jordanucsd Reviews

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016)

"They're not dangerous."

[8/10 · 18 April 2022]

And so is the line spoken by Newt Scamander as he pleads for the safety of his magical creatures who are being taken in custody by the film's main antagonist. It is indeed the theme of the 9th entry into J. K. Rowling's wizarding cinematic universe.

Echoes of the Harry Potter films, and other franchises such as the X-Men, are heard in Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. Themes of judgement, shame, and wrongful persecution. Being misunderstood and being called "freaks." He-who-must-not-be-named made an entire career out of building an army to wreak vengeance on the Muggles who the gifted wizarding world must hide from. In this film - set some seventy odd years before the events of the Potter films, it is Gellert Grindelwald taking up Voldemort's cause. He seeks to recruit a powerful individual with the help of a traumatized boy who is abused by his foster mother - a witch hunter and kind of women's temperance movement Muggle version of Grindelwald. This boy employs vengeance on a certain character for calling him a freak. Tina Goldstein, though perhaps was rightfully found of some wrong doing in her past, has received in her eyes wrongful punishment. She even chases the resurrection of her honor to the extent of acting like an Auror even though she was fired. The movie shows that being misunderstood in some way creates a drive to proof your real worth to the world. Draped around these characters is the Prohibition, a Muggle law created by those who misunderstood alcohol consumers as the wretch of society. To go even a step further, the International Statute of Secrecy that separates the Maj's and the No-Maj's echoes America's own racist laws of segregation, which breeds the kind of hate that Grindelwald reveals at the end of the film.

Although the plights of these characters are well written so as to support the theme of the story, it is the inclusion of namely three other ones that really made me appreciate this movie. Even though not much is said of Newt Scamander's past - besides being expelled from Hogwarts, you get a strong sense from Eddie Redmayne's brilliant performance that Newt has been judged his entire life. He even says to another character that humans don't like him, really. That he "annoys" them, and regrets this aspect of his personality. So who does he decide to share time with? Those that are incapable of judgement - the innocent. Specifically, animals.

Magical animals. The second character of note. Newt has immense sympathy for these beings who are themselves being wrongfully persecuted. He even has the last breeding pair of Erumpants in the entire world, presumably from anthropogenic causes. He wants them to survive so that the world may appreciate their worth. And he's writing a entire book about Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them perhaps so that he may prove his worth. The animals are literal scapegoats for the film's antagonist to use as leverage for his cause. And they are perfect analogies for the plight of innocent and misunderstood people all over the world. Watching Newt navigate the often judgy New York world attempting to save these creatures invites the underdog inside all of us, providing a framework to understand the whole premise of the films. And he is accompanied by the third character of note.

If Newt is the clever brains of the operation, then Jacob Kowalski is the heart. He's the only main character who hasn't really been traumatized by wrongful persecution, or is out to seek retribution. He just wants enough money to quit his job and open a bakery some day. He's the normal dude trying to prove his worth. But not from hate or sadness, but from just wanting to make people happy. Because of his earnestness and simplicity of soul, he has something that Newt, Tina, and Grindelwald in some way have struggled with - hope. The kind of hope that the innocents have in abundance, whether through naïveté or experience. Jacob is the human version of animals, those loving creatures that Newt is so fond of. He's like the pet dog that humans don't deserve. Even Queenie the mind reader confirms his worth, hinting to the audience of his pure intentions. This is why Newt likes spending time with him so much, and calls him his friend. The heart-warming scene where Newt shows Jacob his magical creatures is an important and really effective one in driving these points home, and demonstrating why empathy with those that are different from you is so important, and why we are all those fantastic beasts. You just have to go and find them.

Ford v Ferrari (2019)

"I had no idea. If only my dad were alive to see this."

[8/10 · 14 February 2020]

I've seen a lot of car movies, as a self-professed car nut. As such I judge them harshly, and immediately dismiss entries that don't provide enough reason to care about what is more important than the car: the driver. Think of the Fast and Furious and Transformers franchise. If you care about the driver, and the driver cares about the car, you care about the car. The car is a tool, an extension of the hero's body, and gains provenance with the audience when it helps the hero on their personal journey. Movies that come to mind that do this effectively include Gone in 60 Seconds, Bullitt, Need For Speed, The Italian Job, Batman Begins, and The Bourne Identity. Some of the James Bond movies do it well, like Goldfinger, The Spy Who Loves Me, The Living Daylights, and SkyFall, but many do not because of the lack of character arc in the story. We cannot forget about perhaps the greatest car movie of all time, Back to the Future. The shining example of how to make the car a proper star.

And now enters a film by James Mangold and starring talented actors Matt Damon and Christian Bale called Ford v. Ferrari. My arms crossed, and expectations lowered, I was ready to be disappointed. Although I love Mangold as a director, somehow I assumed there would be a Michael Bay approach to the movie, putting more emphasis on car action sequences than the characters. To my surprise, not only was I dead wrong, but the film became one of the best car movies I had ever seen.

Thinking back, I should have known better. Unlike many car action oriented movies, this one is based on a true story, and fact-based dramas tend to take themselves more seriously. It is sort of a shared biopic between legendary sports car designer Carroll Shelby and race car driver Ken Miles. The movie focuses on their efforts to beat Ferrari at Le Mans, a story I'm well aware of (like I said, bonafide car nut). And Mangold is an Oscar winning filmmaker collaborating with Oscar winning people such as Damon and Bale.

And boy do their talents shine in this movie. The driving engine of the story, if you will, is the loving but at times clashing relationship between Shelby and Miles, portrayed brilliantly by Damon and Bale in a manner that in my opinion is more entertaining and engaging than the dynamic duo of DiCaprio and Pitt in Once Upon A Time ... in Hollywood. Damon and Bale have different styles of acting, but both arrive at the same place: creating a character that faces disappointment in the search for victory.

Shelby has to come to terms with the disappointment of having to quit his racing career due to heart problems, and creating a winning team at Le Mans is his way of proving to himself he's still a winner. Miles is desperate not to disappoint himself because unlike Shelby, he's never had a shot at winning at a big race. This is due to his abrasive personality, despite an amazing talent on the race track. On top of this, Miles desperately doesn't want to disappoint his wife and son, who support him fervently in his dream. Both characters have their own obstacles in search of escaping disappointment, with Shelby dealing with the suits at Ford and Miles dealing with problems of the car in the race as they present themselves, and the trial of besting the other race car drivers. Their individual struggles intersect in the mutual desire to win at Le Mans, resulting in a brotherhood and mutual love for each other that feels genuine and earned.

Henry Ford II, played by a very effective Tracy Letts, reveals in a quick but moving scene why he wants to win at Le Mans. After Shelby takes Ford on a whirlwind nauseating ride with the new race car they have engineered, Ford breaks into tears. Not so much because of the physically jarring experience of being jostled around at breakneck speed, but because of what the car means to his family name. "I had no idea. If only my dad were alive to see this," he tells Shelby. Damon, in that scene, responds with wet eyes. The character Ford reveals how much he doesn't want to disappoint his family legacy. In fact, the entire endeavor started with an insult from Ferrari, stating, "You're only Henry Ford the second, you'll never be Henry Ford." And in an earlier scene, Ford compares himself to his legendary grandfather in a speech to Ford factory workers concerning his disappointment in current company sales.

Cars represent man's desire to chase a dream. Whether it be designing the fastest car, or driving cars the fastest. And despite all the obstacles that may get in man's way, the biggest one is always himself. But with perseverance and the help of others, this obstacle can too be overcome. Ford v. Ferrari manages to get to the heart of this message with deceptive ease and supreme confidence. The film's absolutely gorgeous cinematography and direction capture some of the most amazing car sequences ever put to the big screen. A surprising but believable behind the scenes factoid is that Mangold and the cast are not car nuts at all, and were simply moved to tell the story of the characters. This is why the movie works so well, because they understood the car as supporting the story rather than the other way around.

Ford v. Ferrari is an absolute winner, with memorable performances from its cast, and my favorite Mangold picture thus far. For me, it is one of the best of the year, and as far as car movies go, one of the best ever made, and miles away from a disappointment.

Knives Out (2019)

"My Coffee. My House. My Rules."

[8/10 · 14 February 2020]

"My Coffee. My House. My Rules."

It's so comforting to watch a film by a director that knows exactly what they want. Like a movie by Spielberg, Scorsese, Tarantino, and Fincher, Rian Johnson has his own distinctive style that adapts to different genres and is pretty effective every time. Like a well trained musician, Johnson knows how to play the notes, hit the beats, and please an audience. Yes, that includes The Last Jedi, which let's remind ourselves, was adored by many critics and audiences despite its reputation. To further the point, Knives Out makes it obvious that Johnson tries to please an audience by the way the movie challenges them, rather than comfort them with familiar tropes. In a sort of Shyamalanian, even Hitchockian, kind of way, Johnson has a need to surprise, an urgency to dissuade the audience from the ability to predict, and for that I am very grateful. When you don't really know where the story is going, you are all the more immersed in it.

Knives Out does this in a spectacular fashion. It's so uncharacteristic of a murder-mystery to show the audience the murder itself only forty minutes into the film. Nevertheless, there is still a teasing mystery to be solved by the private detective Benoit Blanc played by Daniel Craig. By the way, who knew Craig can be this charismatic!? The film transforms into a Hitchcock thriller in the second act, with Johnson using every trick in the book to make Blanc's discovery of the culprit a nerve-racking experience akin to watching Dial M For Murder.

What's most surprising to me is the film's comedic nature. This felt like a true comedy disguised as a murder-mystery, rather than a murder-mystery with some comedic bits in it. Every scene has jokes in it. Every single one. And they land in such a way that makes this one of the best theater going experiences an audience can have. I was fortunate enough to see this in a theater and the audible laughter proved it was a smart decision. Johnson is able to create quirky, layered, and engrossing characters and have them convincingly and hysterically play off each other. This is of course helped by an impressive star-studded cast. The actors are so tuned-in to not only who their character is, but how they should relate to the other characters. As amazing as Jamie Lee Curtis, Michael Shannon, Don Johnson, Christopher Plummer, Toni Collette, Chris Evans and Daniel Craig are, the film belongs to Ana de Armas. The way she plays the character with such earnestness and truth is the heart of the story, the true extension of Harlan Thrombey who is displeased by the double-faced nature of his actual offspring. Kudos to Johnson and the casting director for a memorable ensemble.

Straight off the undeserved backlash of The Last Jedi, Johnson has created another movie classic, and proves once again that he is truly a modern day filmmaking genius in his own right, and I look forward to the next Benoit Blanc tale he is going to spin in this movie's sequel. And perhaps, another Star Wars film? One can only hope. But another Johnson murder mystery will in the mean time fill the hole in the donut of anticipation.

The Lighthouse (I) (2019)

"I'll tend to the light."

[8/10 · 14 February 2020]

Robert Eggers' sophomore outing is a visually outstanding experiment, challenging the modern audience to take an antique point of view. In black and white, and in an aspect ratio straight from the silent film era, The Lighthouse provides an experience more akin to browsing through a photo album in a maritime museum than a modern film. In less capable hands, this might prove a boring eighty minute slog, but Eggers' and his cinematographer, production designer, and actors elevate the script into a dreamy wonderland, or nightmare, of moving Ansel Adams images. It's so hauntingly beautiful - the waves crashing, the light beam in the fog, the lighthouse stairs, the men's quarters, the path to the shore - and so convincing as a product of early America.

One might assume it's a found footage documentary that was intercut with new footage to create a work of fiction for greater profits. In fact, some of it was reportedly filmed with cameras and film of the era, providing some explanation of how the filmmakers were able to achieve such striking images. It's a bit like watching 2001: A Space Odyssey, where you're confounded by its visual achievement considering the then primitive visual effects technology of the time. The Lighthouse is simultaneously old school and fresh, requiring modern sophistication and out-of-the-box thinking. Because of these techniques, I was immediately sucked in, forgetting all about the modern world I live in and surrendering to the devastating beauty of historic Maine.

To compare to Sam Mendes' 1917, some critics might bash the film for having more style over substance. The story, a simple play involving two men of clashing personalities while they perform lighthouse duties, can at the surface seem redundant and without a more compelling arc for its two men. The not even an hour and a half running time might even suggest there wasn't enough in the script to begin with; a good short film made too long. However, to me the movie felt more like a two and a half hour movie, in a good way. Never boring, but always engrossing, because I recognized the subtle ways Eggers demonstrates the increasing claustrophobia, anxiety, and tension between the men as the story progresses.

These subtleties are not achieved so much by the dialog or actions of the men, but by the style of direction and editing. And with regards to 1917, which I also loved, I'm of the opinion that the style IS the substance, and that the visual style of ALL movies should be considered before the script, since unlike a play and more like a painting, it is a style of art that completely surrenders itself to visual perspective. As it's been said a thousand times before, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Someone who I think might agree with me is Stanley Kubrick, whose work The Shining provides huge inspiration to The Lighthouse. Like the hallways of the Overlook, the borders of the small aspect ratio frame the claustrophobia of the men. Both movies concern two characters tending to maintenance of an isolated location, with one seemingly doing more work than the other. And both movies are about how people can slowly go insane.

I applaud Willem Dafoe and Robert Pattinson for memorable and layered performances, with Eggers' command of the vernacular providing awesome fodder for the actors to chew on. And like The Shining, this is a film meant to haunt you with the questions is raises rather than easy answers it provides. The allusions to Prometheus and Proteus, Icarus and Poseidon, provide a nice backdrop for illuminating (no pun intended) the age-old dilemma of human nature wanting what it cannot have, and the punishment of getting what you wish for. Like The Witch, Eggers' first film, these questions will likely merit several rewatches, drawing me ever closer to its light.