpin that theme.

Chalamet was good here. But as involving as he was an actor, his performance lacked a transformative realism. We never really buy him truly as a drug addict. It seemed like he was perptually acting. No doubt that Chalamet will very likely get an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor - they do love him - but thus far, even Sam Elliot in A Star is Born seemed more deserving to win it than him.

Carrell was ostensibly the lead in this film, but it never really felt like he owned the film. His relationship with Chalamet never felt genuine and it never felt like we really understood their dynamics. Sure, we know why, on an intellectual level, he behaved like that, but there was no complexity to his portrayal, and this was as much a screenplay issue as it was a character issue. Carrell, like Ryan Gosling in First Man, often mistakes the quiet, 100-yard stare, as deep, method acting, but at least Gosling adds a pursed-lip now and then, and eventually went beyond just that; Carrell never really did.

Tierney was the unsung star of the film with just a fraction of the screen time as her male co-stars. But with that one car scene (just like Elliot), she effused more emotional weight in the whole film than Carrell and Chalamet.

Amy Ryan rounded up the main cast, and sadly, she was underused. But her few scenes with Chalamet felt genuine and maternal. Definitely more so than Carrell's (although his scenes with the younger versions of Chalamet were more on point, albeit blatently emotionally-baiting).

One of the biggest distraction in the film was the music. Firstly, there was too much of it and secondly they were all too obvious in their telegraphing of emotions. Feel this! Feel that! Feel messed up!!

A Beautiful Boy was clearly an Oscar-baiting project, but the end result was a film that never achieve its potential. And this missed opportunity may likely not provide Chalamet the necessary forward momentum to win his Oscar (but I'm sure his time will come).

The Wife

Glenn Close was superb in this film. A first class display of nuanced virtuosity as her restrained portrayal of the eponymous wife had her emotions simmering just under the surface and threatening to implode her throughout the film. But it was all only until in the final act where it finally erupted out. Not in a volcanic, Vesuivian sort of way, but in a controlled, yet still fiercely fiery, explosion of emotions that ran the gamut. The film's narrative itself was interesting, albeit predictable, and quite probably problematic in this day of #MeToo and #TimesUp. Nonetheless, it really was Close's remarkable performance that held this film up. Jonathan Pryce too deserved some praise for being the actor that allowed Close to spar and shine, and he was good in his own right, just that he gets eclipsed here (the irony!).

Directed by Swedish director Bjorn Rung and adapted for film by Jane Anderson (off Meg Wolitzer's book), the film ran for a tight 100 minutes and it effectively illustrated the feelings of Close's character which really did became clearer on hindsight. Little moments and acts throughout the first two acts which seemed trivial and unimportant, actually served to underscore The Wife's emotional turmoil and struggle, and coupled with Close's nuanced performance, it all did mean something; perhaps a second viewing may truly highlight Close's superb portrayal.

However, there were moments in the show whereby it all seemed too heavy-handed and obvious, especially when in contrast with such a brilliant, understated character-study of the main character. Case in point, Max Iron's son and Christian Slater's un-authorised biographer. Both these two characters lacked depth and existed seemingly to drive the narrative forward.

The backbone premise of the film could have been delivered more effectively with more subtlety or even via a different medium, a play perhaps. I would pay to watch Close and Pryce pitted against each other, live on stage as they struggle with recognition, fame, love, duty, respect and pride.

Although the one other thing that the film makers got really right, was the portrayal of the relationship between the central couple. A long-standing marriage that had obviously suffered multiple bumps, but yet there was genuine love between both parties that fueled their fights and conflicts. And, again, for that both Close and Pryce deserved praise.

This film will unlikely to get much love come Oscar time. It is too small and too topical for this time, but Close might surely get nominated. If not for an Oscar, at least a SAG and a Golden Globe.

A Star is Born

This was honestly a good film. It had its faults, but it was entertaining enough although ultimately it felt like an extended Lady Gaga music video with a love story thrown in between sets.

As a whole, the film felt indulgent, unfocused, superficial, and really could be shortened by 20 to 30 minutes. It only livened up whenever Bradley Cooper cuts to Lady Gaga singing. This was clearly a vanity project for Cooper and as a first time director he told a straightforward, albeit slightly misogynistic, story. The main flaw was he seemed conflicted as to whose story the film wanted to tell, Cooper's or Lady Gaga's or theirs? The chemistry between Cooper and Gaga was there but it never really felt elevated to that of two people deeply in love (although Cooper's self-loving was blatantly apparent). Gaga, although shortchanged as character, felt at ease in her role that seemed reflective of her and was truly alive when she sung. Speaking of which, her voice was the true star of the show. It raised goosebumps, but sadly that only happened in the first act.

Cooper will definitely make a great music video director or even a live-concert producer. However, as a film maker, he threw many cliches and tropes onto the screen. Close-ups for the emotional moments (which really highlighted Gaga's expressive face but not her as an actress on the whole),  multiple edits within a scene to make sense. Have a villain and make him British! Focus on your female lead's breasts and make sure she have no female friends, but wait, she must have a gay bff! (insert eye-rolls).

There were also a number of in your face scenes that felt expository and betrayed the old adage of "show, not tell". It was like Cooper felt insecure that his audience had no idea what he wanted to say, so he just went,  "let us telegraph everything so nobody misunderstands me".

Then we had Gaga's character. We never really got a sense of who she is. It was all just superficially brushed out and when things happen we just ended up accepting it. That made it easy for Gaga to act but really did not give her much of a range or emotional depth to mine. Gaga had a natural ease for the character and a lot had to do with how similar she is to her. But, looking closely, there were times when Gaga felt like Gaga and not her character, and also times when Gaga was Acting. It is hard to imagine how she will be fare as an actress beyond this role (American Horror Story: Hotel definitely did not help, Golden Globes Award notwithstanding).

Cooper is a good actor. He has the nominations to prove it, but here he really went for it and chewed the hell out of the scenery, ostensibly refusing to yield the spotlight to Gaga who had the better character on paper.

Together, Cooper and Gaga felt like great friends. There definitely was love between them but it was not that of the deep, romantic, I-will-die-for-you kind of love. It was a co-dependency kind of love which, if you think about it, sort of made sense in the film, but then kind of goes against the narrative.

The songs were the highlights. Even Cooper's bits. Although Lady Gaga will surely get at least one, Oscar nomination, or two, for the original songs.

I felt that a lot of praise that has been lavished on this film was because of the initial lowered expectations from Bradley Cooper as a first-time director, and Lady Gaga as a first-time movie star. Consequently, with all the hype thereafter, expectations became a lot higher.

With all the hype surrounding it, I am sure it will get some love come Oscar time, but other than Best Song, any wins - at this moment - will seemed quite hollow.

Shoplifters 万引き家族

A simple tale of a family brought together not by blood but by choice that was understated in its naturalistic execution but utterly heartfelt and gut-wrenching in its execution. The emotions were absolutely well earned and the cast exuded a genuine sense of warmth and sincerity in their roles. A feel-good, brilliant piece of storytelling by writer/director Hirokazu Koreeda that give us hope, something so needed and lacking in films these days. It deserved all its accolades and the Palme d'Or award.

The story itself was straightforward, although I am sure some nuances were lost in translation. However, what was not lost was the performances of the cast. Those shone through, especially for the young ones, and Koreeda managed to coax a genuine performance and reactions from these newcomers.

Veteran actors like Lily Franky, Sakura Ando and Kirin Kiki anchored the narrative. And again, their acting felt naturalistic and unforced, and the relationships between them all felt real. 

Although it took a while to decipher the relationships between all the members of the family, it actually did not really matter. However, the final act really hit it home and tugged at the heartstrings. But not in an overly-saccherine way, or in a manipulative, This is Us-kind of way. One really did get immersed into the story.

At 121 minutes, it contained so many elements but yet was so simple and smoothly paced. This truly was a brilliant piece of story-telling. Honest. Sincere. Genuine. Hopeful. 

Madeline's Madeline

This film was not for everybody. It can definitely be classified as an art-house film. Writer/Director Josephine Decker had created an unexpected film that weaved a well-known subject matter into an imaginative and experimental tapestry that felt original. The result of which was a film that was oddly disconcerting, strangely affective and hypnotically mesmorising. And most importantly, a star is born in Helena Howard who with her debut in this film becomes one of the most exciting new, young actor to emerge in recent memories. Imagine this film as Lady Bird with mental health issues, and Howard as the next Saoirse Ronan.

The narrative followed a rather straightforward path and Decker expects her audience to pick up the details on their pwn. There were no spoon-feeding of backstory or expository motivations here. Events unfold and you are expected to keep up with the psychedelic unknown and immerse yourself into the experience.

In the end, it was a bit like the nature of the what Madeline's Madeline was about. Is your life yours? Or is it the people's around you? Am I experiencing my now or experience your now?

With regards to the mental health issues of it all, Decker handled the subject matter in a matter-of-fact sort of way. It was not really the focus but neither was it swept under the carpet.

And it all culminates in a show-stopping finale that Howard absolutely owned. Just that penultimate scene alone could be her Oscar-reel.

Howard was supported by veterans Molly Parker and Miranda July who were really there to allow Howard to act off on, but they definitely held their own.

At just 93 minutes long, this film could feel a lot longer for some, but to me it just went on by as I found myself engrossed in the story and was kept wondering how will it all end. Riveting.

Three Identical Strangers

A truly fascinating true story of identical triplets separated at birth who found each other 19 years later. And then it veered off into a pseudo-scientific documentary into the controversial study of twins separation and the idea of nature versus nurture.

The first part, this documentary did very well. Ably telling the story of the central triplets and how the lives changed. However, film director, Tim Wardle, then decided to dive into the why they were separated, and that whole arm was messy, albeit interesting. Anybody with an inkling of scientific studies and twin-studies would find the exploration of the Neubauer controversial studies lacking in depth and purpose. It really seemed more sensational here rather than an intellectual exploration of the ethics and ramifications. Which would have made for a more interesting story.

With a title like Three Identical Strangers, the film makers really ought to have gone more in depth into these three people for us to get a better understanding of them and their lives, and left the twin-separation studies more as an aside rather than a secondary focus which disrupted the story telling.