'Zack Snyder's Justice League' Review

Synopsis: Zack Snyder's definitive director's cut of Justice League. Determined to ensure Superman's ultimate sacrifice was not in vain, Bruce Wayne aligns forces with Diana Prince with plans to recruit a team of metahumans to protect the world from an approaching threat of catastrophic proportions.

Runtime: 242 minutes

MPAA Rating: R (for violence and some language)

Who should see it? Adult fans of DC Comics and Zack Snyder's filmography.

For those who aren't up to date with the online discourse surrounding Justice League, you may be confused why I'd be reviewing it again. Especially since the theatrical cut is already credited to director Zack Snyder... Well, for those unaware, Zack Snyder departed the project during post-production to deal with the aftermath of his daughter Autumn's tragic suicide. Though some of the footage shot under him made it into that cut, he's the director in name only. Warner Bros. enlisted Joss Whedon to rework the film and make the finished product Avengers-lite. The result was the cinematic equivalent of Frankenstein's monster. Ever since the release of Man Of Steel, it's been apparent that Warner Bros. was skittish to grant their directors complete control over bringing their DC Comics characters to the big screen. Thankfully, new leadership seems to relinquish much more control lately, so I sincerely hope the studio learned its lesson.

In Snyder's case, the studio clearly intervened in his theatrical version of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, as the director's cut offers a much more cohesive viewing experience. Since Justice League's release in November 2017, fans have rallied to see Snyder's vision for Justice League fully materialized. When the #ReleaseTheSnyderCut movement began, it honestly seemed like a pipe dream. Why would Warner Bros. finance the completion of a director's cut when they'd already sunk over $300 M into the theatrical version? The Snyder Cut then took on a mythos of its own. While there were undoubtedly bad apples who relentlessly harassed the studio advocating for the release of the fabled Snyder Cut, I know several individuals who were well-intentioned in their quest to see Snyder's rendition. 

Thanks to Cyborg actor Ray Fisher, it has since come to light that the working environment during the Justice League reshoots was incredibly unprofessional on behalf of Joss Whedon and key individuals at the studio, including Geoff Johns, Jon Berg, and DC films chief Walter Hamada. As allegations against Whedon accumulated from all directions, the fight for the Snyder Cut took on a greater meaning of reclaiming the film's auteurship from toxic enablers. The movement grew till it was announced in May of last year that Warner Bros would fund the completion of the Snyder Cut for it to be released exclusively on HBO Max. In preparation for the four-hour feature, I sat down to rewatch Snyder's previous DC efforts and found myself reappraising them both. While I think Man of Steel and Batman v Superman are certainly still flawed, the mythic approach to depicting these classic characters is far more interesting than regurgitating what we've already seen. That mindset perseveres through Zack Snyder's Justice League.

I begin my review with this information because it is necessary to understand why this version exists. There's much to be said about studios caving to every whim of their audience, but the Snyder Cut's release rings true as a victory for preserving an artist's creative freedom. Strip that away, and we're left with a homogenous, soulless corporate product. The screenplay is credited to Chris Terrio, who co-authored the story alongside Snyder and Will Beall. Though I'll be the first to admit I initially gave Justice League a very generous review, I can confidently say the Snyder Cut exceeds it in every way imaginable. Four-hour runtime be damned, Snyder's version is brimming with the director's resilient spirit. 

While the Snyder Cut differs substantially from the theatrical version, the over-arching plot is more-or-less identical. Batman brings together a group of heroes to prevent Earth from being destroyed by intergalactic forces. The obvious takeaway is that the longer runtime gives the story more breathing room and allows for deeper character development. I think that's what makes the film work as well. The four-hour runtime certainly is daunting, but the film is divided into six chapters, a prologue, and an epilogue. HBO Max has these clearly marked so you can choose to watch it as a mini-series if viewing it in one sitting seems overwhelming. I'll confess that I felt the four-hour runtime, and it could have been whittled down to maybe two and a half-to-three hours if Cyborg, Flash, and Aquaman had their own movies released beforehand. That said, the introduction of three pivotal heroes works much better this time around. 

Snyder balances the heroes much more effectively, and they finally feel fully realized and present. Cyborg and Flash notably benefit the most in Snyder's hands, but it was incredibly refreshing to see the camera framed more respectfully around Wonder Woman. Whedon's treatment of Diana and Cyborg speaks volumes about his character, and it's even more baffling to now see everything he and the studio chose to alter. Other notable improvements include the color grading, cinematography, visual effects, and a genuinely epic score by Thomas Holkenborg (aka Junkie XL). 

Ray Fisher put his career on the line to have his truth heard. After seeing his incredible performance here, I truly hope he continues to act because Cyborg is the movie's heart and soul. It's all the more disheartening to know that he was written out of the upcoming Flash movie in response to speaking out. A mistake that I hope will be course-corrected... Aiding Fisher, Joe Morton brings abundant emotional weight to the proceedings as Victor Stone's father. Their troubled relationship was an especially poignant highlight for me, and undoubtedly the lynch-pin holding everything together. 

Regarding the rest of the league, Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Gal Gadot, Jason Mamoa, and Ezra Miller each have their moments in the limelight. These performers continue to embody their characters quite well, and it was delightful to see them bounce off one another. With DC's future constantly in flux, one can only hope this cast will persevere. 

On the antagonistic front, the changes to Steppenwolf's design and exploration of his motivation made him much more threatening and interesting. He actually has a personality this time! As for some shortcomings, there are still some iffy visual effects, but that's common in the modern landscape of comic-book movies, and most of the effects look much better than the 2017 rendition. So I honestly can't harp on that too much as it's more representative of how visual effects artists are often rushed and overworked to meet specific deadlines. I'm also still not fond of Jared Leto's Joker, whose infamous uttering of the memeic phrase "We live in a society" took the internet by storm. Leto is barely in the movie, so again, this is a minor gripe. The runtime is a blessing and a curse, as it adds much-needed dimension to a sprawling cast of characters but the whole endeavor admittedly feels longwinded when all is said and done. That said, I'd gladly watch the Snyder Cut a thousand times over before willfully revisiting Whedon's version anytime soon. 

I admittedly never thought the Snyder Cut would see the light of day. Still I have to say, its epic and emotionally-charged narrative invigorated my interest in seeing Zack Snyder proceed with his planned Justice League sequels. At the end of the day, I'm just grateful he had the opportunity to reclaim his work in the face of overwhelming odds. 

Film Assessment: B+

'Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald' Review

In an effort to thwart Grindelwald's plans of raising pure-blood wizards to rule over all non-magical beings, Albus Dumbledore enlists his former student Newt Scamander, who agrees to help, unaware of the dangers that lie ahead. Lines are drawn as love and loyalty are tested among the truest friends and family in an increasingly divided world.

For the sake of full disclosure, I consider myself to be a relatively passionate fan of Harry Potter and the greater Wizarding World. I own all the Harry Potter books, initially read them all within a single week, actually own multiple copies of the films in varying formats (having recently purchased the Ultra-HD editions during Amazon's lucrative Prime Day sale since the collection was heavily discounted), and I enjoy them all to varying degrees. With that being said, I was somewhat underwhelmed by Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them when I first saw it two years ago and therefore tempered my expectations for its follow-up. I found it reasonably charming but felt it paled in comparison to any of the previous Harry Potter installments. When I went to see Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald earlier this week at an IMAX fan event, it was the first time I'd gone to see a cinematic story in the Wizarding World and not been particularly excited about it. In spite of an awful title, mixed reviews, and a series of subpar trailers, I had a glimmer of hope that I may at least salvage some enjoyment in the latest Fantastic Beasts franchise entry though.

 

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald is the second installment of the planned five entry Fantastic Beasts franchise to be directed by David Yates and feature a screenplay penned by famous Potter author J.K. Rowling, though some creative shake-ups may be in order if early reactions to the sequel are any indication. As much as I appreciate the wonderful Wizarding World Rowling's created, she's struggling as a screenwriter and needs some guidance in condensing her material. Rowling's writing style is dense and exposition-heavy which works for the purposes of writing a series of books. However, that approach isn't suited to the realm of filmmaking and Rowling's shortcomings are quite evident this time around as The Crimes of Grindelwald is even more overcrowded than the first Fantastic Beasts. 

There's very little plotting in this second chapter, but always an excess of information, storylines, and characters onscreen. About half of the characters in the film (most of which are crammed on the poster up top) are either first introduced here or were only vaguely referenced or alluded to in the previous film. With that in mind, it seems very illogical for many of the emotional story beats to rely on audience investment in these characters. We're barely introduced to many of them but are clearly meant to care about them in retrospect of the feature's cliff-hanger ending. The characters mostly meander from one location to the next in search of one another or key information while many of the pertinent events happened off-screen years ago or in between films (particularly relating to Albus and Grindelwald).

Much of this stems from the foundation of this spin-off prequel series. The primary source of my disappointment with Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them was that a simple twist-of-events turned the franchise into a stealth prequel story building to a duel between Grindelwald and Dumbledore (I still have no idea why five films are necessary to do so by the way) when the Fantastic Beasts franchise is branded as being about Newt and his magical creatures. The protagonist is an ancillary character to this central conflict by the very nature of the story being told, and The Crimes of Grindelwald doubles down on everything I disliked about the first film by further minimizing the beast's inclusion and placing additional emphasis on Grindelwald and Credence. To me, it would have made more sense for Rowling first to write a series of novels that would later be adapted to film. This could have alleviated the current creative issues in addition to providing an additional revenue stream. Since milking this franchise seems to be of paramount importance, why no splurge twice with both book sales and box office? The fanbase will come.

Sufficed to say, I was indifferent to just about everything that occurred within the two hour and fourteen-minute runtime. The charm, whimsy, and sense of awe and wonder that the Harry Potter franchise is known for were entirely absent while The Crimes of Grindelwald also contained the weakest world building in the series, as little was done to differentiate the magical community in Paris from what we've seen thus far. I will, however, concede that the film was technically proficient for the most part with solid visual effects, production design, costume design, and another epic score from James Newton Howard. The beasts are also neat despite being much less involved in the action. 

Otherwise, I unfortunately considered a majority of the fanservice to be ham-fisted and largely unnecessary (i.e., the Nagini retcon). I've also never been so bored by a visit to Hogwarts... Usually, I associate the magical castle as being a warm, comforting locale due to my familiarity with it. In this particular instance, the trips there didn't feel substantial or invoke a nostalgic feeling of relief as I'd suspected. It came across as a cold, corporate decision in spite of some plot relevance. There were certainly some cameos and connections that didn't bother me or worked in the context employed, but I'd rather not spoil those here. As for a final rundown of other drawbacks, none of the action excited me, there was a great deal of romantic drama I didn't care for, and the ending felt like the conclusion of bad fan fiction. There are also some especially odd framing choices made by Yates which consisted of an obnoxious amount of extreme close-ups that made little sense in the context presented. For example, a character would be doing something that you'd expect to be able to see, but you are then antagonized by an extreme close-up of their face instead.

Prominent returning cast-mates include Eddie Redmayne, Katherine Waterston, Dan Fogler, and Alison Sudol, who are each a cut above the quality of Rowling's script. The quartet further imbues our focal four heroes with the unique personalities which captivated audiences two years ago. Newt Scamander's an introverted lead character, but Redmayne still sells Scamander's shy nature as an endearing attribute. Fogler fittingly provides a welcome source of comic relief in this darker entry as nonsensical No-Maj Jacob Kowalski while the Goldstein sisters respectively remain ambitious and free-spirited as portrayed by Waterson and Sudol. Meanwhile, Ezra Miller mostly mopes around as Credence while Claudia Kim's Nagini hardly has a personality of her own, following Credence around to the same degree which she later slithers behind Voldemort. Meanwhile, franchise newcomers include Zoë Kravitz's conflicted Leta Lestrange, Callum Turner's accomplished Auror Theseus Scamander, and William Nadylam's revenge-seeking Yusuf Kama. 

The stand-out by-and-far though was Jude Law as a younger Albus Dumbledore. Law channels the best attributes of both his predecessors, bringing the warmth of Richard Harris and the quiet intensity of Michael Gambon. While I was largely disappointed in The Crimes of Grindelwald, I'm looking forward to seeing more of Law in this role. 

Putting his problematic personal life aside, Johnny Depp was actually not half bad as Grindelwald. Another actor could have honestly made him more malevolent, but Depp is fine. The issue is that the source material doesn't give him much to work with since he's maybe in a total of five-to-seven scenes. Depp doesn't offer an eccentric antagonistic performance, but rather a very enticing one. Grindelwald certainly qualifies as a mustache-twirling villain, but he's positioned as the Wizarding World's Hitler equivalent in the sense that he's a highly persuasive public speaker.

It's evident that J.K. Rowling meant for The Crimes of Grindelwald to be her Empire Strikes Back, but she failed spectacularly because it's the first hollow story told in the Wizarding World (plus, that's the point of Half-Blood Prince's cliffhanger). Potterheads have likely already made up their mind about going to see The Crimes of Grindelwald or already seen it by the time I publish this review, but I encourage casual fans hoping to immerse themselves in the Wizarding World to simply stay at home and watch or read Harry Potter instead. J.K. Rowling may as well have cast Avada Kedavra on this franchise because this overcrowded mess of a sequel certainly qualifies as an unforgivable curse.

Film Assessment: C-

'Justice League' Review

Considering this review won't be out till at least a month after the film's release date, I'm going to include spoiler sections to discuss certain things in more detail. There will be clear spoiler warnings to mark these as a means of forewarning those who've yet to watch Justice League.

[This review was originally written in November 2017 and is now being published that my internship is over. For an explanation of this, visit my Fall 2017 Important Update post.] 

When Justice League opens, the world is still in mourning over the death of Superman. However, once an intergalactic evil emerges in the form of Steppenwolf and his legions of Parademon minions, Batman and Wonder Woman must unite a team of gifted individuals consisting of Flash, Cyborg, and Aquaman if they're to have any hope at stopping Steppenwolf from destroying the world by combining the three mythical Mother Boxes to form the Unity.

The Justice League's first comic appearance was in the year 1960, and fifty seven years later, we're finally seeing them team up on the big screen for the first time. This cinematic culmination has been a long time coming, and after the success of The Avengers in 2012, comic book fans knew a live action incarnation was possible. There have been a few attempts to adapt the iconic superhero team over the years, but none of these successfully made it into any theater screens as each one was canned early in production. However, it's evident that Marvel Studios' success inspired Warner Bros. to try and get their own shared universe of films off the ground, leading to the DC Extended Universe we know today including Man Of Steel, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, Suicide Squad, and Wonder Woman.

Now, to say that the DCEU had a rocky start would be an enormous understatement, as they didn't have a commercial hit on their hands till earlier this summer with Wonder Woman. Everything preceding that stood out as divisive among both critics and average audiences, so it almost goes without saying that Warner Bros. had a lot riding on the success of Justice League considering they pumped $300 M into making comic-book readers' dreams a reality.

Note: Sadly, the film only brought in an underwhelming $93.8 M in its opening weekend, which is REALLY puny considering how iconic these characters are... For comparison, the first Iron Man made $98.6 M in its opening weekend when his character was a relative unknown back in 2008... I genuinely hope positive word of mouth spreads among audiences so it can make back more of its budget over time...

Anyways, the film's production took a turn for the worse earlier this year when director Zack Snyder departed the project to deal with the aftermath of his daughter's tragic suicide. From that point on, Joss Whedon, writer-director of both The Avengers and Avengers: Age Of Ultron, took over the post production process and reportedly reshot a substantial portion of the film. This development left me at odds to what I should possibly expect as I was of course excited to finally see these classic comic characters interacting with one another on the big screen, but the production's developments were troubling to say the least. Therefore, I chose to guard my optimism by hoping for the best, but also preparing for the worst. Thankfully, Justice League pleasantly surprised me as an entertaining use of two hours.

Due to the particularly unusual events that transpired behind the scenes, I'm not entirely sure who I should credit for what, so I'll do my best to avoid acknowledging any individual aspects to either Snyder or Whedon. This is especially evident in the fact Justice League didn't particularly feel like a Snyder film. For the most part, Justice League is a fusion of Synder's visual sensibilities and Whedon's quippy dialogue, which I've gotta say I liked. Chris Terrio is the other credited writer on both the story and screenplay, sharing story responsibility with Snyder and having originally shaped the script (although it's unclear precisely how much of the dialogue is Whedon's). Ultimately though, I feel the film was reconstructed by Warner Bros. in the wake of Snyder's tragedy.

Perhaps watching the film with that foresight made me more forgiving of the final product, but I'm of the belief that the first and foremost purpose of a blockbuster is to entertain, and Justice League sufficiently achieved that for me as an audience member, so I can overlook some of the film's shortcomings in the grand scheme of things. Not all of my opinions regarding Justice League are sunshine and roses though as the pacing of the project feels like it was hurriedly assembled by the Flash, the CGI was so-so, Danny Elfman's score is fairly forgettable, Steppenwolf is a thoroughly average antagonist, and the first fifteen minutes of the film are an absolute chore to sit through due to an unbearable opening credits montage paired with Sigrid's cover of the song "Everybody Knows."

Ultimately though, it's the ensemble that outweigh the inadequate elements. I had quite a few concerns in regards to casting, but the actors I was worried about proved me wrong. The chemistry between the cast was incredible, and I genuinely had a smile on my face about every time the characters were interacting with one another because it was simply satisfying to finally see a live action Justice League! In the action department, nothing in the film will absolutely blow you away, but it's all enjoyable and well-constructed so you'll have a hard time hiding that smile on your face.

Up first amongst the league is Batman, and Ben Affleck continues to don the cowl with a confidence that makes his Bruce Wayne one of the best brought to cinema screens. Affleck does a good job keeping the character from ever feeling too quippy while bringing the brooding we saw in Batman v. Superman down a notch. Even though I don't feel his performance here was quite as impressive as his last outing (possibly because he seems disinterested in the franchise with the announcement he'd like to segue out of the DCEU in a cool way), I also feel like he didn't phone it in.

Next up, there's the Amazon warrior, Wonder Woman! Gal Gadot proves once again she was well-cast and embodies all of Diana's intrepid, admirable attributes with a performance that's both fierce and down-to-earth in her more vulnerable moments. If you've liked what you've seen of Wonder Woman so far in her own standalone movie or even the third act of Batman v. Superman, you'll be more than happy with her here. The only gripe I have related to her character whatsoever has absolutely nothing to do with Gadot, but rather the way the camera's angled around her character... I noticed numerous "butt" shots where the camera was positioned very low and angled upwards looking STRAIGHT at her rear, which just felt like a step backwards to me in regards to properly portraying a female superhero when you consider how successfully Wonder Woman didn't sexualize her. There's also one joke that will probably rub some people the wrong way, but I honestly didn't mind because it's a quick "it happened and it's over" thing.

Third is the robust Atlantean, Aquaman. For his first outing, I've got to say Jason Mamoa fit comfortably as a rougher, tougher Aquaman than the version general audiences are familiar with from say... Super Friends. Anyways, Mamoa's rockstar attitude will really radically change people's perspective on the character as he does some awesome things. 

Following suit is the cybernetic Cyborg. Ray Fisher was one of the actors I was most concerned about, simply because I was worried the character might come off as monotonous and robotic, but Fisher really nailed grounding the character without getting lost underneath all the CGI. Fisher truly felt half cybernetic and half human, and I quickly got over his unexceptional aesthetic that alarmed me in the trailers.

Among the cast, I've got to surprisingly say that Ezra Miller was actually the runaway star as Flash! The Flash is my favorite DC Comics character, so I was obviously excited to see a cinematic take compared to the one currently on television, but I was seriously concerned with how this portrayal of the scarlet speedster was going to turn out based on the trailers and everything I'd seen previously. Thankfully, Miller lightens the mood in just the right way as his screen presence really electrified the experience for me and most of his humor landed.

**Spoiler Warning**

Last, but certainly not least, there's Superman. I've placed him in the spoiler section because quite franky, his return is a spoiler, no matter how obvious it was... At any rate, he's back... and better than ever!! If you're someone who's been continuously dissatisfied with Henry Cavill's take on Superman, then don't fret... This is the Superman you've been waiting to see! While the circumstances behind his return were completely contradictory to everything I'd possibly imagined, it made sense and I felt it was handled well for the most part. My only gripe was that his change of heart came a little quicker than I'd have liked. I understood that Lois snapped him out of his funk, but it all still seemed sudden to me once he got to his farm. Also, it was a little weird how calmly Lois and Martha accepted his return... Like they just kind of shrugged it off as though it was some everyday occurrence... 

Anywho, there's the whole mustache debacle that's off paramount importance to this review! If you didn't already know, Henry Cavill is in Mission: Impossible - Fallout and his character has to have a mustache for that film. Well, Justice League reshoots lapsed with a break in filming for M:I 6 when Tom Cruise got injured on set. Warner Bros. was presented with two alternatives, either shave the stache and foot the bill to digitally add it in on M:I 6 or to digitally remove it themselves... While those obviously weren't the only options for the studio, Warner Bros. decided to remove it digitally for whatever reason. Perhaps I wouldn't have noticed if it weren't for all the reports about it, but there's clearly something off about Henry Cavill's upper lip, and it just doesn't look right... If you're wondering what I feel the studio should have done, then look no further for I think they should have just filmed with the stache all the way!!! I think a petition should be drafted demanding a Mustache Cut of the film or at least a Blu-Ray featurette all about removing the mustache! Also, the above picture is photoshopped and not at all legitimate... but the mustache story is... I promise. 

**End of spoilers**

Then I suppose I must mention Steppenwolf, only the most generic antagonist imaginable. I'm completely apathetic towards the character because I didn't have high hopes for him as a villain anyways, and I'm perfectly okay with that if the villain stinks on account of focusing attention towards the heroes. Ciarán Hinds voices the CG-creation and does everything he can, but the lack of setup and screen-time for the character renders his work useless. I've seen many people pointing to him as one of the worst comic book movie villains ever made, but I find that to be an absurd over-exaggeration when you look at his competition... Enchantress alone makes him bearable in comparison, and that's not even factoring in anything from Batman & Robin... Oh, and there are also two post credit scenes well worth watching... I'm not sure the movie will still be in theaters when this review's out, but at least you know!

The worst thing I can say about Justice League is that the film doesn't quite do justice to its classic characters as their first onscreen team-up. Regardless of its faults, the film is a heck of a lot of fun though, and I think that's what really matters at the end of the day. Do I want to see what Snyder's version would have been like? I'd love to see some semblance of an extended cut to flesh things out, but a version fully realizing Snyder's vision seems unlikely for budgetary reasons. Justice League may not have lit up like the bright beacon in Gotham City shining for the Caped Crusader, but it still shined as an enjoyable effort that entertained me while leaving me excited about the DCEU's future films... Bring on Aquaman! Bring on Wonder Woman 2! Bring on Flashpoint! Bring on The Batman! Heck, bring on Cyborg! BRING ON Justice League 2!!! That is, if this franchise is going to continue...

Film Assessment: B-

'Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them' Review

I attended an early screening of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them Wednesday evening after months and months of anticipation build-up. Since I hadn't formerly reviewed the Harry Potter films and Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them fit into J.K. Rowling's Wizarding World, I thought it would be fun to re-read each novel, rewatch the corresponding film and then review them here on my blog over the course of the previous four months. If you happened to miss any of my previous Harry Potter reviews you can find them at the subsequent hyperlinks: Sorcerer's Stone, Chamber of Secrets, Prisoner of Azkaban, Goblet of Fire, Order of the Phoenix, Half-Blood Prince, Deathly Hallows: Part 1 & Part 2.

'Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them' Review

Nominated For: Best Costume Design and Best Production Design.

Won: Best Costume Design.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them follows Newt Scamander, a Magizoologist (an expert on magical beasts) with a case filled with magical creatures, and the insane shenanigans that ensue once he reaches New York City in 1926 and an accident leads to the escape of a few creatures. Scamander winds up teaming up with a M.A.C.U.S.A. Auror (American magic detective), a Legilimens (mind reader), and a No-Maj (American for Muggle or non-magical folk) to round up his escaped beasts and prevent the wizarding and No-Maj worlds from colliding and overturning the International Statute of Secrecy (legislation intended to keeps the magical community hidden from the non-magical). 

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is the first Wizarding World spin-off that will supposedly be the first in a series of five Fantastic Beasts films and likely spawn other spin-off franchises under the Wizarding World umbrella if all are successful. It's connections to the Harry Potter series are few but intriguing to say the least. The first thing you should probably know is that Newt Scamander is the author of one of Harry Potter's textbooks also titled Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, that's the primary connection but there are some other threads fans will pick up on. 

David Yates, who directed the last four Harry Potter films, returns to explore a new corner of the Wizarding World crafted up by J.K. Rowling in her screenwriting debut. Yates brings the same energy and enchantment to Fantastic Beasts as he did in his Harry Potter films, conjuring thrilling sequences and maintaining a sense of wonder. The technical crew behind Fantastic Beasts also ought to be commended as the cinematographer, costumers, visual effects artists, and production design team work together seamlessly to produce 1920's New York City and the underlying magical community. Composer James Newton Howard effectively blends John Williams' classic theme with some original Jazz-like compositions into a fabulous score that serves as a nice undercurrent to the ongoing adventure.

J.K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter book series, treads new ground as a screenwriter and her first foray into screenwriting wasn't bad but she still shows room for improvement. Rowling's script finds itself to be a little bloated thanks to extraneous plot lines solely included to lay the groundwork for future installments. I was much more interested in the quartet of heroes and the beasts then the avenues Rowling explored and was slightly disappointed the film didn't center around finding the beasts as I was hoping it would have. 

It's almost as though Fantastic Beasts is two films morphed together, one about Newt Scamander and his beasts and the other about Gellert Grindelwald, so it wasn't quite what I expected but enjoyable nonetheless. The film suffers from some pacing issues throughout as it must cut from one superfluous sequence about the Second Salemers to the adventurous quest to find Newt's beasts. However with all that being said, Rowling shines in exploring the magical mythology and simply creating an enchanting atmosphere for her characters to thrive in. 

The beasts themselves are the real stars, stealing the spotlight for either a laugh or look of amazement. Some beasts are adorable while others will just leave the viewer awe-struck. The CGI made some very convincing likable creatures, so much so that when the film shifts away from the beast storyline it will likely annoy the viewer and wear their patience since the other storylines are slower paced. 

The cast bring about many new characters the viewer will likely latch onto through some solid performances. Eddie Redmayne's Newt Scamander made for a charming and simultaneously awkward lead character and his compassion towards his characters is one of the character's strengths. My only issue was that Redmayne's accent was so thick I had difficulty understanding a some of his dialogue when his character mumbles. 

Dan Fogler plays Jacob Kowalski and will likely be an audience favorite as his character is very endearing. Fogler plays Kowalski as the comedic relief, humorously reacting to the wizarding world through a No-Maj's eyes, and also manages to be grounded in the film's emotional core for the more touching moments. The friendship between he and Newt is one of the better developed character relationships in the film and also the most entertaining one for they make a very odd pairing. 

Katherine Waterston and Alison Sudol portry a pair of magical sisters Tina and Queenie, Waterston imbues confidence, dedication, and loyalty in Tina while Sudol brings a kindred spirit to Queenie. The quartet have a natural chemistry about them and are delightful group of heroes I hope to follow in subsequent installments. 

Ezra Miller's Credence is painted to be a pathetic wimp who's scared of showing the world what he truly is and cowers from any sign of danger, Miller dedicates himself to the role but I found that the characterization crippled the character.

Colin Farrell carries forth gravitas and an air of confidence to Percival Graves, proving to be a formidable foe with murky motivations. For those of you that are kept up with the news cycle it's likely been spoiled for you that Johnny Depp was cast in the franchise and I won't divulge his role to ensure I don't ruin the surprise, but be aware he's in the film for a quick minute with minuscule dialogue if any at all. 

At the end of it all I can say that I'm very curious to see where Newt will be headed next as Rowling has stated she has plans for at least five Fantastic Beast films, but can say this was a sufficient setup for them should Warner Bros. choose to carry forward. Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is a charming and spellbinding return to the Wizarding World that doesn't have to hold the scrutiny of being measured to any source material and is simply a delightful filmgoing experience. 

Film Assessment: B-